It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possibility of Particle Accelerator in U.S.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient

Originally posted by SilverSurfer
Im not sure how this would work.. not really sure how the accelerators really do their work either.. but is such a gigantic machine really needed to find such small particles


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the larger the 'circle', the faster that particles can be accelerated on it, provided the rest of the machinery involved is up-to-date and advanced.


Its the mass of the particles that determines it, all particle accelerators fire their particles at the speed of light. As the particles get heavier it becomes more difficult for the magnets to steer them round in a circle.

The solution is to make your magnets better, which is why the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being built inside the same ring as the Large Electron Positron Collider (LEP) even though the LHC is using much heavier particles. The LEP dates from the end of the 80's and was decommissioned in 2000 i think (I had just left by then)




posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I know basic research offers undetermined views into our future, and there is a great deal of future money to be made by the discoveries of basic research.

Still and all, when does this all become an exercise in theoretical "I can pee further than you" academics?

Frankly, I believe that research in this area is due for a change in course in how we go about investigating the minutae of matter. Surely with what we know about quantum physics and what we can harness in the way of laser technology, we could be able to focus energy in different ways on the quantum scale and dissect and observe matter in that way....

Larger and larger magnetic donuts at greater and greater expense yielding incrementally different results...doesn't sound the best to me.

Newtron.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
Still and all, when does this all become an exercise in theoretical "I can pee further than you" academics?


Since we are talking about experimental physics here, your conjecture is not appropriate and furthermore implies a disrespect for things academic.


Frankly, I believe that research in this area is due for a change in course in how we go about investigating the minutae of matter. Surely with what we know about quantum physics and what we can harness in the way of laser technology, we could be able to focus energy in different ways on the quantum scale and dissect and observe matter in that way....


I don't mean to sound harsh but you wrote here is nonsensical garbage. What "different ways on quantum scale"? And what exactly "we know about quantum physics"?

You see, ignorant statements like this are in fact indicative of the sad state of basic sciences in this country and public appreciation of same.


Larger and larger magnetic donuts at greater and greater expense yielding incrementally different results...doesn't sound the best to me.


I would have asked you to clarify what you mean by "incrementally different results" but I can't hope for an answer since you don't know physics. Was the discovery of top-quark incremental? Hell no. Was the discovery of the W incremental? Nope. Before that, the strange particles? No way. Will the expected discovery (or non-discovery) of the Higgs particle incremental? Nope -- it will be quite revolutionary for the ways we look at particles and fields around us.

History of science, and particle science as well, is a fascinating subject. I invite you to partake in reading on that. You are in for hours of wondrous discoveries!


[edit on 3-5-2006 by Aelita]



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
You've totally misunderstood me.

What I'm getting at is that particle physics may very well be plowing further and further along the same course of philosophical dogma that has lead it to believe the particle accelerator is the only path towards discovery.

Higgs-boson, Einstein condensate, and a slew of other basic research landmark discoveries can be attributed to what we have found through the splendid donuts.

All I am saying is that science often tries too hard along the same lines of thinking without taking the risks necessary to see further. Invention is far riskier than mere innovation, and although the designs of accelerators such as the Tokamak have been improved upon and innovated upon, the advances have been seen as adaptations.

Show me something new. Base your new endeavor upon what we have already learned about how to smash atoms. Then take that right turn and keep going. We might find something entirely different and heretofore unimagined.

That is all, nothing more meant by it. I agree with your assessment of what has to this point been discovered. Lets try reaching point B from somewhere other than point A this time....



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   
www.umich.edu...

www.highbeam.com...:15811438&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=
(This is about quantum chromodynamics)

www.sciencemag.org...
(This one is about the Livermore Labs trying to make fusion happen)


It's happening...it's not now and it's not perfect yet, but the lasers are coming.

And they may just replace the donuts.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Thanks for the insight Aelita. I totally agree with you dealing with a month or so worth of combat in this useless and winless war is enough to pay for this accelerator; something that as you said, would be at least the temporary pride and joy of American science. This is something we need...especially if people are worried about China becoming the next world power and replacing us; we need to maintain our scientific dominance, considering that we still have it.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
What I'm getting at is that particle physics may very well be plowing further and further along the same course of philosophical dogma that has lead it to believe the particle accelerator is the only path towards discovery.


Just for the record, nobody ever said or thought that. There is a lot of new and exciting science in the field of astrophysics, for example, doing things we hardly believed were possible just 10 years ago. There is plenty of going ons in every branch of science. The particle physics will still depend heavily on the aceelrator techology because it aims to study phenomena that exhibit themselves in a particular form (pun intended). If you know a little about optics, blue laser has shorter wavelength than an infrared one, and is able to resolve more detail. Same applies to particle physics on a vastly different scale, where lasers are simply not applicable (except as a tool to to accelerate particles).


All I am saying is that science often tries too hard along the same lines of thinking without taking the risks necessary to see further.


This is so vague it doesn't make much sense. Science has produced models which are largely successful at explaining the Universe, and this is a big deal. Now, we are trying to take the subject of our study to the extreme to reveal limiations of our equations. I fail to see how this qualifies as trying too hard to preserve the status quo.


Invention is far riskier than mere innovation, and although the designs of accelerators such as the Tokamak have been improved upon and innovated upon, the advances have been seen as adaptations.


First off, the Tokamak is not an accelerator. Second, you really don't have knowledge of the machine physics (that's what it's called here where I sit) to make broad statements about "adaptations". It's a whole world in itself. You have to steer beams some microns across, over a many mile circumference.


Show me something new.


Ah, so you are bored and want something exciting? Sorry man, there are no easy ways in science. There is plenty that you still have to learn and therefor that would be completely new to you.


We might find something entirely different and heretofore unimagined.


We will, and we could have done it at the SSC were it not canceled.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I know probably less than a fraction of what you know of the intracacies of physics. You've made that clear. And I cop to that. But what you're also right about is if you are truly working in that environment as an engineer, you're used to a steady stream of the expected - the right facility at the right time to meet your schedule - goals met - results achieved - reports submitted - success. And you are right to expect that.

But my tax dollars pay for wars as well as partially funding enormous efforts such as science endeavors like the one you are referring to (I won't even use a technical term here.) If you want the United States to be behind you, that is behind the scientific community, then you need to address them without any unnecessary smug attitudes. You're right in telling me I know very little about this science. And you're right to keep hoping it gets better. As long as the U.S. of A. (assuming I qualify for the lowest level of comprehension) can't figure out that tokamak isn't an accelerator, you might be out of luck for a loonng time.

You should be happy I'm interested in the subject at all.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
But my tax dollars pay for wars as well as partially funding enormous efforts such as science endeavors like the one you are referring to (I won't even use a technical term here.) If you want the United States to be behind you, that is behind the scientific community, then you need to address them without any unnecessary smug attitudes.


I apologize if I came across as being smug. I also agree with you that it's hard for the US to be behind science since it's becoming all too difficult to comprehend for an untrained person (or even for a trained one). That's why the public can be galvanized by putting a man on the moon (not necessary as far as science is concerned, robots would do a crack job of research there) and it's hard to get funding for an accelerator.


You should be happy I'm interested in the subject at all.


I'm also very interested in synthesizer music and I do hope you are as well.

I do appreciate your interest in science, it's just that some of your statements portraying science as a stale fiefdom of megalomaniacs building "magnetic donuts" at a huge expense are pretty far from truth, imho. And that I pointed out.



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Fair enough.

Moog was a brilliant scientist. Without him, I dare say we'd never had heard the likes of the Pet Shop Boys, the Doors, the B-52s, etc., etc. Kurzweil can also be thanked for quite a bit of synthesizer music. At one point I even owned a Roland Juno, with all the 80's sounds on it as well as a few of my own programmed on it too. If you're interested, i can send you the one song I became (in)famous for.

I'm also a fan of the theremin. No serious science-fiction fan should go without knowing what that's all about.

Newtron



posted on May, 3 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
All I am saying is that science often tries too hard along the same lines of thinking without taking the risks necessary to see further.


You've got to understand; they already cancelled this particle accelerator project because it was too expensive. Can you imagine them putting out billions of dollars for a project that has no predecessor or anything to prove that anything good could come out of it. What they want when they give the money for these projects is some time of return.

"Man never does good without getting good."

Most of the time the scientists have no problem thinking or wanting to experiment in these new ideas; it's just that people won't give them the money or resources to do it with. Don't blame the scientists, blame the people with the money. It's more profitable to continue research that is proven to turn out new things than something that might waste billions.

[edit on 3-5-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
There is a symbiosis there between scientists and funding.

That's the last I'll comment on this thread.



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Omniscient
I think we'd be better off spending that 8.25 billion in particle research than building more WMDs.

I hope you are aware right that the reason particle physics got as much money as it did, is not because of the love of science of politicians but because particle physics made the nuclear bomb a possibility historically and could hence result in better nuclear bombs now. This makes your statement ironic as eitherway, the goal of the people funding it is to ultimately have better WMD. This is why the Cold War has had an effect on the funding for things like the SSC in the first place. The real reason why the NIF, Z-machine and other high priced scientific gizmos get so much funding is not because politicians like inertial fusion confinement - if they even know what it is - or have some higher motive of wanting to reduce oil consumption but because it allows performing simulations of nuclear warhead behaviour and hence allows designing new and better warheads without banned underground or aboveground tests and hence give a competitive edge over other nations in weapons technology.

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Simon666]



posted on May, 4 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
There is some truth in what Simon666 posted. Yes, the investement in particle physics and moreso in nuclear physics was motivated by the need to develop weaponry -- and that requires a big pool of knowledge.

I and others would argue that a big pool of knowledge is still a necessity, weapons nonwithstanding. A project such as SSC would have given us a crop of brilliant graduate students and later scientists with a solid knowledge base to work in many fields of human endeavor.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join