What is the point of particle accelerators?

**ZapperZ** · Nov5-09, 04:37 AM

I need to make sure I correct the overriding myth here that should be stopped.

What you should ask is the need for particle colliders, not accelerators. There is a difference. There's a good chance that you used a particle accelerator when you had your x-ray taken. All the synchrotron centers around the world used particle accelerators for YOUR benefit.

Read this article:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/brea...erator-future/

But behind the scenes, smaller and more modest accelerators have been cutting big swaths through the lives of ordinary Americans.

For instance, “The argument’s been made that accelerators have saved more lives than any other biomedical device,” with an estimated 10,000 of them being used to treat cancer, Tom Katsouleas of Duke University told the audience.

More than 18,000 industrial accelerators have been built over the past half-century and most of them are still in use, according to a commentary by Robert W. Hamm in the Oct 09 issue of symmetry; they sterilize medical supplies, analyze materials, toughen the rubber in tires, play a key role in manufacturing the semiconductor chips at the hearts of electronic devices, and even create shink-wrap, among many other things.

Meanwhile, work at synchrotron lightsources–accelerator rings that produce bright beams of X-rays–has illuminated the structures of the rhinovirus that causes colds and 50,000 of the proteins that carry out critical functions in every living thing; how nerve cells function and insects breathe; and, after a 30-year-struggle, the structure of the ribosome, an exceeding complex snarl of molecules within our cells that builds proteins based on instructions encoded in DNA. That last discovery earned the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for three biologists this year, and in fact lightsources have become all-purpose tools for research in a number of fields.

So do not lump "particle colliders" and "particle accelerators" to be one of the same. They are not! And I'm guessing that after reading this, you will not be asking anymore for the point of particle accelerators in general.

Zz.

**Redbelly98** · Nov6-09, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Vdtta

B.) Beside that, is anyone seriously hoping to find a real "atom" as in "the smallest indivisible particles" from which everything is composed? Isn't that just like looking for the edge of the universe? Why would universe be infinitely large, but not infinitely divisible? Infinity that goes only one way? Is that logically possible?

Even if things were infinitely divisible, it would be logical to continue looking for the next division of particles below what is currently known.

Originally Posted by Vdtta

I also agree with this, but what do we do in 100 years with 100 more of new particles? What do we do with all that? What do we really want to know as a human race as a sentient beings? -- I think it's much more important to figure out how quantum interaction works on a much larger scale, such as protons and electrons, atoms and molecules, so we can actually uncover the secret of chemical bonding and intermolecular interaction that produces self-replicating molecules, the secret of the brain and neurons, the mystery of human mind and what does it really mean to be self-conscious.

There is research going on looking at all of this: elementary particle physics, the biology of replication, and the biology of the brain and nervous system. Why do you assume we, as a society, can only do one of these things at a time?

We do not need to go further than that to discover the secret of life itself, or so it would seem.

And who says that "to discover the secret of life" is the only valid justification for funding science?

~~Vdtta~~ · Nov7-09, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Redbelly98

Even if things were infinitely divisible, it would be logical to continue looking for the next division of particles below what is currently known.

Agreed. I just wanted to point out we should not hope too much to reach some "bottom" of infinity, just like we do not expect to find the edge of the universe.

There is research going on looking at all of this: elementary particle physics, the biology of replication, and the biology of the brain and nervous system. Why do you assume we, as a society, can only do one of these things at a time?

Agreed. I just think that quantum physicists might have actually a better chance than neurological biologist in unlocking the secret of human mind. The point is that there is no real boundary where quantum mechanics turns into chemistry and where chemistry turns into biology, so they should all be working together or they should all be trained in all three disciplines to get the full and better picture of the nature of things.

And who says that "to discover the secret of life" is the only valid justification for funding science?

I think that should be the primary goal of all the science and I am afraid the funding is not divided appropriately. The main point is that they all should be working together, because it all really connects at some point, one way or the other.

**MikeyW** · Nov8-09, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Fra

Can you define the things you mention, operationally, without choosing an observer?

Even the notion of cosmological horizons are relative to the observer. And usually the pure operational meaning isn't respected since when one observer talks about the horizon of another observer that it strictly speaking a part an inferred image, that IS operationally defined.

What sort of observer are you talking about? In the context of your post that I originally quoted I'd expect you to be talking about observers of different scale. But I don't see the difference between an ant looking at an object and a human, though there is a 10^3 difference in length scale.

On large distances our measurements are restricted by finite light speed, very slow compared to cosmological phenomenon. We can't measure the topology of the universe because of this- it is immeasurable.

re: funding: The more sources of funding there are, the more money to build machines, the more people you can hire to work on an idea, and the further science progresses. The more sources of funding also means more collaboration with industry, new ideas, new insight, and access to technology. My opinion is that science has a duty to society to provide value to the civilisation, which may mean to further understanding, but also means to improve people's lives through new technologies and discoveries.

**Fra** · Nov8-09, 05:57 PM

(To clarify my general position, I am not a realist. Not even when it comes to physical law. Physical law, are merely inferred regularities about the universe, that is exploited for the benefit of the observer.)

Originally Posted by MikeyW

What sort of observer are you talking about? In the context of your post that I originally quoted I'd expect you to be talking about observers of different scale. But I don't see the difference between an ant looking at an object and a human, though there is a 10^3 difference in length scale.

The difference I see is that there is a substantial difference between what measurements or questions an observer CAN formulate and execute, and there is also a substantial difference in the amount of information about past interactions a give observer can hold/encode.

The memory size of a any is first of all way smaller than a human. Also the level of intelligence of the ant highly constraints the kind of questions a real ant could possibly and reasonably come up with.

The real difference on these points are apparent only when you study the behaviour/action of the ant vs the human in relation to a specific system under study.

The behaviour of an ant, illustrates that it is indifferent to things that makes a difference to details to a human. Thus when it comes to understanding behaviour, these intrinsic perspectives are important. To understand how something acts, usually means you need to try to understand the logic of their reasoning, because it's reflected in it's actions.

- How does an light particle respond in a givern environment, as compared to a particle that are orders of magnitued more massive? The idea is that the behaviour of a particle reflects how it sees the world. Mass is like a constraining property that limits what's possible. A light particle is I think unlikely to RELATE to arbtitrarily high energies, and this is expected to make a difference to how it responds.

- How does say an electron view an atom nucleus, as compared to the external laboratory frame? ie. what "laws of physics" does an electro see? well, we sure don't know, but the reflection could be useful since we can still make a good inference, if we assume that the aciton of an electron in a specific sense, follows rationally from it's expectations of it's own environment.

- This ultimately POSSIBLY(I could of course be wrong) suggest that the notion of smallest scale and largest scale, is not universal since the only operational way for two observers to make the comparasion is to again, interact.

The laws of physics we have and call the standard model, and merely the human/earth level view of things. And in particular when it comes to unification programs, and understanding why the actions of matter look the way it does, and how to unify it also with gravity, this "intrinsic information view" is not respected. I think respecting it, would bring further constraints on physical actions, pretty much like say the string theory constrains the set of possible physical actions, but with a substantial difference that there is a very good explanation for it.

So my point in the original commen is that just maybe, a notion corresponding to "planck scale" and cosmological scale with observable universes, exists for EVERY observer. But it's not a priori obvious that it makes sense to say that the minimum scale for two observers are the same - since the only meaningful statement has to be defined in terms of an interaction.

This is why also MAYBE the "exploration of this so called planck scale" can actually be done in a different way - the corresponding minimal scale for a very light system, is likely to be much larger than the minimum scale for a massive earth based laboratory, and thus the ACTIONS of these light systems might reflect this.

So, I am not sure the only way to enlightment is to build more and more expensive accelerators, or to build larger and larger "telecscopes" or space probes, or detectors for cosmic stuff.

The range in between, complex but not cosmic scale systems, in particular when we consider why a systems acts the way it does in a given environment and how it evolves during darwin style process and how the system complexity (I mean specifically like the complexion number) apparently acts like an inertia that secures stability, can yield information that me enlighten use on other areas.

/Fredrik