7 ms·

Is this even basic science? It sounds more like an engineering problem, albeit a very hard one. I am not a physicist, but I would consider this more like the

by JackFr 13y ago

Is this even basic science? It sounds more like an engineering problem, albeit a very hard one. I am not a physicist, but I would consider this more like the Manhattan project -- the science being done is not of the 'deeper under standing of nature' type, but rather 'how do you make a controllable explosion' type. Given that, the way to evaluate the project is not on grants received, articles published or citations in premier journals, but rather 'Did you make a controlled explosion? If not when will you be able to?' And I think, so far an 'F' is fair.

josh-wrale 13y ago
Science isn't limited to the abstract. There can be much science in application of theory (e.g. Tesla's career). Science requires experiments, no?
fophillips 13y ago
You go tell Feynman the Manhattan project wasn't about science.
- DougMerritt 13y ago
  Good way of putting it so that people can understand. Feynman was a scientist, not an engineer, so that's a clue that the Manhattan project involved science, not just engineering. The same is true of fusion research. That's why it's "research", not merely "development". In particular, the physics of plasma instabilities has always been quite imperfectly understood, and that has been one of the key problems with controlled fusion since the 1950s.
  - willvarfar 13y ago
    I thought his role on the Manhattan project was keeping the IBM calculators going?
    - DougMerritt 13y ago
      That is far from the only thing he did. He was the wunderkind of the project, and he did all kinds of things. See for instance Gleick's Feynman biography, "Genius". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius Another good read about the project is this bio: "The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor" ...which is obviously mostly about Taylor (on the Manhattan Project), but has some Feynman anecdotes. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_of_Binding_Energy http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_of_Bindin...
  - E14n 13y ago
    The Manhattan project was a boy band or had a significant boy band component. It clearly involved a number of amateur male musicians[1][2]. Science is about understanding, engineering is about building something. If the Manhattan project had resulted in no new understanding, but had created a nuclear bomb it would have been a success. The science was incidental to the success of the project. Engineering is built on science so there will often be scientists involved in Engineering projects, however the assumption with an Engineering project is that the science is already understood (or at least significantly understood) and so the main effort is in the design and construction. The problem with Science projects is that they are hard to sell to the public. Thats because its hard for someone who isn't a domain expert to put a value on its significance. This is why a lot of Science projects are dressed up as Engineering projects[1] to sell them to the public. Its pretty clear that the above fusion research is a Science project, i.e about understanding. If this facility is being used to produce new bombs then that is an engineering project but if it is just being used to gain understanding about existing bombs then its science. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Love_of_music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Love_of_music 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
- batmansbelt 13y ago
  Can't tell him anything. He's dead.
- catkin 13y ago
  That's not what was said. OP said it's not about fundamental science, which is somewhat true. Nuclear weapons research isn't fundamental, although it does require some fundamental research.
- JackFr 13y ago
  You mistake my point -- the nature of the work Feynman did at Los Alamos was different than the nature of the work he did at the Institute for Advanced Study. All of the work was science, but at Los Alamos the target was a working bomb, at Princeton it was a deeper and more fundamental understanding of nature, and thus criteria for judging is different. The Manhattan Project can be judged by the simple question, is there a working bomb? Evaluating basic research is much harder.
- mike_esspe 13y ago
  From "Los Alamos from Below" by Feynman: "What was happening, of course, was that all the boys had decided to work on this and to stop their research in science. All science stopped during the war except the little bit that was done at Los Alamos. And that was not much science; it was mostly engineering."
deletes 13y ago
Because the only progress can be made on paper(??) I ask you, how do you know what are they doing at NIF is different, from the for theory important work at LHC?
aqme28 13y ago
It's definitely still a science. For example, there are still basic fluid-mechanics questions we don't fully understand about how plasmas behave. Also there's this journal: http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/ http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/ Disclaimer: I worked in a fusion lab in undergrad.

by JackFr 13y ago

josh-wrale 13y ago

Science isn't limited to the abstract. There can be much science in application of theory (e.g. Tesla's career). Science requires experiments, no?

fophillips 13y ago

You go tell Feynman the Manhattan project wasn't about science.

DougMerritt 13y ago
Good way of putting it so that people can understand. Feynman was a scientist, not an engineer, so that's a clue that the Manhattan project involved science, not just engineering. The same is true of fusion research. That's why it's "research", not merely "development". In particular, the physics of plasma instabilities has always been quite imperfectly understood, and that has been one of the key problems with controlled fusion since the 1950s.
- willvarfar 13y ago
  I thought his role on the Manhattan project was keeping the IBM calculators going?
  - DougMerritt 13y ago
    That is far from the only thing he did. He was the wunderkind of the project, and he did all kinds of things. See for instance Gleick's Feynman biography, "Genius". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/98685.Genius Another good read about the project is this bio: "The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor" ...which is obviously mostly about Taylor (on the Manhattan Project), but has some Feynman anecdotes. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_of_Binding_Energy http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54968.The_Curve_of_Bindin...
- E14n 13y ago
  The Manhattan project was a boy band or had a significant boy band component. It clearly involved a number of amateur male musicians[1][2]. Science is about understanding, engineering is about building something. If the Manhattan project had resulted in no new understanding, but had created a nuclear bomb it would have been a success. The science was incidental to the success of the project. Engineering is built on science so there will often be scientists involved in Engineering projects, however the assumption with an Engineering project is that the science is already understood (or at least significantly understood) and so the main effort is in the design and construction. The problem with Science projects is that they are hard to sell to the public. Thats because its hard for someone who isn't a domain expert to put a value on its significance. This is why a lot of Science projects are dressed up as Engineering projects[1] to sell them to the public. Its pretty clear that the above fusion research is a Science project, i.e about understanding. If this facility is being used to produce new bombs then that is an engineering project but if it is just being used to gain understanding about existing bombs then its science. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Love_of_music http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Love_of_music 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
batmansbelt 13y ago
Can't tell him anything. He's dead.
catkin 13y ago
That's not what was said. OP said it's not about fundamental science, which is somewhat true. Nuclear weapons research isn't fundamental, although it does require some fundamental research.
JackFr 13y ago
You mistake my point -- the nature of the work Feynman did at Los Alamos was different than the nature of the work he did at the Institute for Advanced Study. All of the work was science, but at Los Alamos the target was a working bomb, at Princeton it was a deeper and more fundamental understanding of nature, and thus criteria for judging is different. The Manhattan Project can be judged by the simple question, is there a working bomb? Evaluating basic research is much harder.
mike_esspe 13y ago
From "Los Alamos from Below" by Feynman: "What was happening, of course, was that all the boys had decided to work on this and to stop their research in science. All science stopped during the war except the little bit that was done at Los Alamos. And that was not much science; it was mostly engineering."

deletes 13y ago

Because the only progress can be made on paper(??) I ask you, how do you know what are they doing at NIF is different, from the for theory important work at LHC?

aqme28 13y ago

It's definitely still a science. For example, there are still basic fluid-mechanics questions we don't fully understand about how plasmas behave. Also there's this journal: http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/ http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/fst/ Disclaimer: I worked in a fusion lab in undergrad.