4 ms·

In a scientific sense - no. It was predicted, it was found. No theories needed rewriting. Significant would have been if they'd failed to find it.

by dTal 4y ago

fsloth 4y ago
I would claim finding it was equally significant. Theory is not reality but just a model until verified. I know there is a trend in physics where computing is supposed to suffice without actually verifying anything but that is just wrong - I presume this notion is driven by the incentives to focus on publishing more than tedious collaboration.
- geysersam 4y ago
  I agree. But isn't the issue that there is not really anything like Higgs for a new larger collider?
nix23 4y ago
So finding Black-holes is not significant because it was already predicted? And btw there is so much money around...we should not fight against different project but the spending that goes into science itself. LHC and NASA is really just a small drop compared to military spending (in the US). https://twitter.com/WillPVGreen/status/1363179862706503681/photo/1 https://twitter.com/WillPVGreen/status/1363179862706503681/p...
- _heimdall 4y ago
  Why hello again, tragedy of the commons! Modern monetary theory is its own can of worms, but justifying massive spending in one area because of even more massive spending elsewhere isn't solving anything.
  - nix23 4y ago
    But: https://interestingengineering.com/these-7-cern-spinoffs-show-the-project-isnt-just-theoretical https://interestingengineering.com/these-7-cern-spinoffs-sho... And i think the ISS was still much more expensive (especially over the years) then LHC/Atlas etc.
    - worik 4y ago
      Those "practical" results were all due to the spending on technology. None were due to advances in physics, as far as I can tell (that website seems designed to obfuscate not illuminate)
      - nix23 4y ago
        >spending on technology Like the Moon-landing right? None were due to advances in landing on the moon.

In a scientific sense - no. It was predicted, it was found. No theories needed rewriting. Significant would have been if they'd failed to find it.

by dTal 4y ago

In a scientific sense - no. It was predicted, it was found. No theories needed rewriting. Significant would have been if they'd failed to find it.

fsloth 4y ago

I would claim finding it was equally significant. Theory is not reality but just a model until verified. I know there is a trend in physics where computing is supposed to suffice without actually verifying anything but that is just wrong - I presume this notion is driven by the incentives to focus on publishing more than tedious collaboration.

geysersam 4y ago
I agree. But isn't the issue that there is not really anything like Higgs for a new larger collider?

nix23 4y ago

So finding Black-holes is not significant because it was already predicted? And btw there is so much money around...we should not fight against different project but the spending that goes into science itself. LHC and NASA is really just a small drop compared to military spending (in the US). https://twitter.com/WillPVGreen/status/1363179862706503681/photo/1 https://twitter.com/WillPVGreen/status/1363179862706503681/p...

_heimdall 4y ago
Why hello again, tragedy of the commons! Modern monetary theory is its own can of worms, but justifying massive spending in one area because of even more massive spending elsewhere isn't solving anything.
- nix23 4y ago
  But: https://interestingengineering.com/these-7-cern-spinoffs-show-the-project-isnt-just-theoretical https://interestingengineering.com/these-7-cern-spinoffs-sho... And i think the ISS was still much more expensive (especially over the years) then LHC/Atlas etc.
  - worik 4y ago
    Those "practical" results were all due to the spending on technology. None were due to advances in physics, as far as I can tell (that website seems designed to obfuscate not illuminate)
    - nix23 4y ago
      >spending on technology Like the Moon-landing right? None were due to advances in landing on the moon.