Pentaquarks

[fuelair]

Let's restate the hypotheses:

1) 10s of 1000s of scientists, engineers, software developers, scientific journal editors --who come from every nation on the planet --collaborate on the largest organized scientific experiments in history.

2) For decades, 10s of 1000s of those same people are secret participants in a worldwide conspiracy of evil atheist scientists who want to trick the world into believing in Stephen Hawking for some reason.

What would Occam say?

"Let's shave those puppies!!!!!"

 

[rjh01]

What was the point of Newton's work? Einstein's work? Lord Kelvin's work?

Theoretical science does not have a "payoff" other than knowledge. However, knowledge can often be later applied to practical uses - for example, quantum physics was, originally, of no practical use. It is now being used in the design of electronics, and cutting-edge research in quantum computing is a hot topic.

Later in your post generally means only a few years. Newton's work (and many other scientists around that time) was one small step in the reduction of the power of the church. That is a huge payoff.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Just another invented discovery to weakly justify their giant electricity bill and the paychecks of thousands of people. It is perfect. The ultimate sham---- WOW!!!

There will be more invented particles on the way. Just wait until they want to make the LHC even bigger. They will dig into some outdated 1960's "physics" papers and go, "hey we predicted this! Look! We're not absolutely full of ****** You gotta believe us!"

I thought this crowd was comprised of actual skeptics? Irony at its finest.

I would expect this post from someone who has no idea of how particles are found and confirmed.

 

[Dancing David]

I wonder what is the point of this? I know it has employed a lot of highly intelligent people, used a lot of valuable resources. So what is the payoff? Have other LHCs provided one for example?

Understanding the way the universe works, starting with Becquerel and onward, particle physics is important as it the technology behind it.

So you don't like x-rays or any of that.

better to ask what good a military is.

 

[rjh01]

Understanding the way the universe works, starting with Becquerel and onward, particle physics is important as it the technology behind it.

So you don't like x-rays or any of that.

better to ask what good a military is.

x-rays found an almost immediate practical use in working out if people had broken their bones.

People have been trying to show that I am wrong and failing. This confirms my belief that I am right.

 

[ctamblyn]

There were about three decades between Rutherford's discovery of the atomic nucleus and the invention of nuclear weaponry and nuclear power. There were also about three decades between the discovery of the positron and the invention of the first PET scanner. And four decades, roughly, elapsed between Einstein's 1917 paper of the quantum theory of radiation, and the first functioning laser. Between the discovery of general relativity and the launch of the GPS project, there were nearly six decades. And there were about three centuries between Newton's discovery of the law of universal gravitation, and the dawn of the space age.

It looks to me like we cannot really tell whether a discovery will have an eventual technological pay-off. Not without a powerful crystal ball, at least.

But in any case, a famous physicist once said (there is no prize for guessing who): "Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

 

[AdamSK]

People have been trying to show that I am wrong and failing. This confirms my belief that I am right.

From where I'm sitting, you seem to be making the claim "the LHC results aren't useful."

People have been correctly pointing out that bleeding edge physics are often not useful right when they're discovered but become incredibly useful decades to centuries later.

So in what way have they not meaningfully refuted whatever small "point" you might have thought you had?

 

[grmcdorman]

He believes that all of the examples provided so far are of things that had immediate or nearly immediate practical application. That is only true for some pure science; other science took a long time to be practical (look at how long it took for electricity to move from a curiosity to an essential) or may never be practical.

 

[rjh01]

He believes that all of the examples provided so far are of things that had immediate or nearly immediate practical application. That is only true for some pure science; other science took a long time to be practical (look at how long it took for electricity to move from a curiosity to an essential) or may never be practical.

A lot of early discoveries did cause increase an interest in science. Relativity had an immediate application in explaining the orbit of Mercury. So just because something had a practical application several decades later does not mean that it did not also have some useful application almost immediately or within a few years.

 

[grmcdorman]

A lot of early discoveries did increase an interest in science. Relativity had an immediate application in explaining the orbit of Mercury. So just because something had a practical application several decades later does not mean that it did not also have some useful application almost immediately or within a few years.

If you define useful as explaining some observation, then the LHC is doing exactly that: filling in holes in the Standard Model, letting us see if the Standard Model will continue to work or if it needs major revision. In short, the LHC is helping us understand the underpinnings of the universe - just as relevant as explaining the discrepancies in Mercury's orbit.

In that sense, every experiment, every theoretical working has an application, as it extends the boundaries of what is known and (should) better explain what we are seeing. Anything that does not better explain the observations is discarded (viz, aether for the transmission of light).

 

[Dancing David]

x-rays found an almost immediate practical use in working out if people had broken their bones.

People have been trying to show that I am wrong and failing. This confirms my belief that I am right.

from Bequerel to Trinity (1898-1945), to radioactive isotopes in modern medicine even longer, so what is your victory dance about?

 

[grmcdorman]

from Bequerel to Trinity (1898-1945), to radioactive isotopes in modern medicine even longer, so what is your victory dance about?

See his later post; he's redefined 'application' as 'having explanatory power' - which basically includes all of science by definition.

 

[AdamSK]

A lot of early discoveries did cause increase an interest in science.

As does the LHC.

Relativity had an immediate application in explaining the orbit of Mercury.

If that's your standard for "immediate application," then I'd say the LHC's confirmation of the Higgs field certainly qualifies.

So just because something had a practical application several decades later does not mean that it did not also have some useful application almost immediately or within a few years.

But the converse is equally true - a lack of immediate application does not imply a lack of later application. If we forgot and destroyed any science that showed no immediate application, we'd not have modern electronics.

 

[rjh01]

One big difference between every other discovery or invention mentioned in this thread and the LHC is that the LHC cost a huge amount of money. Everything else was done with very little or no Government money. So if any of the others proved worthless or just an oddity then no major less.

grmcdorman's post above is not correct. Many people are interested in astronomy. Some take this interest and convert it into a science career that may not be directly related to astronomy. Not to mention the great pictures Hubble takes. Other people take a general interest in science. So almost anything discovered in astronomy is useful for this reason alone. If you want evidence of this look at the science sub forum here. There are a few threads on astronomy and just about every other thread is about practical aspects of science or everyday science.

 

[Roboramma]

One big difference between every other discovery or invention mentioned in this thread and the LHC is that the LHC cost a huge amount of money. Everything else was done with very little or no Government money. So if any of the others proved worthless or just an oddity then no major less.

So are you opposed to the government funding of basic research in general, or only in the case of the LHC in particular?

grmcdorman's post above is not correct.

If so the rest of your post doesn't say so one way or the other. He only pointed out that the LHC's findings give us explanatory power (which seems pretty clearly true to me), what this has to do with people being interested in astronomy is far from clear.

As a side point in response to those musings on people's interests: as far as I can tell there is also a great interest in cosmology, and the study of cosmology is deeply impacted by our understanding of elementary particle physics.

 

[grmcdorman]

There's a great interest in physics itself, as far as I can see. Witness the media interest in the Higgs.

 

[Dancing David]

One big difference between every other discovery or invention mentioned in this thread and the LHC is that the LHC cost a huge amount of money. Everything else was done with very little or no Government money. So if any of the others proved worthless or just an oddity then no major less.

The Manhattan Project was all government money.

 

[rjh01]

The Manhattan Project was all government money.

That was applied research with the aim from day 1 of building a bomb (actually two types of bomb). With the LHC they are making discoveries which they have no idea on how to apply the knowledge.

I was hoping someone would come along and say that an earlier version of the LHC made a discovery that is now used in everyday products. So far no members have done this.

 

[Dancing David]

I see you move goal posts , so when Fermi built the pile that was just application? No testing was involved to refine theory, ever.

Nope and when the Manhattan Project discovered critical mass values and cross sections that wasn't research just applications? No chemistry was invented just to make the separation of uranium isotopes either.

 

[abaddon]

That was applied research with the aim from day 1 of building a bomb (actually two types of bomb). With the LHC they are making discoveries which they have no idea on how to apply the knowledge.

I was hoping someone would come along and say that an earlier version of the LHC made a discovery that is now used in everyday products. So far no members have done this.

PET scans in hospitals. Directly developed from results found by colliders.