4 ms·

Does this sort of thing give us tangible benefits? Is it worth the investment? I get things like materials science, supercomputers, AI research, etc. But these

Does this sort of thing give us tangible benefits? Is it worth the investment? I get things like materials science, supercomputers, AI research, etc. But these colliders are so expensive, all for the sake of discovering a tiny subatomic particle that we have no way of using, AFAIK. But I know nothing, am I wrong here?

VaxWithSex 4y ago
Hossenfelder's critique is valid.
serf 4y ago
the collider itself lends itself to few directly tangible benefits, however the construction of the collider and analysis of the data is one of the largest innovation engines in the science world. a prolific amount of software, engineering, and material science has come from CERN, as well spinning off numerous high-tech startups.
Avamander 4y ago
Likely yes, a bunch of tech from the previous iteration has yielded very good returns. If we do find new particles we probably can't use them right away, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't later on. A lot of science has been like that.
tiborsaas 4y ago
We can't directly use the particles that are being discovered, but we can use the theories that they can confirm to be correct. By confirming a theory you can use the entire framework to come up with useful ideas. This is what happened to General relativity. If people only asked "ok, that star is a little bit off, but will that lead us to faster horses?" would look funny in hindsight.
IanCal 4y ago
> But these colliders are so expensive The LHC has been in operation for about 12-14 years, and has been a "thing" from planning onwards for almost 40. It's cost $9B, split between a huge list of countries. Estimates of waste in the US medical system range from around $500B-$2T annualy. The lower end of that scale would support starting a new, fully funded, project of a similar scale for every state in the US every single year. At a multi-national, multi-decade scale I just don't think it's actually that much money. > all for the sake of discovering a tiny subatomic particle that we have no way of using There are few ways I'd look at this. One is that fundamental science can bleed into regular use over time, look at lasers. IIRC they had no clear use when invented, but are now absolutely key to so much. While the LHC had a headline goal (at least publicly) it's not just discovering one thing, it's a large tool to test fundamental physics. Another is that this money and work doesn't go nowhere. People are paid to work on big complex problems, building and designing magnets, detectors, computing systems, software for analysis, etc. A lot of that is not going to be entirely custom, and at the very least supports companies & the supply chain for newer advanced technology. NASA I think occasionally puts out some lists of things that derived from their work. Beyond that, I think there's value in getting a lot of people in a lot of countries to work together on a broadly non-political goal.

VaxWithSex 4y ago

Hossenfelder's critique is valid.

serf 4y ago

the collider itself lends itself to few directly tangible benefits, however the construction of the collider and analysis of the data is one of the largest innovation engines in the science world. a prolific amount of software, engineering, and material science has come from CERN, as well spinning off numerous high-tech startups.

Avamander 4y ago

Likely yes, a bunch of tech from the previous iteration has yielded very good returns. If we do find new particles we probably can't use them right away, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't later on. A lot of science has been like that.

tiborsaas 4y ago

We can't directly use the particles that are being discovered, but we can use the theories that they can confirm to be correct. By confirming a theory you can use the entire framework to come up with useful ideas. This is what happened to General relativity. If people only asked "ok, that star is a little bit off, but will that lead us to faster horses?" would look funny in hindsight.

IanCal 4y ago

> But these colliders are so expensive The LHC has been in operation for about 12-14 years, and has been a "thing" from planning onwards for almost 40. It's cost $9B, split between a huge list of countries. Estimates of waste in the US medical system range from around $500B-$2T annualy. The lower end of that scale would support starting a new, fully funded, project of a similar scale for every state in the US every single year. At a multi-national, multi-decade scale I just don't think it's actually that much money. > all for the sake of discovering a tiny subatomic particle that we have no way of using There are few ways I'd look at this. One is that fundamental science can bleed into regular use over time, look at lasers. IIRC they had no clear use when invented, but are now absolutely key to so much. While the LHC had a headline goal (at least publicly) it's not just discovering one thing, it's a large tool to test fundamental physics. Another is that this money and work doesn't go nowhere. People are paid to work on big complex problems, building and designing magnets, detectors, computing systems, software for analysis, etc. A lot of that is not going to be entirely custom, and at the very least supports companies & the supply chain for newer advanced technology. NASA I think occasionally puts out some lists of things that derived from their work. Beyond that, I think there's value in getting a lot of people in a lot of countries to work together on a broadly non-political goal.