5 ms·

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

• Koshkin 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.