analyze their article in detail to show this point (the links of their articles are attached). They all three talked about three points. One, there ar

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "analyze their article in detail to show this point (the links of their articles are attached). They all three talked about three points. One, there ar"

岚吕
5 years ago
Views:

1 China Super Collider, part two Copyright April 15, 2017 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong Note: Chinese translation is available at bottom In our last article (China-Super-Collider-part-one, 中国超级对撞机工程争论的意见 1; ), we have pointed out two points. One, no new physics of any kind (discovering new particles or new physics laws) sits below (within) 100 Tev according to all the data (LHC, Lux, IceCube, LHCb, EDM, Fermi-satellite, etc.) released in March Two, why America is DEFINITELY not building a 100 Tev p-p collider, while a tunnel for it is 100% ready? Thus far, no one addressed these two issues above while the proponent of the 超级对撞机工程 has showed that 3 Nobel Laureates of physics (Steven Weinberg, David Gross, and Sheldon Lee Glashow) are supporting this Chinese project. There are two very, very simply issues here. First, if this 100 Tev project is so great, why are they not pushing USA on the project as there is already a perfect tunnel ready (that is, 70% of the cost is already paid for). Mistake is the mother of success is a phrase shared both in China and in the West. If the cancellation of the SSC was a great mistake in terms of LHC great success, why is not a great time for American to right that gravemistake now? Second, do all these three Nobel Laureates truly believing that a 100 Tev pp collider can discover any new physics? The answer is NO for all three of them. They just hope that Chinese can be an idiot to take up this stupid job. Thus, I will 1

2 analyze their article in detail to show this point (the links of their articles are attached). They all three talked about three points. One, there are still a lot of mysteries in physics, and we need a new tool to investigate them. Two, there are many spin-offs from the basic-science research (although it itself might not provide any direct economic benefit immediately). Three, this could be a great chance for China becoming the leader in the particle physics field. I will quote their precise words on these issues. Do they (three) convinced that 100 Tev pp collider is a right tool for answering the mysteries? Do they give any calculation (what % chance) for this machine to discover any new physics? First, Steven Weinberg: for the entire article, see {But, although there are several other phenomena of great importance that might be discovered at the LHC, including dark matter particles and superpartners of known particles, we have no strong reason to suppose, even if they exist, that they would be within the reach of the LHC. We will just have to wait and see.} {The LHC has been a great success, with the discovery of the Higgs boson. Whatever the LHC s chances for further important discoveries, it is clear that the much greater energy of the SSC would have provided a better chance for the future.} 2

3 No, Weinberg did not say a single word about a 100 Tev pp collider will definitely discover anything new. {We need a Higgs factory to verify that the properties of the particle found at LHC are just those expected in a one-higgs standard model.} {We [America] have no plan to construct a new forefront particle accelerator at any time in the foreseeable future.} {All in all, Chinese particle physics has experienced a remarkable growth spurt, as is both befitting and essential if China is to host the Great Collider.} {China can easily afford to build and operate the proposed facilities.} {CEPC and SPPC will make China the world hub of particle physics.} Did Glashow push a 100 Tev pp collider with any science (physics) argument? A big NO. Third, David Gross: for the entire article, see Second, Sheldon Lee Glashow: for the entire article, see Being a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science, Gross gave a much more detailed argument on this issue, as follows: {I am very excited by the scientific potential of the Chinese collider project, and as a friend of Chinese science and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science I am very excited about the many benefits that this project will produce for China.} {Some of the deepest of these mysteries revolve around the Higgs boson, a particle unlike any we have discovered before. The answer to a very basic 3

4 question about the Higgs is it point-like, or does it have substructure? will force fundamental physics down radically different paths in the coming decades. The LHC will not answer this question; a new particle accelerator is needed to decisively settle the issue. This is precisely what the Chinese collider project will do.} {The machine currently being proposed by Chinese physicists is the CEPC, a large electron-positron collider, between km in circumference. The CEPC will function as a Higgs factory and settle outstanding questions about this deeply mysterious particle.} {The central physics case for both the CEPC and the SPPC have little to do with speculations about supersymmetry and much to do with deeply understanding the mysteries of a particle we know exists the Higgs.} {The CEPC has a rich and detailed experimental program that will either reveal substructure for the Higgs, or allow us to conclusively decide that the Higgs is an elementary particle on the same footing as quarks and leptons. The guaranteed physics of the SPPC is similarly centered on the Higgs: it will determine whether the Higgs looks point-like to itself.} {Of course, the prospect of the SPPC following the CEPC adds significantly to the excitement and scientific potential of the CEPC project, but any concrete decisions about proceeding to the SPPC cannot be responsibly made till over a decade from now.} {As we have already stressed, beyond this [CEPC] it is not possible to make responsible estimates for the cost of the SPPC, which depend on the development of various new technologies in the coming years.} Did Gross say a single word above that 100 Tev pp collider has any chance (any % of chance) to discover new physics? No, not a single word. By all means, Gross has a new heart after his SUSY-bet loss, as he said: {it s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: Don t follow your elders. Go out and look for something new and crazy and 4

5 powerful and different. Different, especially. That s definitely a good lesson. But I m too old for that.} So, he repeatedly emphasized that this new Chinese project is not a SUSY machine but is a Higgs factory only (as CEPC), and the SPPC is an issue which he does not want to talk about, being at least 20 years away. But, this is truly misleading. No, the original goal of the Chinese project is not as a Higgs factory, and SPPC will definitely not be a good tool for investigating the Composite Model (CM). It is very good for seeing Gross now finally giving up on the SUSY and trying to embrace the CM. But, the difference between SUSY and CM is bigger than the difference between Heaven and Hell. It is consensus that SM (Standard Model) is incomplete, with many illnesses. And, they are two possible ways to fix the problems. One, horizontally, there is a SUSY world existing horizontally with this matter world and keep it in balance. That is, SUSY stays above the space-time fiber. Two, vertically, there is a substructure underneath the quark/lepton level; that is, quark/lepton are composited. And, this additional level accounts for all the mysteries. This substructure sits below the space-time fiber. Thus, the ways of investigating the two are completely different, requiring different tools. SUSY like particles can be produced with sledge hammer-type tool, and ppcollider is a great particle sledge hammer. 5

On the other hand, any below the space-time substructure can be best investigated with mattock (pulaski)-like tool to penetrate and to tear up the space-time fiber.

6 On the other hand, any below the space-time substructure can be best investigated with mattock (pulaski)-like tool to penetrate and to tear up the space-time fiber. And, the muon-collider (MC) will be a great mattock (pulaski)-like tool. While USA is pushing the muon-collider with full-speed, why Gross is not pushing MC as a Chinese program? Obviously, Gross is still hoping for the miracle on SUSY. He wrote: {Of course the SPPC will also explore much higher energies, and will have the power to produce new particles [as SUSY] that are nearly ten times heavier than can be produced at the LHC. It will certainly continue the search for supersymmetry (amongst other things), precisely because supersymmetry is currently a hypothesis.} Roughly, we can divide human constructions into four categories. 6

7 One, tool: with definite utility mission, such as, house, high way, vehicle, etc. Two, toy: for unlearned to learn. Three, art: to express the human spirituality, above the utility. Four, tomb: to house the dead. Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC) was a toy by design. So, it has produced absolute nothing (a big zero), and it is expected and excused. But, the 100 Tev pp collider can never be claimed as a toy while all the data and evidences already guarantee that it will produce absolute nothing (a bigger zero); as SPPC is definitely a SUSY machine while SUSY is definitely dead below 100 Tev. So, SPPC cannot be a tool for new physics. It will be a joke as a toy. It is simply a tomb which house the dead dream of a wrong physics (SUSY). They three also emphasized one non-science argument: {this could be a great chance for China becoming the leader in the particle physics field.} The future of the particle physics is on the muon-collider, not pp-collider. The best physicists will not waste their live with a dying project. Only the third and fourth level people will use this kind of dying project as their welfare check department. They three also used Spin-offs in their argument, with the most famous example of {CERN invented WWW}. We will discuss this issue in a future article. 7

8 中国超级对撞机工程争论, PART 2 龚天任李小坚 Translated on April 16, 2017 在我们的上一篇博文中, 关于中国超级对撞机工程争论的意见 2 ; 我们已经指出了以下两点 ( 一 )2017 年三月新发布的所有数据 (LHC,Lux,IceCube,LHCb EDM 费米卫星等 ) 表明了, 在 100 TeV 范围内, 没有任何新的物理粒子或新的物理定律 ( 二 ) 甚至, 在地下隧道都已经 100% 准备好了的情况下, 为什么美国绝对不建一个 100 TeV 的 P-P 质子对撞机? 一国际大咖的观点到目前为止, 没有人对上述两个问题进行详细解读同时, 超级对撞机工程的支持者表明, 有 3 位诺贝尔物理奖获得者 ( 温伯格, 戴维格罗斯, 和谢尔登格拉肖 ), 都支持中国的这一大项目但是, 这里有两个非常非常简单的问题 : 第一, 如果这 100 TeV 的项目是如此意义重大, 他们为什么不让美国来建设这个项目而且, 美国已经俱备了一个完好的地下隧道 ( 即 70% 的成本已经支付 ) 8

9 错误是成功之母在欧美地区流行它与中国的失败乃成功之母, 是一个人类通用的共同观点如果美国在 1993 年取消了 SSC 项目是一个巨大的错误, 而 LHC 被认为是一个巨大成功, 为什么今天美国不纠正自己犯下的严重错误? 其次, 所有这三位诺贝尔奖获得者, 是否真的相信 100 TeV 的质子对撞机能够发现任何新的物理? 答案是否定的! 或许他们只是希望中国人去做这个愚蠢的工作因此, 我将详细分析他们的文章来说明这一点今天我们来看看国际物理大咖的观点 : 温伯格, 戴维格罗斯, 和谢尔登格拉肖, 他们三人谈论了三点 : 1, 物理学中还有很多未解之谜, 我们需要一个新的工具来研究它们 2, 基础科学研究尽管它本身并不能立即提供任何直接的经济效益, 但有可能发现出许多衍生副产品 3, 这是中国面临的难得的机会, 可使中国成为粒子物理领域的伟大领导者我们将链接他们的文章看看, 温伯格, 戴维格罗斯, 和谢尔登格拉肖, 他们三人是否真的相信,100TeV 质子对撞机是能够发现物理奥秘的正确工具吗? 他们有没有计算出这台机器可以发现任何新的物理机制的概率或机会? 在这些问题上, 我们将引用他们说过的话来表明他们确切的意见 : 首先, 温伯格 : 整篇文章, 请参见 9

10 {But, although there are several other phenomena of great importance that might be discovered at the LHC, including dark matter particles and superpartners of known particles, we have no strong reason to suppose, even if they exist, that they would be within the reach of the LHC. We will just have to wait and see. 虽然,LHC 大型强子对撞机有可能发现一些很重要的现象, 包括暗物质粒子和已知粒子的超对称粒子但是, 我们没有很强的理由対此抱着太大的希望 ( 即使它们 (SUSY) 是存存在的 ) 我们只能等着看 } {The LHC has been a great success, with the discovery of the Higgs boson. Whatever the LHC s chances for further important discoveries, it is clear that the much greater energy of the SSC would have provided a better chance for the future. 随着希格斯玻色子的发现,LHC 取得了巨大的成功不知 LHC 是否有机会获得进一步的重要发现? 很显然, 更大能量的超级对撞机 SSC 铁定可以提供更好的机会 } 註 : 可惜 SSC 早被取消温伯格并没有说 100 TeV 对撞机, 肯定会发现什么新东西关于发现新物质粒子的事, 一个字也没有说! 再看谢尔登格拉肖的整个文章, 看 : {We need a Higgs factory to verify that the properties of the particle found at LHC are just those expected in a one-higgs standard model. 我们需要一个希格斯工厂来验证 LHC 上发现的粒子的属性, 确实是一个希格斯标准模型中所期望的那些特性 } 10

11 {We [America] have no plan to construct a new forefront particle accelerator at any time in the foreseeable future. 我们 [ 美国 ] 没有计划在可预见的将来, 來建造一个新的前沿粒子加速器 } {All in all, Chinese particle physics has experienced a remarkable growth spurt, as is both befitting and essential if China is to host the Great Collider. 总之, 中国粒子物理经历了显著的增长, 如果由中国來主建大对撞机, 是适合和必要的 } {China can easily afford to build and operate the proposed facilities. 中国可以轻松的建造和运营这些设施 } {CEPC and SPPC will make China the world hub of particle physics. 中国的 CEPC 与质子对撞机将使中国成为粒子物理的世界中心 } 谢尔登格拉肖对 100 Tev 大对撞机, 是否会撞出什么? 说出了任何物理学的或科学意义的论点吗? 绝对没有! 第三戴维格罗斯 : 对于整篇文章, 请看作为中国科学院的外籍院士, 戴维格罗斯在这个问题上作了更详细的论证与说明, 如下 : {I am very excited by the scientific potential of the Chinese collider project, and as a friend of Chinese science and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science I am very excited about the many benefits that this project will produce for China. 我对中国对撞机项目的科学潜力非常兴奋作为中国科学的一个 11

12 朋友和一个中国科学院外国成员, 这个项目对中国将产生的许多好处, 对此我很兴奋 } {Some of the deepest of these mysteries revolve around the Higgs boson, a particle unlike any we have discovered before. The answer to a very basic question about the Higgs is it point-like, or does it have substructure? will force fundamental physics down radically different paths in the coming decades. The LHC will not answer this question; a new particle accelerator is needed to decisively settle the issue. This is precisely what the Chinese collider project will do. 这些奥秘中最深的部分, 围绕着希格斯玻色子它是不同于我们之前发现过的粒子关于希格斯的一个非常基本的问题是 : 希格斯粒子是一个点粒子, 还是它有子结构? 这問題, 将使基础物理学在未来的几十年里, 彻底改变完全不同的路子 LHC 不会回答这个问题, 需要一个新的粒子加速器来解决这个问题这正是中国对撞机项目所要做的 } {The machine currently being proposed by Chinese physicists is the CEPC, a large electron-positron collider, between km in circumference. The CEPC will function as a Higgs factory and settle outstanding questions about this deeply mysterious particle. 目前由中国物理学家提出了 CEPC, 一个大型正负电子对撞机, 周长在公里之间它将作为一个 Higgs 工厂, 并解决神秘粒子有关的悬而未决的问题 } {The central physics case for both the CEPC and the SPPC have little to do with speculations about supersymmetry and much to do with deeply understanding the mysteries of a particle we know exists the Higgs. 在 CEPC 和 SPPC 物理的中心論証 ( 使命 ), 与研究超对称性粒子猜测不太相关主要是, 对神秘的希格斯粒子做更深入的了解 } {The CEPC has a rich and detailed experimental program that will either reveal substructure for the Higgs, or allow us to conclusively decide that the Higgs is an elementary particle on the same footing as quarks and leptons. The guaranteed 12

13 physics of the SPPC is similarly centered on the Higgs: it will determine whether the Higgs looks point-like to itself. CEPC 具有丰富和详细的实验計劃, 将揭示希格斯的结构, 或让我们最终决定希格斯的地位, 是否与夸克和轻子是同一种基本粒子 SPPC 物理的使命, 同样集中在希格斯 : 它将决定希格斯, 是否是点状的 ( 還是有内部結構 ) } {Of course, the prospect of the SPPC following the CEPC adds significantly to the excitement and scientific potential of the CEPC project, but any concrete decisions about proceeding to the SPPC cannot be responsibly made till over a decade from now. 当然, 有了 CEPC 之后, SPPC 铁定有更加了令人兴奋的前景但 ( 我 ) 不能対 SPPC 做出任何负责任且具体的判断畢竟, 它是十多年后的事情 } {As we have already stressed, beyond this [CEPC] it is not possible to make responsible estimates for the cost of the SPPC, which depend on the development of various new technologies in the coming years. 我们已经强调, 除 CEPC 之外, 不可能対 SPPC 作出负责任的成本估计, 这取决于在未来年各种新技术的发展 } 以上戴维格罗斯的观点, 没有一个字说明 100 TeV 的大对撞机, 有任何机会发现新的物理粒子? 真的没有, 一个字也没有! 二真实情况总之, 戴维格罗斯在他的 SUSY 粒子赌局输了后, 他转换了他的态度他说 : 这可是一个教育年轻人的好時刻告诉他们 : 不要跟你的长辈走要出去寻找新的疯狂的强大的不同的东西特别是与现在完全不同的理论, 这绝对是一个好教训但是我太老了 13

14 因此, 他现在反复强调, 中国这个新的项目, 不是一个发现超对称粒子的对撞机, 而是希格斯工厂 ( 如 CEPC) 而 SPPC 是一个他不想谈论的问题, 因为, 那是至少 20 年以后的事了但是, 这确实是误导中国的这个项目的初衷, 并不是只是作为一个希格斯工厂, 而 SPPC 肯定不会是探索复合模型 (CM) 的工具我们非常高兴地看到戴维格罗斯的这个转变! 看到戴维格罗斯现在终于放弃对 SUSY 的期待, 而试图拥抱复合模型 (CM) 但是,SUSY 和 CM 之间的差异, 大于天堂与地狱的区别标准模型 (SM) 是不完整的, 还有许多毛病, 这是共识但是, 解决這些问题, 有两种可能的方法 1, 水平, 以一个超对称世界 SUSY) 与现有这个物质世界, 使其保持平衡那是,SUSY 与物质世界, 同處於时空纤维之上 2, 垂直, 夸克 / 轻子粒子下面有子结构 ; 即夸克轻子是复合粒子在时空纤维之下, 還有結構而且, 这个额外向下的层面, 正是所有物理世界的奥秘所在的地方这个下面的结构位于时空纤维之下因此, 探索这两个层面的物理世界, 有完全不同的两种方法! 并且, 需要完全不同的工具形象地表明, 超对称粒子可以用大锤型的工具的产生, 质子对撞机是一种大大的大锤 14

15 另一方面, 任何更下一层面的时空结构, 必须以锄头类工具翻挖渗透和深入挖开坚硬土地 ---- 时空纤维而且,μ 子对撞机 (MC) 是一个巨大的鸭嘴锄 ( 普拉斯基 ) 一样的工具現在, 美国正在全速推动 μ 对撞机的研究为什么格罗斯不推荐 MC 作为一个中国的大对撞机计划? 15

16 显然, 他还总希望有超对称的奇迹他写道 :{ 当然,SPPC 俱有更高的能量探索, 有能力产生比 LHC 高近十倍新粒子 [ SUSY ] 的机会 } 雖然 p-p 对撞机己被美国抛弃, 少数有私心的, 盼望着中国來做寃大頭. 三结论粗略地说, 我们可以把人类建造之物分为四类 1, 工具 : 具有一定效用, 可以用之完成一定的任务, 如 : 房屋高速公路车辆等 2, 玩具 : 对于不了解的事物的一个学习机会 3, 艺术 : 表达人类的灵性, 高于功利 4, 坟墓 : 死路一条, 最终的归宿北京正负电子对撞机 (BEPC) 的初始设计, 就是一个玩具, 没有設定的研究目标用于学习探索高能粒子的物理实驗因此, 它绝对没有产生什么重要的结果 ( 几乎为零 ) 但是, 这是预计到了的, 并可以原谅的但是,100 TeV 的质子对撞机, 决不可能被作为一个玩具! 它必须要有非常非常明確的科学目标而现在所有数据和证据, 已经保证这样的超大对撞机不会产生新的结果! 绝对是一个更大的零蛋 ; 因为, 现在的一切证据表明, 100 TeV 以下绝对没有 SUSY ( 或任何 BSM) 粒子而 p-p 超大对撞机的设计, 完全是一个探索 SUSY 粒子的机器其结果肯定是必死无疑 16

17 因此,SPPC 不可能成为發現新物理的工具, 只能作为一个玩具这将不仅是一个极大的笑话, 而且, 这是建造一个坟墓, 做為一个彻底错误的物理 (SUSY) 的陪葬粒子物理学的未来是在 μ 子对撞机上, 而不是 PP 质子对撞机最好的物理学家不会浪费他们的生命于没有希望和前景的项目只有不明事理的人会使用这种垂死的项目作为他们获得利益的工具温伯格, 戴维格罗斯, 和谢尔登格拉肖他们三人也只能强调非科学的论点 :{ 这是一个伟大的机会, 中国成为粒子物理领域的领导者 } 建造最強大的 μ 子对撞机, 中国必定引领世界! 另外, 还有人使用了基础科学, 可以产生意想不到的副产品的论点最有名的例子, 就是 CERN 发明了 WWW 我们将在未来的文章中讨论这个问题 17

Microsoft Word - 11月電子報1130.doc

Microsoft Word - 11月電子報1130.doc 發行人 : 楊進成出刊日期 2008 年 12 月 1 日, 第 38 期第 1 頁 / 共 16 頁封面圖話來來來, 來葳格 ; 玩玩玩, 玩數學在 11 月 17 到 21 日這 5 天裡每天一個題目, 孩子們依據不同年段, 尋找屬於自己的解答, 這些數學題目和校園情境緊緊結