7 ms·

"First, I don't expect anything relevant to society at large when it comes to doing research on the fundamental nature of reality" This is an extremely narrowm

"First, I don't expect anything relevant to society at large when it comes to doing research on the fundamental nature of reality" This is an extremely narrowminded view. Lasers, MRI, X-Ray machines, etc ... are all made by engineers after physicists tried to understand the fundamental nature of reality. One would argue that modern electronics are possible because research was done about Quantum Physics, a fundamental nature of reality.

wernercd 6y ago
> at least not for a long time The very next part of his statement covers that... It could be decades before "society" sees fruits of the research. > To me, it isn't necessary for every research to have social relevance. His next sentence also says "research is good for research sake" - there doesn't need to be "real world results" for the research to be worth it. You talk about narrow mindedness... then ignore second part of the first sentence and completely ignore the second sentence... Seems narrow minded to do that? I tend to agree on both those points... It could be a long time to see results and research for research can be good.
radioactivist 6y ago
While I sympathize with this viewpoint, as a physicist I think there is a fairly persistent misunderstanding in the public about just how disconnected current particle physics experiments are from application to everyday life. Essentially none of the particle physics done since the 1960s has had any application outside of fundamental knowledge, with no prospects for it having those applications in the future. At best, and even this is stretching a bit, there are indirect benefits of developing the machines that are needed to explore this frontier (i.e. like some of the argued benefits of space exploration). Whether that changes the calculus of whether these things are worth the price is still a question (in my opinion: they are), but I don't think making analogies to applications of discoveries of fundamental physics operating at very different energy scales is a good argument. The development of quantum physics (lasers, MRI, etc), while a frontier at the time, is essential to understanding commonplace things like the cohesion of solids or the properties of metals or semi-conductors (say) at room temperature. To my knowledge, there is nothing outside of astrophysical objects and the early universe that depends on knowing what is at the current frontiers in particle physics (or even what was the frontier in 50 years ago).
- grumple 6y ago
  Does quantum computing count as particle physics? It seems like this may be the future of computing.
  - akvadrako 6y ago
    It's speculation that it will ever be practical for computing, let alone in the near future. And even then I'm not sure how much that'll be related to recent experiments in high energy particle physics.
  - radioactivist 6y ago
    The experimental platforms that I am aware of that are been used to try and build quantum computers are based on condensed matter physics (superconducting junctions), atomic physics (trapped ions) or photons (quantum optics). None of this involves particle physics. The theoretical side of quantum computing, while a rich and deep field on its own, is an application of quantum mechanics and does not share any deep connection with particle physics.
  - OkayPhysicist 6y ago
    Quantum computing will never be the future of computing. If we manage to make it work, it will at best be something like a TPU: a specialized processor for accelerating specific tasks. It will always be faster and easier to build more powerful classical computers than an equivalently fast quantum machine.
    - needAnAltHN 6y ago
      Eli5 Quantum computing only solves a few specific problems. Like showing every possible outcome. For instance print(x), and your goal is to get a through z. But if the problem is linear, like 2+2, it doesn't help to have quantum computing.
- esperent 6y ago
  Do you think it's likely that any of the post-60s particle physics will lead to new useful inventions? Any idea what they might be or where I could read about them?
Someone 6y ago
That comment doesn’t reject getting applicable results from physics research nor does it claim it didn’t have such outcomes; it says the amount of expected applicable results should not be the (sole) number to use for deciding whether to fund research.
mping 6y ago
I wonder how faster we would get those innovations if we were actively trying to invent them.
- esperent 6y ago
  What innovations are you talking about? To actively progress towards something you have to know what that something is.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I agree with this. Half the battle is knowing that something is possible. Once that step is complete you can replicate it and continually improve it.
dnautics 6y ago
That's not true for MRIs. MRIs came about after the technology was hashed out for NMRs, which were in the beginning largely useful for petrochemical and food science research. (Superconductors for supercolliders came after those) A good chunk of the fundamentals of those came about because of the bomb project research, and the basis of quantum mechanics is not based on idle speculation about fundamental nature of reality, but because of a real discrepancy in our models that clashed with predicted outputs and generated observable predictions (ultraviolet catastrophe through to the double slit experiment). Sabines point is that there are currently no major measurable unexpected predictions or useful experiments that are probable with colliders in the proposed size range.
jgeada 6y ago
I resent that comment; the way it typically goes engineers make something work and then an endless parade of scientist comes up with increasingly irrelevant explanations while engineers move on to the next challenge. As the saying goes, thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics. The cult of the scientist has gone too far in the US
- bawana 6y ago
  STRONGLY AGREE. We need to change education where kids get into building, doing, solving and making.Why cant we have a system that brings high school kids into hospitals, factories, research labs, as well as water treatment plants, electricity generating plants, construction sites, etc. As a result of COVID, a lot of work is done online. Why cant PR departments dumb down the content and include schools? Lots of interesting stuff is done on YouTube . Imagine if it were organized along these lines.
  - esperent 6y ago
    Better and more practical education for children sounds great. What exactly has that got to do with disliking spending money on science? There's no reason not to have both.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

wernercd 6y ago

> at least not for a long time The very next part of his statement covers that... It could be decades before "society" sees fruits of the research. > To me, it isn't necessary for every research to have social relevance. His next sentence also says "research is good for research sake" - there doesn't need to be "real world results" for the research to be worth it. You talk about narrow mindedness... then ignore second part of the first sentence and completely ignore the second sentence... Seems narrow minded to do that? I tend to agree on both those points... It could be a long time to see results and research for research can be good.

radioactivist 6y ago

While I sympathize with this viewpoint, as a physicist I think there is a fairly persistent misunderstanding in the public about just how disconnected current particle physics experiments are from application to everyday life. Essentially none of the particle physics done since the 1960s has had any application outside of fundamental knowledge, with no prospects for it having those applications in the future. At best, and even this is stretching a bit, there are indirect benefits of developing the machines that are needed to explore this frontier (i.e. like some of the argued benefits of space exploration). Whether that changes the calculus of whether these things are worth the price is still a question (in my opinion: they are), but I don't think making analogies to applications of discoveries of fundamental physics operating at very different energy scales is a good argument. The development of quantum physics (lasers, MRI, etc), while a frontier at the time, is essential to understanding commonplace things like the cohesion of solids or the properties of metals or semi-conductors (say) at room temperature. To my knowledge, there is nothing outside of astrophysical objects and the early universe that depends on knowing what is at the current frontiers in particle physics (or even what was the frontier in 50 years ago).

grumple 6y ago
Does quantum computing count as particle physics? It seems like this may be the future of computing.
- akvadrako 6y ago
  It's speculation that it will ever be practical for computing, let alone in the near future. And even then I'm not sure how much that'll be related to recent experiments in high energy particle physics.
- radioactivist 6y ago
  The experimental platforms that I am aware of that are been used to try and build quantum computers are based on condensed matter physics (superconducting junctions), atomic physics (trapped ions) or photons (quantum optics). None of this involves particle physics. The theoretical side of quantum computing, while a rich and deep field on its own, is an application of quantum mechanics and does not share any deep connection with particle physics.
- OkayPhysicist 6y ago
  Quantum computing will never be the future of computing. If we manage to make it work, it will at best be something like a TPU: a specialized processor for accelerating specific tasks. It will always be faster and easier to build more powerful classical computers than an equivalently fast quantum machine.
  - needAnAltHN 6y ago
    Eli5 Quantum computing only solves a few specific problems. Like showing every possible outcome. For instance print(x), and your goal is to get a through z. But if the problem is linear, like 2+2, it doesn't help to have quantum computing.
esperent 6y ago
Do you think it's likely that any of the post-60s particle physics will lead to new useful inventions? Any idea what they might be or where I could read about them?

Someone 6y ago

That comment doesn’t reject getting applicable results from physics research nor does it claim it didn’t have such outcomes; it says the amount of expected applicable results should not be the (sole) number to use for deciding whether to fund research.

mping 6y ago

I wonder how faster we would get those innovations if we were actively trying to invent them.

esperent 6y ago
What innovations are you talking about? To actively progress towards something you have to know what that something is.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I agree with this. Half the battle is knowing that something is possible. Once that step is complete you can replicate it and continually improve it.

dnautics 6y ago

That's not true for MRIs. MRIs came about after the technology was hashed out for NMRs, which were in the beginning largely useful for petrochemical and food science research. (Superconductors for supercolliders came after those) A good chunk of the fundamentals of those came about because of the bomb project research, and the basis of quantum mechanics is not based on idle speculation about fundamental nature of reality, but because of a real discrepancy in our models that clashed with predicted outputs and generated observable predictions (ultraviolet catastrophe through to the double slit experiment). Sabines point is that there are currently no major measurable unexpected predictions or useful experiments that are probable with colliders in the proposed size range.

jgeada 6y ago

I resent that comment; the way it typically goes engineers make something work and then an endless parade of scientist comes up with increasingly irrelevant explanations while engineers move on to the next challenge. As the saying goes, thermodynamics owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to thermodynamics. The cult of the scientist has gone too far in the US

bawana 6y ago
STRONGLY AGREE. We need to change education where kids get into building, doing, solving and making.Why cant we have a system that brings high school kids into hospitals, factories, research labs, as well as water treatment plants, electricity generating plants, construction sites, etc. As a result of COVID, a lot of work is done online. Why cant PR departments dumb down the content and include schools? Lots of interesting stuff is done on YouTube . Imagine if it were organized along these lines.
- esperent 6y ago
  Better and more practical education for children sounds great. What exactly has that got to do with disliking spending money on science? There's no reason not to have both.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]