The Standard Model does not allow for calculation of probabilities greater than one. The Higgs is part of the Standard Model and you only get this effect, called violation of unitarity, for processes like WW scattering if the Higgs is not there. Since the Higgs was found the SM is complete and there is no problem with violating unitarity.

Well assuming it takes a minute in a 650W microwave to cook your disgusting boiled sausage that's roughly 60*650=39kJ of energy, lets call it 40kJ. The LHC beams contain roughly 360MJ. The beams take roughly 90 microseconds to make a complete orbit (27km/3e8 m/s) so that is a power of roughly 4TW (=4 million MW).

Now the sausage is probably only about half a nuclear interaction length (guess) so only about 18% of the protons will interact per sausage crossing and not all of that energy will actually be converted into heat since much will go to secondaries. So lets be conservative and say that 1% of the incident energy heats the sausage. Hence the the time for the sausage to get 40kJ will be 40e3/(4e12*0.01) = 1 micro second.

Assuming the sausage absorbs 1% of the total beam energy (which will happen in under a millisecond) then it will have about 900 times more energy than it needed to cook it which is the energy released by slightly less than 1kg of TNT...and this is one of the reasons why the LHC is know as the Big Bang machine! ;-)

That's probably very unlikely. Michelson-Morley was testing a prediction of the best understanding of light at the time. The non-observation of changes due to motion through the ether was clear evidence that the best understood theory for light was wrong.

Now we have found the Higgs the established model, called the Standard Model, has no more predictions to make: we have found it all. The problem is that there are some phenomena which the Standard Model cannot explain, like Dark Matter, and it relies on some amazing fine-tuning of parameters to have such a light Higgs (the odd of this happening by chance are about the same as winning a lottery 5-6 times in a row...and if someone did that nobody would believe it was simple luck!).

The solutions to these issues involve speculation by theorists and there are multiple candidates. Supersymmetry is probably the leading one but if we fail to see SUSY in the coming run then I, and a lot of my colleagues, will probably start to doubt it as the most likely explanation. However even then it might still be that SUSY is the explanation but at a higher energy scale that we can reach and just a more-than-minimal variety of it.

Personally the thing I expect the most for us to find is Dark Matter. this is based on two broad assumptions that cut across many different theoretical models: that Dark Matter interacts through the weak force and that it was thermally produced in the Big Bang. If these assumptions are correct then the mass of the Dark Matter particle has to be in reach of the LHC. However this is still far from any sort of guarantee: there are other models for Dark Matter out there with good motivation which we would not see e.g. axions.

Actually that is conjecture as there is currently no evidence that protons decay. I'll grant that the expectation is that there are high energy processes which violate baryon number and if this is true then it should be possible for a proton to decay. However there is a simple way around this: suppose the initial conditions of the Big Bang just included a slight excess of baryons? No B violation is needed and protons are absolutely stable.

As you can probably guess I'm a particle physicist and not a cosmologist. However even in the dark energy models presumably a 'big rip' condition is reached in the voids between gravitationally bound objects since there is nothing to stop the acceleration? If so then surely the implications for the stable pockets is not really known since all our understanding of causal disconnection is based on GR which would no longer be valid in the regions between the galaxies.

Rather than poorly written, mistake filled blog pages on basic physics why not just link chapters from a physics textbook? The content is the same, there would be fewer mistakes in the physics since books are reviewed and edited and the writing style is less annoying.

The blogger this time forgets to include the knowledge that the universe's expansion is accelerating. We learnt this about a decade ago so it's not exactly new. The problem is that as the rate of expansion increases the volume of the universe which you can travel to without exceeding the speed of light shrinks. Given enough time it will become smaller than atoms and then nuclei etc. until you get to the planck scale and then nobody knows what will happen since we need a working quantum model for space-time itself which does not yet exist.

Now whether heat death or the 'big rip' kills off intelligence first is probably not clear - and I'm not sure I would really believe anyone who claims to know given the unknowns. However since space-time itself has a limited lifespan then intelligence clearly has a limited lifespan too unless we eventually figure out a way to leave the universe. That might be a tricky problem but we do have a lot of time to try and figure out a solution

That's my entire point! If you assume that you can make a system where there is no interaction then there is absolutely no difference whatsoever for all concerned between position A or position B. Hence there is absolutely no way to know whether you are in position A or B until you interact so there is no magical "teleportation". It's the same as Schrodinger's cat: the cat is either alive or dead and you find out which when you open the box and there is no undetermined state as per the common misconception.

To get the EPR paradox you need an entangled state for two particles. What you have is a single, unknown state of one particle (or person). These are not the same.

Actually not true. The UK has plugs rated for 13 amps per socket with a fuse in the plug itself. Since you have at least two sockets on a circuit you have at least wiring capable of at least 26 amps at 230V.

48V and 12V lines are far too low to be sage and/or sensible. Remember that the power used is equal to the voltage times the current and that the heating of the wire carrying the current goes as the square of that current. Typical house wiring is good for ~30A of current and supplies several plugs in a room typically. With a 12V circuit you limit the power of all the devices connected to this circuit to 360W vs. the 6.6kW you get now (or 3.3kW if you live in North America). Even with a 48V circuit you only get 1.44 kW.

The result is that either you need to rewire the entire house with massively thick, and therefore expensive, cables to carry the far higher currents or you need to use a higher voltage for transmission. Even the factor of two reduction between Europe and Canada/US is noticeable for some devices: electric heaters are far punier than their European counterparts, kettles take far longer to boil, and Electric lawnmowers are practically useless etc. If you drop the voltage by another factor of 2-10 below even Canada/US then almost all devices will be impacted.

Actually it is easier to electrocute someone with DC the reason it rarely, if ever, happens is because most DC sources are very low voltage and cannot drive enough current through a human body to be a problem. A high frequency, alternating current is actually relatively safe because of something called the skin effect where only the outer surface of the object conducts the current. For a human this confines the current to your skin and away from vital organs like your heart. It is the reason why Tesla himself could discharge lightning bolts from his fingers without being electrocuted. However you do have to be careful since where the spark leaves your body can get burnt due to the heat of the plasma created.

Not correct - light moves through space as fast as light. Nothing can move faster.

Actually it is stronger than that - nothing moving faster than 'c' should exist because of causality. If something moving faster that 'c' exists then then some inertial frames it will be propagating backwards in time. We could then use whatever it is to communicate with the past and set up all sorts of nasty temporal paradoxes.

If you entangle two states such that the position is the only thing different between the two states then there can be no interaction with either 'copy' which differentiates between the two possible positions. The instant that there is an interaction which determines which state you are in (position A or B) that is the position you are in. It is no more mysterious than putting some one at the centre of a (very large) box and have them move away from that centre at almost the speed of light in an unknown direction. The person in the box does not know which direction they are moving in because there is nothing surrounding them and the people outside do not know until they open the box.

Yes - and if we could un-invent the things I'd be absolutely for that. However complete disarmament would not help with a cold war scenario like this since the tensions were so high that paranoia would set in an one side would worry that the other side was rebuilding its nuclear weapons in secret and so start their own re-armament program in secret.

This leads to a potentially even more dangerous situation than having two sides each with a known nuclear arsenal. If one side believes that they are the first to re-arm how much more likely are they to use the devices in a pre-emptive strike than they would if they new the other side could retaliate in kind? Probably the best situation we can hope for is a world where only a handful of nations possess the devices and where each of their arsenals is limited. This preserves the deterrent while minimizing the risk of accident, or even worse, theft. Fortunately this seems to be the situation we are in although it would be great if the nuclear nations to reduced their stockpiles of warheads further.

There are several mistakes in the article as well. Supersymmetry is not a consequence of String Theory. It was invented to explain the huge difference between the Higgs mass and the energy scale where gravity becomes important (the fine-tuning or hierarchy problem). It was only after its invention that String Theorists realized that they needed it to make their theories work. In fact it is entirely possible that Supersymmetry exists and String Theory does not whereas the reverse is far less likely so it is wrong to say that SUSY is a consequence of String Theory.

Similarly the use of String Theory to solve non-perturbative QCD is not some new, fundamental principle but is simply a result of applying the maths developed for String Theory to a different problem. Hence studying the quark-gluon plasma is, at best, a test of some of the maths developed for String Theory but really tells us nothing at all about the physics. For a simpler analogy if you demonstrate that calculus works this does not imply that Newton's Laws of Motion are correct even though calculus was co-invented by Newton so he could write down and apply his laws.

...and again I would say that while the challenge is different there is no reason to assume that medicine has it any more challenging that other fields. In medicine the data is relatively easy to collect but very hard to analyze because of all the interwoven factors. In particle physics the data is exceedingly hard to collect because of the conditions required to produce it but probably easier to analyze.

Building detectors and accelerators requires just as much scientific input as analysis: it is not just a question of effort. New approaches and technologies have to be developed to meet ever increasing performance requirements.

I disagree. The ATLAS detector took 3,000 physicists well over a decade to design, build and test and that's before we even consider the similar effort which went into the LHC accelerator and the other large, multipurpose experiment, CMS. The challenges in other fields are different to those biomedical science but that does not in any way mean that it is easier.

Every bit of important, interesting research, regardless of field, has difficult challenges to overcome because if it did not someone would already have done it. You cannot just throw up your hands, say it is hard and then lower your standards until it becomes easy because at that point it is questionable whether the research you are doing has any value at all and, in some cases, even brings into question whether it actually counts as scientific research.