Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: so has the lhc fail again?

  1. #1 so has the lhc fail again? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    maybe that god particle doesnt want to be found and travels back in time to sabotage cern


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    I think that the LHC will go down in history as being the biggest waste of money of all time. All those billions of dollars for what, to see if some absurd theories are wrong? That money could have been spent much more wisely, in the area of nanotechnology for example, which will be much more useful to humanity than some silly particle accelerator which doesn't even work.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I suppose all the previous accelerators were "silly" too, and never did anything important, and they all just did one thing each? Right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I think that the LHC will go down in history as being the biggest waste of money of all time. All those billions of dollars for what, to see if some absurd theories are wrong? That money could have been spent much more wisely, in the area of nanotechnology for example, which will be much more useful to humanity than some silly particle accelerator which doesn't even work.
    nanotechnology is aptly named.

    nano = 10^-9

    So nanotechnology = damn little technology.


    There is more nonspecific BS put out under the heading of "nanotechnology" than in almost any other area, though "chaos theory" which also does not exist is a close second.

    Trust someone who tells you what he is doing, but trust not the guy who relies on buzzwords. And "nanotechnology" is the buzziest of buzzwords.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: so has the lhc fail again? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    maybe that god particle doesnt want to be found and travels back in time to sabotage cern
    Do you have some new news to relate or are you just spouting off to exhibit ignorance ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I think that the LHC will go down in history as being the biggest waste of money of all time. All those billions of dollars for what, to see if some absurd theories are wrong? That money could have been spent much more wisely, in the area of nanotechnology for example, which will be much more useful to humanity than some silly particle accelerator which doesn't even work.

    ....wow that's stupid.

    the LHC does more than one thing, it would be rather a waste of space to use 27k to find one subatomic particle, like DRocket said, God Particle is just another buzzword, they have dozens of experiments to run


    nanotechnology is entirely theory. it's as real as the star trek FTL ships are. nanotechnology essentially consists of "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have atom sized robots?" and it's going to take rather alot more than billions to make it any more of a reality


    the Higg's Boson, and other things the LHC are aiming to answer/find/work out are essentially reality, the theory predicting their existance is sound, the LHC is just the looking glass


    I'd also like to point out that people like Einstein and Newton who came up with Gravity and General Relativity were also considered a waste of space and their idea's 'absurd' to begin with, or are you going to tell us they are actually wrong as well?






    that said there does seem to be an uncannily large number of problems with the LHC, I'm no probability mathmatician but even a machine of that size shouldn't break so many times with so many scientists and engineers on it.
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Dr. Rocket, Nanotechnology doesn't necessarily mean extremely small things, it rather refers to atomic precision. Nanotechnology can construct macroscopic objects with every single atom in its desired place, which can drastically change their properties and make everything as strong, light and as efficient as it can possibly be.

    You also severely underestimate the importance and potential of nanotechnology. Once there was the agricultural revolution, then came the scientific, followed by the industrial revolution. Next will be the Nanotechnology revolution, which will definitely be the biggest and most important revolution in history: complete control and mastery of matter.

    ....wow that's stupid.

    the LHC does more than one thing, it would be rather a waste of space to use 27k to find one subatomic particle, like DRocket said, God Particle is just another buzzword, they have dozens of experiments to run.
    I never said the LHC was only going to do one thing, clearly it isn't. But I think that the actual whole LHC project is a waste of time and especially money. Im not trying to be the devils advocate, I just honestly dont think this machine will benefit us in any way, other than to hopefully show scientists that their current theories are absurd. Lets just hope they dont then re-adjust their theories and make them even more complex and absurd just to support the experimental data.

    As I have said countless times before, the reason we are in this mess is because in the history of science there have been many errors and illogical theories which have slowly been accepted and kept as fact, often without verification. Over time, this builds up. In some cases, the very foundation of current science is wrong, which consequently means that everything built on it is also misguided.

    nanotechnology is entirely theory. it's as real as the star trek FTL ships are. nanotechnology essentially consists of "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have atom sized robots?" and it's going to take rather alot more than billions to make it any more of a reality.
    You are either terribly misinformed, ignorant or negligent. Nanotechnology is real and is not entirely theory at all, in fact it is mostly practical work. I am doing my master's degree in it this year. At present, we can manipulate individual atoms in many different ways, my favorite is through the use of a scanning probe microscope. Individual atoms can be picked up, moved and combined with other atoms to form molecules and larger structures. Layers or "sheets" of atoms just 1 atom thick can be created using a technique called molecular beam epitaxy, which is quite amazing. The abilities of nanotech are also increasing at an alarming rate, we will need to use it to continue the trend of Moore's Law to create even smaller and faster computer chips.

    the Higg's Boson, and other things the LHC are aiming to answer/find/work out are essentially reality, the theory predicting their existance is sound, the LHC is just the looking glass
    The LHC on the other hand, is in fact all theoretical rubbish. We really gain nothing out of it. Who cares if we find a so called Higgs boson? Whether we find it or not isnt going to change anything. The apparent "discovery" of the neutrino didn't have any useful applications at all, the same will be for the this. After we get the results, then what? At least nanotech has practical applications which allow us to fabricate useful things.

    Even worse, the LHC isnt even working, which was a catastrophic embarrassment for the LHC team considering how much money, staff and resources they had for the task.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I figure we might learn something very interesting, but personally I doubt the existence of things like the Higgs Boson, so I suspect that all we're going to get in that area is just more lack of confirmation, no matter how much money we spend.

    I find it hard to believe that we would smash atoms together that fast and not observe some very interesting effects. However, I have to partly agree with the OP in that I think it's possible that the public will be very disappointed if it turns out that the new knowledge has no practical application. I think they're hoping to earn those billions back by maybe opening up a new tech field of some kind, which is only slightly probable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: so has the lhc fail again? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    maybe that god particle doesnt want to be found and travels back in time to sabotage cern
    Do you have some new news to relate or are you just spouting off to exhibit ignorance ?
    i would add deluded ignorance

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...higgs-sab.html

    oh irony

    youre such a charming man who makes this forum so friendly

    i understood the lhc would be making the high energy collisions by december09

    so i understand they failed again

    haha this lhc is so funny and seems the fun will go on
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I just want to throw in a few clarifications. As DrRocket pointed out, nanotechnology simply means nano- (very little) -technology (technology). What most people think of when they think of nanotechnology should actually be called something more like nanorobotics.

    Extant things under the heading of nanotechnology:
    - Carbon nanotubes and buckyballs
    - Gold plated bacteria
    - Engineered polymers
    .
    .
    .

    Extant things under the heading of nanorobotics:
    - Gears and motors (I think)

    Oh yeah. Besides the misunderstandings involving nanotech, there seem to be several people misunderstanding the point of basic research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: so has the lhc fail again? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    [

    so i understand they failed again

    haha this lhc is so funny and seems the fun will go on
    What you demonstrate is that you don't understand much at all, and that much of what you do understand is wrong.

    Yes, the experiments have been delayed again. The LHC is a massive engineering undertaking and they are having the usual problem starting up a machine of great complexity. That is not a failure.

    The purpose of the LHC is not the detection of Higgs bosons. It is to conduct particle physics experiments at energy levels that have previously been unattatinable. The discovery of the Higgs is one possibility, and a high prioity experiment at that. But there are other objectives as well.

    One major objective is the search for supersymmetric partner particles, or evidence that they do not exist and that the theory is not correct. Supersymmetry is a critical ingrrdient in most if not all string theories, but is also part of theories other than string theory. So far there has been no experimental hint of super symmetry and the LHC will perform experiments that are important to that theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    79
    I feel the LHC will be a step towards success because failure is the first step towards success. Edison didnt invent the bulb in the first go he did it 9999 times and maybe LHC will be the same case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kakarot
    I feel the LHC will be a step towards success because failure is the first step towards success. Edison didnt invent the bulb in the first go he did it 9999 times and maybe LHC will be the same case.

    Success of what ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    79
    Success of the secret to time trravel or maybe accelerating man to the speed of light. Something man has his search going on for. Thats what!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    15
    ok so i may be out of line here, but isn't science just about having fun in the first place?

    strangely enough, it is often assumed that technology actually makes our society 'better'. that all depends on how you define better, I suppose, but I don't think people are too much happier today than they were 300 years ago. more informed maybe. technology doesn't allow us to adapt to change so much as it creates change. all in the name of having fun

    that being said, if the LHC people wanna have some fun and discover some cool stuff, great!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: so has the lhc fail again? 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    [quote="luxtpmi understood the lhc would be making the high energy collisions by december09

    so i understand they failed again[/quote]

    In December, the LHC took the record for the highest energy particle collider. Perhaps you're expecting some big announcement that it's doing what it was designed to do? In reality, it takes a lot of time to process all the data it produces.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •