No, CERN is about advancing knowledge of the subatomic world, which may, or may not, move us closer to a theory of everything. To suggest that solving the problems of interstellar space travel could emerge from the sub atomic world is stretching things just a tad. To extend the Martin Rees ant analogy; interstellar space travel is a bit like expecting the ants that inhabit the Empire State building to figure out how to build an aeroplane and fly to Australia, it ain't going to happen anytime soon. This is completely different from the should we go to Mars question.
Those ants maybe don't have to build a plane. Hitch a ride on a pigeon to La Guardia then hitch a lift on someone else's plane. We could maybe hitch lifts around the universe on comets using short space flights between them
The work at CERN involves accelerating particles with mass (however small) in a vacuum to approximately 99% light speed (possibly faster if the latest observations can be confirmed). The lessons they can learn from this can be scaled up to a larger mass object. Kinda important when looking at a potential interstellar craft. Then there is the high energy collisions, measurements of these could help to design a potential power source for a craft. Particle physics affects everything.
Of course interstellar travel is not currently realistic or achievable. The important word is currently. We are speculating about what may become achievable centuries in the future. Nobody knows, obviously, but it seems a bit bold to decide here and now what will never be possible at any time even in the distant future.
There is no comparison between accelerating a charged particle and a spacecraft. True nobody does know, but unless the laws of physics as we understand them are radically altered I think we can make a pretty good guess, relativity has never been seriously challenged.
As Pete says currently. 110 years ago scientists and Engineers didn't have a clue how to break the Sound Barrier in an aircraft
Higgy, comets circle our own sun, they do not do long haul. Breaking the sound barrier is a bit less of a challenge than breaking the laws of physics, which is what any viable form of interstellar travel would require.
I don't see how it will, as the two things have nothing much to do with each other. The answer is of course (b). For a start, I have a human contact with that person. They are about to commit suicide before my eyes and that is not good. But the future of the human race? Well, it's either pretty finite - and it will all be over soon (within a few millennia at most) or maybe it will endure. But I'm only interested in the future of the human race within its own context, and that context is Earth. I'm not that much interested in the future of the human race just for the hell of it. Why should I be? Why should I have a deep interest in generations of humans in distant centuries? What I think we have a duty to do is to allow those future generations the same privileges as we have enjoyed as regards our environment. I am a massive believer in environment shaping people's happiness. I would not be happy living in the middle of the Sahara (too sandy, not green enough, no water) but I am sure that a Tuareg would be unhappy in Scunthorpe. Come to think of it, I would be unhappy in Scunthorpe. I can't see how you would live a full and fulfilling life on Venus. You'd be inside all the time, apart from when you went outside to stumble around on some rock, insulated from the atmosphere and heat in your extreme spacesuit. Mankind has evolved to live on Earth, both physically and psychologically. I want to be rained on, snowed on, sunbathe and feel the wind. I don't want to live in some Blade Runner-like dystopian conurbation, nor do I want future generations to. If we can't have the beautiful Earth, I want nothing. So another question: Life on Earth is extinct, but the human race has a colony going on Mars. Success?
Force = Mass x Acceleration This is true for anything with mass, beit a positron or a spacecraft. However did you know that even in a vacuum particles experience a drag effect as they approach the speed of light? It's caused by the photons 'bunching up' in front of the particle. In fact it is very similar to what happens to sound waves as you approach the speed of sound. and where was this first observed? Yep you guessed it, CERN in the predecessor to the LHC the LEC (Large Electron Collider).
A lot of science has been a case of the discovery of some principle or effect, which at the time seems to have purely been of academic interest, which has subsequently become the building block of a later jump in technology. And consider computing. There is Moore's Law - the prediction that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. For many years, the end of advancement with computer chips has been predicted "within a couple of years or so". Yet things keep moving along, by direct evolution of existing technology or through some side-step from it. There is literally no predicting where technology and scientific knowledge will end. Well, there's plenty of predicting that it will come to an end but thus far, these predictions have always been proved false. Our understanding of physics mutates on a regular basis. Einstein described space-time as he understood it and thus far it's been pretty good on the macro-scale, but the Universe also exists on the sub-atomic scale, where things are still hazy. To suggest that we know pretty much all there is to know, of space, of matter, of energy, shows an almost religious lack of scientific endeavour, to say the least. There's two ways off the planet, as far as human migration is concerned. One is through technologies that we can readily grasp through known principles - advances in materials technology could conceivably lead to the use of generation arks at some point in the future, moving small self-sustaining populations into the unknown. Just because individuals don't see the point in this doesn't mean that volunteers for such missions wouldn't massively outnumber available spaces. It doesn't even mean that future governments would not be willing to put such initiatives in place. What we learn about surviving in space will be essential, if we are to avail ourselves of any form of migration. The other method is unknown at this time. Anyone saying that unknown methodologies are impossible is displaying the utter negative image of blind faith (both about as useful as each other). Yes, yes, but what's the point? Wherever Mankind goes ... there he is. Same old mankind. Except we aren't the same mankind as we were when there were still places to explore. Many folk now espouse a form of world-weary, resigned decadence - we've seen it all, done it all, we are a spent force, a source of great harm to our planet, we are unworthy of inflicting ourselves on the Universe. Maybe we should give up? Sounds good? I am not suggesting that solving our Earthly problems should take a back seat to space exploration. Or that space exploration is the answer to our Earthly woes. I just think it would be a shame if, having solved the problems of man's inhumanity to man, over-population and pollution, we get shafted by an uncaring, mechanistic Universe that doesn't need us and doesn't notice us. And by "we", I mean future generations who are relying upon us to do the math and do the toil.
I thought it was okay as well Loz but I would change one bit to:- 'shows an almost scientific lack of religious endeavour to say the least'. Religious in this case meaning extremely scrupulous or conscientious
