3 ms·

Compare the last 18 years with, say, the period from 1955 to 1973. There are still people who write poems in Latin as well. They don't cost much, nor do they ch

• nxpnsv 7y ago
  You imply there were no benefits from lhc? It’s not incredibly expensive per scientist (there are single hospitals with larger budgets than a lhc experiment), and it had a massive impact - for instance you know about it. Basic research is important, if you don’t agree, try educating yourself - i won’t do it for you.
  • scottlocklin 7y ago
    >You imply there were no benefits from lhc? I have overtly stated as much, in as public a way as I had access to at the time. I don't care if it's "not incredibly expensive per scientist" -it is a wasted effort, and an awful lot of what gets published (with 1000 "authors") as being bullshit. I've also seen the lifestyle and read the "results" of both experimental high energy and the theorists: it's basically a cargo cult at this point, imitating the glory days in the 50s and 60s. Let me ask you a question: what lack of result would convince you that high energy as practiced today is a waste of time? I look at stuff like this and see sheer decadence: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-and-the-carpenter/ https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-an... The "muh basic research" argument doesn't work forever. "Which basic research" is a question we should be asking, and building yet another giant accelerator and detector set up is not necessarily the answer, just because that's been useful in the (now distant) past. Phil Anderson is probably right.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]