6 ms·

I could not disagree more with the general statement of the author. Actually, we are now going from a boring phase of particle physics where the theory was abl

by sprash 8y ago

I could not disagree more with the general statement of the author. Actually, we are now going from a boring phase of particle physics where the theory was able to predict anything we were able to measure afterwards to a phase where no theorists has a clue what might happen. This phase is called "exploration". It consists of many "blue shots" of which many will probably have zero results but have to be done in order to find out what is really going on. Theorists had a good run with prediction, now it's the experimentalists turn to lead the way with exploration by producing new data. When the Muon (basically a heavy version of the electron) was first discovered it 'seemed so incongruous and surprising at the time, that Nobel laureate I. I. Rabi famously quipped, "Who ordered that?"'[Wikipedia] The new CERN collider has got to be build. To risk to miss the next great "Who ordered that?" moment would be grossly inconsequential.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Anon84 8y ago
Usually, when we reach the limits of theoretical physics we have unexplained experimental results or when the experimental side starts getting boring, we have theories that can be used to make new predictions. Right now, the problem is that there is no clear direction in which to proceed. No new theory predicts anything that can be feasibly tested and there's nothing experimentally surprising that can't be explained theoretically. Until there's a breakthrough, a theoretical framework with testable experimental predictions, there is no point in wasting a few more billion to build bigger holes on the ground in Switzerland. While I am a theoretical physicist by training, I have no doubt that those same billions could be much better used by many other fields such as biology, chemistry, computer science, ai, etc...
- sprash 8y ago
  This is the classic theorist talking who apparently knows nothing about the real world. It takes a lot of expertise to build a particle accelerator. This expertise will literally die off, if we stop building accelerators for say the next 50 years. The next generation will have to start at zero again and it will take 80+ years to build the following one instead of 20. In my phd thesis I had to partly rebuild an experiment that was done 35 years ago. (We were not able to improve the systematical errors. The statistics was vastly improved due to modern electronics though). All people who were involved in the old experiment were either retired or dead. The practical problems we encountered were "theoretical trivial" but plenty and time consuming (e.g. finding the right glue with has the right optical density and which does not dissolve the radiation hardened wavelength shifters). If we had just one person to talk to who had done the old experiment we could have done it in 1/4th time or better.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    I think people underestimate how incredibly hands-on experimental physics is. It's not just about bolting, gluing, and connecting things you can buy to a few things you have to make. It's cutting-edge applied engineering with some of the closest tolerances you'll find anywhere, supported with post-doc math and often with similarly cutting-edge software development. It gets a lot less attention than theoretical physics, which is a shame because there wouldn't any theoretical physics without it.
    - Anon84 8y ago
      I'm all for investing in cutting edge engineering to build something new. I just want the new thing that we're building to actually be useful in itself. A quantum computer, room temperature super conductors, (closer to) human level AI, etc... are all useful things in and of themselves. A particular accelerator a lot less so.
      - sprash 8y ago
        Trust me, "quantum computer, room temperature super conductors, (closer to) human level AI" get plenty of funding to the point where people don't even know where to put money. > I'm all for investing in cutting edge engineering to build something new. If you asked oven engineers 70 years ago to build the most efficient oven they can they probably would have build something that is 2 or 3 percent better than what was currently on the market. But nobody of those oven engineers would have build a microwave. Hence, in order to solve the engineering problems of tomorrow we have to do blue shot fundamental research today because the solution to many problems is not always obvious.
      - Anon84 8y ago
        Yes, you do have to support blue skies research. I just don't think building a bigger hole in Switzerland next to the current is blue skies enough.
  - arcticfox 8y ago
    > This is the classic theorist talking who apparently knows nothing about the real world. This expertise will literally die off, if we stop building accelerators for say the next 50 years. If we're talking about that being the best argument in the real world for building accelerators at the moment, let's spend $200 million on a project to archive every conceivable piece of information related to building an accelerator and save 99% of our budget.
- Anon84 8y ago
  So your argument to spend 20 billion isn't even the science that you might get out of it, but the engineering knowledge you'll preserve? That seems like an even worse reason to do it.
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    It's a very good reason, and in some cultures even has become an integral part of communal life: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri... process and operational knowledge is the most valuable form of knowledge we possess. It is the only form of knowledge essentially only obtainable through practice, and we're always only one generation away from losing it. We can witness the huge cost of rediscovering this knowledge in space exploration right now.
    - effie 8y ago
      Is that process and operational knowledge so useful to society that it's worth that big money though? It does not transfer to other, more useful projects so easily. Compare launching LHC with something like launching ITER or solving environmental problems. Much more useful projects, but the LHC process and operational knowledge value there is minimal. It is not clear to me we need to sustain CERN on life support just because they got good at building big particle accelerators. Times change, priorities shift.
- acqq 8y ago
  As you are a theoretical physicist, have you tried to read: Future Circular Collider Study, Volume 1 - Physics Opportunities, Conceptual Design Report, PREPRINT submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 20 December 2018 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2651294/files/CERN-ACC-2018-0056.pdf https://cds.cern.ch/record/2651294/files/CERN-ACC-2018-0056.... It's almost 200 pages about the "Physics Opportunities" of the next collider.
- yourapostasy 8y ago
  > ...I have no doubt that those same billions could be much better used by many other fields such as biology, chemistry,... Has there been any speculative fiction exploring what a fiat economic system would look like if instead of bankers placing bets on various business ventures, we had scientists and engineers describing, we need to rule out (or in) this, this, and that possibility to move the boundaries of human knowledge forward, and let the entities who have first crack at fiat economic issuance that eventually flows outward into the "real" economy be these science and engineering efforts?
blueplanet200 8y ago
I feel this comment assumes that experimentalists weren't "exploring" this whole time. There are many, many, MANY papers that fly out of these particle physics experiments. Most of the papers are about how they do not find stuff. These papers take the form: "Search for the pair production of X in proton-proton collisions at s√ = 13 TeV" or other more generic papers where they just look for anomalies against Standard Model predictions. Fun fact - nothing found yet! This was the case at the Tevatron, where countless experimentalists poured over the data trying to find the slightest hint of something new. It also is the case today (so far) with the LHC. To suggest that we're in a new phase where we're going from a "boring" phase to a new one where theory doesn't know kinda misses the point that experimentalists have already been doing this.
- sprash 8y ago
  > experimentalists have already been doing this. Indeed. The question is why should they stop doing this? Because it is not satisfying enough? Because it won't get you a Nobel Price? It is the only method to bring light to dark. It needs to be done even though the work might appear tedious.

by sprash 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Anon84 8y ago

Usually, when we reach the limits of theoretical physics we have unexplained experimental results or when the experimental side starts getting boring, we have theories that can be used to make new predictions. Right now, the problem is that there is no clear direction in which to proceed. No new theory predicts anything that can be feasibly tested and there's nothing experimentally surprising that can't be explained theoretically. Until there's a breakthrough, a theoretical framework with testable experimental predictions, there is no point in wasting a few more billion to build bigger holes on the ground in Switzerland. While I am a theoretical physicist by training, I have no doubt that those same billions could be much better used by many other fields such as biology, chemistry, computer science, ai, etc...

sprash 8y ago
This is the classic theorist talking who apparently knows nothing about the real world. It takes a lot of expertise to build a particle accelerator. This expertise will literally die off, if we stop building accelerators for say the next 50 years. The next generation will have to start at zero again and it will take 80+ years to build the following one instead of 20. In my phd thesis I had to partly rebuild an experiment that was done 35 years ago. (We were not able to improve the systematical errors. The statistics was vastly improved due to modern electronics though). All people who were involved in the old experiment were either retired or dead. The practical problems we encountered were "theoretical trivial" but plenty and time consuming (e.g. finding the right glue with has the right optical density and which does not dissolve the radiation hardened wavelength shifters). If we had just one person to talk to who had done the old experiment we could have done it in 1/4th time or better.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  I think people underestimate how incredibly hands-on experimental physics is. It's not just about bolting, gluing, and connecting things you can buy to a few things you have to make. It's cutting-edge applied engineering with some of the closest tolerances you'll find anywhere, supported with post-doc math and often with similarly cutting-edge software development. It gets a lot less attention than theoretical physics, which is a shame because there wouldn't any theoretical physics without it.
  - Anon84 8y ago
    I'm all for investing in cutting edge engineering to build something new. I just want the new thing that we're building to actually be useful in itself. A quantum computer, room temperature super conductors, (closer to) human level AI, etc... are all useful things in and of themselves. A particular accelerator a lot less so.
    - sprash 8y ago
      Trust me, "quantum computer, room temperature super conductors, (closer to) human level AI" get plenty of funding to the point where people don't even know where to put money. > I'm all for investing in cutting edge engineering to build something new. If you asked oven engineers 70 years ago to build the most efficient oven they can they probably would have build something that is 2 or 3 percent better than what was currently on the market. But nobody of those oven engineers would have build a microwave. Hence, in order to solve the engineering problems of tomorrow we have to do blue shot fundamental research today because the solution to many problems is not always obvious.
    - Anon84 8y ago
      Yes, you do have to support blue skies research. I just don't think building a bigger hole in Switzerland next to the current is blue skies enough.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  > This is the classic theorist talking who apparently knows nothing about the real world. This expertise will literally die off, if we stop building accelerators for say the next 50 years. If we're talking about that being the best argument in the real world for building accelerators at the moment, let's spend $200 million on a project to archive every conceivable piece of information related to building an accelerator and save 99% of our budget.
Anon84 8y ago
So your argument to spend 20 billion isn't even the science that you might get out of it, but the engineering knowledge you'll preserve? That seems like an even worse reason to do it.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  It's a very good reason, and in some cultures even has become an integral part of communal life: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri... process and operational knowledge is the most valuable form of knowledge we possess. It is the only form of knowledge essentially only obtainable through practice, and we're always only one generation away from losing it. We can witness the huge cost of rediscovering this knowledge in space exploration right now.
  - effie 8y ago
    Is that process and operational knowledge so useful to society that it's worth that big money though? It does not transfer to other, more useful projects so easily. Compare launching LHC with something like launching ITER or solving environmental problems. Much more useful projects, but the LHC process and operational knowledge value there is minimal. It is not clear to me we need to sustain CERN on life support just because they got good at building big particle accelerators. Times change, priorities shift.
acqq 8y ago
As you are a theoretical physicist, have you tried to read: Future Circular Collider Study, Volume 1 - Physics Opportunities, Conceptual Design Report, PREPRINT submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 20 December 2018 https://cds.cern.ch/record/2651294/files/CERN-ACC-2018-0056.pdf https://cds.cern.ch/record/2651294/files/CERN-ACC-2018-0056.... It's almost 200 pages about the "Physics Opportunities" of the next collider.
yourapostasy 8y ago
> ...I have no doubt that those same billions could be much better used by many other fields such as biology, chemistry,... Has there been any speculative fiction exploring what a fiat economic system would look like if instead of bankers placing bets on various business ventures, we had scientists and engineers describing, we need to rule out (or in) this, this, and that possibility to move the boundaries of human knowledge forward, and let the entities who have first crack at fiat economic issuance that eventually flows outward into the "real" economy be these science and engineering efforts?

blueplanet200 8y ago

I feel this comment assumes that experimentalists weren't "exploring" this whole time. There are many, many, MANY papers that fly out of these particle physics experiments. Most of the papers are about how they do not find stuff. These papers take the form: "Search for the pair production of X in proton-proton collisions at s√ = 13 TeV" or other more generic papers where they just look for anomalies against Standard Model predictions. Fun fact - nothing found yet! This was the case at the Tevatron, where countless experimentalists poured over the data trying to find the slightest hint of something new. It also is the case today (so far) with the LHC. To suggest that we're in a new phase where we're going from a "boring" phase to a new one where theory doesn't know kinda misses the point that experimentalists have already been doing this.

sprash 8y ago
> experimentalists have already been doing this. Indeed. The question is why should they stop doing this? Because it is not satisfying enough? Because it won't get you a Nobel Price? It is the only method to bring light to dark. It needs to be done even though the work might appear tedious.