Congrats to my former colleagues!

[Ike]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/space/18cosmos.html

They've made a very important discovery that goes quite a bit farther in explaining (in physics terms) why we are here (as opposed to not being here due to matter and anti-matter annihilating each other right at the beginning). This issue has been one of the vexing issues with the standard model and the big bang for quite some time...the math says we shouldn't be here, yet here we are. Now we may be getting close to a reason for it.

The article is a fairly short, and interesting read.

Congrats guys!

[OKLA21FAN]

is this what caused the blackout? :gary:

[47straight]

Physics is very, very beautiful.

[Okla-homey]

This issue has been one of the vexing issues with the standard model and the big bang for quite some time...the math says we shouldn't be here, yet here we are.


The math says we shouldn't be here? Who cares? There is a simple explanation to your vexation. God willed us and the rest of the universe into being. Sheesh. I knew that in kindergarten.

srsly.

[yermom]

:rolleyes:

[Ike]

The math says we shouldn't be here? Who cares? There is a simple explanation to your vexation. God willed us and the rest of the universe into being. Sheesh. I knew that in kindergarten.

srsly.

So are you saying that if we develop a theory that explains nearly absolutely every kind of interaction we've ever observed in the lab, but that as part of the underlying math of that theory, one would come to the concusion that we shouldn't exist (IOW, no reason for there to be no antimatter in the universe), that we should just throw it out and say it must all be because God willed it to be that way? Not that we should instead say "hey, there's a little problem with this...maybe there is something we are missing. Let's find out what it is thats causing what is missing...because obviously we are here. Or we are in the matrix."

We sciency types prefer the latter method of doing things. And now we've found at least direct evidence that there IS something missing, and an interaction to study further...but not a cause for it. But the evidence is enough to begin more studies to determine the cause.

God may have willed the universe into existence. God might also be called Steve. The fun of science is to try to see exactly what God (or Steve) willed into existence. The nature or existence of God is beyond our scope. The universe he left us in is not.

[Leroy Lizard]

So are you saying that if we develop a theory that explains nearly absolutely every kind of interaction we've ever observed in the lab, but that as part of the underlying math of that theory, one would come to the concusion that we shouldn't exist (IOW, no reason for there to be no antimatter in the universe), that we should just throw it out and say it must all be because God willed it to be that way? Not that we should instead say "hey, there's a little problem with this...maybe there is something we are missing. Let's find out what it is thats causing what is missing...because obviously we are here. Or we are in the matrix."

We sciency types prefer the latter method of doing things. And now we've found at least direct evidence that there IS something missing, and an interaction to study further...but not a cause for it. But the evidence is enough to begin more studies to determine the cause.

God may have willed the universe into existence. God might also be called Steve. The fun of science is to try to see exactly what God (or Steve) willed into existence. The nature or existence of God is beyond our scope. The universe he left us in is not.

Will any of this be on the test?

[soonerboy_odanorth]

The nature or existence of God is beyond our scope. The universe he left us in is not.


Really? Explain infinity. :pop:

[Ike]

Really? Explain infinity. :pop:

infinity is less a construct of the divine than it is a construct of man. The idea of letting a quantity increase without bound. We don't ever 'see' that happen in reality, but we can imagine it.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not sure we can even imagine it.

[yermom]

i don't know, i can imagine a lot

[Osce0la]

So are you saying that if we develop a theory that explains nearly absolutely every kind of interaction we've ever observed in the lab, but that as part of the underlying math of that theory, one would come to the concusion that we shouldn't exist (IOW, no reason for there to be no antimatter in the universe), that we should just throw it out and say it must all be because God willed it to be that way? Not that we should instead say "hey, there's a little problem with this...maybe there is something we are missing. Let's find out what it is thats causing what is missing...because obviously we are here. Or we are in the matrix."

We sciency types prefer the latter method of doing things. And now we've found at least direct evidence that there IS something missing, and an interaction to study further...but not a cause for it. But the evidence is enough to begin more studies to determine the cause.

God may have willed the universe into existence. God might also be called Steve. The fun of science is to try to see exactly what God (or Steve) willed into existence. The nature or existence of God is beyond our scope. The universe he left us in is not.

Science proves the existence of God with every new discovery...


just my opinion

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I thought the 'Big Bang' was what you got for 100 bucks down at China Moon.

[OU Adonis]

is this what caused the blackout? :gary:


I thought it was the fifth of Jaegier.


Or we talking about a different blackout?

[Leroy Lizard]

i don't know, i can imagine a lot

But this is more than "a lot."

[yermom]

i'm almost intimately familiar with infinite and infinitesimal concepts, but my nerdy movie reference was apparently not appreciated :D

[GrapevineSooner]

Why does the Yankees bullpen suck right now, Mr. Smarty Pants. :D

[StoopTroup]

The best thing for you Lab Types is when you discover a lack of evidence that requires further study of said lack of evidence which ultimately leads to finding a way to discover more funding to fill your never ending void of searching for more nothingness.

It's a great scam...almost worthy of the Joel Olsteen Award for the advancement of collecting something from nothing. :D

[Ike]

Why does the Yankees bullpen suck right now, Mr. Smarty Pants. :D

Thats an easy one.

Chan Ho Park.

[Ike]

The best thing for you Lab Types is when you discover a lack of evidence that requires further study of said lack of evidence which ultimately leads to finding a way to discover more funding to fill your never ending void of searching for more nothingness.

It's a great scam...almost worthy of the Joel Olsteen Award for the advancement of collecting something from nothing. :D

heh. You are close...it's not discovering a lack of evidence, but rather evidence that something is 'new'. And yes, discovering new physics (which this is) does lead to new funding.


And it's not necessarily something from nothing we are collecting. It may turn out that this discovery has profound impact on say, building an antimatter bomb. Or some futuristic propulsion through space. We don't know.

It might also wind up being little more than a cool fact to rattle off at cocktail parties. :D

[StoopTroup]

Or you might be able to create the largest collection plate ever known to man as currently that honor is bestowed on the Hadron Collider in Europe.


With a budget of 9 billion US dollars (approx. €6.3bn or £5.6bn as of Jan 2010), the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built.[49] The total cost of the project is expected to be of the order of 4.6bn Swiss francs (approx. $4.4bn, €3.1bn, or £2.8bn as of Jan 2010) for the accelerator and SFr 1.16bn (approx. $1.1bn, €0.8bn, or £0.7bn as of Jan 2010) for the CERN contribution to the experiments.[50]

The construction of LHC was approved in 1995 with a budget of SFr 2.6bn, with another SFr 210M towards the experiments. However, cost overruns, estimated in a major review in 2001 at around SFr 480M for the accelerator, and SFr 50M for the experiments, along with a reduction in CERN's budget, pushed the completion date from 2005 to April 2007.[51] The superconducting magnets were responsible for SFr 180M of the cost increase. There were also further costs and delays due to engineering difficulties encountered while building the underground cavern for the Compact Muon Solenoid,[52] and also due to faulty parts provided by Fermilab.[53]

Due to lower electricity costs during the summer, it is expected that the LHC will normally not operate over the winter months,[54] although an exception was made to make up for the 2008 start-up delays over the 2009/10 winter.

[jkjsooner]

I'm not sure we can even imagine it.

It's a lot easier to imagine than trying to imagine its absence in things like space. If space stops, what is on the other side?

[Ike]

Or you might be able to create the largest collection plate ever known to man as currently that honor is bestowed on the Hadron Collider in Europe.

Heh. The thing is running now, and already starting to produce results though.

I will say one thing though as far as the cost and time over-runs. It's really hard to predict what a thing like this is going to cost, and how long it will take to make it fully operational. Because even though we've built accelerators before, none of them have even come close to being as complex as this one. You try to factor in some wiggle room based on past experiences, but it's never enough because many of the problems you encounter are things nobody would have dreamed of.

But that being said, in the physics community (at least my end of it) there was always a sense that the timelines for the LHC were quite overly optimistic. Unfortunately, the circles I was in did not include any of the decision makers and such. But I suppose part of that has to do with the unique political situation that CERN resides in, in which its budget comes from a large number of countries, as opposed to say, fermilab, who's budget is primarily funded through the DOE.

As for the winter shutdowns, yeah, energy costs in Europe are a lot higher in the winter. But every accelerator has major shutdowns every year. Usually for very extensive maintenance operations. The high energy costs in the winter offer a convenient time to schedule those. (A rule of thumb my advisor taught me is that an accelerator won't be running for about 1/3 of every year...happens at every one of them.)


<edit> and WTF is up with that article you quoted. I've never seen Swiss Francs abbreviated SFr. I've always only seen CHF.

[jkjsooner]

The best thing for you Lab Types is when you discover a lack of evidence that requires further study of said lack of evidence which ultimately leads to finding a way to discover more funding to fill your never ending void of searching for more nothingness.

It's a great scam...almost worthy of the Joel Olsteen Award for the advancement of collecting something from nothing. :D


I know, science has been such a drain on humankind...

[JohnnyMack]

I thought the 'Big Bang' was what you got for 100 bucks down at China Moon.

No. All you get is a burning sensation when you pee.

[JohnnyMack]

Thats an easy one.

Chan Ho Park.

Joba ain't helping.

[Ike]

Joba ain't helping.

It's the Chan Ho Park spillover effect. By being near someone, he slowly turns them into him.

Just look at what he did to Brad Lidge.