4 ms·

There are a lot of dark matter searches out there which would disagree with your last statement. But further than that, we still have a lot of puzzles to solve

There are a lot of dark matter searches out there which would disagree with your last statement. But further than that, we still have a lot of puzzles to solve. Proton radius, muon g-2, proton spin, ...

Anon84 8y ago
And they'll keep searching... and finding nothing. :o) And is solving those puzzles worth the tens of billions of dollars needed to build the next generation of accelerators? How much further would that same amount of money go if invested elsewhere? Hell, invest a few billion in building a true quantum computer or working towards true AI (just to name two areas where there are many more puzzles and obvious directions to explore) and see how much more impact that has and how much faster you can solve those same physics puzzles.
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  We don't know how to build a true quantum computer. But if you suggest we should also spend money on that, I agree. I don't think it's a smart idea to compare the validity of physics sub-fields. Look at the total amount of money that is spend on science compared to any other program. It's a joke. And it's not that we the people don't want it. Ask them, ask how much they think should be spend on science. It's multiples of what's actually spent.
- Anon84 8y ago
  It's not a matter of comparing validities... just a matter of where can we get the most bang for our buck? The 20th century was the century of physics and we made tremendous progress in all areas of Physics. Precisely because of this progress, it is now time to look elsewhere. Throwing more and more money exploring increasingly esoteric regions of particle physics just because that's what we are used to doing isn't the best policy. And while I do agree that much more money should be spent on Science, I don't think particle physics is the right area in which to invest. We can make much much more progress in other fields.
- craftinator 8y ago
  There is currently no quantum computer that can factor the number 15. And no one knows how to make one that can. Is this a useful field?
  - Someone 8y ago
    https://phys.org/news/2014-11-largest-factored-quantum-device.html https://phys.org/news/2014-11-largest-factored-quantum-devic...: ”New largest number factored on a quantum device is 56,153” Still something you can do in your head in less time than reading the paper takes, but more than 15.

Anon84 8y ago

And they'll keep searching... and finding nothing. :o) And is solving those puzzles worth the tens of billions of dollars needed to build the next generation of accelerators? How much further would that same amount of money go if invested elsewhere? Hell, invest a few billion in building a true quantum computer or working towards true AI (just to name two areas where there are many more puzzles and obvious directions to explore) and see how much more impact that has and how much faster you can solve those same physics puzzles.

davrosthedalek 8y ago
We don't know how to build a true quantum computer. But if you suggest we should also spend money on that, I agree. I don't think it's a smart idea to compare the validity of physics sub-fields. Look at the total amount of money that is spend on science compared to any other program. It's a joke. And it's not that we the people don't want it. Ask them, ask how much they think should be spend on science. It's multiples of what's actually spent.
Anon84 8y ago
It's not a matter of comparing validities... just a matter of where can we get the most bang for our buck? The 20th century was the century of physics and we made tremendous progress in all areas of Physics. Precisely because of this progress, it is now time to look elsewhere. Throwing more and more money exploring increasingly esoteric regions of particle physics just because that's what we are used to doing isn't the best policy. And while I do agree that much more money should be spent on Science, I don't think particle physics is the right area in which to invest. We can make much much more progress in other fields.
craftinator 8y ago
There is currently no quantum computer that can factor the number 15. And no one knows how to make one that can. Is this a useful field?
- Someone 8y ago
  https://phys.org/news/2014-11-largest-factored-quantum-device.html https://phys.org/news/2014-11-largest-factored-quantum-devic...: ”New largest number factored on a quantum device is 56,153” Still something you can do in your head in less time than reading the paper takes, but more than 15.