CERN’s Higgs boson discovery passes peer review, becomes actual science!!

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I don't know if the Higgs is worth the cost. I think CERN was just created to steer more money into physics. I don't think peer review by people trained to looking at things the same way is legit. Identifying this particle was only necessary to prove there was another particle to fill their present knowledge. In the future they will find many elements and particles that are yet unknown. They have set limits again that will be broken. When they finally figure that steady states of the elements are actually separate elements it will be a great day. When metals are locked into crystals they have much different properties and vary so much from the metal that they should not be called metals. This is where geomagnetic properties are formed, in the polarized crystals. This lack of perception is what is going to cause the most harm in this world because of the over mining of these crystals. They help form our geomagnetic fields.

If you force something into a box you cannot see expansion anymore because the box makes limits for expansion. You can't always take everything apart to explain them either, to do so without looking at the whole picture interferes with intelligent interpretation. I see this in geology a lot. This basic principal goes up the ladder and interferes with physics. Someday, if man doesn't destroy this place from overmining crystal formations, we may find answers. What makes this planet different than others without life? Deep rooted polarized Crystal rocks exposed to the surface. I have a lot of other ideas on this but this is not the thread for that.




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
And to think, if the Superconducting Supercollider wasn't killed off, this same discovery could have been made years ago in Texas.
edit on 11-9-2012 by Junkheap because: The horrible, awful, terrible, ghastly, hideous blue fuzzy things.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Junkheap
 


All that money gone to waste in Texas. Oh well, maybe it will be a safe haven for people if something happens. It's probably made into bunkers now, I suppose it was a coverup so the government heads could have bunker cities.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Junkheap
 


All that money gone to waste in Texas. Oh well, maybe it will be a safe haven for people if something happens. It's probably made into bunkers now, I suppose it was a coverup so the government heads could have bunker cities.


I fail to see why you feel compelled to make things up. The history of the partially built tunnel in TX is available if you do a little research, and it hardly makes sense to construct a "bunker" in a place so heavily publicized. Never mind that the design of a tunnel like this does not make a good bunker.

I visited the facility in Waxahachie when it was still in construction.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I'm unfamiliar with the project and admit to being somewhat lazy at the moment as I'm not looking this up... however:

Is there a possibility we could re-fund the project and see the facility used for its intended purpose?

While, perhaps, some would see it as yet more waste - it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to seek to confirm the discovery of the Higgs with another collider working with a completely different team and independent set of data.

That... and America could stand to have a top-notch particle accelerator again. It seems we're letting the world pass us by. I understand we can't expect to always be at the top of everything - but... well, no space program to speak of, particle physicists have jumped ship to the bigger collider, silicon die manufacturing is evaporating and condensing in other regions....

Would be nice for our government to fund something worth rallying around rather than throwing money into various holes that never produce anything.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I've read about three articles about this collider in Texas after chatting with a guy online from Austin. That was a couple years ago I think. It got me interested in why it was scrapped. I read the reason the collider was scrapped was it was way over projected overall cost and wasn't even half completed yet. This information of the overinflated actual cost is contained in the government paperwork used to scrap the project that I read somewhere on the net. Someone probably lowballed the estimated cost to get approval. That is a regular policy in acquiring funding for government projects. It's one of the reasons that our budget and our actual expenditures are so far off in our country. My knowledge is about two years old so I have already forgotten the monetary figures of this project.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I've read about three articles about this collider in Texas after chatting with a guy online from Austin. That was a couple years ago I think. It got me interested in why it was scrapped. I read the reason the collider was scrapped was it was way over projected overall cost and wasn't even half completed yet.


This is somewhat true, in that there were cost overruns. I doubt they had spent all the budget allocated to the SSC at some point during actual construction, that's not how funding cycle works. But yes, it went over, in terms of projections.

We need to remember that the SSC budget in whatever version was still in the low tens of billions of dollars, i.e. a tiny fraction of the operating costs of the US military engagements in the past decades.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I'm unfamiliar with the project and admit to being somewhat lazy at the moment as I'm not looking this up... however:

Is there a possibility we could re-fund the project and see the facility used for its intended purpose?


I doubt that this is possible, for many reasons. The land and other assets were sold a long time ago, and in the current budget climate any new funding is really sort of impossible. I can tell you that the US ATLAS project is already facing tight budgets, as it is.



While, perhaps, some would see it as yet more waste - it wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea to seek to confirm the discovery of the Higgs with another collider working with a completely different team and independent set of data.


It would be nice in theory, but see the above. By the way the Tevatron had some preliminary observations consistent with the Higgs, but they were shut down before that can significantly improve the statistics. Operational costs, you know.


That... and America could stand to have a top-notch particle accelerator again. It seems we're letting the world pass us by. I understand we can't expect to always be at the top of everything - but... well, no space program to speak of, particle physicists have jumped ship to the bigger collider


The US ATLAS organization is a major part of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, and so is US CMS, for the CMS. In terms of keeping up the expertise and making contributions to the discovery, we are there. Trust me. I do my little part every day.


Would be nice for our government to fund something worth rallying around rather than throwing money into various holes that never produce anything.


I guess we can all agree on that.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
So...what have we established regarding the HB particle? What does this do for our current universal theories?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I guess you are right, it was a long time ago that I read it. They only spent about half the money but almost tripled the cost of the original estimate. The fact remains that the initial estimated cost went from 4.4 to 12 billion for new projected costs. Would it have been approved if it was known it was going to cost 12 billion? I hate deceit. We have too many things like this happening in this country, that's why we are so far in debt. It became common practice to lowball quotes by not including necessary things. They can be tacked on as changes after getting the bid. I understand this well, I am a contractor who chose not to play that game.

This is from Wikki:

"During the design and the first construction stage, a heated debate ensued about the high cost of the project. In 1987, Congress was told the project could be completed for $4.4 billion, and it gained the enthusiastic support of Speaker Jim Wright of nearby Fort Worth.[5][dubious – discuss] By 1993, the cost projection exceeded $12 billion. A recurring argument was the contrast with NASA's contribution to the International Space Station (ISS), a similar dollar amount.[3] Critics[who?] of the project argued that the US could not afford both of them. Early in 1993 a group supported by funds from project contractors organized a public relations campaign to lobby Congress directly, but in June, the non-profit Project on Government Oversight released a draft audit report by the Department of Energy's Inspector General heavily criticizing the Super Collider for its high costs and poor management by officials in charge of it.[6][7]
A high-level schematic of the lab landscape during the final planning phases.

Congress officially canceled the project October 21, 1993[8] after $2 billion had been spent."



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So...what have we established regarding the HB particle?


At this point, we are at the very beginning of this study, so - not very much. We know the mass, and that it's compatible with the Higgs hypothesis, or some versions of it, and so are decay channels. That's not trivial already.


What does this do for our current universal theories?


I recommend Wikipedia or one of multiple pop science sources. Too much to post there.

One thing it helps explain is the electroweak symmetry breaking, which explains some weirdness out of the Standard model. I concede it's very hard to understand unless you did rudimentary field theory in college.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Cost overruns are not unheard of when on deals with cutting edge and in some cases unproven tech. It's not really "deceit", it's a gamble, and one is liable to lose.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I just absorbed an extremely succinct description of the Higgs Boson and its function in the universe. So basically, we have a theory, we just needed to prove the component before we could verify the effect?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I just absorbed an extremely succinct description of the Higgs Boson and its function in the universe. So basically, we have a theory, we just needed to prove the component before we could verify the effect?


It's more like we need to see that the theory is good enough. This is how Scientific Method works.

We have materials science, there are theories there, we prove that these work fine, when we go on to build bridges and airplanes. We can't build much with the Standard Model (yet), but hey, there are some examples... We can use neutrinos to transmit signals. Which can't really be blocked
I'm not making this up, by the way.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Neutrino thing sounds interesting, I'll have to research more on that. I know neutrinos can pass right through the earth. Would communication have to be in sequences of released particles? ... .... ..
How do you make a T with neutrinos?
edit on 12-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Neutrino thing sounds interesting, I'll have to research more on that. I know neutrinos can pass right through the earth. Would communication have to be in sequences of released particles? ... .... ..
How do you make a T with neutrinos?


You don't make T's. But yes, neutrino can only be detected by observing their rare reactions with surrounding matter. They aren't ionizing particles by themselves.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Oh Boy ! Now we can unzip the universe and see if we can be gods !!!! Either that or kill ourselves by messing with elementary particles.... cool ! Some things are better left alone.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Easy...Morse code. Detect the existence of neutrinos going at a specified speed or whatever, keep track of the time pattern, then work from there. Fine tune it enough and you could possibly send a few terabytes in the space of a half hour.

I'm half guessing here, but it's a workable theory...I think?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Easy...Morse code. Detect the existence of neutrinos going at a specified speed or whatever, keep track of the time pattern, then work from there. Fine tune it enough and you could possibly send a few terabytes in the space of a half hour.

I'm half guessing here, but it's a workable theory...I think?


No.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You know that feeling when you send a really long text and you get a one-word answer back?

Yeah.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum