Wednesday, July 09, 2014 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Bored scientists now just sticking random things into LHC

What are the LHC physicists doing when they're not on vacations, guest blogging, or insulting members of the TRF community? ;-)


Bored Scientists Now Just Sticking Random Things Into Large Hadron Collider

It's posted here so that you may see it before you learn it from the BBC, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, or another mainstream source.




I wouldn't be quite shocked if this were turned into a real news story with many journalists! The video above is a joke, if you didn't get it, but some people's anti-scientific sentiments are pretty much exactly and seriously equivalent to what the journalists are literally saying.

If you believe that they're doing nothing, you should try to read at least one of the hundreds of ATLAS and CMS papers.




Note that those who created the TV report above don't remember that the Higgs boson was discovered 2 years ago, in 2012, not 1 year ago.

There could have been a competent adviser behind the video because they know that a "large collider is needed to produce smaller things" which reveals at least some expertise. However, the precise sentence isn't quite right. The "deputy director" says that a bigger collider could produce smaller hadrons. But the size of hadrons is always pretty much the same and determined by the QCD scale – not far from "hundreds of \(\MeV\) of extra glued mass" and "one femtometer in diameter". One may create hadrons with heavier particles in them, instead of the light quarks, but when you study such objects with a very high-energy collider, you may pretty much forget about the "gluon-like QCD stuff" and focus on the new heavy particle inside because the latter is essentially free, due to the asymptotic freedom.

At any rate, the boredom they attribute to the scientists is comical – and ludicrous – indeed. The "deputy director" is disgustingly commenting on the "smaller hadrons" as if he didn't care. Just imagine the decades of life-persons – and time even outside the workplace – when physicists are dreaming about learning how physics works at "just slightly smaller" length scales than those they consider understood.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (25) :


reader AJ said...

OT: I found this link about quantum psychology interesting. Just wondering what your thoughts are?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2014/07/quantum-psychology


reader Luboš Motl said...

My thoughts are that it is indeed off-topic and less interesting than the topic where you posted this off-topic thing.


The human brain is such a warm and strongly internally interacting object that it can't maintain coherence - decoherence is too fast which is why classical logic is OK enough for the description of the state of each neuron, which is indeed a large mezo- or macroscopic object. Of course, inside the atoms and in the wires, quantum laws are essential to understand what's going on, but at the level of cells, classical physics is unavoidably a good approximation.


The "evidence" presented that one needs quantum mechanics at the level of neurons and opinions is silly. Answers in polls depend on the ordering of the questions? What a shock. This is surely possible in classical systems, too, isn't it?


reader Hamish Eady said...

The mind is such a heated and highly internal communicating item that it can't sustain coherence - decoherence is too quick which is why traditional reasoning is OK enough for the information of the condition of each neuron, which is indeed a huge mezo- or macroscopic item. Of course, within the atoms and in the cables, huge rules are important to comprehend what's going on, but at the stage of tissues, traditional science is unavoidably a excellent approximation. The details about the condition of a neuron is successfully traditional details.

NyLotto


reader Uncle Al said...

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/

In the past I suggested, 1) Lichtenberg figures!, and 2) Aim the thing up into the air when ISS FUBAR orbits overhead. I quickly learned why APS meetings are so boring. On the second day of an ACS meeting you are hung over, or have a new STD, or are a grad student.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU
Science has a cure for cerebral compaction.


reader Uncle Al said...

"bullet-proof vests" Dragon Skin - better than anything the US or NATO allows. Upgrades might be ductile boron carbide pucks and (Plasma) Spectra fabric. Engineers give you things. Start with chemists who give you stuff for the very best things.,

"thermal cameras" FLIR Systems. Form a US nature documentary movie company, buy a bunch of FLIRs, shoot on location in the Ukraine "Вимираючі види Нічні Викиди." Reverse engineer the FLIRs.


reader John McVirgo said...

Come on Lubos


An antelope altering its behaviour to avoid a tiger is one thing, SUSY having not been detected at the LHC (yet?) is another.


Just because you're way more competent than most here including me, doesn't prevent you from talking complete gibberish sometimes, despite your adoring ass-lickers here telling you otherwise ;)


reader Dilaton said...

What exactly does make this analogy gibberish?

As at most one low-energy SUSY model (point in parameter space) can optimally be realized in nature it is already from pure probability considerations rather natural for it to not get hit by any early experimental shots or simple searches (in the same way as an Anthilope may be able to hide from a tiger). Even Matt Strassler often explained this...

So I dont see what you mean by "gibberish" ...?


reader John McVirgo said...

1. A tiger knows from previous experience that an antelope somewhere exists, whereas the existence of SUSY is speculative.


2. There may be an antelope in an environment, but there's no guarantee that the tiger will ever detect it, since the antelope may detect the tiger first and move to a place the tiger has already searched.



The analogy is too flawed giving rise to gibberish conclusions concerning the search for SUSY. It's far better to stick with recent historical analogies such as the search for the Higgs in its possible parameter space.


reader Curious George said...

Russia, a proud guarantor of Ukraine's territorial integrity, is a refreshing oasis of normalcy. Who are you kidding?


reader Rehbock said...

On. This range where both deer and antelope roam we can feed many with deer. The hunter loses interest because he has fed self with ordinary deer..so Lubos analogy is not that bad. But my avatar is a better one. His kind hide in the open in high rain forest. Predators looking up see bright sun amidst dark leaves above. They dismiss this 3 sigma signal of Sun conure as the real sun. I think we are seeing a signal that is being too quickly dismissed .
Conures are hard to spot in nature until you know exactly where to look and how to distinguish them.
But antelope? See will not be accused of kiss ass. In fact Lubos is wrong about one thing. He is always insulting parrots by saying that the idiots just parrot others. Deer are easily spotted, who knows what antelope do but parrots know what some SUSy skeptics don't that one never finds something until one knows what to look for.


reader Max said...

Wow, these gibberish-bots are getting pretty good.


reader seoatico said...

we manufacture physics lab equipment such as, Electrical Instruments, Heat Laboratory Equipment, Mechanics Laboratory Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Meteorology Earth Science Apparatus, Modern Physics Instruments, Optical Instruments read more


reader jsc802 said...

So your problem is with Peter Woit and Lee Smolin and the books they wrote some years ago critiquing string theory. Okay, let's look at that. Woit's critique of string theory is that 1) It has failed at unification as of yet (it's original goal) because of the landscape problem, and 2) The anthropic/multiverse explanations are unscientific and show that some physicists have pretty much 'given up'. Now, both these points are pretty obviously true. Lubos would even agree with #2. Now, one can strongly disagree (as I do) with Woit's conclusion (that string theory is a dead end) but still respect his viewpoint that there are hard and mysterious problems in basic QFT that should be worked on. (Of course the retort to that is: there's nothing stopping him or anyone from working on it. He even admits as much in his FAQ when he says "I agree that the lack of good ideas is the strongest argument in favor of the continued pursuit of not very good ones." ) On the other hand, the argument Lee Smolin makes in his book that the sociology of string theory monopolizes research resources is stupid. Lee Smolin is indeed a crackpot worthy of your scorn. Every one of his ideas has been bad and he puts out a somewhat continuous record of nonsense. If any of his ideas were good ones, I'm sure they would rise to to the top. So I think the points I am making in this reply to you are that it is possible to both 1) disagree with someone and still value their viewpoint and 2) It's also possible to ignore people who are loony


reader Dilaton said...

1. Good HEP theoists know from theoretical arguments that SUSY has a high probability to exist at a certain scale, which does not have to be the EW scale though too. so even though the analogy is crude, it is not off the mark or gibberish

2. I agree that the analogy to the search of the Higgs is better.


reader xavier said...

Le Pen a true conservateure? She's red as hell. Please read the political programme of Front National. They are neither conservatiste nor liberal. They are national socialists of the worst kind possible. They are so close to russian national-bolsheviks and types like mister Dugin (they have even some reunions together) and other similar national communists and post-stalinists. They (FN) prefer Putin and Jirinovski only because Russia is stronger than Ukraine, it it were opposite they would prefere Right-Sector, because Right-Sector is also nationalistic and etatist. And that is not all. Right Sector have very little support in Ukraine (please check last elections), while national-socialists have very big support in Russia. Theese are the only reasons why madame Le Pen keeps with them - she want to stay with the strongest of her own kind.


reader xavier said...

They were even some comparision in french press between Fron National and Front de Gauche (so called far left). There is no difference in so many things. The difference is only on immigration, and that Front National keeps by themselves many antisemites and uses more french flag and french anthem, why Front de Gauche prefers red flags. They are two faces of the same bolshevik coin. Front National is the face xenophobic and Front de Gauche is the face so called progressive.


reader mr. critic said...

One note. The conservatism of Le Pen and Farage is a relic of the precapitalist era. The Church (especially the Catholic one), for example, has always been considered an integral part of the right-wing, but besides all registered attempts to halt evolution by sacrificing everything in the name of some dark, ancient traditions, at present, it starts to show sentiments toward marxist ideas (see Pope Francis). In such a vast sea of factors and sources of change people may get lost and blame the wrong thing about the wrongness.


One should not forget the one real source of progress in all societies - namely, capitalism. Maybe we should start using projections in Hilbert space to quantitatively evalute what's really going on and who is causing what... The Big Data is something in that direction actually.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I may only smile, what can I do with such conspiracy theories? Even if the national bolsheviks were any important, they still don't control the Kremlin and Duma which belong to a completely different, non-ideological group, United Russia, and that's also the face of Russia that Le Pen and any other person living in the real world has to associate with Russia.


Front National is still pro-free-market etc. according to the French standards.


reader mr. critic said...

The right statement would be that Front National is still-free-market-after-all-protectionist-policies-proposed and only according to French standards, of course. There's nothing free-market in blaming the immigration. It's like setting a minimum wage; every economist will tell you that such rules always backfires.


And it's sad to blame the EU immigration, which probably constitutes one percent of all immigrants, among which huge ghettos of (sometimes marauding) muslims. It's not even conservatism, it's petty populism.


reader Dilaton said...

Anna yes, good passionate nice experimentalists as you for exampe, certainly know quite some theory too, respect what their theoretical colleagues do, etc .... :-)

But this seems not always to be the case, just two days ago I had an argument with an experimentalist on Quora who arrogantly claimed in a "question" that ST is not legitimate science etc and only accepted answers that confirm his negative ignorant prejudices ... :-/


reader scooby said...

Quite right. See for example Marine Le Pen recent proposal that Alstom be nationalised, to prevent the company from being taken over by General Electrics (http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/05/28/marine-le-pen-relance-le-debat-sur-la-nationalisation-d-alstom_4427653_3234.html). Is that an example of free market policies?


reader Luboš Motl said...

No, it is not.


reader seoatico said...

we manufacture physics lab equipment such as, Electrical Instruments, Heat Laboratory Equipment, Mechanics Laboratory Equipment, Measurement Instruments, Meteorology Earth Science Apparatus, Modern Physics Instruments, Optical Instruments read more


reader Gorth said...

Try reading this.

http://m.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/ukraine


reader Gorth said...

And more. From another source.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/ukraine-mounting-evidence-abduction-and-torture-2014-07-11

Are these liberators?