Thread: The Higgs Boson & the LHC

Suppose we find the higgs particle at the LHC.....


.......what then? how would this be useful. i.e what possible technologies would it give us?

That's an interesting question, but one I doubt anyone can answer. Such basic research rarely leads directly to practical technologies, but very often turns out to indirectly lead to lots of interesting things. It usually takes a number of years for this to bear out.

Well I hope that it will be worth it.

Ultimately resources on the Earth will run out and humankind will die out. (Unless we find someway of either changing things here on earth of living elsewhere in the galaxy. I hope that we will create technologies that will enable us to side-step the light speed issue. (and also the time dilation issue) for interstellar travel.

Hi,

perhaps it couldn't blend in, nowhere? Since, it would be one too much?

Steve

what then? how would this be useful. i.e what possible technologies would it give us?

well im not sure about the technology part, but it will surely clear out the doubt of the original prediction from the standard model. So it will resolve the inconsistent matters that involves Higgs model in Theoretical Physics.

Originally Posted by leohopkins

Suppose we find the higgs particle at the LHC.....


.......what then? how would this be useful. i.e what possible technologies would it give us?

The purpose of the LHC experiments is science, not technology. Moreover, the discovery of the Higgs boson is only one objective, and probably not the most important one. IMO supersymmetric particles are the more important topic.

That said, particle physics has developed some technologies to support the handling of data from the experiments that have had significant impact, some think positive -- that is the origin of the internet for instance.

Found this on Sky News, if you scroll down to the comments you will find what I consider to be a very interesting point.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tec..._Energy_Levels


Posted by: summersun on March 30, 2010 5:12 PM " You have to question the supposed intellectuals involved in this. There are many reasons why man was not around during the 'big bang' over and above the obvious. One needs to ask not only whether or not we can replicate the big bang, but more whether we should !! "

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Found this on Sky News, if you scroll down to the comments you will find what I consider to be a very interesting point.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tec..._Energy_Levels


Posted by: summersun on March 30, 2010 5:12 PM " You have to question the supposed intellectuals involved in this. There are many reasons why man was not around during the 'big bang' over and above the obvious. One needs to ask not only whether or not we can replicate the big bang, but more whether we should !! "

That comment is absurd. The experiments at the LHC will not come close to replicating the conditions at the big bang.

I am pleased to hear that the experiments at the LHC will not be able to replicate the conditions of the Big Bang.

Nor will there be black holes engulfing Geneva anytime soon as some of my friends think may happen.

I'm honestly surprised that anyone really believes that the LHC or any other man-made object is capable of recreating the big bang, but I do know where those misconceptions are coming from. Paranoid people looking for any reason to shut down science take comments like "the LHC will recreate conditions not seen in this universe since shortly after the big bang" and manage to get "the LHC will recreate ... the big bang."

Just found this blurb on an official CERN website about the LHC. It says that they want to recreate conditions just after the Big Bang. My question is, how long after the Big Bang , does it really matter ?
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

Does it really matter to who?

To the scientists? Of course it matters. The closer we can get to the big bang, the better.

To the paranoid schizophrenics that make these ridiculous end-of-the-world claims? No. They said big bang, so it'll be the end of the earth somehow.

To the ignorant masses that believe the paranoid schizophrenic's claims? No. They didn't even read the original statements. It boggles my mind just how gullible people can be.

MagiMaster,
What I meant was, does it really matter how close they are, recreating conditions just after the Big Bang in terms of micro seconds, milli seconds or seconds.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Just found this blurb on an official CERN website about the LHC. It says that they want to recreate conditions just after the Big Bang. My question is, how long after the Big Bang , does it really matter ?
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

I find no mention of the big bang at your link.

What I did find is the true statement that higher energy collisions are routinely produced by nature via cosmic ray collisions.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

Second paragraph, fourth line down mentions the Big Bang.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Second paragraph, fourth line down mentions the Big Bang.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

It sounds like someone in public relations was running amok.

I would not put any stock in that statement.

OK dude, but it did sound and look like official CERN output.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

MagiMaster,
What I meant was, does it really matter how close they are, recreating conditions just after the Big Bang in terms of micro seconds, milli seconds or seconds.

Yes, I know what you meant, and my answer still stands.

The closer you get to the instant of the big bang the amount of energy exponentially increases. i think they are referring to the amount of energy in the collision rather than saying they are making some sort of mini big bang. Im not even sure why they keep quoting the big bang as if this collider is some sort of universe creator or black hole machine. Then scientists can finally complete their plan to destroy us all. The media love it because it sells papers and pulls in viewers.

when a scientist is seemingly quoted as suggesting that such things may happen, if you read between the lines, or see the whole statement 99% of the time they either have been quote mined, or been tricked into saying words that can be quote mined. Theorists might be good with numbers and particles, but for the most part they are not public relation experts.

Always be skeptical of the media, selling there crap fantasies is more important to them than the factual accuracy of the content or educating the public.

Well, I think it's being great that they make it run.

But, I have had a strange image in mind as well. As they smash particles on each other, what do they expect the results, measurements and so forth, to be?

I had an image coming to my mind, like two men pistol dueling and both rounds would smash half way between the two.

The rounds will be smashed and gone. That's pretty much it. What else .... wait.

Was the aiming mechanism the actual thing about the LHCollider?

The good thing is being no one to be hurt. Well, you couldn't actually aim to a target before it gets visible. When it was being visible it's too late already.

Steve

The whole point of the collision is the fact that it breaks particles into more and more of its component parts. The more energy, the more components of the particles can be detected after the collision, or new particles. The exciting thing about the LHC is that it can punt particles together with more energy than ever before.

Bullets are not a good metaphor, unless they are moving at over 99.99% of the speed of light.

Originally Posted by harvestein

Bullets are not a good metaphor, unless they are moving at over 99.99% of the speed of light.

Well, you are being right, I agree. As I said, I had this image into my mind.

But, nevertheless, it must be a huge challenge to get particles collided, in ways that yield in some valuable data. Specifically, as the whole rig was structured basically as a large circular tube system.

Steve

Originally Posted by harvestein

The whole point of the collision is the fact that it breaks particles into more and more of its component parts. The more energy, the more components of the particles can be detected after the collision, or new particles. .

That used to be the case. But that was when the objects of study were composite particles, like nuclei. Now it what you called "new particles" that are the main objects of interest.

Now there are component particles involved, protons (composed of quarks). but the objective is not so much to break up protons (we know what makes up a proton) but rather to have collisions involving sufficiently high energies that other more interesting particles may emerge from the collision. Such potential particles include Higgs bosons and perhaps the supersymmetric particles predicted by the supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model.

I have just read what I think is the latest press release from CERN, on their official website regarding the LHC. Not a mention of a " big bang " anywhere. I did not realise how many people world wide, were involved in the analysis of the scientific data that is to be collected, I hope that they do not miss anything.
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/Press.../PR07.10E.html

Hi,

I also noticed that CERN obviously refrained from stating they would recreate the big bang, two days ago.

Over here, TV news reported light beams were collided instead.

Steve

Steve,
I found this snippet on " Sky News " , it does come across as being very informative ( after reading a quote by Fabiola Gianotti ), a CERN scientist. The report by " Sky News " does however drift into the creation of black holes.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tec..._Energy_Levels

If you look at the related articles on the Sky News Website however, it refers to the LHC as "The Big Bang Machine".

I was having a look at " Scientific American " website, and it seems that speculation about black holes and the LHC is not just confined to newspapers and satellite broadcasters. Feast your eyes on this article from January 2009, it mentions something called the " Randall Sundrum Model " which could in theory produce black holes when the LHC is fired up.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...urf-2009-01-29

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Steve,
I found this snippet on " Sky News " , it does come across as being very informative ( after reading a quote by Fabiola Gianotti ), a CERN scientist. The report by " Sky News " does however drift into the creation of black holes.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Tec..._Energy_Levels

Well, no word about BB theory there too. But, a good article I think.

Perhaps everyone gets to know a little more in depth information of what was going on once the experiment was started.

Seems particle beams were being accelerated for days before they smashed actually.

Steve

Originally Posted by Cirmsonviper

If you look at the related articles on the Sky News Website however, it refers to the LHC as "The Big Bang Machine".

That sounds like an excellent reason to go elsewhere for your information.

Budget Brits Take On CERN In Hunt For Secrets Of Universe. I found this at Timesonline, it describes how a bunch of scientists from Sheffield University, working a mile underground in a potash mine, are trying to beat the CERN LHD into finding " Dark Matter " The report is from September 2009, they were due to go live in November 2009. Does anyone know anything more about this ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6850906.ece