LHC experiment

[Siggy_G]

Apparently, the LHC has started up again, and they're mentioning successful collisions and an upcoming press release.

Webcast: http://webcast.cern.ch/lhcfirstphysics/
Site: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

Looking forward to see what they're mentioning.

[Siggy_G]

Ok, it seems like the biggest news was the fact that it is up and running again, and at a higher voltage than before.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/news/smashin ... -1.1293222

“There was no new physics discovered on Tuesday,” said Elliott Cheu, a UA physics professor who is part of the UA-LHC team. “However, we did discover that all of the hard work put in by many thousands of people has paid off. The experiments worked extremely well and we’re looking forward to the results.”

“While we have theories that may explain these mysteries, the bottom line is that we won’t know the answers until we do the experiment,” Johns said.

"Carry on folks, nothing to see here. Carry on..."

[StevenJay]

Yeah, "Hooray!" They're all patting themselves on the back just because they kicked it up a notch and it didn't blow up in their faces again.

Now, admittedly, a good number of rockets blew up and people died before we finally made it into space. The big difference I see between the two endeavors is that, one was pursuing a tangible and attainable goal: getting from point A to point B and back again, repeatedly and safely (which we don't quite have down pat yet). The other is pursuing intangible mathematical constructs that only inhabit cyberspace, and whose only purpose is to shore up a failed belief system (well, that and keep the cash cow flowing).

So, I'm wondering what "viable" and meaningful research could be carried out with such a tempermental behemoth? And maybe, you know, actually JUSTIFY its construction in the first place!

Any suggestions? Does the LHC even have a suggestion box?

[Siggy_G]

(...) Any suggestions? Does the LHC even have a suggestion box?

They are divinely convinced about finding atomic sub-particles by mechanically smashing protons together. One could wonder if the protons really intersect or just bypass or change angular momentum. Also, if the observations truly point to sub particles, whether they actually are binding parts of the nucleus or just temporary fringes from the smash.

The main objective though, from "successful derivations of General Relativety equations" (isn't it always?), is to find the Higgs boson - aka the God particle. They will reveal physics that explains the first seconds after the Big Bang - and that is always a stand-alone argument for further funding.

Wallace Thornhill has an article from 2008 on the subject here, of what he calls the "$6 billion LHC Circus" (the price tag has of course increased since then):

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188

Of course, particle physicists operate by smashing atoms in violent collisions. But if normal matter is composed of subunits of charge in some resonant state of equilibrium (the simplest picture), then smashing particles together will merely generate new unstable (short lived) resonant systems of charge, which will be interpreted as members of a weird zoo of new particles. The LHC can do no more than that. No matter can be created or annihilated. And since the big bang and black holes are the result of the illogical or incorrect application of mathematics to a gravity driven model of the universe, nothing will be learned about either.

[CTJG 1986]

The only thing the LHC has going for it is the fact that it's a cash-cow for the "scientists" behind it as no matter how many times they fail they will always find a new source of funding for their future failures.

If they invested a fraction of that money into furthering the study of plasma physics and plasma cosmology they wouldn't look like such fools right now and their biggest news story wouldn't be the fact that the LHC is just up and running again, they might actually have achieved some new scientific discoveries.

Imagine if Perrat had that kind of funding for his research dating back decades, we would probably be living in a much different world today.

If Tesla had that kind of funding way back when it's almost frightening to think of what he could have achieved given what he managed to accomplish with a much tighter budget and lesser technology than what is available today.

I don't rule out the possibility that the LHC may lead to some new scientific discoveries at some point in the future but I wouldn't bet a dollar on it to be honest.

(Note: This is my first post as a member here but I am a long time follower of Plasma Physics and Cosmology and a long time viewer of this site. I won't be posting much as I am someone with no patience for idiocy and tend to be too confrontational and aggressive in my discussions and debates for this particular site. I prefer to leave that kind of stuff for the sites ran by opponents of the Plasma Universe, when I am able to do so without being deleted or having my posts edited that is - which isn't very often.)

[Osmosis]

Hello CTJG 1986! Welcome to the real Electric Universe
Osmosis

[ElecGeekMom]

You know, the LHC and the Svaalgard(?) seed bank strike me as places that might provide significant shelter in the event of a monster-level CME and/or magnetic reversal.

Am I crazy?

[Jarvamundo]

Re: CTJG 1986

Welcome, I wholeheartedly agree with the logic of a system dedicating a percentage of the spend to alternatives. It is indeed a frightening thought to think of what Tesla would've created with a fist full of blank cheques like these guys have.

[nick c]

It is indeed a frightening thought to think of what Tesla would've created with a fist full of blank cheques like these guys have.

He never would have created anything because he would not have been able to deal with the bureaucracy.
"Mr. Tesla, we regret to inform you that you have been terminated as lead scientist for the project, for the failure to complete form A321A in quadruplicate and submit each copy seperately. The project will hitherto, henceforth, for which be overseen by a committee of scientists that has been appointed by the director of the Dept of Redundancy Department."

Trust me, that is how it works.


Nick

[mague]

Yeah, "Hooray!" They're all patting themselves on the back just because they kicked it up a notch and it didn't blow up in their faces again.

Now, admittedly, a good number of rockets blew up and people died before we finally made it into space. The big difference I see between the two endeavors is that, one was pursuing a tangible and attainable goal: getting from point A to point B and back again, repeatedly and safely (which we don't quite have down pat yet). The other is pursuing intangible mathematical constructs that only inhabit cyberspace, and whose only purpose is to shore up a failed belief system (well, that and keep the cash cow flowing).

So, I'm wondering what "viable" and meaningful research could be carried out with such a tempermental behemoth? And maybe, you know, actually JUSTIFY its construction in the first place!

Any suggestions? Does the LHC even have a suggestion box?

Antimatter production. This was and is the only purpose of this facility.