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

Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 467 posts

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#131

Post by brazzy »

throw457 wrote: post #90
brazzy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we solve physics we solve everything A particle collider does not, in fact, "solve physics" in any meaningful way, especially not in terms of practical applicability. > if we solve fusion we have solved fusion. The comment you are replying to has explained in some detail why this is not true.

Why bother doing science at all if it's not practical applicable right? Such a nonsense argument I wonder how you think any scientific progress is made.

That was a small part of my argument. That you have to concentrate on that in this way shows that you don't really have any arguments yourself.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#132

Post by narrator »

datadata wrote: post #62

This article brings to mind the plot point [SPOILER ALERT] in "The Three-Body Problem" where the antagonistic and technologically superior aliens halt the progress of our entire civilization merely with nanotechnology that impedes science at our particle accelerators, thus preventing breakthroughs in physics.

That, or it's worth spending $100 billion on meaningless make work for smart people so we don't invent what comes after nuclear weapons.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#133

Post by musha68k »

krageon wrote: post #117
cm2187 wrote: post #115

I am all for spending money on scientific research but to justify large investments, it needs to yield something useful in practice. Otherwise it’s a form of philosophy, minus the societal impact. XX century science has delivered plenty of practical applications. But is there any practical application to expect from another large Hadron collider? Wouldn’t that money be better used in bio science or something else?

> to justify large investment it needs to yield something useful in practice The really important scientific work doesn't follow this rule and demanding it does is short-sighted. Perhaps worse, it's refusing to learn from plenty of historical examples where you can see the work yielded nothing of immediate use but was still very important (that is to say, society would look vastly different without it). In a sense, i…

Exactly. “Agile”, efficiency-over-everything, etc won’t save this planet.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#134

Post by inglor_cz »

xcambar wrote: post #55
moonchrome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. More realistically : we can only build one car in the entire world, where a tiny minority of people can even understand the potential benefit, and anything they see will be completely useless for everyone else in day to day life because we need a civilisation level effort to even detect the implications of their theory. If their theory had some real world implications - you would…

With this logic, I assume you'd call the ISS a useless project.

Not the OP, but this is a good example.

ISS wasn't useless, but its successor should be much cheaper. We absolutely need to find ways how to do space research more efficiently, otherwise it will stay a luxury of the richest nations.

Fortunately, at the very least, launch costs to orbit are dropping and we may hope for further drops in the future - if Starship works as intended.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#135

Post by musha68k »

brazzy wrote: post #77
DeathArrow wrote: post #16

Science costs. Big science costs more. So let's not do big sciences, let's do some small science. :D

No, the idea is to do lots and lots of small science instead of one big one, because we'll probably learn more from that.

It’s not a zero sum game though. Europe could pay for all of these projects. That would be even better, don’t you agree?

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#136

Post by sliken »

simion314 wrote: post #109
sliken wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion does remind me of the space program. Surprising new solutions in a wide range of sciences. Easy to produce superconducting ribbons being one of the big successes so far. Said ribbons have lead to significant improvements in electro magnets, improving both field strength and decreasing the magnet sizes. Said magnets are useful for a wide variety of applications (outside of fusion), like improved MRI machines. T…

Didn't CERN and LHC had big contribution already related to magnets(though maybe LHC designers don't directly apply to fusion needs) ? There are projects related to fusion too but I am expecting that people agreeing to this article will also want to remove the funding for fusion and invest it in electric cars and solar panels or his pet project.

I heard of some news in that area, but the breakthroughs I heard of where fusion related and at MIT:

https://news.mit.edu/2021/MIT-CFS-major-advance-toward-fusio...

From what I can tell it's really is ground breaking, significant changes, well ahead of the normal projections for improved magnets. Literally with a single technology that allows magnet to be 40 times smaller. The easy to produce superconducting tape of arbitrary length is likely to find interesting applications as well.

Sure, like all research, practical fusion is not guaranteed, but it does look promising, and real progress has been made, and not just the "few % better this year" that might lead to real progress in a decade or a few centuries.

However Fusion is just an example, imagine 100 $1B projects, doesn't it seem likely for humanity to learn more from those then some particle that is hard to produce, last for a billionth of a second, and makes some models more likely and other models less likely? Maybe help with cancer, medicine, energy production, AI, space travel, faster computers, improving food production, mitigating global warning, energy storage or similar?

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#137

Post by concordDance »

musha68k wrote: post #67
moonchrome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. More realistically : we can only build one car in the entire world, where a tiny minority of people can even understand the potential benefit, and anything they see will be completely useless for everyone else in day to day life because we need a civilisation level effort to even detect the implications of their theory. If their theory had some real world implications - you would…

Europe is so rich it can easily afford all of the great project ideas outlined in the article in addition to a new LHC (and then some). Let's think big indeed, the author unfortunately has a very reductive vision for the future. Instead how about: A renaissance of funding - BIG SCIENCE - education, jobs. That was basically the promise of the EU - peace through wealth - let's create some more. Let's bring back the exc…

What's it currently doing with that money? I guess we could get rid of funding healthcare and trying to help people out of poverty so that a small number of people get to use a very expensive toy...

You know what would be an awesome big science project that would immeasurably improve future people's lives? Sequencing all genes and using that data provide free embryo selection services to everyone who wants to be a parent.

Would probably cost the same as that giant particle smasher and but unlike the giant ring it would pay for itself in a generation.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#138

Post by inglor_cz »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #107

Government finances don't work the same way as other finances. A normally functioning democracy can basically invent as much money as it needs to (see Covid relief packages). If there's political will to do an LHC++, three ITERs and two ISS's, the money will appear. If there's opposition to the LHC++ and it gets scrapped, that doesn't mean that the funds will be re-allocated. They will just disappear.

"A normally functioning democracy can basically invent as much money as it needs to"

Sure. For some time period and amount of money, indeed. What happens once this limit is reached and people stop trusting that money?

Currency collapses are nasty. Look at Weimar Germany after WWI.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#139

Post by musha68k »

rbanffy wrote: post #129
musha68k wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There also is no shortage in funds and we could actually do all of that and more.

Just say you can weaponize the black holes formed in the LHC and you'll never run out of funding again.

I just spilled my coffee, thanks XD

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#140

Post by concordDance »

xcambar wrote: post #55
moonchrome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. More realistically : we can only build one car in the entire world, where a tiny minority of people can even understand the potential benefit, and anything they see will be completely useless for everyone else in day to day life because we need a civilisation level effort to even detect the implications of their theory. If their theory had some real world implications - you would…

With this logic, I assume you'd call the ISS a useless project.

In all seriousness, what use is it? How has it improved people's lives?
Post reply on HN