/sci/ - Science & Math

Is there a limit where making it bigger would not be useful anymore ?

We should make one around the earth, you know with the inner core in its center.

>>14581511
>produce results
it WILL produce results despite if it finds what it's supposed to find or not
negative results are (or rather, should be) as valuable as positive ones in science

>>14581577
Sure, if your hypothesis space is evenly distributed in a random manner across some arbitrary geometric bearing.

>>14581570

We need one at least a trillion times more powerful than the LHC to produce the energy necessary to reproduce the GUT era when the electroweak and the strong force were one.

The novel particles predicted by GUT models are expected to have extremely high masses—around the GUT scale of 10^6 GeV. The scale 10^16 GeV is only a few orders of magnitude below the Planck energy of 10^19 GeV, and thus not within reach of man-made earth bound colliders

>>14581511
What do you care pidor?

>>14581591
So you need just more energy and you get GUT or TOE? Otherwise not? How about we put more energy but into scientist brain?

>>14582738

We have. We have literally thousands of GUT and TOE theories but we don't know which one is right. The only way to know which one are right is by performing experiments. For that, we need a particle accelerator several orders of magnitude more powerful than anything we have ever built. However, no particle accelerator build on Earth could ever hope to match these energy levels, at least not with the current tech. The only alternative is to observe astrophysical phenomena that act as giant particle accelerators to find exotic particles.

>>14582738

To give you an idea, unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, if they exist: though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector. The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole.

LIGO and Virgo collaborations' observations have directly detected gravitational waves. Others have postulated that graviton scattering yields gravitational waves as particle interactions yield coherent states. Although these experiments cannot detect individual gravitons, they might provide information about certain properties of the graviton. For example, if gravitational waves were observed to propagate slower than C (the speed of light in a vacuum), that would imply that the graviton has mass. Recent observations of gravitational waves have put an upper bound of 1.2×10−22 eV/c2 on the graviton's mass. Astronomical observations of the kinematics of galaxies, especially the galaxy rotation problem and modified Newtonian dynamics, might point toward gravitons having non-zero mass.

>>14581511
It would debunk supersymmetry for good

>build gigaLHC
>only find the same Higgs

>>14582840

I've heard this one before. It would only confirm or rule out certain kinds of supersymmetry, not all of them. Supersymmetries may require even larger particle accelerators than the one proposed or not exist at all. We don't know. It would also rule out only certain hypothesis of black matter of thermal origin that we have no reason to believe they are correct, we don't even know if dark matter is a particle to begin with.

>>14581511
It would make Europe the leading superpower on particle physics

>>14581570
Bigger is better in a physics effective way (as in the collision energy can and does grows faster than the tunnel length which one might imagine is significant part of the cost of the facility 0.5TeV per km for LHC, 1 for FCC, SPS can only manage 0.06). If that's cost effective in terms of money no one can really know, the next major discovery might be one size up away or not.
As it typically is with cutting edge physics, the only way to know for sure is to build it and see if it works. There are certainly lot of interesting theories that could use verification.

>>14581511
It now officially covering a major big, with people legitly wondering what beneath their feet CERN's mooks are doing yet again, has officially made this supervillain scope.

>>14581511 (OP)
It now officially covering a major big city, with people legitly wondering what beneath their feet CERN's mooks are doing yet again, has officially made this supervillain scope.

>>14581511
Linear SSC would have been better - and much easier to upscale (just keep tunneling out in a straight line). Pity it got canned.

>>14581591
are they looking for anything specific that could help with energy requirements around the world?

>>14581511
>So, would this be a big waste of money or would it produce results for once?
Particle physicists brainwash politicians and businessmen into thinking that particle physics is of any worth, making them waste billions of tax payer money on projects that benefit a few 'physicists' who cash in on their made-up theories.

>>14583548
how the fuck else are we gonna try figuring shit out, we're stuck on this stupid fucking planet jerkin ourselves off

>>14583552
>how the fuck else are we gonna try figuring shit out
Yes, that's exactly how they get you. Speak of very complex theories that those politicians surely won't understand. Claim that once your and specifically YOUR theory is proven right, this will have an huge impact on engineering, microelectronics, chemistry etc., in short attracting potential investors. With politicians, the difference is only that the money comes from you, the tax payer. It should be noteworthy that many particle physicists also studied economics and were at one point employed in PR agencies or the financial/administrative department of wherever they teach. I knew a professor, a influential particle physicist, who regularly goes to conferences around the world which are specifically catered to investors and businessmen.

>>14583581

>>14583623
It's hardly as improbable as you think it is. You likely have a very child-like and naive understanding of academia, otherwise you would be acquainted with research paper mills and the bunch of schools and colleges that function as for-profit diploma mills. You are apparently also not aware of the issues that postdoctoral researchers have which is getting employment. For professors, the issue becomes more complicated since they themselves are tasked with ensuring that their department gets the money they need as opposed to just finding employment. Tenure etc. or even getting a position as an associate or assistant professor depends on how well you can sell yourself, specifically regarding your ability to attract money from the private sector or to secure money/grants coming from the state. In any case, that money may or may not come from the state. If it does not come from the state, you most likely get it from companies who have an interest in your research and who may even claim ownership on your research. So, how does this relate to CERN? It relates to CERN, because physicists within that research organization are fighting 1. over the money they already got and 2. fighting for more money to secure their position. It's that simple. Which of the hundreds of models do you want to test? Who gets to decide that?

>>14583671

>>14583671
>Who gets to decide that?
whoever does teh most work and handles teh most stress

>>14582840
super symmetry is unfalsifiable
>w-wait wait no supersymmetry exists you just need higher energies, the mega ultra large hadron collider is too low energy we 100 trillion more dollars to create the super mega ultra massive large hadron collider!