If the upgraded large hadron collider doesn't make any new unexpected discoveries, is this the end of physics?

[Axulus]

The large hadron collider is restarting, with upgrades to increase the energy of the collisions by over two-fold.

If no new particles are discovered and nothing inconsistent with our current understanding of the standard model happens, will this essentially be the end of physics?

It seems like we'll run into a situation where we have theories that are unable to be confirmed by experiment. An even larger collider may be needed, but it will be a hard sell to obtain the funding and may not be justified.

The next proposed collider is a linear collider, which allows for electron collisions. However, the energy of the collisions will be far less than the large hadron collider. Therefore, it wouldn't be able to discover any new particles. It will mostly allow very refined and accurate information on the Higgs and other things to a far greater degree of accuracy than the large hadron collider. If the large hadron collider doesn't change the direction of physics or give new fundamental insights, we could be nearing the end of our ability to progress our fundamental understanding of physics. I'm really hoping that's not the case.

 

[Juma]

The large hadron collider is restarting, with upgrades to increase the energy of the collisions by over two-fold.

If no new particles are discovered and nothing inconsistent with our current understanding of the standard model happens, will this essentially be the end of physics?

It seems like we'll run into a situation where we have theories that are unable to be confirmed by experiment. An even larger collider may be needed, but it will be a hard sell to obtain the funding and may not be justified.

The next proposed collider is a linear collider, which allows for electron collisions. However, the energy of the collisions will be far less than the large hadron collider. Therefore, it wouldn't be able to discover any new particles. It will mostly allow very refined and accurate information on the Higgs and other things to a far greater degree of accuracy than the large hadron collider. If the large hadron collider doesn't change the direction of physics or give new fundamental insights, we could be nearing the end of our ability to progress our fundamental understanding of physics. I'm really hoping that's not the case.

Nah. There is so much more to physics than detecting new particles in gigantic penis-enlargers.

 

[Axulus]

The large hadron collider is restarting, with upgrades to increase the energy of the collisions by over two-fold.

If no new particles are discovered and nothing inconsistent with our current understanding of the standard model happens, will this essentially be the end of physics?

It seems like we'll run into a situation where we have theories that are unable to be confirmed by experiment. An even larger collider may be needed, but it will be a hard sell to obtain the funding and may not be justified.

The next proposed collider is a linear collider, which allows for electron collisions. However, the energy of the collisions will be far less than the large hadron collider. Therefore, it wouldn't be able to discover any new particles. It will mostly allow very refined and accurate information on the Higgs and other things to a far greater degree of accuracy than the large hadron collider. If the large hadron collider doesn't change the direction of physics or give new fundamental insights, we could be nearing the end of our ability to progress our fundamental understanding of physics. I'm really hoping that's not the case.

Nah. There is so much more to physics than detecting new particles in gigantic penis-enlargers.

Yes, but I'm talking more so about a revision to the general theory of relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics, which we know must have fundamental flaws because they are incompatible with each other. Will we be unable to make progress in our fundamental understanding of physics - is there a real possibility that these two theories essentially never be overturned if the large hadron collider is not the experiment to do so?

Do you believe we will still potentially be able to obtain experimental evidence that is inconsistent with a prediction in either of these two theories, perhaps with astronomical observations of some sort?

 

[Juma]

If the upgraded large hadron collider doesn't make any new unexpected discove...

Nah. There is so much more to physics than detecting new particles in gigantic penis-enlargers.

Yes, but I'm talking more so about a revision to the general theory of relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics, which we know must have fundamental flaws because they are incompatible with each other. Will we be unable to make progress in our fundamental understanding of physics - is there a real possibility that these two theories essentially never be overturned if the large hadron collider is not the experiment to do so?

Do you believe we will still potentially be able to obtain experimental evidence that is inconsistent with a prediction in either of these two theories, perhaps with astronomical observations of some sort?

Of course I do. Think of all scientists now tied up in this gigantic project that can be freed and think for themselves instead of designing hardware and plan and analyze data.

 

[Axulus]

Yes, but I'm talking more so about a revision to the general theory of relativity and the standard model of quantum mechanics, which we know must have fundamental flaws because they are incompatible with each other. Will we be unable to make progress in our fundamental understanding of physics - is there a real possibility that these two theories essentially never be overturned if the large hadron collider is not the experiment to do so?

Do you believe we will still potentially be able to obtain experimental evidence that is inconsistent with a prediction in either of these two theories, perhaps with astronomical observations of some sort?

Of course I do. Think of all scientists now tied up in this gigantic project that can be freed and think for themselves instead of designing hardware and plan and analyze data.

Thinking for themselves has been going on for decades. The problem is the difficulty in the ability to experimentally verify these thoughts, which the large hadron collider was built to do. Thoughts that arose in 1964 (Peter Higgs et al.) got tested (and verified) for the first time just a few years ago, and it took billions of dollars and thousands of people to do so.

 

[Juma]

Thinking for themselves has been going on for decades.

Yes, some has have the liberty of pursuing their own ideas, but thousands of bright minds has been tied up into fullfill the dreams of the few. I dont think that is a altogether good idea.

 

[Axulus]

Thinking for themselves has been going on for decades.

Yes, some has have the liberty of pursuing their own ideas, but thousands of bright minds has been tied up into fullfill the dreams of the few. I dont think that is a altogether good idea.

When the thoughts take billions of dollars and thousands of people to experimentally verify, only those thoughts that have the highest level of support among the scientific community should be tested. Not every thought is equally worthy of being tested via experiment.

In a world where experimental costs are insignificant, I'm with you. Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of world anymore when it comes to the fundamental nature of reality.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course I do. Think of all scientists now tied up in this gigantic project that can be freed and think for themselves instead of designing hardware and plan and analyze data.

Thinking for themselves has been going on for decades. The problem is the difficulty in the ability to experimentally verify these thoughts, which the large hadron collider was built to do. Thoughts that arose in 1964 (Peter Higgs et al.) got tested (and verified) for the first time just a few years ago, and it took billions of dollars and thousands of people to do so.

What needs to be done for the next great advance is thought, not experiment. Experiment alone will not give us a unified field theory. The experiments are verifying existing models. Newton's universal law of gravitation and laws of motion, Maxwell's equations, Einstein's relativity, all came from the minds of individuals. Quantum Mechanics came from the minds of a relatively small group like Bohr, Heisengerg, Schrodinger, etc.

Relativity was needed because Newton's laws failed in the limits. Both relativity and QM fail in the limits, relativity failing in the limit approaching the micro scale and QM failing in the limit approaching the macro scale. It is quite possible that a revolutionarily new single theory is needed to replace both as relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics rather than a modification of the existing models. Unfortunately, people who think “outside the box” like Newton or Einstein don’t come along very often. Our current models, relativity and QM, are the box we are currently working within.
.

 

[repoman]

There are cosmic rays coming in a lot that are orders of magnitude more energetic than what the LHC makes.

I am not sure what can still be learned from these. They are not standardized like in the LHC.

Actually, I was just looking at the particle physics energy scale again:

The max energy possible for any particle is the Planck Energy (a particle would be its own black hole at or above this energy)

Planck Energy ~1.22*10^28 eV.

Most Energetic Cosmic Ray ~3*10^20 eV.

Current Accelerator Energy ~2*10^13 eV.

Visible light is in the units place electron-volt range. So basically, take the geometric ratio of Infrared energy and Planck energy and you roughly have the LHC energy.

LHC/Infrared ~ Planck/LHC.


In order to start to scale the ~14 orders of magnitude from LHC to Planck, what do we do?

Looks like the current universe may only get 7 more orders for standard matter.

 

[fromderinside]

The large hadron collider is restarting, with upgrades to increase the energy of the collisions by over two-fold.

If no new particles are discovered and nothing inconsistent with our current understanding of the standard model happens, will this essentially be the end of physics?

It seems like we'll run into a situation where we have theories that are unable to be confirmed by experiment. An even larger collider may be needed, but it will be a hard sell to obtain the funding and may not be justified.

<snip>

Often as our technological capabilities increase new very inexpensive methods are found to greatly improve older equipment perhaps by as much as 10 or 100 fold. US achieved that kind of gain without building a new device by just modifying an old one.

For some physics have not yet begun.

 

[rjh01]

Maybe they can put in new magnets that do not use liquid helium to cool them. In other words much stronger magnets with high temperature super conductors.

 

[Underseer]

In the upper atmosphere are particle collisions involving much more energy than what we see at the LHC. If would could just get the appropriate detectors up there, we could learn so much more. Unfortunately, the appropriate detectors are mind-bogglingly large and it would be too damn expensive to get something that big into the upper atmosphere.

If someone could figure out how to shrink those things, high energy physics would make a huge surge forward.

 

[fromderinside]

Its time for simulation to takeover this research. We can model quite well so why not crank up the energy given what we know and see what comes from that. Sure it still have to be proven, but, isn't it easier to look at outcomes from universe with large observing tools to confirm than it is to constrain those kind of physics to the very small here on a very weak environment platform at impossibly high cost.

 

[lpetrich]

Two problems with cosmic-ray collisions:

1. Cosmic-ray collisions are stationary-target ones. That does not use much of a cosmic ray's kinetic energy because the collision products must have momenta that add up to the original ray's momentum, and much of that ray's kinetic energy goes into that. In the high-energy limit (c = 1 units),

\(E_{collision} = \sqrt{ 2m_{stationary} E_{moving} }\)

2. The more energetic events are not very frequent. Many of the discoveries made with particle accelerators have been made by making a LOT of events so that they can get a few rare events.

From  Cosmic ray, events that make energies comparable to LHC collisions occur at about 1 per square meter per year. However, the LHC can do 600 million collisions per second (LHC collisions). One would need to observe cosmic rays over the entire Earth to get the LHC's event rate.

 

[fromderinside]

Two problems with cosmic-ray collisions:

1. Cosmic-ray collisions are stationary-target ones. That does not use much of a cosmic ray's kinetic energy because the collision products must have momenta that add up to the original ray's momentum, and much of that ray's kinetic energy goes into that. In the high-energy limit (c = 1 units),

\(E_{collision} = \sqrt{ 2m_{stationary} E_{moving} }\)

2. The more energetic events are not very frequent. Many of the discoveries made with particle accelerators have been made by making a LOT of events so that they can get a few rare events.

From  Cosmic ray, events that make energies comparable to LHC collisions occur at about 1 per square meter per year. However, the LHC can do 600 million collisions per second (LHC collisions). One would need to observe cosmic rays over the entire Earth to get the LHC's event rate.

What if we put a rather simple, but extremely sensitive detector system in space with the capability to record at trillionth of a trillionth of a second rates and pointed it a a very energetic star or supernova? I'm assuming there are media which would keep traces of events and generate light records of them.