First collisions at Large Hadron Collider...

Perham, to be clear, I think his metaphor is imprecise, but what he said is not without merit. Last year, right before LHC first went active, Fermilab pulled out their stops and attempted their highest energy collisions to date and made 3 huge discoveries... all at energies lower than LHC is capable of. There is plenty there to discover. Even if we find nothing other than what Fermilab did in '08, that in and of itself will be HUGE scientifically.

The reality is there is such a large gap between the science which can be done with the LHC and without it, that it probably justifies the "quantum leap" tag without qualification. I'm just trying to meet you somewhere in the middle.

The fact is, the LHC comes cheap for what it can do. It is a worthwhile enterprise in and of itself, and it will yield advancements in a number of ancillary fields just by the complexity of the requirements that it offers. Doing new and difficult things is what makes us great as a species. I've never heard an argument why great things should not be attempted, even if only to elevate the expectations of the generations which will follow.
 
Many thousands of years ago a quantum leap in the evolution of man occurred when he collided two rocks together and created fire.

I would not be surprised if 50 to 100 years from now the LHC discoveries bring about changes just as dramatic as the sparks from those two flint rocks.
 
This thread represents to me why the US is basically getting its *** kicked by the rest of the world when it comes to science and math..

Since the beginning of time, man has tried to solve the mysteries of the universe and gain knowledge of the the world around him. It's one of our best traits and has led to the advancement of our species in almost everything we do. However, somewhere along the way the thirst for knowledge has been replaced with the thirst to market and sell something, and if there isn't immediate profit to be had, why do it?

Asking why we would want to spend so much money to collide particles and see the results when it might not have any direct material applications is as ridiculous of a question to me as a Priest might find if somebody asked him why he should read the Bible if he can't make any money off of it. We all have our questions about the universe and we go about different ways of finding the answers. It's too bad that so many can't see the importance of science never being satisfied and never stopping in its pursuit of knowledge, no matter what the monetary costs.
 
I guess it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, ultimately. Our country was founded by Christians who were using Roman imagery to define our early identity. These are not exactly two cultures which valued independent thought or academic exercises in general (for Christianity I am speaking of the European church's empirical power structure up to the 17th & 18th century separate from the teachings of Christ). A commitment to science requires that one be able to invest in enterprises whose dividends are not quantifiable in advance, may take decades to reach fruition in the best case and may ultimately lead away from popularly accepted "facts". There have been cultures which hold enterprises like these in high esteem, but for better or for worse these were NOT the cultures we were modeled after.

The big scientific booms in this country were driven by manufacturing innovations in the 1800s and fear during the last century. Strangely, it turns out that the fall of the USSR is probably the biggest blow to science in modern times.
 
Was something there inaccurate... or is it another one of those pesky times where you have a gut reaction but no real information to base it off of?

We are not a culture which puts much intrinsic value on knowledge, or academic pursuits. This is not in dispute by pretty much anyone, hell visit your local high school if you'd like to confirm that fact. I was just widening the context on the subject.

There have been two great "intelligence" booms in this country. One tied to the patent boom (Edison and what not) which was about "getting rich" and one tied directly to the cold war military industrial complex which was about "keeping us safe". Being smart is simply a means to an end in this country, and of little value on its own.
 
The founding fathers quoted the Greeks a lot did they? Go back and read the philosophy those guys were spouting, it was all Rome, Rome, Rome. I'm not saying the Greeks didn't play a role in western culture, I'm saying they were not put center stage as the model for this country.

During the cold war we spent a lot of money supporting physics programs and aeronautics programs (and of course, the fields which supported them). This put the US into the position as the world leader in those fields. That said, as we start to defund those enterprises and skip on major research projects like the Superconducting Super Collider, the field leaders are going to move to where the action is. If the crown jewel of high energy physics is the LHC, then CERN is where the bleeding edge researchers and educators are going to come from. If the best educators are in Geneva, then pretty soon they are going to have the best schools, as well. If we don't attempt to lead, then we can only hope to follow.

I'm not saying we are in the Dark Ages, I'm saying that resting on our laurels here is tantamount to giving them away. The US achieved excellence in these fields by demonstrating a commitment in funding, which we did so solely because these programs could be argued to be part of national security. Once we were the sole super power, those funds began to dry up. As you say, we are the world leader at this moment in high energy physics, and we couldn't even pony up 20% of the costs of the LHC.

I'm not even sure why you are even arguing this point to me, as you've already stated that you don't see much value in projects like LHC. You are my case study of the argument that the US doesn't see intrinsic worth in the enterprise of science. You've are the person I am describing when I say that the US views education as a means to an end.

Look, Perham, you have demonstrated pretty startling ignorance of the issues at play in this thread. You have some very clear opinions which are based almost entirely it seems on your gut reaction. You've offered no arguments whatsoever beyond "you are wrong" and "I don't know that", and even that much you haven't been able to defend. If you can be troubled to form an argument, then why exactly do you participate in the discussion?
 
Some how I think getting into a prolonged conversation with you over just how ignorant you are would not be in either of our interests. I've called you out on specific issues and arguments throughout the thread. If you need a refresher, please go back through and read again.
 
You have chosen wisely.

My arguments, which you apparently don't understand (which would make you the ignorant one) are perhaps not what you think they are.

I doubt that you, or anyone, has the certainty to say that "quantum leaps" (which I interpreted as massive, in amount and degree, upgrades in science) will inevitably result from the LHC. Could it happen? Sure. Will it absolutely, 100% happen? We don't know. To call that an ignorant argument is silly. So silly that it causes me to think that you didn't even understand my argument.

But, let me rehash my points:

There will be some upgrades in science and technology from the LHC. That there will be "quantum leaps" is not a given.

These science upgrades may not be worth the price. Also, it may be more efficient for this process to be funded in other ways, perhaps in the private sector.

Please note that the above statement does not mean that I think the science upgrades are worthless or without merit. I'm saying this tangential funding mechanism may not be the best way to go about making scientific breakthroughs.

So, since I've taken the time to outline my ignorance, what part of that do you find ignorant?
 
I've offered that there are many possible definitions for the term "quantum leap" in this context. Further I have stipulated that the most grandiose definition of the term may not be achieved by the LHC. To be fair, it almost certainly would have been by the SSC, but that is neither here nor there.

In any event, I reject the notion that the LHC must meet your definition of quantum leap to be considered "worth the money". Considering the pittance the US contributed to the project, even the discovery of a single new particle would be worth what we spent. In the light of what came out of the Tevatron in 2008, it is more than reasonable that discoveries on that scale are the minimum expectation for the LHC.

I'm intrigued by your concepts of "efficiency" as well as your interpretation of the contribution of the private sector to high energy physics. There are simply no other ways to crack the nut of fundamental particles without experiments of precisely this type, experiments which the private sector have demonstrated neither the willingness nor the ability to offer. Simply put, there are some projects which are simply beyond the reach of the private sector. It has taken 45 years since the launch of Gemini I for the private sector to show even the slightest interest in manned space flight, and even that is just a tourism venture.

I get your arguments, but either you don't understand the requirements high energy physics in the 21st century, or you are coyly playing at the fact that you don't think that it is a worthwhile pursuit. To this point I've presumed it has been the former, but I'm prepared to go the other way if you will simply state your position plainly.
 
Perhaps I am blinded slightly by the absolute embarrassment of riches yielded from the space program/arms race. That is the crown gem of what big ticket science can give you, it absolutely changed the way that life is lived.

In any event, we finally settled on the heart of the problem, that you simply don't see the value in pursuing high energy physics experimentation. To me these questions eat at the very fundamental nature of what the universe is and how it works. If there was nothing else yielded but insight, then yes, I would think it was money well spent. These are projects which require the participation of millions of people, but benefit humanity. $531m on LHC is chump change we can do that in our sleep.

If you have to distill it something as simple as cost/profit margin, though, I'm still on board. Big engineering projects be they for science or otherwise are good for the world. They force us to rethink efficiencies and bring new products and manufacturing to market. These types of innovations only come from actually engaging in a goal oriented tasks which present problems not yet encountered. You can pure all the money you want into a lab, public or private, and you are not going to reap your rewards on anything like the same scale or turn around time. It is just the truth.

If the goal is to do something grand, projects like the LHC are worth while. If the goal is to put money towards projects which will yield economic advantages, then not only to you want to make the LHC, you want to make it on our home soil with our own contractors. If the goal is identifying the new markets for the next century, well, the cost of letting someone else do that for us is our own self sufficiency.

The old statement is true: you have lead, follow or get out of the way.
 
Enough of the chit chat. I need to know if this gets us closer to a true flux capacitor and should I put money down on a Delorean?
 
I had arranged financing for a group to buy the SSC in waxahachie, a number of groups were in line to buy it in order to convert into a storage facility for bank servers etc. my clients were first in line and then they couldn't come up with the initial deposit to hold the deal for them, cost me around $200K. i believe zachary or someone waltzed in and wrote them a check.

stopping construction on this will be a huge mistake at some point in the future. someday the worlds energy needs will all be supplied by nuclear fusion. its not going to be wind, solar, thermo, hydro etc, those are all bandaids. we had better pray for our grandchildren's sake that we break that code of fusion before we run out of oil shale.

i think we should spend every available dollar on research on fusion research. we know how to split an atom, now we need to learn how to fuse one in a controllable fashion. once we accomplish that, the pending energy crisis ends. affordable energy will be available to anyone on the planet.

i think every energy dollar spent on anything other than:

1) oil exploration
2) oil shale mining refinements
3) natural gas exploration
4) nuclear fission refinements and plants
5) nuclear fusion

is a waste of money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top