Question for science boffins

kelsen

BBC News wrote:

Tevatron accelerator yields hints of new particle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

So in the whole scheme of things, what does it mean for us Joe Blows?

dhope

kelsen wrote:

BBC News wrote:

Tevatron accelerator yields hints of new particle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

So in the whole scheme of things, what does it mean for us Joe Blows?

Nothing in the short term, no idea in the medium-long term. Looking forward to finding out.

Happened to see an episode of the West Wing a couple of days ago that had the exact question
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745606/quotes

[while discussing the importance of funding the superconducting supercollider - a controversial scientific project that would cost billions]
Sen. Jack Enlow, D-IL: If we can only say what benefit this thing has. No one's been able to do that.
Dr. Dalton Millgate: That's because great achievement has no road map. The X-Ray is pretty good, and so is penicillin, and neither were discovered with a practical objective in mind. I mean, when the electron was discovered in 1897, it was useless. And now we have an entire world run by electronics. Hayden and Mozart never studied the classics. They couldn't. They invented them.

davmaggs

I believe that LASERs were also a pointless discovery that now permeate every aspect of life.

We, should if all goes well get some kind of improved kitchen device out of the work.

jonginge

Higgity, higgity

UndercoverElephant

JonGinge wrote:

Higgity, higgity

Bosonny, bosonny.

The Rookie

In the short and probably medium turns it will mean nothing, what it MAY mean in the much longer term is an improvement in our knowledge of sub atomic particle relationships with potential to improve 'atomic' power generation (Fusion/fission or something totally new) but probably it will be meaningless in any normal usage of the word for 40 years.

Simon

rjsterry

[pedant] Haydn without the E [/pedant]

@JG & UE

Jason Palmer off of the BBC wrote:

If proved, it will be a completely new, unanticipated particle; researchers say it cannot be the much sought-after Higgs boson.

Reading the article, it might be nothing, or our current theories may need major revision. The quoted scientist seems to think the former is more likely, but there is more analysis to do.

Kieran_Burns

@JG & UE Do be quiet. 8)

sketchley

Eventually it will mean this

jonginge

rjsterry wrote:

[pedant] Haydn without the E [/pedant]

@JG & UE

Jason Palmer off of the BBC wrote:

If proved, it will be a completely new, unanticipated particle; researchers say it cannot be the much sought-after Higgs boson.

Reading the article, it might be nothing, or our current theories may need major revision. The quoted scientist seems to think the former is more likely, but there is more analysis to do.

Yeah, I read the article and saw it wasn't about Higgs but went for the pun anyway. New particles are exciting.... kinda.

If the data doesn't fit the model then the model has to be revisited, despite the successful predictions it has made. Such is the course of science. Let's see what the LHC comes up with.

sketchley

Assuming this is indeed a new particle, did it exist before they measured it?

I seem to remember reading something about that a while ago. Something in the back of my brain thinks it may have something to do with a cat.

jonginge

Yes, no, maybe. Quantum fluctuations innit. QED

DonDaddyD

What it means is that we've taken a step further into - no matter how miniscule - learning more about particle physics.

In the long term we could learn that all the main stream hypothesis is correct, which would be boring. Or we could learn that there is a whole level of advance physics we are yet to grasp and theorise.

Personally, I think all this exploration into particles and the dispersal of energy will lead to identifying ways we can better manipulate energy i.e. self-sustainable fussion/fission technology (which isn't atomic). But meh, that's just me.

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

Silly Particle Racing?

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

That wouldn't work, where would the energy to accelerate the atoms to collision speed come from? You're not going to suggest it could power itself are you?

I can imagine Robots that can think for themselves and self replicate. That would be bad. I've seen blade runner and terminator!

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

What, perpetual motion machines?

jonginge

Sketchley wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

That wouldn't work, where would the energy to accelerate the atoms to collision speed come from? You're not going to suggest it could power itself are you?

I can imagine Robots that can think for themselves and self replicate. That would be bad. I've seen blade runner and terminator!

No, no, no, you feed it orange peel and suchlike. Have you not seen Back to the Future?

rjsterry

I can remember a bit of one of my A-level physics or maths lessons about fitting a curve (i.e. an equation modelling that data) to a set of data: there was a very good point about how very different curves can look locally identical and it's only when you 'zoom out' that you realise that what looked like a good match is actually way off.

sketchley

pangolin

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

And then imagine them with Addison Lee stickers on the back

Jay dubbleU

Another grant for the bl**dy theoretical physicists :evil:

Kieran_Burns

So was ny joke crap or did no one get it?

jonginge

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So was ny joke crap or did no one get it?

Strangely, i thought it wasn't top notch, scraping the bottom of the barrel to be honest. You need to up your game or you'll be sent down to the ryman comedy league. That ferengi truly was a charming fellow.*



* Strewth, that was hard work on this sunny day

Kieran_Burns

JonGinge wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So was ny joke crap or did no one get it?

Strangely, i thought it wasn't top notch, scraping the bottom of the barrel to be honest. You need to up your game or you'll be sent down to the ryman comedy league. That ferengi truly was a charming fellow.*



* Strewth, that was hard work on this sunny day

Ah. So it was crap.

Thank God.

jonginge

Kieran_Burns wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So was ny joke crap or did no one get it?

Strangely, i thought it wasn't top notch, scraping the bottom of the barrel to be honest. You need to up your game or you'll be sent down to the ryman comedy league. That ferengi truly was a charming fellow.*



* Strewth, that was hard work on this sunny day

Ah. So it was crap.

Thank God.

Perhaps, but better than the contrived verbiage you made me write :P A picture is worth a thousand words etc

kelsen

JonGinge wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

So was ny joke crap or did no one get it?

Strangely, i thought it wasn't top notch, scraping the bottom of the barrel to be honest. You need to up your game or you'll be sent down to the ryman comedy league. That ferengi truly was a charming fellow.*



* Strewth, that was hard work on this sunny day

Ah. So it was crap.

Thank God.

Perhaps, but better than the contrived verbiage you made me write :P A picture is worth a thousand words etc

So true...

Low Centre of Gravity

pangolin wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

And then imagine them with Addison Lee stickers on the back

nation

rjsterry wrote:

I can remember a bit of one of my A-level physics or maths lessons about fitting a curve (i.e. an equation modelling that data) to a set of data: there was a very good point about how very different curves can look locally identical and it's only when you 'zoom out' that you realise that what looked like a good match is actually way off.

This is pretty much exactly how physics has developed as a science. People look at the extremes (very fast, very small, very high energies) because those are the areas where the current theory doesn't quite fit.

Newton's laws work fine until you get to very high speeds. General relativity works until you start trying to look at elementary particles, etc.

The LHC smashes stuff together at energies that have never before been reliably observable, because it's only at those energies that it starts to become obvious what we got right and what we got wrong.

dondare

kelsen wrote:

BBC News wrote:

Tevatron accelerator yields hints of new particle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253

So in the whole scheme of things, what does it mean for us Joe Blows?

Several applications:

Used to make the lighter-than-air alloy "Arborium".

A lubricant for frictionless bearings and bicycle chains.

Added to LEDs produces a positive thrust known as "photon drive". (This is only an advantage when used in rear lights.)

dondare

DonDaddyD wrote:

What it means is that we've taken a step further into - no matter how miniscule - learning more about particle physics.

In the long term we could learn that all the main stream hypothesis is correct, which would be boring. Or we could learn that there is a whole level of advance physics we are yet to grasp and theorise.

Personally, I think all this exploration into particles and the dispersal of energy will lead to identifying ways we can better manipulate energy i.e. self-sustainable fussion/fission technology (which isn't atomic). But meh, that's just me.

Imagine vehicles that are powered by small haydron colliders that use the energy byproduct of smashing particles....

Sub-atomic particle physicists are all insane. Except for Brian Cox and that's because he does an equal amount of astro-physics which balances it out.

nation

dondare wrote:

Added to LEDs produces a positive thrust known as "photon drive". (This is only an advantage when used in rear lights.)

Colour needs work, though.