Body & Soul1 min ago
Hadron Collider ?
Can someone explain the purpose of the Hadron Collider and how much it costs the taxpayer ?
FBG40
FBG40
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fbg40. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim, you are always going to struggle with this sort of blinkered view. Khandro wants to focus on photography but of course completely ignores the inconvenient facts that even that is predicated on early research in physics and chemistry. The primary issue here though is that Khandro understands all of this but is struggling with that most dangerous of human traits, being unable to own up to being wrong. That is why he will not reply to this at all.
Tora Tora Tora; Unless it's done in a light-hearted and friendly way, talking of people publicly in the 3rd person is considered to be bad form. That coupled with your avatar and waspish posts, I thought you to be a woman, however I have just looked at you profile and see you are male, - quite surprising!
Jim, //Someone messing around in their shed with £500 to spend is going to have minimal impact on medical research these days.//
Not so sure …. although not ‘medical’ in this instance there’s always a possibility that someone messing around in their shed might just be on to something.
http://
Not so sure …. although not ‘medical’ in this instance there’s always a possibility that someone messing around in their shed might just be on to something.
http://
Well, certainly it's going to be a rarer and rarer event that the amateur scientist is able to contribute, although of course that's not to say they shouldn't try!
There is a separate move towards a sort of "collaborative amateur science", where a bunch of enthusiastic volunteers perform the "menial work", or lend their computers for the same, and so help out in projects that might otherwise take a lot longer or require more finances. So the less formal scientific enthusiasts still have a role to play.
There is a separate move towards a sort of "collaborative amateur science", where a bunch of enthusiastic volunteers perform the "menial work", or lend their computers for the same, and so help out in projects that might otherwise take a lot longer or require more finances. So the less formal scientific enthusiasts still have a role to play.
Jim, you might find this interesting. Some contrasting opinions from science there.
http://
http://
Mmm all you like. I hope that I am fair to the work of others independent of who it is. If the work they end up offering up is dross I'll say so. If I think it's good or deserves some attention I'll say that too. What other scientists do, or don't, I don't really have any control over.
It remains the case that we're talking about a relatively small impact here. The Society of Amateur Scientists numbers 400-odd members, and while it could yet grow into something larger it is unlikely ever to dominate in contributions over the various societies of not-amateur scientists. I'm not trying to belittle their contribution so much as put it into some level of perspective. I can see why it might look like belittlement but I really do not mean it that way and it would be nice if you could acknowledge this rather than just "mmm".
It remains the case that we're talking about a relatively small impact here. The Society of Amateur Scientists numbers 400-odd members, and while it could yet grow into something larger it is unlikely ever to dominate in contributions over the various societies of not-amateur scientists. I'm not trying to belittle their contribution so much as put it into some level of perspective. I can see why it might look like belittlement but I really do not mean it that way and it would be nice if you could acknowledge this rather than just "mmm".
What contradiction? I didn't say "amateur scientists should be ignored as they're a complete waste of space". I said "minimal impact" -- and then in a context that has few counterexamples, although there is a potentially notable example in this guy:
https:/
Interesting that it may yet be that his breakthrough doesn't turn into any use, which would be a shame.
Amateur astronomy remains a field that can provide huge contributions, in part because modern research scientists tend to be interested in different things, such as radio astronomy or microwave astronomy. This leaves a niche that might not be filled without keen amateurs, so it's clearly important what they do there. And again I as offering the crowdsourcing aspect as an example, but not the only one, of a way in which the general public can contribute to science. Indeed some crowdsourcing science projects do not require the participants to have any sort of background in science at all. Merely the willingness to offer their free computing power, or to look at many hundreds of images and categorise them, and so on.
I am, again, not wanting to belittle the efforts of the non-professional scientist. I'm trying to combat what seems to me to be the reverse trend, namely belittling or dismissing the efforts of the professionals in favour of the amateurs.
https:/
Interesting that it may yet be that his breakthrough doesn't turn into any use, which would be a shame.
Amateur astronomy remains a field that can provide huge contributions, in part because modern research scientists tend to be interested in different things, such as radio astronomy or microwave astronomy. This leaves a niche that might not be filled without keen amateurs, so it's clearly important what they do there. And again I as offering the crowdsourcing aspect as an example, but not the only one, of a way in which the general public can contribute to science. Indeed some crowdsourcing science projects do not require the participants to have any sort of background in science at all. Merely the willingness to offer their free computing power, or to look at many hundreds of images and categorise them, and so on.
I am, again, not wanting to belittle the efforts of the non-professional scientist. I'm trying to combat what seems to me to be the reverse trend, namely belittling or dismissing the efforts of the professionals in favour of the amateurs.
@jim360
yes, I was thinking about why Khandro was so keen to push the "lone genius" model of scientific progress but that led to an ugly conclusion. Hopefully you can read my mind without me having to spell it out. ;-)
Simultaneously, though, I am not innocent of having privately perceived the CERN project as something of a gravy train. The level of understanding of physics required to make a decision about whether to sign off the funding proposal would oblige one to be a research physicist, not an accountant, management consultant or civil servant. And therein lies the disconnect.
If you can extract money and - more importantly - tenure from the authorities by "blinding them with science", then you've got it made. You don't even need to be right any more.
"Things we can use, or it ain't real." (c)
yes, I was thinking about why Khandro was so keen to push the "lone genius" model of scientific progress but that led to an ugly conclusion. Hopefully you can read my mind without me having to spell it out. ;-)
Simultaneously, though, I am not innocent of having privately perceived the CERN project as something of a gravy train. The level of understanding of physics required to make a decision about whether to sign off the funding proposal would oblige one to be a research physicist, not an accountant, management consultant or civil servant. And therein lies the disconnect.
If you can extract money and - more importantly - tenure from the authorities by "blinding them with science", then you've got it made. You don't even need to be right any more.
"Things we can use, or it ain't real." (c)
" The level of understanding of physics required to make a decision about whether to sign off the funding proposal would oblige one to be a research physicist, not an accountant, management consultant or civil servant."
Hmm... (my turn to hmm at something...).
This is perhaps a tricky one. I think it is however possible to put the case for the LHC across to a non-research scientist. You can stick to the "it's worth it just for curiosity" argument. You can argue about how finding the Higgs Boson if successful would complete a programme of 50-odd years of physics endeavour, and that many more could also await hot on its tail. I dare say you could also mention the various side-projects, such as in particular the development of new and better superconducting and refrigeration technology, etc. etc.
Part of the case, however, is certainly one that you could argue is a bit of "blinding them with science". One of the points made in the case was a numerical argument that New Physics can be expected at the scale that is probed at the LHC -- but the argument also relies on being able to follow physics, and there is no way that it can be followed without at least some specialist understanding. That number could just as easily have been plucked out of thin air. It wasn't, but how can you tell without doing the calculations yourself?
I would hope, however, that the particle physics community has learned its lesson from the Superconducting Super Collider debacle of the early 1990s. Aimed too high, and the funding was promptly cut (but not after some of the tunnel had been dug). I think the LHC in the end only made it off the ground in part because the hole was already there. There is talk in the community of building an even bigger collider on the same site that would run underneath Lake Geneva, and be able to reach energy scales of order 100 TeV (in other words, about 8-10 times more than the current LHC)... this is probably just being silly. But we can dare to dream.
Hmm... (my turn to hmm at something...).
This is perhaps a tricky one. I think it is however possible to put the case for the LHC across to a non-research scientist. You can stick to the "it's worth it just for curiosity" argument. You can argue about how finding the Higgs Boson if successful would complete a programme of 50-odd years of physics endeavour, and that many more could also await hot on its tail. I dare say you could also mention the various side-projects, such as in particular the development of new and better superconducting and refrigeration technology, etc. etc.
Part of the case, however, is certainly one that you could argue is a bit of "blinding them with science". One of the points made in the case was a numerical argument that New Physics can be expected at the scale that is probed at the LHC -- but the argument also relies on being able to follow physics, and there is no way that it can be followed without at least some specialist understanding. That number could just as easily have been plucked out of thin air. It wasn't, but how can you tell without doing the calculations yourself?
I would hope, however, that the particle physics community has learned its lesson from the Superconducting Super Collider debacle of the early 1990s. Aimed too high, and the funding was promptly cut (but not after some of the tunnel had been dug). I think the LHC in the end only made it off the ground in part because the hole was already there. There is talk in the community of building an even bigger collider on the same site that would run underneath Lake Geneva, and be able to reach energy scales of order 100 TeV (in other words, about 8-10 times more than the current LHC)... this is probably just being silly. But we can dare to dream.
@jim360
"This is perhaps a tricky one. I think it is however possible to put the case for the LHC across to a non-research scientist."
Not just possible: essential.
On the other hand, very senior bureaucrats, with the power to sign off on projects that big will have been recruited on the basis of their seniority of experience in the field. It can be taken as read that they have the required level of understanding.
Getting the layperson onside, as well, would be a communication challenge of epic proportions but, in terms of payback per unit of effort, probably unrewarding.
I look at this this way: the universities keep churning out brilliant minds, by the score. If they are not put to maximum use, I fear for their well-being. Keep pushing the boundaries, by all means but keep the law of diminishing returns in mind. The final 0.01% of physics will probably cost as much to uncover as the previous 99.99%, combined.
It had better be good!
:0)
"This is perhaps a tricky one. I think it is however possible to put the case for the LHC across to a non-research scientist."
Not just possible: essential.
On the other hand, very senior bureaucrats, with the power to sign off on projects that big will have been recruited on the basis of their seniority of experience in the field. It can be taken as read that they have the required level of understanding.
Getting the layperson onside, as well, would be a communication challenge of epic proportions but, in terms of payback per unit of effort, probably unrewarding.
I look at this this way: the universities keep churning out brilliant minds, by the score. If they are not put to maximum use, I fear for their well-being. Keep pushing the boundaries, by all means but keep the law of diminishing returns in mind. The final 0.01% of physics will probably cost as much to uncover as the previous 99.99%, combined.
It had better be good!
:0)
I think the general feeling in the particle physics community, at least, is that the next ten years or so in particular are critical. By now most of the theories in vogue now will have filtered through to the general public. In no particular order, beyond what comes to me first, they include Supersymmetry, (Walking) Technicolour, Extra-dimensional theories, various others such as "little Higgs" models, a few others that have been bouncing around for a while. The overriding theme of pretty much all of these theories is that they are expected to kick in somewhere within the scale that is about to be probed at the LHC. Thus, if they do not turn up -- which is a real possibility -- then we are at a bit of a quandary, and new ideas really will be needed. One or more of them could still be seen, of course.
In fact, that is the justification right there. The entire future of the field that has spent much of the last century or so advancing humanity's understanding of how our world works at the quantum level is either about to hit a brick wall for the first time in quite a while, or (to use another cliched phrase) the floodgates may well be about to open onto discovery after discovery. Both of these possibilities are exciting, although in different ways.
But then the point of diminishing returns is that they are far from diminished yet. Probably not even close -- or at least, hopefully not. There is still a huge amount to explore, and rather more than just 0.01% of physics. Whether we can or not with a feasible amount of money is another matter. Again, whether or not it is worth bothering probably depends on what is turned up at the LHC. If we find something "new", then it's probably justification to go to higher energy scales to, to really understand what is going on. If not, then I think there's a strong case for not just building an even bigger one (able to go to 100TeV, say, or about seven times more powerful than the current one), and instead it might be time to pause and explore a new direction.
In fact, that is the justification right there. The entire future of the field that has spent much of the last century or so advancing humanity's understanding of how our world works at the quantum level is either about to hit a brick wall for the first time in quite a while, or (to use another cliched phrase) the floodgates may well be about to open onto discovery after discovery. Both of these possibilities are exciting, although in different ways.
But then the point of diminishing returns is that they are far from diminished yet. Probably not even close -- or at least, hopefully not. There is still a huge amount to explore, and rather more than just 0.01% of physics. Whether we can or not with a feasible amount of money is another matter. Again, whether or not it is worth bothering probably depends on what is turned up at the LHC. If we find something "new", then it's probably justification to go to higher energy scales to, to really understand what is going on. If not, then I think there's a strong case for not just building an even bigger one (able to go to 100TeV, say, or about seven times more powerful than the current one), and instead it might be time to pause and explore a new direction.
The CERN experiments were funded by the governments around the world that now do so as a way for their populations to be happy they were part of some major breakthrough in our understanding of the way the reality we all exist in came to exist.
An interesting alternative reason for doing so would be the fear that through some other well funded but renegade facility someone we in the West consider an enemy might find in such experiments the means to develop a weapon against which we would be powerless to defend ourselves against.
This research started with the investigation of radioactivity and the later investigation of cosmic rays and anti-matter. Within less than half a decade it led to the development of the atomic bomb. Since then has anything really changed?
An interesting alternative reason for doing so would be the fear that through some other well funded but renegade facility someone we in the West consider an enemy might find in such experiments the means to develop a weapon against which we would be powerless to defend ourselves against.
This research started with the investigation of radioactivity and the later investigation of cosmic rays and anti-matter. Within less than half a decade it led to the development of the atomic bomb. Since then has anything really changed?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News20 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
