4 ms·

Difference is, the discovery of quantum mechanics did not require billion-dollar investment in equipment and manpower (not until work began on nuclear weapon, a

Difference is, the discovery of quantum mechanics did not require billion-dollar investment in equipment and manpower (not until work began on nuclear weapon, anyway). Besides, current research in high-energy physics, while being expensive, only brings scientific value and not much at all in the way of practical application (except, perhaps, as a side-effect of building more and more sophisticated equipment - but that would be like saying that wars are good for medicine, because obviously direct investment in medicine would be more efficient than investment in war).

whaaswijk 7y ago
How can you be sure that the new science won't have any practical applications?
- Koshkin 7y ago
  We haven’t seen any evidence of that in the many years that have passed. We have good science, the Higgs and all, but, frankly, there’s little hope that the energies comparable to those that existed at the beginning of the Universe would be of practical consequence to us (other than the destruction of the Earth).
- ellofromoversea 7y ago
  If they do it’s nothing we’ll ever be able to harness Why should society at this day and time then plow millions of man hours and raw materials into proving it literally? Perhaps when nanotechnology or AI is able to be put to the task, those peoples can then build a very specific machine to prove very specific questions But this is throwing spaghetti at the wall for what to us will be a moment of excitement then having no clue how to make use of it and a big mess to clean up
- sandworm101 7y ago
  >> How can you be sure that the new science won't have any practical applications? Nobody is sure about anything. Nobody denies that high-energy physics might one day bring great things. The problem is cost. Other areas of science are much more likely to bring great things with far less money. If tens of billions are to be spent on a bigger microscope, let it be one that will give us better solar panels, or a direct treatment for viruses. Polishing the details of the standard model can wait.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  This is just burden-shifting, and if it is the best argument that can be made, there would be essentially no case for a bigger accelerator at this point. Things are not quite that bad, but the case is weaker now than it has ever been before.
kochthesecond 7y ago
I think its too dismissive to claim it will have 0 practical applications. Often this type of fundamental research take decades to result in something useful in an unexpected way. We can only go where the roads lead us, who are we to dismiss the roads not taken.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  You're dismissing other roads not taken. What is more likely to revolutionise physics - spending $20bn on an incremental increase in collider energies, on spending $20bn funding a new generation of PhDs and postdocs exploring quantum gravity fundamentals? At this point practical HEP shows every signs of being a boondoggle. There are plenty of hard theoretical questions that haven't been answered, but with a few exceptions they're outside of the mainstream. Research into them has been actively discouraged, except at a few locations. Physics doesn't need more hardware, it needs more ideas - more intellectual diversity, and more creativity.
  - l33tman 7y ago
    I'm not sure just increasing funding to thep would generate new ideas, why would they not just funnel it into the same "safe" programmes as they have done the last 25 years? There are some small "fringe science" programmes here and there, but we probably shouldn't pour all money into those either..
  - jjdredd 7y ago
    I was under the impression that physicists had too many ideas and too few chances to test them in experiments.
- pacala 7y ago
  The method itself, smashing ever more energetic particles into each other, makes it highly unlikely that any discovery will be applicable to human sized energy regimens.
ChrisLomont 7y ago
Current high energy physics research brought us lots of big data advances, electronics advances, sensor advances, as well as the web itself. You dismiss too quickly the advances made when attacking large, hard problems.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Have you considered some of the large, hard problems whose solutions also have immediate benefits?
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Yep - but that is not true for most high energy physics. The incredibly short lifetimes and low coupling of most new particles make them mostly unusable for anything we can forsee being useful. Electrons were useful, because they have long lifetimes, are easy to make, and interact well. Higgs bosons are unlikely to be useful as technology ever since they are so ephermeral. And they're certainly not giving immediate benefits.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Why kid ourselves that “we are doing physics,” then? Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient?
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    >Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient? Often not, because you don't know what areas to choose. Having a big, hard goal to solve usually requires building pieces to solve the problem, and these pieces end up being useful in themselves. Plus the big goal is often achieved. Mankind could have done a lot of the stuff discovered along the way to big goals, but didn't, until the big goals were attempted. Plus, it's often easier to get funding as a nation-state for big goals. Little side projects are often not individually worth chasing. The internet is a good example - it could have been done by industry before the govt decided to chase it as a piece of a big goal.

whaaswijk 7y ago

How can you be sure that the new science won't have any practical applications?

Koshkin 7y ago
We haven’t seen any evidence of that in the many years that have passed. We have good science, the Higgs and all, but, frankly, there’s little hope that the energies comparable to those that existed at the beginning of the Universe would be of practical consequence to us (other than the destruction of the Earth).
ellofromoversea 7y ago
If they do it’s nothing we’ll ever be able to harness Why should society at this day and time then plow millions of man hours and raw materials into proving it literally? Perhaps when nanotechnology or AI is able to be put to the task, those peoples can then build a very specific machine to prove very specific questions But this is throwing spaghetti at the wall for what to us will be a moment of excitement then having no clue how to make use of it and a big mess to clean up
sandworm101 7y ago
>> How can you be sure that the new science won't have any practical applications? Nobody is sure about anything. Nobody denies that high-energy physics might one day bring great things. The problem is cost. Other areas of science are much more likely to bring great things with far less money. If tens of billions are to be spent on a bigger microscope, let it be one that will give us better solar panels, or a direct treatment for viruses. Polishing the details of the standard model can wait.
mannykannot 7y ago
This is just burden-shifting, and if it is the best argument that can be made, there would be essentially no case for a bigger accelerator at this point. Things are not quite that bad, but the case is weaker now than it has ever been before.

kochthesecond 7y ago

I think its too dismissive to claim it will have 0 practical applications. Often this type of fundamental research take decades to result in something useful in an unexpected way. We can only go where the roads lead us, who are we to dismiss the roads not taken.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
You're dismissing other roads not taken. What is more likely to revolutionise physics - spending $20bn on an incremental increase in collider energies, on spending $20bn funding a new generation of PhDs and postdocs exploring quantum gravity fundamentals? At this point practical HEP shows every signs of being a boondoggle. There are plenty of hard theoretical questions that haven't been answered, but with a few exceptions they're outside of the mainstream. Research into them has been actively discouraged, except at a few locations. Physics doesn't need more hardware, it needs more ideas - more intellectual diversity, and more creativity.
- l33tman 7y ago
  I'm not sure just increasing funding to thep would generate new ideas, why would they not just funnel it into the same "safe" programmes as they have done the last 25 years? There are some small "fringe science" programmes here and there, but we probably shouldn't pour all money into those either..
- jjdredd 7y ago
  I was under the impression that physicists had too many ideas and too few chances to test them in experiments.
pacala 7y ago
The method itself, smashing ever more energetic particles into each other, makes it highly unlikely that any discovery will be applicable to human sized energy regimens.

ChrisLomont 7y ago

Current high energy physics research brought us lots of big data advances, electronics advances, sensor advances, as well as the web itself. You dismiss too quickly the advances made when attacking large, hard problems.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
Have you considered some of the large, hard problems whose solutions also have immediate benefits?
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  Yep - but that is not true for most high energy physics. The incredibly short lifetimes and low coupling of most new particles make them mostly unusable for anything we can forsee being useful. Electrons were useful, because they have long lifetimes, are easy to make, and interact well. Higgs bosons are unlikely to be useful as technology ever since they are so ephermeral. And they're certainly not giving immediate benefits.
Koshkin 7y ago
Why kid ourselves that “we are doing physics,” then? Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient?
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  >Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient? Often not, because you don't know what areas to choose. Having a big, hard goal to solve usually requires building pieces to solve the problem, and these pieces end up being useful in themselves. Plus the big goal is often achieved. Mankind could have done a lot of the stuff discovered along the way to big goals, but didn't, until the big goals were attempted. Plus, it's often easier to get funding as a nation-state for big goals. Little side projects are often not individually worth chasing. The internet is a good example - it could have been done by industry before the govt decided to chase it as a piece of a big goal.