Comments on: A big search…

By: effess

effess — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:11:02 +0000

I posted the following comment and question, above: I seem to recall that the “super-collider” planned for Texas was not as large as CERN. If that’s accurate, it would seem to me, from my non-science perspective, that it was more likely that the Higgs boson was more likely to have been discovered at CERN than at a smaller super-collider. Anyone out there who knows about this stuff?

——————————————————-
My question, above, appears to have been answered. However, my recollection was backwards. The super-collider planned for Texas was far larger than the CERN. According to the author of the article, linked below, if the Texas collider project had been completed, as planned, during the 1990s, the U.S. would have found the Higgs boson some seven to ten years ago.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/07/09/us_could_have_found_higgs_boson_10_years_ago_106319.html

By: sergey

sergey — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:55:52 +0000

The level of abstraction on which theoretical physics works now is way beyond any physical structure. Probably, it will be more appropriate to call it not physics, but metaphysics. And we certainly do not have now a serious, rational metaphysics. The two pillars of modern physics, quantum mechanics and relativity, are simply not compatible. Some genius of caliber of Newton, Kant or Einstein is needed to reconcile them. He probably was not born yet.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:42:48 +0000

Nowhere is this “complete group theory description” was there any indication of the actual physical structure we know about. I think we may be confusing cause and effect when approaching nature on a purely symmetry/math basis.

Physicsguy, I’ve thought this, but wondered if it were because I’ve got physical (and spatial) intuition, but essentially no mathematical intuition. When I was first introduced to line integrals in a math lecture, they made little sense to me. An hour later, in a physics lecture, the lecturer used line integrals to calculate the work done when a charged particle was moved in an electric field. THAT made perfect sense; I needed the physical model. Then I was happy.

By: Occam's Beard

Occam's Beard — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 21:35:37 +0000

Sergey, absolutely right. But that relegates calculational methods to useful tools – their proper role, IMO – rather than drivers of the bus.

By: sergey

sergey — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:18:13 +0000

Occam, of course nothing can eliminate need to do real chemical experiments. But the number of possible configurations of organic molecules is practically infinite, just as possible ways to create them. So experiments in silico are much cheaper than in vitro. Clever algorithms vastly speed up research and focus it on promissory compounds and ways to obtain them. While each such é«xperiment” can be trivial, if you can obtain 10000 these results in a day, it will make unnecessary years of random search in chem laboratory.

By: M of Hollywood

M of Hollywood — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:15:06 +0000

I do not see what is wrong with reminding us that while we sing to the choir to blow off steam, it is important to discover what can be done before something new and awful is done.
To hear the rate of BO’s EOs (almot 6/week) comared with Bush’s EOs (3/mo) is sobering. It made me find this list http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01/current-list-of-president-obamas.html Here is a list of what someone thought were the worst ones http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-obamas-worst-executive-orders/

this is still singing to the choir – I do not know how to stop the awful next thing the Press and the politician will do. what can we do except try gently to convert a lost soul, one by one by one.

By: Paul in Boston

Paul in Boston — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:40:39 +0000

I’m a former particle physics guy. If I remember correctly, Leon Lederman named the Higgs the God Particle. He’s on record regretting the name.

By: Good Ole Charlie

Good Ole Charlie — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:11:48 +0000

physicsguy:

An interesting speculation is based on stuff in Griffiths’ 2nd edition of “Introduction to Elementary Particles”…about neutrino oscillations (new chapter) and higgs boson.
I’m still working my way through an infamous Chapter 11 on these subjects.
However, the next experimental issue is whether Higgs is a Pseudoscalar (Spin = 0) or a Vector (S = 1) Boson.
You pays your money and takes yer choice…I think spin one means more “Higgs Bosons” ahead…with different “masses”.
Exciting Times

By: physicsguy

physicsguy — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:31:42 +0000

Occam,

“The quibble with Dirac’s aphorism lies in its implicit assertion that applied mathematics can obviate the need for experimental work in the laboratory.”

Agree completely. In fact, I would take it a step further with regard to the Standard Model (at least in places like CERN they are actually doing some experimental work). I think in the case of the SM, people are letting the math be too much of a driver. What convinced me was a seminar way back in my early grad days. A theoretician gave a talk on “particles” and symmetry groups. He developed a complete description of a system he showed had certain time/space symmetries. He then asked do we understand this system? The punch line was that the system he used was the solar system planetary motions. Nowhere is this “complete group theory description” was there any indication of the actual physical structure we know about. I think we may be confusing cause and effect when approaching nature on a purely symmetry/math basis.

Of course there’s still the problem of where Gen Rel fits in and those pesky neutrino masses.

By: effess

effess — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:25:01 +0000

I seem to recall that the “super-collider” planned for Texas was not as large as CERN. If that’s accurate, it would seem to me, from my non-science perspective, that it was more likely that the Higgs boson was more likely to have been discovered at CERN than at a smaller super-collider. Anyone out there who knows about this stuff?