The Possible Future of Particle Detection

I would like to add that the strong part of Lincoln's LHC book does involve the description of the actual design of the collier and its detectors. As always sensitive to the budget to show where the scientists have to streamline and make compromises. I assume as an international project that the dissemination of the information transcends the nationalist concerns of the participants. Yet in a way this project, from my view, would not be a good one to follow based on the current designs and ideas of what is fundamental physics. It would be a dead end and crude plagerism of second rate mimic of the Poetry that will be left behind the expanding wisdom and technology.

On the other hand if the design of the detectors were not so bound up into our quaint ideas of three space a lot could be done to actually see what might not be possible to see now. Perhaps there is a higher analog to the pincing effect of toroidal fields as in hot fusion which in looking at the internal symmetries the effect occurs as something we think we can write off to pure uncertainty and a finer instrument and resolution.

I agree with Lincoln, that we will not find something so radically new it could consume the planet. But I disagree for different and what I feel much sounder physical principles. This does relate to the study at hand of our interpretation of these so called fundamental equations as a way to measure and hopefully find some "new" phenomenon that justifies the project.

So, I conceive a new type of detector- one which ironically can be precise enough to take advantage of the types of shower events of cosmic or any other type of radiation and yet make us able to interpret the hidden data which for now we only see implicitly. Oddly enough it may be something like the quasic lensing but over a wider range of space and such group properties of the various manifolds of the fields. It is still an open question as to what extent we can turn such telescopes and microscopes to some of the cosmic sources. In a quasic sense too what we design of an experiment loads the dice of what we find in the experiment, if what we find is real.

It is quite a feeling to see our most advanced project looking like an old sci fi movie with crude special effects as if, despite our natural experience with lightning, it dawns on us we can bring things to life by the aid of steam engines and special effects that in retrospect we grossly underestimated the progress of the technology.

Now, is there not an anology somewhere, as if a generational or fractal like manifold of replacing the wires with silicon (what sort of tinkering is this with the spaggetti monster?) which from the abstract beginning shows the echo of carbon structures? Is it not the same unified mathematics and moreover a view of space that can go a few levels higher? Is it a uniform law over all space that the embryo becomes layers of tissue- or is this just some random event in nature? The lack of deep consideration of the metaphysics involved is a matter of progress, time and money. I see no reason to defend such primitive methods or philosophy of science for the results are clearly limited to our state of the vision.