Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Sep 17 2008 - 03:32:30 EDT

If I may add to what Randy has so eloquently put, it seems to me the
fundamental difference is this. In moving from ENIAC to today's computers
we have found ways of doing the same calculations for less and less energy,
and using different physics, moving from thermionic valves to
semiconductors; but in order to build faster and faster particle
accelerators, in order to peel back the further layers of the onion as I put
it in the original post, we have to put in more and more energy in order to
accelerate the colliding particles closer and closer to the speed of light.
 And there is no way round the confounding factor of (1-v^2/c^2) - the
closer to the speed of light, the harder it gets. No amount of ingenuity
and invention gets around the fundamental problem of pouring that much
energy in.
Iain

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:57 AM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>wrote:

> No, Bernie, I think you're missing something fundamental here. While none
> of us wants to say "never" and won't, nevertheless your analogy doesn't
> apply. Of course, no one imagined a tabletop ENIAC. But not for fundamental
> principles, only engineering and technology ones which always will be ripe
> for innovation.
>
> In other words, Bernie, we're trying to get you to a point of balance.
> While it is true that we can never rule out and should always hope for and
> cultivate the possibility of radical new inventions that will totally
> revolutionize a field, on the other hand we cannot hold out hope for every
> field of possible, hoped-for innovation and claim it might happen based on
> analogy with a field like microelectronics. There simply isn't any basis for
> a general possibility of such advances.
>
> The migration of the ENIAC to today's laptop is phenomenal. Those of us who
> were fortunate enough to have a part in making it happen are even more awed
> than the users. But it doesn't serve as a model for every field. In
> particular, it doesn't map very well to the field of particle accelerators.
> (Maybe this would be a great place to apply the explanatory filter with the
> appropriate specified complexity. The probability might just be less than
> 10^-150. Or perhaps 10^-10. Who knows.)
>
> Besides, where does this discussion lead us? What is the difference whether
> we are optimistic or pessimistic about having a tabletop accelerator in the
> future? Nothing. Except for the basic process of thinking about what is
> possible and what isn't and where to place our energies.
>
> Randy
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dehler, Bernie" <
> bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:01 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
>
>
>
> " Getting a tabletop TEV
>> accelerator is not one where I would recommend putting all your life's
>> savings."
>>
>> I can imagine somebody saying the same thing about a table-top ENIAC when
>> the first ENIAC was made. A table-top ENIAC? No way. However, today's
>> laptop is much more powerful. Not only was the transistor not yet invented,
>> the Eniac didn't even use the binary numeral system, which all computers use
>> now. Yes, no way at all to foresee the future. The internet is a recent
>> invention that is having an incredible impact on society and technology, and
>> could never have been foreseen. That's evolution- creating new and
>> wonderful things that can't be imagined in the present state.
>>
>> Eniac info:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
>>
>> The ENIAC held immediate importance. When it was announced in 1946 it was
>> heralded in the press as a "Giant Brain." It boasted speeds one thousand
>> times faster than electro-mechanical machines, a leap in computing power
>> that has never been repeated. This mathematical power, coupled with
>> general-purpose programmability, excited scientists and industrialists. The
>> inventors promoted the spread of these new ideas by teaching a series of
>> lectures on computer architecture.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Besides its speed, the most remarkable thing about ENIAC was its size.
>> ENIAC contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays,
>> 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered
>> joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8.5 feet by 3 feet by
>> 80 feet (2.6 m by 0.9 m by 26 m), took up 680 square feet (63 mē), and
>> consumed 150 kW of power.[5]
>>
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Randy Isaac
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:02 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
>>
>> Those of us who have grown up with the electronics industry have
>> practically
>> come to believe that the scaling law is a universal entitlement; we merely
>> wait for the right invention. In fact, the transistor and the magnetic
>> storage cell are two rather unique examples with surprisingly few
>> additional
>> examples. Does anyone know of another? Will there be unforeseen inventions
>> which will trigger new ways of doing things. Absolutely. Can we predict
>> what
>> they will be? No. But we can have some guesses. Getting a tabletop TEV
>> accelerator is not one where I would recommend putting all your life's
>> savings. Maybe not even a dime of it. At least until Burgy has his rocket
>> that will take us to Betelgeuse and back in one lifetime.
>>
>> Randy
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "j burg" <hossradbourne@gmail.com>
>> To: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> Cc: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge
>>
>>
>> >
>>>
>>>> Just like computers were made of vacuum tubes and people thought that
>>>> was
>>>> the future- more and more of them, in bigger and bigger rooms. Then the
>>>> transistor was invented and re-shaped everything. The first computer
>>>> chip
>>>> had a few transistors, but now there's billions in there (up to 2
>>>> billion
>>>> now).
>>>>
>>>> Just like the physics of 1954 (or so) in which it could be shown w/o
>>> any doubt that a chemical rocket could never get to the moon.
>>>
>>> Then Arthur Clarke suggested a multistage design ... .
>>>
>>> Burgy
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
-----------
Non timeo sed caveo
-----------
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 17 03:33:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 17 2008 - 03:33:10 EDT