Large Hadron Collider scientists spot potential new discovery: CERN

Sep 21, 2010
Image of a 7 TeV proton-proton collision in CMS producing more than 100 charged particles.

Scientists at the world's biggest atom smasher said Tuesday they appeared to have discovered a previously unobserved phenomenon in their quest to unravel the deepest secrets of the universe.

Results from one of the detectors in the Large Hadron Collider experiment indicated that "some of the particles are intimately linked in a way not seen before in proton collisions," the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said on its website.

"The new feature has appeared in our analysis around the middle of July," physicist Guido Tonelli told fellow CERN scientists at a seminar to present the findings from the collider's CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) detector.

"We have today submitted a paper to expose our findings to the wider (scientific) community," he added, underlining caution and the need for the peer review outside CERN.

Nonetheless, Tonelli, a physicist from Italy's University of Pisa and scientific spokesperson for the CMS detector, underlined that during weeks of cross-checks and critical debate among the team, "we didn't succeed to kill it."

The phenomenon showed up as a "ridge-like structure" on computer mapping graphs based on data from billions of proton collisions in the 3.9-billion-euro (5.2-billion-dollar) machine.

The 27-kilometre (16.8-mile) circular particle accelerator buried under the French-Swiss border is recreating powerful but microscopic bursts of energy that mimic conditions close to the Big Bang that created the universe.

The CMS, one of six experiments around the accelerator, is designed to search for for the elusive and so far theoretical Higgs Boson, commonly nicknamed the "God Particle".

It is also aimed at shedding light on components of dark matter, the mysterious invisible void that makes up 26 percent of the universe.

MIT physicist Gunther Roland, one of the authors of the paper submitted for review, described the latest observation as a "a subtle effect in a complex environment -- careful work is needed to establish its physical origin."

"What we really hope to get is not just ideas, but how to test it," he added during the seminar at CERN's headquarters on the edge of Geneva.

The organisation said it bore "some similarity" with observations in a smaller Ion collider at the US Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Despite applause from their peers at CERN, the CMS team's interpretation of the observation on Tuesday was vigorously challenged during the meeting as scientists bounced suggestions off each other.

"We are stating facts, facts that there is something that we have not seen before," Tonelli responded, as they began the process of seeking endorsement and an explanation for the observation.

After a shaky start and a 14-month delay, experiments at the LHC have since last November replicated discoveries that took decades to complete at the rival Tevatron accelerator in the United States.

The LHC set records for smashing protons fired in beams approaching the speed of light in March.

Explore further: Researchers find first direct evidence of 'spin symmetry' in atoms

More information: Read the full CMS statement: cms.web.cern.ch/cms/News/2010/… tatementFinal_en.pdf

Related Stories

World's most powerful atom smasher restarts: CERN

Feb 28, 2010

Scientists have restarted the world's most powerful atom-smasher overnight, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said Sunday, as they launch a new bid to uncover the secrets of the universe.

Large Hadron Collider gains pace: CERN

Jun 28, 2010

The world's biggest atom smasher is swiftly gaining pace as scientists seek to unravel the secrets of the universe, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) said on Monday.

Pioneering atom smashing bid makes faltering start

Mar 30, 2010

Scientists at the world's largest atom smasher seeking to unravel the secrets of the universe got off to a faltering start on Tuesday, when they failed to collide two high-energy proton beams.

CMS celebrates the lowering of its final detector element

Jan 22, 2008

In the early hours of the morning the final element of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector began the descent into its underground experimental cavern in preparation for the start-up of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider ...

Recommended for you

Water window imaging opportunity

16 hours ago

Ever heard of the water window? It consists of radiations in the 3.3 to 4.4 nanometre range, which are not absorbed by the water in biological tissues. New theoretical findings show that it is possible to ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (55) Sep 21, 2010
"The effect is subtle and many detailed crosschecks and studies have been performed to ensure that it is real. It bears some similarity to effects seen in the collisions of nuclei at the RHIC facility located at the US Brookhaven National Laboratory, which have been interpreted as being possibly due to the creation of hot dense matter formed in the collisions. Nevertheless, the CMS collaboration has stressed that there are several potential explanations....."
newsreader
3.2 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010

"... The 27-kilometre (16.8-mile) circular particle accelerator buried under the French-Swiss border is recreating powerful but microscopic bursts of energy that mimic conditions close to the Big Bang that created the universe."

Is this really true? Are they actually close to "Big Bang" conditions (energies)? If so, what would happen if they created inflatons?
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (31) Sep 21, 2010
The Big Bang is nonsense. What a waste of money spent on these guys. Tired-light is more accurate. No time dilation. No expanding universe. Check LaViolette.

http://www.physor...752.html
Kingsix
1.2 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2010
I understand the quest for knowledge, but surely there is more important knowledge to be searched out. Hopefully all this money sunk into projects like this will someday enable the creation of super cool things like transporters, faster than light travel etc. Of course most of these guys would say that we can't travel faster than light. Booo to that. Get it done already.
googleplex
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 21, 2010
I understand the quest for knowledge, but surely there is more important knowledge to be searched out. Hopefully all this money sunk into projects like this will someday enable the creation of super cool things like transporters, faster than light travel etc. Of course most of these guys would say that we can't travel faster than light. Booo to that. Get it done already.

Sorry but the LHC is merely a repeat of other particle accelerators that have been around for decades. It is a bit bigger than the other ones. It has been way over-hyped which I fear will cause more harm than good.
The best thing that could come out of it is some improvments to obscure and imcomplete physics equations. This has no real bearing on joe the plumber.
A more fun thing would be if we figured out gravity. Unfortunately no progress has been made on this whatsoever since Isaac Newton. Heck we don't even know if anti-matter has negative mass.
googleplex
2 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2010
continued..
It might suprise you to know that we don't even have an equation that 'accurately' describes the motion of the Sun and planets in our solar system. The so called "n-body" problem is yet to be solved.
The only perfect equation that has been found in physics is Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) by Feynman. Sadly there is no physical interpretation of QED, all we have is the maths. Most of the rest physics breaks down at some point and is an approximation.
The reality is that 99% of the physicists I went to school with moved out of physics due to a lack of jobs in the area. At the end of the day people have to make a living. Until there is more money we will have to wait for a miracle like Einstein or Feynman.
TDK
1.9 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2010
This finding is probably related to formation of Yukawa pairs, analogous to observation of top quark pairs. Such pairs decay in synchrony, thus remain corellated. Such explanation it's not a "new physics", because these interactions were interpreted with Standard model already.
Gyuri
1.2 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2010
I think these high energy bursts are primordial particles that are massless matter-energy-motion representation on 3D nmatter-energy inmotion. The traditional physics community is reluctant to publish anithing about the end of divisbility of matter in 3d form and in incessant random motion. The big bang is just a phase of a cyclical universe in which thw average enrgy is constant. The big bang is just alocal incident matter is formed constatly and also disintegrates in proportion. Therefore the enrgy balance remains constant. I hope the CERN discovery will finally lead to the study of collisions of randomly moving, solid, frictionless, inelastic particles.
malapropism
4.8 / 5 (17) Sep 21, 2010
The Big Bang is nonsense. What a waste of money spent on these guys. ...

That is an astonishingly narrow-minded perspective on CERN and the LHC.

According to this report, the LHC cost 3.9B Euro; although the LHC itself hasn't yet (as far as I'm aware) provided a payback in terms of 'hard technology on the shelf' it seems very likely that it will given CERN's history. If you don't think so, consider how much value has come from the WWW (invented at CERN), touch screens (invented at CERN), and the components in the computer or phone you used to type that comment (the particle principles of which were explicated at CERN and other sites). If we are generous and say that overall operations at CERN through its history have cost in the region of 500B Euro the value from that investment is still orders of magnitude larger. A waste of money indeed!

Fundamental research ALWAYS pays off, even if it sometimes takes a while.
jkbgbr
4.4 / 5 (15) Sep 21, 2010
Sorry but the LHC is merely a repeat of other particle accelerators that have been around for decades.

Never buy a new computer or car, then. Narrow-minded a**hole.
TimChase
4.6 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2010
Is this really true? Are they actually close to "Big Bang" conditions (energies)? If so, what would happen if they created inflatons?


Every time you up the energies you are recreating the big bang conditions that would have existed closer to the instant of creation itself. Along these lines, one of the more interesting discoveries was announced back in 2008. By colliding gold nuclei at high enough energies the Brookhaven lab was able to create a quark-gluon fluid. 4 trillion degrees. Would have lasted for a small fraction of a second. But it wasn't a plasma or gas. It was a perfect liquid -- for all intents frictionless, maintaining a constant volume. For a moment, then it was gone. It has been reproduced since, studied, and so on.

A couple of links:
2008:
http://www.youtub...2ELkQOiE
2010:
http://www.scienc...1014.htm

TimChase
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2010
Oh -- and don't worry about our creating inflatons or anything like that. Any energies that we might create are dwarfed by what nature itself is able to create -- rare high energy particle rays at the edge of our atmosphere (or the atmospheres of billions of other planets) or what have you. The fact that we are still here after more than 13 billion years is a pretty good indication that the fabric of spacetime is fairly stable.
dtxx
2 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2010
I thought that inflatons were only supposedly stable for 10e-40 seconds or so, and I doubt LHC could produce them in sufficient quantity to have much effect. Back when inflatons were believed to have acted the entire contents of the universe was contained in a ball less than 1m across.
JIMBO
3.4 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2010
More sub-par science reporting from physorg ! Why ?
#1. LHC does NOT smash atoms: It collides protons !
#2 The `godparticle'is not the common reference, & has NOTHING to do with a `god' & everything to do with a low-IQ press attempt to snare JohnQPublic with ignoramus ravings linking god to physics !
#3. Why no listing of the arixv.org cite # for the intelligent reader ?
Seriously, PhysOrg needs to issue some pink slips so these guys can get a life & a job hyping BS, not physics.
TimChase
4.6 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2010
More sub-par science reporting from physorg ! Why ?...
#3. Why no listing of the arixv.org cite # for the intelligent reader ?...


Ask and ye shall receive...

New two-particle correlations observed in the CMS detector at the LHC
September 21st 2010
http://cms.web.ce...dex.html

Observation of Long-Range, Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC
Posted by jac on 21 September 2010, 6:36 pm
http://rlrr.drum-...nce/4452

Second article, below the graphic -- a link to the tech pdf.
Arikin
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2010
Thank you JIMBO. They are not using heat either.

The energy requirements are for pushing those protons to a small fraction of the speed of light. Even at the speeds that LHC is doing the mass of the protons increases about 7000 times. More mass means more energy required to push. This is all so we can slow the little guys down long enough to measure them.

Conditions at the big bang, in your dreams maybe.
specialk0324
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
Iwant to comment on the comments rather than the article. There is a wide range of opinions here, some seem to be from the science community and some seem to be from left field. WOW! I don't claim to be informed enough to make any real contribution to the science nor do I care to make any physiological comments.
danman5000
4.8 / 5 (13) Sep 22, 2010
A more fun thing would be if we figured out gravity. Unfortunately no progress has been made on this whatsoever since Isaac Newton.

Except that one time when Einstein completely revolutionized how we thought about it.
Mr_Man
not rated yet Sep 22, 2010
Is this really true? Are they actually close to "Big Bang" conditions (energies)? If so, what would happen if they created inflatons?


The particle collisions aren't creating the negative pressure that facilitated (or caused?) the universe's expansion.
Mr_Man
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2010
A more fun thing would be if we figured out gravity. Unfortunately no progress has been made on this whatsoever since Isaac Newton.

Except that one time when Einstein completely revolutionized how we thought about it.


Too funny, or maybe even a little bit sad. They really need to teach kids about Einstein in high school, Newton is too basic.
Mr_Man
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 22, 2010
I understand the quest for knowledge, but surely there is more important knowledge to be searched out. Hopefully all this money sunk into projects like this will someday enable the creation of super cool things like transporters, faster than light travel etc. Of course most of these guys would say that we can't travel faster than light. Booo to that. Get it done already.


I know you are probably joking, but in case you are not, how do you expect "teleportation" and "faster than light travel" if we don't know how the exact science behind the things that limit these capabilities? We have to know what creates mass in a particle if we ever expect to be able to accelerate something to the speed of light since that means we would have to make the object mass-less (or provide an infinite amount of energy to the object).

You can't build a car without knowing what the parts are and what they do.
googleplex
1 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2010
A more fun thing would be if we figured out gravity. Unfortunately no progress has been made on this whatsoever since Isaac Newton.

Except that one time when Einstein completely revolutionized how we thought about it.


Too funny, or maybe even a little bit sad. They really need to teach kids about Einstein in high school, Newton is too basic.


I am wording it at high school level as that appears to be the average reader here. True Einstein made some headway in an alternative understanding space time and gravitational field affect on it. However I am talking about explaining "completely" how the physics of gravity works. As the theory is far from complete how do you know that Eintstein's interpretation was correct? For all we know it could be wrong.
googleplex
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
A more fun thing would be if we figured out gravity. Unfortunately no progress has been made on this whatsoever since Isaac Newton.

Except that one time when Einstein completely revolutionized how we thought about it.


Too funny, or maybe even a little bit sad. They really need to teach kids about Einstein in high school, Newton is too basic.

I am wording it at high school level as that appears to be the average reader here. I agree that the US education system leaves a lot lacking. Clearly Einstein made some headway in an alternative understanding of space time and gravitational field however I think you will agree that we do not have a "complete" physics model of how gravity works. In fact as the theory is far from complete how do you know that Eintstein's interpretation was correct? For all we know it could be wrong or at least less correct than the true underlying physics. Let's hope the graviton is found soon.
Zilwiki
4.8 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2010
I understand the quest for knowledge, but surely there is more important knowledge to be searched out. Hopefully all this money sunk into projects like this will someday enable the creation of super cool things like transporters, faster than light travel etc. Of course most of these guys would say that we can't travel faster than light. Booo to that. Get it done already.


Its a good thing Newton or Maxwell or Darwin or Plank and others worked on things that were not as important.
Hesperos
4.7 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2010
Scientists at the world's biggest atom smasher said Tuesday they appeared to have discovered a previously unobserved phenomenon in their quest to unravel the deepest secrets of the universe.


Unfortunately, it turned out to be mini Black Hole which promptly ate the scientists before they could publish additional details.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
... action in antisquarks are peacing bgr but rgb no war is missing out reaction ...
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
... mean, you can't give a cleanest wapen to dirty ammunition ...
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (59) Sep 23, 2010
... mean, action in leotards are incarnate upon theory, bey quadrate. All dirty war is practum of ambergris upon unever in mittens, ..potato salad,....
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (56) Sep 23, 2010
...... ever is uneven any genastropsychicallst but never was not even one genastropsychicallst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all dreams are always without theory because with practum is also not the real genastropsychicallst...
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Sep 23, 2010
Clearly Einstein made some headway in an alternative understanding of space time and gravitational field
Then why did you say, and I quote, "no progress has been made on this WHATSOEVER since Isaac Newton"?

In fact as the theory is far from complete how do you know that Eintstein's interpretation was correct? For all we know it could be wrong or at least less correct than the true underlying physics. Let's hope the graviton is found soon.


Because it's capable of making accurate predictions. There's no "Complete theory" of "the True underlying physics". Such a thing would have to be a reproduction of reality itself without a subjectively imposed conceptual framework. Since we must rely on theoretical models, at best a theory will be able to make predictions to the limit of empirical verification. The concept of curved space-time does this in addition to being equivalent to a gravitational force in the lower mass-energy limit.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (52) Sep 23, 2010
There's no "Complete theory" of "the True underlying physics"


Since the religious seem to like certain words capitalized, I though you might appreciate my use of capitalization here.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Sub: Dangers -Limits to mislead
The 27-kilometre (16.8-mile) circular particle accelerator buried under the French-Swiss border is recreating powerful but microscopic bursts of energy that mimic conditions close to the Big Bang that created the universe."
The dangers at the door step- High intense Solar storms are under monitoring- Triggered Lightning if it strikes ???
LHC cannot bring negative Energies and un-balance to Earth Planet and Life Support.
May God almighty save the Pseudo-God-particle groups with better wisdom
komone
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2010
There's no "Complete theory" of "the True underlying physics".

How do you know this?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Sep 25, 2010
There's no "Complete theory" of "the True underlying physics".

How do you know this?
I explained in the post. Because science is (supposed to be) based on inductive reasoning, where "the premises of an [..] logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e., they do not ensure its truth". There is never going to be a one-to-one correspondence between theory and reality itself because they are of different forms. Theories are accurate to the extent of observational verification beyond which is always a possibility of inaccuracies. [my comment was a response to Googleplex statement which I quoted in my post].
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Sep 25, 2010
,... in which he states "how do you know that Eintstein's interpretation was correct? For all we know it could be wrong or at least less correct than the true underlying physics",...

What I meant in reply, is basically that the standards of knowing whether GR is correct are as good as they can theoretically be.
komone
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2010
Theories are accurate to the extent of observational verification beyond which is always a possibility of inaccuracies.

Doesn't that simply suggest that if a complete theory found, we could not be entirely sure we'd found it? BTW I have no expectation that theory and reality are the same. Just that such a theory could be complete in the sense that it could not be "improved upon".
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2010
Just that such a theory could be complete in the sense that it could not be "improved upon".
Well that would be a limitation of understanding, not a limitation of theory.

A 5 year old can read Moby Dick, but he won't understand that it's a biblical allegory, does that mean Moby Dick isn't a biblical allegory? Of course not.

Similarly, we've discovered a lot of quantum based theories, yet we don't fully understand any of them. They could be wrong, or we could simply be ill equipped to make the proper connections.
MorituriMax
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2010
This finding is probably related to formation of Yukawa pairs, analogous to observation of top quark pairs. Such pairs decay in synchrony, thus remain corellated. Such explanation it's not a "new physics", because these interactions were interpreted with Standard model already.


And I guess none of the scientists actually WORKING AT THE LHC ever had that thought cross their minds. Brilliant back seat driving, TDK.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2010
Perhaps the reason people can't make money in this field is because nobody has shown any real relevance to normal day to day living.

There are so many other fields in science that would make much more sense for us to hope for some "Einstein" to solve a critical problem: Medicine and health in the broader sense, Fusion power, materials and etc.

Finding some sub-necleonic particle isn't very beneficial unless you can then show some means of manipulating matter and energy at that level to do something useful, which would likely be centuries away anyway.

Why don't you gurus care so much about curing cancer, AIDS and congenital birth defects? Perhaps it is because half of you want world population decrease anyway?

Of course, you could prevent a significant portion of cancer cases by simply banning cigarettes and alcohol, but that would make too much sense for you guys.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2010
Prevent say 10% of new cancer cases and then that's more people who stay healthy/alive longer AND that's so much less of their money goes to the drug they are addicted to, and to the medicine they need to slow down or cure the disease the drugs gave them, and therefore that much more productivity and money they have to spend on something useful.

Having considered the smoker who has a pack per day habit for 25 years, I found they have wasted nearly 40k in 2010 dollars in their lifetime on something that was killing them, not to mention increased medical bills in most cases, and a general decrease in health and productivity. Not to mention all smokers somehow manage to take and get away with extra breaks at work, and etc. There is no telling what smoking costs the average long term smoker over their lives, not to mention the entire civilization including people like myself who have never touched these poisons, but were exposed due to other's evil habits.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Sep 25, 2010
Naive people like you seem to think that they discovered something ,... in that if they dictate what people can and can't do with their own lives social problems can be fixed. What your type never understands is that such "problems" are a cost of free society gladly paid by the vast majority who have had a taste of freedom.

The research above is about core physics from which practical applications almost certainly will continue to occur. Take your liberal hippy bs elsewhere.
DonR
not rated yet Sep 25, 2010
The energy requirements are for pushing those protons to a small fraction of the speed of light. Even at the speeds that LHC is doing the mass of the protons increases about 7000 times. More mass means more energy required to push. This is all so we can slow the little guys down long enough to measure them.

Conditions at the big bang, in your dreams maybe.


An increase in the mass of a proton by a factor of 7000 requires velocities at about 99.985% the speed of light. Hardly a "small fraction".
DonR
not rated yet Sep 25, 2010
Re: above. I might have misread the post I quoted. Nevermind.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2010
Noumenon:

I am neither liberal nor hippie.

Liberalism is a primary example of what is wrong with both America and the world in general.

"Freedom" does not and should not give somebody the "right" to injure themself at other people's expense.

As for the original topic, there is a huge difference between detection of a new particle or phenomenon and actually using that knowledge in any practical way.

Virtually nothing of any practicle use regarding any particle besides electrons and protons has ever been made, except nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors which also involve neutrons. But in general, nothing uses any theory or product involving sub-nucleonic particles. Well, we can also include photons, whch is obvious in everything, but I guess you know what I'm saying.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Sep 26, 2010
But in general, nothing uses any theory or product involving sub-nucleonic particles.
Well we don't construct buildings out of unobtainium yet, but without understanding the fundamental theories of it, we'll never get to a point where we can build something with it, will we?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2010
SH:

How do you intend to understand the fundamentals of something that happens in a trillionth of a second?

Maybe you should face the reality that some things simply cannot be understood.

I mean do you expect that we might one day have a particle accelerator on the moon encircling it's entire equator? Or that we might one day have a Dyson Ring that doubles as an accelerator around the entire sun at ~1A.U.? Will that be a high enough power level to unlock the secrets you think you are looking for?

Probably not, and it will only lead to more questions anyway. Besides, you almost certainly won't be alive to see either of those things happen regardless.

One must ask, "if it takes a planet sized accelerator to create and manipulate one particle, is it even worth it?"

About the only things that could possibly pay for themselves are things like time travel or FTL travel or macro scale teleportation or "true" cold fusion. Pretty much nothing else would ever be worth it.
DonR
5 / 5 (1) Sep 26, 2010
Maybe you should face the reality that some things simply cannot be understood.


Your sentence is incomplete. The two words you didn't add to the end are, from your perspective, "...by me."

The attitude you display above is so defeatist, I'm surprised you can manage to drag yourself out of bed each morning to face another day.

Had those sentiments been realised throughout physics over the last century, you wouldn't even have this medium to propagate your anti-science rubbish.

Take your blinkers off and realise the world you live in is a product of the exact opposite of your attitude above.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2010
But in general, nothing uses any theory or product involving sub-nucleonic particles.
Well we don't construct buildings out of unobtainium yet, but without understanding the fundamental theories of it, we'll never get to a point where we can build something with it, will we?
Floating buildings?

I think, perhaps, you're as big a fan of Avatar as am I.

Anyhow, there comes a time when practical needs outweigh the more esoteric concerns. This is especially true in difficult economies. Society simply must prioritize.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2010
How do you intend to understand the fundamentals of something that happens in a trillionth of a second?
Why do you limit yourself before you even attempt to understand it? Are you really that intellectually helpless QC?
Floating buildings?

I think, perhaps, you're as big a fan of Avatar as am I.
At what point in time did I say anything about either?
Anyhow, there comes a time when practical needs outweigh the more esoteric concerns. This is especially true in difficult economies. Society simply must prioritize.
CERN's machine cost 6 billion Euros. Killing our own soldiers and a few civilians while hunting terrorists costs 4 trillion Euros. You tell me which is more practical.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2010
SH:

You are partly right about the "war on terror" in that it cannot be won as the U.S. and others are fighting it. There is no clear objective, and everyone is so double-minded about who and what the enemy is and what constitutes terror.

It is almost impossible to defeat an enemy who practices total war without practicing total war yourself. This should have been obvious throughout the history of warfare in the past 250 years, but for some reason our leaders don't get this.

If you cannot stomache total war, then do not go on the offensive against a nation or organization that does practice total war as a norm.

Muslims don't care about their own lives, and they don't care about the lives of their own people. Until somebody acknowledges that, "victory" is impossible.

What alternative do you have to what was done since 9/11 in the "war on terror"? Let's pretend you were the president AND the congress of the U.S. What would your reaction have been after the 9/11 attacks
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2010
And BTW, one of the reasons the war costs so much is that all of the "Smart" ammunition and drones we use cost orders of magnitude more than the "dumb" weapons of the past. We could have carpet bombed the whole place at a fraction of the cost, but the civilian casualties would have been 10s or 100s of times worse.

You can shoot a terrorist with a ballistic missile, or you can shoot him with a smart bomb or smart missile that can cut figure eights in mid-flight. Either way, he'll be just as dead. The only difference is the second option costs 100 times more to do.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Sep 27, 2010
What alternative do you have to what was done since 9/11 in the "war on terror"? Let's pretend you were the president AND the congress of the U.S. What would your reaction have been after the 9/11 attacks
First, we're not fighting a nation, we're fighting an idea. Ideas don't have national boundaries or standing militaries. The only way to fight an idea is to determine its relevance and denigrate it. Islamic terrorism is born from a sense of humiliation. Alleviate the sense of humiliation and so ends the meme that continues the act of terrorism.

Second, to remove those who continue the progress of the meme requires no standing military. It requires the spread of information contrary to that meme. Once the people fighting understand that there is nothing to gain from said fighting, the cause for conflict is resolved.

You can shoot a terrorist with a ballistic missile...
Or you can have his own people shoot him when they recognize his evil, for free.
chandram
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2010
Big Bang, dark matter and energy are just evolved concepts to explain the cosmic processes we have been observing in the near past. Cosmology is at the other end of Particle Physics. Thus we have a lot to play with wider and wider mind that we possess. Finally the right understanding is bound to emerge. My personal ideas say that we may find Physics of the early universe may not match with that of present day. The things were too violent at the start. However primordial matter may have rise to both visible and dark matter that we distinguish as non interactive with one and the other. How to resolve such mysteries are the challenges we appear to face.
Eco_R1
not rated yet Sep 28, 2010
big ba-da-boom !!!