I mean that with less “state of the art” technology an accelerator that could have produced counter rotating beams of something less than 7 Tev still could have been been built.
By the way, the answer to this is pretty much yes by definition so if you have another answer I suspect yet another break down in what appears to be our fragile communications link.
This is true, but also uninteresting. That’s why I was trying to read more into your question.
So to get back to the original point, the LHC could have been build regardless of the technology (within obvious limits - obviously), it just wouldn’t have been the current LHC that produces beams of 7 Tev conforming to certain parameters.
edit: btw. What question. That’s not how this discussion started. Or do we need to review?
I understand that you are just trying to make a “gotcha” point in this thread, but I’ll plod on nonetheless. Yes, you could build a different accelerator in the LEP tunnel. In fact, LEP was there and operated for many years. If you did so, you would not be able to answer the new questions that the LHC is answering.
So, to review Leo Bloom’s orginal query and my answer to it, which you took issue with and which starting this exchange:
Was new engineering or technology needed to build the LHC? Unequivocally, yes. If he had asked “Would new engineering have been required to build some other accelerator?” Clearly no, since we have other accelerators, and we could have even just left LEP running. But that’s not relevant to the question of what was required for the LHC.
Oh dear me. A “gotcha” point? No, you see that would only have been true if this had NOT been my first response to you :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You first response was actually that the SSC’s (near) existence disproved the need for any advances. I’ve attempted to lay out specific technical reasons why this logic fails, as the SSC and LHC had very different circumstances. See Post #8 for the bulk of those examples.
You didn’t address any of the specific points in that post, but if you wish to, I’m happy to clarify them or, if they are clear but you disagree with them, to discuss them further. But do please try to be specific so that we don’t end up going in circles further.
The post you quoted, though, did start the subsequent topic of whether you could build some other accelerator. We agree vehemently that you can. However, I’m not sure you agree with my claim that it wouldn’t have the same physics reach. Toward that, perhaps you can say how the LHC…
Can you say some specific parameters that could change, and in what way, especially ones that would have eliminated major R&D steps toward the LHC as it was designed and built?
Also in the post you quoted, you said some of my numbers were confusing. I asked upthread if you could tell me which numbers you meant, in the hopes that we could stay on the same page. That request stands.
That’s where I stopped reading. I didn’t say or imply anything of the kind. Please show me where I did. That will be very . . . interesting from my point of view.
I think you should let this go before it becomes seriously embarrassing, but it’s your call.
Post #7. You said “I don’t want to deprecate the achievements at LHC in any way - by no means. However I’m not sure what you mean. The “Supercollider” would have been about 3 times the design capacity at 2 x 20 Tev vs the 2 x 7 Tev of LHC and the SSC started construction in 1991 whereas [the LHC] didn’t break ground until 1998.”
I read that as saying: we knew how to build the SSC in 1991, therefore we knew how to build the LHC, too. Is that not what you meant in that post? It seems the only way to read it, but perhaps it isn’t.
Well, I invite you to read that post now, and also to address the open questions in Post #26. These steps would go a long way, I think, toward advancing the cause for mutual exchange of information. As always, I can clarify anything that is too technical, as I don’t know your background and may have aimed incorrectly. My goal in engaging in these threads is solely to share interesting information about interesting topics, and the best I can do is assume you are engaging for the same reasons.
I really don’t see how you got YOUR conclusion - that there was no longer any need for advancement, in particle and high-energy physics (gonna let that marinate for a bit) - from that quote. But it’s also inconceivable to me that you could be wrong so I don’t really know what to say.
As to exchange of information, I think that is probably the most disingenuous thing I’ve ever heard. But hey, if I’m wrong, I’m sure you won’t lose any sleep over it.
Cheers!
Deltasigma, I have to admit I read your responses the same way Pasta did. From my perspective, you seem to be arguing the LHC could have been built without any advances, but it would have been different from what it is. That is certainly true enough, but it doesn’t seem to fair to say whatever you end up with is the LHC.
I’m not sure what argument you think you are winning, but I’m not convinced.
Anyway, this has gone far beyond my original question, which Pasta answered way back in Post #2.
Thanks for the feedback.
FWIW, so did I. Furthermore, Pasta has been unequivocally correct and gracious in every response to you, which you countered with nothing but obtuseness, snark and the assumption of an air of superiority you clearly fail to possess in actuality.
Oh, don’t hold back HMWM. I want to know how you really feel. But regardless of the unnecessary emotional affect, I will give your opinion the consideration it deserves based on the accuracy and objectivity of its observations, or in IOW, ‘did you just say something?’
OMG, what is this, the Pit?
Oh, I really do hope they take it there. I think I’ve been quite demur up until now and being demur makes me feel dirty.
I’m sorry, but you really don’t merit a pit.
Too bad. It would have been fun, at least for me.