11 ms·
There are a fair amount of people who think the LHC was not a wise use of resources since it did not give any clues to a new theory beyond the existing "Standar
by Eridrus 6y ago
There are a fair amount of people who think the LHC was not a wise use of resources since it did not give any clues to a new theory beyond the existing "Standard Model" https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-f...
It's obviously easy to say this in hindsight and it wasn't necessarily obvious when this started, but it definitely cost more than it had to because it was an EU project that had to hand out work to all the funding countries.
I am curious what investments have worked out for the EU, but if the LHC is the pinnacle, it doesn't inspire much hope.
- rusk 6y agoYou are literally using a tangible benefit right now.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cnmlqk 6y agoWe would be using another subset of SGML otherwise. There's no way that something resembling the WWW wouldn't have been invented without CERN. And Einstein's patent office was cheaper.
- rusk 6y agoYeah well it wasn’t and in all the years since nothing better has been either. And the reasons for that are specifically the flaws in the commercial approach.
- Eridrus 6y agoThe modern web is nothing at all like the original one, so I don't really feel like it makes sense to say nothing better has come along: many new things have come along and replaced what was originally created. But the bigger problem with arguing for projects like the LHC or the moon landing based on the side benefits of what was invented there is that there isn't really a demonstrable causal link and it provides no real support for any of the actual projects being undertaken, just to the idea of employing smart people in an environment with free time.