CERN Wants to Build a Bigger, Badder Particle Collider

[socrattus]

“Scientific vocabulary can be so weird. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN
has just recorded an example of a subatomic particle called the anti-beauty quark.
Could it be that ugly people now have something tangible to blame?”
― Michael Quinion

[Cerveny]

CERN Wants to Build a Bigger, Badder Particle Collider
/By: John Perritano/
https://science.howstuffworks.com/cern- ... llider.htm
-----
Cern aims to build €20bn collider to unlock secrets of universe.
The first accelerator based on the principle of multiple acceleration was the cyclotron,
invented by Ernest Lawrence in 1930 (Nobel Prize 1939).
Since then, 1000 new particles have been discovered. Will new subatomic particles
close the gaps in our misunderstanding of the quantum world?

I think that if 1000 new types of particles didn't help us understand the "secrets of the universe", then 1500 won't either. Just like 500 new animals won't help us understand the "secrets of life"…

If new quantum particles don't help us understand the mysteries of quantum particles
(such as their duality), then what is the reason for the LHC hypermania?

…helplessness…

[socrattus]

I think that if 1000 new types of particles didn't help us understand the "secrets of the universe", then 1500 won't either. Just like 500 new animals won't help us understand the "secrets of life"…

If new quantum particles don't help us understand the mysteries of quantum particles
(such as their duality), then what is the reason for the LHC hypermania?

…helplessness…

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

[Cerveny]

If new quantum particles don't help us understand the mysteries of quantum particles
(such as their duality), then what is the reason for the LHC hypermania?

…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”?….

[socrattus]

…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”?….

"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" and
2) what forces are acting on its movement.

[Cerveny]

...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" and
2) what forces are acting on its movement.

Regardless of what we need to know about it, it would be x more useful to deal with it than to search for 500 new elementary particles, but for that, apparently "bigger ba**s" are needed, please excuse the expressive expression ...

[Flannel Jesus]

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”?….

Do you understand current physics enough to be confident that that isn't already well explained?

[socrattus]

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”?….

Do you understand current physics enough to be confident that that isn't already well explained?

Why not use the Internet and give an example "why the speed c should be limiting?"

[Cerveny]

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”?….

Do you understand current physics enough to be confident that that isn't already well explained?

Why not use the Internet and give an example "why the speed c should be limiting?"

I would appreciate a link explaining why nothing can move faster than light, really…

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

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

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.

[Iwannaplato]

OK, it's a long time since I really looked at this, but from memory.....

Space and time are not fundamentally separate. Instead, they form a single 'thing' known as spacetime. They are light longitude vs. latitude, but really there’s no fundamental distinction between space and time.
Every object travels through spacetime at the speed of light. Even when stationary, an object moves through time (along the longitude) at this constant speed. When it moves through space (latitude), it adjusts its time component to maintain the overall speed of light.
As an object accelerates, its motion shifts from time to space (or vice versa) while maintaining the total spacetime speed. When an object reaches light speed, its entire motion becomes purely through time, and its spatial motion stops. Thus, nothing can go faster than the speed of light

Of course why it is that speed, well, why are any constants the way they are. (and are they actually constants? but that's another can of Sheldrakian worms.)

[socrattus]

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

If scientists had worked on the basis of such a concept,
Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity, and
Planck would not have been the father of quantum theory . . .

[Flannel Jesus]

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

If scientists had worked on the basis of such a concept,
Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity, and
Planck would not have been the father of quantum theory . . .

It's not a basis to *work* on, it's just an understanding of the finite nature of the *why* questions. Eventually, any "why" chain of questions has an end, or is circular. This has nothing to do with how scientists do work, and it's certainly not a recommendation that scientist don't try to study the world, nor is it a recomendation that you don't try to understand more about the world.

In this conversation, it can be interpreted as me saying "you should have reasonable expectations about how deep you're going to get when you search existing Science for these 'why' questions -- and don't be too disappointed in science when the chain of answers to your chain of why questions ends."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

[Cerveny]

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...

[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?