4 ms·

“It is a remarkable property of nature that when sufficient energy is crammed into a sufficiently small space, particles that were not previously present can so

by cwillu 2y ago

“It is a remarkable property of nature that when sufficient energy is crammed into a sufficiently small space, particles that were not previously present can sometimes be created out of that energy. This is, in fact, why we do high-energy particle collisions. The extremely-compressed-energy technique is the only one we know that can allow us to create heavy or exceedingly rare particles that humans have never previously observed. We have no other way to make Higgs particles, for instance.” https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/particle-physics-why-do-it-and-why-do-it-that-way/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-ph...

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> when sufficient energy is crammed into a sufficiently small space, particles that were not previously present can sometimes be created out of that energy Huh, could say the same about particle physicists and multibillion-dollar collider proposals. Don't get me wrong. I think we underspend by an order of magnitude on basic research. But the $17bn the Future Circular Collider is proposed to cost [1] (which comes to $30bn if we assume similar overages to the LHC [2]) could be spent better. That's like, six Europa missions [3]? Three James Webb telescopes [4]? Like fifty gravity wave detectors [5]? Thirty years of Moderna's R&D budget [6]? [1] https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-colli... [2] https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-much-money-did-cerns-large-hadron-collider-cost-to-build-and-who-paid-for-it-n/ https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-much-money-did-cerns-large... [3] https://www.space.com/europa-clipper-mission-explained https://www.space.com/europa-clipper-mission-explained [4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/james-webb-space-telescope-cost-nasa-billions-pictures-are-rcna38813 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/james-webb-space-teles... [5] https://www.wired.com/2015/09/long-search-elusive-ripples-spacetime/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/long-search-elusive-ripples-sp... [6] https://www.biospace.com/business/moderna-slashes-r-d-budget-by-1-1b-eyes-10-approvals-through-2027 https://www.biospace.com/business/moderna-slashes-r-d-budget...
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  $17bn is 2% of the US government annual defense budget, and that money will build a facility that operates for far longer than a year. It's 0.8% of the cost of the F-35 program (or 3.8% of the program's procurement cost). $17bn is a big number for individuals, but it's a fairly small number for governments. The truth is that there's no shortage of money, there's just a shortage of motivation to put it towards forward-looking endeavors. The idea that there's a fixed-sized pie for science and every project takes away from something else is, frankly, defeatist. As a society we don't value investment in science and medicine like we should, and so lawmakers don't fear that putting too little money towards science will lose them an election.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > $17bn is 2% of the US government annual defense budget These are not fungible. Basic research, within the basic research budget, is. It's much easier to argue for $17bn being deliberated for the FCC (that's not going to happen, let's be real about European politics) to be re-allocated to the sciences than it is to shift Panzer production. (As a rule of thumb, arguing for an expense relative to a military budget--the o.g. of state expenses--is a weak argument. And especially in Europe, where the American military is no longer a theoretical backstop, it's politically tonedeaf.) > there's no shortage of money There is always a shortage of money. Because human desires are infinite and our resources are not. > lawmakers don't fear that putting too little money towards science will lose them an election Do you really think the solution to flagging public support for the sciences is more synchrotrons? Where best case we discover a new particle, but probably not? Science isn't a faith. There is value in exploring things we don't know. But that doesn't give every exploration mission infinite inherent value.
    - atq2119 2y ago
      > There is always a shortage of money. Because human desires are infinite and our resources are not. There is never a shortage of money at the level of overall society and governments because money is a purely social construct and we can always make more of it. There may be a shortage of real resource, workers, skills, etc. It's important to understand that money is merely a proxy for those real things, and if that proxy goes out of whack, seriously bad things happen and cause real suffering for people. Most folks' thoughts and worries are quick to jump to (high / hyper) inflation, which is the bad thing that happens when there is too much money. Having too little money to go around in society is more insidious because the suffering it causes is just as real, but it's less flashy and often misunderstood -- quite often in fact it leads to people blaming the victims! Just think what happened to ordinary folks in the aftermath of the great financial crisis.

by cwillu 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> when sufficient energy is crammed into a sufficiently small space, particles that were not previously present can sometimes be created out of that energy Huh, could say the same about particle physicists and multibillion-dollar collider proposals. Don't get me wrong. I think we underspend by an order of magnitude on basic research. But the $17bn the Future Circular Collider is proposed to cost [1] (which comes to $30bn if we assume similar overages to the LHC [2]) could be spent better. That's like, six Europa missions [3]? Three James Webb telescopes [4]? Like fifty gravity wave detectors [5]? Thirty years of Moderna's R&D budget [6]? [1] https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-colli... [2] https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-much-money-did-cerns-large-hadron-collider-cost-to-build-and-who-paid-for-it-n/ https://en.as.com/latest_news/how-much-money-did-cerns-large... [3] https://www.space.com/europa-clipper-mission-explained https://www.space.com/europa-clipper-mission-explained [4] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/james-webb-space-telescope-cost-nasa-billions-pictures-are-rcna38813 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/james-webb-space-teles... [5] https://www.wired.com/2015/09/long-search-elusive-ripples-spacetime/ https://www.wired.com/2015/09/long-search-elusive-ripples-sp... [6] https://www.biospace.com/business/moderna-slashes-r-d-budget-by-1-1b-eyes-10-approvals-through-2027 https://www.biospace.com/business/moderna-slashes-r-d-budget...

bastawhiz 2y ago
$17bn is 2% of the US government annual defense budget, and that money will build a facility that operates for far longer than a year. It's 0.8% of the cost of the F-35 program (or 3.8% of the program's procurement cost). $17bn is a big number for individuals, but it's a fairly small number for governments. The truth is that there's no shortage of money, there's just a shortage of motivation to put it towards forward-looking endeavors. The idea that there's a fixed-sized pie for science and every project takes away from something else is, frankly, defeatist. As a society we don't value investment in science and medicine like we should, and so lawmakers don't fear that putting too little money towards science will lose them an election.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > $17bn is 2% of the US government annual defense budget These are not fungible. Basic research, within the basic research budget, is. It's much easier to argue for $17bn being deliberated for the FCC (that's not going to happen, let's be real about European politics) to be re-allocated to the sciences than it is to shift Panzer production. (As a rule of thumb, arguing for an expense relative to a military budget--the o.g. of state expenses--is a weak argument. And especially in Europe, where the American military is no longer a theoretical backstop, it's politically tonedeaf.) > there's no shortage of money There is always a shortage of money. Because human desires are infinite and our resources are not. > lawmakers don't fear that putting too little money towards science will lose them an election Do you really think the solution to flagging public support for the sciences is more synchrotrons? Where best case we discover a new particle, but probably not? Science isn't a faith. There is value in exploring things we don't know. But that doesn't give every exploration mission infinite inherent value.
  - atq2119 2y ago
    > There is always a shortage of money. Because human desires are infinite and our resources are not. There is never a shortage of money at the level of overall society and governments because money is a purely social construct and we can always make more of it. There may be a shortage of real resource, workers, skills, etc. It's important to understand that money is merely a proxy for those real things, and if that proxy goes out of whack, seriously bad things happen and cause real suffering for people. Most folks' thoughts and worries are quick to jump to (high / hyper) inflation, which is the bad thing that happens when there is too much money. Having too little money to go around in society is more insidious because the suffering it causes is just as real, but it's less flashy and often misunderstood -- quite often in fact it leads to people blaming the victims! Just think what happened to ordinary folks in the aftermath of the great financial crisis.