Why is it that the Higgs Boson was called a ( at 12:00) "light elementary seemingly spin-zero particle". I question the elementary since it decays as soon as it is created, not unlikely pion zero. Am I wrong in saying so?
Also, take it from a dual physicist + mathematical economist: your super-colliders will not require any "tax payer money". If you have the available materials and engineers then you could just go ahead and build them on pure government grants. Public finance works the other way around to what most people think (contrary to public opinion), because governments outside the EU like China, Switzzerland and the USA are currency issuers, they do not require taxes, sales, or borrowing to spend. That is, sovereign governments have unlimited finance (they create the currency) so government spending puts the money INTO the economy from which we can pay our tax liabilities. So government spending funds our ability to pay tax (without having to take out bank credit). Which is to say, as Keynes sarcastically remarked: "digging ditches and burying bottles filled with cash will create employment and net add to GDP," so maybe it's a better idea for governments to net spend to employ labour to dig big tunnels and fill them with SC magnets and particle physics? Just a thought. No tax needed. (You could tax harmful activity like residual pollution and waste created as collateral effects of resourcing the colliders, to offset any inflation pressures.)
I can't see the point of anything bigger than LHC, but I am not a Physicist, and if bigger and faster computer integration has to be tested, it then depends on inputoutput cause-effect mass-energy-momentum component functional compositions what is possible to emulate. The various Fusion-Fission Power generating experiments are of some concern! Research is vital.
No need. Governments create the currency, they cannot run out of money and cannot become insolvent. Rich folks are currency users, they can run out, when they do your project relying on their funding is kaput. Governments can fund anything that's for sale in their own currency, indefinitely. And as long as what they fund is not polluting or wasteful or draining all real resources, then it will not be real inflationary (massive spending could cause nominal inflation, but that's usually a very good thing --- lowers purchasing value of hoarded wealth and reduces the burden of past debts). As far as I can tell colliders are not too wasteful, they require a lot of resources, but not as much physical steel and concrete as big resort complexes, the main resource is engineers, so building a supercollider would, I think, be a net benefit for the economy, regardless of what is is able to discover to add to scientific knowledge, and under no conceivable scenario would have any inflationary impact (provided the funds are being paid to real engineers doing real work and not fraudulently going to unproductive boondoggles, like was the case with the Texas SSC. This was why the SSC funding was cut, not because the US government ran out of US dollars, it was political cost, not financial cost, not inflation fear.) When you are a currency issuer money costs are irrelevant. It is the real (physical resource and labour) costs that are of concern, if you suck up all labour and materials the private sector suffers and you get deflation in the private sector (worse than inflation). So provided resources are evenly distributed, any government with enough land allocation could build a super collider. The question would only be how long would it take? (To gather all the steel, concrete, magnets, computers, engineers.) A resource rich country like the USA could do it in 5 years. A smaller economy like Canada maybe might need 10 years (can't build a collider just with pine trees).
20 richest people on the planet: donate 80 billion dollars. Physicists: Build 15% of the collider, then run out of money. International governments: inject 500B of tax money. Physicists: Build 50% of the collider. Governments: inject another trillion dollars. Physicists: complete the collider. 20 years later: physicists run first calibrating experiments. 50 years later: physicists have confirmed standard model.
IAS: please send this Hakami Salami guy a memo, indicating he needs a hair transplant, as his abysmal style is distracting me from the lecture. Like, it's the 21st century now. Walking around like this is approaching crimes against humanity.
Thank you. 😊 Thank you for mounting these marvelous Nima lectures. Nima, please keep up your lectures that appear on UTUBE.
Why is it that the Higgs Boson was called a ( at 12:00) "light elementary seemingly spin-zero particle".
I question the elementary since it decays as soon as it is created, not unlikely pion zero.
Am I wrong in saying so?
Also, take it from a dual physicist + mathematical economist: your super-colliders will not require any "tax payer money". If you have the available materials and engineers then you could just go ahead and build them on pure government grants. Public finance works the other way around to what most people think (contrary to public opinion), because governments outside the EU like China, Switzzerland and the USA are currency issuers, they do not require taxes, sales, or borrowing to spend. That is, sovereign governments have unlimited finance (they create the currency) so government spending puts the money INTO the economy from which we can pay our tax liabilities. So government spending funds our ability to pay tax (without having to take out bank credit). Which is to say, as Keynes sarcastically remarked: "digging ditches and burying bottles filled with cash will create employment and net add to GDP," so maybe it's a better idea for governments to net spend to employ labour to dig big tunnels and fill them with SC magnets and particle physics? Just a thought. No tax needed. (You could tax harmful activity like residual pollution and waste created as collateral effects of resourcing the colliders, to offset any inflation pressures.)
This still costs taxpayers money...
Finally at 53:47, or so, it's worth viewing.
Please, need larger than one inch view of the action.
Gov: How do you plan to fund this research?
Nima: In Planar N=4 Super Yang Mills…
PLEASE! Need a camera to follow Dr. Armani-Hamed!
Shirley Mason
Hamedly*
I bet he and Sabrina Hossenfelder don't get along too well lol.
I can't see the point of anything bigger than LHC, but I am not a Physicist, and if bigger and faster computer integration has to be tested, it then depends on inputoutput cause-effect mass-energy-momentum component functional compositions what is possible to emulate.
The various Fusion-Fission Power generating experiments are of some concern! Research is vital.
Note to camera: Would prefer to see view with Nima, please, rather than fixing on his slide. If you show him, I can see the slide as well.
Eerrrrm err
Mark Harrison literally elementary, dear Harrison.
Maybe the 20 richest people on the planet could donate Four Billion Each.
No need. Governments create the currency, they cannot run out of money and cannot become insolvent. Rich folks are currency users, they can run out, when they do your project relying on their funding is kaput. Governments can fund anything that's for sale in their own currency, indefinitely. And as long as what they fund is not polluting or wasteful or draining all real resources, then it will not be real inflationary (massive spending could cause nominal inflation, but that's usually a very good thing --- lowers purchasing value of hoarded wealth and reduces the burden of past debts). As far as I can tell colliders are not too wasteful, they require a lot of resources, but not as much physical steel and concrete as big resort complexes, the main resource is engineers, so building a supercollider would, I think, be a net benefit for the economy, regardless of what is is able to discover to add to scientific knowledge, and under no conceivable scenario would have any inflationary impact (provided the funds are being paid to real engineers doing real work and not fraudulently going to unproductive boondoggles, like was the case with the Texas SSC. This was why the SSC funding was cut, not because the US government ran out of US dollars, it was political cost, not financial cost, not inflation fear.)
When you are a currency issuer money costs are irrelevant. It is the real (physical resource and labour) costs that are of concern, if you suck up all labour and materials the private sector suffers and you get deflation in the private sector (worse than inflation). So provided resources are evenly distributed, any government with enough land allocation could build a super collider. The question would only be how long would it take? (To gather all the steel, concrete, magnets, computers, engineers.) A resource rich country like the USA could do it in 5 years. A smaller economy like Canada maybe might need 10 years (can't build a collider just with pine trees).
20 richest people on the planet: donate 80 billion dollars.
Physicists: Build 15% of the collider, then run out of money.
International governments: inject 500B of tax money.
Physicists: Build 50% of the collider.
Governments: inject another trillion dollars.
Physicists: complete the collider.
20 years later: physicists run first calibrating experiments.
50 years later: physicists have confirmed standard model.
Back to stupid. I want to see more than the little inch of Nima at work, and where he is pointing.
I like 1 inch high Nima. It should be a thing.
He kind of reminds me of Bobcat Goldthwait, but as a physicist
Are we ever going to get new weapons or power plants out of this stuff again?
1st
0th
Fnargl *0nd
*0nd
-0rd
IAS: please send this Hakami Salami guy a memo, indicating he needs a hair transplant, as his abysmal style is distracting me from the lecture. Like, it's the 21st century now. Walking around like this is approaching crimes against humanity.