4 ms·

What have been the useful benefits of this research? I don't see any obvious examples--does it help things like smaller fabrication for chips? EDIT: Folks, I

What have been the useful benefits of this research? I don't see any obvious examples--does it help things like smaller fabrication for chips? EDIT: Folks, I'm not being a jerk here. For example, a lot of the engineering that went into missles and the space program (integrated circuits, GPS, etc.) has application elsewhere. Fundamental science research into materials and electromagnetics has given us wifi, radio, and television. Research into x-rays and radioactivity gave us medical x-rays and radiotagging of isotopes for understanding reactions. High-energy physics research seems to have no immediate or even long-term application beyond satisfying "How does this stuff hold together?"--my question about chip fabrication was specifically in regards to the idea that things like advanced lithography techniques probably are advanced by this research. The parent made this claim: High energy physics is one of the leading fields that drives scientific progress forward. I am simply asking this assertion to be justified and elaborated upon for those of us unfamiliar with those impacts.

Crito 13y ago
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-particle-physics-.html http://phys.org/news/2012-07-particle-physics-.html Edit: Or to be more direct, and therefore less helpful, "scientific progress" is not a measure of "things that are useful to me". Scientific progress can, and historically is, made when we expand our knowledge of the world, not exclusively when we find practical applications of that knowledge.
- angersock 13y ago
  So, no, it does not "drive science forward"--it may, one day, lead to more interesting questions. There's nothing wrong with that, but acting like it is generating ROI today--or has in the past--is disingenuous. Without validating your assertions or disclaiming them properly you are perpetuating the sort of nastiness science is supposed to fix. EDIT: Your addition about "drive science forward" as opposed to "drive engineering forward" is a subtlety that is worth repeating.
  - rosser 13y ago
    So, no, it does not "drive science forward"--it may, one day, lead to more interesting questions. Leading to more interesting questions is, in fact, a significant part of "driv[ing] science forward".
  - girvo 13y ago
    With all respect, I got the opposite reading on this than you did. Scientific progress is just that, progress in the scientific world. That says nothing about practical applications per se, merely the increase of the worlds body of knowledge.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
The question is: what WILL be the useful benefits of this research in the future. And we don't know that. That's the nature of blue sky research. But let's look back at the 19th and 20th centuries to see what value fundamental physics research has had. At the time research into electromagnetism was quite esoteric with little practical use. Yet, of course, it turned out to be hugely advantageous in many ways. Electric motors. Electric lighting and heating. Electric appliances in the home. Radio. RADAR. Television. Telephones. Etc. Electromagnetism defined the industrial advances of the 20th century and easily was responsible for literally quadrillions of dollars in economic value. Later, advances in computational theory and especially quantum mechanics and condensed matter physics enabled the electronics and computational / digital communications revolutions which gave rise to the modern internet, smartphones, personal computers, and even high-efficiency/low-emission automobiles (through micro-computer based engine control). Those technologies have been responsible for easily tens of trillions of dollars of economic value (if not hundreds or more) and are utterly dependent on advancements in basic science which at the time had very little practical use. The laser, for example, was originally lampooned as a solution looking for a problem, though of course eventually it became an important component in the backbone of modern industry and commerce. At the time absolutely none of these benefits of this research were obvious. And in many cases it took many decades up to a century or more for the benefits to be realized. But just look at the enormous RoI generated. Imagine someone in the early 20th century systematically campaigning against high-energy physics research because it had no immediate practical application. Imagine how many trillions upon trillions of modern economic activity would simply not exist today because of that short-sightedness. I could enumerate all of the practical benefits of high-energy physics research over the last, say, 2 decades but that plays into the wrong game and misses the point. Ultimately we don't know what we are missing out on by not pursuing certain categories of knowledge. And occasionally pursuit of blue sky knowledge produces not just enormous levels of RoI but absolutely civilization defining levels of return. Thus we should pursue such research with a healthy level of investment regardless of the perceived short-term applications, because the benefits of hitting the jackpot are too great to sanely do anything else. It's possible that knowledge of the higgs-field will have no practical, economic impact on human civilizations, ever. But it's also possible that it could lead to quadrillions of dollars in economic value over the next several centuries, the only way we'll find out is if we acquire that knowledge.
ekm2 13y ago
>High-energy physics research seems to have no immediate or even long-term application beyond satisfying "How does this stuff hold together?" Of what practical use is a newborn baby? -Benjamin Franklin
- angersock 13y ago
  Unskilled labor can, for free, produce a baby. Accelerators are expensive.

Crito 13y ago

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-particle-physics-.html http://phys.org/news/2012-07-particle-physics-.html Edit: Or to be more direct, and therefore less helpful, "scientific progress" is not a measure of "things that are useful to me". Scientific progress can, and historically is, made when we expand our knowledge of the world, not exclusively when we find practical applications of that knowledge.

angersock 13y ago
So, no, it does not "drive science forward"--it may, one day, lead to more interesting questions. There's nothing wrong with that, but acting like it is generating ROI today--or has in the past--is disingenuous. Without validating your assertions or disclaiming them properly you are perpetuating the sort of nastiness science is supposed to fix. EDIT: Your addition about "drive science forward" as opposed to "drive engineering forward" is a subtlety that is worth repeating.
- rosser 13y ago
  So, no, it does not "drive science forward"--it may, one day, lead to more interesting questions. Leading to more interesting questions is, in fact, a significant part of "driv[ing] science forward".
- girvo 13y ago
  With all respect, I got the opposite reading on this than you did. Scientific progress is just that, progress in the scientific world. That says nothing about practical applications per se, merely the increase of the worlds body of knowledge.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

The question is: what WILL be the useful benefits of this research in the future. And we don't know that. That's the nature of blue sky research. But let's look back at the 19th and 20th centuries to see what value fundamental physics research has had. At the time research into electromagnetism was quite esoteric with little practical use. Yet, of course, it turned out to be hugely advantageous in many ways. Electric motors. Electric lighting and heating. Electric appliances in the home. Radio. RADAR. Television. Telephones. Etc. Electromagnetism defined the industrial advances of the 20th century and easily was responsible for literally quadrillions of dollars in economic value. Later, advances in computational theory and especially quantum mechanics and condensed matter physics enabled the electronics and computational / digital communications revolutions which gave rise to the modern internet, smartphones, personal computers, and even high-efficiency/low-emission automobiles (through micro-computer based engine control). Those technologies have been responsible for easily tens of trillions of dollars of economic value (if not hundreds or more) and are utterly dependent on advancements in basic science which at the time had very little practical use. The laser, for example, was originally lampooned as a solution looking for a problem, though of course eventually it became an important component in the backbone of modern industry and commerce. At the time absolutely none of these benefits of this research were obvious. And in many cases it took many decades up to a century or more for the benefits to be realized. But just look at the enormous RoI generated. Imagine someone in the early 20th century systematically campaigning against high-energy physics research because it had no immediate practical application. Imagine how many trillions upon trillions of modern economic activity would simply not exist today because of that short-sightedness. I could enumerate all of the practical benefits of high-energy physics research over the last, say, 2 decades but that plays into the wrong game and misses the point. Ultimately we don't know what we are missing out on by not pursuing certain categories of knowledge. And occasionally pursuit of blue sky knowledge produces not just enormous levels of RoI but absolutely civilization defining levels of return. Thus we should pursue such research with a healthy level of investment regardless of the perceived short-term applications, because the benefits of hitting the jackpot are too great to sanely do anything else. It's possible that knowledge of the higgs-field will have no practical, economic impact on human civilizations, ever. But it's also possible that it could lead to quadrillions of dollars in economic value over the next several centuries, the only way we'll find out is if we acquire that knowledge.

ekm2 13y ago

>High-energy physics research seems to have no immediate or even long-term application beyond satisfying "How does this stuff hold together?" Of what practical use is a newborn baby? -Benjamin Franklin

angersock 13y ago
Unskilled labor can, for free, produce a baby. Accelerators are expensive.