5 ms·
Considering the failure of particle physics to make substantive gains, even with the massive expenditures made, I cam think of a number of far more enticing use
by andrewclunn 2y ago
Considering the failure of particle physics to make substantive gains, even with the massive expenditures made, I cam think of a number of far more enticing uses of the funds and lunar real estate.
- Simon_ORourke 2y agoLunar rollercoaster park?
- airstrike 2y agoNow that's a great idea for a video game
- doubled112 2y agoThis umbrella from Information Kiosk 1 is really good value.
- thefounder 2y agoThe tech to build a collider on the moon seems quite enticing to me.
- usrbinbash 2y agoAlright, lets compare expenditures. The LHC cost around 4.75 bn (initial estimate) to construct. Let's be generous and add quite some buffer, to a solid 6bn. The project has been in operation since 2010. Lets assume operational cost of 1bn a year, that brings up the total tally to 20bn. Let's add 10% just to be safe, so 22bn. The US military expenditure is THIRTY-EIGHT-POINT-SIX (38.6) times that number. PER YEAR! Remind me again, what "substantive gains" were had, by pumping 850bn dollars into one countries military per year? Bear in mind that, despite all that, (the US essentially LOST the last larger war they were involved in)[0]. US military being a touchy subject? No problem, how about agriculture? The EU agricultural subsidies (CAP) pump over 60bn into farming each year. As for the results of all that money being spent, (weeell... )[1] What about fossil fuels? Worldwide subsidies in these were (just shy of 130bn dollars )[2] (again, that's PER YEAR), and these things are destroying our habitat as we speak. So please, explain to me how paying less than 25bn, over a 10 year period, to gain the ability to figure out how reality works, is a "massive expenditures", compared to other things society throws money at left right and center. [0]: https://time.com/6090758/why-america-lost-afghanistan/ https://time.com/6090758/why-america-lost-afghanistan/ [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-farm-subsidies-are-misused-new-york-times-reports-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-farm-subsidie... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#Subsidies_by_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#Subsidie...
- Filligree 2y agoThe lack of Russia rolling over all of Eastern Europe is a pretty decent benefit.
- exe34 2y agoso you just need the nukes then?
- macintux 2y agoUnclear. Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO, it’s not even obvious that the nukes would be a factor.
- exe34 2y agoit's okay, the UK and France have enough between us to glass Moscow.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO Isn’t this evidence of nukes being necessary?
- macintux 2y agoIt’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient, which was the original question.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> It’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient Someone else’s nukes being insufficient. The last few years have shown nuclear powers are inviolable, to the point of causing allies of non-nuclear powers being violated by them drawing red lines in the violator’s defence.
- benreesman 2y agoThe supersymmetry parameter energy regime tuning must flow. If the money’s there they’ll happily build one that orbits the Sun. A lot of the most important careers in science are dependent on keeping the game going that squarks might pop out any day now. With that said building colliders does have scope to reveal new physics and a project like this would almost certainly have a bunch of high-value spinoff technology outcomes. It’s plausible we’ll get a very good thing for a fairly bad reason.
- LargeWu 2y agoThe real benefit is probably not in particle physics, but all the advances we'd need in rocketry and materials science to make it happen.