bigger and better

[Resha Caner]

What are people's opinions about continually building bigger and better colliders? Is it:

A) Necessary (If so, why?)
B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity
C) A political statement about technical superiority (like NASA was for the Cold War)
D) A good way to keep physicists employed and out of our hair (Any one ever read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman?)
E) A vain attempt to disprove God (This is, after all, the ChristianForums)
F) A complete waste
G) Something else

 

[AV1611VET]

What are people's opinions about continually building bigger and better colliders? Is it:

A) Necessary (If so, why?)
B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity
C) A political statement about technical superiority (like NASA was for the Cold War)
D) A good way to keep physicists employed and out of our hair (Any one ever read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman?)
E) A vain attempt to disprove God (This is, after all, the ChristianForums)
F) A complete waste
G) Something else

I going to vote - F - but only because you didn't say:

E) An unconscious attempt to disprove God

 

[Resha Caner]

I going to vote - F - but only because you didn't say:

E) An unconscious attempt to disprove God

We could consider making it E1 (vain) & E2 (unconscious). I also considered making "A temple to Science" (or "A monument to Science") one of the options, but decided I shouldn't incite too many vitrolic responses. Also, I've had enough people explaining my own psychology to me that explains why God is just a delusion that I didn't think it fair to throw that back.

I'd rather get some honest discussion on the purpose of building really big colliders.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd rather get some honest discussion on the purpose of building really big colliders.

I don't think you're going to get that, because I don't thing they are being honest with us as to why they have the first one.

Just how big does a collider have to get, before this elusive boson shows up?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity

You say this like you know we aren't going to discover something of indirect or even direct practical use. Have anything to back that up?

 

[Chesterton]

I just tossed the latest issue of Discover magazine, but there was a wonderful quote from someone working at the LHC. He was lamenting the fact that the bigger version wasn't built in Texas 11 years ago as planned. He said something to the effect of "If we'd only gotten this started on a bigger scale 11 years ago, right now we'd be asking more advanced levels of questions."

 

[Ar Cosc]

The stuff they throw up is interesting and cool, but when there are people on our doorstep in poverty, and others further afield starving, the money could be better spent.

 

[Super_Rational]

What are people's opinions about continually building bigger and better colliders? Is it:

A) Necessary (If so, why?)
B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity
C) A political statement about technical superiority (like NASA was for the Cold War)
D) A good way to keep physicists employed and out of our hair (Any one ever read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman?)
E) A vain attempt to disprove God (This is, after all, the ChristianForums)
F) A complete waste
G) Something else

A, B, & C.

A) Just because because you or I don't have a complete grasp of the reasons or applications, doesn't mean others don't. Many billions of dollars (or euros) don't get spent & colliders built just b/c people think it's "cool science." Smashing a bunch of atoms & particles might not sound important now, but it's implications as to understanding matter are huge: explaining why matter does what it does. Remember, concept to realized application in science is a painstaking process, & the purpose of their work is to make the initial discoveries & lay the groundwork. This is often the toughest part. Unfortunately these experiments just can't be done on a benchtop. Billions of dollars is the harsh reality.

B) Satisfying human curiosity is more a nice benefit, in my opinion. It's only part of the LHC's justification.

C) There's so much that goes into building something like the LHC, that it is a huge statement. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not just political, but it sends a message about the economy, support for science & technology, state of industry, etc. Ultimately it says "we're serious about innovation & technology & we just proved it. Send your research/industry/government money here, not the USA or some other place." It's economic investment just as much as it's an investment or endorsement of science. They depend on each other.

E) This is hardly an afterthought for most scientists. Don't flatter yourself. It may be an implication or interpretation of their work, but not why they do it. Why do some religious people think scientists are driven by some need to disprove god? In fact, in all of my college & post-graduate science classes, no professor/scientist has EVER even mentioned god or religion. Quite the opposite of preachers or clergy who love to speak against scientists.

 

[laconicstudent]

What are people's opinions about continually building bigger and better colliders? Is it:

A) Necessary (If so, why?)
B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity
C) A political statement about technical superiority (like NASA was for the Cold War)
D) A good way to keep physicists employed and out of our hair (Any one ever read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman?)
E) A vain attempt to disprove God (This is, after all, the ChristianForums)
F) A complete waste
G) Something else

A.) Expanding human knowledge is always a necessity.

B.) Sure is better than using our money to invent new and better ways of killing each other.

C.) Not really.

D.) Obviously super-colliders keep physicists employed, yes.

E & F.) ROFL no.

 

[Nabobalis]

What are people's opinions about continually building bigger and better colliders? Is it:

A) Necessary (If so, why?)
B) Worth the cost of satisfying human curiosity
C) A political statement about technical superiority (like NASA was for the Cold War)
D) A good way to keep physicists employed and out of our hair (Any one ever read Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman?)
E) A vain attempt to disprove God (This is, after all, the ChristianForums)
F) A complete waste
G) Something else

A) It most likely will be necessary if either the LHC do not discover anything new or if it does, that the results will need to be made more accurate which the proposed replacement to the LHC will hopefully achieve.

B) Always worth satisfying human curiosity, sometimes the most wonderful things can come out of satisfying human curiosity and it should be encouraged.

C) I wouldn't say that really but LHC was built with western technology but I can see China building their own but I can't see a space race type scenario happening.

D) I haven't read the book, so you might want to clarify that.

E) No scientists care about that. No one sets out to do that and no one will waste their time on it either.

F) The complete waste here would be giving up on trying to understand the universe in which we live.

 

[Nabobalis]

I don't think you're going to get that, because I don't thing they are being honest with us as to why they have the first one.

Just how big does a collider have to get, before this elusive boson shows up?

Hopefully the LHC will see some. You know colliders are not that big? It is just the LHC which is big because it used the space that the LEP occupied previously.

 

[Resha Caner]

You say this like you know we aren't going to discover something of indirect or even direct practical use. Have anything to back that up?

If there is an intent behind this that is practical, I haven't heard it. But I didn't mean to imply it couldn't happen. I could quote some things that came out of the space race that are practical, but weren't the intent of the program. So, it's possible. But if the focus is practical, at what point does the return on the investment render bigger colliders impractical?

And, to answer several of the people who commented on option A), why is it necessary to have a deeper understanding of matter - to gain more knowledge? In researching my paper on engineers & mathematicians, it was interesting to peruse the debate about whether QM has ever produced anything of value. Some historians have suggested that an educated populace isn't really that important - that all that is needed is a smart, benevolent guy at the top, good access to resources, and a happy labor force. I'm not saying that's my opinion ... unless I get to be the guy at the top.

 

[Resha Caner]

I just tossed the latest issue of Discover magazine, but there was a wonderful quote from someone working at the LHC. He was lamenting the fact that the bigger version wasn't built in Texas 11 years ago as planned. He said something to the effect of "If we'd only gotten this started on a bigger scale 11 years ago, right now we'd be asking more advanced levels of questions."

That is my expectation. That whatever comes from the LHC, what we'll have most of is more questions. I suspect an infinite regress.

 

[Resha Caner]

The stuff they throw up is interesting and cool, but when there are people on our doorstep in poverty, and others further afield starving, the money could be better spent.

If they would just get PhD's in physics they'd have a job.

 

[laconicstudent]

If there is an intent behind this that is practical, I haven't heard it. But I didn't mean to imply it couldn't happen. I could quote some things that came out of the space race that are practical, but weren't the intent of the program. So, it's possible. But if the focus is practical, at what point does the return on the investment render bigger colliders impractical?

Basic research is its own justification. We don't have to have a practical application in mind to be motivated to learn.

 

[Nabobalis]

If there is an intent behind this that is practical, I haven't heard it. But I didn't mean to imply it couldn't happen. I could quote some things that came out of the space race that are practical, but weren't the intent of the program. So, it's possible. But if the focus is practical, at what point does the return on the investment render bigger colliders impractical?

And, to answer several of the people who commented on option A), why is it necessary to have a deeper understanding of matter - to gain more knowledge? In researching my paper on engineers & mathematicians, it was interesting to peruse the debate about whether QM has ever produced anything of value. Some historians have suggested that an educated populace isn't really that important - that all that is needed is a smart, benevolent guy at the top, good access to resources, and a happy labor force. I'm not saying that's my opinion ... unless I get to be the guy at the top.

I recall there being practical applications, they like to show them off when you go to CERN but I can' remember what they are.

On the issue of QM, it has successfully explained how things work on a elementary scale, it addresses several issues that classical physics had. It is being used to make quantum computers, encrypting communications, used to understand the effects of shrinking silicon chips down to smaller and smaller scales etc

It has been highly successful just like relativity.

 

[Resha Caner]

D) I haven't read the book, so you might want to clarify that.

It's a hoot. Feynman makes fun of his fellow physicists. At one point he talks about how people don't really know what to do with physicists. They would ask him all kinds of questions that would be better answered by an engineer. He makes a quip that engineers are probably more useful than physicists, but that we have to keep people with that type of brain occupied somehow, or they might do society some serious damage.

 

[Nabobalis]

Basic research is its own justification. We don't have to have a practical application in mind to be motivated to learn.

Plus basic research can lead to a practical application later in life that is not realised at the time.

You need to walk before you can run.

 

[Resha Caner]

Basic research is its own justification. We don't have to have a practical application in mind to be motivated to learn.

That attitude is the product of a wealthy society. There might be a few people of lesser means who would disagree with how much is being spent on trying to learn whatever it is we're going to learn.

So, have you ever read "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy? His whole essay is devoted to what you just said.

 

[laconicstudent]

That attitude is the product of a wealthy society. There might be a few people of lesser means who would disagree with how much is being spent on trying to learn whatever it is we're going to learn.

Thankfully those people don't determine policy.

So, have you ever read "A Mathematician's Apology" by G.H. Hardy? His whole essay is devoted to what you just said.

Nope, I haven't.