Chat
05-28-2015, 06:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2015, 06:43 PM by twiceblessed9.)
Really, nothing got my attention. There were a few questions that are apparently asked at these sessions all the time such as: Are you guys going to destroy the world? lol (crickets... mostly from CERN on that, though others answered with attempted humor I guess.
Here is a basic answer from CERN about what they are looking for.
"Indeed we are looking for a very broad range of things at the LHC, and Supersymmetry, Dark matter and extra dimensions are among them. As an experimental physicist I don't actually care myself which of them (if ANY) is right as I just want to find out about what Nature is. We conduct typically 100 searches for particles at any moment in time, and have also several hundred triggers which decide which data we record. Dark matter is indeed a particularly well motivated thing to look for as we know for sure it exists! We just don't know what it is and indeed we search for events with a large imbalance in momentum to find dark matter."
And one more set of questions:
*Hey guys, I have a few questions:
1) Pop science keeps claiming you're trying to recreate conditions at the Big Bang. Are you actually doing that? If yes, are you trying to recreate inflationary epoch as well? If yes, can you ELI5 as to how?
2) There was a brilliant article on Aeon magazine (link) about theoretical physicists taking mathematics way too literally. As in, just because the mathematics of string theory is beautiful, many physicists think that multi-universe is real. Do you think this is in any way hindering the progress of science at the moment? Or does this sort of public debate happen on the sidelines and not affect actual theoretical physics work?
3) Why do you guys even use Google+?
1) we are creating conditions shortly after the big bang, about 10-10 seconds, so 1 tenth of a billionth of a second.
2) This is an interesting question. Indeed beauty has been a powerful guide to theorists in the past and so it is used as a guide for the future. There is a nice article by Eugene Wigner on the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreaso...l_Sciences
And in reply to (3), we do these on G+! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...JL3LDz9-L_
Here is a basic answer from CERN about what they are looking for.
"Indeed we are looking for a very broad range of things at the LHC, and Supersymmetry, Dark matter and extra dimensions are among them. As an experimental physicist I don't actually care myself which of them (if ANY) is right as I just want to find out about what Nature is. We conduct typically 100 searches for particles at any moment in time, and have also several hundred triggers which decide which data we record. Dark matter is indeed a particularly well motivated thing to look for as we know for sure it exists! We just don't know what it is and indeed we search for events with a large imbalance in momentum to find dark matter."
And one more set of questions:
*Hey guys, I have a few questions:
1) Pop science keeps claiming you're trying to recreate conditions at the Big Bang. Are you actually doing that? If yes, are you trying to recreate inflationary epoch as well? If yes, can you ELI5 as to how?
2) There was a brilliant article on Aeon magazine (link) about theoretical physicists taking mathematics way too literally. As in, just because the mathematics of string theory is beautiful, many physicists think that multi-universe is real. Do you think this is in any way hindering the progress of science at the moment? Or does this sort of public debate happen on the sidelines and not affect actual theoretical physics work?
3) Why do you guys even use Google+?
1) we are creating conditions shortly after the big bang, about 10-10 seconds, so 1 tenth of a billionth of a second.
2) This is an interesting question. Indeed beauty has been a powerful guide to theorists in the past and so it is used as a guide for the future. There is a nice article by Eugene Wigner on the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreaso...l_Sciences
And in reply to (3), we do these on G+! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL...JL3LDz9-L_