3 ms·
If we solve physics we solve everything if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.
by throw457 4y ago
If we solve physics we solve everything if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.
- brazzy 4y ago> If we solve physics we solve everything A particle collider does not, in fact, "solve physics" in any meaningful way, especially not in terms of practical applicability. > if we solve fusion we have solved fusion. The comment you are replying to has explained in some detail why this is not true.
- throw457 4y agoWhy bother doing science at all if it's not practical applicable right? Such a nonsense argument I wonder how you think any scientific progress is made.
- sliken 4y agoResearch is never a sure thing, but ideally we'd push all areas of science equally. How many other areas of science have a $100B tool that may or may not reveal something interesting? Why should high energy physics get priority over any other area? It's the nature of high energy physics that the higher the energy the rarer the event. The standard model already explains our universe unbelievably accurately. Sure there are corner cases, and maybe, just maybe a LHC++ might give some evidence towards one model or another. But what happens if global warming, wars over fuel, lack of fertilizer, and lack of food makes it harder for humanity to survive let alone complete major science projects. Renewable and/or carbon neutral energy in all it's forms seems pretty important these days compared to slightly reinforcing one physical model over another. Maybe a fusion engine would let us explore the solar system enough to find planet 9, which might well be a black hole. That would open up particle energies well in excess of anything we could manage with LHC++.
- brazzy 4y agoThat was a small part of my argument. That you have to concentrate on that in this way shows that you don't really have any arguments yourself.
- waqf 4y agoIf we solve fusion, surely we have a lot of cheap energy (and attendant economic output) to throw at solving physics?
- ncmncm 4y agoNo. It would cost far, far more to extract useful energy from fusion than using well-understood renewables. And, we control plenty of energy. The project is to concentrate it in one spot.
- waqf 4y agoWhat is meant by "solving fusion" if not making fusion an economically viable source of power? And I didn't mean to suggest that available energy was the limitation on building LHC++, but rather that available economic surplus was.
- ncmncm 4y agoIn that case, fusion will never be solved, and any money spent toward that goal is money wasted.