Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Georg von Hippel | September 12th 2008 06:24 AM | 13 comments | Track Comments

About Georg von Hippel

Georg von Hippel is a theoretical physicist researching lattice QCD, the theory describing the strong interactions that bind quarks into hadrons.

He did his Ph.D. at the University of


... Full Bio

More from Georg von Hippel

All
Everybody has heard the sensationalist claims about the alleged dangers of black holes at the LHC, but the real physics rationale behind the LHC and its experiments has been featured much less prominently in the media. So what do physicists actually hope to find with the help of the LHC?

The best answer is probably "the unknown". Since we have never collided particles at energies comparable to that of the LHC, we have no idea what particles can be created in such collisions. (Of course there have been lots of cosmic ray events at these and even at much higher energies, but you can't build a detector around those to study what comes out of the collision.) There might be all kinds of surprises waiting for us there. But of course we theorists have not been lazy while the engineers and experimentalists constructed the LHC, and so there lots and lots of theories, models and ideas around about what the LHC experiments could conceivably observe.

The next best answer is certainly "the Higgs boson". The Standard Model of elementary particle physics describes all of known physics with great accuracy, but one of its crucial predictions, the existence of the Higgs boson, remains unconfirmed by experiment. If the LHC finds the Higgs boson, this will be the final confirmation of the Standard Model, meaning that we would then be sure that we do in fact understand all of particle physics up to energies of many TeV. If the LHC were not to find the Higgs boson, or at least something very much like it, this would mean that all our current ideas about what gives particles their masses and what causes the breaking of electroweak symmetry are completely wrong.

Many physicists also hope that the LHC will find evidence of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is a kind of symmetry that links bosons and fermions by giving a "superpartner" to every kind of particle, and which would provide an elegant solution to a number of problems that worry theoretical particle physicists, such as why the energy scale of electroweak symmetry breaking is so much smaller than the Planck energy, or why the cosmological constant is so tiny. So far there is no experimental evidence whatsoever that supersymmetry exists, but if it exists, the LHC has a good chance to discover at least some of the superpartners of known particles, which would mean that so far we know only half of the stuff of the universe and thus would open up a huge new field to experimental study.

Whether supersymmetry exists in nature or not, we know that there is a lot of stuff that we don't see, but that exerts a gravitational pull on cosmic scales, and which we call "dark matter". The LHC should probably be able to create the particles of which this dark matter consists, allowing us to study their properties and thus advance our understanding of cosmology.

Physicists working on theories containing additional dimensions beyond the usual four (three of space, one of time) also hope that the LHC might uncover evidence of the existence of these additional dimensions, but that is already far in the realm of the speculative, and getting close to black hole territory on the scale of improbability (though I hasten to add once again, that the very theories that might enable black holes to be formed at the LHC also predict that those black holes will decays almost instantly, and certainly much faster than they could possibly accrete matter).

Ultimately, the most wonderful thing the LHC could discover would be something that no theorist has yet predicted, but no matter what it finds, it will certainly falsify 90% or more (maybe even 100%) of the currently existing theories and models, and that is the real excitement.

Comments

Basically it all boils down to they don't know, which makes the CERN LHC safety report as factual as that dossier that started the Iraq war. No one should say all is safe when the LHC safety report is based on theories, but the strange thing, probably to justify their existence in the field of physics, they do. So from 90% to 100%, Hawking Radiation, the theory that suppose to evaporate micro black holes could also be one of those theories that turns out wrong. Hopefully for the worlds sake, micro black hole creation is also false. But hey, lets roll the dice, and see what happens with this wonderful machine.
Georg von Hippel's picture
Hawking radiation is not a theory, it is an inescapable result of quantum mechanics and general relativity, the very framework on which all of our theories about how nature works are based.

You have to understand that "theory" in science has a very specific meaning, and that meaning is not "arbitrary idea some guy throws around". A theory is a logically coherent, internally structured and complete description of an aspect of nature. A description that lacks the completeness aspect, or is not quite consistent with some known facts, is often called a model, but even models are not random ideas, but the outcome of careful thought and mathematical arguments.

Excitingly, there are things we don't know about what the LHC will produce, but, reassuringly, there are also things we do know: it will not produce giant singing pink elephants (conservation of energy forbids that), nor will it produce black holes that destroy the earth (otherwise cosmic rays would long ago have produced those, and we wouldn't be here).

Becky Jungbauer's picture
Shoot - I was really looking forward to the giant singing pink elephants. Thanks for ruining my Friday. :)

so Hawking radiation is even better than a theory, where's the clear evidence for IT then? I suppose it must be something like this quantum theory and relativity isn't a theory - its two. mathematical extension of quantum theory & relativity with another idea -or were Einstein et al not really going around calling their different views theories, getting ideas out of their brains- something widely described as a theory: the theory of Hawking radiation - is three theories. other views - non black hole 'Gravastar' theory (Mottola, Mazur) etc though never described by anyone I'm aware of as models - as with any other modern view in physics - aren't theories, but guesses despite its evidence fit mathematical physics, Otherwise I expect that I would be some awkward; conveniently phrased -'crackpot' - who believes that somewhere you confused models with theories. Yet inevitably no doubt, I'm incorrect somehow there. Yes? Don't worryI'll calm down.
Ahhh science is really fun... or should I say: sth between funny and silly? Hawking radiation is not a theory, and neither quantum mechanics? What is it then? Reality? The really, really, given? Or the irrevocable truth? Or sth you REALLY know that it must be there, outside, sth like a hyper-Kantian Apriori? You physicists should acknowledge that any of these positions would be not only close to fundamentalism. They ARE fundamentalistic. No reference to logics helps and so does not any reference to math. It does not help. In the beginning, at the level of basement you have to believe. No model and no theory EVER can include its conditions of application, its presuppositions, or its way of symbolizing. Finally you will apply it to the world which is only empirically accessible. And any kind of formalism does NOT include any semantics. Do you see the gap? Greetings from Hume here, probably. It is an intimidately boring petitio principii, to "hasten to add once again, that the very theories that might enable black holes to be formed at the LHC also predict that those black holes will decays almost instantly, and certainly much faster than they could possibly accrete matter". You conclude this on the basis of what? On the basis of a never tested part of a speculative theory, which uses math physicists have agreed upon? A theory which exactly can NOT explain gravitation? You should admit to know nothing. And from this it follows, that the experiments should be undertaken with largest caution. But what is the CERN going to do? Pushing the gear as fast as possible to highest energies. This, my dear, is not only silly. It is deeply immoral (see the essay on my site about the "Ethical Singularity"). And here we are back again in the human world.
"Ultimately, the most wonderful thing the LHC could discover would be something that no theorist has yet predicted, but no matter what it finds, it will certainly falsify 90% or more (maybe even 100%) of the currently existing theories and models, and that is the real excitement." go back in time a few seconds/minutes perhaps you'll realize that your a lot more uncertain than you ARE about the risks associated with lhc!
think it might be a good idea if you clarify what you mean by your LAST line. Are you that risk averse?
Not hardly. All this just reminded me of that commercial if you recall when we started marketing margarine and they used that lady as mother nature.Simply we do make mistakes.I'm not saying this is one,the LHC.I was just quoting the imperial margarine commercial.It was the first thing that popped into mind when i first read of the concerns.In fact i am very interested in the findings as to some of the things i have wondered about the make up of atomic structure.If all goes well this could be as rewarding as the hubble telescope.And yes i was being sarcastic.My apologies.I may be wrong about the possibilities of black holes existing at the atomic level,but does anyone know yet.There seems to be some discussion of this.
Black holes-Total Absorption Physics-I theorize exist in all atoms.The LHC will find these and in the process will unleash them from natures balance probably causing many problems.It seems we are good at disrupting nature.You know the saying,"Don't mess with mother nature".Well here we go again.
Georg von Hippel's picture
And you base this "prediction" on what? On your "theory"?

Science is not done by simply making random claims; scientific progress is made by carefully considering all available evidence and then drawing logical conclusions.

A scientific theory is not some kind of arbitrary speculation or pipe dream, it is a logically consistent, internally coherent set of concepts that is in agreement with all existing evidence.

Oh, and throwing around invented phrases like "Total Absorption Physics" and expecting to look wise only makes you look silly.

yes i agree.I can only come to the conclusions that i have by what others more understanding of these physics have worked out. I am just a layman and don't really feel we are messing with mother nature and we are doing what scientist do,experiments.I have been curious as to the amount of energy in atoms if it would be possible that small quantum balanced black holes could be the turbine of molecular mechanics.If so then to find them would require magnets of greater power to pull the small black holes out of the atoms long enough to prove their existence.Einstein stated that when we discover the workings of gravity that we would find it related to magnetism.Black holes appear to be the ultimate gravity state of gravity on a runaway scale.Gravity being the most abundant and least amount of energy would seem to have many levels of effect on mass.As far as messing with mother nature,we have already done that when we made margarine and i understand that these scientist know exactly what particles they are looking for as to prove their theory of which quantum theory is the actual one that is of our universe and simply lay to rest all this mathematics of probables and say this is the true realm.I know that these great minds have labored endlessly and i give them credit for their courage to split the atom.It is to my understanding that there is not nearly enough mass in these experiments to produce a dangerous black hole,however that smaller short lived black holes may be produced and if so are they a product of the atom or of the energy applied? Set me straight.
Stellare's picture
Great and simple explanations of the physics of LHC here!

I believe I'll never stop being amazed by the lack of understanding of theories, models and scientific methods in general that we find in the population today.

I linked to your article in an emotional outburst over in my column because your article is completely God free too. :-)

Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth

Kimberly Crandell's picture
Great article, Georg.

Thank you for explaining some of the goals that are behind the development of the LHC.

What an exciting time! It's like blasting off into a new world - knowing somewhat of the geography that will be waiting for us, but eagerly anticipating all of the unknown details that we will discover once we get there.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.