2 ms·
> It seems the field has advanced so far that EVEN IF new discoveries emerge, they would be of no practical value Particle physicists would disagree. A comple
by hashkb 8y ago
> It seems the field has advanced so far that EVEN IF new discoveries emerge, they would be of no practical value
Particle physicists would disagree. A complete understanding of quantum mechanics, squared with general relativity, is very likely to have practical applications.
Cliche analogy: if you thought the world was flat and ships were falling off the end of the ocean, you might be investing your money in world-edge-detection; and you might say there's no point in studying the edge of the world itself because no practical value can come of it. You wouldn't have any idea that circumnavigation was (relatively) easy once you understood more about the nature of the world.
- _cs2017_ 8y ago> A complete understanding of quantum mechanics, squared with general relativity, is very likely to have practical applications. But anything observable in the world of reasonable energies (up to whatever modern colliders achieve) can be predicted with existing theories. If we discover something that only happens at astronomically high energies, would it really be that useful?
- hashkb 8y ago> But anything observable in the world of reasonable energies (up to whatever modern colliders achieve) can be predicted with existing theories. This is classic "world is flat" / geocentric argument. Breakthroughs are impossible to predict but can't happen if we give up. Edit: > If we discover something that only happens at astronomically high energies, would it really be that useful? We don't know. World being round turned out to be pretty useful.