4 ms·

Stating that such a project is worth doing only if it produces other technological advances is not something I would like to be accused of, but fortunately your

Stating that such a project is worth doing only if it produces other technological advances is not something I would like to be accused of, but fortunately your question does not have to be interpreted in that way. Here is an exchange between physicist Robert Wilson and senator John Pastore in 1969, about establishing Fermilab. Pastore: Is there anything connected with the hopes of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country? Wilson: No sir, I don't believe so. P: Nothing at all? W: Nothing at all. P: It has no value in that respect? W: It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending.

animal_spirits 5y ago
Spending four billion dollars to prove (to whom?) that we are really good at building super colliders is not something I personally would like to see my government do. If I want to prove my country is worth defending I want it to be a place where no children go hungry and the citizens have the resources and feel empowered to continue our elimination of human suffering in this world. I personally can't see what a new accelerator would provide to humanity over using that money providing food to the hungry.
- bettysdiagnose 5y ago
  There are miserably poor people in this world, that's right, but it's not because of the LHC or particle physicists. And assuming you're American (most likely) then your country has far, far, far, far bigger problems than the support it may opt to provide to a fundamental physics search.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  What if we did both?
- maweki 5y ago
  What do you think happens with the money? It's not burned. Ideally, the project also employs people that use their money to exchange it for goods and services, which in turn might make some children not go hungry. Consumption is not bad (up to ecological damage). Wealth hoarding and concentration is bad.
  - chroem- 5y ago
    If the goal is economic stimulus, why not spend it on something with a better scientific ROI?
    - nine_k 5y ago
      Which, for instance?
      - chroem- 5y ago
        If we're talking about megaprojects, a mini-Manhattan Project of sorts for developing better theories of superconductivity would be extremely beneficial. Practical room temperature superconductors would totally revolutionize our society. We're close, but we're not quite there yet.
        pas 5y ago
        The usual question is what to do with the those who don't know anything about that, don't really want to. Should particle physics simply ended? Should they go and beg for money from billionaires?
        chroem- 5y ago
        We don't coddle other professions with declining ROI like that. Why should particle physics be an exception? Anyone else would be told to "learn to code".
        5y ago
- piokoch 5y ago
  That's false perspective. People keep repeating things like "why India sends a probe to Mars, heck, there are so many poor people in India". In the long run investments in new technologies always leads to common people life improvement. Even building pyramids in Egypt was beneficial for peasants living there, as it required development of skilled workforce, required building efficient administration, "project management" skills that were used in other fields (agriculture, warfare).
- nico_h 5y ago
  Scientists are people too! What's wrong with feeding them? You can also see any research facilities and space programs as a cheap jobs program that keeps employed the people building them (scientist are really underpaid compared to software engineers, lawyers etc....), doing research in there and all the people that build anything that these people use. It's also subsidizing the high precision research and development that private companies do to be able to provide the tools used by these research facility (thought to a much lower extend than military programs), which in turns should lower the cost of producing high precision doodads you put on your wrist or your pocket.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Understanding the deep structure of matter is necessary for two things - materials science and energy science - both of which could have massive economic payoffs for society. In the modern world, much of our economic growth is driven by innovation - new scientific understandings result in new technologies that result in new products and services that introduce new capabilities into the world that never existed before, and which are in demand because they improve people's lives. Scaling production and volume lowers prices making them more accessible to everyone. That's the wealth creation pipeline at work, a modern miracle that brought humanity out of the permanent dark ages and repeating Malthusian cycles. For example, much of modern technology - silicon chips, mobile phone networks, etc, would not have been possible without a deeper understanding of quantum physics. However, continuing this growth and wealth generation process depends on continuing to deepen our understanding of the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy. Stop or slow the latter and we stop or slow the former. To date, particle accelerators are key component of doing that. And even if someone discovers a better way, we'll still have to invest in that. Either way we still have to invest in the process of unveiling the deep structure of matter.

animal_spirits 5y ago

Spending four billion dollars to prove (to whom?) that we are really good at building super colliders is not something I personally would like to see my government do. If I want to prove my country is worth defending I want it to be a place where no children go hungry and the citizens have the resources and feel empowered to continue our elimination of human suffering in this world. I personally can't see what a new accelerator would provide to humanity over using that money providing food to the hungry.

bettysdiagnose 5y ago
There are miserably poor people in this world, that's right, but it's not because of the LHC or particle physicists. And assuming you're American (most likely) then your country has far, far, far, far bigger problems than the support it may opt to provide to a fundamental physics search.
meepmorp 5y ago
What if we did both?
maweki 5y ago
What do you think happens with the money? It's not burned. Ideally, the project also employs people that use their money to exchange it for goods and services, which in turn might make some children not go hungry. Consumption is not bad (up to ecological damage). Wealth hoarding and concentration is bad.
- chroem- 5y ago
  If the goal is economic stimulus, why not spend it on something with a better scientific ROI?
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Which, for instance?
    - chroem- 5y ago
      If we're talking about megaprojects, a mini-Manhattan Project of sorts for developing better theories of superconductivity would be extremely beneficial. Practical room temperature superconductors would totally revolutionize our society. We're close, but we're not quite there yet.
      - pas 5y ago
        The usual question is what to do with the those who don't know anything about that, don't really want to. Should particle physics simply ended? Should they go and beg for money from billionaires?
        chroem- 5y ago
        We don't coddle other professions with declining ROI like that. Why should particle physics be an exception? Anyone else would be told to "learn to code".
        5y ago
piokoch 5y ago
That's false perspective. People keep repeating things like "why India sends a probe to Mars, heck, there are so many poor people in India". In the long run investments in new technologies always leads to common people life improvement. Even building pyramids in Egypt was beneficial for peasants living there, as it required development of skilled workforce, required building efficient administration, "project management" skills that were used in other fields (agriculture, warfare).
nico_h 5y ago
Scientists are people too! What's wrong with feeding them? You can also see any research facilities and space programs as a cheap jobs program that keeps employed the people building them (scientist are really underpaid compared to software engineers, lawyers etc....), doing research in there and all the people that build anything that these people use. It's also subsidizing the high precision research and development that private companies do to be able to provide the tools used by these research facility (thought to a much lower extend than military programs), which in turns should lower the cost of producing high precision doodads you put on your wrist or your pocket.
SkyMarshal 5y ago
Understanding the deep structure of matter is necessary for two things - materials science and energy science - both of which could have massive economic payoffs for society. In the modern world, much of our economic growth is driven by innovation - new scientific understandings result in new technologies that result in new products and services that introduce new capabilities into the world that never existed before, and which are in demand because they improve people's lives. Scaling production and volume lowers prices making them more accessible to everyone. That's the wealth creation pipeline at work, a modern miracle that brought humanity out of the permanent dark ages and repeating Malthusian cycles. For example, much of modern technology - silicon chips, mobile phone networks, etc, would not have been possible without a deeper understanding of quantum physics. However, continuing this growth and wealth generation process depends on continuing to deepen our understanding of the fundamental building blocks of matter and energy. Stop or slow the latter and we stop or slow the former. To date, particle accelerators are key component of doing that. And even if someone discovers a better way, we'll still have to invest in that. Either way we still have to invest in the process of unveiling the deep structure of matter.