A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 18, 02:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAcLW6qdQY

  #2  
Old December 15th 18, 08:42 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't

done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,

costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still,

spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have

spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).


It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.
  #3  
Old December 17th 18, 03:46 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't

done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,

costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still,

spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have

spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).


It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.


Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of.
  #4  
Old December 17th 18, 03:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).


Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category

And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its
bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some
orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
  #5  
Old December 17th 18, 03:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.


Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of.


If one day the medical research done up there helps to save *your* life,
would that be "positive" enough for you?

Blithering idiot.

Do not feed the troll.

(This has nothing to do with amateur astronomy, the topic of this newsgroup.)

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
  #6  
Old December 17th 18, 06:36 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:46:59 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't

done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,

costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade.

Still,
spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have

spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).


It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you

seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given

good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans

the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to

and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the

cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely

nothing
from the ISS.


Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide

the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can
think of.

Doing that may produce a result you think is too small, but it will
still be larger than zero.
  #7  
Old December 17th 18, 06:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything
since then.


That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone
justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best
instrument available for high-energy research.

Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for
new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to
energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too.

The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built.

John Savard
  #8  
Old December 18th 18, 01:38 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:54:15 UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).


Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category

And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its
bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some
orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters.


Where, on your 9" green screen monochromatic CGA monitor?
  #9  
Old December 18th 18, 01:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Monday, 17 December 2018 01:58:51 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything
since then.


That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone
justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best
instrument available for high-energy research.

Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for
new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to
energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too.

The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built.

John Savard


You can't be serious. It's like spending $1 billion on a moon rocket that can't break orbit then blaming the rocket.
  #10  
Old December 18th 18, 02:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:59:37 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

You can't be serious. It's like spending $1 billion on a moon rocket that can't
break orbit then blaming the rocket.


The difference is that escape velocity is known in advance, whereas the energy
regime in which new physics may be found... is unknown.

So it's not like a rocket that can't get to orbit; it's like a rocket that _does_
get to Mars... but fails to find life there.

John Savard
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Large Hadron Collider Angelocracy Policy 49 September 15th 08 03:13 PM
The Large Hadron Collider Angelocracy History 54 September 15th 08 03:13 PM
LARGE HADRON COLLIDER and 'Higgs field' (Was... ) oldcoot Misc 1 September 9th 08 07:22 PM
Large Hadron Collider L.A.T.[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 3 September 2nd 08 11:51 PM
Large Hadron Collider David Sweeney Amateur Astronomy 14 March 4th 07 11:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.