6 ms·

« test the Standard Model of particle physics in new ways and look for signs of new physics that may lie beyond it » "Surely we're just a teensy bit away from

« test the Standard Model of particle physics in new ways and look for signs of new physics that may lie beyond it » "Surely we're just a teensy bit away from that new physics, and if we can just a little bit more money^Wenergy into the system, we'll find that new physics for sure!"

metacritic12 2y ago
Seriously, this headline is the quantum equivalent of "super expensive catapult observe tallest free fall yet." Or verifying Galileo's free fall experiment with more and more items. It's nice that Newton's laws still hold, but do we really need to test it on the one millionth object?
- dexwiz 2y ago
  There are some effects that may show up only at very high energies. A large enough catapult and you would put something into orbit. Wouldn’t that be a novel outcome?
  - pohuing 2y ago
    Or fast enough to break the sound barrier. I'd assume that's a new discovery when catapults were still relevant. Or heating of the projectile from drag...
    - andreareina 2y ago
      How about a supersonic trebuchet? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXOS-B0Bus https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXOS-B0Bus
  - zeroonetwothree 2y ago
    Yes but clearly you couldn’t achieve that with normal catapult technology. You need some theory to be able to predict what energies are going to be significant.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- Valectar 2y ago
  At high enough energies the laws of physics are actually different. Two of the four fundamental forces in physics, the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction, are actually a single force which only appears to be two separate forces at "low" energies/temperatures, with low being the pretty much all temperatures in the universe after the Big Bang. It is completely reasonable to test whether phenomenon that hold at low energies still hold at high energies, and that may be the only way you're going to find more fundamental physical laws. Especially when we know quantum theory is incomplete, since it is currently incompatible with general relativity.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Right now, we have two sets of laws, one at very small scales and one at macro scales. We don't yet have a theory to unify the two. Any and all experiments give data that can help with those and many other questions.
- wasabi991011 2y ago
  You're not wrong but on the other hand, if you already have super expensive catapult that's been throwing things at the tallest heights for years, why not publish a short paper analyzing the data to show it matches freefall at those heights?
jfengel 2y ago
They know that it's a long way and a lot more money. Fundamental physics has a habit of paying off in utterly unexpected ways, but that's not really why we do this. It's pure curiosity. They are grateful that the public seems willing to pay for curiosity. I don't know how long it will last. Though I can say that it's a rounding error in national budgets.
- iamflimflam1 2y ago
  Imagine how much money is spent on defence. And then imagine the tiny proportion that is spend on basic research that might result in offensive or defensive weapons.
  - greenavocado 2y ago
    The fusion breakthrough in the National Ignition Facility was said to be essentially a program claiming to be for nuclear weapons research but instead they did fundamental research.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      I think it'd be clearer to say they did fundamental research as part of nuclear weapons research. The goal of the facility is to perform testing that can help to validate the continued functioning and yield of the nuclear weapon stockpile without actually setting off a nuke. Since a hydrogen bomb achieves fusion ignition, being able to perform ignition at the facility is kind of part of the goal.
  - AmericanChopper 2y ago
    Personally I can’t imagine not understanding that the defence funding is one of the most essential factors in enabling our modern way of life. It’s been so effective at providing the security needed to produce globalisation and highly democratic societies, that a lot of people have forgotten the reason we need it in the first place. Certainly worth the minuscule portion of GDP we allocate to it.
SiempreViernes 2y ago
Hey, saying paradise is just around the corner with "just a bit more scale" works wonderfully for OpenAI, and these guys have much more modest claims and asks.
- carstenhag 2y ago
  The people at cern are amazing at making you like science & gather money. I was there only for a student trip (non-related studies) and they had many slides about how awesome the international collaboration, science, funding etc is. And of course, they show you the huge site and machines and talk about stuff that you don't understand anything about.
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
I don’t know if that’s what people are saying, tho maybe part of convincing the public to fund such efforts involves strongly suggesting that could be the case. But what else can we do but poke them harder? It’s been working so far.

metacritic12 2y ago

Seriously, this headline is the quantum equivalent of "super expensive catapult observe tallest free fall yet." Or verifying Galileo's free fall experiment with more and more items. It's nice that Newton's laws still hold, but do we really need to test it on the one millionth object?

dexwiz 2y ago
There are some effects that may show up only at very high energies. A large enough catapult and you would put something into orbit. Wouldn’t that be a novel outcome?
- pohuing 2y ago
  Or fast enough to break the sound barrier. I'd assume that's a new discovery when catapults were still relevant. Or heating of the projectile from drag...
  - andreareina 2y ago
    How about a supersonic trebuchet? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXOS-B0Bus https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gdXOS-B0Bus
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Yes but clearly you couldn’t achieve that with normal catapult technology. You need some theory to be able to predict what energies are going to be significant.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Valectar 2y ago
At high enough energies the laws of physics are actually different. Two of the four fundamental forces in physics, the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction, are actually a single force which only appears to be two separate forces at "low" energies/temperatures, with low being the pretty much all temperatures in the universe after the Big Bang. It is completely reasonable to test whether phenomenon that hold at low energies still hold at high energies, and that may be the only way you're going to find more fundamental physical laws. Especially when we know quantum theory is incomplete, since it is currently incompatible with general relativity.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
Right now, we have two sets of laws, one at very small scales and one at macro scales. We don't yet have a theory to unify the two. Any and all experiments give data that can help with those and many other questions.
wasabi991011 2y ago
You're not wrong but on the other hand, if you already have super expensive catapult that's been throwing things at the tallest heights for years, why not publish a short paper analyzing the data to show it matches freefall at those heights?

jfengel 2y ago

They know that it's a long way and a lot more money. Fundamental physics has a habit of paying off in utterly unexpected ways, but that's not really why we do this. It's pure curiosity. They are grateful that the public seems willing to pay for curiosity. I don't know how long it will last. Though I can say that it's a rounding error in national budgets.

iamflimflam1 2y ago
Imagine how much money is spent on defence. And then imagine the tiny proportion that is spend on basic research that might result in offensive or defensive weapons.
- greenavocado 2y ago
  The fusion breakthrough in the National Ignition Facility was said to be essentially a program claiming to be for nuclear weapons research but instead they did fundamental research.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    I think it'd be clearer to say they did fundamental research as part of nuclear weapons research. The goal of the facility is to perform testing that can help to validate the continued functioning and yield of the nuclear weapon stockpile without actually setting off a nuke. Since a hydrogen bomb achieves fusion ignition, being able to perform ignition at the facility is kind of part of the goal.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  Personally I can’t imagine not understanding that the defence funding is one of the most essential factors in enabling our modern way of life. It’s been so effective at providing the security needed to produce globalisation and highly democratic societies, that a lot of people have forgotten the reason we need it in the first place. Certainly worth the minuscule portion of GDP we allocate to it.

SiempreViernes 2y ago

Hey, saying paradise is just around the corner with "just a bit more scale" works wonderfully for OpenAI, and these guys have much more modest claims and asks.

carstenhag 2y ago
The people at cern are amazing at making you like science & gather money. I was there only for a student trip (non-related studies) and they had many slides about how awesome the international collaboration, science, funding etc is. And of course, they show you the huge site and machines and talk about stuff that you don't understand anything about.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago

I don’t know if that’s what people are saying, tho maybe part of convincing the public to fund such efforts involves strongly suggesting that could be the case. But what else can we do but poke them harder? It’s been working so far.