Prof. Hoyer told the Israeli journalists about the future of the accelerator in an era when it will not be possible to increase the energy intensity and the relationship with Israel, which was upgraded as soon as it became a member state
Avi Blizovsky
At the end of April, the National Academy of Sciences and Arts held a tour of journalists who (also) write about science at the CERN facilities in Geneva. The members of the delegation and the HM among them met with the CEO of CERN and with Israeli scientists working at the facility, and conducted tours of the various facilities. I will bring you my impressions of the visit in the coming days.
see also:
- The bright future of the dark universe
- The CEO of CERN at the ceremony of joining Israel to the organization: Israel and CERN have a rich past of cooperation
- Prof. Elam Gross in an interview about Peter Higgs and Francois Englert winning the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs that Gross headed the group in Atlas that was responsible for its discovery
Prof. Hoyer provided a short scientific explanation regarding the physics performed at the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, which is currently the main scientific tool for the study of physics and where the Higgs boson was discovered about two years ago. "We found evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson, but it is not clear whether it is the Higgs. With the discovery of some Higgs boson we complete the standard model that explains the visible universe, but the visible universe constitutes only 5% of all matter and energy in the universe. And so the standard model leaves many questions open; It cannot tell us anything about the remaining 95%, and cannot tell us why there is no antimatter. We know that there is dark matter and we also know the antimatter, because it is matter that is created during the collisions we conduct, in the same amount as the matter, until they meet and ionize. The antimatter disappears, but the matter does not. Because there is a tiny difference in properties between matter and antimatter that creates one part 10 billion more matter than antimatter. One part of 10 billion is us, and we need to understand that we are a small disturbance in the vast universe."
On the need to expand the standard model, Prof. Hoyer adds:
"There is something beyond the standard model, and it can be compared to Newton's laws of gravity, which we feel because we are not moving fast enough. At normal speed we follow Newton's laws. When moving to high speeds, close to the speed of light for example, Einstein's laws are activated. To a certain extent it can be said that the standard model is suitable at low energy levels and is a foundation for a broader theory that will be valid at higher energies."
"From here the question arises: why is it necessary to investigate at higher speeds and in particular the properties of the Higgs?
One of the difficulties facing the researchers is the distinction between the Higgs boson and another boson. To illustrate the difficulty, try to imagine twins who look identical except for one invisible difference: one of them can't pronounce a certain word, but he doesn't talk much either. If you meet one of them, how will you know if it's the twin who can't pronounce a certain word? For this you will have to dub it for a long time. If the difference between him and his twin brother is large, you will soon be able to tell them apart, but if the difference is small, it will take more time. The same is true in our case."
In order to overcome this difficulty, next year at CERN they will start working at much higher energies than previous furnaces, which will allow them to produce particles with a greater mass. "My dream is to find the first particle that is a particle of the dark matter," says Prof. Hoyer.
Referring to the questions of the Israeli journalists about the future of the accelerator, Prof. Hoyer explains: "We have a work plan for the next 20 years, currently we are planned until the year 2035. However, there are several limitations to our progress. First, the data collection requires repeated upgrading of the systems. The aggregate number of collisions increases all the time, up to a certain number of collisions, where even if we continue at the same rate, it will take many years to double the number of collisions. Therefore, the systems need to be upgraded. This means increasing the slope and thus shortening the doubling time. It is necessary to collect all possible data. We will restart the accelerator in 2015 with an energy of 13 TeV, an increase of about 75% compared to the previous state of 8 TeV. With the new energy we will run the accelerator for about three years, maybe a little more, and then we will refurbish it again for a year and a half and run it again for three years. This will bring us to 2022-3, and then we will perform another upgrade with the aim of changing the gradient again.”
On the complexity of increasing the number of proton collisions, Prof. Hevir expands and says:
"We will not be able to raise the energy levels for a technical reason: the magnets that keep the protons in their orbit must have a certain strength, but it is also limited. As in the sport of throwing the hammer, when the athlete spins slowly the hammer stays in his hands, but when the speed of rotation increases - the hammer flies from his hands. We cannot let the particles fly out of the tunnel, so we can accelerate them to the energy level that the magnets will be able to support. Another option available to us is increasing the number of collisions by focusing the protons. We don't shoot single protons but 'packets' of protons with each pack having about 100 billion protons. But even 100 billion protons meeting another 100 billion can miss each other because they are so small. Therefore it is necessary to compress the packages or focus the fund. Today, we focus the beam in such a way that out of all these billions, 20-40 protons actually collide with each other in every shot of proton beams."
"With the technology we will use after the upgrade, we will be able to focus the rays more and thus achieve more collisions per package. In this way we can multiply up to 5 times the number of collisions per second, a process which is expected to continue until the year 2023-4, after which we can operate the system for another 10 years. The next step may be to overcome the technical limitations, perhaps by using stronger magnets (and there is a limit to this) or by building a longer tunnel. Today the length of the tunnel is 27 kilometers, with the ambition to build a tunnel 80-100 kilometers long. Since we have experience in building longer tunnels, the only limitation is of course a financial limitation.
Prof. Heuer believes that in the coming years more discoveries are expected, which will expand knowledge beyond the standard model.
"In any case, we will require a clear physical reason for the digging of the long tunnel, whether we receive it in the evidence of finding new particles after the next LHC upgrades, or we receive supporting evidence from astronomical observations that will allow us to know what is happening beyond the standard model. My opinion is that there must be something there, you can't stop at 5%. That's what I love about basic science. I don't know what exactly we found, but I'm sure there's something."
Israel - an important member of CERN
On my previous visit I learned that the Israeli sensor in the Atlas was installed together by Israeli engineers and infrastructure workers from Pakistan. I asked Prof. Hoyer to expand a little on the topic of collaboration between scientists from different countries at CERN. He said that scientists from different nationalities and countries work side by side, and that he aims to promote this model to world politics, which has so far proved to be a difficult task for him.
"Our only agenda is the advancement of knowledge and we only speak one language - the language of science. It is a universal language and it must be preserved. We don't care what culture or country you come from; What is important is that everyone can work together. I have to contribute my expertise to the group, because if I don't do that - I won't get the expertise of the group members. The joint work is made possible thanks to the expertise of each member of the team. In 2012 we received the status of an observer state in the United Nations and now we are the only scientific organization that has received this status. I am present in working groups at the UN to promote exactly that."
Tell us about your impression of the visit to Israel two weeks ago.
"I gave an open lecture at Tel Aviv University about our achievements and especially about the Large Hadron Collider. I didn't touch the theory, I'm not a theorist."
Hoyer elaborates on the relationship between CERN and Israel and says that it is a close and long-standing relationship. "We have had Israeli scientists here since 1984. When I started working on the Opal project, which was the previous accelerator that used the same tunnel, I met experimental Israeli scientists even then. I visited Israel several times, in particular the Weizmann Institute and was very impressed by the campus. We also have a close relationship with the Israeli industry (high-performance computing, silicon and sensors). Now I expect, thanks to Israel's accession as a full member, that more Israeli scientists and engineers will arrive either as pivot workers or as colleagues (young scientists in post-doctorate or young engineers). We all need engineers, and Israel is a country that 'produces' good engineers. We would like to see them on the list of our salary recipients in addition to the scientists who will come here for a few years, because Saran is first and foremost an engineering project. The scientists come from outside. We are required to provide all the infrastructure above and below ground, perform system upgrades, plan experiments and more."
As a member country, Israel can participate in any Saren tender, unlike experiments - in which any country can participate, even if it is not a member.
What is important is not the return shekel for shekel, but that the cooperation between the industry and Saren benefits all parties involved. In the fields that are important to us, new technologies are created that we use in research. The companies involved in our projects gain a high reputation that allows them to more easily win large and prestigious projects in the future," says Hoyer.
21 תגובות
A. Ben Ner,
First, full disclosure, although I agree with Yehuda about the problematic nature of material theory
Hafel, I am very far from his perception that only he knew how to understand this problematic and that most scientists
They are fools who follow the shepherd as a flock. In addition, I do not share the opinion that it should simply be changed
Variables in the formula to fit the observations, which I also tried several times to explain to him the
The difference between a variable and a parameter without success.
Now for your claims. You claim that the theory precedes the experiment
This means, the theory predicts some effect and according to the theoretical prediction (prediction) an experiment is planned and carried out to confirm or negate the theoretical prediction. Without the theoretical prediction, it is not possible to plan and carry out any new experiment and measurement."
This is not the case at all. Einstein did not predict dark matter (perhaps to a certain extent energy
the darkness, but that's not what it's about). There were some observations that did not agree with the currently accepted theory that showed that
Dark matter is required to receive a match. So the dark matter in a sense is dependent on how to cover a hole
or theoretical incompatibility and not the other way around, it is not a product of the theory. This is, for example, in contrast to black holes
that Einstein's grotation theory predicted and it took a long time to find observational evidence for them.
Regarding your claims that it is not possible to prove that something does not exist. First, this claim is not a sweeping claim
Cases in which they predicted the discovery of additional planets in the solar system (to explain deviations in the orbits of
planets are visible) and in some cases the same planets were not discovered so that in my opinion it can be determined that they are not
Existing. Even with regard to elementary particles, there were cases in which they theoretically predicted their invention in the energy field
certain and they were not found (a similar thing could have happened in the search for the Higgs, without a particle being discovered
The Higgs is for science to fundamentally change the standard model).
Regarding the dark matter, it is possible that once again I cannot determine anything for sure (I am basing myself solely on my intuition)
Because his fate will be like the fate of the site. Has it been proven that the site does not exist by special relativity? A lot of science
Sometimes he does not bother to prove that something does not exist but uses the principle of Ockham's razor. given two
Theories that explain the same phenomena Science chooses the simpler theory that requires fewer basic assumptions.
Just saying a word or two about my intuition about the non-existence of dark matter. The observations today show
Not only inconsistency with the theory from which they deduced the existence of dark matter but many of the observations
show that there is another scale (basic acceleration unit) that characterizes all (or most) of the observations. the stoning
This is what underlies the phenomenological theory of Prof. Milgrom from the Weizmann Institute, the MOND theory.
I am not here to argue that Milgrom's theory is true or not, but the fact that it can be explained using a constant
Added physicality to many of the phenomena, indicates in my opinion that it is possible to build a different gravitation theory that will explain it
the observations without the need for dark matter. If this is indeed the case, then by virtue of Ockham's rule it will be reasonable
Assume that a new theory of gravitation must be accepted.
Finally there are indeed new grotation theories that attempt to explain the discrepancy theoretically and the one that
I prefer is the theory of conformal gravity developed extensively by Prof. Philip Mannheim.
Joseph
I already wrote to you once that Verlinda's theory does not show that the dark matter should be given up.
If you think that there is no dark mass in Verlinda's theory, please explain to me why
you think so
In addition, Verlinda's theory was met with opposition (this is even noted in an article on Wikipedia
to which you are referring). Since his first paper on entropic grotation 4 years ago
Eric Worlida did not write another article on the subject, so I am not at all sure of his position on the subject.
From reading the Wikipedia entry, I understood that not only did Tver Wong not upgrade Verlinda's theory
He even showed that there is a problem with expanding the theory. In addition, your reasoning is unfounded
Absolutely, is it just because Chinese culture is magnificent that we should believe a certain claim
Voiced by a Chinese scientist? This is similar to the claim that articles written by Jews
There is added value and that they have a greater chance of being correct regardless of their content.
L. A. Ben Ner
I am responding to your comment after reading it several times and I must say that it is thought provoking.
I concluded:
We both stand (in friendship) on both sides of the fence and each with his own truth.
And you're right, I can't prove that there isn't!
Does this prove that there is?? Of course not!
Is it because most scientists believe in dark mass that the majority determines? I want to believe that it is not so!
In short - food for thought.
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For those interested in seeing briefly what entropic gravity simply is, Wikipedia has a short explanation and many references to professional articles.
Another important but secondary point for discussion. The critique and upgrade of Eric Verlind's theory of gravity came from Tver Wong of China. Not from a university in the West. To all those who think the Chinese don't know how to think creatively. This is a country that until 1642 was the most advanced in the world and entered and exited 400 years of the Middle Ages. There is no reason why they should not be progressive despite our opinion that they are cruel to animals and humans.
I point out here again that there is a theory that is taken very seriously by Professor Eric Worlind called entropic gravity. According to this theory there is no need for dark energy.
Contrary to the theories that preceded it and even claimed that there is no dark matter, this one has such a strong theoretical foundation that many scientists give it a chance and we also saw that today's research groups do not assume the existence of dark matter in the universe.
The only reasoning for dark matter is that Newtonian gravity is true on every scale: both micro and macro (dimensions of the universe). There is no measurable proof of this.
We will therefore be careful and say that there is no certainty that there is dark matter.
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Your claim is wrongly founded, my friend. I will explain and explain:
In the past, physical phenomena were known, in order to understand them, it was necessary to develop a theory that would explain the phenomenon. For example the photoelectric effect (and more..). That is, the experimental knowledge preceded the theory.
Today, more precisely since the days of Einstein, the theory precedes the experiment. This means, the theory predicts some effect and according to the theoretical prediction (prediction) an experiment is planned and performed to confirm or negate the theoretical prediction. Without the theoretical prediction it is not possible to plan and carry out any new experiment and measurement.
You claim that dark mass does not exist. You may be right, you may be wrong.
I am now asking you exactly the same question that you are addressing to Cern CEO Prof. Rolf Heuer to say,
How confident are you that the dark mass does not exist?
It is clear that your entire claim relies solely on your personal intuition.
By the way, your claim will never be proven. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.
At most it can be said that no evidence of its existence was found. On the other hand, if dark matter is found in the experiment, it will be proof of its existence. Isn't that a very good reason to try and find him?
True, there is a risk in this, that the dark matter will not be found even after investing many resources and efforts.
Or then it may be necessary to update the theory. However, it is not possible to formulate a new theory before the existence of dark matter has been tested in experiments.
In addition, a brief note regarding various phenomena that increase the retention of dark matter.
From the little I know about dark matter, it is true that the main reason for its existence is the need to explain the speed of movement of the outer stars in spiral galaxies.
However, not only that. The dark matter is also necessary for the adjustment of the calculations to the observations in the measurement of the size and mass distribution in galaxy clusters and even in the adjustment of the calculation to the observation in the measurement of the size of the visible universe and the total mass density in the visible universe.
Yehuda
I don't think many scientists would agree with you, and I think quite rightly so. What you describe is the approach of engineering. I really don't care why Ohm's Law is right - it's an excellent tool and that's the end of it.
I find interest in understanding why things happen and not just knowing how to put in formulas. Each and his character 🙂
for miracles
Dear Osinder, the publisher of Copernicus' book, wrote what he wrote not out of concern for science but out of concern for his butt which began to feel the wall of the Inquisition pyre that was then working long hours burning all kinds of "provocatives" such as the well-remembered Giordano Bruno. So let us decide that all a theory is supposed to do is to be compatible with measurements in the field, and only by this is its success measured. I don't even think she should predict new things because the possibilities are many and even infinite and a scientist is not supposed to be a prophet!
But this is my humble opinion.
Please respond gently. Thanks.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
If it matches the expectations and nothing else, then we have a convenient tool for calculation but we have no understanding of the world we live in.
In the introduction to the book De Revolutionibus (Copernicus 1543), Osinder wrote that everything written in the book is actually a convenient calculation model and the book does not come to describe reality at all. Isn't it good that they didn't take Osinder seriously? Is that what you're asking, to stop science?
Dear Nissim
If it matches the observations then what else is needed??
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
Weren't there cases in the past where scientists insisted on something for years, and in the end it turned out that they were right?
You propose a new formula, but do you have an explanation for why your formula is correct, other than that it matches the observations?
With what excessive confidence does Prof. Rolf Hoyer state "we know there is dark matter"? And in addition he announces his "wet" dream:- "If you ask what my dream is: my dream is that we will find the first particle which is a particle of the dark matter." Well, dear Mr. Prof. Rolf Hoyer, I am willing to bet you my hundred euros for only one of your euros that there is no dark mass. And the reason is so simple - as we know, the measurements in the field contradict what is obtained from Newton's gravitation formula. To overcome this, the dark mass was invented. Well, instead of looking for another formula or another theory that would fit the measurements, they forcefully try to bend the measurements measured in the field with something illusory - "dark mass". There is no reason in the world that the gravitation formula, which works in a precise and wonderful way at distances of up to a few tens of astronomical units - about a thousand light years, would do so in a precise way also in the vastness of galaxies - distances that are millions and billions of times.
Eighty years of searching for it and the time will come to raise our hands - there is no dark mass.
Please respond gently
Happy holiday!
Sabdarmish Yehuda