Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

New largest particle accelerator design specs

international linear collider dark matter particle accelerator

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1    Still Waters

Still Waters

    Deeply Mysterious

  • 38,614 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • "Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better." - Albert Einstein

Posted 13 June 2013 - 03:51 PM

One of the biggest science projects in human history is ready to begin. Scientists from around the world announced today that they have completed the final design specs for what will become the largest particle accelerator ever built, the International Linear Collider, a planned 19.3-mile-long (31 km) machine that will be used to reveal the properties of dark matter and other fundamental particles that make up the universe.

http://www.theverge....linear-collider

Posted Image

#2    Dark_Grey

Dark_Grey

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,580 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

  • if (empty($universe)) {
    include 'reality.php';
    }

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:39 PM

So...another Hadron Collider?

“These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these newspapers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”

- Roosevelt


#3    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 June 2013 - 04:56 PM

View PostDark_Grey, on 13 June 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

So...another Hadron Collider?
Seems like they want it to be a lepton collider.

I wouldn't make too much of this announcement though; this is just the high-energy science community coming up with a plan for their next-generation detector.

The important announcement will be the one if and when they actually get the $8 billion or whatever to build the machine. It isn't like every planned accelerator gets built.


#4    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,116 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 13 June 2013 - 05:14 PM

Great! As far as financing goes, the top 100 billionaire's total wealth is one trillian seven hundred and ten billion U.S. dollars according to Forbes. The top 30 of these people's wealth reaches the trillion dollar mark.

One would think these people would get together and donate some of their money collectively to something like this for the advancement of human knowledge.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
My credentials: http://www.unexplain...ic=87935&st=225

#5    David Thomson

David Thomson

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:13 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alma, IL

Posted 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM

The data from these collisions are nothing more than streaks on film.  Where are the equations that show how a so-called Higgs relates to an electron or proton?  I mean, if the Higg's is a building block of matter, what is its contribution to the structures of subatomic particles?

For example, we are told that electrons and protons follow shell structures in atoms.  We know the mass, charge, spin, radius, and other factors relating to subatomic particles.  What are the specifics for the Higgs?  They do not exist.

The Higgs is an interpretation of billions of streaks of light on a series of photographs that are expected to be a certain length and width and perhaps with a specific curvature.  There are many scientists who say the data so far collected is nothing different from randomness.  

And even if the Higgs exists, what function does it have?  What are its mechanics?  What is the paradigm for this particles such that it fits in with the structure of the Universe?  So far, it is nothing more than a statistic that supposedly fits an obscure expectation based upon a bunch of unfounded assumptions.  

And nobody questions this in terms of the several billions of dollars already spent in search of it?  

I will tell you what the Higgs really is.  It is job security that ensures otherwise unemployable scientists have a paycheck.


#6    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,385 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:28 PM

Yeah, the technology and physics seem to be there, but not the funding.

Given the mysterious origin of "dark matter" I can only suppose that this might be a worthwhile endeavor.

Just an opinion, of course.


#7    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:30 PM

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

The data from these collisions are nothing more than streaks on film.
... Well they don't use film any more, but basically yes...

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

Where are the equations that show how a so-called Higgs relates to an electron or proton?
Well, briefly, they are on the wiki. I guess one could argue that strictly speaking the Higgs boson doesn't relate to electrons or protons at all, the Higgs boson is just the scalar portion of a Goldstone symmetry breaking process that gives mass to the Z, W+, and W- bosons that mediate the weak nuclear force.

But assuming some sort of Yukawa coupling, (which seems reasonable) the Higgs mechanism would also give mass to fermions like quarks and electrons.

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

I mean, if the Higg's is a building block of matter, what is its contribution to the structures of subatomic particles?
It isn't a building block of matter, any more than a photon is.

The Higgs boson is a gauge boson - i.e. a quantized excitation - of the Higgs field. It is this field that gives particles mass, just like it is the electromagnetic field (the photon is the gauge boson for this field) gives particles charge.

Detecting the appropriate gauge boson is essential to proving that the field actually exists (and therefore can be held responsible for the well-observed property of mass). However since the Higgs field is hard to perturb, and the gauge bosons are hard to detect (mass interacts with itself rather weakly compared to electric charge, for example), it takes a lot of energy to create a gauge boson and a lot of bosons must be created to unambiguously detect them.

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

For example, we are told that electrons and protons follow shell structures in atoms.  We know the mass, charge, spin, radius, and other factors relating to subatomic particles.  What are the specifics for the Higgs?
What are the specifics for a photon? Rest mass and spin (rest mass is 0, spin magnitude is always 1 hbar).
The same is true for the Higgs (Rest mass seems to be 125 GeV or so, spin is always 0 hbar).

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

And even if the Higgs exists, what function does it have?  What are its mechanics?  What is the paradigm for this particles such that it fits in with the structure of the Universe?
Very, very, well explained. The Higgs mechanism has been a well-established theory since the 1960s.


#8    David Thomson

David Thomson

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:13 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alma, IL

Posted 14 June 2013 - 05:43 PM

The data from these collisions are nothing more than streaks on film.  Where are the equations that show how a so-called Higgs relates to an electron or proton?  I mean, if the Higg's is a building block of matter, what is its contribution to the structures of subatomic particles?

For example, we are told that electrons and protons follow shell structures in atoms.  We know the mass, charge, spin, radius, and other factors relating to subatomic particles.  What are the specifics for the Higgs?  They do not exist.

The Higgs is an interpretation of billions of streaks of light on a series of photographs that are expected to be a certain length and width and perhaps with a specific curvature.  There are many scientists who say the data so far collected is nothing different from randomness.  

And even if the Higgs exists, what function does it have?  What are its mechanics?  What is the paradigm for this particles such that it fits in with the structure of the Universe?  So far, it is nothing more than a statistic that supposedly fits an obscure expectation based upon a bunch of unfounded assumptions.  

And nobody questions this in terms of the several billions of dollars already spent in search of it?  

I will tell you what the Higgs really is.  It is job security that ensures otherwise unemployable scientists have a paycheck.


#9    David Thomson

David Thomson

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 25 posts
  • Joined:13 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alma, IL

Posted 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM

View Postsepulchrave, on 14 June 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Well, briefly, they are on the wiki. I guess one could argue that strictly speaking the Higgs boson doesn't relate to electrons or protons at all, the Higgs boson is just the scalar portion of a Goldstone symmetry breaking process that gives mass to the Z, W+, and W- bosons that mediate the weak nuclear force.
That is exactly my point.  The Higgs does not apply to structure.  Scalars and symmetries are merely calculus equations.  Calculus equations describe change, not structure.  Structure is.  Change is what happens to structure.

Further, there is no such thing as a "weak nuclear force."  The strong nuclear force, the gravitational force, and the electric force are measurable in newtons, which is the unit of force.  The so-called "weak nuclear force" is merely a dimensionless number and it is best described as a ratio of the electric and magnetic forces.

Modern physics treats the dimensionless ratio as a particle.  Hence, the W bosons are said to be particles of force, which is completely illogical.  Force is a property of structure, it is not particulate of itself.  So the physicists looking for the Higgs are basing their understanding of physics on the assumption that force has a particulate structure (not an object imparting force, but the force itself) and the assumption that the "weak nuclear force" is a force when it is not.

Quote

But assuming some sort of Yukawa coupling, (which seems reasonable) the Higgs mechanism would also give mass to fermions like quarks and electrons.
Here is another major farce in the Higgs argument.  Mass is treated like it is a particle, when it is not.  Mass is a property of particles, just like length, frequency, and charge.  Mass is a non-material form of existence.  Nothing gives something mass.  Mass is.  Just like the length between two planets is finite and measurable and yet has no physical existence, mass of matter is measurable even though it has no physical existence.  The unit of force has mass as one of its dimensions.  The unit of energy has mass as one of its dimensions.  The unit of resistance has mass as one of its dimensions.  Neither force, energy, or resistance are physical or particulate objects.  They are merely properties of matter.

Quote

It isn't a building block of matter, any more than a photon is.
A photon is a particle of space.  This is where the Aether concept arose several hundred years ago.  Scientists realized that space has to have structure in order to explain the observed structures in light.  Modern physics assumes space has no structure at all, but they acknowledge positive holes in electronics, frame dragging, General relativity, warped space, wave-particle duality, particle spin, atomic shells, magnetic fields, electric fields, and gravitational fields; all of which are structures of space.  Photons have reality and they do contribute to the structure and physics of matter.  The Higgs contributes nothing except to the paychecks of engineers and those who will support the myth.

Quote

The Higgs boson is a gauge boson - i.e. a quantized excitation - of the Higgs field. It is this field that gives particles mass, just like it is the electromagnetic field (the photon is the gauge boson for this field) gives particles charge.
Again, mass is a dimension.  It is a property of something.  If they have discovered what gives particles their mass, then they have also discovered what gives particles their length and frequency.  

Also, particles do not get their charge from photons.  Charge, like mass, length, and frequency, is just a dimension.  It is not a thing that goes flying around in space.  This is not to say that things that fly through space cannot have the property of charge.  Obviously, electrons have the property of charge and they can fly through space.  But charge is not a particle of itself.  It is a property of something.  This is why the Higgs Boson myth is a major farce.  Nothing gives particles their mass.  And neither is there a field that gives particles their mass.  Mass is simply a dimension.  It is.

Quote

Detecting the appropriate gauge boson is essential to proving that the field actually exists (and therefore can be held responsible for the well-observed property of mass). However since the Higgs field is hard to perturb, and the gauge bosons are hard to detect (mass interacts with itself rather weakly compared to electric charge, for example), it takes a lot of energy to create a gauge boson and a lot of bosons must be created to unambiguously detect them.
This is all nonsense based upon faulty assumptions.

Quote

What are the specifics for a photon? Rest mass and spin (rest mass is 0, spin magnitude is always 1 hbar).
The same is true for the Higgs (Rest mass seems to be 125 GeV or so, spin is always 0 hbar).
This is another faulty argument.  How can the Higgs have a "rest mass" of 125 GeV when an electron has a "rest mass" of .511 MeV?  How can something so huge be unobservable when something so small as an electron is readily observable?  It is like someone noticing fleas on a dog but missing the elephant in the room.  Why does there need to be a huge accelerator costing billions of dollars to find a 125 GeV particle when .511 MeV particles are easily observed in a common CRT TV set?  

Quote

Very, very, well explained. The Higgs mechanism has been a well-established theory since the 1960s.
I do not disagree that the theory is well-established.  What I disagree with is that the theory is correct.  The Standard Model is a major failure.  The advancement of technology has taken place in spite of physics thanks to the natural laws of trial and error.  Theories are constantly being put forth to explain how impossible things can occur.  As a result, the Standard Model is an "undisputed" theory with many exceptions.  

Just in 2011, CERN finally published the fact that photons generated by the Casimir effect are real photons and not "virtual" photons.  Translated, this means new energy is being generated by the Casimir effect.  This is impossible with the present Standard Model and the reason for this is that physics assumes the entire Universe is visible to our equipment.  They believe this despite the fact that dark matter is postulated to exist and that abundant evidence exists to support it.  Dark matter is clearly existing outside the bounds of our four dimensional frame of reference.  But instead of change the foundations of physics, no, they invent all this nonsense about dimensionless force, force particles, wave-particle duality, probability functions of matter, huge unobservable Higgs fields, and numerous other patches to common sense.


#10    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 14 June 2013 - 07:18 PM

I take it that the need for a larger one means the other is a white Elephant?

Posted Image

#11    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 June 2013 - 08:33 PM

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

That is exactly my point.  The Higgs does not apply to structure.  Scalars and symmetries are merely calculus equations.  Calculus equations describe change, not structure.  Structure is.  Change is what happens to structure.
Well for starters, you asked for the equations.

It seems to me like you have a problem with the terminology of a theory, not the actual consequences of a theory.

In modern physics it is commonly accepted that ``fields'' are the fundamental reality. What we observe is a consequence of fields manifesting in a particular way.

But if you don't like that, we can easily switch our language, the actual predictions of a theory will stay the same.

How about this:

Electric charge, color (strong nuclear force), and isospin (weak nuclear force) all exist.

The reason why we know they exist is because each is the fundamental generator of a particular type of interaction.

We have also noticed that ``bare'' interactions emit quantized amounts of energy, spin (and sometimes other things).

We call the quantized emissions from a ``bare'' interaction gauge bosons (because they clearly obey Bose statistics). In some cases (when these quantized emissions carry a non-zero rest mass) these gauge bosons act almost exclusively like particles themselves.

There is another interaction between particles: that of inertial mass (i.e. a property that dictates the kinetic motion of particles.)

Why is it so ridiculous that this interaction would also have a characteristic quantized emission?

Forgive me, but a lot of this sounds like you don't understand second quantization, and Ppretty much every one of your comments seems (to me at least) more appropriate to a general rant against the use of Feynman diagrams, not the Higgs boson in particular.

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

This is another faulty argument.  How can the Higgs have a "rest mass" of 125 GeV when an electron has a "rest mass" of .511 MeV?  How can something so huge be unobservable when something so small as an electron is readily observable?  It is like someone noticing fleas on a dog but missing the elephant in the room.  Why does there need to be a huge accelerator costing billions of dollars to find a 125 GeV particle when .511 MeV particles are easily observed in a common CRT TV set?
Why are two different things different?

The Higgs boson doesn't ``give'' particles mass. Any time a scientist says this they are just trying to avoid a technical description.

The Higgs field is (or is just a short-hand expression for, if you don't think fields are real things) the common element connecting the inertial behaviour of particles.

Saying a particle has a 0 rest mass is equivalent to saying a particle doesn't couple to the Higgs field. (It just depends on whether you think ``mass'' or ``Higgs field'' is a better descriptor of fundamental reality.)

Creating a free excitation of the Higgs field (i.e. the Higgs boson) is completely independent of the rest mass of any actual particle.

View PostDavid Thomson, on 14 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Just in 2011, CERN finally published the fact that photons generated by the Casimir effect are real photons and not "virtual" photons.  Translated, this means new energy is being generated by the Casimir effect.  This is impossible with the present Standard Model and the reason for this is that physics assumes the entire Universe is visible to our equipment.  They believe this despite the fact that dark matter is postulated to exist and that abundant evidence exists to support it.  Dark matter is clearly existing outside the bounds of our four dimensional frame of reference.  But instead of change the foundations of physics, no, they invent all this nonsense about dimensionless force, force particles, wave-particle duality, probability functions of matter, huge unobservable Higgs fields, and numerous other patches to common sense.
Can you provide a link to the paper in question? The CERN website lists 86 papers in 2011 on the Casimir force alone, so I am not sure to which one you are referring.


#12    Ugly1

Ugly1

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 568 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Texas USA

Posted 15 June 2013 - 12:00 AM

Hey great idea! Let's build an insanely expensive piece of equipment in an area with extensive amounts of recent earthquakes. Will this structure be underground?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users