Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
physicscentral.com
Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#2My friend's old advisor was director of the SSC when it got cut.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#3well if it was this vs the ISS, then they made a fantastic decision, just look at the ISS now!
But too bad it had to be one or the other and not both.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#4In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#5If you found this pictures to be interesting, you might also like some of photo sets of other abandoned facilities:
Vandenberg Missile Sites: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215762296233064...
A Missile Silo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215760341039595...
USA Refinery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215759418921441...
(See also: http://uer.ca)
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#6In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
But there's also the issue of how the public would see it. Everyone can understand "we are making a base in space" and why it's awesome.
If the public didn't approve the collider, be it because of ignorance or not, it might have been canceled anyway and further science budgets would be hurt.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#7In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
What kind of game changing things are you thinking of? Colliders help us learn what model is correct (or rather let us eliminate incorrect models) of very low level physics. We don't remotely have any technology to do anything with physics at that low a level, so isn't knowing which model may be correct pretty much going to remain of theoretical and philosophical interest only?
It's good to figure that out, but it isn't going to change anything about our higher level understanding of physics is it? By higher level I mean the physics that affects chemistry and biology and material properties of interest to engineers, and things like that.
A good strong space program, on the other hand, can give us over the next 100-200 years clean energy (solar collected from space stations, beamed to Earth), resources (asteroid and lunar mining), better instruments for astronomy (useful for answering philosophical questions about the origin and ultimate fate of the universe that are arguably as interesting as the questions colliders can help answer), better materials through zero G manufacturing, and perhaps a defense against the next big meteor or comet based mass extinction.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#8In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
What kind of game changing things are you thinking of? Colliders help us learn what model is correct (or rather let us eliminate incorrect models) of very low level physics. We don't remotely have any technology to do anything with physics at that low a level, so isn't knowing which model may be correct pretty much going to remain of theoretical and philosophical interest only? It's good to figure that out, but it is…
At some point electromagnetism was a "low level" theory, but now you've taken advantage of all that basic research by typing that comment up in a computer and publishing it for the world to see. The practical application of this sort of stuff is rarely obvious, and sometimes decades out, but it's certainly there.
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#9In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
I agree, but I think an important aspect is that ISS has a lot of political appeal to it as well. There's something nice about having all these countries working together and plugging into each others' modules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Pre...
Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility
#10In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.
What kind of game changing things are you thinking of? Colliders help us learn what model is correct (or rather let us eliminate incorrect models) of very low level physics. We don't remotely have any technology to do anything with physics at that low a level, so isn't knowing which model may be correct pretty much going to remain of theoretical and philosophical interest only? It's good to figure that out, but it is…
Space program yes - ISS no
I'm an astronomer and I think the LHC is a better bet than the ISS. The ISS does no astronomy work and just diverts funds from science (especially by demanding the shuttle stays) the microgravity / materials science is compromised by having people on board which means a high level of vibration from people and life support. The bio research is just spending N days in space which are less than were set by the soviets decades ago
The 'science' it does do is mostly school science project stuff