tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post113228699253718835..comments2023-11-05T04:40:53.265-08:00Comments on Vonny: 21st Century Research: How to Handle Massive Amounts of DataMark Vondracekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07968005525366534358noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post-1132839240855887122005-11-24T05:34:00.000-08:002005-11-24T05:34:00.000-08:00Hi Dan,Let's just hope the security is better at L...Hi Dan,<BR/><BR/>Let's just hope the security is better at Los Alamos these days. I'm sure there is still a number of collaborators, since a number of civilian consultants are used at even weapons facilties. If they do have the capacity on site for the data load we're considering, it helps to have an in to the largest R&D budget on the planet (good ol' DoD). :-)<BR/><BR/>Let me know how it's going, Dan.Mark Vondracekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07968005525366534358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post-1132810732332157952005-11-23T21:38:00.000-08:002005-11-23T21:38:00.000-08:00It's interesting to read this post, because I'm mo...It's interesting to read this post, because I'm most likely going to be involved in some massive simulation project or other this coming summer when I go work at one of the national labs (probably Los Alamos). Of course, when you're working at Los Alamos, they don't need no stinkin' collaboration. They can handle the teraflop calculations on their own, thank you. ;)<BR/><BR/>-Daniel Summerhays.Daniel S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12963465624162539029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post-1132369592903560992005-11-18T19:06:00.000-08:002005-11-18T19:06:00.000-08:00Hi Chris,Thanks for the added details. Because of...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the added details. Because of the Hawking radiation and evaporative nature of minis, this is likely the reason we don't see mini's that could have been abundant at the time of the Big Bang.<BR/><BR/>I had a feeling you might like the philosophy comment. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Any new predictions from the string community? I'm out of touch with the literature.<BR/><BR/>MarkMark Vondracekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07968005525366534358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post-1132352240224943842005-11-18T14:17:00.000-08:002005-11-18T14:17:00.000-08:00DW,There was a worry about mini-black holes a few ...DW,<BR/><BR/>There was a worry about mini-black holes a few years back when RHIC (relativistic heavy ion collider) turned on. It smashes heavy nuclei together at nearly the speed of light, and at those speeds the concern was the mass-energy density could be great enough to produce a min-black hole. Theorists worked on it and were absolutely convinced this would not happen, and we're still here. <BR/><BR/>I think you refer to superstring calculations as far as LHC is concerned. First thing is, since I am not familiar with your background, string theories have nice concepts, however they have absolutely no real scientific credibility in the sense that they have not yet produced any physical, realistic predictions, and hence have not been tested at all. THose are more of a mathematical philosophy right now. I'm fairly certain that the use of more accepted theories that are relevant to smashing together protons with antiprotons, such as QCD, have been checked and simulated under LHC conditions for the past decade, and I for one have not heard of any concerns regarding mini-black holes. <BR/><BR/>As for costs, yes, it is tremendously expensive. But contributing governments and institutions obviously must have thought of it as a valid and important investment, otherwise why commit to it. The reasons they thought it is a good investment are not necessarily because scientists may find the Higgs boson, or evidence for supersymmetry, or just plain new physics such as what constitutes dark matter or other exotics states (these are the reasons for the physicists). Instead, governments and investors likely looked at the history of other labs doing similar work, such as SLAC and Fermilab, and the older CERN experiments and facilities. They more than pay for themselves in terms of new technologies, computing systems, data acquisition systems, and industrial, medical, and engineering applications and methods. And one never knows what any new science discoveries will lead to. <BR/><BR/>We have the Internet, superconducting and magnet technology (which led to, for instance, MRI technology), fast electronics and computing networks, new computer languages and applications, new medical treatments for cancer, new laser and fiber optic technology and applications, as well as communication among the world's scientists that have had off-shoot effects for international cooperation among government and private sector officials...all because of investments in big science. Who knows what spin-offs the world gets from the LHC and other major scientific investments and collaborations. I suppose we'd never know if we never try some of these types of projects.Mark Vondracekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07968005525366534358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12563769.post-1132315784136117022005-11-18T04:09:00.000-08:002005-11-18T04:09:00.000-08:00The Large Hadron Collider is a perfect example of ...The Large Hadron Collider is a perfect example of Boondoggle Science: obscenely expensive and dangerous. Will it produce mini black holes, or a "strangelet"? No physcicst I know can has adequately defended this grotesquery.<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/as784<BR/><BR/>DWDDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09683111085328416141noreply@blogger.com