CERN colliding beams

It's nice to see that CERN has gotten its collider
successfully intersecting beams within its detectors
this week.

It's far past fascinating that the best way to study
the Big Bang is in the realm of the almost
unimaginably small.

Any bets on how soon we will see something
unexpected in the results, or more likely,
something, like a Higgs boson, expected but at a now
precise energy point?

Any predictions on what new science (as opposed to
merely data) will then be forthcoming?

Does finding the elusive Higgs boson suddenly put a
Theory of Everything there like a grape ripe for the
plucking?

Or is the discovery (or elimination of the
possibility within the CERN energy range of) the
Higgs boson just one more minor but necessary detail
in a still mindbogglingly difficult slog to such a
theory?

xanthian.

It would, I suppose, be far past terminal if "the
universe as we know it" had another major symmetry
waiting for sufficient localized energy to break it.

Luckily, in dreamy ignorance, I have no idea what
does or does not rule out such a possibility.

So, I'm going to have another slice of cheese.

You too, Grommit?

Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
It's nice to see that CERN has gotten its collider
successfully intersecting beams within its detectors
this week.

It's far past fascinating that the best way to study
the Big Bang is in the realm of the almost
unimaginably small.

imv, if 1/8th the money were spent on a 100m telescope, we could learn
more about the big bang by observing it.

Any bets on how soon we will see something
unexpected in the results, or more likely,
something, like a Higgs boson, expected but at a now
precise energy point?

I would care to bet that we don't see the Higgs boson, and that the only
unexpected result is that we don't find any unexpected results.

Any predictions on what new science (as opposed to
merely data) will then be forthcoming?

None. New science will come from unification of quantum theory with
gravity, which is an entirely theoretical problem.

Does finding the elusive Higgs boson suddenly put a
Theory of Everything there like a grape ripe for the
plucking?

No. Even if a particle were found it would do nothing to resolve
mathematical and interpretational issues in the standard model, and
nothing to address quantum gravity.

Or is the discovery (or elimination of the
possibility within the CERN energy range of) the
Higgs boson just one more minor but necessary detail
in a still mindbogglingly difficult slog to such a
theory?

If the standard model is along the right lines, this would describe the
relevance of finding Higgs.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
It's nice to see that CERN has gotten its collider
successfully intersecting beams within its detectors
this week.

It's far past fascinating that the best way to study
the Big Bang is in the realm of the almost
unimaginably small.

imv, if 1/8th the money were spent on a 100m telescope, we could learn
more about the big bang by observing it.
Any bets on how soon we will see something
unexpected in the results, or more likely,
something, like a Higgs boson, expected but at a now
precise energy point?

I would care to bet that we don't see the Higgs boson, and that the only
unexpected result is that we don't find any unexpected results.

Any no money for future Big Money colliders.

Any predictions on what new science (as opposed to
merely data) will then be forthcoming?

None. New science will come from unification of quantum theory with
gravity, which is an entirely theoretical problem.

Not necessarily.
We might see interesting stuff where QM meets the macroscopic.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

Thus spake Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan
It's nice to see that CERN has gotten its collider
successfully intersecting beams within its detectors
this week.

It's far past fascinating that the best way to study
the Big Bang is in the realm of the almost
unimaginably small.

imv, if 1/8th the money were spent on a 100m telescope, we could learn
more about the big bang by observing it.
Any bets on how soon we will see something
unexpected in the results, or more likely,
something, like a Higgs boson, expected but at a now
precise energy point?

I would care to bet that we don't see the Higgs boson, and that the only
unexpected result is that we don't find any unexpected results.

Any no money for future Big Money colliders.

Any predictions on what new science (as opposed to
merely data) will then be forthcoming?

None. New science will come from unification of quantum theory with
gravity, which is an entirely theoretical problem.

Not necessarily.
We might see interesting stuff where QM meets the macroscopic.

I agree with that, but of course colliders do not study the macroscopic.
I have been treating light from distant astronomical bodies as photons,
using quantum mechanics. I do indeed get a range of differences in
prediction from standard theory. So far all analyses of observations
support my predictions, but Gaia should provide a straightforward and
undeniable test by showing that there is a difference between radial
velocity calculated spectrographically using standard formulae, and
actual radial velocities calculated from direct measurement of changes
in distance.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net