Isn’t the size of a particle relative to the observer?
So we find the Boss Hogson, then what? That particle must be made of particles too, right? Keep going? What real benefit to the advancement of physics or life in general will this eventually bring?
Thanks in advance.
I know it’s actually Higgs Boson or “God’s Particle”
“Throughout history, people have studied pure science from a desire to understand the universe, rather than practical applications for commercial gain. But their discoveries later turned out to have great practical benefits.” - Stephen Hawking
The idea is that they will accelerate protons and collide them near the speed of light. Since the energy is extremely high in these collisions it should recreate a situation similar to the universe about a microsecond after …
Oh never mind just watch this.
Wrong, probably. All modern physics operates under the assumption that some particles are basic. They are not composed of other particles. They just are.
The Higg’s Boson is what gives the particles their mass. Finding it determines which theories can be taken further and which have to be discarded.
And c’mon, you can’t possibly believe that understanding how the universe works from the bottom up won’t bring about enormous further advances in every field, including everyday technology. Look at the world around you and think about how much of it is there only because of basic advances in the understanding of physics. Don’t even look around you. Stare right into your computer screen.
Ok, that’s the type of answer I was looking for.
I get all that, but there is a practical limit to which we can manipulate particles of a certain size. Knowing that there’s a Higgs Boson won’t change life here on our planet. It may modify some sub-atomic particle theories, but will there ever be a practical use for these things like there is for protons and electrons?
Maybe that’s the question. We find the particle, catch it in action, re-work some ideas and then pat each other on the back? What’s the next step?
80 years ago we didn’t know you could use electrons much of anything except power. Now we have advanced microprocessors and such. Similarly, research is being done on using quantum mechanics for computing, which could essentially make data transfer and computation more or less instantaneous. All of these discoveries will lead to eventual practical use for them. Like the fact that silicon can be used as a semiconductor has led to a revolution in the way our lives work. Our technology has advanced so far because of all the scientific discoveries that have been made in the past.
Nuclear fission, for instance, not only has been harnessed for destruction, but also for power. A century ago, that would have been inconceivable.
I should say, about quantum mechanics in computing, I’m referring to quantum computers and the possibility that quantum teleportation could instantaneously transfer data.
Nuclear medicine is yet another example of relatively modern physics providing practical application. Furthermore, even if a device itself doesn’t “manipulate” a certain particle, the physics that underlies such particles is used to engineer a number of products. Like the superconducting magnets of MRI machines for instance.
So yes, it’s highly likely that it will produce practical gains.
We won’t know what the next step is until we have a solid foundation that will tell us where to look. That’s the exactly the purpose of all basic research. And every bit of basic research we have amassed in our entire history as humanity has proved to yield amazing practical results once it was absorbed. There is no reason to think that the next bits of basic research will be any different.
How is your attitude any different from those a couple of hundred years ago in the following, undoubtedly apocryphal but telling, stories?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciurban.htm
And please don’t argue that those were technological inventions, rather than basic science. There is no difference in the long run: they are entirely interconnected.
So in other words, how can you know what steps to take our future technologies and research, when we don’t know the fundamental basics. For all intents and purposes, particle physics has hit a brick wall… there are things we need to validate to know which path to take, and what to toss out or refine. This will open up windows into the fabric of the universe that we will be able to take advantage of in unseen ways. VERY important knowledge and discoveries are going to come from this. We’re sitting on the cusp of discovery, but it’s not until then, that we can find ways to exploit it and put it to use. Can’t put the cart before the horse, so to speak. And, unfortunately, it’s a 5 billion, multi-year project to make this happen. And it won’t be the last…
We won’t know until we get there. It’s like we’re standing on one side of a mountain range. On the other side there might be fertile farmland. Or a lush forest. Or a barren desert. But the only way to find out is to hike up to the top of the range and take a look.
The Higg’s boson is responsible for giving particles mass. Maybe 100 years from now we’ll be manipulating mass the same way we manipulate electric charge now. Who knows? We won’t know until we climb to the top of the mountain and see what’s on the other side.
IIRC when lasers were first invented they were considered nothing more than a laboratory novelty and of little or even zero practical use. No one had a clue of any use they could possibly be put to. Just adding another chapter in the physics encyclopedia. Now of course they are ubiquitous and of immense value to society.
Point being you never know where these things will lead. Could be nothing, could be amazing or anywhere in between but you will never get there without doing the initial research.
The Higgs boson is actually the least interesting of the things we’ll find from the LHC, since it’s the one we expect to see. Much more exciting are the things like microscopic black holes, or magnetic monopoles, or susies, or any of a number of other things we might see. And more exciting yet than those, are the things we don’t even have names for yet, because we don’t even suspect we might see them.
Here is my response to a similar question from [post=9771943]this thread[/post]:As for the value of the pursuit of abstract knowledge, no one can really predict what will eventually come of any given nugget of information. However, experimental discovery of the Higgs boson will not only refine some models of particle physics (and dismiss others); it will also improve insight into how the physical world works on a fundamental level (or at least, a more fundamental level than we do now) which will have significant impact upon future technology. One might as well have asked James Clerk Maxwell what use there was in his theory and experiments of electromagnetism and expect him to respond with prognostication of color television, computed axial tomography, and the iPod. Arguing against abstract knowledge in toto on the basis that it doesn’t make your porridge taste better today isn’t mere Ludditism; it’s a complete avowal of the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of better understanding the world and to the benefit of future generations. There are any of a vast number of ways in which money that could be used to benefit the needy is frivolously squandered; on entertainment, fashion, recreational travel, sports, cars, et cetera ad nauseam. The Large Hadron Collider isn’t taking bread out of anyone’s mouth, and it isn’t being powered by the extracted spleens of Indonesian children. Any argument predicated on the basis is absurd in its essentials; abstract knowledge at large has been of much greater value to mankind than any amount of present money.
I fear the o.p. may have a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the Higgs boson, too. The Higgs boson isn’t just a smaller particle that everything else is made of (and potentially made of smaller particles); although a superficial, uninformed, “common sense” approach based upon everyday experience might suggest that subatomic particles are just bits of stuff, in fact they aren’t little balls at all, and calling them “particles” as if they are dust motes gives entirely the wrong impression. The Higgs boson is a fundamental carrier/moderator of force; its role, as currently conceived, is to moderate the interaction other particles, including (oddly) itself with the distortions in the underlying energetic plenum of space (the Higgs field) that make up manifestations of energy and matter. In other words, Higgs bosons are like little data packets of information flowing across a vast data network allowing these individual blogs of energy to relate to one another, and also moderating the flow of other bosons (photons, Z and W bosons, gluons, and gravitions) that do the same.
What practical application does this have? None, certainly, in the technology of today, that can barely cope with photons of certain energy bands. However, future developments may allow us to completely reconfigure space, send information or perhaps even matter across vast distances, read the underlying ‘code’ of matter, et cetera; stuff that matches and exceeds the wildest dreams of science fiction authors in applications that may become viewed to be as boringly prosaic as the supermarket laser scanner is in comparison to H.G. Wells “heat-rays”.
Stranger
The OP’s question may derive from the same source as the adolescent question (no offense meant here) “Why are we learning this? When will I ever need this?” It betrays a lack of appreciation for the intrinsic value of knowledge. Aside from the fact that some folks may actually be able to predict some practical value to this particular set of experiments, the scientists involved are actively seeking new understanding, new knowledge. On the most basic of levels, it “simply” allows us to understand the world better. Will that translate into time travel and more cool Apple gadgets down the line? Who knows? But here’s a corollary situation to ponder: suppose we have the chance to learn something that doesn’t appear to have direct practical application. Should we turn our backs on the opportunity? Should we choose NOT to learn? That doesn’t seem to make much sense to me.
You haven’t read the latest wildest dreams of science fiction authors, have you? Poor little ol’ real-world physics ain’t never gonna catch up. 
Oh my sweet, sweet Lord. . .
. . . that is by far the coolest thing I have ever seen. By far the geekiest, rap I have ever seen. An NRP spot this morning said that the science in the piece was straight on, too. Geekdom propagates! Because by God, I saw it from the Dope. :eek: 
Tripler
Thank you, WarmNPrickly, thank you.
Particle physicists themselves tend to have rather realistic views about the prospects of their research leading to any direct technological benefits. And these are in line with the history of the subject.
It’s conventional to date the subject emerging as a field distinct from nuclear physics to the years immediately after WWII. For present purposes, this conveniently removes the benefits and downsides of nuclear technology in all its forms from the discussion. In the 60 years since, its actual and possible effects on current and future technology fall into three areas:
[ul]The consequences of the actual stuff discovered in the lab. To date, this has been minimal: there aren’t any kaon communicators, neutrino binoculars or quark bombs. Stuff like muons have found uses in particular small niches, but such cases are very limited in number. Nor is there any real reason - beyond simple gung-ho technological optimism - to expect this to change in any major way. That does open me up to the possibility of being another Rutherford in dismissing nuclear power as “moonshine”, but I can live with that. The truth, however, is that few particle physicists would disagree with me here.[/ul]
[ul]The theoretical ideas that have been developed to explain those discoveries. These have had a fairly good record of being exportable to related, more practical areas. The influence of methods from theoretical particle physics on solid state physics is the obvious example here. Basically, giving smart people the freedom to think up stuff to explain quarks and stuff produces mental tools and methods that can be applied elsewhere. But it’s far from having been a one-way street. Indeed, a major part of the story of multiple people independently inventing the Higgs boson in the first place was in solid state rather than particle physics. Probably all the ideas from particle physics that have found applications in other fields could have eventually been invented in those areas anyway, but the successful model to date has been in letting researchers “follow their nose” to the interesting and useful stuff.[/ul]
[ul]The technologies developed as part of the experiments themselves. This is the big one. Simply building particle physics experiments has, to date, provided a 60-year-long frontier of challenges that have had a significant effect on technology. Better waveguides, better power supplies, better use of large arrays of electronics, better ways of detecting charged particles, better ways of handling and distributing mindblowingly-large quantities of data, etc. Improvements in all of those have immediate technological impacts. Regardless of whether it finds the Higgs or anything else, the mere fact that we have built the LHC to do so will have an impact on ongoing technological developments.[/ul]
But even this has little to do with the reasons particle physicists tend to give for justifying such research. These tend to fall into the following categories:
[ul]There’s a rather obvious “grand narrative” to modern physics and this tradition has produced the most precise scientific theory ever envisaged. Now is not the time to stop down this successful route.[/ul]
[ul]All science is interconnected and, since one doesn’t know what will lead to what where, all avenues must be explored to at least some extent.[/ul]
[ul]Particle physics, allied to cosmology, is fundamental in a way that no other branch of science is. We owe it to ourselves as curiosity-endowed mammals to tackle the Big Questions as best we can.[/ul]
[ul]This stuff is just damn cool.[/ul]
The last is the most important.
Thanks guys, makes much more sense now!
I never looked at it in the sense that the more we know about the smaller things the more we understand the bigger things. That should have been obvious but I somehow overlooked it.
Anyone see Bones the other night? Apparently Scotland Yard already has particle physics figured out as they were able to teleport crime scene evidence back to the Jeffersonian in about 15 minutes.
If it exists. 