[HN Gopher] Ten years after the Higgs, physicists face the night... ___________________________________________________________________ Ten years after the Higgs, physicists face the nightmare of finding nothing else Author : pseudolus Score : 356 points Date : 2022-06-15 10:52 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | lemursage wrote: | This feels like that Futurama episode where Farnsworth discovers | the last particle and descends into panic, realising he has | nothing else to do. However, in my opinion, asking why there's | nothing else is also a valid question to consider, even if we | suspect there's something more to what we've seen so far. | | Also, perhaps it'd be a tad bit more accurate to rephrase it | `particle physicists`, not `physicists` -- even though it's | totally exaggerated anyways. | somenameforme wrote: | Science has had countless cycles of believing we had | discovered, more or less, all that was to be discovered and the | remainder would come in sorting out things to another decimal | place. Then a revolution, sometimes in short order, sometimes | centuries later, comes around and emphasizes our ignorance and | arrogance. | | So at any given point you have two options: that we've finally | reached "the end" - this is it and we can go no further. Or | that we're at yet the latest cliff-face searching for that | ever-elusive path through. I would always bet, hard, on the | latter. At least if I could live forever, because even if I am | right there's every possibility, if not probability, that none | of us living today will be around to see it shown. | | The notion of being able to discern all the fundamental laws of | the universe while living on a single isolated grain of sand in | a beach of ever more bizarre discoveries stretching out | endlessly in all directions just seems improbable to me, at | best. | colinmhayes wrote: | At some point that becomes philosophy more than physics. | whatever1 wrote: | Experiments need good hypotheses to be useful. | | Sometimes hypotheses can be generated incrementally and this is | what 99.9% of the scientists are capable of doing. | | It seems that probably we have hit that wall in particle physics | and we need a Giant to smash it and take us to the next level. | daniel-cussen wrote: | I believe they got a lot of good data about the proton, it helped | with that...it's just a good instrument in general. There's other | virtues. And you think a particle isn't good enough? Realize how | important the electron was to you eg reading this? There's still | time for more work. | | But like the age of discovering new continents is passed, now | it's subtler things. Like the time when the center of Africa was | unknown, but the Americas and Australia and Antartica were known. | jmyeet wrote: | I really thought I'd see meaningful progress on harmonizing | quantum mechanics and relativity or some of these other "big" | problems in fundamental physics but now I'm not so sure. | | This by the way is a good reason not to dump tens of billions | into a successor to the LHC. We simply don't know what we're | looking for. Despite a number of significant upgrades we still | haven't found anything that breaks the Standard Model. I mean | we've disproven a lot and that means something but we should | still have an idea what we're looking for. | | I'd love to know what making new space (ie what makes the | universe expand) actually means. At one point I thought space | might be discreet (eg at the Planck length) but that's not how | that works. | | What is time? What is space? What really is mass? What is a | force? These are things we can describe the effects of but not | really what they _are_. It would be deeply disappointing if there | was a fundamental limit to our understanding that would prohibit | a deeper explanation, which actually seems like a possibility. | red_trumpet wrote: | > What is time? What is space? What really is mass? What is a | force? These are things we can describe the effects of but not | really what they are. | | That's how models work. Even a unifying theory would not | satisfyingly answer those questions. | otikik wrote: | Physicists are facing the nightmare that tomorrow is Thursday and | nothing else. | fifticon wrote: | Then get to work figuring out dark matter.. | syngrog66 wrote: | unfortunate they included the word "nightmare" in the title. | hardly a nightware in the overall scale of nightmare-worthy | things | trentnix wrote: | Wasn't there an article a week ago about a new particle found "on | a tabletop"? | | Feels like I'm being hustled. | Hellion wrote: | Stop reading pop science articles | quickthrower2 wrote: | Probably a food particle | ww520 wrote: | Haven't all the particles in the Standard Model been found? LHC | is not strong enough to look into gravity or dark matter. What | else can be found? | maxclark wrote: | I hate this headline | piokoch wrote: | This is bollocks. Typical clickbait title. There is still a lot | of unsolved problems in physics, both experimental and | theoretical. Particle physics is just one branch of science (and | rather boring, if you ask me), popularized by CERN marketing, so | people think new physics equals finding some new particle. | | There is a lot of interesting problems waiting for exploration. I | will not even try to list them "unsolved physics problems" | googling shows enough. | Certhas wrote: | That's a very uncharitable reading of the headline. I think | it's pretty clear that it's talking about particle physics, not | physics as a whole. At any rate the article makes this clear in | the first line: | | > Unless Europe's Large Hadron Collider coughs up a surprise, | the field of particle physics may wheeze to its end | ssorallen wrote: | This is clickbait to someone in particle physics? | | It describes the standard model, what the LHC was able to find, | what it hasn't been able to find, and why there is skepticism | about further discoveries. This is some high quality clickbait. | anticristi wrote: | Fascinating! The victims of their own success. I would love for | Sabine to cover this | (https://www.youtube.com/c/SabineHossenfelder). | Brometheus wrote: | She surely will... | dav_Oz wrote: | "Science" doesn't care about individual careers or generations | (in that case of physicists) who are left with "nothing else" to | discover (fundamentally) and are simply "condemned" to pass the | torch (determining values and uncertainties as best as possible). | It's a brutal selection process if viewed from an individual lens | which can consciously participate for say at best only 3 | generations. | | The institutionalized systems - which themselves carry an often | underappreciated (in the field itself) or overexaggareted | (outside the field) intertia - we now have in place to best | approximate "science" are still left with a lot of headroom for | optimization. | | One of the many corners overlooked handwavingly imhv are for | example the attempts to raise scientific literacy (critical | thinking, formulating (theoretical) and testing (practical) | hypotheses) in the societies overall, the fertile humus, so to | speak. Because of the massive shifts/societal changes actually | the reverse seems to be happening in the last decades in an | accelerating speed. Decentralizing science could help here and is | a legitimate concern in the case of the LHC as an example of a | highly centralized research model. I find the struggle for a | sweet spot appropriate, here. | | That being said, it is still possible that we just find ourselves | at a local low (at the current level of the LHC) with some | arising anomalies but by just pushing the energies a little | farther this let's us get out of the hole, again. So, nobody is | arguing to shut the LHC altogether, but depending on what we | find, the next "Future Circular Collider" to be built on top of | it might simply not be "worth" it in the foreseeable future. | fartsucker69 wrote: | There are more fundamental considerations to be made. For | example, the small scale structures of the universe might just | be too small to be observable by experimental means. As in, not | just practically too small (too difficult to build experiments | for it), but fundamentally not possible to observe due to their | mathematical structure. | | There are already a lot of things in quantum physics | particularly that we can't observe directly. For example, | there's no such thing as observing separate quarks - if you | separate two quarks too much the binding energy between them | pops another set of quarks into existence. But you can infer | their existence indirectly "via math" basically. | | However it's easily possible that the more fundamental | structures of the universe are bound in such a way that you | can't even observe them indirectly, even if you had access to | machines that could produce the energies required. | jcroll wrote: | This nytimes article has a very different take. The field is | excited at the prospect of new physics: | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/science/cern-hadron-colli... | lokimedes wrote: | These articles will be gold in 100 years. We found the bottom of | reality, guys, no need to look further! | danaris wrote: | That's not really what's being said. We _know_ there 's more to | find; we _know_ there 's problems with our current | understanding; we _know_ we haven 't found "the bottom". | | The problem is, we've found what _looks_ like a bottom, and all | the looking we do for cracks in it, or knocking on it to find | hollow spots, or hitting it really hard to try and bust | through, just keeps coming back with everything being unbroken, | solid, and unyielding. | | It's not self-congratulation; it's frustration. | anigbrowl wrote: | No. The nightmare here is physicists knowing the Standard Model | can't possibly be the bottom, but lacking clues about where to | find stairs. | typon wrote: | This comment itself might be the "real" gold, if in a 100 | years, we actually make no material advances in experimental | physics and the state of the art remains. I would bet that it's | quite likely, unless somehow we achieve communist utopia and | the world economies combine to fund a solar system size | accelerator. | bamboozled wrote: | Why would this be a nightmare, isn't this good? They know they're | going down the wrong path and can probably correct? | nemo44x wrote: | True but you'd hate to be the physicist that spent their career | going down the wrong path only to see tomorrows physicists | discover the big breakthroughs and the realization that your | contribution will be sent to the dustbin of history. | denton-scratch wrote: | Yah. Well, for most of us, the prospect of making a | significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge is a | faint prospect. | | They say all political careers end in failure. Very few | politicians die in the saddle, or simply retire. Most of them | are destroyed. My guess is that most careers in science | research end similarly; lots of career-length research | projects fail to achieve their goals, and very few scientists | get Nobels for world-changing discoveries. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _for most of us, the prospect of making a significant | contribution to the sum of human knowledge is a faint | prospect_ | | Physicists are bright people with other options. They | forewent those other options to have an increased chance at | contributing to human understanding. I can empathize with | the greater tragedy of their failure than that of _e.g._ a | millionaire adtech founder. | lmm wrote: | The prospect of actually "finishing" physics could be a | nightmare for those working in it. | | I had a friend who was a brilliant pure mathematician, his | teachers and friends agreed he fully deserved to do a PhD in | complex analysis - but complex analysis was essentially done in | the 19th century, there's just not a lot of research | opportunities there. | prmph wrote: | I can't really believe that this is the case, although I'm | nowhere near being a mathematician. The very nature of | knowledge is that every new understanding or discovery raises | even more questions. | | So complex analysis is pretty much done? Well, could the | methods of complex analysis suggest analogical methods in | other analytic fields? What work could be done at the | intersection of complex analysis and X, when X is any other | mathematical field? Also, I hear it is frequently useful in | the solution of physical problems. There are many unsolved | physical problems that could benefit from being reviewed from | a complex analysis perspective. | | > There's just not a lot of research opportunities | | Maybe this is the crux of the matter; it is not that there is | any lack f work still to be done in complex analysis, but | there are few research areas in the field that can or are | able to attract funding. | quickthrower2 wrote: | ?? maths creates new problems to solve. Pick another field | within it. | Rerarom wrote: | I have a friend who is a professor with a PhD in complex | analysis. Multivariable complex analysis (along with the | theories of complex manifolds and analytic spaces) is very | far from over. | | Heck, one of the Millennium Problems (the Hodge conjecture) | is in complex geometry (granted, in the more algebraically | flavoured part of it). | PaulHoule wrote: | This NYT article from 2 days ago | | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/13/science/cern-hadron-colli... | | spins it the other way. Personally I am amused by this old | scandal | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano... | | because there is some precedent for superluminal neutrinos (I saw | an experiment at Los Alamos National Labs that was trying to | measure the neutrino mass by observing tritium decay and their | best fit estimate for the mass was imaginary, although consistent | with zero.) Also if "SERN" was like it is in | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series) | | superluminal neutrinos would be something they'd definitely cover | up. | labrador wrote: | Good. Now maybe physicists can start solving the riddle of | consciousness. | yt-sdb wrote: | A few years ago, I went to a public interview/chat with Rainer | Weiss in NYC. He described years of work in which the LIGO team | found inventive ways to make their systems more precise. They | just kept knocking down orders-of-magnitude. Still, after taking | new measurements, they found nothing. No gravitational waves. | Then the interviewer asked him if he was discouraged at this | point in his career. I loved his response. He said, "No, it was a | more meaningful zero." | 1970-01-01 wrote: | 0.000 > 0.00 | | Love it. | evanb wrote: | You have the inequality backwards! | timdiggerm wrote: | Mathematically, yes. But in terms of value, no. | nerdponx wrote: | An economist might notate this as "0.000 [?] 0.00". | | Curly comparison operators like "[?]" (U+227B SUCCEEDS) | are often used specifically to avoid ambiguity with | traditional comparison operators like ">". See: | https://www.oeconomist.com/blogs/daniel/wp- | content/uploads/2... | w-j-w wrote: | pinko wrote: | I know Ray and this is an accurate retelling of this line, but | it's comparing apples to oranges in the context of this thread. | He knew LIGO was rapidly approaching the necessary sensitivity | to make great discoveries -- a threshold. The LHC experiments | may already have the sensitivity necessary to make their great | discoveries, and may just be chasing diminishing returns at | this point. Big difference. | adverbly wrote: | It is interesting that you bring up LIGO. I actually had a | formative experience in my career around a decade ago related | to this. I worked on the project for a summer. During that | period, I realized that the process of discovery in the dark is | one where the seekers have no control over the treasures. I | decided not to pursue a career in the field. My lotus of | control could not handle dedicating my life's work to chance. | | Rainer demonstrated a dedication and passion in that interview | that not everyone can meet. I learned that I'm more passionate | about effective/real world problem solving than I am about | physics. | | Those who have a true passion for physics have my complete | support and admiration. You're doing great - keep at it :) | tablespoon wrote: | It wouldn't surprise me or sadden me if particle physicists don't | make any new fundamental discoveries or real theoretical | breakthroughs for the next millennium. | | They also probably only have 20-30 years to show something if | they ever want to build another, bigger and more expensive | particle accelerator. | pfdietz wrote: | It would surprise me greatly, because I'd go "hey! I'm over | 1000 years old!" | mkl95 wrote: | A nightmare as in "my job will likely be boring until the day I | retire". A nightmare many dream of. | alienozi wrote: | dlsa wrote: | At least they are finding nothing and confirming they are finding | nothing. Less scrupulous operators might be always finding | something even if its not there. So that's a sign of good | science. | | Maybe there's something they haven't found because there's so | much data? Mix things up and look again? Change assumptions? | | Or as someone I know likes to say to various smaller humans: have | you looked around the couch? Really? Are you sure? Have you had a | good look? _this is how the tv remote usually subsequently | reappears_ as there is a difference between _just_ looking and | having a _good_ look. | | The best science also happens when you've looked, not found it | but now know where not to look. Even better science happens when | you know exactly why it shouldn't have been there at all. | Surprising science happens when you find the errors in your | assumptions and discover it can sometimes be where it previously | was not expected to be. | AussieWog93 wrote: | Just based on my experience in academia, there are probably | plenty of people with good hunches about where to go next. | Unfortunately, the system (grants system especially) is | actively discouraging them from trying anything too new that | would undermine the status of the incumbent experts. | | If you banned every single influential scientist who hasn't | contributed a major discovery in the last 10 years from | participating in academia, we'd have colonised the galaxy | decades ago. | ramraj07 wrote: | dang wrote: | Hey, can you please not fulminate on HN? It sounds like you | might know quite a bit about the field (or some of it), but | commenting like this degrades discussion and evokes worse | from others. If you would make your substantive points | thoughtfully, and share some of what you know, that would be | much better. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | hamsand wrote: | the more posts are banned and shadowbanned the more like | reddit this website becomes, aka a boring place for boring | people to say boring things. interesting people don't like | censorship | gus_massa wrote: | > _Have you had a good look?_ | | It's difficult to explain, but they[1] tried very hard. | | For example the electron has an electric charge but it's also | like a small magnet. In an ideal elementary particle, the value | of the magnet is 2 * something. In a real elementary particle | the value is almost-2 * something, so they are measuring the | almost-2, and it's call g [2]. | | For an electron, the measured value of g is | 2.00231930436256(35) | | , there are is an uncertainty of 0.000000000002%. The problem | is that it agree with the current theoretical prediction. | | The muon is very similar to an electron, but the experimental g | is [3] 2.0023318416(13) and the | current theoretical prediction is 2.00233183620(86) | | It's a difference of 0.000000001%. Most people will be happy | with that disagreement and forget about it. But They are happy | because there is a disagreement and perhaps they can use that | to discover a new particle. It still may be a long lived | statistical fluke, but it already survived many years. Other | team claimed that there is a small error in one of the | experimental numbers used in the theoretical calculation, but | I'm not sure if they are genius or crackpots or something in | between. | | And there are many other experiments. I like for example the | IceCube [4] that is just a giant chunk of ice in the | Antarctica. They try to detect neutrinos from stars. It has | many experiments, but in particular some experiments are useful | to measure the difference of mass of the neutrinos that is a | not very clear part of the Standard Model. | | [1] Not my area of research. They live in the next corridor. | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics) | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_g-2 | | [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory | abhv wrote: | gus_massa: Since you are likely an expert, could you | recommend a resource that explains how you use the Lagrangian | equation for the standard model [1] to actually compute a | predicted value for the electron's g ? | | An elementary resource that goes through basic steps for a | computer scientist (non expert in QFT) would be a great. A | simpler particle than electron is also ok, but I'd love to | understand how you mess with that equation. | | [1] http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/stmL1.html | gaze wrote: | You mess with it by doing diagrammatic perturbation theory, | that is, calculating Feynman diagrams. Zee or Weinberg | could be good references. There's also lattice QFT but you | generally want to learn the perturbative methods first | gus_massa wrote: | Sadly not an expert in that area. I only took a course of | Nuclear Physics for a Major in Physics [1]. So I can read | and understand that stuff, but the fine details pass over | my head. | | Looking at a recent page of that course, the recomended | books are | | * F. Halzen, A. Martin, "Quarks and Leptons: An | introductory course in modern particle physics" (Wiley | 1984) | | * D. Griffiths, "Introduction to elementary particles" | (Wiley 1987) | | (and a few more) | | The calculation for g=2 is quite easy (for an advanced | Physics student). I remember the general idea, but not the | details. I think I can reconstruct the details if | necessary. It may be explainable in a blog post skipping | some details. | | The first correction g=2+1/137.036 is also humanly | compresible, and can also be explained with some graphics. | It would be very hard for me, but if I have a week to seach | and rehearsal it is possible. | | As the sibling comment says, the following corrections | g=2+1/137.036+g=2+?/137.036^2 get harder and harder. And | there are too many technical details and problems. I can | only see the graphics and get a shallow understanding, but | how they are transformed to integral and how to calculate | all of them efficiently is too much for my knowledge. | | [1] I never finished my Major in Physics, but I finished | the one in Math. | lr1970 wrote: | > Looking at a recent page of that course, the recomended | books are * F. Halzen, A. Martin, "Quarks and Leptons: An | introductory course in modern particle physics" (Wiley | 1984) * D. Griffiths, "Introduction to elementary | particles" (Wiley 1987) | | It is telling that for a recent course the recommended | books are over 35 years old. Consistent with the OP | proposition. | wrycoder wrote: | Rather like Jackson is still a standard electrodynamics | text after 60 years. Classical EM is finished. But, | quantum field theory is not. | orbifold wrote: | You can look at "QFT in a nutshell" by Zee, a highly | recommended and pretty accessible book (to the degree a | book on QFT can be accessible), for the computation of g | for the electron to one loop order. That calculation can | also be found in "Quantum field theory and the Standard | Model" by Schwartz in Chapter 17 (p. 321). I'm not aware of | a textbook exposition of the calculations relevant for the | muon g. | l33tman wrote: | The paper describing the theoretical steps necessary to | compute g for the muon is hundreds of pages of condensed | math, theorems and approximations etc. | | The SM Lagrangian is not computable, so a big part of | theoretical physics is about finding tricks to actually | compute it. | | Incidentally this is why there is disagreement on the muon | g-2 discrepancy, at least two theory groups have calculated | different values using different approximations. | sigmoid10 wrote: | It should be noted that the anomalous electron g-2 is | computable _analytically_ (at least to very good | approximation) which makes the theoretical value much | less controversial. The anomalous muon g-2 however | depends more heavily on interactions of quantum | chromodynamics, which can only be computed using | numerical lattice QCD simulations. This is notoriously | hard and has only become practical in recent years, hence | why theorists don 't yet fully agree on the value. | | Also, computing even just one part of this value is | basically on the level of a theoretical particle physics | dissertation. Don't expect to be able to do this without | several years of research experience in this specific | field. | kkylin wrote: | It may be worth first understanding why g=2 (if you haven't | before). This can be done on the basis of special | relativity + quantum mechanics, i.e., the Dirac equation: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation | | The "g" is the Lande g factor: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%C3%A9_g-factor | | (As I recall nonrelativistic QM gives g=1.) | | PS Not a physicist, but learned some of this at some point. | Only ever learned about electrons, though; don't know how | any of this translates to other particles. | jwuphysics wrote: | I have two recommendations you might find useful. The first | is QED, a series of lectures by Richard Feynman. This text | covers the qualitative nature of the perturbation theory | used for quantum electrodynamics. The second is Quantum | Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur by Lancaster and | Blundell. It's nicely written and accessible at the | advanced undergrad level, building up QFT from the basics. | | Caveat-- I work in astronomy but have a PhD in physics and | have taken graduate QFT. | vanderZwan wrote: | > _Have you had a good look?_ | | Are you aware of how hilarious it is in the context of high | energy physicists verifying the standard model to ask if they | had "good look"? I don't think a collective effort to look any | harder has ever existed in the history of humankind. | ezconnect wrote: | It's probably something they can't measure now that will be | discovered next, that's why they need to keep looking. | dlsa wrote: | I've received feedback from some very smart people who | laughed out loud and knew exactly what I meant by _having a | good look_. Two of them are physicists and many more are | engineers. They said they have found many metaphorical | couches and there 's a lot of nothing. They've also found | quite a few interesting metaphorical paperclips and other | debris. But that there's so many more places to look. They | also think there's a bunch of metaphorical couches they still | haven't found. Its especially hard to look under something | when you can't even recognise what it is to look under. Thats | part of the difficulty. | | They've also assured me they'll let me know when they finally | find another metaphorical tv remote. | vanderZwan wrote: | Yeah I assumed your comment was in good faith, and as a | physics drop-out I'm well aware of how most people have no | idea of the sheer scope of these research projects, so I | didn't mean it as a jab against you. | dlsa wrote: | I didn't take it as a jab. I also received a bunch of | messages from people poking fun at me elsewhere for my | comment. In the past several physicists have been a | source of fine wine when I've won a bet. | | There will probably be photos of couches in my office | next week when I get back. | not_kurt_godel wrote: | Ok, then where should they look if you're so smart? You | think people who have dedicated their lives to studying | this subject haven't considered the concept of looking | everywhere possible, and that you're adding something to | the discussion by trotting out this 'clever' metaphor? | birdyrooster wrote: | Bike shedding for the senses | raxxorraxor wrote: | There probably is a hard limit on how many elemental particles | you can find in the first place. I don't know if there are | further theories. Are there X or Y-Bosons? Lowfat quark anti- | particles? | Melatonic wrote: | I've always thought that a huge limiting factor is that we can | only really observe from our current point in time. We are time | limited which is a big hindrance just as it would be to only | observe things form a single physical position (which is also | sort of true - but at least we can send probes and whatnot out | there). | elorant wrote: | One thing to notice is that during the experiments they keep | only a small percentage of the total data they could record due | to limitations in storage and processing capabilities. There's | a lot of fuss inside the scientific community about what to | keep and what to disregard. | analog31 wrote: | That's happening. I have a friend who did a physics + data | science PhD for analyzing existing data in a new way. | z3t4 wrote: | The best science is found by accident. | highwaylights wrote: | They haven't found nothing. They've found something, which is | nothing. | | They've looked, been able to rule out some hypotheses of what | they might find, and have established some evidence against | others. Progress achieved, and the search continues. | adamsmith143 wrote: | The problem IS that they have found nothing. We know the | Standard Model, as good as it is, is either incomplete or | incorrect and without new physics somewhere we have no | indication of how to fix it. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _without new physics somewhere we have no indication of | how to fix it_ | | This is a bit harsh. We have loads of unexplained, well | measured phenomena. More clues helps. But it's not | conclusively necessary. | adamsmith143 wrote: | Idk, theres been no major progress since the 60s-70s | after QCD, String Theory is a complete dead end and there | aren't any great candidate theories out there. So the | lack of findings certainly hasn't helped. | usrbinbash wrote: | This "nothing" is valueable information nonetheless. | | Science is just as much (often more) about ruling out | hypotheses as it is about confirming them. Sometimes that | means ruling out all existing hypotheses, meaning new ones | have to be formulated to be tested in turn. | fhars wrote: | The problem here is that the most favoured hypothesis | currently is "there is nothing there that can be | discovered with any accelerator that can be built using | less than 80% of the world's GDP over the next 50 years." | And all the valuable "nothing" we currently find just | supports the hypothesis and that there is no point in | formulating additional hypotheses. | jordanpg wrote: | This. | | This author, who should know better, is suggesting that the | only "success" is a new discovery. | | This is patent nonsense. Every time a hypothesis is ruled | out, and every time a hypothesis is ruled out with greater | confidence, the experiment has succeeded. | | What is true is that discoveries drive public excitement and | public support for additional funding. That is a political | problem and it is solvable. If Western governments can find | the public support for trillions in military expenditures, I | am confident that it can be found for the comparably meager | budgets of the scientific establishment. | Certhas wrote: | The author correctly reports a scientific debate inside of | science amongst scientists. | | Particle Physicists can pretend this is just a political | problem all they want, but if more and more other | physicists are convinced the field is entering a desert | there will be no new accelerator. Maybe even more | importantly, if students learn about the true state of the | field they will chose more interesting things to study. | | Human time and effort is limited, and scientists don't go | around and devote hundreds of thousands of person years to | rule out random hypothesis. Effort at LHC level is only | devoted because there is a very very good reason to band | together to get this done that convinced many other | scientists (who in turn helped convince funding bodies). | LHC has been a huge success on its own terms, but its | results are simultaneously a massive problem for particle | physics as it stands right now. | | Not a problem for science, just a problem for the field of | particle physics, which will need to adjust to the current | reality rather than holding out for more data. | osigurdson wrote: | A new discovery over some time period is a reasonable | expectation. For example, if we discover nothing in the | next 1000 years we would have to conclude that there is no | longer any point in trying. | SkyBelow wrote: | >That is a political problem and it is solvable. If Western | governments can find the public support for trillions in | military expenditures, I am confident that it can be found | for the comparably meager budgets of the scientific | establishment. | | Is it solvable? Humans are notoriously bad at certain | things and investing in things that aren't showing | interesting results is one of them. How many companies will | cut something that prevents problems because they don't see | problems? | | If you want to solve this, you would need to do it the same | way the MIC has solved military funding, by ensuring | continued funding of science is necessary for politicians | to be re-elected. But that borders close enough to | corruption I'm not sure the scientists who need the funding | will be agreeable to it, to say nothing of the difficulty | engineering this. | anticristi wrote: | > If Western governments can find the public support for | trillions in military expenditures, I am confident that it | can be found for the comparably meager budgets of the | scientific establishment. | | Sadly, that achievement -- public support for trillions in | military expenditures -- belongs to a not-so-Western | government invading a wanna-be-Western government. | Coding_Cat wrote: | The issue for particle physics specifically, is that they | _hope_ to find something that breaks the theory. But so | far, only find confirmations of the current Standard Model. | Succesful experiments, yeah, but doing little for pushing | our understanding of the universe unfortunately. | | The reason why they want to break the standard model is, | simplified, two-fold: | | 1. While the theory is incredibly powerful in its domain, | we have been unable to unify it with gravity and other | theories of matter. This is a problem because it's supposed | to be a theory summarizing the fundamental building blocks | of the universe and it should therefore describe | _everything_. | | 2. the theory is ugly. It's a mess with many parameters and | weird interpretations all shoved together. Physicists don't | like this. Not just for aesthetic reasons, but also out of | experience. It reminds people of pre-relativity | electrodynamics for example. Lorentz had what was | essentially a working theory of relativity but it was a | mess. People fear the standard model is the new lorentzian | relativity, essentially correct but missing some key | insight that is needed to fix it. | | Finding something that breaks the standard model could go a | huge way to solving both these issues. But the standard | model just keeps getting confirmed at higher and higher | resolution. | | In software terms: it's like you know there's a 1/1000'000 | bug _somewhere_ in the software but every single test you | write to try and find it passes. | gaze wrote: | There's a huge mismatch between people who are science | fans and people who are doing physics anywhere near | particle physics. It's quite hard to explain how the | field is spinning it's wheels squared against what people | consider scientific progress. | | Edison's "I found 100 things that didn't work" is a nice | parable but it doesn't work across an entire field. | morbia wrote: | (former PhD in Particle Physics in QCD here, far from an | expert) | | > While the theory is incredibly powerful in its domain, | we have been unable to unify it with gravity and other | theories of matter. This is a problem because it's | supposed to be a theory summarizing the fundamental | building blocks of the universe and it should therefore | describe _everything_. | | I think this is a misunderstanding of what the Standard | Model is and the scientific process that went into it. It | is a model for describing the interactions of electroweak | and strong force interactions, and that's it. This is | based of years of experimental data and coming up with a | consistent theory that fits the data. No one went out to | come up with a "theory of everything", missed and ended | up with the standard model. | | The Standard Model is clearly a low energy effective | theory of something more, almost by definition. The | problem is we have absolutely no data to drive | predictions of higher order theories (which could also | turn out to be low energy effective theories themselves). | Without data, there is a very real chance that the | standard model is the best model we're going to have for | particle physics. | | > the theory is ugly. It's a mess with many parameters | and weird interpretations all shoved together. Physicists | don't like this. Not just for aesthetic reasons, but also | out of experience. It reminds people of pre-relativity | electrodynamics for example. Lorentz had what was | essentially a working theory of relativity but it was a | mess. People fear the standard model is the new | lorentzian relativity, essentially correct but missing | some key insight that is needed to fix it. | | Ugly is a subjective term. A lot of people talk about | stuff like 'naturalness' problems with the standard | model, but is that really a problem? Who are we to say | what numbers are the natural order of things. Gravity is | orders upon orders of magnitude weaker than all the other | forces, is that 'natural'? | | I think comparing it to Lorentzian aether is a little | harsh. If you compare special relativity to Lorentzian | relatively, special relativity is just a simpler model | (it doesn't need aether). I think it's extremely unlikely | at this stage that given only the data we have right now, | someone would be able come up with a theory that would be | fully consistent with the Standard Model but is simpler | and doesn't predict new stuff. It's not impossible, but | it is very unlikely. | | Actually I think the biggest problem with the Standard | Model is how to go from the theory to real predictions. | Formulating the lagriangian of QCD is the easy bit, | converting that to real predictions (either on the | lattice QCD end at large alpha_s or perturbative QCD at | small alpha_s) is extremely difficult. It's almost | laughably absurd where it is not unheard of for | calculations of single processes to take a decade or | more. | jordanpg wrote: | I think a lot of commentary on this thread is losing | sight of what the world "model" really amounts to in a | scientific context. | | It's an abstraction. A bunch of math that just-so-happens | to result in accurate predictions. That's all it _really_ | is. How the universe _really_ works (putting Tegmark | aside) is a separate, ultimately philosophical question. | | Much of particle physics is simply exploring the | parameter space in which various models might be | applicable. In the most exciting case, the model crumples | in some new, unexplored region. | | The value of bigger accelerators comes down whether the | higher energies, in which we have not yet explored, are | worth exploring, relative to the cost of doing so. That | is certainly debatable. | | But it's not a "desert." Nobody knows what higher | energies will reveal. | roywiggins wrote: | It's like going treasure-hunting and demonstrating to | everyone's satisfaction that there is definitely no | treasure where you looked. It doesn't tell you very much | about 1) if the treasure you're hunting really exists | (there's many more places it could be), or 2) what exactly | the treasure consists of. | | It's technically more information, but it's not very _much_ | information. | | eg, what did we learn from the underwater hunt for MH370? | not a lot, millions were spent to still have no clue where | the thing is. It's not just political to say that the hunt | failed in an important way. | atx42 wrote: | My take is we were asking the wrong questions, and now we | know that, so hopefully we can figure out the right | questions. | jerf wrote: | The problem isn't that "finding nothing" isn't progress. | The problem is that "finding nothing" is _terrible_ | progress-per-dollar. | | If you're still having trouble with that concept, peer into | the alternate universe where the LHC actually provided | enough data to nail down the Theory of Everything. Now that | would be some progress-per-dollar to celebrate. | | There's a contingent of people who just don't want to think | about "how much" progress something is making and want to | live in a fantasy world where building a multi-billion | dollar particle collider that finds nothing is exactly the | same as a $50,000 experiment that finds nothing. I don't | know that I'm terribly interested in trying to argue y'all | out of that belief. But I can say with great confidence | that no matter how good it may make you feel, if you go on | to argue about how vital it is to spend another 5x times as | much money to build another particle collider that we have | _no_ reason to believe will find anything new, you will | continue to be marginalized and find your influence waning | to apparently no effect. | | But in the faint hope of maybe convincing you, consider | that there is no infinite money fountain, and even if you | just can't process that fact, there certainly aren't an | infinite amount of physicists. What is so vital about | another particle accelerator that we must dedicate | thousands of professional careers to it despite the lack of | solid reason to hope anything will come of it? Why not let | them do something else? I submit it's all Availability | Heuristic. You see and apprehend the particle accelerator, | so it must be a good idea. You don't see the thousands upon | thousands of other things you're trading away for it, so | they don't factor in. | | But given the current big fat zero rational reason to build | another, it is very easy to build a model in which those | other experiments will actually be the ones that make the | difference somehow. Probably by some long, convoluted chain | we can't imagine now; I doubt there's a bench experiment | that we just haven't done that will nail down quantum | gravity. But there's a lot of other interesting paths. | Quantum computers, for instance, just by their nature, tend | to probe the limits of quantum theory in a way nothing else | can. Something very interesting could come out of that. | Dark matter detectors could produce something. Someone | might actually work a theory down into something that can | be tested. | SkyBelow wrote: | What are the alternatives? Better weapons, better ad | targeting systems, better gambling hidden behind a veneer | of gaming on mobile? We can look at where our government | and our society currently allocates money and find that | the allocations looks bad enough that even building a | bigger particle accelerator that might not find anything | is an improvement overall. As a singular species, I think | we would be better for going down that route given the | average of what would be given up. | | Problem is that humanity is not unified for our own | betterment, so that ends up being a bad metric to judge | actions upon. I think you are right in the outcome, it | would mean losing influence, and even if we get funding | it'll likely be diverted from the areas we least want it | diverted from. You're probably right and I find that | unsatisfactory. | supportengineer wrote: | Huge fleets of space telescopes | | Multiple gravity wave detectors | jerf wrote: | Sorry, are you seriously proposing that _either_ we fund | new particle accelerators _or_ we 're just going to build | weapons/ads/gambling systems, and there are no other | choices? | | I want to be clear that this is your claim before I spend | any more time on it. | SkyBelow wrote: | No. I'm pointing out that our current system is already | spending money on far more wasteful things, thus it | should be possible to fund accelerators by taking away | from the things that are an outright detriment to | humanity than the things that are, at worst, only | useless. | | I even point out that the reality is likely if we fund | particle accelerators, it will likely be diverted from | places we don't want it to be diverted from, like other | research spending. | | >even if we get funding it'll likely be diverted from the | areas we least want it diverted from | | Note I even end by saying the poster is probably right, | for as much as I don't like that they are (not meant as a | negative to the poster, but to how humanity currently | allocates our resources). | arcticfox wrote: | Unfortunately the "weapons are a waste" opinion has taken | a severe hit since February. | weego wrote: | That feels like a false dichotomy. | | This is pushing forward research into theory, even with | highly positive results it's completely unknown whether | any of those results actually result in any progress for | the human race other than knowledge, and at a _base_ cost | of EUR21 billion that knowledge comes with a huge | opportunity cost. | | We face so many tangible risks right now that EUR21 | billion invested elsewhere into things that will likely | produce meaningful advances to our problems that the | question of 'is spending this much money disproving | philosophical arguments justifiable right now?' should | rightly be being asked. | SkyBelow wrote: | Isn't the false dichotomy that if we spend EUR21 billion | on a particle accelerator then we must take it from other | research into advancing humanity instead of taking it | from other areas that don't provide benefit to humanity | as a whole (though they do provide benefit to some groups | at equal or greater cost to others). | | >'is spending this much money disproving philosophical | arguments justifiable right now?' should rightly be being | asked. | | In light of all the expenditures we are already making | elsewhere, I don't see how many of those can be justified | but this one not. | R0b0t1 wrote: | Well, if you spend the 21 billion on health research and | life extension, you can live to see spending 21 billion | on physics research. | bluGill wrote: | Okay, we need to take that money from somewhere. There is | only so much labor on the planet, and that is what the | money is buying in the end. (I'm including corruption in | labor here) Some labor is more valuable than others, and | we can debate how much we want to spend, but in the end | if we have someone do X they could do Y instead. | Sometimes Y is sit around doing nothing, sometimes it is | valuable. | | The problem here is we don't know what will be discovered | and if it will be useful. Cheap Science Fiction FTL | without all the time dilation - very valuable. Add half a | decimal point to our models - probably can't be used for | anything and so less valuable than a game. I have no | idea, I just picked unlikely two extremes. | thingification wrote: | I think these are two distinct things: | | > The problem isn't that "finding nothing" isn't | progress. The problem is that "finding nothing" is | terrible progress-per-dollar. | | > if you go on to argue about how vital it is to spend | another 5x times as much money to build another particle | collider that we have no reason to believe will find | anything new, you will continue to be marginalized and | find your influence waning to apparently no effect. | | The first part is fine if by it you mean you think the | physics-practitioner-theory of the collider advocates (a | theory about what next research steps might be fruitful, | not a theory of physics) is now implausible to you. On | the other hand if you just think something like "We | expect the future (of physics) to be 'like' the past (not | making progress)", then that isn't an explanatory | statement and is unrelated to whether we should fund a | future collider. If you know what you're going to find in | an experiment, you're not setting out to discover | something new, so there is no such "future will be like | the past" principle here. | | The second really is an argument not to fund a future | collider because it comes with an explanation: what good | theory (of physics, this time) do we have that predicts | we'll find new tests, or new problems? If there's no very | good theory, new tests or new problems might come from | other experiments instead, especially if they're a lot | cheaper so we can do more of them. Personally I guess | that it's a good argument you make here in this second | part, but what do I know? | robertlagrant wrote: | > If Western governments can find the public support for | trillions in military expenditures, I am confident that it | can be found for the comparably meager budgets of the | scientific establishment. | | We just need, occasionally, a belligerent something to do | something to remind us of why experimental particle physics | is needed in its equivalent of peace-time. | brazzy wrote: | > This is patent nonsense. Every time a hypothesis is ruled | out, and every time a hypothesis is ruled out with greater | confidence, the experiment has succeeded. | | The probem is, as far as I know, that there is an | effectively _infinite_ space of supersymmetry hypotheses. | Ruling one of those out is pretty worthless success. | strbean wrote: | > Or as someone I know likes to say to various smaller humans: | have you looked around the couch? Really? Are you sure? Have | you had a good look? this is how the tv remote usually | subsequently reappears as there is a difference between just | looking and having a good look. | | Dealing with larger humans in a social setting - the only | method I've found that works for finding the remote is | addressing one of them on the couch and saying "The remote is | UNDER YOU!" | | Then they *actually look*. | nonrandomstring wrote: | And sometimes there just isn't anything there to find. | | But we keep looking because the idea of nothing is simply too | abhorrent. | | There is a tremendously difficult and disturbing aspect to Peer | Gynt (the original story, not the music on which it's based). | | Searching for his "self" he peels off layer after layer like an | onion, getting ever deeper seemingly towards a _real_ self. But | on the last layer he experiences the horror of finding nothing | more. What he _" is"_, is constituted by the sum of the layers. | | After that, the entire nature of the "search for meaning" has | to change. | dynjo wrote: | I sometimes ponder whether we fundamentally just went in the | wrong direction from the very start with quantum physics, but we | ended up so far down the road it was impossible to start again. | | Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist and my understanding is | superficial at best. | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | Oh jesus christ, the constant whining! | | This is science. This is how it works. Maybe there's nothing else | to discover, maybe it will take us 100 years, we don't know, | that's why it's called research. | spicymaki wrote: | > This is science. This is how it works. Maybe there's nothing | else to discover, maybe it will take us 100 years, we don't | know, that's why it's called research. | | I think the argument is not whether we invest in research or | not, but are we putting our limited resources into viable | research or not. Sabine Hossenfelder argues that many | researchers are more interested in testing their pet theory | based on mathematical beauty than actually working on more | boring forms of fundamental research. This imbalance leads to | poor returns on research investments. | [deleted] | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Maybe there's nothing else to discover | | This is fundamentally wrong. We know the Standard Model is not | the final theory of Physics so there are still things to | discover. | NateEag wrote: | If you think the Simulation Hypothesis has any merit | whatsoever, you should consider the possibility that the | Simulation does not have a fully-consistent engine, just one | that was "close enough". | | Note, of course, that the same could be true in a | coincidentally-generated universe, as well as a deistic or | theistic one (the latter two being effectively | indistinguishable from a Simulation). | adamsmith143 wrote: | Not sure it's worth thinking about. You would think that a | sufficiently powerful simulation could procedurally | generate an arbitrary level of detail so there wouldn't | really be gaps. | NateEag wrote: | Only with a perfect procedural algorithm. | | Which may not fit with any hypothetical Simulator's | goals, anyway. | | Most games don't feature an absolutely perfect Newtonian | physics engine. The physics is just a means to an end, | not the fundamental point of the whole endeavor. | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | > This is fundamentally wrong. We know the Standard Model is | not the final theory of Physics so there are still things to | discover. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning | bmitc wrote: | Funding is not infinite. | Grimburger wrote: | > Maybe there's nothing else to discover, maybe it will take us | 100 years, we don't know, that's why it's called research. | | At what price? | quickthrower2 wrote: | Cheaper than not doing it | highwaylights wrote: | Less than it cost to research, develop and manufacture all of | the components in the device you typed this on. | BurningFrog wrote: | Sure, but _that_ effort is providing enormous benefits to | all of humanity. | lucretian wrote: | has it...? | Grimburger wrote: | I'd put that amortised cost at about $1000 upfront in 2022 | dollars for my high quality internet comment and many | others like it. | | If you need high energy, pure vacuums and ultra low temps, | surely space is where such experiments should be conducted | on bigger scales in future to push it further? | highwaylights wrote: | I can't speak to whether it would cost less to do these | experiments in space, I'm no expert on the colliding of | particles and the implications thereof. | | In any case - how much of that $1000 is attributed to the | research and development of the wheel in Ancient | Mesopotamia? | | How much is attributed to the discovery of electricity, | and to General Relativity? | | If we weren't attempting to get answers to fundamental | questions we'd still be living in caves. | fennecfoxen wrote: | > I can't speak to whether it would cost less to do these | experiments in space, I'm no expert on the colliding of | particles and the implications thereof. | | I'm a nonexpert who has some vague idea of how these | things work. | | There's two kinds of accelerator: circular and linear. In | either case, you have a tube, often underground, a bunch | of accelerator components along the tube, and a detector | component. I believe but I am not sure that a key | advantage of the circular one is that you can accelerate | the particles in the beam as they take multiple loops | around the tube. The disadvantage is that when charged | particles turn they lose energy by emitting | electromagnetic radiation, and the whole point of the | accelerator is to stuff these particles full of energy to | make interesting collisions. This is mitigated by having | higher-radius accelerators, which is the key reason we | build things like the Large Hadron Collider and make it | so very large in the first place, instead of just trying | to add stronger stuff at existing accelerators. | | So what do you intend to do in space? | | The quasi-achievable near term might see a linear | accelerator that consists of two components orbiting and | firing particle beams into a third (the detector) because | we are obviously not orbiting the mass of the LHC in the | near term, and we're not orbiting anything that's rigid | and also substantially larger than a rocket payload. It | will no doubt be tricky to align the beams, as the orbits | are ellipses and the beams need to be approximately | straight lines (or close enough, blah blah spacetime). | But the fundamental problem is that you're going to need | to do all your acceleration all at once, at the | accelerators, which immediately negates any possible | advantages you could possibly have from space. | | Perhaps you could do something very clever with an orbit- | sized circular accelerator with accelerators spaced at | intervals around the planet. You'd need a lot of launches | of some intense equipment (I believe the Earth-based | accelerator components are giant supercooled magnets). | You'd also need an energy source, lots of engineering | prowess to get everything in good working order (LHC | bringup was very hands-on) except any adjustments will | have to be done _in orbit_ , and then when it's running | you'd face the problem of LOLmaintenance. | | I'm going to be honest, I'm more skeptical about this | than about the Mars colony. | Grimburger wrote: | Fair chunk of the cost is people working for slave wages | in Asia and has nothing to do with with ancient | Mesopotamia, let's be honest and not disingenuous here. | | Are you actually interested in discussing the topic at | hand? | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | Spoken like a true ignoramus. | superluserdo wrote: | Space won't work for the kind of physics the LHC does. | | The fundamental problem is that collider physics relies | on being able to create collisions of exactly known | quantity as your input (eg in the LHC's case, proton- | proton collisions at a 14TeV centre of mass energy). If | you don't control the input, you can't extract any | information about the output you detect, in the same way | that you can't create a simulation of snooker by looking | at the balls on the table, without knowing how they were | set up before being hit. | | The other problem is that to probe the frontier of | particle physics, you need truly immense statistics to | get enough of the incredibly rare collisions. Think | bunches of hundreds of billions of protons colliding tens | of millions of times per second. The upshot is that you'd | not only need to build the detectors in space (which are | thousands of tonnes with extremely precise electronics | that need whole server farms plugged directly into them | to process the terabits of data coming out each second), | but you'd also need to build the entire collider in space | too. | | Even then it's a rather pointless endeavour, since the | colliders require a colder temperature and higher vacuum | than even interstellar space, nevermind within the solar | system. | Grimburger wrote: | > Space won't work for the kind of physics the LHC does. | | https://home.cern/science/engineering/cryogenics-low- | tempera... | | > The LHC's cryogenic system requires 40,000 leak-tight | pipe seals, 40 MW of electricity - 10 times more than is | needed to power a locomotive - and 120 tonnes of helium | to keep the magnets at 1.9 K. | | Launch cost per kg aside for the detectors and basic | framework, space is the best place for pushing the | boundaries of high energy physics experiments in the | future. | superluserdo wrote: | All that stuff you're describing would still need to be | sent to space, for no upside. That includes the 27km+ | long collider ring. I haven't even mentioned the fact | that this stuff is built 100 metres underground precisely | to avoid noise from cosmic radiation. | Certhas wrote: | You are mischaracterize what's happening entirely. The article | is not whining and it's not claiming that this is somehow | shaking the foundations of science. But we are potentially in | the middle (or even at the end) of a monumental shift inside | physics. Particle physics produced fantastic discoveries over | the second half of the twentieth century and it might just have | hit a major major wall (or in the lingo of the field, | encountered a desert) where we can not expect new discoveries | in the next decades or centuries. | | If that's so it will mean a major restructuring of the field of | physics. It has vast implications for researchers that chose | what to work on or whom to fund. Yes it's all part of research, | but the flavor and type of research in one of the most | prominent fields of science is undergoing a massive shift. | That's news that's well suited for a publication called | Science. And it reflects genuine scientific debate that's been | going on for more than a decade on the inside. | BurningFrog wrote: | It would make sense to more resources to other fields. | | But institutions don't tend to dismantle themselves, so I | expect a few decades of "we might find something soon!" until | the leaders have retired. | ced wrote: | > In 1973, professor Sir James Lighthill was asked by the | UK Parliament to evaluate the state of AI research in the | United Kingdom. His report, now called the Lighthill | report, criticized the utter failure of AI to achieve its | "grandiose objectives." He concluded that nothing being | done in AI couldn't be done in other sciences. He | specifically mentioned the problem of "combinatorial | explosion" or "intractability", which implied that many of | AI's most successful algorithms would grind to a halt on | real world problems and were only suitable for solving | "toy" versions.[15] | | > The report led to the complete dismantling of AI research | in England.[15] AI research continued in only a few | universities (Edinburgh, Essex and Sussex). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter | awhitby wrote: | In retrospect it was at least arguably the right call, | no? Suspend most research and resume when available | processing power was orders of magnitude greater, a | process that was independently driven by demands other | than (and much greater than) AI research. | | Playing devil's advocate only slightly, maybe particle | physics should similarly pare down to a bare maintenance | level of research (or even mostly teaching) for a few | centuries until we can harness much higher energies. | pizzaknife wrote: | literally my sentiments exactly. Next thing you know, someone | will be clamoring to make the LHC a profit center and complain | about its solvency! | | edit: I have no dog in the fight, but I do appreciate the | concept of "Art for Art's sake." To me, the LHC embodies the | physics equiv of that statement. | japanuspus wrote: | You do realize that most of the money for LHC end up in | industry, not academia? | pizzaknife wrote: | could you rephrase this question? | tokai wrote: | Which whining? From the article: | | >It's too early to despair, many physicists say | | or | | >"I very much doubt that in 20 years, I will say, 'Oh, boy, | after the Higgs discovery we learned nothing new.'" | | The whole article is about how the upgrade to the LHC will give | more precision and more data. Even if it was whining, | critiquing and bickering over the status quo very much a | cornerstone of science. Your annoyance looks like something | coming from a place of dogmatism.. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Are the folks who allocate funding unserstanding of this | predicament, the possibility that it will take 100 years to | discover anything else? | denton-scratch wrote: | > Maybe there's nothing else to discover | | AFAICS that is not one of the options; there are mysteries and | contradictions whose explanations remain to be discovered. But | maybe we can't discover more using the LHC (which I doubt). | prionassembly wrote: | There's the mythology of the heavens being held up by the | titan Atlas, who rests on top of a cow, which rests on top of | a turtle... the kiddy version continues on top of another | turtle, on top of... | | I once had a vision -- yes, a vision, something deep came to | me as I laid half-awake -- that after a few dozen turtles the | actual ground was made of jackstraw[1]. It rested on a firm | tangle. | | I've always felt since then that the world and the universe | themselves are _made of contradictions_. That some | contradictions are fundamental, and this is why since | Socrates we 've always been so focused on finding | contradictions. Because maybe we can find the ones we can't | pick apart. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pick-up_sticks | denton-scratch wrote: | > the world and the universe themselves are made of | contradictions. | | In logic, it's said that from a contradiction you can | validly deduce any proposition. | | The idea that contradictions are fundamental is horrifying; | it implies that any attempt to reason about the world is | doomed. I don't know how it would affect me if I believed | that. I hope you have a good therapist! | anm89 wrote: | Why is having a better understanding of the laws of physics a | nightmare for physicists? | dodobirdlord wrote: | Two points are important to consider. | | 1) It's clear that the standard model is an incomplete model, | due to some small discrepancies between theory and observation. | | 2) Large-scale particle physics experiments are very expensive | and depend on government funding, and politicians must be | persuaded to allocate funds. | | The nightmare scenario for particle physicists is that funding | bodies get bored of the lack of exciting new results before the | known discrepancies in the standard model are resolved, cease | funding particle physics experiments, and the discrepancies are | never resolved. | qwerty456127 wrote: | What else do they want to find? | danrocks wrote: | A use for cryptocurrencies? /s | krinchan wrote: | This is such a CERN thing to say, lol. | | "Bluh bluh the ILC and muon colliders aren't real! Neutrinos are | fake!! Low energy particle physics is a lie!" | | Also this article is weird because phase 2 for the LHC is under | way. Currently run 3 is happening and just started but this | article talks like the beam upgrade isn't happening. | | Also particle physics has gone far more than 10 years between | major discoveries. | | I'm gonna guess this author is yet another person who needs to | stop whining about supersymmetry not happening. Like the only | point the article makes (but makes it obliquely) is that | supersymmetry is no longer a good motivator of higher energy | beams. However, all our theories still break down at that level. | So there's still a crap ton of things to explore. | | I'm somewhat concerned that Science would go this click-bait with | an article. The mood is hardly a nightmare. | [deleted] | uwagar wrote: | the whole of western civilization built on materialism is in | trouble. | annyeonghada wrote: | On what are built others civilizations? I've yet to see a | civilization that is not built on money and power. | uwagar wrote: | all civilizations are now western civilisations (or in | progress). | | power though is not entirely material. | NateEag wrote: | I think OP meant the philosophical standpoint of materialism: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism | Terry_Roll wrote: | It was easy picking the low hanging fruit in the physics world | decades if not hundreds of years ago, in some case's you merely | had to pick up the fruit that had fallen off the tree! | NoGravitas wrote: | All I'm hoping for from the LHC is that they collapse the false | vacuum. | tiborsaas wrote: | Collapse your own false vacuum and please do it very far from | Earth, I'd like to enjoy our particles a bit more. | clerk_occam wrote: | I'd prefer if they didn't | Lapsa wrote: | can they find socks? they just disappear! | walnutclosefarm wrote: | There is an existential angst amongst particle physicists because | they all understand that they are the thoroughbred pets of the | scientific world. Even if they find something, it doesn't matter, | because they are working in energy regimes that are not reachable | in the ordinary physics of the universe as it exists today. Even | the discovery that the Higgs Boson as a lighter mass than | predicted, while intellectually intriguing doesn't matter outside | the very small circle of high energy and theoretical physicists. | In many ways, their field is already dead - they just haven't | acknowledged it yet. | marcosdumay wrote: | > Even if they find something, it doesn't matter | | Yeah, that's a general attitude. I highly doubt that it's true, | but most people seem to believe it. | | Just because you found the problem on a very high energy | setting, it doesn't mean that the changes in theory you will | get only impact very high energies. It may also impact low | energy events that are naturally rare or events that have some | consequence you can take out of the accelerator. | | All that you know is that the immediate consequence of the | finding won't matter. But new findings often have more | consequences than the immediate ones. | | If a new accelerator had a good chance of determining something | unknown, it could be a worthwhile investment. | dav_Oz wrote: | > _because they are working in energy regimes that are not | reachable in the ordinary physics of the universe as it exists | today._ | | This isn't accurate. Actually because of the higher energies (> | 10 orders of magnitude) naturally found throughout the universe | one could argue to concentrate more on collecting data of those | relatively ubiquitous events in the observable universe instead | of going through the route in obtaining some little fractions | of that energy on earth. | | Current "records" [0] | | > _Fastest Fermilab proton: 980 GeV; 99.999954% the speed of | light; 299,792,320 m /s. | | Fastest LHC proton: 7 TeV; 99.999990% the speed of light; | 299,792,455 m/s. | | Fastest LEP electron (fastest terrestrial accelerator | particle): 105 GeV; 99.9999999988% the speed of light; | 299,792,457.9964 m/s. | | Fastest cosmic ray proton: 5 x 10^10 GeV [!!!]; | 99.999999999999999999973% the speed of light; | 299,792,457.99999999999992 m/s._ | | [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/23/cosm | ... | walnutclosefarm wrote: | Yes, what you say is true. My argument was very poorly made. | Victerius wrote: | James Clerk Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with a pen | and paper. Einstein discovered special and general relativity in | the same way. | | Has theoretical physics advanced enough now that such pen and | paper discoveries are all but over, and the only way to continue | making progress is to dedicate an ever larger share of the global | economy's productive capacity to building larger and more | expensive experiments? | | What if we build a $200 billion collider that finds nothing? | | What if a $1 trillion collider is needed to continue making | progress? | | That could be a line out of Asimov. "And so eventually the entire | economy was exclusively focused on the construction of larger and | larger particle accelerators. There was no room for anything | else. Medical research was stopped. Movies stopped being | made.Improving the lot of mortals was abandoned as a policy. The | only thing that mattered to the 30 billion humans alive was to | build and pay for the next accelerator." | | Obviously an extreme extrapolation. But what if? Should we just | ... give up on particle physics? | mr_mitm wrote: | > James Clerk Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with a | pen and paper. Einstein discovered special and general | relativity in the same way. | | > Has theoretical physics advanced enough now that such pen and | paper discoveries are all but over, and the only way to | continue making progress is to dedicate an ever larger share of | the global economy's productive capacity to building larger and | more expensive experiments? | | That's a bit disingenuous. At the time, GR was an unconfirmed | theory not unlike, say, String Theory is today. Except it only | took a couple of years to confirm by experiment. | | Particle theorists and cosmologists have plenty of theories. | But deciding which one describes reality best can only be done | by data, no two ways about it. And yes, since most low hanging | fruits have been found, experiments become harder and harder. | Not to say more and more expensive. | | Your conclusion is correct though, that at some point a society | has to decide whether they can afford further progress. | | Perhaps we also haven't found a theory as convincing as | Einstein's GR because the math isn't there yet. GR was | discovered shortly after differential geometry was formulated, | and without it it would have been impossible. Similarly with | Newton's theory and calculus. | | So maybe what we need is the right breakthrough in math? | throw457 wrote: | The LHC cost was 2% of the yearly revenue of Apple I am | fairly certain that we can "afford" it. | macspoofing wrote: | Apparently the next-gen LHC replacement will cost on the | order of $100 billion. As a society (US, EU, or global), we | can certainly 'afford it', but no-one is going to be | writing that check anytime soon. | l33tman wrote: | Yet Musk was prepared to spend $42B on the twitter | purchase which would almost have been a null-op for the | world in comparison to funding basically any kind of | venture or experiment with the same amount of money... If | only Musk was more interested in the universe's structure | :) | [deleted] | mjreacher wrote: | >So maybe what we need is the right breakthrough in math? | | Funny you mention that, only recently I was reading a review | paper on the state of constructive quantum field theory [0]. | In the outlook section the author writes | | >Why haven't these models of greatest physical interest been | constructed yet (in any mathematically rigorous sense which | preserves the basic principles constantly evoked in heuristic | QFT and does not satisfy itself with an uncontrolled | approximation)? Certainly, one can point to the practical | fact that only a few dozen people have worked in CQFT. This | should be compared with the many hundreds working in string | theory and the thousands who have worked in elementary | particle physics. Progress is necessarily slow if only a few | are working on extremely difficult problems | | But they also say | | > It may also be the case that a completely new approach is | required | | This kind of mathematical physics is generally considered a | part of mathematics rather than physics, and this paper is | talking about formulating a rigorous mathematical framework | and elucidating conceptual ideas rather than about making new | predictions, but the idea that new mathematics is required is | certainly not a crazy one. | | [0]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3991 | im3w1l wrote: | It's a question worth asking, but I think ultimately humanity | needs a purpose. Something more than just survival and sensory | pleasure. It's almost a given that we will have them both in | abundance soon. And so increasingly the question we will face | as immortal beings in eternal bliss is "well now what". | Particle physics seems a reasonable way to pass time. | dlsa wrote: | Paperclips are important! We need to optimise paperclip | production! | | _some time later_ | | The entire universe is one giant paperclip constructor. | redler wrote: | You may find the Universal Paperclips game amusing. | | https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html | dlsa wrote: | _I already did._ | anigbrowl wrote: | This reminds me of a joke you recently told. | throw93232 wrote: | alienozi wrote: | hamter wrote: | weird conclusion | dotnet00 wrote: | What's being overlooked in that number is that the money | doesn't just disappear, it's going towards production of better | electronics and sensors, funding research labs and | universities, feeding back into other fields. Plus, it pays for | researchers and PhDs who also contribute back to the system, | often working on tangetially related projects in the process | (eg the internet being a result of a need to better share data | from CERN to researchers). The question to be asked should be | if all that is comparable to the investment, which I think it | is. | raverbashing wrote: | > James Clerk Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with a | pen and paper. Einstein discovered special and general | relativity in the same way. | | They had tabletop experiments (and telescope observations) that | gave them the clues they needed | | A lot of XX century physics was done in tabletop conditions (in | the 19xx) with danger to the experimentalists. Also climbing | mountains and capturing cosmic rays with photographic film | | We might still have something hidden but most of the low- | hanging fruit was discovered already. | pfdietz wrote: | If you need a machine the size of a small country to observe | an effect, chances are that effect is not going to have many | practical applications. If it did, it would have shown up at | the much smaller scale of those applications. | macspoofing wrote: | >Has theoretical physics advanced enough now that such pen and | paper discoveries are all but over | | There are plenty of theories generated by theoretical | physicists using pen and paper. The problem is that we can't | reach the energy scales necessary to test those theories. | | >What if a $1 trillion collider is needed to continue making | progress? | | That's the problem with colliders now. We don't actually know | if there are any interesting physics happening at energy scales | that are within human reach. Maybe the next 'interesting' | threshold can only come about from a galaxy-size collider - so | $1 trillion collider isn't going to do squat for you. | | >Should we just ... give up on particle physics? | | I think we did. There was an article recently about how a next- | gen collider to replace the LHC will cost on the order of $100 | billion. No one is going to spend that kind of money, so we're | done with collider physics for the next few decades. | radicaldreamer wrote: | The same thing happened when the Texas Superconducting | Supercollider was cancelled (after >$2 billion spent) but we | eventually got LHC. There'll be a winter in high energy | physics but eventually the tide will turn. | bsder wrote: | > James Clerk Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with a | pen and paper. Einstein discovered special and general | relativity in the same way. | | They also had quite solid experimental anomalies they were | trying to explain. | | Black body radiation was an anomaly. Radioactivity was an | anomaly. Photelectric effect was an anomaly. Mercury's orbit | and rotation were anomalies. | | Particle physics isn't done, but colliders probably are. | Terrestrial particle physics is effectively rudderless since | there are no anomalies left for them to probe. | | It looks like it's going to be LIGO and the Webb to point to | our new headings. | sdfhdhjdw3 wrote: | > James Clerk Maxwell united electricity and magnetism with a | pen and paper. Einstein discovered special and general | relativity in the same way. | | This is hilarious, because these days the criticism of physics | is that it's all "theories and ideas". | | > But what if? Should we just ... give up on particle physics? | | Should we just give up on learning? | yread wrote: | Reminds me of an old joke about our uni: | | Physicists keep coming to the head of the university with new | requests for buying expensive machines. At some point it's one | too many and he exclaims: | | "Can't you be more like the mathematicians? They need just | pens, paper and a paper bin! Or the philosophers?! They need | just pens and paper." | piokoch wrote: | And how much time Maxwell or Einstein spent on their research | and how much time on chasing grants and tenure positions? Were | they required to publish X papers a year, target assigned by | some university manager? Were they forced to amuse and be nice | for their students, so they will look good on yearly teacher's | assessment? | burmanm wrote: | Well, we also blow up billions in missiles that achieve | nothing. So, why not smash some particles instead? | Victerius wrote: | Missiles advance rocketry, electronics, composite materials, | fuel chemistry, and precision guidance, all technologies | we'll need more of in the future. | Beltiras wrote: | We probably wouldn't have the LHC now if the results hadn't | been applicable to blowing stuff up for previous incarnations | of it. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I would absolutely prefer smashing particles over smashing | missiles. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | If building and paying for bigger and bigger accelerators would | be the only things that matters for humanity, it wouldn't be | that bad. First, servicing the accelerator is a major source of | employment to the economy. I think it is a much better way to | spend money than maintaining all the militaries in the world. | Second, such a project will require a lot of highly educated | personnel to run it, so it'll require a considerable investment | in education. | treyhuffine wrote: | The Higgs itself was conceived on paper and proven in the LHC. | | Do we lack theories that can be conceived on pen and paper just | the ability to test any of them? | fithisux wrote: | They could open projects in a git hosting site, publish their | code in a polished form. | | They can even contribute to various projects related to their | work. | | Or create a data hosting service for others to examine them. | Shahar603 wrote: | What if the people at CERN made a tool so they can communicate | amongst themselves more easily, as well as everyone else in the | world too. | xoac wrote: | Yeah also they could create a new javascript framework | zackmorris wrote: | I have so many problems with the physics status quo that it's | hard to know where to begin. But here are a few code smells: | | * The strong force probably doesn't exist. It's an empirical | description of what happens in the nucleus around 10^-15 meters. | But due to stuff like gluon self-interaction, it's difficult to | analyze. I suspect that it's related to the curvature of space | around mass and is probably connected to neutron star and black | hole math. But as long as it's portrayed as unified with the | electromagnetic and weak forces, I just don't see us gaining a | better understanding of it anytime soon. Also the description of | the force between quarks increasing with distance, enough to | concentrate enough energy to create more quarks (like how a high- | energy photon can split into a particle and antiparticle), feels | more like epicycles than deep understanding. | | * Physics right now seems more obsessed with mathematical | elegance than application. Normally I prefer theory and | abstraction over implementation, but what's the point of | discovering a Higgs boson if we can't modulate it? It's nice to | know it's there, but what are the chances of using energy to | manipulate an object's inertia? I suspect that it's more of a | clever mathematical construct than a force we will ever | manipulate in our daily lives. Actually, re-reading | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Simple_explana... | and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_generation it sounds like | the Higgs mechanism is more about explaining the masses of | particles than how to manipulate mass. The problem might be in | how long range and short range forces (carried by massless gauge | bosons and massive gauge bosons respectively) are treated | differently. That's almost certainly not the final model of | reality, and writing this out, I bet it's one of the main reasons | that string theory tries to add so many dimensions that maybe | aren't there. But since I'm not literate in this, I can't dig | into the code. | | * Physics education is just.. bad. Understandably so, because so | much of this is so fringe and so new that only a handful of | people in the world actually understand it at a deep level. Which | is why I think videos like this are so important: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b05IeSlMMDw . Notice how she | skips over notation pedantry and calls the bracket notation | vectors. She also isolates entanglement as the key mechanism of | quantum computers (at the 4:21 mark). I've read countless | articles on that for YEARS that never stated what's going on with | such clarity. So if we can't simulate entanglement inside a | classical computer, then we can't simulate reality in them, | because we wouldn't be able to build a quantum computer within | The Matrix. So are we living in a simulation? Probably not. | | I bring this stuff up because the problem is probably in my own | lack of understanding, not physics itself. So more budget needs | to go to education and refactoring the existing physics | "codebase" to use better notation and terms. Maybe you all have | insights that invalidate my concerns. Those insights should be at | the forefront of every Wikipedia article, not buried inside | somewhere. | [deleted] | SassyGrapefruit wrote: | I think "nightmare" is a bit sensational. The LHC's purpose is | not to "find X" it is to take measurements over a novel range of | conditions. The new data is what we're after. | soheil wrote: | > I think "nightmare" is a bit sensational. | | My thoughts exactly. So this journal is owned by American | Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (cool | acronym, that was close). Which according to wikipedia is a | non-profit. What motivates an organization like that to produce | clickbaity articles like this? I thought money was the primary | motivation for such journalistic behavior. | blueplanet200 wrote: | The new data is what we're after ... to make discoveries! It's | not just new data for new data's sake. | | The LHC in that regard has fell short. | Certhas wrote: | "Nightmare" was how physicists themselves characterize the | situation we are in, and have done for at least 15 years. | | Look at the 2007 article linked in the article above: | | https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.315.5819.1657 | | Jonathan Ellis is on the record there describing the scenario | we find ourselves in now as "the real five-star disaster". (you | can get the full article by putting the link into | scholar.google.com). And I recall hearing and reading the | "nightmare scenario" phrase before that 2007 article. | eightysixfour wrote: | IMO it is a five-star disaster for this generation of | particle physicists, not for physics. | aeturnum wrote: | I think people here should imagine it like an infrastructure | investment with an extremely bad ROI. People are using it and | it's well-made, but the return on our investment would never | have justified the cost in time or effort. | | The whole history of high energy physics is a back-and-forth | between models and experiment. We get to a new energy level, | try some things that the models are ambiguous about, and | previously we've gotten new and interesting results that lead | people to reshape models and make new predictions. That has | not, generally, happened with the LHC. The frustrating | limitations and inconsistencies of the standard model are the | same as when we built it. | | The problem is we spent a lot of money and time and focus on | building a tool that has not actually moved us forward much. | This happens from time to time - but it's bad! We have not | made our series of scientific advances by getting lucky on a | bunch of coin flips - we've been able to use previous | experiments to design the next set of tools in ways that | productively open up parts of the science we could not | observe before. The fact that we seem to have failed to | accomplish this with one of the largest, most expensive tools | ever built calls into question the methods that led us to | choose to build this tool instead of other possible ones. | Allower wrote: | jakey_bakey wrote: | It says they were looking for particles with supersymmetry - I | know on The Big Bang Theory they discovered Super Asymmetry - do | you think the boffins at CERN have tried looking for that? | micromacrofoot wrote: | Maybe we need a bigger collider. Earth would look cool with a | ring around it. | adtac wrote: | I only have an amateur interest in physics, so I'm sorry if this | sounds dumb, but I often think about what if we've reached as far | as we can go within the current framework of physics? This is | more meta-science than actual science, but what if we made some | decisions very early in the development of physics and | mathematics and we need to revisit those? | tejohnso wrote: | Perhaps one such decision is that matter is fundamental. There | are increasingly substantial cases being made that this is now | holding us back in physics, and that we need to consider that | consciousness is fundamental, and matter is only a consequence | of it. See, for example Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. | robertlagrant wrote: | How do you define "increasingly substantial"? | onionisafruit wrote: | What does fundamental mean in this case? | alex_sf wrote: | Nothing. It's pseudoscientific nonsense. | denton-scratch wrote: | I'm not a physicist; but the GP mentioned consciousness as | an alternative to matter as the fundamental "substance". | | Well, I've come across that idea before; in certain kinds | of Buddhism, consciousness is considered fundamental, the | senses are created by consciousness, and the material world | is projected by consciousness through the senses. | | Well, this was explained to me in the context of a | particular type of tantric Buddhism; but actually the basic | idea is common across most mainstream Buddhism. Most | schools teach that the universe is cyclical, and is | completely destroyed at the end of an era, before being | recreated ex-nihilo. The creation process is started with | the appearance of Brahma, who then hallucinates the rest of | the universe into existence. | | So in that model, it is consciousness, not matter that is | fundamental, because the material world cannot come into | existence without consciousness. | karthikk wrote: | it is a reversal of "I think, therefore I am" -> "I am, | therefore I think" | | (slight nitpick, the idea(consciousness is fundamental, | creation is cyclical) goes back much earlier than | buddhism and is part of advaita vedanta.) | denton-scratch wrote: | > slight nitpick | | I'm aware that the cyclical universe is from the vedas; a | lot of what passes for Buddhist metaphysics is pre- | Buddhist. The Buddha didn't care much for metaphysical | pronouncements; he was more a meditation teacher than a | cosmologist. | | So I didn't mean to claim that these ideas were Buddhist | in origin; I just learned of them from Buddhists. | catchclose8919 wrote: | ...so you're just using "Brahma" to refer to the computer | that is running the simulation that is the universe. And | when the simulation becomes aware of its own condition, | it becomes conscious? | | This is just rephrasing of the symulation hypothesis in | mystical terms and is just as useless as the symulation | hypothesis itself (regardless if it's "true" or not). | | There's some valuable deeper stuff in hindu and buddhist | philosophies, but this set of ideas isn't it (neither | valuable nor actually deep, just "exotic" sounding to an | extent). | denton-scratch wrote: | > ...so you're just using "Brahma" to refer to the | computer that is running the simulation that is the | universe. | | That "Brahma" isn't a computer; the model doesn't suggest | that the universe is a simulation. You seem to have | wedged in an interpretation that is fundamentally | materialist, which sort of misses the point; according to | this model, consciousness is fundamental. That is what | was being discussed. | | I agree that it's "mystical" to postulate that | consciousness is fundamental; but it's equally mystical | to assume that matter is fundamental. | | In the Buddhist tradition where I learned this, the | Brahma story was just that - a myth. But they treated the | "consciousness is fundamental" thing as a core teaching, | they elaborated it, and the practices grew out of that | view. The tradition was a practice tradition; they | shunned metaphysical speculation, and "philosophy" was | generally treated as another technique for breaking-down | conceptual thought. | | This wasn't something you were supposed to believe, or | reason about; it was presented as a way of seeing the | world (a "view") that was useful in Buddhist practice. In | the same tradition, we were taught that all views are | provisional. | | I was just answering the OP's question about what | "fundamental" means in this context. I am not advocating | for the view that consciousness is fundamental. I happen | to take the view that consciousness exists, and is not an | emergent phenomenon; but I don't have a philosophical | system built around that idea. It's just that I can't see | how the subjective experience of consciousness can emerge | from what amounts to a system of levers and gears. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | There is no such thing as "consciousness". | | There is, however, free will. | | Information complexity is a real and measurable physical | quantity, and unlike all others it doesn't obey conservation | laws. | | The sigularity that happens when information complexity is | out of control is colloqually called "free will". | | (Someday maybe we'll be able to map information complexity | the same way we now map cosmic background radiation. Now that | would be a sight to behold!) | rightbyte wrote: | My feeling is that a big part of the physics field is trying to | see patterns in noise and equipement artifacts. | nl wrote: | This is untrue. | guynamedloren wrote: | I think the idea here is that it happens unintentionally, | unknowingly. | have_faith wrote: | Very large efforts are made to predict noise floors within | data, prevent it, account for it, average over it with | multiple tests, etc. | a9h74j wrote: | Indeed, AFAIK part of the progress, even while their are no | discoveries being made, is in having a better-calibrated | detector. In part, better statistics yield better | calibration. | Sharlin wrote: | We have found a set of (relatively simple) rules that match (a | large part of) reality so well that no matter what we do, we | don't seem to be able to get any results that would indicate | the rules are wrong or even slightly inaccurate. However, we | are almost certain they _are_ wrong, or at least incomplete - | but given how well they model reality it would be _astonishing_ | if it turned out that we 're on a totally wrong track and the | actual rules are completely different. | Agamus wrote: | I think this is correct. My sense is that the assumption of | _individuation_ is at the core of logic, which then infects all | rational thinking. (We add the predicates to "things", and then | forget that we added them!) | | If there are no individual things, as quantum field theory | seems to suggest, what are numbers counting? | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg | | http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html | JieJie wrote: | What a great video. Thanks! Professor Tong specifically talks | about the subject of this article (LHC coming up with | bupkis), but five years ago. Seems like he may be being | vindicated a little here. | brnaftr361 wrote: | If the pattern Kuhn shows in _The Structure of a Scientific | Revolution_ holds, one might presume at some time a crisis will | emerge which will influence the development of higher | resolution tools and techniques and with them more evidence. | The "nightmare" seems like exactly what is outlined as a | predictable error in the model - it'll be interesting to see | what happens. | hobs wrote: | I don't think that's what the book says, just that solving | problems with the new framework is what makes it popular | enough with the next generation. | | More specificity or higher resolution is not implied, though | it can happen after the paradigm has shifted as a new set of | niches are waiting to be explored and filled. | brnaftr361 wrote: | I do believe that's precisely what it says: science adopts | a new paradigm with a comprehensive view which predicts | most cases, at some point the threshold is reached through | normal science where a model falls apart, failing to | predict given effects, and probity for answers surrounding | that requires new tools (or techniques), which are | developed to study the "unpredicted" effects mentioned | above and a more comprehensive understanding is developed. | At this point there may be a challenge to the paradigm, | which yes, may be overturned upon favorable comportment. | | See phlogiston. If we fairly assume that measurements are | multidimensional and thus techniques to observe new | dimensions can be conferred to have increased resolution... | | But I'd absolutely concede that I may have misread. But I | do believe Kuhn was fairly explicit in detailing this | process. Please correct me if I'm wrong. | pdabbadabba wrote: | I think your reading is about right, though I'm not sure | about your application of it to the current situation. | The "crisis" being discussed today in physics is quite | different from the ones Kuhn describes--in some ways it | is the opposite situation. For Kuhn, as you note, the | crisis comes when existing theoretical models prove | completely inadequate to make sense of new data, so the | old model has to be largely thrown out and a new paradigm | built in its place. | | Today's crisis in physics (if that's what it is) seems to | be that, even though our existing model seems incomplete | for theoretical reasons (lack of harmonization between | models, for example), it continues to fit all the | empirical data we have been able to generate. Really, we | are _hoping_ to stumble upon a new paradigm, but we can | 't seem to make it happen. | mhh__ wrote: | There is still huge amounts of work to do in the less | fundamental aspects of physics. | Certhas wrote: | That's not the problem we face though. | | Consider the following: | | For all terrestrial phenomena that we have observe so far we | have a theory of everything. | | In order to put matter into a state where it behaves in such a | way that you can tell the difference between two competing | theories that describe the world, you have to build the LHC. | Anything less than that and the theories all are perfectly good | at describing what we see. | | I think there is a tendency to misunderstand LHC and it's high | energies as somehow being "brute force". High energy really | just means small structures. It's better to think of it as the | worlds best microscope. LIGO is the worlds best ruler. So we're | measuring the world and it's matter to an unfathomable | precision and we do not see meaningful divergence between | theory and experiment. | | We know there is more out there, but it's not stuff we can | study on earth. That's the single biggest problem. | survirtual wrote: | Let's build a particle accelerator on the moon. Make it go | around the circumference of the entire moon. | XorNot wrote: | For the effort it would be easier to build one around the | Earth. Double it up as a driveable highway, rail and | electrical infrastructure (and then you can use solar power | sold on a global market where one side is always in | daylight). | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Um... doesn't it produce synchrotron radiation while | operating? I'm not sure that you want to be driving on | that... | hanniabu wrote: | Good ol' corporate lobbying will make that a non-issue | Isinlor wrote: | Given current predictions we would need colliders the size | of the Solar System. | | Something bigger than Neptune orbit. | | We are ~12 orders of magnitude away from the grand | unification energy. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_energy | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_(particle_physics) | mckravchyk wrote: | Wouldn't it be at a big risk of being destroyed by a | meteorite ? | hinkley wrote: | Hollywood has vastly overplayed the actual density of | asteroid fields. It's kind of disappointing. | | If you build something in a vacuum then you don't | necessarily need a single continuous piece to create a | vacuum. If you specced an accelerator a million miles in | diameter, the diameter matters from a standpoint of | whether we can accelerate the particle sideways fast | enough to keep it in the track, but they are also saying | they need 3.1 million miles of accelerator hardware. They | are _implying_ they can't lay it out as a crazy straw, | but is that because of the lateral acceleration, the | interaction between the coils, or the limits of | manufacturing? | | What if you built a collider in a spherical arrangement, | accelerating in three dimensions at once, but 1/3 the | diameter? What if the accelerator were broken into | sections to dodge asteroids, with a cumulative segment | length that added up to the desired total? What if you | laid it out like a Spirograph? What if you laid it out | like a truncated Spirograph (just bits of the outer | circumference)? What if you laid it out like a 3 | dimensional truncated Spirograph? | forgotpwd16 wrote: | It won't be surprising if we eventually do. A particle | accelerator beyond Earth has been often discussed, and | recently a paper[0] even sketched such a project for Moon. | | [0]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/a | c4921/... | hinkley wrote: | We used to make gasoline by heating oil very very hot and | separating it. As long as you can keep it away from oxygen we | don't explode. | | But now we have catalysts that allow us to get more gas from | the same oil, and with less heat. Less energy for a bigger | gain. | | Big, hot, smashy, explodey things are good for a proof of | concept, but for a practical application we want to make them | smaller and lower energy (per unit) then scale them up huge | (more units) and keep the energy down (magnitude + per unit). | | Can you make these particles in a different environment? Can | you move some of the embodied energy into a material? Can you | reuse that material? All of these are good questions. If we | answer them then the next LHC maybe doesn't have to be an | order of magnitude bigger and power hungry in order to see | over the next horizon. Maybe 2x would do it. | dodobirdlord wrote: | At issue here is the fact that what physicists need to | conduct experiments is not more data, but different data. | To study higher energy levels, more energetic particles are | needed. Generating more particles at similar energy levels | and producing more data is not without value, and has been | the work of the last few years at the LHC, but is | considered unlikely to turn up surprises since it's data | about particles at a similar energy level to previous runs. | bannedbybros wrote: | Barrera wrote: | Stagnation of scientific fields is normal and can last many | years. In that time, little anomalies pile up, are swept under | the rug, and largely forgotten. To admit anomalies can ruin | careers, after all. | | Eventually someone (often very young/inexperienced) comes along | and upends the field by proposing a different model or doing the | experiment whose weight breaks the camels back. | | What's new here is the scale of the work. It's not clear how you | upend a field where the price of entry is measured in billions of | dollars. | chasil wrote: | Fortunately, this new table-top Higgs discovery was not very | expensive. | | Anything requiring the resources of the LHC or more will be far | from spontaneous. | | https://www.livescience.com/magnetic-higgs-relative-discover... | roywiggins wrote: | The reporting on that one was pretty terrible. | | They discovered a quasi-particle, a behavior of some bulk | matter that behaves like a Higgs. Not the same thing at all | as the LHC's Higgs discovery. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle | XorNot wrote: | Well that's not the case though: you can upend the field with | data from the LHC - after all Einstein didn't do the Michelson- | Mauley (how I spelt that right) experiment himself, but Special | Relativity was developed out of that result existing. | chopin wrote: | Michelson-Morley experiment: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exp. | ... | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Stagnation of scientific fields is normal and can last many | years. In that time, little anomalies pile up, are swept under | the rug, and largely forgotten. To admit anomalies can ruin | careers, after all. | | Could not be more wrong for Particle Physics. An Anomaly could | define your career and herald a Nobel Prize. That's exactly | what we're looking for. We desperately want to find anomalies, | not hide them. | iLoveOncall wrote: | Really? Because the article seems to say the complete | opposite in multiple instances. | | "Oh hey this thing doesn't match what is expected according | to the standard model but yeah the standard model is tots | fine bro." | | > _For example, in 2017, physicists working with LHCb, one of | four large particle detectors fed by the LHC, found that B | mesons, particles that contain a heavy bottom quark, decay | more often to an electron and a positron than to a particle | called a muon and an antimuon. The standard model says the | two rates should be the same, and the difference might be a | hint of supersymmetric partners, Ellis says._ | | So why is the standard model not in the trashcan? | at_a_remove wrote: | You never trashcan a model. You _replace_ a model. You | replace it with something else that is better. | | Currently, we don't have a "something else" that 1) | explains everything the Standard Model does in the same | places with the same results, 2) also explains whatever | anomaly. | adamsmith143 wrote: | >Really? Because the article seems to say the complete | opposite in multiple instances. | | Where is it saying that Physicists are trying to avoid | anomalous data? | | >"Oh hey this thing doesn't match what is expected | according to the standard model but yeah the standard model | is tots fine bro." | | No one in the Physics community thinks like this. As I said | it's very nearly the complete opposite, that if major | problems in the model were found via experiment the person | who found it would be cheering because they just guaranteed | themselves a Nobel Prize. The problems with the Standard | Model are widely known and deeply studied. | | >So why is the standard model not in the trashcan? | | Because despite it's known shortcomings it can still | calculate 99.99% of scenarios with arbitrary accuracy. | There's a reason Newtonian Mechanics are still taught, | because for the cast majority of cases it completely works. | dragonwriter wrote: | > So why is the standard model not in the trashcan? | | Because there's not a strictly superior replacement yet. | | All models are wrong, some are useful. | noslenwerdna wrote: | How does finding an anomaly ruin a career? Any examples from | particle physics? | lamontcg wrote: | Kind of happy right now that I didn't decide to dedicate my life | to this when I was in my 20s and went off and did something else. | I would have been awfully frustrating to spend 30 years in a | quest to find nothing new. | | Hopefully at some point someone cracks open the desert, but I'm | somewhat skeptical that it'll happen through the high energy | frontier. | | My bet is that quantum computation and decoherence is where it'll | be. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-15 23:00 UTC)