4 ms·

Except that you don't know what the secondary benefits are until you find them so you should keep every avenue open A short story about the discovery of micros

Except that you don't know what the secondary benefits are until you find them so you should keep every avenue open A short story about the discovery of microscopes from https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ Had the rich noble simply invested his money in doctors instead of the person with a hobby of playing with glass, they might have instead discovered more uses for leeches

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
Spending $100B on one big project is very much the opposite of keeping every avenue open.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  And skipping on a big project/infrastructure because it costs a lot is also not keeping every avenue open
  - kelnos 4y ago
    We can't keep every avenue open. Resources are finite. What makes you think that spending $100B on an LHC++ will be more useful to humanity than ten smaller, $10B projects that people might come up with (or probably already have come up with, but currently lack funding)?
yakak 4y ago
Allocating resources worth billions on one avenue is not keeping every avenue open, it is forgoing thousands of avenues that don't force you to decide like this.
- trinovantes 4y ago
  Is it just one avenue? While I'm not a particle physicist, my layman understanding of LHC is that it can be used to test many theories that would otherwise go unsolved. Should we only research things that are cheap to test and eventually mass producible?
  - yakak 4y ago
    > Should we only research things that are cheap to test and eventually mass producible? Of course not we should choose avenues according to what they are likely to achieve being better than alternative allocations. For another LHC that is a huge burden to overcome. What is so great about LHC2 that you want to keep space exploration going at a crawl with commercial companies showing how to do it on a shoestring budget? Maybe the LHC2 will cause a discovery the LHC won't but is that probability of learning something worth sacrificing a huge portion of our resources on? Or is this that we made people gain an expertise and they want to continue with its path even though it's a pretty bad one to continually invest more and more in? Personally, I have mixed feelings about learning fission and I would rather explore space and have functionally independent colonies before we blow ourselves up with a new subatomic discovery.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    There are no theories left that LHC, or any collider we could build, can test. Strings are right out. Nobody has offered any clue as to how to make a prediction that could be tested with possible equipment. That does not mean none ever will, but it does not seem to be their focus. Physics departments like string theorists because they come with no equipment budget.
black_puppydog 4y ago
Well I agree that big projects make sense in many cases, and I don't want to be misunderstood as arguing against basic research. Frankly, given the amounts we spend on things I fundamentally disagree with, I'd even say "sure let them have at it and let's find another 100B somewhere in the military budgets of the world, divert them to more research." But even if you want to focus on "big, milestone" projects like the LHC[++] you can go for other challenges where you know that there's a tangible benefit to be had at the end. Fusion research for example comes to mind. Hugely expensive, interesting, rewarding if successful, track record of secondary inventions. I'm sure there are others. Off the top of my head, carbon capture and storage, better (more sustainable) battery/storage tech, elimination of rare earths in electronics, ... There's no shortage of big, hard problems
- trinovantes 4y ago
  That's definitely a sensible position. However, I believe these goal-oriented research projects have a tendency to fall stuck in local optima. Sometimes breakthroughs may come from just more people working on it and other times they come from discoveries made in unrelated fields. By cutting ourselves off from any expensive moonshot projects without a clear goal like the LHC, some of our hard problems may never be solved and we may never know why.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Right at the moment and for the next two decades, any big money should build out solar and wind generating capacity. Physics will still be there. Physicists can work on catalysts and excitons for a while.
samstave 4y ago
This is always a factor of amazement (pun intended) for me. To quote the writer of the line uttered by the equanimous Jeff GoldBloom. https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif Seriously, this is where 'black budgets' are a thing. There is serious money pumped into the MIC and the secondary effects are far more than tertiary at this point. Dark breakaway. How much is a dollar worth in space. Asking for a Musk of mine.
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Or Judd Hirsch in Independence Day wisecracking about marked up hammers and toilet seats.
kelnos 4y ago
> ... so you should keep every avenue open Each avenue you keep open costs money and takes up people's time. You can't keep every avenue open. You have to decide -- with imperfect information -- which avenues are worth keeping open. And the entire thesis here is that the LHC++ is probably not worth it. You can disagree with that, but if you're going to do so because of possible secondary benefits, you have to take a crack at showing that those secondary benefits -- whatever they may be -- are numerous enough and worth enough to justify the money and time.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

Spending $100B on one big project is very much the opposite of keeping every avenue open.

trinovantes 4y ago
And skipping on a big project/infrastructure because it costs a lot is also not keeping every avenue open
- kelnos 4y ago
  We can't keep every avenue open. Resources are finite. What makes you think that spending $100B on an LHC++ will be more useful to humanity than ten smaller, $10B projects that people might come up with (or probably already have come up with, but currently lack funding)?

yakak 4y ago

Allocating resources worth billions on one avenue is not keeping every avenue open, it is forgoing thousands of avenues that don't force you to decide like this.

trinovantes 4y ago
Is it just one avenue? While I'm not a particle physicist, my layman understanding of LHC is that it can be used to test many theories that would otherwise go unsolved. Should we only research things that are cheap to test and eventually mass producible?
- yakak 4y ago
  > Should we only research things that are cheap to test and eventually mass producible? Of course not we should choose avenues according to what they are likely to achieve being better than alternative allocations. For another LHC that is a huge burden to overcome. What is so great about LHC2 that you want to keep space exploration going at a crawl with commercial companies showing how to do it on a shoestring budget? Maybe the LHC2 will cause a discovery the LHC won't but is that probability of learning something worth sacrificing a huge portion of our resources on? Or is this that we made people gain an expertise and they want to continue with its path even though it's a pretty bad one to continually invest more and more in? Personally, I have mixed feelings about learning fission and I would rather explore space and have functionally independent colonies before we blow ourselves up with a new subatomic discovery.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  There are no theories left that LHC, or any collider we could build, can test. Strings are right out. Nobody has offered any clue as to how to make a prediction that could be tested with possible equipment. That does not mean none ever will, but it does not seem to be their focus. Physics departments like string theorists because they come with no equipment budget.

black_puppydog 4y ago

Well I agree that big projects make sense in many cases, and I don't want to be misunderstood as arguing against basic research. Frankly, given the amounts we spend on things I fundamentally disagree with, I'd even say "sure let them have at it and let's find another 100B somewhere in the military budgets of the world, divert them to more research." But even if you want to focus on "big, milestone" projects like the LHC[++] you can go for other challenges where you know that there's a tangible benefit to be had at the end. Fusion research for example comes to mind. Hugely expensive, interesting, rewarding if successful, track record of secondary inventions. I'm sure there are others. Off the top of my head, carbon capture and storage, better (more sustainable) battery/storage tech, elimination of rare earths in electronics, ... There's no shortage of big, hard problems

trinovantes 4y ago
That's definitely a sensible position. However, I believe these goal-oriented research projects have a tendency to fall stuck in local optima. Sometimes breakthroughs may come from just more people working on it and other times they come from discoveries made in unrelated fields. By cutting ourselves off from any expensive moonshot projects without a clear goal like the LHC, some of our hard problems may never be solved and we may never know why.
ncmncm 4y ago
Right at the moment and for the next two decades, any big money should build out solar and wind generating capacity. Physics will still be there. Physicists can work on catalysts and excitons for a while.

samstave 4y ago

This is always a factor of amazement (pun intended) for me. To quote the writer of the line uttered by the equanimous Jeff GoldBloom. https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif Seriously, this is where 'black budgets' are a thing. There is serious money pumped into the MIC and the secondary effects are far more than tertiary at this point. Dark breakaway. How much is a dollar worth in space. Asking for a Musk of mine.

selimthegrim 4y ago
Or Judd Hirsch in Independence Day wisecracking about marked up hammers and toilet seats.

kelnos 4y ago

> ... so you should keep every avenue open Each avenue you keep open costs money and takes up people's time. You can't keep every avenue open. You have to decide -- with imperfect information -- which avenues are worth keeping open. And the entire thesis here is that the LHC++ is probably not worth it. You can disagree with that, but if you're going to do so because of possible secondary benefits, you have to take a crack at showing that those secondary benefits -- whatever they may be -- are numerous enough and worth enough to justify the money and time.