117 replies to this topic

[yonza bam]

Or so they tell us. The LHC is a particle accelerator housed in a 16.5 mile tunnel 100 metres under the Alps, spanning the border between France and Switzerland. Total cost of the project is expected to be around £4 billion. Its purpose is to accelerate large atomic nuclei (hadrons) at speeds in excess of 99% of the speed of light, through the tunnel in opposite directions and see what happens when they bang into each other. It gets switched on in May, but don't expect fireworks for a while as they'll be revving it up very slowly.

Apparently, it'll help us to understand what went on a billionth of a second after the 'Big Bang'. However, as one who doesn't believe the universe was created in an explosive instant, I'm less than enthusiastic about the prospect. There's been some concern that the energies involved will create 'mini black holes' that will suck the whole of planet Earth inside them. But the LHC scientists assure us that their mathematical calculations say this won't happen, so that's all right, then. There's not a lot of work going in the private sector for particle physicists. Without the LHC, where would they be?

http://public.web.ce...LHC/LHC-en.html

[yonza bam]

The chances of two particles colliding are equivalent to someone in the Campsies firing a high powered needle gun in the general direction of Glasgow and someone in Glasgow firing one towards the Campsies, and the two needles colliding head on.

But, as there'll be trillions of particles taking just 90 microseconds to do a 16.5 mile lap at 99.99% of the speed of light, it's expected that the detectors will detect 600 million collisions per second at the four points within the tunnel where the beams intersect.

[daveoneil]

The chances of two particles colliding are equivalent to someone in the Campsies firing a high powered needle gun in the general direction of Glasgow and someone in Glasgow firing one towards the Campsies, and the two needles colliding head on.

But, as there'll be trillions of particles taking just 90 microseconds to do a 16.5 mile lap at 99.99% of the speed of light, it's expected that the detectors will detect 600 million collisions per second at the four points within the tunnel where the beams intersect.

Really interesting article about it in the National Geographic this month.

[tomtscotland]

I do indeed bemoan the costs, because from what I know about this project - and your comments don't add anything to what I know - it is a collossal waste of money. The project seeks to expand our knowledge of the workings of the universe via researching high energy physics, and IMO this is a waste of money and will produce no meaningful benefits.

Meanwhile, people starve - and the introduction of the internet to civilisation is not any kind of benefit to mankind in my opinion. We are all being sucked backwards educationally because of it.

The wheat cannot be sorted from the chaff - even if anyone were truly interested in so doing, and it seems me that no-one is.

I agree with the sentiment behind this.
I think scientific research could be better directed.
It seems to me that we are fast heading towards a doomsday scenario where global warming and depletion of earth's resources may decimate mankind.
Global warming is the biggest worry - this will only exacerbate the problem of starvation in places like Africa. We were told a few years ago that the point of no return would be reached in 100 years time - however with every passing year that point is revised downwards!
We seem to be fast using up the world's resources - it seems wrong and perverse when so many are starving that we are growing cereal to use as a petrol substitute.

[rolo tomassi]

I do indeed bemoan the costs, because from what I know about this project - and your comments don't add anything to what I know - it is a collossal waste of money. The project seeks to expand our knowledge of the workings of the universe via researching high energy physics, and IMO this is a waste of money and will produce no meaningful benefits.

Meanwhile, people starve - and the introduction of the internet to civilisation is not any kind of benefit to mankind in my opinion. We are all being sucked backwards educationally because of it.

The wheat cannot be sorted from the chaff - even if anyone were truly interested in so doing, and it seems me that no-one is.

Well said.

[rolo tomassi]

I do not believe that it is potentially catastrophic.

What more do we need? I think we would always want to try and further the sum of human knowledge and understanding.

Ideally yes, TOG.

But if the world was to write a shopping list on a limited budget and had to fix some priorities to keep body and soul together, what would we all put top of the list?

Eradicating hunger and its attendant suffering in less than fortunate countries? Piling tens of millions into research and treatments for killer diseases?

Or the constant striving of the wealthy countries to beat each other to a scientific discovery that will mean very little in the scheme of everyday life for most?

Is it naive of me to suggest there could be a rational choice there?