Slashdot Mirror
Why the LHC May Mean the End of Experimental Particle Physics
StartsWithABang writes: At the end of the 19th century, Lord Kelvin famously said, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." He was talking about how Newtonian gravity and Maxwell's electromagnetism seemed to account for all the known phenomena in the Universe. Of course, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, general relativity and more made that prediction look silly in hindsight. But in the 21st century, the physics of the Standard Model describes our Universe so well that there truly may be nothing else new to find not only at the LHC, but at any high-energy particle collider we could build here on Earth. If there are no new particles found below about 2–3 TeV in energy—particles that the LHC should detect if they’re present—it’s a reasonable assumption that there might not be anything new to find until energy scales of 100,000,000 TeV or more. And even if we build a particle accelerator to the fullest capacity of our technology around the equator of the Earth, we still couldn’t reach those energies.
The original article clearly indicates that such particles need to be found first, within the abilities of the LHC. OR, we need something bigger than the Earth's circumference.
Has this guy never heard that the mere fact neutrinos have a mass does not fit in the Standard Model, and that plenty of good experimental physics can be made on these particles?
While I agree with you to some extent, the fact is that it isn't going to be a matter of whether we're missing say 1% or 37% of the energy at the LHC we need to make a breakthrough. The theories and models in question provide only certain situations that you might find new particles, which is likely the basis for what this article is saying.
In other words, its like having a road map that shows a freeway and all of its exits, but we otherwise have no idea where we are on that map. If the next exit is 2 miles from the previous exit, then chances are good we are in this one place on the map with lots of exits. However, if there are no exits even after 10 miles of driving, then the map shows us that we are most likely in this one rural area that doesn't have an exit for 100 miles.
In this case, mathematics and theoretical physics provides us the map with all the possible places you could find particles. Now we have to determine where we are on that map by finding where the next particle is to be found. If it is at LHC energies, then our map says we're likely to find a some new particles with minimal increments of further energy use. If it isn't, then we know we've hit the "rural" area on the map and we won't be seeing another particle for a long, long time because we need an particle smasher the size of the solar system to hit those energies.
Of course, brand spanking new physics could alter the "roadmap", but since the Standard Model does predict *just about* everything we have seen in experiments, then it means our physics is still incomplete, but has become accurate enough that we can predict what would happen down to the place we'd need the hundred million TeV to see anything new or to answer the specific items that the Standard Model does leave open.