Big Bang Machine Scientists Look to Exotic Findings

Every once in a while I take advantage of the fact that the best friend teaches Physics in LA.

 

Sent him this article I caught about recents findings at CERN.

 

from the inbox:

Nothing really of interest here -- at least nothing new.  It's pretty poorly written, (which I've come to expect from Fox) but there isn't really anything wrong with it other than minutia that no one but physicists would get (i.e. no one calls it the "beauty" quark anymore -- its partner was observed in the 90s at FermiLab and the pair is referred to as "top" and "bottom" now instead of "beauty" and "truth").

 

There's also the constant hyperbole that accompanies every LHC article.  It's always "ultimate" and "largest" and "ultra."  Sure, it's the largest man-made particle collider, but nature is far larger.  It's like comparing the largest swimming pool to the ocean.  Unlike atomic bombs, particle collisions DO occur naturally, at energies that dwarf the LHC.  The purpose for the LHC is to study them in a lab, instead of waiting for natural occurances (which other groups ARE doing -- most notably in Argentina).

 

Also, all the references to the Big Bang are metaphor.  In the early universe, all particles had much more energy, and high-energy collisions were ... well "abundant" would be an understatement.  But now, they are few and far between, compared to a collider.  What the LHC is studying is high-energy collisions -- period --  NOT the Big Bang.  The tie-in is just that there were high-energy collisions in the time of the Big Bang.

Posted via email from Jim Nichols