2 ms·

In the current climate of inequity making the front pages of the news and dominating the public discourse, I would think such huge expenditures would be anathem

In the current climate of inequity making the front pages of the news and dominating the public discourse, I would think such huge expenditures would be anathema to the populist agenda? Because the beneficiaries of the jobs of this project are definitely not the disadvantaged in society (research-wise, or construction-wise). And I have to say, HEP's huge experiments seem to produce one-time headline discoveries (of a few hundred authors, yes), but then quickly become obsolete pieces of equipment. And the science or industrial benefits themselves, of hitting the next tier beyond 13 TeV for such a collider? What is, and where does that benefit go? Does anyone have even an inkling of what results it will produce? Or is this just HEP on autopilot, "we need the next big one"? Please don't trot out the usual "science for its own sake", as if that justifies any arbitrary amount of $ being spent without question. At least astronomy produces pretty pictures for its funding.

svara 6y ago
Physics has almost single-handledy enabled the last 100 years or so of economic growth. You could make a decent case that increase in inequity has something to do with a slowdown in the progress of physics: A lack of fundamental advancement means people are not making new stuff, but rather fighting over its distribution. Now, I don't know if this collider is going to make any difference about that. Quite likely it won't. But given physics' track record, I don't think it's clear at all that there are very many things that the money would be better spent on.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  It's unlikely that physical phenomena that require machines the size of small countries to detect are going to lead to any practical use.
ephimetheus 6y ago
The LHC and HL-LHC after it will run until the thirties. We’re squeezing the absolute maximum out of the investment in the 27km ring we can here. LHC physics has produced tons and tons of results over the last 10+ years, it’s just that not all of them are exciting enough to the general public that you read about them. Still worthwhile though.
ralusek 6y ago
Infrastructure spending is in many ways just a large social safety net that happens to produce very useful things as a side effect. The cost to build these things doesn't just go into an abyss, it gives an enormous amount of workers jobs in building it, and then employs tons of scientists for running it. The west really needs to take a page from the CCP's book; you can raise people out of poverty by educating them and putting them to work on ambitious, far reaching infrastructure projects for the good of everyone. Much more desirable to most welfare solutions.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  Well, I appreciate that point. But the question is also whether the underlying activity or thing being produced gives benefit to how many people. Because, as has been pointed out in the past, you could pay people to simply dig holes in the ground and have others fill them in, which would equally create work and productivity. But was it more worthwhile and beneficial than other ways the money could be spent?

svara 6y ago

Physics has almost single-handledy enabled the last 100 years or so of economic growth. You could make a decent case that increase in inequity has something to do with a slowdown in the progress of physics: A lack of fundamental advancement means people are not making new stuff, but rather fighting over its distribution. Now, I don't know if this collider is going to make any difference about that. Quite likely it won't. But given physics' track record, I don't think it's clear at all that there are very many things that the money would be better spent on.

pfdietz 6y ago
It's unlikely that physical phenomena that require machines the size of small countries to detect are going to lead to any practical use.

ephimetheus 6y ago

The LHC and HL-LHC after it will run until the thirties. We’re squeezing the absolute maximum out of the investment in the 27km ring we can here. LHC physics has produced tons and tons of results over the last 10+ years, it’s just that not all of them are exciting enough to the general public that you read about them. Still worthwhile though.

ralusek 6y ago

Infrastructure spending is in many ways just a large social safety net that happens to produce very useful things as a side effect. The cost to build these things doesn't just go into an abyss, it gives an enormous amount of workers jobs in building it, and then employs tons of scientists for running it. The west really needs to take a page from the CCP's book; you can raise people out of poverty by educating them and putting them to work on ambitious, far reaching infrastructure projects for the good of everyone. Much more desirable to most welfare solutions.

supernova87a 6y ago
Well, I appreciate that point. But the question is also whether the underlying activity or thing being produced gives benefit to how many people. Because, as has been pointed out in the past, you could pay people to simply dig holes in the ground and have others fill them in, which would equally create work and productivity. But was it more worthwhile and beneficial than other ways the money could be spent?