5 ms·
>In programming we almost always have to handle the null case ("what if the graph is unpopulated?") and often an extreme case as well ("What if we end up with 1
by moonchrome 5y ago
>In programming we almost always have to handle the null case ("what if the graph is unpopulated?") and often an extreme case as well ("What if we end up with 10 million users? How to we quickly respond to XXX").
Even the extreme case has to be somewhat realistic to be worth considering. Physics has gone way past that point once they started building accelerators larger than cities to detect subatomic reactions. Not saying it's not worth investigating but it's not at all comparable to any practical domain, at this point it's l'art pour l'art.
- svachalek 5y agoIt's realistic, they are learning about the particles that make up everything on Earth. But not necessarily pragmatic, in that there aren't likely new uses for that knowledge in the foreseeable future. Still, imagine what we can do once we've achieved a model of how it all really works.
- moonchrome 5y agoI don't really know how the model enables much if it requires that kind of effort to test the predictions. If the predictions implied something more practical you could test that. I think the time where this kind of physics breakthroughs lead to anything useful is gone. At the same time I think there's stuff that's much more practical with still a lot of discoveries to be made - like superconductivity.
- gumby 5y agoThe same was said about quantum mechanics (of which these accelerators are part of the investigation) in the 1900s, yet without that work there would have been no transistor .. or superconductors.
- moonchrome 5y agoUmm how could the same be said about quantum mechanics ? Double slit experiment can be setup in a classroom. If the predictions of your hypothesis require a country sized accelerator to test what are the real world applications ?
- Rexxar 5y agoGeneral relativity is maybe a better example: It's necessary for GPS but it was initially very difficult to validate experimentally.
- gumby 5y agoThere's a lot more to QM than the double slit experiment (and a lot more experimentation before predicting superconductors). But if you consider basic research worthless, physics is hardly the only "offender".
- moonchrome 5y agoI don't consider basic research worthless - just saying the likelihood of anything practical comming out of fundamental physics seems very low when even theory can't predict measurable effects outside of TeV particle collisions.
- whatshisface 5y ago>the likelihood of anything practical comming out of fundamental physics seems very low when even theory can't predict measurable effects outside of TeV particle collisions. You may be interested in the work being done on the connections between QGP and strange metals. Some progress is being made on extending the laws discovered in simple scenarios to complicated situations.