6 ms·

I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addr

I highly recommend folks watch Particle Fever (for a variety of reasons, and it's on Netflix), but one section particularly stuck out, when the documentary addresses the original LHC location in Texas being de-funded. It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority. I think it's easy to make a very public argument against budgeting research, as the general public doesn't necessarily understand the larger implications of these experiments (at a cursory glance, I rarely see it myself, but I generally give research the benefit of the doubt). Particle Fever addresses this point blank with the discovery of Radio Waves, how nobody really knew what this discovery meant until years/decades later when it became a massive step forward in communication. My dad is a bit old fashioned, and if you told him in a soundbite that congress was spending money on shrimp treadmills, with no other context he'd immediately make his snap judgement that the government is once again wasting his money. Hard thing to overcome, no matter how important the research might end up being.

wozniacki 12y ago
When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech. Where are the think tanks? Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists? ( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] ) We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2] Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests. What is it then? Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one. Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other. [1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobbyists-now-intertwined-but-not-eager-to-reveal-it.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb... [2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-flexes-muscle-in-california-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-... [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...
- djur 12y ago
  Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0". I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.
- jacobolus 12y ago
  > Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] > [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s. I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.
  - wozniacki 12y ago
    It pays to actually explore the links, provided. There are some people who prefer the original's gritty Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.
    - jacobolus 12y ago
      I did read that. I still have no idea what you’re getting at. Could you please “explain it like I’m five”?
scoofy 12y ago
This is actually a very fascinating part of my childhood. I was in middle school in Midlothian, TX during the time the "super collider" was being build in Waxahatchee. I was a kid, i was fascinated about this. The schools took it upon themselves to start teaching physics to 6th graders. The whole town knew it was a big deal. Then one day, it wasn't. I'd moved away, and heard it was turned into place to grow mushrooms. I never understood when i was young, why they wouldn't want to build something so important. To be honest, i still don't really understand why we didn't build it aside from simply "Republicans." I'll check out the film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
- JackFr 12y ago
  The SSC was killed in the 103rd Congress by a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate and a Democratic president. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text The project was originally championed by Republicans (and Democrats from Texas.) "Reagan Calls Super Collider 'Doorway to New World'" March 31, 1988|Associated Press http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-collider http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-c... George Bush: Remarks at the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory in Waxahachie, Texas July 30, 1992 "Now, the super collider. The super collider is one of the greatest scientific projects in the entire world. This place attracts scientific genius the way our U.S. basketball players attract autograph seekers over there in Barcelona. So for me it is an incredible honor to be among you and to hear of your dreams and accomplishments." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280 But I wouldn't want actual facts to cloud your worldview. You want to know why it was cancelled? Try Google.
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    This clashes with my worldview and prejudices, so I refuse to accept any of your facts.
Houshalter 12y ago
Has the LHC ever produced any benefit to humanity? Serious question.
- hellgas00 12y ago
  Yes, humans now have a better understanding on how the fundamental building blocks of the universe work. Has this directly affected your quality of life, no. Do you derive enjoyment from knowing that your fellow man now has a better understanding of the inner workings of every atom that make up the mass around you? I do. Could it possibly benefit you in the future, that is unknown.
- tinco 12y ago
  Not yet, but similar fundamental scientific research has led to the inventions of extremely beneficial technologies like TV, GPS, CAT scans and nuclear energy. All of these technologies based directly on fundamental research came years or decades after the discoveries. Science is often a game of patience.
- themusicgod1 12y ago
  It's probably going to take some time for knowledge of this kind of seep into our day to day lives, but for a lark: It's confirming evidence of the Standard Model. It's kind of like checking for your chair for a thumb tack, when you work in an office of pranksters -- if there isn't a thumb tack, was there any benefit to checking? Maybe, but you probably wouldn't say that if there was. If the standard model fell, there would be implications that we could probably engineer around up to and including utilizing nonlinear aspects of particle interactions to build computers with. But alas, it confirmed the model. Also the standard model has implications on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which in turn have implications on the likelihood that we get clobbered by a random piece of space rock. Of course even if we did know this to a better degree...it's unclear whether that's a benefit or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this comment however that knowing our degree of mortality is a benefit, but ymmv. In general, the more tangible benefits of lhc are probably going to come from stuff related to anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo..., and nanoengineering efforts yet to come.
slacka 12y ago
When the government needs to make cuts, science, education, and technology R&D should be the last to go. Solyndra is another great example of how they demonized a R&D program designed to encourage energy independence. Instead of losing the planned $10 billion, the program has turned a profit for the government. http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-...
brohoolio 12y ago
Particle Fever is damn good. It hit me right in the feels when Peter Higgs is shown crying. That darn machine is so complex.
crazy1van 12y ago
> It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority. If that sentence ended with "for government", then I agree with those members of congress. If that sentence ended with "for humanity", then I disagree. It's time to accept that in the modern internet connected world people can pool their abilities and resources with others anywhere on the planet for common goals all without the government.
murbard2 12y ago
Great documentary, I really enjoyed it. You'll notice that the member of congress mentions that Europe will build it anyway, so why waste US taxpayer money? Europe did indeed build the LHC, and whatever value there is in discovering the origins of the universe is now enjoyed by the entire world. So what exactly was wrong with his argument?

wozniacki 12y ago

When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech. Where are the think tanks? Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists? ( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] ) We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2] Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests. What is it then? Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one. Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other. [1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobbyists-now-intertwined-but-not-eager-to-reveal-it.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb... [2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-flexes-muscle-in-california-race.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-... [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809/Blade-Runner-The-Final-Cut-review.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...

djur 12y ago
Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0". I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.
jacobolus 12y ago
> Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3] > [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s. I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.
- wozniacki 12y ago
  It pays to actually explore the links, provided. There are some people who prefer the original's gritty Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.
  - jacobolus 12y ago
    I did read that. I still have no idea what you’re getting at. Could you please “explain it like I’m five”?

scoofy 12y ago

This is actually a very fascinating part of my childhood. I was in middle school in Midlothian, TX during the time the "super collider" was being build in Waxahatchee. I was a kid, i was fascinated about this. The schools took it upon themselves to start teaching physics to 6th graders. The whole town knew it was a big deal. Then one day, it wasn't. I'd moved away, and heard it was turned into place to grow mushrooms. I never understood when i was young, why they wouldn't want to build something so important. To be honest, i still don't really understand why we didn't build it aside from simply "Republicans." I'll check out the film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

JackFr 12y ago
The SSC was killed in the 103rd Congress by a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate and a Democratic president. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text The project was originally championed by Republicans (and Democrats from Texas.) "Reagan Calls Super Collider 'Doorway to New World'" March 31, 1988|Associated Press http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-collider http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-c... George Bush: Remarks at the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory in Waxahachie, Texas July 30, 1992 "Now, the super collider. The super collider is one of the greatest scientific projects in the entire world. This place attracts scientific genius the way our U.S. basketball players attract autograph seekers over there in Barcelona. So for me it is an incredible honor to be among you and to hear of your dreams and accomplishments." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280 http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280 But I wouldn't want actual facts to cloud your worldview. You want to know why it was cancelled? Try Google.
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  This clashes with my worldview and prejudices, so I refuse to accept any of your facts.

Houshalter 12y ago

Has the LHC ever produced any benefit to humanity? Serious question.

hellgas00 12y ago
Yes, humans now have a better understanding on how the fundamental building blocks of the universe work. Has this directly affected your quality of life, no. Do you derive enjoyment from knowing that your fellow man now has a better understanding of the inner workings of every atom that make up the mass around you? I do. Could it possibly benefit you in the future, that is unknown.
tinco 12y ago
Not yet, but similar fundamental scientific research has led to the inventions of extremely beneficial technologies like TV, GPS, CAT scans and nuclear energy. All of these technologies based directly on fundamental research came years or decades after the discoveries. Science is often a game of patience.
themusicgod1 12y ago
It's probably going to take some time for knowledge of this kind of seep into our day to day lives, but for a lark: It's confirming evidence of the Standard Model. It's kind of like checking for your chair for a thumb tack, when you work in an office of pranksters -- if there isn't a thumb tack, was there any benefit to checking? Maybe, but you probably wouldn't say that if there was. If the standard model fell, there would be implications that we could probably engineer around up to and including utilizing nonlinear aspects of particle interactions to build computers with. But alas, it confirmed the model. Also the standard model has implications on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which in turn have implications on the likelihood that we get clobbered by a random piece of space rock. Of course even if we did know this to a better degree...it's unclear whether that's a benefit or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this comment however that knowing our degree of mortality is a benefit, but ymmv. In general, the more tangible benefits of lhc are probably going to come from stuff related to anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo..., and nanoengineering efforts yet to come.

slacka 12y ago

When the government needs to make cuts, science, education, and technology R&D should be the last to go. Solyndra is another great example of how they demonized a R&D program designed to encourage energy independence. Instead of losing the planned $10 billion, the program has turned a profit for the government. http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-...

brohoolio 12y ago

Particle Fever is damn good. It hit me right in the feels when Peter Higgs is shown crying. That darn machine is so complex.

crazy1van 12y ago

> It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority. If that sentence ended with "for government", then I agree with those members of congress. If that sentence ended with "for humanity", then I disagree. It's time to accept that in the modern internet connected world people can pool their abilities and resources with others anywhere on the planet for common goals all without the government.

murbard2 12y ago

Great documentary, I really enjoyed it. You'll notice that the member of congress mentions that Europe will build it anyway, so why waste US taxpayer money? Europe did indeed build the LHC, and whatever value there is in discovering the origins of the universe is now enjoyed by the entire world. So what exactly was wrong with his argument?