4 ms·

You're probably right that my statement about "indirect" applications was a bit strong. I agree that there are numerous applications some fairly direct (like me

You'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 ago
You 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 ago
  If 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 ago
    Sorry, you’ll have to disambiguate. Which argument should not be made?
    - radioactivist 6y ago
      Sorry, 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 ago
        It’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 ago
        I 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.
        zepto 6y ago
        Ok, but isn’t the premise of this line of reasoning flawed? We didn’t know what our understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics would enable in advance. Suggesting that any science would lead to specific outcomes would be misleading, otherwise it wouldn’t be science - it would just be engineering. R&D. Science is always just exploration, and the outcome in terms of tools is always incidental.
        radioactivist 6y ago
        > Ok, but isn’t the premise of this line of reasoning flawed? We didn’t know what our understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics would enable in advance. No, but we did know what we had large gaps in our knowledge, even of things at close to human scales -- before those theories were discovered and worked out. It was then reasonable to expect that filling in those gaps might lead to new technology and applications also at human scales. And I'm not talking about direct applications, I'm talking about applications decades or more out -- but the fact that the energy scales were somewhat close to home meant such thing were possible. From what we know about the current frontier in particle physics, nothing informs physics at human scales. This is a strong statement -- its many many orders of magnitude off in energy scale. It could be that we're wrong about some that (and that's one of the reasons I think this research should continue) -- but it's not something that should be reasonably expected. > Science is always just exploration, and the outcome in terms of tools is always incidental. My comments were about how the science should be presented to the public in an honest way. And I think trying to sell people on science by quoting past developments that are quite different in character and expectations to what is being done today is dishonest and is a disservice to everyone involved. The point that should be made is exactly the one you make above: science is about exploration -- full stop -- and we shouldn't make exaggerated claims about applications to sell people on it.

zepto 6y ago

You 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Sorry, you’ll have to disambiguate. Which argument should not be made?
  - radioactivist 6y ago
    Sorry, 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 ago
      It’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 ago
        I 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.
        zepto 6y ago
        Ok, but isn’t the premise of this line of reasoning flawed? We didn’t know what our understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics would enable in advance. Suggesting that any science would lead to specific outcomes would be misleading, otherwise it wouldn’t be science - it would just be engineering. R&D. Science is always just exploration, and the outcome in terms of tools is always incidental.
        radioactivist 6y ago
        > Ok, but isn’t the premise of this line of reasoning flawed? We didn’t know what our understanding of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics would enable in advance. No, but we did know what we had large gaps in our knowledge, even of things at close to human scales -- before those theories were discovered and worked out. It was then reasonable to expect that filling in those gaps might lead to new technology and applications also at human scales. And I'm not talking about direct applications, I'm talking about applications decades or more out -- but the fact that the energy scales were somewhat close to home meant such thing were possible. From what we know about the current frontier in particle physics, nothing informs physics at human scales. This is a strong statement -- its many many orders of magnitude off in energy scale. It could be that we're wrong about some that (and that's one of the reasons I think this research should continue) -- but it's not something that should be reasonably expected. > Science is always just exploration, and the outcome in terms of tools is always incidental. My comments were about how the science should be presented to the public in an honest way. And I think trying to sell people on science by quoting past developments that are quite different in character and expectations to what is being done today is dishonest and is a disservice to everyone involved. The point that should be made is exactly the one you make above: science is about exploration -- full stop -- and we shouldn't make exaggerated claims about applications to sell people on it.