3 ms·

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

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.
- wlievens 16y ago
  Are you saying the Apollo program was entirely impractical?

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.

wlievens 16y ago
Are you saying the Apollo program was entirely impractical?