Re: LHC: absurd hype
- From: Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 11, 9:14 am, Timothy Murphy <gayle...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One expects nonsense about black-holes from the lower tabloids,
but absurd claims for the LHC seem to have invaded serious media.
What is the basis for the widely-repeated statement -
obviously the product of some PR department - that
"It will smash atoms together to create energies and temperatures
not seen since moments after the Big Bang
that created the universe and space-time about 14 billion years ago."
For suitable values of the word "moments" this is
not terribly bad for a main-stream-media outlet.
I think we are probably into "first three minutes"
type territory here. Maybe the second three minutes.
I have not looked at the specific energy levels and
where that fits compared to current cosmology models.
Also, the statements that it will help in some way in cancer treatment,
and in the disposal of nuclear material,
would do credit to a snake-oil salesman.
This accelerator is unlikely to do anything, at least
not directly, for those issues. At best, it will train
up a bunch of people who know about accelerators, and
they will do stuff that will contribute to them. It is
very special purpose, and would be very wasteful to
try to do those things with it.
Cancer treatment using accelerators was going on very
early in their history. Lawrence used one to treat his
own mother's cancer, by all accounts with good results.
She had been given only a few months, and wound up
living many years more, and her death was not related
to cancer.
The disposal of nuclear material is, at present, a
suggestion made by some accelerator physicists. It has
not been tried, even in prototype, so far as I know.
I'm not sure it would be reasonable to do it, nor of
any net benefit since it would likely cost a huge
amount to do it, maybe using energy comparable to the
energy generated in the use of the Uranium in a reactor.
As far as I can see, the only outcome at all likely
is that there may be evidence for the existence of the Higgs particle.
Since that seems to have been incorporated into the accepted model already
this would hardly change the face of science.
They might see supersymmetry. Or they might get a big old
null result on both. Or they might see something entirely
new. If it's any of those, then we learn something.
Or it might be confusing and ambiguous, meaning that the
new stuff is still outside the energy range. That would
be disappointing, but would still tell us stuff. Just not
quite as much.
The facility has value. It is possible to argue that this
value does or does not justify the cost. But it's hard to
do this usefully without a lot of context. And I will
point out that, having a PhD in particle physics (as I do)
does not give me any special insight into this. I've been
in the nuclear industry for 18 years, and much of what
particle physics is doing these days is pretty hazy in
my limited understanding.
The politics of the siutation is largely off topic here.
If you want to argue about govt funding of science, you
might like to find a politics forum.
Socks
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LHC: absurd hype
- From: Timothy Murphy
- Re: LHC: absurd hype
- References:
- LHC: absurd hype
- From: Timothy Murphy
- LHC: absurd hype
- Prev by Date: Re: Limit of a simple recurrence sequence
- Next by Date: Re: i want to make a science project
- Previous by thread: Re: LHC: absurd hype
- Next by thread: Re: LHC: absurd hype
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
