CERN Wants to Build a Bigger, Badder Particle Collider

[Flannel Jesus]

I certainly don't personally feel qualified to judge how "satisfying" the last x years of physics is. I wouldn't know if it's satisfying or not. Even if I spent the next 2 weeks reading nothing but physics journals, I wouldn't know if I ought to feel satisfied by it or not.

[Cerveny]

I have not been very satisfied with the performance and results of physics for a hundred years

This may sound rude, but I don't mean it to:

Do you think you have the kind of expertise where your satisfaction, or lack thereof, is meaningful? How would you specify your criteria for satisfaction?

Please, you don't have to apologize at all, that's OK', but if they came up with something new, substantial, related to space, time and matter, or at least tried, we would definitely know about it... But it's definitely not 1001. elementary particle, if it wasn't dark, of course

[Flannel Jesus]

I have not been very satisfied with the performance and results of physics for a hundred years

This may sound rude, but I don't mean it to:

Do you think you have the kind of expertise where your satisfaction, or lack thereof, is meaningful? How would you specify your criteria for satisfaction?

Please, you don't have to apologize at all, that's OK', but if they came up with something new, substantial, related to space, time and matter, or at least tried, we would definitely know about it... But it's definitely not 1001. elementary particle, if it wasn't dark, of course

Where does the confidence come from that, if physics is progressing as it should, they should come up with something new about space time and matter? Or that they haven't? Physicists are working on new ideas all the time, are you sure you're the type of person that would hear about interesting new developments in physics? New physics journals are published constantly, I would think that someone who isn't reading them would probably not be in a strong position to know if there are interesting new developments. I'm certainly not reading them, which is why I acknowledge my own incompetence to judge if their progress is satisfactory or not.

My criteria for satisfaction is time travel. If physicists haven't achieved a way for me to go back and kill Hitler, I'm not satisfied. But my criteria is not informed, I'm just some dude on a philosophy forum making shit up. My satisfaction in physics is meaningless to antibody apart from me.

[Cerveny]

…
Please, you don't have to apologize at all, that's OK', but if they came up with something new, substantial, related to space, time and matter, or at least tried, we would definitely know about it... But it's definitely not 1001. elementary particle, if it wasn't dark, of course

Where does the confidence come from that, if physics is progressing as it should, they should come up with something new about space time and matter? Or that they haven't? Physicists are working on new ideas all the time, are you sure you're the type of person that would hear about interesting new developments in physics? New physics journals are published constantly, I would think that someone who isn't reading them would probably not be in a strong position to know if there are interesting new developments. I'm certainly not reading them, which is why I acknowledge my own incompetence to judge if their progress is satisfactory or not.

My criteria for satisfaction is time travel. If physicists haven't achieved a way for me to go back and kill Hitler, I'm not satisfied. But my criteria is not informed, I'm just some dude on a philosophy forum making shit up. My satisfaction in physics is meaningless to antibody apart from me.

There are really a lot of news in physics journals, I would even like some (https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/m ... n-expected), but none have made it into the textbooks yet, and it seems that they won't either.
Forget rather time travel, the Past is definitely frozen and the Future doesn't exist yet.

[Age]

…helplessness…

...helplessness...? . . . they are smart men, they are healthy people,
they use millions of euros . . . what kind of "helplessness" is there?

The more "elementary particles" they have, the bigger stew they will have in their heads, although sometimes I think it can't get any worse... In a hundred years, can't someone at least try to explain why the speed c should be limiting? Or what does the famous relativistic space-time look like in the “future”?….

What do you mean by, 'should be limiting'?

The speed of light, or 'c', is not a 'should'. and it is not 'limiting' anything.

Now, if you are asking something like, 'Why is the speed of light limited to the speed that it is? then I can better understand this type of clarifying question.

But then you might not be asking this at all.

And, if you explain what the so-called 'space-time' looks like to you, 'now', then I can better explain what 'that' looks like, 'in the future'.

[Age]

...helplessness...? . . . they are smart men, they are healthy people,
they use millions of euros . . . what kind of "helplessness" is there?

The more "elementary particles" they have, the bigger stew they will have in their heads, although sometimes I think it can't get any worse... In a hundred years, can't someone at least try to explain why the speed c should be limiting? Or what does the famous relativistic space-time look like in the “future”?….

"why the speed c should be limiting? " . . . the speed of quantum of light/photon is limited
by constant (c=1) - this is a fact. To know “why?”, we need to know:
1) the geometric shape of the quantum of light/photon in "the famous relativistic space-time"

Does light/photon even have any shape. Are they/it even of visible physical matter, to have a geometric shape?

and
2) what forces are acting on its movement.

That would be the same 'forces' that 'act' on everything else. Which all comes from the energy caused from the interaction of matter upon itself.

[Age]

If you're interested in exploring this, the first thing would be to understand THAT there's a speed limit, rather than why - in other words, do you accept that there's a speed limit, and/or do you understand why physicists think there is, and why it's c? Do you understand the model that produces this idea of a speed limit, and the evidence we have for that model and that limit?

The problem with 'why' is that you can keep asking why until your face is blue, but eventually there's no satisfying answer. That might not be the case for the speed limit of the universe, but it might be the case for the answer to why there's a speed limit - you get the answer to 'why' for the speed limit, you ask 'why' for that answer, and 'why' for that answer, eventually there's a wall, eventually there's just a *brute fact* about the universe.

This is not necessarily true at all, and in fact is not true at all.

Eventually, the answer to 'why' is 'thats just apparently how this universe we find ourselves in works'.

This is not true at all.

Why, and how, the Universe works, exactly, how It does is already known. And, even why the Universe does what It does/works the way It does is also already known as well.

If we live in a universe with local causality, then c, the speed of light, is the speed of causality. It's the speed at which one "cell" of universal space can affect it's neighboring cell - that's not meant to be taken 100% literally, but as a visualization tool. If you've never played with Conway's Game of Life, play around with it a bit and notice that every cell can only affect its neighbors - because of this, there's a maximum speed at which causality can travel through the game. Reality isn't necessarily like Conway's Game, but it may have some analogous features. One event happening in space cannot cause another event at another place faster than the speed of causality if locality is true. So the answer to "why is there a speed limit?" might be just as simpe as "because we live in a universe with local causality". Why does our universe have local causality? Well.. that might be too close to a brute fact to have an answer that would satisfy.

[Age]

I ask "why" because I have not been very satisfied with the performance and results of physics for a hundred years (I'm not talking about applied physics, please). If you are satisfied, read the textbooks. Personally, I can imagine spending a billion better than searching for a hundred new elementary particles. Understand, for a hundred more f*****d up (sorry, pigged up) structures of physical space...

Looking for, or even, supposedly, finding, more and more 'particles of matter' will never ever take away from the Fact that the Universe is, fundamentally, just made up of 'matter', and a 'distance' between and around 'matter', only.

As for 'space' and 'time' there is no actual physical 'time' nor actual physical 'space' anywhere.

There is, however, a 'distance' between 'matter', and, there is a 'duration' between 'events'. This 'distance' and this 'duration' are sometimes known as 'space', and, 'time'. And, when used together can be referred to or known as 'spacetime'.

[Age]

I certainly don't personally feel qualified to judge how "satisfying" the last x years of physics is. I wouldn't know if it's satisfying or not. Even if I spent the next 2 weeks reading nothing but physics journals, I wouldn't know if I ought to feel satisfied by it or not.

An a part of the reason why you, personally, would not know if you ought to feel satisfied, or even adequate, by it or not is because of 'the way' that those writings are written, and because of the lack of knowledge that those who like to think that they know more than they really do write things down.

[Age]

This may sound rude, but I don't mean it to:

Do you think you have the kind of expertise where your satisfaction, or lack thereof, is meaningful? How would you specify your criteria for satisfaction?

Please, you don't have to apologize at all, that's OK', but if they came up with something new, substantial, related to space, time and matter, or at least tried, we would definitely know about it... But it's definitely not 1001. elementary particle, if it wasn't dark, of course

Where does the confidence come from that, if physics is progressing as it should, they should come up with something new about space time and matter?

There is no 'should' in regards to who things 'progress'. Things 'progress' as they do. This is just how the Universe works. 'Should' only exists because of one's own expectations, and not because of any actual other thing.

But, if something being proposed is not actually 100% True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct, then one day there 'will be' something new that comes to be known.

How people 'look at' and 'see' 'space', 'time', and 'matter' in the days when this is being written, is not 100% True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

And, what 'will' come-to-light, and thus 'will be' something new, known to you people, regarding these things, is soon to be revealed.

Or that they haven't? Physicists are working on new ideas all the time, are you sure you're the type of person that would hear about interesting new developments in physics? New physics journals are published constantly, I would think that someone who isn't reading them would probably not be in a strong position to know if there are interesting new developments. I'm certainly not reading them, which is why I acknowledge my own incompetence to judge if their progress is satisfactory or not.

My criteria for satisfaction is time travel. If physicists haven't achieved a way for me to go back and kill Hitler, I'm not satisfied.

Why would you want to kill that one human being?

If human beings do not make mistakes, and thus do Wrong, then you cannot learn from, and by, your mistakes.

But my criteria is not informed, I'm just some dude on a philosophy forum making shit up. My satisfaction in physics is meaningless to antibody apart from me.

[Age]

…
Please, you don't have to apologize at all, that's OK', but if they came up with something new, substantial, related to space, time and matter, or at least tried, we would definitely know about it... But it's definitely not 1001. elementary particle, if it wasn't dark, of course

Where does the confidence come from that, if physics is progressing as it should, they should come up with something new about space time and matter? Or that they haven't? Physicists are working on new ideas all the time, are you sure you're the type of person that would hear about interesting new developments in physics? New physics journals are published constantly, I would think that someone who isn't reading them would probably not be in a strong position to know if there are interesting new developments. I'm certainly not reading them, which is why I acknowledge my own incompetence to judge if their progress is satisfactory or not.

My criteria for satisfaction is time travel. If physicists haven't achieved a way for me to go back and kill Hitler, I'm not satisfied. But my criteria is not informed, I'm just some dude on a philosophy forum making shit up. My satisfaction in physics is meaningless to antibody apart from me.

There are really a lot of news in physics journals, I would even like some (https://www.resonancescience.org/blog/m ... n-expected), but none have made it into the textbooks yet, and it seems that they won't either.
Forget rather time travel, the Past is definitely frozen and the Future doesn't exist yet.

you just saying and claiming this does not mean that one cannot travel 'to there'.

After all absolutely every thing you human beings have achieved and created was, once, seen as impossible.

[socrattus]

...helplessness...? . . . they are smart men, they are healthy people,
they use millions of euros . . . what kind of "helplessness" is there?

The more "elementary particles" they have, the bigger stew they will have in their heads, although sometimes I think it can't get any worse... In a hundred years, can't someone at least try to explain why the speed c should be limiting? Or what does the famous relativistic space-time look like in the “future”?….

And, if you explain what the so-called 'space-time' looks like to you, 'now', then I can better explain what 'that' looks like, 'in the future'.

What does so-called “space-time” look like?
The autor of the "spacetime" wrote:
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality.“
/Hermann Minkowski/
What is really Minkowski an absolute 4D spacetime?
In reality, only the cold Cosmic Vacuum has such a proportion.
Only in the Cosmic Vacuum are space and time united.

[Age]

The more "elementary particles" they have, the bigger stew they will have in their heads, although sometimes I think it can't get any worse... In a hundred years, can't someone at least try to explain why the speed c should be limiting? Or what does the famous relativistic space-time look like in the “future”?….

And, if you explain what the so-called 'space-time' looks like to you, 'now', then I can better explain what 'that' looks like, 'in the future'.

What does so-called “space-time” look like?
The autor of the "spacetime" wrote:
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung
from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.
They are radical. Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union
of the two will preserve an independent reality.“
/Hermann Minkowski/
What is really Minkowski an absolute 4D spacetime?
In reality, only the cold Cosmic Vacuum has such a proportion.
Only in the Cosmic Vacuum are space and time united.

When the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, Incorrect, and/or delusional views of 'space' and 'time' did fade away, then what was left to 'look at' and 'see' was what the Universe, Itself, is actually, fundamentally, made up, and, how the Universe, Itself, actually works.

Which, by the way, and more or less, is just;

The Universe is made up of 'matter', with a distance between and around 'it'.

The distance between matter allows matter to move about freely. However, when matter interacts with itself, then the energy from this changes form.

The inter-action process, or the cause and effect, causation, or action/reaction process, has to and does happen, eternally. This process is just the Universe, Itself, always evolving and a continual process of creation, itself.

That matter, itself, contracts, is attracted to, and expands, repels away from, itself. all happens within the Universe, and could never happen, by definition, to the Universe, Itself. The Universe is infinite, spatially, because of the 'distance' between and around 'matter', itself.

Now, 'space', and, 'time' are not physical things. They are just human being made up words to conceptualize the 'distance' and 'duration' between physical matter, and, events.

How absolutely every thing is observed and experienced is from a 'length' of 'distance' and/or 'duration', and thus why absolutely every thing is relative to 'the observer'. There is no actual 'time' nor 'space'. There is only a perception, happening and occurring in, the HERE, and NOW.

[socrattus]

A Supercollider on the Moon Could Unlock the Secrets of Our Universe
—And We Just Found the Secret to Building One
The megastructure could produce 1,000 times more energy than the Large Hadron Collider,
allowing scientists to “rewind” the clock and study the origins of the cosmos.
BY CAROLINE DELBERTPUBLISHED: MAR 28, 2024
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... d+Last+30D