News4 mins ago
Higgs; is this a giant scam?
I'm puzzled by the fact that at a cost of billions and so many people having made a lucrative career out of this, that it would be exciting if it didn't exist!
'If they do discover the Higgs, it would be a triumph for the Standard Model, making it a complete theory.
If they do not, it would be an even more exciting outcome, according to Professor Tonelli.
"This would be the first time that we would have scientific evidence that this theory which has been so successful in the last 40 years must be definitely abandoned and we should look for another theory." '
'If they do discover the Higgs, it would be a triumph for the Standard Model, making it a complete theory.
If they do not, it would be an even more exciting outcome, according to Professor Tonelli.
"This would be the first time that we would have scientific evidence that this theory which has been so successful in the last 40 years must be definitely abandoned and we should look for another theory." '
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You guys obviously don't understand science.
The object of an experiment is to test a hypothesis.
After the experiment, whether it proves or disproves the hypothesis, you have increased your knowledge.
Presumably, you think think it would be better if they didn't do the experiment and continued working with a model of the universe that might not be correct.
The object of an experiment is to test a hypothesis.
After the experiment, whether it proves or disproves the hypothesis, you have increased your knowledge.
Presumably, you think think it would be better if they didn't do the experiment and continued working with a model of the universe that might not be correct.
Why would it be a scam ? It is a hypothesis which has to either be disproved or eventually accepted. That is what is occurring, and knowledge costs. It can not be a failed experiment. whether it finds or fails to find the Higgs particle it is a success as it has come up with a result. Albeit a more positive one if it is found, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
the LHC is not just about the Higgs.
It has already dealt a serious and possibly fatal blow to something called Supersymmetry theory.
OK I',m biased because - for no particularly good reason I never liked Supersymmetry
http://www.wired.com/...upersymmetry-physics/
There are a number of other experiments as well going on around it - you may remember the furore about micro-black holes (that was always an out-side bet but you never know).
It looks as if the Higgs may not be in the weight range it was expected to be - that's really exciting.
Most of the biggest leaps forward in science have come when something didn't quite turn out as expected.
For example - All the orbits of the planets were neatly accounted for with the exception of Mercury - Looked like just some maths that wouldn't work out.
As it turned out Einstein's General theory of relativity was needed to fully explain it.
Finding the Higgs where we expected it would be the dullest possible outcome. They'd go "yup there it is"
If it's wrong, or missing that means there's a big chunk of new Science just waiting for someone to go and stick their name on it.
It seems to me that you think that anything scientific you don't understand from Global Warming to the LHC you suspect to be a scam.
Scientists are not Bankers - they don't go home every night cooking up schemes of how to do the country out of some extra money!
They go home and cook up schemes of how to get their colleagues name's relagated to the back of the papers their about to publish!
It has already dealt a serious and possibly fatal blow to something called Supersymmetry theory.
OK I',m biased because - for no particularly good reason I never liked Supersymmetry
http://www.wired.com/...upersymmetry-physics/
There are a number of other experiments as well going on around it - you may remember the furore about micro-black holes (that was always an out-side bet but you never know).
It looks as if the Higgs may not be in the weight range it was expected to be - that's really exciting.
Most of the biggest leaps forward in science have come when something didn't quite turn out as expected.
For example - All the orbits of the planets were neatly accounted for with the exception of Mercury - Looked like just some maths that wouldn't work out.
As it turned out Einstein's General theory of relativity was needed to fully explain it.
Finding the Higgs where we expected it would be the dullest possible outcome. They'd go "yup there it is"
If it's wrong, or missing that means there's a big chunk of new Science just waiting for someone to go and stick their name on it.
It seems to me that you think that anything scientific you don't understand from Global Warming to the LHC you suspect to be a scam.
Scientists are not Bankers - they don't go home every night cooking up schemes of how to do the country out of some extra money!
They go home and cook up schemes of how to get their colleagues name's relagated to the back of the papers their about to publish!
OK, OK ! I take back the word 'Scam', but it sounds to me that we, (the suckers who are paying for it) are being primed for the news that it doesn't exist and we should see this as an exiting outcome. I'm all for increasing our understanding, but at what cost. Einstein and Newton did it with their brains and a piece of chalk. Yes, I confess I'm not a scientist, but I'm not dumb either, shall I just keep paying my taxes so people can test their theories?
"The LHC costs each adult in the UK about the cost of a pint of beer every year."
Jake, I have respect for your knowledge, but the 'Cost of a pint of beer' argument puts a strain on my tolerance. If I had to surrender a pint of beer for every bit of crackpot research going on, I would not be able to have a drink fo the next ten years !
Jake, I have respect for your knowledge, but the 'Cost of a pint of beer' argument puts a strain on my tolerance. If I had to surrender a pint of beer for every bit of crackpot research going on, I would not be able to have a drink fo the next ten years !
Bouncing black holes around like so many billiard balls might have given some reason for concern, but in relation to having failed to consider the outcome of dipping into the world's collective beer budget, their potential for inadvertently recreating the Big Bang has for many others been reduced to a minor technicality.
Well my tolerance gets stretched when people can't get a perspective of so called big numbers - so lets have a go shall we?
It's £34 million a year
Boris Johnson just spent that on people sleeping rough in London
http://www.london.gov...ough-sleeping-capital
The Royal wedding cost just a little short of that
The Libya operation is costing us more than that every month
It represents 0.006% of the Country's Tax revenue
You may have no time for spending money on things you don't understand but Stephen Hawkings "a brief history of time" alone sold 9 million copies and our involvement in big science like this inspires our young scientists who will form the background of this countries technological future
Or perhaps you don't care about what happens to the country after you're gone?
It's £34 million a year
Boris Johnson just spent that on people sleeping rough in London
http://www.london.gov...ough-sleeping-capital
The Royal wedding cost just a little short of that
The Libya operation is costing us more than that every month
It represents 0.006% of the Country's Tax revenue
You may have no time for spending money on things you don't understand but Stephen Hawkings "a brief history of time" alone sold 9 million copies and our involvement in big science like this inspires our young scientists who will form the background of this countries technological future
Or perhaps you don't care about what happens to the country after you're gone?
Now I think you're being provocative for the sake of it but lets play along
If we're not just considering the UK contribution we have to compare it to world figures
It is for example 0.0002% of the EU's GDP
I don't know what 0.0002% of your income is but I lose that down the back of the sofa!
But the real point seems to be the idea that we should only do research if it's linked to actual technological gains - I hear this argument often.
The thing with fundamental research is that you never know what the application will be.
Einstein won the Nobel prize forwork on the photoelectric effect - it ended up giving us lasers 60 years later.
You may not immediately see the point of his general theory of relativity - but without it we couldn't have Sat Navs.
Fundamental research is often only developed years later - without it technology will stagnate.
Pretty much all technologically advanced countries invest in fundamental research partly for this reason
If we're not just considering the UK contribution we have to compare it to world figures
It is for example 0.0002% of the EU's GDP
I don't know what 0.0002% of your income is but I lose that down the back of the sofa!
But the real point seems to be the idea that we should only do research if it's linked to actual technological gains - I hear this argument often.
The thing with fundamental research is that you never know what the application will be.
Einstein won the Nobel prize forwork on the photoelectric effect - it ended up giving us lasers 60 years later.
You may not immediately see the point of his general theory of relativity - but without it we couldn't have Sat Navs.
Fundamental research is often only developed years later - without it technology will stagnate.
Pretty much all technologically advanced countries invest in fundamental research partly for this reason
Science has given us the technologies that predominate in our lives. Every part of our information technology is based on the applied technologies coming directly from Quantum Mechanics.
Lasers were the first tangibible fruit of that science and took over half a century from the first experiments to be mainfested as a device. Since then they have become the key to advances in every known technology. It has been said that there is not a single industrial technlogy that the laser has not been involved in improving. Not bad for something that was commented on as being "interesting but what would it be used for" when it was invented.
What could come of the experimetation in the LHC is not yet known but the only way we will find out is by going there.e cost is trivial. A tiny fraction of the cosmetic industry alone.
Lasers were the first tangibible fruit of that science and took over half a century from the first experiments to be mainfested as a device. Since then they have become the key to advances in every known technology. It has been said that there is not a single industrial technlogy that the laser has not been involved in improving. Not bad for something that was commented on as being "interesting but what would it be used for" when it was invented.
What could come of the experimetation in the LHC is not yet known but the only way we will find out is by going there.e cost is trivial. A tiny fraction of the cosmetic industry alone.
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.