from -FUPPETS-

some of the questions that the LHC is seeking to answer. (my additions are in parentheses)


Is the popular Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model realised in nature? If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses? (if the Higgs Boson turns out not to exist then the basic theories about how quantum particles gain mass will have to be overhauled. If found, then it would allow confirmation as well as experimentation down the line. Either way it is kick ass.)

Will the more precise measurements of the masses of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
(Every time we humans develop better instruments with which to analyze and measure the Universe we get closer and closer to the underlying structure of our Universe.)

Do particles have supersymmetric ("SUSY") partners?
(In particle physics, supersymmetry (often abbreviated SUSY) is a symmetry that relates elementary particles of one spin to another particle that differs by half a unit of spin and are known as superpartners. In other words, in a supersymmetric theory, for every type of boson (particles associated with "forces") there exists a corresponding type of fermion (particles associated with mass), and vice-versa. Supersymmetry appears to be a fundamental aspect of nature, but we have no real experimental evidence for it.)

Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP-violation.
(CP is the designation given to the ratio that allows a particle to become it's own anti-particle. Particles and anti-particles are identical, except for their "quantum spin," which is opposite. CP violation happens in weak radioactive decay.)

Are there extra dimensions indicated by theoretical gravitons, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?
(This is a very interesting question. If the LHC allows us to "see" these gravitons, theoretical particles that purportedly carry the gravitational charge, then our theories of relativity and quantum mechanics will have to be re-worked into one unified theory. Amazing stuff. If extra dimensions are shown, then it would give much more weight to the Superstring theorists with their predictions of multiple new dimensions, each one teeny tiny and curled in on itself.)

What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?
(This one is a biggie! Over the past few decades we have come to understand that nearly all the matter we see in the Universe, all observable matter and energy, only makes up about 10% of the actual matter and energy that should be in our Universe for it to look and behave the way it does on a large macro-cosmic scale. If we can find evidence of dark matter or dark energy with the LHC it would be a whole new world of inquiry opened up to Earth scientists.)

Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?
(Gravity is the weakest natural force there is. It is so much weaker than anything else as to almost be negligible. For example, the electromagnetic force is very strong. you can use static cling to hold a paper clip up off of your desk, using a tiny amount of electromagnetic energy to negate the gravitational pull of the entire fucking Earth upon that paper clip. Insane huh? Some people propose in M Theory that gravity spreads throughout all Universes in the multi-verse, the multiple near infinite universes proposed by string theorists. If this is the case, and we can find out why gravity is so unexpectedly weak, then we could verify the "Multi-verse Theory!" Amazing!)

fuck off rob with your "SCIENCE"!!

so you would prefer if I talked about the Large Hadron Collider in sports terms? How about music terms? Or maybe you like pseudo-science gobbledygook?

;)

piss off with it all

enjoy yr ignorance!

Q!
 

For the record, this is what I stated: So (based on the factual aspect of what I stated previously in the thread)...Should we not try? No, of course we should try. As we learn more and more, science will be advanced.
You're mixing apples and oranges there. The advances of the last few centuries are fairly insignificant compared to the revolutionary aspects of Relativity which profoundly enhanced our intrinsic understanding of the universe.

And to echo my previous point for those that refuse to acknowledge the truth in what I write I'll once again repeat myself:
...But just as actual hard physics hasn't advanced all that much in the last almost century since Einstein's first breakthough (despite the vast amount of resources and brainpower devoted to the quest since), don't expect any ridiculously huge leaps.

It hasn't advanced all that much, Rob. Basically, what we have here is a group of remarkably intelligent astrophysicists that have been entirely unsuccessful for generations in expanding on the magnificent data that Einstein gave us all. They get massive grants to do all their work and still very little results from it. And when I write "very little" I mean very little in the way of actually expanding on Einstein to provide hard science on the subatomic microverse. Instead, they dwell in the realm of the highly dubious and come up with papers and theories that even their fellow scientists cannot possibly begin to disprove, because they are largely conjecture and gibberish, albeit highly intelligent gibberish. While being extraordinarily intelligent on the one hand they are also akin to a group of salesmen on the other. They are forever being told to come up with something concrete every time the money is handed out and so, like a salesman, they lament that they need new leads and a new product in order to perform at a higher level and provide the answers that the money is being doled out for...and so on and so forth the process gets repeated.
The astrophysicists are right, however, in the sense that what they do need to advance in a real way is more data. And the only way to get that data is to build a SUPER DUPER supercollider to get the particles accelerating to just a tiny bit closer to the speed of light. They are hoping that this will do the trick, you see. And they are right in the respect that it will inch us closer, but we still have loooooong way to go with what amounts to baby steps.

And one more time, for extra emphasis so as not to be spun into diametrically opposite bullshit by one Rob Instigator:
So (based on the factual aspect of what I stated previously in the thread)...Should we not try? No, of course we should try. As we learn more and more, science will be advanced.


Of course the Hubble is a great advance. To get the lens outside of the atmosphere cannot be anything but a huge plus. Perhaps these IDIOTS you're referring to are part of the same crowd that are all jazzed over a gorilla suit or whatever thinking that it may just be the corpse of a Bigfoot creature. ZING!

You certainly seem to get off on your ignorance. You've niched out a sort of hyper-optimistic Star Trek-is-the-future geeky fantasy that you hold fast to as some sort of proof that you are above reproach and absolutely correct.

Why do people insist on fucking with things?

For the same reason little kids drink the stuff under the sink...


They're dumb and they don't know any better.

I don't consider that a good enough reason.

I wish I could come up with a better one.

To figure out how life came about...to figure out how we came to be here and why we are here.
Sounds okay, right?
Read on...
The baseline reason is that elitists want to understand how to live as long as possible and cheat death for as long as possible, to master the universe itself, as it were. And there's your answer.

And that's the lamest thing ever.

please explain it in music term. But only using references to music released in 1973

I cant wait to get covered in spiders like in Stephen King's The Mist.

If we do die from this thing, it'll be the best way to die ever. It would beat cancer and heart attacks anyday.

I think science is obliged to fuck with things, that's how progress is made.

Besides, if something nasty happens in forthcoming months, there won't be anyone left to whine over the consequences. why people care?

The world ends in 2012 so we still have some time left. Thanks Nostradamus.

Oh, I thought the world was going to end when Y2K happened. After 2012, what will be the next apocalypse date?

Rob, I would just like to comment that you seem rather confident that science has a lot of answers, which it can, but technically does not. There are NO answers, life is a trick question. Theories change and evolve over time.. our current understanding is as limited as previous generations understanding, as our advancements are only as advanced to us as the advancements of the people before us.

So our science sounds great to us today, fine, but what about when something new changes all that? The current explanations ALWAYS sound convincing in the present tense..

The reason I-man live MYSTICALLY, is because a mystic life claims to have no understanding at all, and realized quite honestly that man in his extremely limited perception could never possibly know SHIT! besides, that fits well into the uncertainty principle..