4 ms·
I agree with you that the current physics output from the high energy experiments are far removed from practical usages today, and that this has immense value i
by HelgeEgil 6y ago
I agree with you that the current physics output from the high energy experiments are far removed from practical usages today, and that this has immense value in itself. However I feel that you downplay the value of the developed hardware and (especially) software required to perform these experiments.
As an analogy, I currently work on developing a medical imaging system where we track the trajectories of protons and heavy ions after they traverse a patient - in order to infer their energy loss and also the patient's "stopping power" map. With better knowledge of the stopping power we will be able to improve cancer radiation treatment with protons and heavy ions.
We would be nowhere without recent work in particle physics on large scale pixel sensors, Monte Carlo simulation software, readout systems, experimental cross sectional data (although not directly from the high energy experiments), particle tracking algorithms, electronics design for very thin sensors and radiation hard equipment ++.
- radioactivist 6y agoYou're probably right that my statement about "indirect" applications was a bit strong. I agree that there are numerous applications some fairly direct (like medical physics) and some very indirect (like the WWW) that have come out of work in particle physics. But I think my main point, that applications of particle physics itself (and not the human and technological advances made to support it) are essentially non-existent stands.
- zepto 6y agoYou may be right, but it may be a distinction of low relevance. The technological advances made to support particle physics may not have been possible without the effort to do the particle physics. I.e. they are actually a result of the effort to understand the universe, even though they aren’t written down in the standard model. It’s not at all obvious that we would have devised them any other way.
- radioactivist 6y agoIf that's the reason one wants to continue funding particle accelerators -- and it's a good argument -- then one needs to make precisely that argument (and not the argument made a few levels up by the original poster).
- zepto 6y agoSorry, you’ll have to disambiguate. Which argument should not be made?
- radioactivist 6y agoSorry, I didn't realize how nested this had gotten; this statement: > One would argue that modern electronics are possible because research was done about Quantum Physics, a fundamental nature of reality. which was making the connection that understanding frontier physics from 100 years ago directly enabled new technology, and that was a reason to support particle physics today (presumably b/c it might directly lead to similar advancements).
- zepto 6y agoIt’s not clear to me why we should make the distinction between what we write down in the model of physics, and what we write down in the engineering science books as a result of these endeavors. What does it mean to distinguish these two?
- radioactivist 6y agoI agree the distinction can get a little fuzzy at the edges, i.e. for technologies that, while not dependent on frontier physics, would only have been developed in the pursuit of (say) building a larger collider. But I think there is a real difference in expectations between technology that operates on known physical principles and that which involves wholly new ones. Historically the latter has been associated with dramatic shifts in what is possible, for example our understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics enables much of the modern world. So I think presenting the study of particle physics in that light could mislead the public on just what is being done and what kind of outcomes it might precipitate.