Recorded tour of the Atlas facility, which is an essential part of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) project, accompanied by Prof. Shlomit Terem, one of the senior Israeli scientists on site
Avi Blizovsky, Switzerland
From the beginning of August, it will no longer be possible to enter the CERN tunnel, where the construction of the world's most powerful particle accelerator is being completed. Therefore, when Prof. Shlomit invited me before leaving the Technion to visit the site, it was a unique opportunity to visit a place that may bring us the first results of new physics within a few months.
In a modest office in building number 40, one of the central buildings of the CERN campus, two professors, doctoral students and students sit together, but this is not a trivial combination. There is an Israeli professor there - Shlomit Terem from the physics faculty at the Technion; Prof. Hiro Yusaki from the Japanese Particle Laboratory (KEK); Post-doctoral student from the Technion - Sophia Valcorsa, originally from Rome; Sagi Ben Ami PhD student at the Technion; Ohad Silbert - PhD student from the Weizmann Institute; And Arva Benora, a student from Bir-Zeit living in Bethlehem who came for the summer semester.
They are also joined by Prof. Giora Mickenberg from the Weizmann Institute, who in the past also held official positions at Sarn. This presence tells about the nature of the place, an international project, in which Israel is officially an observer, but practically is a full member. Israeli engineers collaborated during construction with engineers from the Atomic Energy Agency of Pakistan, and Israeli equipment enables accurate and fast optical communication between the facilities and the vast server farm. Other Israeli companies participated in various parts of the construction of Atlas, one of the two important experiments set up in Sarn and whose role is to locate the heavy and short-lived particles The life that will be created during proton collisions (hydrogen nuclei) in the tunnel.
What is the experiment that has been driving the world's physicist community crazy for almost a decade? "Atlas will approve or reject the standard model and look for evidence of alternatives to this model," explains Prof. Terem. Atlas, is one of the most important of the four experiments scattered in the CERN tunnel. The Israelis in Saran are part of a group of 1,800 physicists from 35 countries. Instead of diversifying the Israeli contribution, it was decided to simply concentrate the effort and let all the Israelis build one of the detectors of the Atlas experiment - TGC, whose purpose is to detect muons.
All the Israelis work on the same detector system that was built mostly at the Weizmann Institute and some in Japan and China and tested in special laboratories at the Technion and Tel Aviv University. And in the end they will also participate in manning the control room, to which the data will reach through the control and control system developed at the Technion. There are eight "wheels", four on each side of Atlas, each of which is about 20 meters in diameter. Each such wheel has hundreds of detectors - seen here as squares embedded on the wheel, and not even one of the 2,700 detectors (!!!!!!!) must miss the muon that will pass through it.
After the tunnel preparations are completed, entry to the device itself will be prohibited, therefore the testing process must be comprehensive during which each and every one of the detectors consisting of thousands of meters of extremely thin wires is certified.
In total, these Israeli detectors occupy an area of 6,600 square meters. If a muon passed through them, these detectors should detect it within 25 nanoseconds. For the purpose of the test, a special laboratory was established at the Technion. The detectors were moved to Switzerland only after a 95% efficiency in detecting muons in the allotted time. After that, a similar laboratory was also built at Tel Aviv University and some of the detectors were transferred to it for testing.
We went down in the elevator with Prof. Terem, Sagi Ben-Ami and Prof. Mickenberg to the tunnel level. This is about the middle of the 44 meter long wheel. A blue cylindrical radiation blocker goes in and out of the device, a small tube in the center with a diameter of a few centimeters is actually the conductor through which pass the particles fired from another Sarn device.
The entrance to the facility is on the border between France and Switzerland where one of the facilities of the previous accelerator was. During the construction, openings were opened to a depth of 100 meters, two large cranes lowered each and every part to its exact place in the facility, sometimes with an accuracy of a few millimeters on each side.
We walked along an observation deck from which we see the facility, which looks like a complicated structure of pipes, an aluminum skeleton, various types of tiles, and inside layers upon layers of detectors, each of which locates particles of different types. If we compare this facility to the Galilee, the part that the Israelis built is the two caps of the Galilee.
We also visited the server room. Since the experiment produces so much data, one of the world's most powerful computing power is needed to process it, even if only initial processing like the one done at the facility. The professor also hosted me in the control center and I talked with two of the people responsible for the control - one about the operation of the system that monitors the physical condition of the detectors and the other about the operation of the muon detector. By the way, both of them already long to see on the big screen in the center the results of real experiments and not of particles from cosmic radiation.
The old physics and the new physics
The history of ancient physics, as Prof. Terem explains in a conversation with Ynet and the Science website, is full of different and strange theories that all come to claim that they explain nature in the simplest way.
"They once thought that the atom was the smallest unit in nature, then we discovered that it consists of a nucleus and an electron. The nucleus occupies only one ten thousandth of the size of the atom, and the electrons occupy a much smaller volume (one hundred millionth of the size of the atom and maybe even less). The nucleus itself is made up of quarks whose size is also on the order of the size of the electron. That is, as of today, the electron and the quark are the elementary particles."
"Perhaps it is counterintuitive, but just as the mathematical point has no dimension, electrons and quarks also have no size, but nevertheless the types of the electron (and the anti-electron - the positron) and the different types of quarks are distinguished according to their valve."
"We are looking (at the theoretical level, AB) for the most compact possible description of the material, but this description has to predict or calculate all the experimental results. These are two independent requirements that both must be met. In the meantime, we are satisfied with the standard description of nature, in the form of a formula in which every particle can receive values".
In Saran's previous experiment, which ended at the end of the previous decade, and in an experiment at Fermi Laboratories in the USA, they were able to identify relatively light particles and now know everything there is to know about them. "There are mainly light particles in nature, because the heavier particles that were created in the Big Bang faded long ago and broke up into the light particles," says Terem.
"In the Hadron Collider (LHC), of which Atlas is a part, we slam the protons into each other at a speed close to the speed of light, and try to measure with the arrays of detectors that are on all sides of Atlas and in many layers, what is created, in the hope that we can capture the heavy and energetic particles and the particles The eases formed after the decay. The detectors in which Israel participates are supposed to be the last in the chain and detect the muons - the most energetic particles."
"Dozens of new theories have been developed with exotic names such as super symmetry, superstrings, extra dimensions, and more. They all describe nature as it is reflected in the experiments conducted so far. But each of them predicts a slightly different behavior of the heavy particles. We calibrated the experiment to trace the behavior of these particles. The only way to check which of the theories is correct is to find particles or results that theory A predicts and theory B doesn't, and then we can start choosing which is the correct theory, or maybe none of them are correct and then we will have to think of new theories."
We wanted to know if we would find the Higgs boson particles in the new accelerator, or if we might need a more powerful instrument to detect it. "The Higgs particle has not yet been found," she answered before, "but it is part of the standard model and not finding it will contradict this model, meaning it will cause the collapse of the standard model. So far we haven't discovered the Higgs because it might be too heavy. In Atlas it will no longer be possible to use this excuse. If you don't find the Higgs in the atlas, it means that the Higgs doesn't exist and the standard model is wrong."
Finding the Higgs is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Out of the millions of collisions that occur every second, the Higgs may only be created in a few collisions. Ohad Silbert is working on ways to search for the Higgs by the computer system, which is built with two filtering layers.
"The information that comes from the experiment is so vast that it is impossible to process it in any way," says Terem, "but many of the millions of events simply do not interest us because they show light particles that are well known to us, so in the first step the processors sift through an algorithm burned into the hardware, every 25 nanoseconds, The events that occurred, and only one out of 500, which is expected to be interesting, goes into the computer system, where supercomputers work on a second filter and leverage another high percentage of the results and only a very small percentage of the results reach the distributed computer network for processing. The grating is designed so that we can identify the particles according to their properties - momentum and energy."
And what about particles of a type you are not familiar with, wouldn't you miss them because you directed the detectors to locate particles whose properties are predicted by one theory or another?
"This is indeed a good question, and we prepared to identify particles that may not have a name but show possible properties that other particles do not have. The systems are also able to differentiate between these particles and just other particles that happened to show similar properties. We are also preparing for the case that these particles are particularly slow and will therefore show their effect in the muon detector with a delay of one or two cycles, so we will have to look for their source in the previous cycle."
Israeli companies provided the highest quality systems
A significant number of high-tech companies from Israel, as well as three academic institutions take part in the establishment of systems in Atlas and the LHC as a whole, and in fact these orders cover the cost of Israel's participation as an observer at Sarn, says Prof. Giora Mickenberg of the Weizmann Institute, the oldest of the Israeli researchers at Sarn who served for a period Long also as the director of the muon detector project on behalf of Atlas
Scientists from three universities in Israel and seven universities in Japan are working together on the construction of the muon detectors of the Atlas experiment, which were described in detail in the main article. Israel has a long history of participating in particle accelerators in Sarn, dating back to the Opal experiment, which was part of the previous accelerator built in the XNUMXs and served the scientific community in the XNUMXs.
Professor Giora Mickenberg from the Weizmann Institute has been a partner in the planning and construction of the Atlas project for 13 years. Prof. Mickenberg wishes to give credit for Israel's entry as an observer to the vice president of the Technion, the late Prof. Paul Singer, who served as head of the National Science Foundation and who pushed forward the allocation of funds that helped join Israel for the cross-institutional project.
However, not only Israeli science institutions benefit from the possibility of sending researchers, students and doctoral students who are awarded the same status as European scientists (in recent years, Palestinian students who, as we have seen, also work together with Israeli researchers) have also benefited from this status, but also Israeli companies. Israel participates through the Ministry of Science and Technology as an observer, and it therefore pays about 2.2 million Swiss francs per year, about a quarter of what it was supposed to pay as a full company, but this amount is also covered and even more thanks to the sales of Israeli companies to Saran.
The major Israeli contribution to the muon detector is based on a development made in 1983 for the previous experiment - Thin Gap Chambers.
- The machine itself works thanks to resistors and capacitors resistant to radiation made by Vishay.
- The radiation shields inside the superconducting magnets are made by the Hatkoof company from the Tzipori industrial area. Onewalt Mivneh served as a subcontractor of the Hakfuf and was responsible for the piping of the cooling system of the radiation shields.
- The production of the large and precise wheels on which the detectors are mounted requires exceptional quality of aluminum welding and metalworking. This production was carried out by two companies Tal Technologies from Rehovot, and Maresco-Tech in Yavne, and both received an award of excellence from the Atlas management.
- The vacuum cleaning system that sends to Lake Geneva approximately only a third of the waste that was sent before is made by the Ricor company in Ein Harod.
- The coating that protects the various detectors made of unburned paper, which is folded into honeycomb-like formations to strengthen it, is made by Yamton of Kibbutz Gaton.
- A large part of the communication switches in the entire axis (not only in the muon detector and not only in Atlas) are from the Batam company.
- The information filters of the CMS experiment which, as mentioned, allow only the interesting events to be transferred to computers for processing are based on special cards issued by the Silicon company
- Almost all the microprocessors for data filtering in Atlas were built by the PCB company in Migdal Ha'Emek,
- Amplifiers and power supplies used by the Atlas hadronic calorimeter (another detector) were built by Arotec in Hadera.
- The optical fibers connecting the experiments and the computers are made by Fibernet from Yokneam and are also used in the Color-Chip optical chip, this chip is responsible for sending the synchronization to all other Atlas systems. The company built all the connections between the optical fibers and the silicon systems for two other experiments in addition to Atlas: Alice and CMS.
- Batam engineers participated in large parts of Atlas. The company provided the high-speed communication systems that filter at the second level the data that was previously filtered at the hardware level.
- And the list goes on and on and also includes engineers from Intel Israel, Mekorot and more.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
67 תגובות
Wow
I think they will never discover the Higgs particle, because it has the smallest mass of all the other particles, but the form of its movement among the aforementioned particles gives them the mass, if the sciences
will concentrate on measuring the power and direction of dominant particles, since they will be able to learn more about the trajectory of
The particle and thus in the distant future will be allowed to influence its trajectory and thereby influence the mass and hence
to build a spaceship for time travel
Will the end of the world come on September 10 because of the CERN accelerator on the border of Switzerland and France
I'm not functioning as I should because of the experiment that may be safe and we don't have to destroy the world
I'm scared to death of it
Why doesn't anyone stop them?
And why is the world silent about this experiment?
Can someone professionally explain to me what is going to happen on the day of this stupid experiment
I don't want to die young
Society:
I'm a bit old-fashioned - from the days when songs had rhymes.
I have been absent for a while and will be absent again shortly.
In the meantime, I see that a student has also been accused of the terrible crime of "being Michael".
This of course explains the interesting statistics about people's attitude towards me - simply everyone who agrees with me is me 🙂
Anyway - nothing new has been said here so bye for now.
If B decides to deal with the logic I claim, I would be happy to read. Although every time I open a comment of his I do so with fear and trembling lest I come across another curse, I will keep trying, in case he finds an answer.
Qantas in possession
Madam particles are not raisins in a salad
Although the Hadron salad and Permion soup
Sometimes they tend to create a vortex at the end of the curl
That's how spin is the head of the symmetric family
I haven't heard double units and a half, thirds and fourths
Calibration symmetry controls not without interference and normalization
It's so confusing because no one yet knows why
that particles are so shy
Tend to emerge quickly from all the holes to bloom in waves
A slight glance out of the corner of the eye is enough to knock them out of their holes
There are and there are not and there are
No one knows why the mind when it is forbidden to know
And there is no opinion when there is opinion
But actually there are no particles there are only waves or vice versa
When the waves break, particles are formed
But when a wave approaches, you never know how it will break
If we spread a big enough net we might catch them all
Some people think that a net is better for capturing dreams
If the particles had holes they could be woven into beads
For every success.
B. and particles
Indeed. Here: vanities vanities and bad spirits.
When building towers, towers. Towers. of stupid theories and unnecessary pride
When the dignity of others is tampered with, and yellow envy dominates the minds.
When every fart thinks he's a genius.
And the cute geeks...they are tired of the garbage.
Maybe, for next year...the teachers will sit on a bench in the classrooms
And our nice children..in their own special way.will present a reflection to them.
We will pay the teachers, in their honor, for the sharing...and the smile.
And the parents..for a change..at home will welcome the children with a hug.
And an end to the stupid questions..and about achievements
And an end to hostile competition and excellence
Because I already understood from the site - what the hell is going on..
And zero..they don't understand..the meaning, the essence.and the consequences.
And what about titles? Ask... change to purity
And what about certificates?..changed to resonance
And what about resources.?..? Everything exists when you work and study correctly
And there is no need to buy God.
Everything is in the necessary proportion, available, and correct
For those who really see, with full awareness, everything.
And if indeed, I am blind to the realities..
Maybe it's because I earned it.
My own right, at least, respectfully.
There is no one who owes me anything.
And I don't have to combine anything.
There is gratitude. Every day for everything and all shades of the nice nobles here.
There is, the good life in Nguhoth as well.
Everything is simple, and also beautiful. Healthy and a find
If you see all the crafts.
For me, it's a reality..with wishful thinking
And the comprehensive mind..it's a matter of fun.
So there is no theory here..and no method
There is the innate, learned natural talent
And if this experience..indeed..this is the time..the teacher.
a student
At least use different typos and wording style and a different shape that looks different
And in all your comments I've lost track of what you're complaining about...
For investing a lot of money (which did not come from an Israeli - perhaps some Israelis even profited from it) on a device that is going to disprove or confirm a theory accepted by an almost absolute majority of scientists?
That you think you're looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing at the wrong time? When exactly did the old fields fail? The task of the accelerator is to test the theory!!!
And if you have such a clear idea, maybe you should guide us...
Maybe you're complaining that there aren't enough Einsteins in the world? To remind you, Einstein himself was based on the research of others (and not only his own). Genius does lead to a jump, but it needs a plank to jump on.
You have been told this several times and in the meantime it seems that the blind man here is you and not Michael, testing the theory known today by activating the accelerator will confirm the theory and draw conclusions from it to create practical tools in such and such years.
or for testing alternative theories due to the refutation of the current theory. that at all no one pointed out here that one should not try to find such theories because the great scientists said so. The public mainly receives the information about studies which do constitute a direct step to the current and accepted theories. Just because you or I haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
And I repeat and emphasize that as I have already explained - at this stage even a genius (and there are many geniuses in the field) will not help.
Can anyone point out a flaw in my argument?
That is, there may be room for genius, but it is in the field of setting up an experiment that distinguishes between the theories without special measuring equipment (and it is very unlikely that such a genius will be created because it is very likely that everything that can be tried is already being tried today), but there is no room for genius in formulating another theory without having tools to distinguish between the theories.
It seems so obvious to me and yet there are those who are not convinced (but refuse to say why)
Roy Cezana
How did you conclude that this was my claim?
The matter is much simpler. Effective science is science that is not attached to habit and what the majority do. Partisanism or association behind ideas accepted by the great experts work to narrow and frustrate the results.
As I mentioned when you don't know what to measure and how to measure what will the most accurate and expensive device help you if you are measuring something irrelevant that will not advance you in the end but will only set you up with worthless by-products compared to what you really aim to achieve the holy grail.
But it will help if you rally and try to think of completely different approaches. You don't need to be a genius to understand that you should look elsewhere after the searches in the old and familiar fields have failed.
There is a strong tendency to stay in these familiar places and settle for leftovers and by-products. Useful scientific thinking requires flexibility of thought and maximum openness in addition to any other qualities.
It is always easiest to prove what is already known and what is believed in.
An example you gave yourself in the article about the patterns shared by half of all chemical molecules, so what about the other half?
B,
You keep talking about everything that won't help, with absolute and clear certainty, when the solution you offer are intuitive leaps of genius. But it is clear, from the many historical examples we have given, that there is another way, and that is investing in small and continuous discoveries.
The way you suggest has one big drawback: geniuses, unfortunately, are not easy to find on demand.
But the other way - small and continuous discoveries - is achieved through the investment of resources and the collective work of laboratories around the world in collecting data and interpreting them. This way of working can also produce good results, as we have already shown in the experiments of Rutherford, Pasteur and others.
Bottom line, if I understand your point correctly, you want to wait for a genius to come up with an alternative solution. Beyond the fact that it is impossible to plan for the arrival of such a genius, even the greatest genius has to rely on a lot of data that came from measuring devices. And as Michael pointed out, the only measuring devices that are sensitive enough today are the large particle accelerators.
And this is why the aforementioned particle accelerator is needed.
B:
So you came back.
I thought for a moment that some double had appeared with something to talk to.
Michael
You should direct your energy to other comments. I will not address your comments as long as you act like a blind animal. Continue to throw words into space without any understanding and rambling meaningless things. Especially on topics you have no clue about.
Qantas:
I remembered that I forgot to add that …..
Qantas:
When something so easy to find out interests me, then I just find out.
B:
Everything that can be said regarding all the corners of the zigzag (between the need for basic science and the need to know in advance its applications and the wisdom of searching for the answers of the basic science of quantum theory precisely through the accelerator) between which you routed your evasion of answers has already been said and as I said - I will not repeat the things and those who did not understand Did not understand.
Now you have made more claims that ignore all the practical solutions that brain research and cognition have brought to them, such as methods for treating ghost organs and the relationship between them and the change in the function of parts of the brain that the organ used to sense has disappeared, such as the ability to transmit an image directly to the brain of a person without functioning eyes and optic nerves, such as the ability to activate organs artificial in the power of thought, such as sophisticated lie detectors, such as the ability to perform less invasive brain surgeries, the ability to assess the various functions of the brain using various imaging tools and much more.
So it's true - there is still a lot (really a lot) to discover, but a large part of what has been discovered is already at various stages of the road to useful application.
Now you can of course formulate a new definition for the term "recognition". A definition within which all solutions found do not belong to the field of cognition. This would indeed be a distortion of the Hebrew, but it would not make your claim correct either because Roy did not say (despite the fact that you quote him as if he said) that the problem of recognition was partially solved. He only said that there is a close connection between the study of cognition and the world of application.
Of course, even if your words on this subject were true, they would not have any importance in relation to the ongoing discussion, but I thought it was still appropriate to set things straight.
I am really intrigued to know……………….what children….think about this site
Roy Cezana
A big innovation! You say that the recognition problem has already been partially solved.
Not as far as I know.
There is a lot of talk and theories that pull in a lot of directions, but one big zero of purposeful results.
No one has any idea yet how the brain thinks and calculates.
And all the sophisticated measurement methods and stimulation and activation methods of this and that will not help anyone who claims that according to these experiments he knows how the brain works, he is just creating a ghost and a false impression.
The same goes for Torah that is supposed to link relativity and quanta, all types of measurements will not help you if you do not know what to measure and how to measure.
And it doesn't matter how many more particles you add to the already existing zoo.
The whole point of these measurements stems from the existing concepts regarding the relationship between new types of particles and their old friends which stems from the particular point of view of string theories and their family. The problem with those theories is that they are aimed more or less at the same goal and trying to calibrate them using the accelerator will not yield any benefit if you look in the wrong place and measure incorrectly.
Basically all these theories are very similar, they look brilliant and promising but lead nowhere. About a decade or more ago there were 5 string theories until Witten came along and turned them into one. Since then, several versions of different types have been born, but none of the theories yet have any concrete predictions with real implications. Of course, outside of any particles that may appear at very high energies.
But the problem remained exactly the same as the problem of recognition.
B:
Your claims have already been answered many times and your prophecies are worthless.
Science develops and the more it develops, the better its predictions.
The better his predictions, the more accurate measurement tools are required to choose which of the competing theories to describe reality is more correct.
At the measurement precision we are currently capable of, all theories predict the same thing and they are all right. Therefore, it is not possible to determine which of them is more correct.
To determine, however, more accurate measuring tools are necessary.
Building more accurate measuring tools costs more money.
As I've said before (and it turns out that you understood part of it) it's quite possible that the next theory has already been invented but since under normal conditions it predicts exactly what other predictions do it's impossible to know.
Now consider one more thing:
Individuals, organizations and countries can allocate money to promote research.
They cannot (at least not directly) be assigned to a mind matter.
Smarter minds - if they ever get on the stage of history - will do so in the meantime and the research in the accelerator will not hold them back. On the contrary - the results of the research will be able to serve them - just as they were intended to serve all the scientists who are interested in them today and for some reason, and without any basis, you underestimate their ability to judge.
I will mention just one more thing (which is also the idea I mentioned before):
Even Newton's theory was based on a tremendous research effort preceded by data collection by Tycho Barha and others, completed by Galileo and analyzed by Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. Only the facts collected and understood (from the word structure) by these people allowed Newton to finally reveal his theory.
These preliminary studies were, in today's terms, very expensive - and no wonder they lasted hundreds of years.
When Einstein came up with the theory of general relativity, there were no tools to test his theory.
Fortunately, there was the tiny deviation of the planet Mercury that had already been noticed before, but to confirm it, a solar eclipse was needed (to remind you - this is an event that we cannot create at all - not even with an investment that exceeds the price of the accelerator by thousands of meters). Fortunately there was such an event but it is known to all that the accuracy of the measurements was not enough when they finally measured the deviation in the observed position of the star and the final confirmations came later and with a very large investment.
So now there are some candidate turns.
Maybe one of them is true and maybe neither is true.
As mentioned (I say this many times in the hope that in the end it will be picked up) there is no way to disprove any of them because within the scope of the measuring ability we have they are all accurate.
The way to deal with this problem is to perfect the ability to measure. The development of another theory will not be useful at this stage because it will also predict the same things (because if it predicts other results this will be proof that it is wrong because as mentioned the existing theories are accurate in their predictions).
This.
I will not repeat things one more time.
B,
The problem of consciousness has long been not a basic science, but is closely connected to neurosurgery, clinical psychology and brain biology. The connection between relativity and quantum is currently basic science, but again - in fifty years its solution could open up a new front of interaction with matter. which one I don't know, because we haven't found this connection yet. But when we get there, we'll know. How will we arrive at the new theory?
And the answer is, of course, through the new particle accelerator.
FYI - there are several theories that predicted certain types of particles that should be detected in the particle accelerator if they exist. If they are discovered, then we have received the connection between the various forces in physics. If we get such a connection, then we get basic science at the highest and most important level. And as history teaches us, there has never been a basic science that did not become an applied science within a few decades.
By the way, Maxwell's equations were also completely basic science... until the invention of television and radio.
Roy Cezana
In my opinion, a solution to some questions is basic science compared to the others.
For example: the recognition problem, the connection between relativity and quantum, the Riemann hypothesis.
Such questions will not be answered through the amount of money or the number of researchers, etc., but only through "quality".
The answers to these kinds of questions may yield breakthroughs and change paradigms.
Everything else is more of the same.
The theory of relativity is an example of this. The standard model is another example.
String theories and supersymmetries try to be in this slot. However, without having produced predictions with implications like their 2 predecessors, they will be judged a failure even if they use an accelerator that will circle the Earth.
B,
I don't need to protect Michael. He does it well enough himself. I return the discussion to the point that you very conveniently forgot, as soon as Michael started demanding real proofs from you.
Your answer is based on the assumption that there is an essential difference between basic science and technological science. But is there really one?
When Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus, no one knew that fifty years later they would invent the atomic reactors and understand how stars are born and die thanks to this.
When Mendel discovered the most basic laws of heredity, no one thought that we would follow this to the understanding of DNA and the genetic engineering of living beings.
When Louis Pasteur discovered the laws of chirality of molecules (something that was completely basic science at that point), no one thought that by doing so he would also be able to prove that bacteria are not created from nothing, and from there he would naturally arrive at finding vaccines for many diseases.
Science does not work in great leaps but in many small advances. Every now and then a big leap comes, but it too is based on all the discoveries that the small advances produced, and on which a different theory than the existing one can be adapted.
The new particle accelerator may be the Rutherford of the 21st century. If new particles are discovered in it, or the properties of certain particles are deciphered, then in fifty or a hundred years we may have technological developments based around them. If he refutes existing theories, then he will encourage hundreds and thousands of physicists to develop new theories, around which new technological applications will be developed.
In short, as Pasteur said, "There is no such thing - basic science and applied science". The two are connected in an inextricable bond, because applied science always draws from basic science.
Roy Cezana
I assume you have a good interest in protecting it, perhaps so that the site doesn't fall asleep standing up.
On the other hand, don't be fooled, please read his responses and his way of addressing surfers.
Does rude phrasing and lack of common ground and arrogance and a manipulative approach justify this, which makes any dialogue meaningless.
So please don't get smart and don't get carried away.
Regarding the matter of whether you really do not understand the essential difference between basic science and technological science in its essence.
Do you think the difficult problems can be solved if you just invest more and more money in toys. The biggest bombs and the most formidable weapons will not be able to help you crack fundamental problems. For this you need creativity in thinking with original ideas and a lot of luck.
However, if you believe that if you invest more and more money and add more and more researchers it will help you to solve even one of the fundamental problems, you will be perfumed.
heart
Tomatoes don't grow corn because you know what to expect
That's why we built an accelerator in order to support and research a description that we expect results from (confirmation).
If corn suddenly grows from tomatoes, or in the same analogy, no hygenase comes out of the accelerator, then the theory will be in trouble. One way or another, new "branches" will develop, as Ofer defined, from which in the future they will bear fruit.
The search should be according to existing assumptions.
And regarding the "Holy Grail"... how will they find it if they don't look for it?
"Because if you didn't look for a signal in the right place, then you're wasting your time because it's all talk." So where should you look? In the most opposite place from the description?
B,
I (and I assume all the other readers of the thread and the article as well) are still waiting for the explanation that Michael asked of you. In the meantime, you only proved that you know how to be mean to Michael, and that the particle accelerator is indeed very expensive - something that was known and obvious to everyone. But what is the other way you propose to reach new discoveries in modern physics?
B:
And we continue with the baseless psychological analyzes because it's easy to rant, but to answer the claims I made - it's unthinkable (when there is no opinion)
Michael
Exactly what I was trying to bring to your attention.
Your tendency to divide the world into a very narrow segment of point of view, fans and haters. Related to the function of a truth/false index in an inverse ratio.
The more narrow-minded you are and tend to such a fixation of worldview according to this one-dimensional division, the more meaningless your arguments become.
B:
I don't know who tolerates me and who doesn't.
Responses I received show both types of people.
Anyway, I don't care much about people's attitude towards me - their attitude towards truth and science is more important to me.
According to my experience, there is a high correlation between a positive attitude towards truth and science and a positive attitude towards me, and there is a similar correlation between religious tendencies/new ageism/hatred of science and scientists and a negative attitude towards me.
You, of course, are in the second group.
Michael
Really dangerous memory problem or what?
You might think one day that you should be nice to people and not insult and push
No one can stand you right now
B:
In my opinion you are indeed an idiot but regardless.
I don't know who Moshe is
Michael
Someone here in your opinion is an idiot and believes that your name is not Moshe
Bring one of the commenters on the site to support you
Everyone is invited to please check back the raisins of your responses to others to get the impression that you deserve support out of pity for your uncontrollable lust for attention and harassing others at every opportunity
B - All that can be answered for you is baa
B:
You know you are lying so I will only add to you the information that your lies do not interest me.
Michael
Your habit is to bully and utter pointless and meaningless things
You don't look in the mirror every now and then, try it sometimes
A random reading of your comments on the site clearly indicates that there is no point in exchanging opinions with you because all you are interested in is harassing and confusing the mind.
Almost everyone you argued with mentioned these things
Maybe you should check this fact.
You recognize that people are put off by you and going your own way seems like a dumbass procedure
B:
I already know this behavior - including the part of taking care of me and ignoring my words.
All in all, this is a very clear case of the wrongdoer in Momo wrongdoing
Michael
To argue... that's what interests you the most
Read carefully. Pay attention to the words. Try to understand the meaning. Try to think if it is not too difficult for you before you write.
If you need attention why here.
From a brief review of your comments on the website, it is evident that you strive to get the most attention from the customers of the science. But it really doesn't flatter you when you pretend to be the scientist yourself all the time. It actually leaves the opposite impression and puts a label of ignorance on you in the eyes of the observer.
Did you lack enough attention from your protection in kindergarten or did you, on the contrary, always bully her to get the full attention she lacked.
Try to use the stage here with less feelings of inferiority and with a little more regard for others.
Extension for in:
First you claimed something different. You said the whole issue is not interesting.
Now you are already basing your claim on the fact that you might be looking in the wrong place.
Basically you marked the desired conclusion and you zigzag your arguments as much as it takes to reach it.
B:
If you can tell someone that they are looking in the wrong place, you can probably also tell them what the right place is - right?
Ofer
Yaffe you said the accelerator is actually a very expensive startup and a very luxurious toy. But as we know people love gadgets and probably governments too.
On the other hand, the announcements and the sounds of the shofar that are heard try to create the impression that here is the redemption coming and the Holy Grail that everyone has been looking for so much is found.
And not as she screamed, this small matter of basic science versus opportunistic technological science, this small matter is summed up in the simple question...
Did we look for the prize in the right place?
Because if you didn't look for a signal in the right place, then it's a waste of time because it's all talk.
I definitely agree with you that investments in technological developments using expensive toys of this type can yield an important contribution to future developments in many fields.
There remains only the pure business question of whether an investment of 5 billion euros in this way would be more advantageous if it were distributed to a larger number of research groups with goals focused on the areas you mentioned that may develop such as lasers and all. It doesn't seem so business wise to me to create things using the method... by the way. Go and create a booster for yourself in the hope that by the way some beautiful children will be created for it. It seems a bit like planting tomatoes, maybe corn will also come out.
clarification:
When I spoke about tax money, I meant Israeli tax money
Ofer:
Between us - what you say is really trivial.
Do you think you're giving someone credit when you say you should think before spending money?
The point is that the one who needs to think about it is the one who spends the money - after all, only he can assess if it's worth it to him. who knows? Maybe he just enjoys spending money so much that it's worth money to him? And maybe he really wants to know the answer to the physics questions?
How do you measure the value of such knowledge? This is a subjective matter and no one has the authority to say anything about it.
I don't know if there are tax funds that are invested in this issue, but even if there are, they must be few.
Besides, in science, even if you look at it only as a preliminary stage in the development of technology (and it is clearly not such. Historical sciences by definition are not like that and are at most catalysts in the development of technologies), it is still not possible to predict the direct technological benefit from discoveries that have not yet been discovered.
I guess sit down. Will not spend money on the matter.
As far as I'm concerned, it would have been better if he hadn't wasted his time and our time talking about the issue, because time is worth money.
Everyone:
First, I recommend drinking lots of water and relaxing. Second, B's question is legitimate and appropriate. Modern science is an expensive thing, and a budget is a limited thing. It is certainly appropriate for the taxpayer to ask himself, what practical output results from this research field, and what is the relationship between the output and the price. This is true not only for the LHC project (total price of 10 billion dollars), but for any expensive scientific project - for example the Hubble Space Telescope (total price of 10 billion dollars) and the International Space Station (total price of about 150 billion dollars for the European Space Agency - no including NASA's budget).
So as an answer to your question, I am attaching an article from 2000:
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/06/article1/article1.html
As an introduction, the article makes some nice analogy. Scientific research is like a tree. A tree takes many years to grow. There will not always be fruit at the top of the tree's growth. But from the trunk of the tree branches branch off that bear fruit. These industries are the technological byproducts. If we try to parallel it with space exploration, then the trunk of the tree is the last NASA missions to Mars and Saturn. And the branches are the applications that have developed over the years as a byproduct of space exploration - for example, satellite communication.
And we will return to the concrete subject - particle physics. According to the article, particle accelerators have existed since the 40s. Over the years, they have directly contributed to the fields of medicine, semiconductors, materials engineering, and more. Also, they contributed indirectly to other fields, by developing tools for research in the field of biology, astrophysics, and micromaterials.
More concretely, the article mentions two applications that may mature in the near future:
1. Nuclear fusion reactors
2. Electron lasers
But B asked the question in a much more difficult way. Is there any possible application from the top of the tree, that is, from particle physics itself. Personally, I'm not sure such an app exists. But compared to other fields, for example astrophysics, or the origin of man, it is not certain that the situation of particle physics is worse. It can be said that there is a tremendous application potential for exotic particles such as gravitons. But this thing is very speculative.
And only Avi Blizovsky is not seen in any of the photographs.
B:
I don't know what drives your war on science, nor do I really care.
The best minds in the world think differently than you and this should be the starting point of the discussion.
You say that these theories have no practical outcome but you do not define what a practical outcome is.
For me, even understanding for its own sake is important, and even a result obtained in an experiment that does not reproduce our day-to-day conditions but rather those that prevailed in the cause of the Big Bang is practical.
If you intend to use the results in the future, then instead of complaining - maybe think and suggest?
Do you know that when IBM built the first computer (which was much weaker than the PC that is on every desk today) the CEO of IBM said that there was a use for four - maybe five such computers in the entire world?
Prophecy was given to fools and since you express yourself as a fool I would not be surprised if you believe you are also a prophet.
Gil Dotan
Not really
Or not at all
About 90 percent of the money invested in startups goes down the drain mainly because you don't really know the end at the beginning.
This is exactly what a good basic science theory should not be.
But correct me if I'm wrong…. Is every field that is at the forefront a "startup" as you mentioned?
Gil Dotan
To get to know the scientific methodology in depth, it is not enough to read the science fiction.
It really doesn't work the way you and many others who are not in the know think.
When the theory is really successful, its predictions are born immediately at the beginning as an integral part of the mathematics that describes it.
The physicists would cringe if you told them they were actually shooting in the dark. That is, first of all we will make some kind of theory and after we discover the missing particle we will know where we are headed. Such an approach leaves the ground under any theory that is supposed to be consistent and meaningful.
This approach is more suitable for a startup. First we will do, then we will see and understand what we are doing.
You run ahead of the cart, don't you?
First discover or not the particle and after that you can control it.
And find out or not? It's only the new accelerator approaching these sizes.
The so-called chicken and the egg.
I guess without knowing that in order to create a black hole or a worm you will have to deal with such energy levels and you have to start somewhere.
If we don't advance theoretically, we certainly won't advance practically.
BTW read Charon Rings (MDB) if you want to see a very nice "gravity control application" 🙂
Gil Dotan
From my knowledge of the details, it is worth noting that there is a very big difference between quantum physics, the standard model, etc., and what is known as the new physics, which actually tries to answer one main question: how to bridge the gap between relativity and quantum theory. Quantum physics turned out to be one of the most successful theories when measuring the applied technological output that has resulted from this theory to date. Almost all the technology of the last decades is associated with this fantastic success despite the fact that key parts of the theory remain completely incomprehensible to this day.
On the other hand, the new theories, centered on the attempt to identify the Higgs boson that gives mass to matter, do not have a single practical outcome for medicine. To date, no significant prediction with practical consequences has been presented from those theories. I would expect, for example, a prediction that makes it possible to control the gravitational field, that is, on the condition that the Higgs boson is found. The calculations were supposed to predict such a possibility and it is not.
All these theories are purely speculative because they deal with extremely extreme energy fields and conditions so rare that it cost 5 billion euros to try and create them. Any machine that costs so many resources to utilize a certain technology is useless.
If we try to put these elaborate theories against the scale of relativity. So there is no trace of prediction such as the famous E=MC**2 of relativity.
As long as they do not provide predictions of any practical significance, then these can be theories about aliens or the ice age, a historical breach or theology. There is no practical difference between them.
B,
We will give you more than two examples when there are any, and trust that there will be. Do you have any idea how many applications you use and depend on in your day to day that even evolved from the space industry created by the space race? My intention is that when you enter a new place, you never know what you will encounter, but you can also expect new discoveries. applications if desired. And Saren know where they are going.
You can also think of it this way: as you know (not sure about you) many studies that have one goal reveal findings that have major implications, sometimes for other fields, and sometimes without even noticing a thing and of course without this being their goal. History is full of such stories.
Let's assume a hypothetical situation in which Einstein's theory of relativity was unknown, but on the other hand a means was developed to propel a spacecraft at speeds approaching the speed of light. Then they would find out that Newton's strict laws are really not accurate at the high speeds. So without any theory, but only by entering the field of measurement for the first time, a new facet of the place where we live was discovered. At Saran they will not build a spacecraft that will fly that fast, but the principle is the same - we are going to break into areas of measurement that are beyond what is possible today, and that the theories that do exist on paper, give special meaning to the new area of measurement that we will enter.
I'm not the most knowledgeable about the practical implications, but it's a spinning wheel
Technologies are being applied today that a few years ago a company like yours would have asked what would come of it. And in a few more years regarding new fields other companies will ask what came out of it. The practical application is indeed after some time.
But from here and say that there is no benefit?….
I know and correct me if I'm wrong that every transistor owes itself to quantum mechanics. And maybe wireless electricity is also related, but without research we will not progress.
We don't always need it for the application like the research that advances us.
Gil Dotan
Give two examples, please even one, of possible implications for creating a viable technology.
As a product of this or that string theory or as a product of this or that version of supersymmetry or quantum loop or something else from the selection of "new" theories.
B. You speak like an idiot.
Just because you don't know doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The consequences are practical and everyday.
So stop fiddling.
What is the advantage of new physics compared to the fixation of the mental perception.
Spent so much money for purely scientific fluff. All the mathematical intricacies and brilliant theories do not contain even a shred of insight that has any practical implications. There is not even a single result from which a practical technology can be created through one of the above theories. Except for yet another philosophy. This is no longer physics, it is theology or psychology.
Well done, father 🙂 Thank you very much for the article.
I envy you for seeing it with your own eyes.
And besides, couldn't you for once not take a picture so we could see you too? 😀
fascinating..thanks…..