The LHC hits its stride, but America’s Tevatron is still in the running

I wanna bet on which black hole will be stronger.

bradshsi,

A valid point indeed; however, it is one that bears irony.

It is the products, and, indeed, the by-products of science that have even allowed you to make such a post. I am not one for the view of utopia being brought by science (nor, indeed, of the idea of utopia itself, for its basis is in that of bias; it is not an absolute). Were one to look at the Enlightenment, one would see its grounding is in, supposedly, reason and, in turn, science; it is the Enlightenment and its subsequent produce that we cling to so dearly to in the 'West', as though world history were linear in its direction. Indeed, North Korea, for example, applies quite a handsome sum toward ‘practicality’: the money spent on its military is most in line with its ideology and the protection thereof. My point is this: many cling to idea that reason and its practical child—science— are to shape a better dwelling for humanity... but this is biased, for what is better?

I shall, superficially, concede the point regarding the practical purposes of such an enterprise —LHC and the like. Resorting to philosophy, then, if we are indeed to be afforded this utopia, what shall we do with our time? For the most part, in the developed world, we are quite comfortable; thus, we are in the position to explore our curiosities, which in turn, perhaps, will make for an even better place in which to live. Imagine a world in which most of our undergraduates undertook the sciences—of which, mostly are practical—rather than such degrees that only proliferate consumerism—media studies, say; they only serve to generate thus more consumerism. Before singing off this point, I admit that you may, of course, say that such money be best spent on the welfare of citizens; but, to that, I should say that much tax money has been wasted on other ventures.

Logicians of ancient China were held with disdain by some, if not most, for their practise was seen to have held not practical gain—have we not benefited from the philosophy of the Greeks, bar Aristotle’s rejection of the void, which led to a lengthy stagnation toward this ‘Enlightenment’? Many try to draw a correlation between science and the betterment of a society; I, however, see the correlation being between the willingness to learn and the welfare of society being of people that have such a willingness.

Indeed, Plato said, to paraphrase, and perhaps to add to, that the better society is one that is 'ruled' by philosophers, for their incentive is not of material gain but of the sake of knowledge.

Although both, the LHC and the Tevatron, are trying to find the Higgs they don't have to be seen as rivals. If any of them manages to find it (or if they find something more interesting) it would be a important breakthrough that most physicist would celebrate (no matter where the results are coming from).

The Grid? How long until that thing becomes self-aware?

"That upgrade done, physicists will be in the starting boxes for the next race. This is to pin down dark matter and dark energy—the 95% of the universe the Standard Model doesn’t explain."

It's kind of sad that we've worked so hard to explain just 5% of the universe. It's also likely that there are dark matters and dark energies, a whole new "zoo" of particles to explain.

Apple

In fairness, the article does not mention anything of anything going faster than the speed of light. You mentioned (c2), this, though, is only twice the speed of light, and it relates to the equation E=MC(2) (energy = mass multiplied by the speed of light (squared)). The equation shows how mass and energy are connected (equivocal)—it is why an atomic bomb is as powerful as it is, and why the sun is as powerful as it is (fission and fusion, respectively, demonstrate the amount of energy that is 'wrapped' up in mass, for they are, in a sense, the same thing).

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." -Douglas Adams

BalanceAnd Fair,

I would say that this '95%' is somewhat context dependent. The Standard Model (SM) is to, in its attempts, explain the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. In this context, it is only gravity that SM is still to explain, but it does account for 75% of the fundamental forces. Likewise, of matter, energy, dark-matter and dark-energy, we are able to explain the first two but not the last. It is the only that last two that, seemingly, make up 95% of what occupies the (or perhaps this) universe. But, of the four forces of the universe, we are able to explain 50%.

In broader context, if were to look at what we have learnt since Aristotelian physics—the universe being of four elements; heavier bodies fall faster than their relatively lighter body counterparts, for example— we would see that we have explained an awful lot. Indeed, in the realm of classical physics, we have explained just that, in the context of previous questions, as it were.

Of the 95% that, seemingly, constitutes the universe, we are ignorant; but, we are able to explain the workings of the universe, for the most part, of that which we can detect—and this 95% is, indeed, a product of a successful, progressive enterprise.

Katalina-

Bust out the champagne, yes, but no researcher likes being scooped. Especially when billions of dollars went into the equipment. o_O

And for further contemplation of how much we really know about the universe,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html

The last time anyone tried using this technology resulted in the big bang and the start of our universe

"the 95% of the universe the Standard Model doesn’t explain"

~nothing to add just like quoting: "the 95% of the universe the Standard Model doesn’t explain"

:-)

The speed of the light is the fastest element in the universe.
is it reasonable to talk of a speed hundred of thousands of time
faster that c (c2)

Hugh Jigo wrote: Jul 29th 2010 10:24 GMT
The Grid? How long until that thing becomes self-aware?

Has anyone asked it?

"The LHC remains the favourite to beat its American rival at spotting the Higgs" A competition normally has a winable outcome (eg: finish line, goalposts)

Need to mention that potential exists that Higgs as described doesnt exist or that they simply wont find anything (due to identification/detection issues)...

*Correction*

"But, of the four forces of the universe, we are able to explain 50%." should read "But, of these four, we are able to account, it not explain, for 50%."

So... My taxes hard at work trying to prove a mathematical model that is irrelevant in that it can't explain the majority of the known universe (or gravity).

I'm sure there must be a good reason why billions have been spent on this. Can anyone chime in and enlighten us as to what they are ?

I don't want to attack the string theory as: "not even wrong", but is it wise to put so much faith in a model which cannot even explain gravity, and put so much money to build white elephant hoping magic will appear?

Yet 45% of Americans thinks there is no such thing as evolution and that the whole big bang thing is a fraud. So much for scientific progress and enlightenment.

To those who question the money spent, I offer this quote from the late, great, Carl Sagan.

"Our future depends powerfully on how well we understand this cosmos, in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky."

I would prefer if the US researchers did not get there first, for the simple reason that it would provide them with a stick to beat the politicians with. Otherwise the Republicans will be able point back to the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider and say, "see you didn't need it after all."

Apple wrote: "The speed of the light is the fastest element in the universe. Is it reasonable to talk of a speed hundred of thousands of time faster that c (c2)"

Actually that depends upon the units used. Using Planck units c=1 so c2 = c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units