5 ms·

Actually, I think the investment vs leaps for humanity ratio is much better for "small science" projects than for big-ticket items like NASA and the SSC. Is it

by hugh3 16y ago

Actually, I think the investment vs leaps for humanity ratio is much better for "small science" projects than for big-ticket items like NASA and the SSC. Is it better to give $20 billion to building an SSC, or a million bucks to research on fruit flies and a million bucks to research on earthquakes and a million bucks to research on lattice gauge theory and a million bucks to research on whale mating and ... so on twenty thousand times? Do that and you'll get huge amounts of interesting research, or varying importance from "dull" to "hugely important". Smash some atoms together and you'll either find a Higgs Boson or not -- a single hypothesis either confirmed or rejected, big deal. NASA has done some great stuff too, but their greatest stuff has been in relatively small corners of their budget, like Hubble and Kepler.

SoftwareMaven 16y ago
I completely agree that the size of the budget does not determine the value of the science. In my mind, though, the huge value in NASA comes in fulfilling our species wanderlust. The entire history of our species is filled with exploration; it is hard-wired into our DNA. At this point, there are few places left to do that. On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. There is no scientific basis for this, I just want to be able to fly or jump across space. :)
- jessriedel 16y ago
  > On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. Unfortunately, the Higgs has next to nothing to do with either of these. The fact of the matter is that it is very improbable that anything discovered at frontier accelerator (e.g., the LHC, SSC, CLIC) will produce anything useful for many hundreds of years, if not longer. Rather, these accelerators are built to learn about the universe for its own sake.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    I believe that many (maybe even all) scientists working on these kinds of projects feel this way. The people who ultimately fund the projects do not. It would be wise to remember that. The people who fund them do not expect a wormhole generator to fall out of them (gads, do people not have a sense of humor?). There is an implicit expectation that the knowledge for the sake of knowledge will have the potential to provide real, tangible benefits for the people who are really paying for these experiments. If that expectation wasn't there, scientists wouldn't bother justifying the expense[1]. Again, with no scientific basis, I am still hopeful that these experiments and the knowledge gained from them will result in a leap, perhaps in a way similar to the classical-to-quantum knowledge caused us to leap forward. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-09/defense-lhc http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-09/defense-lhc
    - jessriedel 16y ago
      >There is an implicit expectation that the knowledge for the sake of knowledge will have the potential to provide real, tangible benefits for the people who are really paying for these experiments. This is the thing that most laymen don't understand: in terms of potential for applications, the LHC (and the past 3 or 4 accelerators) are different than the pure, curosity-driven research which preceded them. In the past, scientists studied things because they were generally curious, but the things they studied were actually accessible at sensible energies and distances. That means that the knowledge they discovered was potentially useful, regardless of motivation. However, modern accelerators operate at energies which are inconceivably far from the real world. The chance that they produce practical knowledge is much, much lower (though of course not zero). >If that expectation wasn't there, scientists wouldn't bother justifying the expense. This is wrong. There are large incentives for scientists to not expend much effort making it painfully clear to the public how impractical the LHC is. >I believe that many (maybe even all) scientists working on these kinds of projects feel this way. The people who ultimately fund the projects do not. This is kind of true. Yes, if politicians and the public knew how unlikely it was that the LHC would produce anything useful, they would be less likely to fund it. But don't forget that the US federal government funded the Apollo program and still funds things like art.
- hugh3 16y ago
  On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. There is no scientific basis for this, I just want to be able to fly or jump across space. :) No offence, but this is why people like you shouldn't be making funding decisions for these sorts of things. And by "people like you" I mean folks with unrealistic expectations of what expensive atom crashers are actually likely to be able to achieve.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    Just out of curiosity, where did you pull the "unrealistic expectations" from? I thought I made it pretty clear when I said "There is no scientific basis" that I recognized the Higgs wasn't going to give those things. It is responses like this that lead people to believe that the community of scientists are very arrogant and to not want to have anything to do with them. Remember, those projects are funded "people like us" (whoever that is, but it is obviously not somebody as smart as you). When you make comments that denigrate "people like us", you are ultimately hurting the opportunities for future work. Given how immensely expensive it is to do experiments at this level, I would think that would be the last thing you'd want to do. EDIT: Decided not to lump the response below in with this response.

by hugh3 16y ago

SoftwareMaven 16y ago

I completely agree that the size of the budget does not determine the value of the science. In my mind, though, the huge value in NASA comes in fulfilling our species wanderlust. The entire history of our species is filled with exploration; it is hard-wired into our DNA. At this point, there are few places left to do that. On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. There is no scientific basis for this, I just want to be able to fly or jump across space. :)

jessriedel 16y ago
> On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. Unfortunately, the Higgs has next to nothing to do with either of these. The fact of the matter is that it is very improbable that anything discovered at frontier accelerator (e.g., the LHC, SSC, CLIC) will produce anything useful for many hundreds of years, if not longer. Rather, these accelerators are built to learn about the universe for its own sake.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  I believe that many (maybe even all) scientists working on these kinds of projects feel this way. The people who ultimately fund the projects do not. It would be wise to remember that. The people who fund them do not expect a wormhole generator to fall out of them (gads, do people not have a sense of humor?). There is an implicit expectation that the knowledge for the sake of knowledge will have the potential to provide real, tangible benefits for the people who are really paying for these experiments. If that expectation wasn't there, scientists wouldn't bother justifying the expense[1]. Again, with no scientific basis, I am still hopeful that these experiments and the knowledge gained from them will result in a leap, perhaps in a way similar to the classical-to-quantum knowledge caused us to leap forward. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-09/defense-lhc http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-09/defense-lhc
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    >There is an implicit expectation that the knowledge for the sake of knowledge will have the potential to provide real, tangible benefits for the people who are really paying for these experiments. This is the thing that most laymen don't understand: in terms of potential for applications, the LHC (and the past 3 or 4 accelerators) are different than the pure, curosity-driven research which preceded them. In the past, scientists studied things because they were generally curious, but the things they studied were actually accessible at sensible energies and distances. That means that the knowledge they discovered was potentially useful, regardless of motivation. However, modern accelerators operate at energies which are inconceivably far from the real world. The chance that they produce practical knowledge is much, much lower (though of course not zero). >If that expectation wasn't there, scientists wouldn't bother justifying the expense. This is wrong. There are large incentives for scientists to not expend much effort making it painfully clear to the public how impractical the LHC is. >I believe that many (maybe even all) scientists working on these kinds of projects feel this way. The people who ultimately fund the projects do not. This is kind of true. Yes, if politicians and the public knew how unlikely it was that the LHC would produce anything useful, they would be less likely to fund it. But don't forget that the US federal government funded the Apollo program and still funds things like art.
hugh3 16y ago
On the other hand, I keep hoping the Higgs Boson (or a discovery soon after it) will hold the key to either anti-gravity or wormholes. There is no scientific basis for this, I just want to be able to fly or jump across space. :) No offence, but this is why people like you shouldn't be making funding decisions for these sorts of things. And by "people like you" I mean folks with unrealistic expectations of what expensive atom crashers are actually likely to be able to achieve.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  Just out of curiosity, where did you pull the "unrealistic expectations" from? I thought I made it pretty clear when I said "There is no scientific basis" that I recognized the Higgs wasn't going to give those things. It is responses like this that lead people to believe that the community of scientists are very arrogant and to not want to have anything to do with them. Remember, those projects are funded "people like us" (whoever that is, but it is obviously not somebody as smart as you). When you make comments that denigrate "people like us", you are ultimately hurting the opportunities for future work. Given how immensely expensive it is to do experiments at this level, I would think that would be the last thing you'd want to do. EDIT: Decided not to lump the response below in with this response.