Compound colliders approximate the shape of a GameObject while keeping a low processor overhead. To get further flexibility, you can add additional colliders on child GameObjects. For instance, you can rotate boxes relative to the local axes of the parent GameObject. When you create a compound collider like this, you should only use one Rigidbody A component that allows a GameObject to be affected by simulated gravity and other forces.
More info See in Glossary component, placed on the root GameObject in the hierarchy. Primitive colliders do not work correctly with shear transforms. If you use a combination of rotations and non-uniform scales in the Transform hierarchy so that the resulting shape is no longer a primitive shape, the primitive collider cannot represent it correctly. There are some cases, however, where even compound colliders are not accurate enough.
In 3D, you can use Mesh Colliders A free-form collider component which accepts a mesh reference to define its collision surface shape. If you are used to working in 3D, Sprites are essentially just standard textures but there are special techniques for combining and managing sprite textures for efficiency and convenience during development. More info See in Glossary graphic perfectly but you can refine the shape to any level of detail The Level Of Detail LOD technique is an optimization that reduces the number of triangles that Unity has to render for a GameObject when its distance from the Camera increases.
More info See in Glossary you like. These colliders are much more processor-intensive than primitive types, so use them sparingly to maintain good performance. Also, a mesh collider cannot collide with another mesh collider i. You can get around this in some cases by marking the mesh collider as Convex in the Inspector A Unity window that displays information about the currently selected GameObject, asset or project settings, allowing you to inspect and edit the values.
The benefit of this is that a convex mesh collider can collide with other mesh colliders so you can use this feature when you have a moving character with a suitable shape. However, a good rule is to use mesh colliders for scene A Scene contains the environments and menus of your game. Think of each unique Scene file as a unique level. In each Scene, you place your environments, obstacles, and decorations, essentially designing and building your game in pieces. More info See in Glossary geometry and approximate the shape of moving GameObjects using compound primitive colliders.
You can add colliders to a GameObject without a Rigidbody component to create floors, walls and other motionless elements of a Scene. These are referred to as static colliders.
At the opposite, colliders on a GameObject that has a Rigidbody are known as dynamic colliders. When colliders interact, their surfaces need to simulate the properties of the material they are supposed to represent. For example, a sheet of ice will be slippery while a rubber ball will offer a lot of friction and be very bouncy.
Although the shape of colliders is not deformed during collisions, their friction and bounce can be configured using Physics Materials. Researchers are hoping it will do more than that. We have learned some important things from particle accelerators. Early particle accelerators let us discover new isotopes and new elements of the periodic table.
Accelerators are used for testing parts and materials for spacecraft. Nearly all of the standard model of physics, which connects all of the forces we know of except gravity , was built off discoveries from particle colliders.
Fewer scientific questions are unanswered, too. With the discoveries of the LHC, the standard model of particle physics is complete. CERN does not see this as a convincing argument against building a new collider. Historically, it has also sometimes been argued that new physics discoveries will help us develop new technologies. The particles we discover in colliders like these exist only under extremely rare conditions, require extraordinary effort to produce, and are incredibly unstable, existing for only fractions of a second.
This highlights an interesting fact about physics: our approximations of the physical world work astoundingly well, allowing us to figure out most industrial applications of physical principles even when our grasp of them is very bare bones.
That said, the case for the Future Circular Collider is that it might teach us new things about the universe, not that it can lead to new techniques because it happens to be a hugely ambitious construction project. Theoretical physicists are largely in agreement on all of that. What divides them is, in significant part, disagreement over where the money could go instead.
It might make more sense to fund a hundred of those experiments than build one collider for 10 times as much money. There are also medium and small-scale experiments that tend to fall off the table if big collaborations eat up the bulk of money and attention. Carroll disagrees. He pointed me to the debate in the s about building a particle accelerator in Texas, one large enough to have discovered the Higgs Boson and perhaps even more.
Some physicists observed at the time that the money might go farther if it were dedicated to other physics experiments, and the collider was voted down. But did the money then go to other physics experiments? Hossenfelder is among those more strongly opposed to the collider, but the striking thing about her series of blog posts opposing it is that she is primarily concerned by what she sees as a dishonest attempt to make the case for the collider sound stronger than it is.
But while the cost of these colliders has ballooned, their relevance has declined. When physicists started building colliders in the s, they did not have a complete inventory of elementary particles, and they knew it. New measurements brought up new puzzles, and they built bigger colliders until, in , the picture was complete.
The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test. The scientific case for a next larger collider is therefore presently slim. Of course, it is possible that a next larger collider would make a breakthrough discovery.
Some physicists hope, for example, it could offer clues about the nature of dark matter or dark energy. Yes, one can hope. And that is assuming they are particles to begin with, for which there no evidence. Even if they are particles, moreover, highly energetic collisions may not be the best way to look for them.
Weakly interacting particles with tiny masses, for example, are not something one looks for with large colliders. And there are entirely different types of experiments that could lead to breakthroughs at far smaller costs, such as high precision measurements at low energies or increasing the masses of objects in quantum states.
In this situation, particle physicists should focus on developing new technologies that could bring colliders back in a reasonable price range and hold off digging more tunnels. Another game-changing technology would be room-temperature superconductors that could make the strong magnets that colliders rely on more efficient and affordable.
But as the strategy update reveals, particle physicists have not woken up to their new reality. Building larger particle colliders has run its course. It has today little scientific return on investment, and at the same time almost no societal relevance.
Large scientific projects tend to generally benefit education and infrastructure, but this is not specific to particle colliders.
0コメント