Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Huge Atom Smasher.........
56 Answers
https:/
Ok perhaps CTG can help with this one, I think I'm right in saying that the LHC collisions are at 99.9999991% of c. No doubt the new one will get even closer to c but what else could come out of that that we are not already getting with the LHC?
Note I am in no way against this contruction I am all in favour of the spend just need bit more info.
Answers
As for the question, there are two benefits that a larger "LHC" could bring:1) Higher energies could mean higher accessibilit
13:23 Sat 10th Feb 2024
From their website, "The precise circumference of the LHC accelerator is 26 659 m"
"At full power, trillions of protons will race around the LHC accelerator ring 11 245 times a second, travelling at 99.9999991% the speed of light."
In a vacuum, the speed of light is 299,792,458m/s.
In a second, a proton travels 11,245 × 26,659 metres or, 299,780,455 metres around the LHC.
299,780,455÷299,792,458 = 0.9999599623 or 99.99599623% the speed of light.
I checked on Excel and it shows it as, 99.9959962301653%.
That is not 99.9999991% the speed of light
Am I correct?
If I am and their maths is dodgy, what like is their physics?
From more than a year ago, this guy explains why it will just be a waste of money.
In the video, CERN scientists are setting out their arguments for the Future Circular Collider (FCC) based on science that has nothing to do with the LHC (or FCC), and other nonsense scientific claims.
Of course, getting the funding approved ensures their continued employment on fantastic salaries.
The video is over 20 minutes, and so will be of no interest to the ABers who have the attention span of a goldfish.
OG: "Larger means more energy so more chance of spotting larger newly found particles as particles crash into each other, which will confirm or reject theories, or suggest something else." - yes but surely if they are already creating collisions at pretty close to c how much more energy is possible? Surely there is a diminishing returns aspect here.
I was considering spending a good amount of time rebutting the video Hymie posted, but I shan't bother. It's not worth it. The problem is, in short, that any idiot can pretend that high-energy physics is full of nonsense, but almost by definition you need to be an expert to appreciate why it's nonsense. Also, the guy in this video is hardly unknown to physicists, and others have already gone to pains to explain why he's completely wrong from start to finish: see eg https:/
I will, however, pick up on one point: at some stage of the video, Unzicker noted that the physicists said that the Standard Model is incomplete (and so wrong), but also that it was extremely successful and had survived every test. He seemed to think that this was such an obvious contradiction that nothing else was needed than this to explain the flaw: "Orwellian double-speak", he says.
This is, quite simply, utter nonsense. It betrays a failure on his part even to try and understand what's being said. Both points physicists make are in fact true at once, because they are addressing different aspects of the Standard Model (SM):
1. The SM is enormously successful at explaining how electrons and photons and quarks behave and interact, with predictions that fit with measurement to stupid levels of precision: up to 12 decimal places in some sense.
2. The SM is incomplete because, among other things, it has nothing to say about gravity, or about dark matter and dark energy. There are other, more technical aspects in which it's incomplete, but the point is that there are still so many aspects of our Universe left untouched.
In a sense, then, point (1) above is the claim that "we're on the right track", but point (2) states that "we aren't finished yet". The suggestion that these two points are in conflict is completely false, and alone is enough to undermine anything else this ignorant charlatan has to say. And, yes, I am being rude, but his criticisms are tired, ignorant and ill-informed, and in that regard he deserves no respect at all.
It's likely that Hymie won't read this; and, in any event, videos like this sadly have a reach far greater than they ever should. The effort required to explain why he's wrong, though, is so immense that it's little wonder that people share it uncritically. Even at 26 minutes, it's still short enough to have on in the background, and who'd want to spend a decade and invest their entire career into a subject just to refute a half-hour rant?
Don't watch it, as I say.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.