4 ms·

Whenever science proceeds in advance of experiment, it becomes religion. When people's careers are dependent on others taking their ideas seriously, they will

by btilly 7y ago

Whenever science proceeds in advance of experiment, it becomes religion. When people's careers are dependent on others taking their ideas seriously, they will proselytize regardless of evidence or lack thereof. I don't mind that people enjoy string theory. I do mind that we offer research positions into it, tenure, grants, and everything else that goes with it. And spend literally billions of dollars on equipment for ever more ambitious experiments that have turned up nothing. The history of science shows that money spent on research is repaid to society many fold. However there is an element of prepared serendipity. Many small grants for many small lines of research are much more likely to produce useful results than a few mega-projects. If half of what we have spent on particle accelerators was spread out across fluid dynamics, condensed matter physics, and other areas where there are a lot of open questions that are amenable to experiment, how much greater would the returns have been? If you doubt me, consider this. We spent around $5 billion on the LHC. Its signature success is the Higgs Boson. Which came out basically to what theory said, and measurements of which narrowed down a few parameters of the Standard Model. CERN is already laying plans for the successor, which will cost several times as much. There is nothing that has happened in the last 50 years which provides evidence that it will find any new particles. How many people can intelligently describe what the Higgs boson is? An intelligent description should include what symmetry breaking is, what the Higgs boson has to do with it, and why the standard model has so many free parameters. Of those people, how many can actually explain what we have learned about the rest of the model from the research at the LHC? Of those people, how many can explain how this improved understanding affects any observable macro phenomena that affects technology? Would it make sense to scrap the planned particle accelerator, and instead give $1 million to every person who actually understands the Standard Model and current research to devote their lives to something else? I admit that it sounds crazy. But I'd take an even money bet that we would both save money and see more useful returns on investment if we took that crazy course.

tomatocracy 7y ago
Yes. The primary issue with string theory I have is that it seemed for a long time to suck in large numbers of very talented theoretical physicists because it was a fashionable field - I saw many contemporaries of mine who went into theoretical physics go down this route. It's not just experimental physicists and the big budget costs that comes with particle accelerators. Theoretical physicists of course cost a lot less than the LHC but they are quite a scarce resource nonetheless - especially very talented ones - and I wonder what could have been achieved had many of them been working in different areas of physics or even in different fields altogether.
acqq 7y ago
> Would it make sense to scrap the planned particle accelerator, and instead give $1 million to every person who actually understands the Standard Model and current research to devote their lives to something else? No. That's just the talk of some "theorists." In reality, before any new discovery is made, there have to be some useful measurements that go beyond previous limits. To learn anything fundamentally new, we have to have new measurements. It's as simple as that. There is a whole bunch of people/interest groups that try to sell the public that the basic research (as in experiments) is not needed. Unfortunately, they get a kind of support from some theorists that raise doubt in most of big investments in experiments (including particle experiments). But such arguments are very biased, when not plainly deceiving. Whatever the limits to our measurements are now, they are at the same time the limit of what we can know. Investing more in pushing the boundaries is always something worth doing, and that includes doing further experiments with newer accelerators. Moreover, at the time the technologies are first time developed, nobody can promise you that they will be used for the benefit of people. But they are used exactly so, often using them in totally unexpected way. Take as an example MR scanners -- the complex super strong magnets, in the style as they were earlier used in the accelerators, actually change the orientation of the molecules in your body, and we can measure all that and actually diagnose the diseases. Or take PET scanners: the substances given to the patients before these scans are actually produced in the cyclotrons. Do you think first cyclotron (also physics) researches could even dream that such devices will be used to help diagnose cancers? http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/our-services/services/pet-functional-imaging/pet-cyclotron-and-radiopharmacy-facility http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/our-services/services/pet-function... I can go on and on. No theory can replace experiments. We need all the experiments we can do, and all that could go beyond the current limits. Want the example from computer-related areas? All the modern achievements in AI came from the possibility to process more data, much faster. It was again pushing the limits, and that was simply necessary to move anything. Correpsonding software development under the limits of, for example, eighties technologies would not bring us to that what we have now. It's always about achieving the new limits. Theory for the sake of theory, without the experiments and practical implementation simply can't make the breakthroughs achievable by reaching new limits.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mnl 7y ago
Which experiments have turned up nothing? Do you mean SUSY not showing up at the LHC? Do you think physicists can materialize particles that do not exist in Nature? Finding that the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking happens to be the Higgs, discovering it does exist and measuring its properties is small potatoes? Getting the actual data to discard the alternatives is worthless? All this is very confusing. You do have a theory about what's going on in HEP and pretty much how an experimental science such as physics works. Unfortunately it doesn't match what people do in HEP nor why they do it, so we've come full circle apparently. BTW, any first year graduate student can answer those questions. It takes about 5 years if we're starting with Physics 101.

by btilly 7y ago

tomatocracy 7y ago

Yes. The primary issue with string theory I have is that it seemed for a long time to suck in large numbers of very talented theoretical physicists because it was a fashionable field - I saw many contemporaries of mine who went into theoretical physics go down this route. It's not just experimental physicists and the big budget costs that comes with particle accelerators. Theoretical physicists of course cost a lot less than the LHC but they are quite a scarce resource nonetheless - especially very talented ones - and I wonder what could have been achieved had many of them been working in different areas of physics or even in different fields altogether.

acqq 7y ago

> Would it make sense to scrap the planned particle accelerator, and instead give $1 million to every person who actually understands the Standard Model and current research to devote their lives to something else? No. That's just the talk of some "theorists." In reality, before any new discovery is made, there have to be some useful measurements that go beyond previous limits. To learn anything fundamentally new, we have to have new measurements. It's as simple as that. There is a whole bunch of people/interest groups that try to sell the public that the basic research (as in experiments) is not needed. Unfortunately, they get a kind of support from some theorists that raise doubt in most of big investments in experiments (including particle experiments). But such arguments are very biased, when not plainly deceiving. Whatever the limits to our measurements are now, they are at the same time the limit of what we can know. Investing more in pushing the boundaries is always something worth doing, and that includes doing further experiments with newer accelerators. Moreover, at the time the technologies are first time developed, nobody can promise you that they will be used for the benefit of people. But they are used exactly so, often using them in totally unexpected way. Take as an example MR scanners -- the complex super strong magnets, in the style as they were earlier used in the accelerators, actually change the orientation of the molecules in your body, and we can measure all that and actually diagnose the diseases. Or take PET scanners: the substances given to the patients before these scans are actually produced in the cyclotrons. Do you think first cyclotron (also physics) researches could even dream that such devices will be used to help diagnose cancers? http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/our-services/services/pet-functional-imaging/pet-cyclotron-and-radiopharmacy-facility http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/our-services/services/pet-function... I can go on and on. No theory can replace experiments. We need all the experiments we can do, and all that could go beyond the current limits. Want the example from computer-related areas? All the modern achievements in AI came from the possibility to process more data, much faster. It was again pushing the limits, and that was simply necessary to move anything. Correpsonding software development under the limits of, for example, eighties technologies would not bring us to that what we have now. It's always about achieving the new limits. Theory for the sake of theory, without the experiments and practical implementation simply can't make the breakthroughs achievable by reaching new limits.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mnl 7y ago

Which experiments have turned up nothing? Do you mean SUSY not showing up at the LHC? Do you think physicists can materialize particles that do not exist in Nature? Finding that the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking happens to be the Higgs, discovering it does exist and measuring its properties is small potatoes? Getting the actual data to discard the alternatives is worthless? All this is very confusing. You do have a theory about what's going on in HEP and pretty much how an experimental science such as physics works. Unfortunately it doesn't match what people do in HEP nor why they do it, so we've come full circle apparently. BTW, any first year graduate student can answer those questions. It takes about 5 years if we're starting with Physics 101.