The term Large Hadron Collider is ambiguous. Is it a collider of large hadrons, or a large machine capable of colliding hadrons? Either meaning would make sense because it is perhaps the largest machine in the world, and protons are larger than mesons.
Maybe the ambiguity is proper. A little poetry in physics is not a bad thing.
QUOTE (NowIsForever+Jul 13 2012, 04:24 PM)
The term Large Hadron Collider is ambiguous. Is it a collider of large hadrons, or a large machine capable of colliding hadrons? Either meaning would make sense because it is perhaps the largest machine in the world, and protons are larger than mesons.
Maybe the ambiguity is proper. A little poetry in physics is not a bad thing.
I suspect it is the size of the machine. There are many hadrons larger than protons.
Maybe the ambiguity is proper. A little poetry in physics is not a bad thing.
I suspect it is the size of the machine. There are many hadrons larger than protons.
Physics World: Planning the world's next collider
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indept...s-next-collider
Comment.
The Sad Truth
If you cannot resolve the vacuum energy crisis,
if you cannot explain the fine structure constant,
if you cannot identify the dark matter,
if you cannot predict the masses of fundamental particles,
if you cannot explain why galaxies exist, or come in radically
different flavors like ellipticals and spirals,
then you do not know diddely-squat about the cosmos.
High-energy physicists are making it up as they go.
Here's a nice example: If you cannot find a free quark,
make it a "law" that they are hidden inside other particles (just so!).
It's all Ptolemaic epicycles in high-energy physics,
no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
==.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indept...s-next-collider
Comment.
The Sad Truth
If you cannot resolve the vacuum energy crisis,
if you cannot explain the fine structure constant,
if you cannot identify the dark matter,
if you cannot predict the masses of fundamental particles,
if you cannot explain why galaxies exist, or come in radically
different flavors like ellipticals and spirals,
then you do not know diddely-squat about the cosmos.
High-energy physicists are making it up as they go.
Here's a nice example: If you cannot find a free quark,
make it a "law" that they are hidden inside other particles (just so!).
It's all Ptolemaic epicycles in high-energy physics,
no matter how vociferously they sell it to a credulous public.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
==.
Is that you then ? Wow
So are you saying it is a waste ? Big Children playing with energy sucking marbles?
So are you saying it is a waste ? Big Children playing with energy sucking marbles?
QUOTE (Mekigal+Jul 26 2012, 10:13 PM)
Is that you then ? Wow
So are you saying it is a waste ?
Big Children playing with energy sucking marbles?
Ask yourself:
‘ In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ? ‘
and you have the answer in which play the ‘Big Children playing’
=.
So are you saying it is a waste ?
Big Children playing with energy sucking marbles?
Ask yourself:
‘ In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ? ‘
and you have the answer in which play the ‘Big Children playing’
=.
‘ In which reference frame the Higgs boson was found ? ‘
=.
Comment by Gary.
Hi Israel,
THAT is an excellent question. As members of this board,
we understand that there is no absolute reference frame.
But quantum mechanics assumes there is. I believe QM
is wrong in that respect. If the Higgs existed in an absolute
frame, then rest mass would vary with its speed relative
to that frame because of the Higgs field.
The same problem exists with virtual particles. The average
momentum of all those particles popping in and out of existence
must be zero, yes? So how could an observer in another frame
see virtual particles with zero average momentum, too?
There aren't any easy solutions to these problems.
Gary
=.
Comment by Gary.
Hi Israel,
THAT is an excellent question. As members of this board,
we understand that there is no absolute reference frame.
But quantum mechanics assumes there is. I believe QM
is wrong in that respect. If the Higgs existed in an absolute
frame, then rest mass would vary with its speed relative
to that frame because of the Higgs field.
The same problem exists with virtual particles. The average
momentum of all those particles popping in and out of existence
must be zero, yes? So how could an observer in another frame
see virtual particles with zero average momentum, too?
There aren't any easy solutions to these problems.
Gary
QUOTE
If the Higgs existed in an absolute
frame, then rest mass would vary with its speed relative
to that frame because of the Higgs field.
frame, then rest mass would vary with its speed relative
to that frame because of the Higgs field.
Socratus, you are a crank, that quote is ridiculous on its face, and you don't know why.
To everyone else, please take this guy's rantings with a block of salt.
I wrote My opinion about LHC in 2008.
=.
- The mad CERN’s way.
14 Sep 2008 16:14 GMT
by Israel Sadovnik Socratus
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/astr...-CERN-s-project
====..
=.
- The mad CERN’s way.
14 Sep 2008 16:14 GMT
by Israel Sadovnik Socratus
http://www.spacekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/astr...-CERN-s-project
====..
The Higgs Boson May Have 'Five Faces'
And they've come up with a doozy:
maybe there isn't just one Higgs boson
(the as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle believed to impart mass);
maybe, instead, there are five different versions,
with similar masses but different electric charges.
http://news.discovery.com/space/the-higgs-...five-faces.html
==.
Maybe now we have 5 bosons , . . . . maybe more . . .?
==.
And they've come up with a doozy:
maybe there isn't just one Higgs boson
(the as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle believed to impart mass);
maybe, instead, there are five different versions,
with similar masses but different electric charges.
http://news.discovery.com/space/the-higgs-...five-faces.html
==.
Maybe now we have 5 bosons , . . . . maybe more . . .?
==.
Spin on it. 
Pun intended.
Pun intended.
Now we have 5 bosons , . . . . ! ?
5 different bosons with 5 different negative electric charges.
And they must have 5 different antibosons with 5 different
positive electric charges.
Physicists searched for one boson and found 5 different bosons.
And when they create bigger LHC they would found much more
different bosons.
It is good perspective.
It is very happy news.
I only think that this project is too expensive for normal man.
==.
5 different bosons with 5 different negative electric charges.
And they must have 5 different antibosons with 5 different
positive electric charges.
Physicists searched for one boson and found 5 different bosons.
And when they create bigger LHC they would found much more
different bosons.
It is good perspective.
It is very happy news.
I only think that this project is too expensive for normal man.
==.
Physicists searched for one boson and found 5 different bosons.
Who will say now: ‘God Does Not Play Dice’ ?
=.
Who will say now: ‘God Does Not Play Dice’ ?
=.
One thing that has always puzzled me about collider data, is although it is assumed to help us understand matter at the beginning of the universe, collider particles have higher entropy than standard matter, due to the diversity difference. If the entropy of the universe had to increase, how did the entropy decrease from the particle diversity into common matter and violate the second law?
In terms of entropy, collider data is more like the future of common matter, such as in a collapsing star, where we can get higher entropy by acceleration and smashing.
The question I have is how did particles states in collider data, which are assumed to be part of the earliest universe, violate the second law, by lowering the entire universal entropy into common matter?
If you wanted to stay simple and be consistent with the second law and result in the early universe creation with common matter, i.e., electrons, protons and neutrons, you would need to start with huge mass particles that dissociate into smaller mass particles and then into charge and common matter. The collider stuff would come next (higher entropy).
A future step could be all this collider particle diversity appearing via collapsing stars to generate the supernova expansion boom entropy.
In terms of entropy, collider data is more like the future of common matter, such as in a collapsing star, where we can get higher entropy by acceleration and smashing.
The question I have is how did particles states in collider data, which are assumed to be part of the earliest universe, violate the second law, by lowering the entire universal entropy into common matter?
If you wanted to stay simple and be consistent with the second law and result in the early universe creation with common matter, i.e., electrons, protons and neutrons, you would need to start with huge mass particles that dissociate into smaller mass particles and then into charge and common matter. The collider stuff would come next (higher entropy).
A future step could be all this collider particle diversity appearing via collapsing stars to generate the supernova expansion boom entropy.
QUOTE (MDT+Jul 29 2012, 02:46 PM)
One thing that has always puzzled me about collider data, is although it is assumed to help us understand matter at the beginning of the universe, collider particles have higher entropy than standard matter, due to the diversity difference. If the entropy of the universe had to increase, how did the entropy decrease from the particle diversity into common matter and violate the second law?
In terms of entropy, collider data is more like the future of common matter, such as in a collapsing star, where we can get higher entropy by acceleration and smashing.
The question I have is how did particles states in collider data, which are assumed to be part of the earliest universe, violate the second law, by lowering the entire universal entropy into common matter?
If you wanted to stay simple and be consistent with the second law and result in the early universe creation with common matter, i.e., electrons, protons and neutrons, you would need to start with huge mass particles that dissociate into smaller mass particles and then into charge and common matter. The collider stuff would come next (higher entropy).
A future step could be all this collider particle diversity appearing via collapsing stars to generate the supernova expansion boom entropy.
Idiot wind.
In terms of entropy, collider data is more like the future of common matter, such as in a collapsing star, where we can get higher entropy by acceleration and smashing.
The question I have is how did particles states in collider data, which are assumed to be part of the earliest universe, violate the second law, by lowering the entire universal entropy into common matter?
If you wanted to stay simple and be consistent with the second law and result in the early universe creation with common matter, i.e., electrons, protons and neutrons, you would need to start with huge mass particles that dissociate into smaller mass particles and then into charge and common matter. The collider stuff would come next (higher entropy).
A future step could be all this collider particle diversity appearing via collapsing stars to generate the supernova expansion boom entropy.
Idiot wind.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.