2 ms·

Yes, let's "just" do that. But I guess we should make some restrictions: 1) Can't use the any of the theorists or experiementalists who had anything to do wit

Yes, let's "just" do that. But I guess we should make some restrictions: 1) Can't use the any of the theorists or experiementalists who had anything to do with the useless research of the LHC. 2) Can't use any of the hardware research required to make that discovery (all apparently useless): 2a) superconducting magnets 2b) high performance fpga computing 2c) particle detectors 3) Understanding of background physics (i.e. perfecting understanding of physics we know)

jkelleyrtp 7y ago
In a way, the demand created for tech for the new age of particle accelerators like detectors and magnets will be the thing that eventually cracks fusion. The entire value prop of CFS is predicted on the fact that magnetics have advanced faster than ITER could be built. The LHC is a big driver of that advancement.
hpcjoe 7y ago
Superconducting magnets were in use well before their use in HEP colliders. FPGA computing was in use in industry well before it was in use in HEP colliders. Particle detectors have existed for more than 100 years. When was the first collider built? Seriously, this is one of the issues I take with HEP advocates claiming that their field yielded all of these advances. Works well with politicians they have to lobby for funding their stuff. Doesn't work so well with other physicists. HEP has utility, as all science does. Investment in it generally turns out useful items, even if the science is esoteric, and not applicable to problems in the world now. However, and this is the crux of the problem, we have many items of significant priority. Which means we have to triage our expenditures. Is HEP and collider physics one of these high priorities right now? In short, no. It shouldn't be.
- peteradio 6y ago
  I never said these were invented by HEP, just that envelope pushing research was done as a byproduct of collider/detector requirements.

jkelleyrtp 7y ago

In a way, the demand created for tech for the new age of particle accelerators like detectors and magnets will be the thing that eventually cracks fusion. The entire value prop of CFS is predicted on the fact that magnetics have advanced faster than ITER could be built. The LHC is a big driver of that advancement.

hpcjoe 7y ago

Superconducting magnets were in use well before their use in HEP colliders. FPGA computing was in use in industry well before it was in use in HEP colliders. Particle detectors have existed for more than 100 years. When was the first collider built? Seriously, this is one of the issues I take with HEP advocates claiming that their field yielded all of these advances. Works well with politicians they have to lobby for funding their stuff. Doesn't work so well with other physicists. HEP has utility, as all science does. Investment in it generally turns out useful items, even if the science is esoteric, and not applicable to problems in the world now. However, and this is the crux of the problem, we have many items of significant priority. Which means we have to triage our expenditures. Is HEP and collider physics one of these high priorities right now? In short, no. It shouldn't be.

peteradio 6y ago
I never said these were invented by HEP, just that envelope pushing research was done as a byproduct of collider/detector requirements.