Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#71

Post by orangecat »

msie wrote: post #69
jamesaguilar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe explored the universe where America did not. What did they get out of it? (Honest question.) Also, supposing the Higg's Boson did exist and this experiment found it, how much benefit would the average European derived? How much less benefit would people from other countries enjoy?

Don't forget the thousands of jobs created and billions injected into the economy. It's not like the money was dumped into a volcano.

If work doesn't produce anything of value (which isn't the case here, just hypothetically), then the "created" jobs are bad for the economy because they divert resources from productive areas. It's another form of the broken window fallacy.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#72

Post by wtallis »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #58
wtallis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only calculated one side of the equation. What would have been the long-term effect if the Manhattan Project experiments had produced negative results and falsified the quantum mechanical models of the time? You can't just ignore that possibility and still have a valid expectation.

I don't really understand. My point is that they had some guesses about the possible uses if the experiments bore out. It's a disproof of the claim that you can't make some kind of predictions about these things. Whether the predictions are always correct is a completely different question that I am not trying to answer.

Often, we do have a fairly good idea what the ramifications will be if an experiment goes a certain way. But we almost never also have a good idea what the ramifications would be if things go the other way. Without knowledge of what the benefit might be if the outcome surprises you, how can you say that the experiment doesn't have enough potential benefit to be worth the time and money?

There's no way to place an easy upper bound on the payoff of the less-expected outcome, so your cost-benefit analysis can't simply ignore the possibilities that you consider unlikely.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#73

Post by nitrogen »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #7
indrax wrote: post #2

>to spend billions of taxpayer dollars in search of a particle that likely does not exist would have been wasteful This is infuriating. A negative result is a successful experiment. Don't hamper efforts to fund science with the argument that science might figure out it was wrong. Europe explored the universe where America did not.

> Europe explored the universe where America did not. What did they get out of it? (Honest question.) Also, supposing the Higg's Boson did exist and this experiment found it, how much benefit would the average European derived? How much less benefit would people from other countries enjoy?

In response to this and your subsequent posts:

First, let's draw an analogy to the territorial expansion of the human race. Engineering is like building cities, while basic research is like exploration and mapping. Before Columbus set sail there was an inkling that he might be able to find something of value, but nobody knew whether it would be gold, spices, etc., and certainly nobody foresaw the creation of an eventual world superpower. Plus, city builders need explorers to identify suitable sites for new cities, and to make sure that an expanding city isn't about to run itself off a cliff (or into some other unforeseen territorial hazard).

Second, imagine that engineering is like exploring a pitch black cave. Basic research is a flashlight we can shine in various directions. Engineers can make incremental steps forward, but without science lighting the way, we won't know whether we're about to run into a wall.

Third, grandiose projects like the LHC or ISS serve as an inspiration to scientists and engineers in all fields. Even if the primary activity of a giant project yields no useful results ("Not finding the Higgs" in the case of the LHC, and "Being in space" in the case of ISS), the supporting research and engineering teams will develop useful technologies to solve related problems (like the grid computing systems others have mentioned).

To sum up, basic research like that done at the LHC is necessary to expand the possible solution space for further scientific research and engineering. The further we push the limits of human understanding, the more branching-off points we create for the minds of applied scientists and engineers. The more different things we have to think about, the more likely we are to think useful thoughts that haven't been thought before. We need the LHC et. al. to be at the forefront of knowledge to provide plenty of well-traversed, fertile ground for applied science and engineering.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#74

Post by wtallis »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #50
noonespecial wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for. You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.

> You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not. I guess this sentiment, which is seen throughout this thread, is my main objection to the whole thing. This is spiritualism, pure and simple. Science, no matter about what, is good, because it's science. We know this because of our history, and we embrace it like a totem. What I wish is that we had a scientific mindset about…

The rational perspective is to look at history and realize that every attempt to predict long-term technological progress has gone laughably wrong. Lacking reason to believe we are now much better predictors, we should simply not allow our research efforts to be directed much by where we think they will lead.

Take the example of Vannevar Bush's memex, one of the most impressive attempts at technological prognostication. If you, during the 1930's and 40's, seriously believed in the potential of his ideas, would you have advocated for research into microfilm, or semiconductors? Or would you have dismissed the memex as science fiction too far out of reach to be used as a reasonable goal, when in reality it was less than half a century away? The man who best saw the value of the invention got all the implementation details wrong.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#75

Post by mturmon »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #36
patrickyeon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a number of replies telling you that a better understanding of physics is what we get out of this. I completely agree, but that argument won't convince everybody. I don't have numbers at hand, but a large amount of the data the detectors spew out is un-necessary, and needs to be sorted quickly (think real-time or very nearly), so that the back end computing resources can actually keep up with storing it. Th…

I thank you for your point about advances made from pure scientific research before. However, I think in many of these cases some applications of the pure research were hypothesized as well, long before the pure research was actually completed. I worry that we are simply picking examples of blue sky research that ended up being practical, and ignoring examples that were not because they are less available. (Which mak…

I'm baffled by your last paragraph ("it might make sense to think about whether it is possible to guess ahead of time what research is likely to have practical benefits and what research is not").

You seem to think that a $10B collider was built just because it was possible, not as part of a deliberative/strategic process, partly influenced by a European/American contest for intellectual leadership in this area?

Surely you know that the worldwide particle physics community has been contemplating the value of this research for about 20 years? (Since the SSC planning stages.) And that European political bodies have deliberated it at length?

I'm not in that community, but my friends who are, are spending a lot of time in Geneva the last couple of years! The value of bringing all that talent in to contribute ideas, and some of them to stay for years, is hard to estimate, but it must be huge. I'm sure Europe is a great place for physics PhDs and postdocs these days.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#76

Post by bluedanieru »

tzs wrote: post #68
linuxhansl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously quibbling about $8bn when we happily spend $3500bn on bank bailouts, or $500bn/year for the military (not including the various wars)?

Budgets tend to be somewhat compartmentalized. If a project in compartment X goes over its budget, that tends to come at the expense of other things in compartment X. $8 billion was a huge amount in the science compartment. It is completely irrelevant that some other compartments might have had much bigger budgets.

It's completely relevant if your point is that we nickel-and-dime essential scientific funding but spare no expense when killing brown people across the globe. You don't have to go to too much effort to understand that's what the grandparent was driving at.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#77

Post by D_Alex »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #59
D_Alex wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, good question. People who make the decisions to spend money on this scale - US$ 9 billion! - must be well qualified to make such decisions, and do so after careful consideration of various alternatives. I think it was the right decision. Of course opportunity cost must be considered - you could have had, instead: 1 new Nimitz class aircraft carrier (without the air wing), OR 4 new B-2 bombers OR 1 extra wee…

> people . . . must be well qualified . . . [so we should trust them]. Surely not an argument from authority. Before we can accept this reasoning, we have to have proof that the people allocating the research funds have interests that well match those of the public, not just the scientific community, and we must also have proof that they have a good track record of applying those interests to ends that match them.

No, not an argument from authority, but an appeal for putting the "right" people in positions of authority. What I meant was "people must be well qualified (and also consider alternatives carefully ) so that we CAN trust them".

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#78

Post by D_Alex »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #55
D_Alex wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously...? Not "all", but in general, "blue sky research" does deliver massive benefits (just look at what is in front of your face right now! It would not be there without quantum physics.). Also, take a look at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/chap_8.pdf , table 8.1, for estimates of rates of return on scientific research.

To be honest, I know very little of the history of LCDs. From what I can read on Wikipedia, the chain of research went something like: - Liquid crystals observed. - Materials science research into the properties of liquid crystals, during which the TN-effect was discovered. - Industry scientists looking for a display technology that did not rely on vacuum tubes use the TN-effect to develop practical liquid crystal di…

I was thinking about the transistor (and hence computers etc), rather than the LCD.

As for the study - yes, such returns are very difficult to measure or even estimate accurately, as the range of estimates suggest. But won't you agree that a) the consensus is that R&D is extremely valuable, and b) this can probably be extrapolated to basic scientific research?

(I feel that I am about to gain a convert to the cause of supporting scientific research... my time here has been well spent).

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#79

Post by peteretep »

linuxhansl wrote: post #54
tzs wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Europe explored the universe where America did not I guess you never heard of a little project called the International Space Station? The SSC was supposed to be a $4 billion project. That's what Congress was told in 1987. By 1993, it was projected as a $12 billion project. Guess where that $8 billion would have come from if the SSC project had continued? From other science projects--and most likely the ISS would h…

Are you seriously quibbling about $8bn when we happily spend $3500bn on bank bailouts, or $500bn/year for the military (not including the various wars)?

Somehow you added two zeros on to your $3,500bn on bank bailouts! In 2009, it looked like the actual cost would be about $350bn, which is a lot, for sure, but literally an order of magnitude less.

According to the treasury department, by 2010, projected cost of TARP was $30-50bn. That's /two/ orders of magnitude out.

You also handily miss out the multiplier effects of military spending, and act like the government is taking the money and shoving it up the ass of a small animal. In fact, the vast majority is given to US industry and to US citizens. I'm sure if you Google'd you'd find the source I'm looking for who described the US Military as the world's largest welfare system.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#80

Post by AltIvan »

Jach wrote: post #57
jerf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the median United States income of $40,000/year, a single billion dollars is 25,000 person-years of work dedicated solely to that billion dollars. Multiply as appropriate. Nine billion-ish in this case, according to Wikipedia. Asking what we (the human race) got for nine billion dollars (225,000 person-years of work, at a generous 50 years in the workforce the life work of 4,500 people) deserves more than glib gen…

Alternatively, $9bn is about 11,250,000 dead children. ( http://www.raikoth.net/deadchild.html )

Yeah, a permanent psychological stress for the hardcore problems of the world is just exactly what everyone needs.

And most likely this is gonna mess with the heads of people who actually want to do something for the sake of the poor people and not with the kind of people who pays £250,000 for a luxury doghouse.

Post reply on HN