Whats going on with particle physics...

He's our generations Feynman

I've read he's trying to convince the Chinese to build one with 10 times the power of the LHC.

is right. Nonetheless, failure to find supersymmetry after the CERN upgrade will cause an awful lot of PhDs to lose sleep. MIGHT even drive some to break ranks and try to "think different".

>I've read he's trying to convince the Chinese to build one with 10 times the power of the LHC.
The LHC was a wet fart. It's going to be tough to convince anyone to invest in a new one when all the LHC did was confirm the existence of the Higgs and a handful of other bullshit nobody cares about.

> haven't found anything new with the LHC
We found the Higgs, now we're trying to do precision measurements of it's couplings with other particles.
Among many other things.

SUSY isn't the only "beyond the standard model" physics that's been hypothesized.

There's a significant part of the standard model that we still don't understand, so cool your jets and do some reading before you say some stupid shit like "particle physics has ground to a halt."

>We found the Higgs
Literally the only thing of note the LHC has accomplished. No point trying to defend it, theoretical physicists have been in a slump over it ever since.

Ah, but if the Chinese start construction, the US will have to build an even bigger one -- just in case the Chinese discover some new physics which could lead to a superweapon!

I know. It's absurd. But that's how you get Congressional and Administrative support for a project.

welcome to Veeky Forums, nima

>all the LHC did was confirm the existence of the Higgs
So it did what it was designed to do then

Actually I'm pretty sure scientists were saying that finding the Higgs and nothing else was the nightmare scenario because it wouldn't lead to any new physics. And well, that happened

science.sciencemag.org/content/315/5819/1657.full?rss=1

Article from 2007

At a certain point we can't get experimental data, which means we'll likely never know which model is ultimately the right one, if any.

But we're pretty sure it has to be the most beautiful one.

I work with non-abelian gauge fields, but I will express myself...
1) The standard model was a good framework for a lot of time, but now we need to come up with something new.
2) String theory and loop quantum gravity are both a joke. We're obviously on the wrong track. (10 dimensions min. is utterly absurd.)
I think most researchers like those theories because of the non-trivial topology of such ideas.

Those engineers better develop some new tech fast before we have a theory of everything that's completely wrong.

>The supersymmetry in the theories that really matter can be tweaked to kick in at arbitrarily high energies.
So in other words it's an unfalsifiable theory. Nice. I look forward to people arguing for the equally convincing "jesus theory of particle physics."

Physics has proved a higher power, why's that a bad thing?

Why exactly is it absurd?

Working on "wake field" accelerators.
LHC energies on a tabletop.
Downside is that the beam intensities are much lower, so fewer interactions expected.

I think that high energy is the wrong place to look for a paradigm shift

Where do you suggest looking?

In precisely the opposite direction. Very weak interactions. I think we should be taking a phenomenological approach to the gravity problem, working with torsion pendula to try and identify some anomaly in that energy range. For instance the Eot-Wash group at the University of Washington is doing submillimeter tests of the inverse square law (test of string theory), as well as compositional tests of GR's equivalence principle. I think the latter is thinking in the right direction, but still missing some pieces of the puzzle.

sorry i just realized this was a thread about particle physics! with regards to it specifically I think that they have reached an impasse, or at least a point of massively diminishing results, until the gravity question is answered

could you perhaps expand on the nature of these non-trivial topologies, and why they are not possible in a lower dimensional universe?

>Same thing as String Theorists who continue to push the theory despite getting BTFO by every experiment that was supposed to show evidence for their theory for the past decade

What experiments? I was under the impression that string theory was not able to be tested unless we had a massive increase in supercollider technology.

It's not that absurd. If scientists chanced upon a way to generate large amounts of antimatter using a collider, it would indeed be a superweapon well beyond the power of any nuke.

That's akin to arguing cars should run on hydrogen. It takes energy to make the hydrogen (by splitting water) in the first place. Similarly, making antimatter is just storing energy. And very inefficiently at that.
Now if we could just "mine" antimatter, that would be different. (Did they ever explain where the Federation got it's fuel?)

Nukes are ALREADY more powerful than anyone needs. The US used to have 20 megaton bombs. The USSR set off the Tsar Bomba which was even more powerful. No one makes or deploys such weapons anymore. One megaton (or less) will destroy any target on Earth. Anything larger is just making bigger craters and pulverizing things finer.

OK. That's a good point. (Don't worry about deviating from the subject a little. Veeky Forums is prone to veering into total lunacy, even if the thread began sane. You're not pushing crackpottery.)
SFAIK though, the submillimeter experiments (which I would characterize more as "checking for additional spatial dimensions, whether or not string theory is true") have been negative.
No question that they're CHEAPER than the LHC though and worth pursuing.

Algae can make hydrogen too. Hydrogen cars is actually a real contender should production of hydrogen become viable, which it likely will with refining hydrogen producing algae. CRISPR-CAS9 should make that happen in a hurry.

say it with me,

photocatalytic water splitting

>algae
doubt it's easy enough to be viable
takes a lot of energy
we should run cars on biofuel, just need to figure out how to make lignin into biofuel
so biochemists need to get busy

Haha ok. You are right, the submillimeter tests have been negative so far. They are still going smaller but I am cynical, although I agree it is worthwhile. This is why I believe that various tests of the equivalence principle are our best bet. And yes, the cost/benefit when compared to the LHC almost makes them a no-brainer.

I was only using hydrogen cars as an analogy to show that antimatter is only energy storage.

Relativity can still surprise us.
See iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/8/5/068/njp6_5_068.html
or wikivisually.com/wiki/Woodward_effect

invoke perelman and learn poincaré youtube.com/watch?v=SyD4p8_y8Kw

>or wikivisually.com/wiki/Woodward_effec
noooo go awaayyyy

String theory is fun because the "best" candidates, from a phenomenological perspective, for the extra 6 spacial dimensions are Calabi-Yau 3-folds.

Calabi-Yau's are so interesting because they can be studied from various perspectives. An algebraic perspective, a riemmanian perspective, and a symplectic perspective.

String Theoretic dualities also led to various forms of the "Mirror Symmetry" conjecture for Calabi-Yaus.

The homological version of mirror symmetry essentially says that, for every Calabi-Yau there exists a "mirror" Calabi-Yau such that the algebraic geometry of one is (derived) equivalent to the symplectic geometry of the other.

The model needs to be reconsidered from the ground up.

>What happens if they don't find anything new?
We'll just add more epicycles.

Not saying he's right. But he makes a hell of a lot more sense than Roger Sawyer's gibberish.

Isn't the standard model more or less set in stone though?

home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

Before LHC: based on experiments, any new model has to conform exactly to the standard model and GR at low energies. The two are incomplete at high energies.

After LHC: based on experiments, any new model has to conform exactly to the standard model and GR at low energies. The two are incomplete at high energies.

It's also a really simple theory. It's basically just "at least one elementary particle with spin 3/2 exists".

If such a particle exists, you get enough consequences to fill thousands and thousands of papers, and a huge number of things become much simpler.

Don't pay attention to what is hyped as "near term observations". If it's there, it's there. If it isn't, it isn't. Since there are only two possibilities, there's no harm in considering both.

It's not complete sure but we know it's accurate. It's just missing a few pieces that would explain discrepancies between data

Standard model + GR describes everything we see perfectly. We know there has to be more to it but don't have enough data to distinguish between future possibilities.

I'm pretty sure the LHC passed the energy levels where we would've seen such a particle a while ago, which is why Physicists are shitting their pants

meh... you should recognize my discovery already. THEN THERE WILL BE LOTS GOING ON AGAIN.

>everything we see
What about black holes? We still have no clue what a singularity even is.

phys.org/news/2018-01-result-scientists.html

It's also a really simple theory. It's basically just "An omnipotent God exists".

If such a being exists, you get enough consequences to fill thousands and thousands of papers, and a huge number of things become much simpler.

Don't pay attention to what is hyped as "near term observations". If it's there, it's there. If it isn't, it isn't. Since there are only two possibilities, there's no harm in considering both.