3 ms·

> instead do something useful Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?

by sdinsn 6y ago

jefflombardjr 6y ago
Can you prove that you will come across new theoretical breakthroughs with this research budget? While I agree this is a huge expense, I do question the slippery slope of attacking research budgets. I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. Cutting research funding works well for election cycles, but doesn't do much for the folks down the road.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. That makes sense, but you must also have a framework that tells you when something is just too much. It looks like you are comfortable with €21 BN, would €210 BN be also ok, or €2.1 TN or €21 TN? Which level does not justify the knowledge gain? Fundamental knowledge is valuable, but in a world with finite resources you must always be able to compare with other valuable alternatives. Should we, the humankind, invest a few tens of billions into chasing hypothetical superpartner particles? Or we should invest in the ARC fusion reactor [1], that might help us cut down our greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor
magicalhippo 6y ago
There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such. I'm thinking material science, magnet design etc that could benefit the health sector or other areas in society. One could perhaps get those benefits through more direct means for less, but if not then it would make the collider technically useful.
- sdinsn 6y ago
  > There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such. Just like military R&D. So what's the point of the comparison?
  - magicalhippo 6y ago
    That it would likely not be entirely useless. Not saying it's the best use of the money.
  - pcbro141 6y ago
    Well no civilians are killed by constructing the collider, for one.
- ClearZ 6y ago
  Blah spinoffs me arse! I'm still waiting to see the spinoffs that were guaranteed when the LHC was built. Europe needs to move on from these colliders unless some new technologies bring down the cost.

> instead do something useful Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?

by sdinsn 6y ago

> instead do something useful Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?

Can you prove that you will come across new theoretical breakthroughs with this research budget? While I agree this is a huge expense, I do question the slippery slope of attacking research budgets. I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. Cutting research funding works well for election cycles, but doesn't do much for the folks down the road.

credit_guy 6y ago
> I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. That makes sense, but you must also have a framework that tells you when something is just too much. It looks like you are comfortable with €21 BN, would €210 BN be also ok, or €2.1 TN or €21 TN? Which level does not justify the knowledge gain? Fundamental knowledge is valuable, but in a world with finite resources you must always be able to compare with other valuable alternatives. Should we, the humankind, invest a few tens of billions into chasing hypothetical superpartner particles? Or we should invest in the ARC fusion reactor [1], that might help us cut down our greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor

magicalhippo 6y ago

There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such. I'm thinking material science, magnet design etc that could benefit the health sector or other areas in society. One could perhaps get those benefits through more direct means for less, but if not then it would make the collider technically useful.

sdinsn 6y ago
> There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such. Just like military R&D. So what's the point of the comparison?
- magicalhippo 6y ago
  That it would likely not be entirely useless. Not saying it's the best use of the money.
- pcbro141 6y ago
  Well no civilians are killed by constructing the collider, for one.
ClearZ 6y ago
Blah spinoffs me arse! I'm still waiting to see the spinoffs that were guaranteed when the LHC was built. Europe needs to move on from these colliders unless some new technologies bring down the cost.