Tevatron to shut down in September

[Bishadi]

The Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider now have similar beam intensities, but the Fermilab accelerator has been operating at that level for much longer, since about 2003, and has more data, Green says. The LHC, which CERN expects to triple its beam intensity in 2011, will soon catch up, he adds

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68988/title/Tevatron_to_shut_down_in_September

all that time and still nothing..............


finally a scientific decision that makes sense

:p

[Tubbythin]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68988/title/Tevatron_to_shut_down_in_September

all that time and still nothing..............


finally a scientific decision that makes sense

:p

What do you mean "nothing"? The Tevatron discovered the top quark.

[Bishadi]

What do you mean "nothing"? The Tevatron discovered the top quark.

can you tell us what quark did for anyone?

bottom or top one?

maybe the left one?

no matter.............. the waste of resource is shutting down.

i like the decision!

[Tubbythin]

can you tell us what quark did for anyone?

bottom or top one?

maybe the left one?

no matter.............. the waste of resource is shutting down.

i like the decision!

Well it's pretty important for our understanding of the fundametal building blocks of the Universe.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

All that fundamental research is a waste of time and money unless I can get a cool iPhone app out of it!

~~ Paul

[temporalillusion]

Too bad the top quark didn't teach someone the difference between a forum and a blog.

[Bishadi]

Well it's pretty important for our understanding of the fundametal building blocks of the Universe.

will it make a better iPhone?

or even assist with tying your shoes?

I can be caught making a joke that if creation was true then did god put dinosaurs bones in the earth just to employ people.

Working at the spinners was just a job, spinning particles they were creating and looking at the purdy pictures but not much other than cool engineering and the usage of isotopes ever came from most every spinner ever built.


Nothing fundemental came from spinners (accelertors) that is usable in any science except to play "speculation tic tac toe" with funny guys at the local coffee shop.


i like the idea, that science and common sense is being used to shut the tev down.


a fine honest decision was made.

otherwise, share a case against!

[Blue Mountain]

Where's you get the idea that "common sense" is behind the decision to shut down the Tevatron? To me it looks like a bunch of bean counters with no interest in basic research are behind it.

It seems almost silly to point this out, but research into the fundamental physics of particles is what helped make the computer and the internet you're using to read this with. Its discoveries are behind the fibre optic cables that move data around the world, the silicon chips that make up the CPUs and graphic cards, the RAM chips that are critical to your computer's operation, the CRT and flat screen monitors needed to view content, and the incredible hard disc capacities we now take for granted.

You prefer "common sense" to all that? Then what the hell are you doing posting on the internet? You should be eking out a living as a hunter-gatherer or a subsistence farmer.

[Tubbythin]

It seems almost silly to point this out, but research into the fundamental physics of particles is what helped make the computer and the internet you're using to read this with. Its discoveries are behind the fibre optic cables that move data around the world, the silicon chips that make up the CPUs and graphic cards, the RAM chips that are critical to your computer's operation, the CRT and flat screen monitors needed to view content, and the incredible hard disc capacities we now take for granted.

Q) Well apart from advancements or invention of the computer, the world wide web, fibre optic cables, silicon chips, RAM chips, CRTs, flat screen monitors and data storage, what did fundamental particle physics ever do for us?
A) Well positron-emission tomography helps diagnose illnesses and do fundamental studies of the workings of the brain.
Radiotherapy with photons (which are a fundamental particle) has saved (at a guess) millions of cancer patients lives. And now we have protons and pions (not technically fundamental particles but our desire to find and classify the fundamental particles of the universe led to their discoveries) for radiotherapy which, because of the way they interact with matter, can be targeted so to maximise the damage to tumours and minimise damage to the intervening materials. And it's only because we have studied these interactions that we know this.
Then there is synchrotron radiation from accelerated particles that is used to study such iPhone-relevant areas such as microfabrication and the electric and magnetic properties of condensed matter.
So as regards Bishadi's question "will it make a better iPhone"?, the clear answer is that it already has.

[MRC_Hans]

It is always fun to see people scoff at science ... on a computer, on the INTERNET.

Hans

[Sledge]

What have you done for anyone, Bishadi?

[John Hewitt]

What have you done for anyone, Bishadi?

Actually, and somewhat unusually for Bishadi, I find myself rather agreeing with some aspects of his comments.

I have spent some time teaching A level physics to students who have no expectation, hope or desire to become high energy physicists or astronomers; all they need is an A level in physics as an aspect of pursuing some other objective. Those students, who are by far the majority studying A levels in physics, would be far better served by studying AC circuit theory, solid state physics, logic circuits or medical physics. All of those topics have been in syllabuses and all are directly relevant to things that real students will have to do during their careers. Yet some of the most important examining bodies in this country have removed them from their syllabuses and replaced them with discussions of main series stars, or the standard model in particle physics. This is just ridiculous. For such students, school level students, particle physics and astronomy are entirely irrelevant; quarks can safely be left inside the pages of Joyce.

I would not deny that such advanced topics are of considerable academic interest, they are even of interest to me, but they really are of absolutely no relevance to ordinary kids on ordinary college courses, and that does include A level.

And, for the record, while I think it is true that Berners-Lee developed some of the internet software in CERN, his accomplishment had nothing to do with the activities of CERN itself. It seems to me that what he did was develop a rapid communications protocol and his work could just as well have been developed as part of a great variety of other activities. In short, it is not true that the internet could not exist without high energy physics.

[Sledge]

One of us must be misreading Bishadi's point. I'm taking it that he thinks the Tevatron has done nothing because we can't point to, say, a mobile phone that's been designed as a result. This is, I would hope, an obviously short-sighted view to take.

Now, I do agree with your point about students. I think kids are often being taught things that are far beyond anything they are likely to ever need. The problem is, to agree with Bishadi (or at least my understanding of his point), you would have to be saying "Students don't need to know this, therefore it should be dropped from every academic course in the world." I hope that isn't what you mean.

[John Hewitt]

One of us must be misreading Bishadi's point. I'm taking it that he thinks the Tevatron has done nothing because we can't point to, say, a mobile phone that's been designed as a result. This is, I would hope, an obviously short-sighted view to take.

Now, I do agree with your point about students. I think kids are often being taught things that are far beyond anything they are likely to ever need. The problem is, to agree with Bishadi (or at least my understanding of his point), you would have to be saying "Students don't need to know this, therefore it should be dropped from every academic course in the world." I hope that isn't what you mean.
No, I think it is worth spending serious money on the search for understanding in any field.

But, if the results are esoteric with few or no practical applications, which is the case at the moment in high energy physics, then that topic should not be a compulsary aspect of any course. I would make courses like that options at university. I would not have them in school courses, not even as options.

[temporalillusion]

Why not?

Part of school is finding out what things interest you and being exposed to a wide range of things. I knew I loved the real hard physics when I was introduced to it in school.

To limit what is taught in school by its immediate practical application seems an odd line to draw.

[Sledge]

I think we're pretty much in agreement. But Bishadi (assuming I'm reading his posts correctly*) goes much further than that.

*and assuming there is a correct way to read his posts. ;)

ETA: I see what you're saying, temporalillusion, but I think we put a lot of people off education in general by forcing them to learn things that will be useless to the vast majority of people. Possibly a discussion for another thread.

[RussDill]

what have you done for anyone, bishadi?

He SOLVED CANCRE!!11!

[Aitch]

Now, I do agree with your point about students. I think kids are often being taught things that are far beyond anything they are likely to ever need. The problem is, to agree with Bishadi (or at least my understanding of his point), you would have to be saying "Students don't need to know this, therefore it should be dropped from every academic course in the world." I hope that isn't what you mean.

To a point.

It depends on whether you want education to be purely vocational, producing people who know effectively nothing outside their job's area.

Or whether you want to produce rounded people who have background knowledge and can learn and possibly enjoy learning things that are not immediately 'useful'.

IMO.


ETA: Having re-read your post, I think we are in agreement. Oops!

[dafydd]

Would it be possible to limit Bishadi to one thread per month?

[ingoa]

Actually, and somewhat unusually for Bishadi, I find myself rather agreeing with some aspects of his comments.

...

And, for the record, while I think it is true that Berners-Lee developed some of the internet software in CERN, his accomplishment had nothing to do with the activities of CERN itself. It seems to me that what he did was develop a rapid communications protocol and his work could just as well have been developed as part of a great variety of other activities. In short, it is not true that the internet could not exist without high energy physics.

Actually it had everything to do with CERN. We at CERN had the problem that a lot of knowledge went away with researchers when they left. The typical "lifetime" of a post-doc in High-Energy Physics is about 5 years. Then most leave for greener pastures. But experiments are running for much longer and are being analysed for even a longer time. There was no way to retain the information up-to-date in this volatile environment. Even worse, how do you find the information? Hence, the strong impetus on metadata.

[Tubbythin]

Actually, and somewhat unusually for Bishadi, I find myself rather agreeing with some aspects of his comments.
Bishadi seems to be suggesting that particle physics hasn't given us anything practical.


I have spent some time teaching A level physics to students who have no expectation, hope or desire to become high energy physicists or astronomers; all they need is an A level in physics as an aspect of pursuing some other objective. Those students, who are by far the majority studying A levels in physics, would be far better served by studying AC circuit theory, solid state physics, logic circuits or medical physics. All of those topics have been in syllabuses and all are directly relevant to things that real students will have to do during their careers. Yet some of the most important examining bodies in this country have removed them from their syllabuses and replaced them with discussions of main series stars, or the standard model in particle physics. This is just ridiculous. For such students, school level students, particle physics and astronomy are entirely irrelevant; quarks can safely be left inside the pages of Joyce.

I know when I did A-level physics the majority of it was classical physics. There was one option module for which we did Nuclear and Particle Physics (the former of which is certainly of relevance to those not taking on a physics degree) and a little taster of QM tacked on to the end of the module on waves. In a country that it is desperately starved of physics teachers qualified in physics ( and qualified physicists in general) it seems somewhat short-sighted to starve those who actually take an interest in physics of some of the most (in my opinion at least) inspiring areas. The areas that answer or at least tackle some of the most profound (excuse the gushing sentementality) questions we have - like where we all came from and what everything is made of?


I would not deny that such advanced topics are of considerable academic interest, they are even of interest to me, but they really are of absolutely no relevance to ordinary kids on ordinary college courses, and that does include A level.
I strongly disagree. A-level physics is meant to both be a qualification in its own right and a stepping stone, for those who wish, for further study. Now it may be that those who wish to do no further study are annoyed by seemingly irrelevant stuff. But if that's the price they have to pay so that the country has more degree-qualified physicists then that's fine by me. Of course, in principle, things could be made more modular so that those who wanted to do only "practical" physics could do so. But there simply isn't enough physics teachers to go around. And then we get back to my original point!



And, for the record, while I think it is true that Berners-Lee developed some of the internet software in CERN, his accomplishment had nothing to do with the activities of CERN itself. It seems to me that what he did was develop a rapid communications protocol and his work could just as well have been developed as part of a great variety of other activities. In short, it is not true that the internet could not exist without high energy physics.
Did anyone say it did? Blue-sky physics research has led to endless developments and applications that are used outside of physics. Some of them may have been invented or discovered at a later date anyway, some may not. Remember Bishadi's words that I was objecting to:
"Nothing fundemental came from spinners (accelertors) that is usable in any science except to play "speculation tic tac toe" with funny guys at the local coffee shop."

[Tubbythin]

Actually it had everything to do with CERN. We at CERN had the problem that a lot of knowledge went away with researchers when they left. The typical "lifetime" of a post-doc in High-Energy Physics is about 5 years. Then most leave for greener pastures. But experiments are running for much longer and are being analysed for even a longer time. There was no way to retain the information up-to-date in this volatile environment. Even worse, how do you find the information? Hence, the strong impetus on metadata.

Having re-read John's quote I agree that he was wrong when he said "his accomplishment had nothing to do with the activities of CERN itself". I am now trying to work out what I thought he meant.

[Dorman]

The closing of Tevatron need not be looked upon as a signal against colliders / particle physics in the US. It will allow Fermilab to concentrate on its neutrino program, which also involves accelerating protons (though not to so high energies) and shooting them at targets. The ongoing experiment MINOS, and the upcoming NOvA and LBNE would do well with a larger share of Fermilab's accelerated protons, and may be able to compete with the Japanese in neutrino experiments.

The action in proton-proton collision has already shifted to Europe. (Indeed, many physicists working on Tevatron had already committed to working on LHC in the next few years, and it would have been difficult for them to commit time for Tevatron also, if it had been extended.). Perhaps the decision to close down Fermilab is aimed towards getting a step ahead in the neutrino experiments, so as not to lose out on that front, too.

I personally would have liked the Tevatron to run for a couple of years more, but soon the LHC would have overtaken it. Fermilab may have missed out on discovering the Higgs before the LHC, but then this risk is not quantifiable unless we know how heavy the Higgs is...

[John Hewitt]

Having re-read John's quote I agree that he was wrong when he said "his accomplishment had nothing to do with the activities of CERN itself". I am now trying to work out what I thought he meant.

You might well have been thinking that the difference between data and metadata is a concept in IT not particle physics. That distinction would, therefore, be relevant to any institution doing data analysis and not merely to CERN. If that is what you were thinking, you would have been right.

In any event, I have stated my position and I am not going to pursue the matter further.

[Cuddles]

Where's you get the idea that "common sense" is behind the decision to shut down the Tevatron? To me it looks like a bunch of bean counters with no interest in basic research are behind it.

Not really. The Tevatron has run for longer than most accelerators do, and I think it might be the longest running collider ever. Importantly, anything the Tevatron can do, the LHC can do as well, except the LHC can do a lot more as well. Sure, it might be nice to have them both running for a while, but it's not bad an idea to shut down an old, outdated accelerator once there's a new one working. There's certainly some bean counting involved, but not really in a bad sense. These things are expensive, and ultimately the Tevatron is just not necessary any more.

Edit: It's also worth bearing in mind what the actual announcement was. They haven't suddenly decided to shut it down, they've simply not decided to extend its lifetime any further.

[Steve001]

One of us must be misreading Bishadi's point. I'm taking it that he thinks the Tevatron has done nothing because we can't point to, say, a mobile phone that's been designed as a result. This is, I would hope, an obviously short-sighted view to take.

Now, I do agree with your point about students. I think kids are often being taught things that are far beyond anything they are likely to ever need. The problem is, to agree with Bishadi (or at least my understanding of his point), you would have to be saying "Students don't need to know this, therefore it should be dropped from every academic course in the world." I hope that isn't what you mean.

More to the point. Bashadi's position is if science research has no immediate or foreseeable practical application then it's a waste of time and money. Shorter still pure science is pointless.

[technoextreme]

The ongoing experiment MINOS, and the upcoming NOvA and LBNE would do well with a larger share of Fermilab's accelerated protons, and may be able to compete with the Japanese in neutrino experiments.

From what I've heard the Japanese aren't doing too well in neutrino experiments and we are quickly trying to engineer and backtrack on the problems that they encountered. Namely in that one of their detectors imploded in on itself due to a cascade failure.

I would not deny that such advanced topics are of considerable academic interest, they are even of interest to me, but they really are of absolutely no relevance to ordinary kids on ordinary college courses, and that does include A level.
Dude. Particle physics is responsible for advances in every field of science and multiple fields outside of it. There isn't a week that goes by that I don't hear a story that backhandedly mentions particle physics.

[Blue Mountain]

From what I've heard the Japanese aren't doing too well in neutrino experiments and we are quickly trying to engineer and backtrack on the problems that they encountered. Namely in that one of their detectors imploded in on itself due to a cascade failure.
Are you thinking of the Super Kamiokande (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) detector? The failure happened in 2001. It was fully restored by 2006.

[technoextreme]

Are you thinking of the Super Kamiokande (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) detector? The failure happened in 2001. It was fully restored by 2006.
That has got to be the stupidest piece of engineering I have ever seen. Lets put thousands of devices capable of imploding in on themselves together without freaking thinking about the scenario that one of them might implode. I'm guessing it is because I doubt there are many catastrophic cascade failures of a neutrino detection system. Also, ties into the discussion as to why Bishadi's argument is one ignorant of science would make. Now we are making far better engineered photomultiplier tubes for any application but without the neutrino research this would have not have happened.

[Sledge]

More to the point. Bashadi's position is if science research has no immediate or foreseeable practical application then it's a waste of time and money. Shorter still pure science is pointless.

Indeed. A breathtakingly inane point of view that I don't think I can even call short-sighted.

[Little 10 Toes]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68988/title/Tevatron_to_shut_down_in_September

all that time and still nothing..............


finally a scientific decision that makes sense

:p

Too bad you can't read your own link:

From the article:Because the two accelerators hunt for the Higgs in different ways — the Tevatron detects the proposed particle’s most common decay product, a bottom quark and its antiparticle, while the Large Hadron Collider records a much rarer decay mode that produces two photons — the searches are not only competitive but complementary. “It would have been very intriguing to see the Higgs” at both atom smashers and compare results, notes Söldner-Rembold.

Green adds that the lower energy of the Tevatron produces a lower background of extraneous particles, making the Higgs search there “a somewhat cleaner” process.

Because the Tevatron collides protons with antiprotons, it’s also better suited than the LHC to explore ideas about why nature contains so much more matter than antimatter (SN: 6/19/10, p. 8).

Rocky Kolb of the University of Chicago says he’s philosophical about the Tevatron’s demise. “All great accelerators have an end,” he notes. “Any disappointment at the closing of the Tevatron is tempered by my wonderful memories of my time at Fermilab, when the Tevatron was cranking out discoveries and it was the center of the high-energy physics world.”

Those highlights include the 1995 discovery of the top quark, the sixth and last discovered quark predicted to exist according to current theory. Quarks are a fundamental building block of matter.

[Steve001]

Indeed. A breathtakingly inane point of view that I don't think I can even call short-sighted.

Breathtakingly inane, I think that covers it.

[Mister Earl]

I wouldn't shut the Tetravon down. Instead, I see it as a good time for one or more experiments that firmly sit in the "We can't do that without possibly damaging / destroying a multimillion/billion dollar particle collider!". Now's the time to do those wacky and potentially equipment damaging experiments.

[BenBurch]

It makes me sad that I devoted years of my life to a laboratory that somebody thinks of as useless.

[Sledge]

I wouldn't shut the Tetravon down. Instead, I see it as a good time for one or more experiments that firmly sit in the "We can't do that without possibly damaging / destroying a multimillion/billion dollar particle collider!". Now's the time to do those wacky and potentially equipment damaging experiments.

"What would happen if we filled a particle collider with strawberry icecream and high explosives, then turned it on?"

[Mister Earl]

I was thinking more along the lines of "What happened if we tweaked this magnet to blast this particle beam up into Earth's magnetosphere?" or "Let's hit this frozen turkey with the particle beam and see what happens." or finally "Let's get this thing going at max power, then throw the magnetic polarity in reverse, then dive behind the consoles and hope for the best."

You can learn quite a bit from catastrophic failure, as well. Maybe not so much the constituents of matter, but you'll likely learn how to make a better particle accelerator by seeing what fails when you intentionally mistreat it.

[Bishadi]

Bishadi seems to be suggesting that particle physics hasn't given us anything practical.

please, just name one.

How many computers work on lepton, gluons, quackalons or the list of particles, within the particle list?

How about the medical field?

Foods?

Please, just point to one time someone built a plasma screen tv or an mri and was using quarks (of the quacks)?








Remember Bishadi's words that I was objecting to:
"Nothing fundemental came from spinners (accelertors) that is usable in any science except to play "speculation tic tac toe" with funny guys at the local coffee shop."


show me something that can prove the claim is incorrect.

kids play tic tac toe and get about the same advancement of mind as particle physics!

[Bishadi]

I was thinking more along the lines of "What happened if we tweaked this magnet to blast this particle beam up into Earth's magnetosphere?" or "Let's hit this frozen turkey with the particle beam and see what happens." or finally "Let's get this thing going at max power, then throw the magnetic polarity in reverse, then dive behind the consoles and hope for the best."

You can learn quite a bit from catastrophic failure, as well. Maybe not so much the constituents of matter, but you'll likely learn how to make a better particle accelerator by seeing what fails when you intentionally mistreat it.


why build another catastrophic failure?

not a damn think on this planet works off of quarks.

otherwise, prove it!


heck the damn proton being spun in the spinner comes from a lil'tank of hydrogen and they strip the electron, which is still entangled to that proton spinning in the cycle, but who is calculating that potential (which is affecting the outcome)


few comprehend, that billions of collisions are occurring every day, yet only by averages and speculations of the data, do all these funny particles that are named and claimed, even get identified but still not a single usable form.

not a single difference to the underlying principles of science, not a single difference in anything to "support life to continue"....

isotopes can be isolated in the little spinners for medical works, but them isotopes are elements, not particles, not quacks, not muons, not donkeyons.......... and for the most part, most particle physicist cant even name all the paticles on the list.


these facts are something most cannot keep on the forefront of their minds before posting on this thread.


the thread title is not only good but the decision to shut the tev down is valid


and not a post on this thread, offers anything to show otherwise.

think of it in the sense, that a front line soldier in the army gains nothing but discipline within the job description because learning how to kill is not a usable form of knowledge within the normal world. The same applies with particle physics.

Comprehending quarks does nothing for mankind and there is no higgs, no dark matter-crap, and no particle call a black hole except what is has caused to the particle physicists. (obsolete and a waste of mind like doing drugs):boggled:

[Cuddles]

I wouldn't shut the Tetravon down. Instead, I see it as a good time for one or more experiments that firmly sit in the "We can't do that without possibly damaging / destroying a multimillion/billion dollar particle collider!". Now's the time to do those wacky and potentially equipment damaging experiments.

It's planned to sell off as much of the equipment as possible, so presumably they don't want to damage it too much. In any case, there really isn't much you can do that falls between "as designed" and "guaranteed to break as soon as you turn it on". If you put more power into the magnets, they just overheat and melt. If you put more power into the beam, well you probably can't because your RF system can't supply any more. If you steer the beam in a different direction, it just hits the wall and is lost, and in a machine like the Tevatron probably melts a hole in it.

Sadly, real life and Hollywood have very little in common.

please, just name one.

How many computers work on lepton, gluons, quackalons or the list of particles, within the particle list?

How about the medical field?

Foods?

Please, just point to one time someone built a plasma screen tv or an mri and was using quarks (of the quacks)?

Yeah, that would be all of them. Quarks and leptons are actually quite useful, given that every single thing on the planet is made out of them.

Of course, if you're trying to get at the idea that quantum physics hasn't helped us at all in any of these areas, then I may have to give you food. Computers, medical technology and plasma screens, on the other hand, are totally reliant on quantum physics to work (obviously not all of medicine, but quite a few areas).

I can get more specific if you like. Computers work because of semi-conductors and transistors specifically - entirely a quantum effect. Modern circuits are built on such small scales that the quantum effects on individual electrons (those would be leptons in case you were wondering) need to be taken into account.

Medicine? Well the existence of hadron therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron_therapy) using particle accelerators would be the obvious example. Synchrotron light sources are currently one of the main tools in research into protein structures and various other biochemical research. Hell, you even mention MRI yourself, which is based entirely on the quantum mechanics of protons (guess what protons are made of).

I mean seriously, if you want to promote your nuttiness you could at least make an effort not to pick so of the most obvious examples that totally debunk it.

blah blah blah

Yeah, you really don't understand a single thing about physics or particle accelerators. Perhaps you could stop pretending you do, because I don't think there's a single person here who is actually stupid enough to believe you. OK, technically there's one.

[technoextreme]

Synchrotron light sources are currently one of the main tools in research into everything.

I fixed your post.

[dafydd]

please, just name one.

How many computers work on lepton, gluons, quackalons or the list of particles, within the particle list?

How about the medical field?

Foods?

Please, just point to one time someone built a plasma screen tv or an mri and was using quarks (of the quacks)?







show me something that can prove the claim is incorrect.

kids play tic tac toe and get about the same advancement of mind as particle physics!
It has been estimated that you eat around 500,000,000,000,000, 000,000 quarks a day. You couldn't live without them.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins/lecture_p4.html

[Tubbythin]

why build another catastrophic failure?
And when will you stop beating your wife?


not a damn think on this planet works off of quarks.
Define "works off of".


otherwise, prove it!
Prove what? That stuff that is made of quarks can be useful?


heck the damn proton being spun in the spinner comes from a lil'tank of hydrogen and they strip the electron, which is still entangled to that proton spinning in the cycle, but who is calculating that potential (which is affecting the outcome)
Seriously, what are you talking about?


few comprehend, that billions of collisions are occurring every day, yet only by averages and speculations of the data, do all these funny particles that are named and claimed, even get identified but still not a single usable form.
Uh-huh...


not a single difference to the underlying principles of science, not a single difference in anything to "support life to continue"....
Most of the mass of us and our world around us comes from bound combinations of quarks and gluons. But you're right, it can't possibly be useful to understand how these quarks and gluons interact.


isotopes can be isolated in the little spinners for medical works, but them isotopes are elements, not particles, not quacks, not muons, not donkeyons.......... and for the most part, most particle physicist cant even name all the paticles on the list.
Like I said before, look up pion therapy.


these facts are something most cannot keep on the forefront of their minds before posting on this thread.
Uh-huh, you just keep using the world wide web to tell the whole world that particle physics has never given us anything..


the thread title is not only good but the decision to shut the tev down is valid

This may or may not be the case, but so far your argument has only served to give people the opportunity to highlight some of the fundamental discoveries from particle physics that are influencing our world today.


and not a post on this thread, offers anything to show otherwise.

Well if you'd presented a sensible argument in the first place you may have got more relevant responses.


think of it in the sense, that a front line soldier in the army gains nothing but discipline within the job description because learning how to kill is not a usable form of knowledge within the normal world. The same applies with particle physics.
Nope. See my previous post.


Comprehending quarks does nothing for mankind
Errm... to pick one modern example again: pion therapy. You lose.


and there is no higgs, no dark matter-crap, and no particle call a black hole except what is has caused to the particle physicists. (obsolete and a waste of mind like doing drugs):boggled:
I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Little 10 Toes]

Notice that Bishadi hasn't quoted or made comments on my post. Wonder why? Methinks it hath wrought lamentations.

[Bishadi]

Notice that Bishadi hasn't quoted or made comments on my post. Wonder why? Methinks it hath wrought lamentations.


you quoted the very comment anyone who read the article could have read. ie..... it's just a bunch of redundant ranting!


nothing in electrical, medical, biological, or even ethical has anything do with with building ANYTHING from quarks, by any quacks; fact.

otherwise, provide evidence.

what people are failing to use is evidence. ie.... the solar wind or any observable data: how many quarks showed up in the detectors, telescopes, radio telescope, hubble.....?

I could care less what the math renders from the physicist as that math is unusable in nature (all cases)

and now here on this thread, the integrity of many of the posters are holding the news paper articles and even papers on the 'building blocks' but not a one can build a damn thing with them blocks, anywhere on the earth.


again; fact kick the pants out of beliefs (all cases)

and then facts are the evidnce used to put the quacks on the butts

shut the tev down, then use the Hadron parts for boat anchors

[Bishadi]

It has been estimated that you eat around 500,000,000,000,000, 000,000 quarks a day. You couldn't live without them.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins/lecture_p4.html

dawkins is a quack

he is like a hawking to me................ worthless

ie... before the hadron was built, he published that the hadron will not find a higgs and yet they still built it (not much credibility even within the 'community')

[Steve001]

dawkins is a quack

he is like a hawking to me................ worthless

ie... before the hadron was built, he published that the hadron will not find a higgs and yet they still built it (not much credibility even within the 'community')


It really is good you are here. You do us all a service especially for the lurkers by showing them how fallacious thinking leads one to becoming so wrap up in their rightness that they are unable to find their way out of the rabbits hole. Good job please keep it up !

[technoextreme]

I could care less what the math renders from the physicist as that math is unusable in nature (all cases)


So pray tell why is it that when I search for engineering and quarks do I get papers describing mathematical phenomenon whose origins were related to theoretical physics that are applied to applications like LASER cavities.

[drkitten]

dawkins is a quack

he is like a hawking to me................ worthless

... which says more about your value system than it does about them.

A pig would consider diamonds and rubies worthless and prefer a mouldy potato.

[Little 10 Toes]

you quoted the very comment anyone who read the article could have read. ie..... it's just a bunch of redundant ranting!No, the article that you provided is an article. You provided the uninformed opinion. I'm snipping the rest of the comment that has nothing to do with what we (Bishadi and I) are talking about.

Let's review your opening post:
Quote:
The Tevatron and the Large Hadron Collider now have similar beam intensities, but the Fermilab accelerator has been operating at that level for much longer, since about 2003, and has more data, Green says. The LHC, which CERN expects to triple its beam intensity in 2011, will soon catch up, he addshttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/68988/title/Tevatron_to_shut_down_in_September

all that time and still nothing..............


finally a scientific decision that makes sense

:p

I used the same article to counter your opinion of "all that time and still nothing"
Too bad you can't read your own link:

From the article:(snipped quote)Those highlights include the 1995 discovery of the top quark, the sixth and last discovered quark predicted to exist according to current theory. Quarks are a fundamental building block of matter.

In conclusion, if you're going to provide an opinion, check facts first.

[Bishadi]

... which says more about your value system than it does about them.

compare me to a pig, because then nature supercedes opinion

A pig would consider diamonds and rubies worthless and prefer a mouldy potato.

exactly

life is seeking what is good for life (them rocks are valued based on greed)

now you're getting it!

[Bishadi]

So pray tell why is it that when I search for engineering and quarks do I get papers describing mathematical phenomenon whose origins were related to theoretical physics that are applied to applications like LASER cavities.

what is your point?

the quark aint the starting point of the engineering; never has been


i could care less if AFTER the laser is built someone tries to explain it with quacky quarks.

the quack didnt build a damn thing

[Bishadi]

No, the article that you provided is an article. You provided the uninformed opinion. I'm snipping the rest of the comment that has nothing to do with what we (Bishadi and I) are talking about.

Let's review your opening post:


I used the same article to counter your opinion of "all that time and still nothing"


In conclusion, if you're going to provide an opinion, check facts first.

tev shutting down.

good fact

in conclusion

[Little 10 Toes]

tev shutting down.

good fact

in conclusion
No. You claimed nothing was ever produced. I provided evidence that you are wrong. Please review opinion vs evidence.

[dafydd]

dawkins is a quack

he is like a hawking to me................ worthless

ie... before the hadron was built, he published that the hadron will not find a higgs and yet they still built it (not much credibility even within the 'community')

You are so funny. Richard Dawkins has forgotten more than you will ever learn.

[Jeff Corey]

It makes me sad that I devoted years of my life to a laboratory that somebody thinks of as useless.

Consider the source. No intelligent person here believes that.

[Bishadi]

funny, that i can ask for something tangible to be described that tevatron, hadron or really any spinner that is for the good of mankind, and no one can produce a quality line item.


jobs; is one i can think of


engineering for use of magnetic fields, is another


but from the actual collisions, can anyone provide evidence of a benefit to mankind?

[MRC_Hans]

funny, that i can ask for something tangible to be described that tevatron, hadron or really any spinner that is for the good of mankind, and no one can produce a quality line item.


jobs; is one i can think of


engineering for use of magnetic fields, is another


but from the actual collisions, can anyone provide evidence of a benefit to mankind?

I think you made your point. You feel everything we do should benefit mankind tangibly, immidiately.

That is a legitimate POV, but a lot of people don't share it. You might as well ask that benefit is the heliocentric system to mankind.

Hans

[Bishadi]

I think you made your point. You feel everything we do should benefit mankind tangibly, immidiately.

no i didnt.

ie.... not even the math is assisting ANYONE with ANYTHING, even their understanding.



That is a legitimate POV, but a lot of people don't share it.

i know

and i am leaning on YOU and every posters integrity to establish a consistent foundation.

i can at least appreciate that it took a bit of honesty to post what you just did.




You might as well ask that benefit is the heliocentric system to mankind. it assisted with comprehending

particle spinners dont

for example: the field (flux lines) of all them magnets are not even observed in the energy of the particles being accellerated

[technoextreme]

I think you made your point. You feel everything we do should benefit mankind tangibly, immidiately.

That is a legitimate POV, but a lot of people don't share it. You might as well ask that benefit is the heliocentric system to mankind.

Hans
You haven't read much of bishadi's works have you. He has this bizarre notion of science and math that not even the engineering disciplines have. Did you not read the part where he idiotically said that math has no basis on reality?
funny, that i can ask for something tangible to be described that tevatron, hadron or really any spinner that is for the good of mankind, and no one can produce a quality line item.

I all ready told you that I use a particle accelerator for my *********** research and I'm a *********** engineer.

[Bishadi]

You haven't read much of bishadi's works have you. He has this bizarre notion of science and math that not even the engineering disciplines have. Did you not read the part where he idiotically said that math has no basis on reality?

not your preferred model as it keeps you posting and holding nonsense as rule

The tev aint doing anything, nor has done anything for math, science and definitely the comprehension of reality.

That statement is based on a mathematical fact if you add up ALL the so called acheivements of the tev.

i can add but few know how too.


ie.... show us ONE item that the tev has done for mankind's understanding of nature?

try the math of ONE so you can have an argument for the thread.

[tsig]

funny, that i can ask for something tangible to be described that tevatron, hadron or really any spinner that is for the good of mankind, and no one can produce a quality line item.


jobs; is one i can think of


engineering for use of magnetic fields, is another


but from the actual collisions, can anyone provide evidence of a benefit to mankind?

So here you are using a computer on the internet asking "What's science done for me lately?".

[technoextreme]

ie.... show us ONE item that the tev has done for mankind's understanding of nature?

try the math of ONE so you can have an argument for the thread.
I did all ready.
what is your point?

the quark aint the starting point of the engineering; never has been


i could care less if AFTER the laser is built someone tries to explain it with quacky quarks.

the quack didnt build a damn thing
No but a lot of engineering originated with theoretical engineering. I don't know why the hell you think otherwise.

[Bishadi]

So here you are using a computer on the internet asking "What's science done for me lately?".

i know what science is, the tev is not using science.

the model of physics that created the tev is like rick warren using the bible to create one of the biggest churches in california; a waste of mind resources and the furtherance of poopy cop

science is what is best, not believing in what others do.

[Bishadi]

I did all ready.

no you didnt

ie.... if you did/do, then provide evidence



No but a lot of engineering originated with theoretical engineering. I don't know why the hell you think otherwise.

i know the tev opened up many new methods of engineering but the experiments yeild NOTHING!

:boggled:

And NO you have not provided evidence as to what the experiments have done for anything of science.

[Little 10 Toes]

no you didnt

ie.... if you did/do, then provide evidence



i know the tev opened up many new methods of engineering but the experiments yeild NOTHING!

:boggled:

And NO you have not provided evidence as to what the experiments have done for anything of science.

Already answered here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6876438&postcount=31

[Mikemcc]

i know what science is, the tev is not using science.

the model of physics that created the tev is like rick warren using the bible to create one of the biggest churches in california; a waste of mind resources and the furtherance of poopy cop

science is what is best, not believing in what others do.So publish a paper on your new 'e over m' physics woo. If you're right, you'll be the greatest scientist since Einstein. I'll be willing to take money on two bets:

1. You won't.
2. Even if you do, you'll be wrong.

[Bishadi]

Already answered here: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6876438&postcount=31

such as

Quote:
Because the two accelerators hunt for the Higgs in different ways — the Tevatron detects the proposed particle’s most common decay product, a bottom quark and its antiparticle, while the Large Hadron Collider records a much rarer decay mode that produces two photons — the searches are not only competitive but complementary. “It would have been very intriguing to see the Higgs” at both atom smashers and compare results, notes Söldner-Rembold.

Green adds that the lower energy of the Tevatron produces a lower background of extraneous particles, making the Higgs search there “a somewhat cleaner” process.

Because the Tevatron collides protons with antiprotons, it’s also better suited than the LHC to explore ideas about why nature contains so much more matter than antimatter (SN: 6/19/10, p. 8).

Rocky Kolb of the University of Chicago says he’s philosophical about the Tevatron’s demise. “All great accelerators have an end,” he notes. “Any disappointment at the closing of the Tevatron is tempered by my wonderful memories of my time at Fermilab, when the Tevatron was cranking out discoveries and it was the center of the high-energy physics world.”

Those highlights include the 1995 discovery of the top quark, the sixth and last discovered quark predicted to exist according to current theory. Quarks are a fundamental building block of matter.



nothing.

they found, did, enabled, produced................Nothing.



ie.... no label on any product, service, knowledge or even a single identifiable product for mankind.


what you have are the blue sky products of BS?


kind of like dark matter/energy and bent space; all Nothing but Psuedoscience!


and because others like it, so do you but you DID NOT address the question or offer any evidence of something the tev has done for mankind.

if that is how you do science, then no wonder!

[Bishadi]

what happened: do the facts hurt?

[dafydd]

what happened: do the facts hurt?

No idea. Why don't you try giving us a fact.

[Bishadi]

No idea. Why don't you try giving us a fact.

they have a great idea brewing

Tevatron to shut down in September

[MRC_Hans]

no i didnt.

ie.... not even the math is assisting ANYONE with ANYTHING, even their understanding.



And you know this how?


and i am leaning on YOU and every posters integrity to establish a consistent foundation.

i can at least appreciate that it took a bit of honesty to post what you just did.


Thanks. Actually you will find that apart from when joking, I'm always honest. Some have accused me of dishonesty, but only because they did not like what I said.


it assisted with comprehending


That was good.

particle spinners dont

And you know this how?

for example: the field (flux lines) of all them magnets are not even observed in the energy of the particles being accellerated

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying.

Hans

[dafydd]

they have a great idea brewing

Tevatron to shut down in September

It's work is done.

[Little 10 Toes]

such as





nothing.

they found, did, enabled, produced................Nothing.Wow. It appears you don't understand that found and discovered have the same basic type of meanings. In my message that you quoted, you missed reading the highlighted portion where it mentions that they found the top quark.

Please come back with reading comprehension.