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

441–450 of 467 posts

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

#441

Post by Woodi »

Georgelemental wrote: post #417
_j5l3 wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore it seems like anti-democratic behaviour is getting punished now, too, if you look over to Poland. They're saying anti -democratic behavior is being punished, which implies that Poland is pro-democracy.

Only if Poland were the one doing the punishing. In this context, if I am correctly interpreting what the OP is referring to, the EU is punishing its member state Poland; Poland is the recipient of the punishment

Yes, European Imperium dark forces keep supporting anti-democracy here: they are on politically involved post-commie juries side, trying to prevent juries from being just third power of democracy; they tried to create illegal immigrants camps here; they constantly abuse union treaties like prohibiting polish drives equality; cretive treaties laws interpretations ? LOL; pushing minorities over-alle privilages and not based on actual reality pseudo-science like gender ? They do constantly. But where to moved "equality parades" from Berlin ? Obviously socialistic systemic method "resolved" minorities public shows in Berlin by terrorist attack threats... "No LGBT spheres" ? Faked and published by actual pro-LGBT zealot - but that's not a problem for fake-democratic EU owners to be another "reason" to punish Poland :>

Etc, etc.

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

#442

Post by deely3 »

pessimizer wrote: post #367
musha68k wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That was basically the promise of the EU - peace through wealth - let's create some more. Doing useless science is the destruction of wealth. The destruction of wealth is pleasurable, don't get me wrong, but that's all it is. They could build gargantuan statues to do the same thing, or accumulate huge stockpiles of weapons.

How did you know that this sciense is useless? What is the difference between building LHC+ and bringing people to the moon again?

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

#443

Post by ngcc_hk »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #310
marcosdumay wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Einstein's and Schrödinger's theories etc. predicted effects that were later experimentally proven to exist. Nope. It's the other way around. The most important theories from Einstein an Schrödinger were created to explain effects there were experimentally known. The ones where they predicted the effects first and found them later were much less impactful.

Right, but a theory's inferred veracity is only as good as its testable, falsifiable predictions.

It is a criterion but not a way to generate theory. In fact the key turning points mentioned are those theory (qm and r) both tried to explain something theory failed itself (the crazy energy of ultraviolet like today zero field energy) or observation that cannot be explained (increase intensity does not give your more electron in photo-electric effect but frequency does, like dark energy and matter these days).

Popper is more against social “science” like Marx or philosopher like Plato. Whilst it clean up the field a bit not sure it is that helpful.

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

#444

Post by tsimionescu »

JanisErdmanis wrote: post #343
morbia wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m pretty sure there remains a discrepancy between the predicted mass of the Higgs boson and the measured mass in experiments. Is this resolved then? Sort of. The higgs boson mass is a parameter to the Standard Model. As far as the Standard Model is concerned, that is the end of the story. There are just a series of constants need to be fitted to data in the Standard Model and that's one of them. However, the "pro…

> However, the "problem" is why ~125GeV. If there are extremely high energy particles (which are expected in a Grand Unified Theory), then corrections to the Higgs mass would be enormous. This is a fine tuning problem where we arbitrarily tweak those corrections such that we magically end up at 125GeV. When I was undergraduate at CERN summer school program I got that this was one of main themes to justify existence o…

> Is it simply unwillingness to accept for world as we live know some parameters of the world like particles masses are not that independent from each other?

Based on what I understood from Sabine Hossenfelder's writing, yes, that is a big chunk of modern physics. One example is "the naturalness problem", that some base parameters of the SM are orders of magnitude larger or smaller than other ones - which is of course entirely possible as a fact of nature.

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

#445

Post by News-Dog »

radu_floricica wrote: post #416
News-Dog wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WiFi > a secondary benefit was developed from speculative theoretical research in radio-astronomy : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiFi

I've read the history section in that page and I see nothing about that. WiFi had several competing implementation - at best, you could say the Radiophysics Division of CSIRO sped things up a bit. But since the next paragraph begins with "About the same time in The Netherlands in 1991" (aka a year earlier)...

See a terse history : https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/it/Bringin...

A more verbose history : https://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/04/story-behind-csiros-...

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

#446

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

sanxiyn wrote: post #430
Beldin wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics is (or should be) regarded enviably by other disciplines. They keep managing to get these crazily expensive multinational projects funded: LHC, ITER, various space telescopes... multi-billion projects. I honestly cannot recall an official scientific experiment or tool in another discipline funded for even only 100 million. Just imagine that level of funding for your favourite discipline. The direct scientific…

Human Genome Project was $3B. It is especially salient because in a sense it was in competition with Superconducting Super Collider, which it won. Big Science and Big Politics in the United States: Reflections on the Death of the SSC and the Life of the Human Genome Project (1997) is a classic in history of science analyzing this competition.

And there’s simply no argument that the Human Genome Project benefited humanity more than a collider. Think what $100 billion towards cancer could do.

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

#447

Post by tsimionescu »

XorNot wrote: post #440
tsimionescu wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was said by Max Planck (well, not this exact quote, but the spirit is entirely there), not exactly a non-scientist commenting on an internet forum. Also, the controversy over the amyloid hypothesis is real. Here [0] is a paper showing arguments for and against with 268 citations. Here [1] is a more journalistic article in Nature. While this is still up in the air, it's nby no means a "conspiracy theory" to suggest…

A better qualified person saying something doesn't make you qualified to repeat it.

It's not like it's some subtle mathematical conjecture that laymen can't possibly comprehend. It's a social comment by a well known researcher that has a good chance of being a fact of the scientific community today just as much as then.

If you believe things have changed, just say so, and move the conversation on. If you don't think it's a fruitful conversation, don't participate.

I specifically replied to someone claiming that new minds re-thinking the foundations of a field couldn't possibly be a good idea, and I did so with a relevant quote from one of the new minds that completely re-wrote the foundations of their field. I believe this was a constructive observation moving the conversation.

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

#448

Post by orbifold »

Georgelemental wrote: post #201
orbifold wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case this is not how science works, you do theoretical physics by publishing in peer reviewed journals and your peers decide whether what you are doing is worthwhile or not. Both Smolin and Hossenfelder have been somewhat successful in doing so themselves, but Hossenfelder specifically didn’t manage to secure a professorship for various reasons and I am sure she has some axe to grind (again probably partially…

> you do theoretical physics by publishing in peer-reviewed journals and your peers decide whether what you are doing is worthwhile or not No, science is not the act of publishing in a peer-reviewed journals, science is using past observations to make models that predict future observations, and then evaluating those models after making the future observations. Peer review is just the industry standard quality contro…

I could have made the point differently. What I wanted to emphasize is that there is an external view of a given field and an internal view. The actual inner workings and process are poorely understood and the few public debates give a very skewed view of the field.

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

#450

Post by chriswarbo »

dylan604 wrote: post #253
chriswarbo wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Information is a measure of surprise: we should choose to verify our predictions; but it's disappointing when our predictions turn out to be correct. We want our best predictions to be proven wrong, since we would learn a lot.

I get where you're coming from, but at the same time, we have to KNOW things before we can continue to theorize about new things. If you keep theorizing on things that turn out to not be true, then it's just a waste of everyone's time. Find things that are true, theorize on the next step, test, prove/disprove, lather, rinse, repeat. Just coming up with stuff and disproving it isn't always "learning a lot", it's just…

> Just coming up with stuff and disproving it isn't always "learning a lot", it's just showing how bad we are at logically thinking about the next step.

That's why I said "our best predictions"; as in, what we actually think is the case (and would put money on).

Post reply on HN