I understand (from a first-hand account) that there's one big drawback to joining the 300 degree club: because of the cold, one might experience... ahem... "significant shrinkage".
While I understand that electron/positron collisions require the linear accelerator, doesn't a lot of this hinge upon the discovery of the Higgs boson?
Yes! Well, sort of.
I am a particle physicist (at the Tevatron). It has been my understanding (and it seems to be conventional wisdom in the field) that the (US) decision to actually go ahead and -build- the NLC will be made -after- the first new discovery at either the Tevatron or the LHC. (Right now the NLC is just in the R&D phase, and is far enough along in the R&D phase that a decision on the choice of accelerator technology has been made).
Now the new discovery could be observation of the Higgs, or observation of new physics (supersymmetry is a perennial favorite, as are large extra spacetime dimensions; there are -many- theories to choose from), or both. If you assume the Standard Model (SM), and plug into the theory parameters already well-measured at the Tevatron, LEP and SLAC, (e.g. the top-quark mass, the W and Z boson masses) you can predict a likely range for the mass of the Higgs boson. The LHC should certainly be able to observe the Higgs in this mass range. So... even if the LHC doesn't discover the Higgs, it is a discovery of sorts: it means there is something wrong with the SM (which physicists have suspected for a long, long time).
Now the real reason for the delay is that we want to make sure that the NLC has a high enough center-of-mass energy (HEP jargon is sqrt(s)) to study interesting things (like the Higgs boson). It'd be a real shame if we start building the NLC now with sqrt(s) = 500 GeV and it turns out that we need a much higher energy to produce the Higgs (or other interesting stuff). But note, that the German (and the US/Japanese) proposal included plans for future upgrades to higher energies.
Actually the whole "superconducting accelerator" thing is rather new. The Tevatron employs superconducting magnets to curve the path of charged-particles, and non-superconducting RF cavities to accelerate those particles. (I think) The LHC does the same. The German NLC proposal is to use superconducting RF cavities to accelerate charged particles. So, using superconductors at accelerators isn't new, using superconductors to accelerate charged particles is.
BTW, the accelerator complex at Fermilab has eight, not five stages: pre-accelerator, linac, booster, main injector, recycler, debuncher, accumulator, tevatron.
...he probably did not even know that the computer was government owned...
I doubt it. The following notice is displayed upon login on every Gov't-owned computer at FNAL.
NOTICE TO USERS
This is a Federal computer (and/or it is directly connected to a
Fermilab local network system) that is the property of the United
States Government. It is for authorized use only. Users (autho-
rized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation
of privacy.
Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may
be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected,
and disclosed to authorized site, Department of Energy and law
enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other
agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the
user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copy-
ing, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion of
authorized site or Department of Energy personnel.
Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in admin-
istrative disciplinary action and civil and criminal penalties.
By continuing to use this system you indicate your awareness of
and consent to these terms and conditions of use. LOG OFF IMME-
DIATELY if you do not agree to the conditions stated in this
warning.
Fermilab policy and rules for computing, including appropriate
use, may be found at http://www.fnal.gov/cd/main/cpolicy.html
Hey, I read Leon's book when it came out (I was in high school). Now I'm finishing my PhD at one of the collider experiments at Fermilab (CDF).
He must have had some impact. Also, now I can refer to a Nobel prize winner by his first name (everyone else does...).
Anyway, I think popular books like "The God Particle", and shows like the recent Nova series are vital to the mission of science. Not only do they "capture minds," as was my case, they serve to communicate the truths we scientists uncover to our benefactors, The Public.
"If you are a grad student, bend over and lube up. You are free labor and you have no rights as a worker."
Not true, at least at universities like the University of Michigan. We have a union, we engage in collective barganing with the Univ. every 4 years, and we have a contract. The union protects students from the abuses you allude to, and strengthens the University by making it a more desirable and attractive environment for graduate study.
...science can answer the Moors/Moops riddle which has plauged mankind since the dark ages!
Re:La biblioth�que de Babel
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
You're refering to a short story, "The Library of Babel" by Jorge Luis Borges, a fascinating Argentinian author and poet. A favorite passage from this story:
...the librarian deduced that the Library is "total"-perfect, complete, and whole-and that its bookshelves contain all possible combinations of the twenty-two orthographic symbols (a number which, though unimaginably vast, is not infinite)-that is, all that is able to be expressed, in every language.
All-the detailed history of the future, the autobiographies of the archangels, the faithful catalog of the Library, thousands and thousands of false catalogs, the proof of the falsity of those false catalogs, a proof of the falsity of the true catalog, the gnostic gospel of the Basilides, the commentary upon that gospel, the commentary on the commentary on that gospel, the true story of your death, the translation of every book into every language, the interpolations of every book into all books, the treatise Beade could have written (but did not) on the mythology of the Saxon people, the lost books of Tacitus.
I'm not sure we should take this seriously, though... here's a list of possible causes of the Kurusk disaster from the aforementioned site:
Collision with unknown surface or submersible ship (this is main version);
Explosion of the weapons and/or batteries or gas mixture in 1-st
compartment in result of internal (fire) cause;
Blowing-up the mine (modern or World War II times);
Collision with own target, which resulted the torpedo explosion (1st
"blast");
Combat torpedo or ASW missile hit during the exercises (own or launched by other
ship);
Flooding through non-dense closed bow torpedo tubes after the exercises or
because of torpedo sticking in torpedo tube;
Foreign torpedo hit as a result of fatal error of foreign submarine;
Mass poisoning of crew by the sharply evolved chlorine;
"Avalanche failure of engineering" owing to educing of oxygen;
Error in ship's control caused to her striking against a ground at high
speed.
Explosion during trial a "secret torpedo" or other newest Russian weapon.
Mass diseasing of crew by a decompression sickness at the moment of
transition from "whale jump" to emergency diving. In result the submarine went
out of control, was stuck against the seabed, there was weapons explosion
later.
Hit by "secret, latest" weapon of NATO,
Intervention of UFO, devil, God (directly) and so on.
It's fantastic to watch one's credibility disintegrate like this.
Not to mention that teaching is a union-controlled industry, and as we've consistently seen in the past, unionized workers aren't of the highest caliper.
You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about this...
First things first, he experiment to which you refer is the g-2 experiment at Brookhaven ; it is an experiment to measure the anomolous magnetic moment of the muon (which is a fermion, not a boson).
The anomolous magnetic moment of the muon is a physical quantity predicted by the SM (a prediction which is itself a paramaterization of other measured quantities, and thus has some uncertanty). The g-2 experiment yielded a value which is 2.5 standard deviations away from the SM prediction.
This is a good thing for physicists (specifically the ones at Fermilab)! For one thing, no serious physicist has ever believed that the standard model is a complete description of nature. There are aspects of the universe for which the standard model cannot account (for example the obvious matter-antimatter asymmetry...).
The really exciting thing about the g-2 result and it's potential impact on the physics about to happen at Fermilab is that it is highly suggestive of new physics (i.e. supersymmetry... susy).
Think of the progress of scientific thought in the past 600 years. Newton's gravitation is a good theory; it makes predictions which mach quite well with observation (experiment). However, it is incorrect... along came Einstien's theory of gravitation, (General Relativity, which itself is a good theory, but not the correct one) which reproduces all of the predictions of Newtonian gravity, and and "does one better" by getting right what Newton got wrong (i.e. precession of the orbit of Mercury; the deflection of light by massive objects...).
So we have the standard model, which is by far the most successful physical model in human history. Yet we know it's wrong. But untill we find a better description of nature, it'll have to do.
The standard model is far from dead. It will evolve, in some sense, into a better description of nature.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand (from a first-hand account) that there's one big drawback to joining the 300 degree club: because of the cold, one might experience... ahem... "significant shrinkage".
...of cosmic ray air-showers.
While I understand that electron/positron collisions require the linear accelerator, doesn't a lot of this hinge upon the discovery of the Higgs boson?
Yes! Well, sort of.
I am a particle physicist (at the Tevatron). It has been my understanding (and it seems to be conventional wisdom in the field) that the (US) decision to actually go ahead and -build- the NLC will be made -after- the first new discovery at either the Tevatron or the LHC. (Right now the NLC is just in the R&D phase, and is far enough along in the R&D phase that a decision on the choice of accelerator technology has been made).
Now the new discovery could be observation of the Higgs, or observation of new physics (supersymmetry is a perennial favorite, as are large extra spacetime dimensions; there are -many- theories to choose from), or both. If you assume the Standard Model (SM), and plug into the theory parameters already well-measured at the Tevatron, LEP and SLAC, (e.g. the top-quark mass, the W and Z boson masses) you can predict a likely range for the mass of the Higgs boson. The LHC should certainly be able to observe the Higgs in this mass range. So... even if the LHC doesn't discover the Higgs, it is a discovery of sorts: it means there is something wrong with the SM (which physicists have suspected for a long, long time).
Now the real reason for the delay is that we want to make sure that the NLC has a high enough center-of-mass energy (HEP jargon is sqrt(s)) to study interesting things (like the Higgs boson). It'd be a real shame if we start building the NLC now with sqrt(s) = 500 GeV and it turns out that we need a much higher energy to produce the Higgs (or other interesting stuff). But note, that the German (and the US/Japanese) proposal included plans for future upgrades to higher energies.
Actually the whole "superconducting accelerator" thing is rather new. The Tevatron employs superconducting magnets to curve the path of charged-particles, and non-superconducting RF cavities to accelerate those particles. (I think) The LHC does the same. The German NLC proposal is to use superconducting RF cavities to accelerate charged particles. So, using superconductors at accelerators isn't new, using superconductors to accelerate charged particles is.
BTW, the accelerator complex at Fermilab has eight, not five stages: pre-accelerator, linac, booster, main injector, recycler, debuncher, accumulator, tevatron.
I doubt it. The following notice is displayed upon login on every Gov't-owned computer at FNAL.
NOTICE TO USERS
This is a Federal computer (and/or it is directly connected to a
Fermilab local network system) that is the property of the United
States Government. It is for authorized use only. Users (autho-
rized or unauthorized) have no explicit or implicit expectation
of privacy.
Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may
be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected,
and disclosed to authorized site, Department of Energy and law
enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other
agencies, both domestic and foreign. By using this system, the
user consents to such interception, monitoring, recording, copy-
ing, auditing, inspection, and disclosure at the discretion of
authorized site or Department of Energy personnel.
Unauthorized or improper use of this system may result in admin-
istrative disciplinary action and civil and criminal penalties.
By continuing to use this system you indicate your awareness of
and consent to these terms and conditions of use. LOG OFF IMME-
DIATELY if you do not agree to the conditions stated in this
warning.
Fermilab policy and rules for computing, including appropriate
use, may be found at http://www.fnal.gov/cd/main/cpolicy.html
I'm a physicist. I often refer to my job (or to the field) as "Applied Philosophy."
Hey, I read Leon's book when it came out (I was in high school). Now I'm finishing my PhD at one of the collider experiments at Fermilab (CDF).
He must have had some impact. Also, now I can refer to a Nobel prize winner by his first name (everyone else does...).
Anyway, I think popular books like "The God Particle", and shows like the recent Nova series are vital to the mission of science. Not only do they "capture minds," as was my case, they serve to communicate the truths we scientists uncover to our benefactors, The Public.
The particle physics community largely uses root. It is by no means perfect, but it does provide many useful statistical tools.
Knowing Fred, the idea was most likely hatched whilst guzzling beer, not coffee.
"If you are a grad student, bend over and lube up. You are free labor and you have no rights as a worker."
Not true, at least at universities like the University of Michigan. We have a union, we engage in collective barganing with the Univ. every 4 years, and we have a contract. The union protects students from the abuses you allude to, and strengthens the University by making it a more desirable and attractive environment for graduate study.
...science can answer the Moors/Moops riddle which has plauged mankind since the dark ages!
Good stuff. Well worth a read.
You're an idiot.
- Collision with unknown surface or submersible ship (this is main version);
- Explosion of the weapons and/or batteries or gas mixture in 1-st
compartment in result of internal (fire) cause;
- Blowing-up the mine (modern or World War II times);
- Collision with own target, which resulted the torpedo explosion (1st
"blast");
- Combat torpedo or ASW missile hit during the exercises (own or launched by other
ship);
- Flooding through non-dense closed bow torpedo tubes after the exercises or
because of torpedo sticking in torpedo tube;
- Foreign torpedo hit as a result of fatal error of foreign submarine;
- Mass poisoning of crew by the sharply evolved chlorine;
- "Avalanche failure of engineering" owing to educing of oxygen;
- Error in ship's control caused to her striking against a ground at high
speed.
- Explosion during trial a "secret torpedo" or other newest Russian weapon.
- Mass diseasing of crew by a decompression sickness at the moment of
transition from "whale jump" to emergency diving. In result the submarine went
out of control, was stuck against the seabed, there was weapons explosion
later.
- Hit by "secret, latest" weapon of NATO,
- Intervention of UFO, devil, God (directly) and so on.
I'm betting on the Devil....Not to mention that teaching is a union-controlled industry, and as we've consistently seen in the past, unionized workers aren't of the highest caliper.
Good job, union teachers!
"It's a homonym...."
Try xxx.lanl.gov
a beow... aww, forget it.
First things first, he experiment to which you refer is the g-2 experiment at Brookhaven ; it is an experiment to measure the anomolous magnetic moment of the muon (which is a fermion, not a boson).
The anomolous magnetic moment of the muon is a physical quantity predicted by the SM (a prediction which is itself a paramaterization of other measured quantities, and thus has some uncertanty). The g-2 experiment yielded a value which is 2.5 standard deviations away from the SM prediction.
This is a good thing for physicists (specifically the ones at Fermilab)! For one thing, no serious physicist has ever believed that the standard model is a complete description of nature. There are aspects of the universe for which the standard model cannot account (for example the obvious matter-antimatter asymmetry...).
The really exciting thing about the g-2 result and it's potential impact on the physics about to happen at Fermilab is that it is highly suggestive of new physics (i.e. supersymmetry... susy).
Think of the progress of scientific thought in the past 600 years. Newton's gravitation is a good theory; it makes predictions which mach quite well with observation (experiment). However, it is incorrect... along came Einstien's theory of gravitation, (General Relativity, which itself is a good theory, but not the correct one) which reproduces all of the predictions of Newtonian gravity, and and "does one better" by getting right what Newton got wrong (i.e. precession of the orbit of Mercury; the deflection of light by massive objects...).
So we have the standard model, which is by far the most successful physical model in human history. Yet we know it's wrong. But untill we find a better description of nature, it'll have to do.
The standard model is far from dead. It will evolve, in some sense, into a better description of nature.