View Single Post
  #8  
Old 22-09-2011, 11:05 AM
renormalised's Avatar
renormalised (Carl)
No More Infinities

renormalised is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
The chances of finding the particle under controlled laboratory (LHC) conditions is predicted by theory. If the particles are not found, then the theory will require revision, and will then be subject to scrutiny under the principles of self-consistency. Progress in science is certain.
Yes, it is. But that still doesn't mean they're going to find it. It's progress, but not how they would like it to be

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
There may be other ways of looking for the particles in the real system (aka: the universe). The same criteria would apply to this approach. Progress in science is less certain.
No less certain than the above, just taking a different path.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
The laboratory exercise is probably way less expensive, when compared with exploring the universe, and leads to less arguable results, because it is a controlled environment, and the results should be able to be replicated. It has cost efficiency in its favour, and a less arguable outcome.
I don't know, the LHC wasn't built on chicken feed!!!!. Admittedly, it's less expensive than, say, a trip to Alpha C' at present, but way more expensive than putting a particle detector on a satellite up in orbit or blasted out into space. I also wouldn't say the results are less arguable. They maybe in a state of better control of the conditions, but as for the results being less arguable....hardly. You only have to read the journals to see the varying opinions amongst the researchers. The only way they're less arguable is in the ease of control and replication of the results an earth bound experiment is afforded...as you have pointed out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Not looking at all, is likely to lead to non-discovery, and an ever increasing research costs (from a non-naive perspective of the funded research 'business'). No progress in science is certain.

Cheers
Well, that's a given, over time. The longer you leave it, the more expensive it gets. But that's not a function of the actual research or the science, per se. That's entirely the fault of the mindless and reckless economic system under which we labour ourselves.
Reply With Quote