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

381–390 of 467 posts

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

#381

Post by bee_rider »

saiya-jin wrote: post #375
dekhn wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some side-effects of running a place like CERN that benefit scientists (for example, CERN makes and stores antimatter for experiments, and they sometimes develop new tech to solve their problems that can be applied in the real world, but by-and-large, high energy physics doesn't contribute directly to applied science or products. Countries run projects like this for prestige, not applications.

I would add creating WWW as a nice side product of CERN. I am sure they do much more in their highly specialized fields, ie seen tons of stuff open sourced (but I am not an expert on this so can't say how usable it actually is to other physicists).

The WWW is looking like kind of a mixed bag nowadays.

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

#382

Post by hypertele-Xii »

dekhn wrote: post #363
kensai wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ironic that you write this comment on the World Wide Web. An invention made in the "useless for humanity" CERN... :-/ https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web

folks were already putting postscript papers on FTP servers. Discoverability (linking) was the big hard problem.

> Discoverability (linking) was the big hard problem.

Still is.

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

#383

Post by izacus »

inglor_cz wrote: post #138
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.

LHC costs are basically peanuts in comparison to any kind of spending the western countries do (especially if you compare it to spending on killing machines).

Several LHCs, ITERs and ISSes won't bring any of the nations close to Weimar Germany. Aircraft carriers, F-35s, failing infrastructure projects and corruption have a larger chance of doing that.

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

#384

Post by selimthegrim »

samstave wrote: post #96
trinovantes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that you don't know what the secondary benefits are until you find them so you should keep every avenue open A short story about the discovery of microscopes from https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ Had the rich noble simply invested his money in doctors instead of the person with a hobby of playing with glass, they might have instead discovered more uses for leeches

This is always a factor of amazement (pun intended) for me. To quote the writer of the line uttered by the equanimous Jeff GoldBloom. https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif Seriously, this is where 'black budgets' are a thing. There is serious money pumped into the MIC and the secondary effects are far more than tertiary at this point. Dark breakaway. How much is a dollar worth in space. Asking for a Musk of mine.

Or Judd Hirsch in Independence Day wisecracking about marked up hammers and toilet seats.

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

#386

Post by dane-pgp »

esarbe wrote: post #247
Veen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your position, but it is no less polemical and ideological than the comment you are responding to. > an embryo is not a child and you cannot murder an embryo It is not obviously and axiomatically true that embryos are not human (I'm assuming the previous comment meant human and not child). Many people think that they are, which is the source of the disagreement. It probably is fruitless to have this conv…

> but it is no less polemical and ideological than the comment you are responding to. I beg to differ. I don't think that using dictionary definitions to make ones arguments can be counted as polemic (as in; to use contentious rhetoric). I might be wrong though. > I'm assuming the previous comment meant human and not child No, I actually meant 'child'. An human embryo is - obviously - human. No discussion about that.…

> A human embryo is not a child - the definition of that is also pretty much settled, I'd say.

To suggest there is only one definition of "child" is even more incorrect than suggesting that it can't refer to an unborn person:

   Definition of child
   …
   3 a : an unborn or recently born person 
       "… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

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

#387

Post by worik »

nix23 wrote: post #230
_heimdall wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hello again, tragedy of the commons! Modern monetary theory is its own can of worms, but justifying massive spending in one area because of even more massive spending elsewhere isn't solving anything.

But: https://interestingengineering.com/these-7-cern-spinoffs-sho... And i think the ISS was still much more expensive (especially over the years) then LHC/Atlas etc.

Those "practical" results were all due to the spending on technology. None were due to advances in physics, as far as I can tell (that website seems designed to obfuscate not illuminate)

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

#388

Post by selimthegrim »

mschuster91 wrote: post #13
gonzo41 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the cost though, you should probably fund a lot of other science. Climate change mitigation perhaps?

The claim that we need to "invest into science" is outright bullshit. We don't need more investment into climate change science - we already know what to do to mitigate climate change and we have known it for decades (hell there is an article from over a hundred years ago that warns of the dangers of CO2 emissions [2]): ban ICE vehicles and coal power plants, promote public transit, massively restrict other uses of f…

That newspaper article is a syndicated reprint of a Popular Mechanics piece.

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

#389

Post by dwaltrip »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #265

As someone who did their PhD at CERN - I agree. The place is fantastic, you get to meet great people and life is cool. But what you are working on is completely useless for humanity. Knowing that there is a quantum foam is knowledge that brings us nowhere. If someone could answer to this "and so what?" in a meaningful way I would be glad to change my mind. For the time being, the energy scale we are making these disc…

> Knowing that there is a quantum foam is knowledge that brings us nowhere.

A bit myopic, eh?

We don't know which scientific advancements will result in practical applications or how long it will take.

But history is incredibly clear on this point. In general, scientific pursuits and the technological advancements required to carry them out bring about countless incredible practical applications over time.

In the long run, curiosity and interestingness are very good heuristics for worthwhile endeavors to pursue.

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

#390

Post by rhn_mk1 »

XorNot wrote: post #311
cookingmyserver wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is important to remember the context of the discussion. I think I it is completely reasonable, and not odd at all, to have a utilitarian view of science, when you are talking about spending $100 Billion .

That $100 billion doesn't vanish into thin air. It principally goes into plant and equipment to build the machine, as well as research into high tech manufacturing for the same. The world wide web which we are currently using was invented at CERN. You can literally go look at the proposal manuscript.

Isn't that the economic theory of broken windows? Given the choice between alternatives, added value should be considered, not added cost.
Post reply on HN