4 ms·

> we can't know "what they [got] out of it" Of course not. Only when this is ancient history will we truly know the results of the experiment in a practical se

> we can't know "what they [got] out of it" Of course not. Only when this is ancient history will we truly know the results of the experiment in a practical sense. But we can hazard guesses, and if we are informed (which I am not) those guesses have some chance of being right. Anyway, your consequent doesn't follow: an inability to know the concrete answer to any given question does not make the question dishonest. > which, I think, is rather prima facia a very important question to answer Important for what purpose? Human happiness? Some concrete goal of technology or economics? The abstract advancement of knowledge? Some mix of all of these things? I agree that it would be nice to know where mass comes from, but that fact absent any useful application (or a probability of a useful application) is of limited value to me. > that will most likely prove to be invaluable in and of itself It is hard for me to believe that the data itself will be something anyone would be willing to pay money for. Do you mean invaluable in some other sense?

icarus_drowning 15y ago
I agree that it would be nice to know where mass comes from, but that fact absent any useful application (or a probability of a useful application) is of limited value to me. I guess if you don't see potential applications of understanding where mass comes from, we're at a bit of an impasse here. It is difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions about what the discovery will bring, but the mere possibility that this research could or might lead to the ability to manipulate mass seems rather valuable to me, in many concrete ways. [UPDATE: I guess if you want to see this as a gamble, you need to take into account the very good track record of abstract scientific discovery leading to enormous benefits. Given that understanding electricity, magnetism, relativity, and countless other scientific discoveries have brought incalculable value to the human race, I guess I don't understand why one wouldn't believe that science was worth the gamble.]
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  > . . . we're at a bit of an impasse here. Only because I don't know the science behind it. I asked the question to be informed. Everyone is so busy trying to show that I am wrong to ask the question that no one has taken time to answer it. What potential applications are there of knowing where mass comes from in the level of detail we are speaking about here (i.e. the proof of the SM or the suggestion of one of the Higgless theories)? Of course, you could give me science fiction, but I'm hoping for applications that are likely. RE: your update, excellent, and I agree, although people were able to make predictions about technologies arising from much of the abstract research of the past long before it became practical. I am asking for such predictions, if they exist, or confirmation that no such predictions currently exist. I have not been able to find any in all my searchings, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong places.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for. You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.
    - jamesaguilar 15y ago
      > You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not. I guess this sentiment, which is seen throughout this thread, is my main objection to the whole thing. This is spiritualism, pure and simple. Science, no matter about what, is good, because it's science. We know this because of our history, and we embrace it like a totem. What I wish is that we had a scientific mindset about our science, about determining what science is most useful, etc., but all I can see here are variations on the assumption that, if it's an expensive science project, it must be useful somewhere down the line.
      - caf 15y ago
        The basic underlying assumption is that more knowledge is inherently more valuable than less knowledge, even if you don't have a specific application in mind for that knowledge. How many people could have forseen GPS recievers as a consequence of General Relativity?
        wlievens 15y ago
        How is the GSP receiver a consequence of GR (honest question)? I know internal clocks of the satellites have to compensate for time dilation, but to be honest I don't see why that couldn't have been 'fixed' with an empirical solution devoid of theoretical basis. After the first launch, of course.
        ebrenes 15y ago
        I think the empirical solution would not be as straight-forward as you proclaim. Namely, because lacking any clear understanding of the science any number of theories might crop up that attempt to explain the perceived anomaly thus hindering efforts at finding a workable solution. Some of the emergent theories might actually lead to declaring outright that the concept is flawed and unsolvable. On the other hand, having a clear conceptual framework allows these people to pin-point what areas might be causing problems. It allows for effort to be focused and justifies certain fixes. Especially in costly scenarios such as this one, where there might not have been a second launch given the failure of the first.

icarus_drowning 15y ago

I agree that it would be nice to know where mass comes from, but that fact absent any useful application (or a probability of a useful application) is of limited value to me. I guess if you don't see potential applications of understanding where mass comes from, we're at a bit of an impasse here. It is difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions about what the discovery will bring, but the mere possibility that this research could or might lead to the ability to manipulate mass seems rather valuable to me, in many concrete ways. [UPDATE: I guess if you want to see this as a gamble, you need to take into account the very good track record of abstract scientific discovery leading to enormous benefits. Given that understanding electricity, magnetism, relativity, and countless other scientific discoveries have brought incalculable value to the human race, I guess I don't understand why one wouldn't believe that science was worth the gamble.]

jamesaguilar 15y ago
> . . . we're at a bit of an impasse here. Only because I don't know the science behind it. I asked the question to be informed. Everyone is so busy trying to show that I am wrong to ask the question that no one has taken time to answer it. What potential applications are there of knowing where mass comes from in the level of detail we are speaking about here (i.e. the proof of the SM or the suggestion of one of the Higgless theories)? Of course, you could give me science fiction, but I'm hoping for applications that are likely. RE: your update, excellent, and I agree, although people were able to make predictions about technologies arising from much of the abstract research of the past long before it became practical. I am asking for such predictions, if they exist, or confirmation that no such predictions currently exist. I have not been able to find any in all my searchings, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong places.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for. You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    > You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not. I guess this sentiment, which is seen throughout this thread, is my main objection to the whole thing. This is spiritualism, pure and simple. Science, no matter about what, is good, because it's science. We know this because of our history, and we embrace it like a totem. What I wish is that we had a scientific mindset about our science, about determining what science is most useful, etc., but all I can see here are variations on the assumption that, if it's an expensive science project, it must be useful somewhere down the line.
    - caf 15y ago
      The basic underlying assumption is that more knowledge is inherently more valuable than less knowledge, even if you don't have a specific application in mind for that knowledge. How many people could have forseen GPS recievers as a consequence of General Relativity?
      - wlievens 15y ago
        How is the GSP receiver a consequence of GR (honest question)? I know internal clocks of the satellites have to compensate for time dilation, but to be honest I don't see why that couldn't have been 'fixed' with an empirical solution devoid of theoretical basis. After the first launch, of course.
        ebrenes 15y ago
        I think the empirical solution would not be as straight-forward as you proclaim. Namely, because lacking any clear understanding of the science any number of theories might crop up that attempt to explain the perceived anomaly thus hindering efforts at finding a workable solution. Some of the emergent theories might actually lead to declaring outright that the concept is flawed and unsolvable. On the other hand, having a clear conceptual framework allows these people to pin-point what areas might be causing problems. It allows for effort to be focused and justifies certain fixes. Especially in costly scenarios such as this one, where there might not have been a second launch given the failure of the first.