Live data from Hacker News

RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

11–20 of 153 posts

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#11
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?

Suppose they got absolutely nothing out of it. This shouldn't matter.

You cannot easily predict what rewards will come as a result of cutting-edge scientific research. It's a gamble. However, due to all the technologies we have right now as a result of expensive government spending on research, the general consensus is (or at least should be) that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#12

I should place a long bet regarding dark matter...

The Higgs boson has essentially nothing to with dark matter, as far as we know. In fact, they're not even in the same category: the Higgs boson is a theoretical prediction that has yet to be observed (or conclusively ruled out), whereas dark matter is a real, observable thing in the cosmos that we don't yet have a theory to explain.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#13
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?

What they got out of it was a) gaining a greater knowledge about the way our world functions, b) training a new generation of scientists at a level of advanced research which goes beyond what was previously achieved. c) developed an advanced engineering industry which has broken new ground in materials science, not only in superconductivity and cooling, but in practically all engineering disciplines. d) developed a new level of sophistication in computer analysis and processing ability.

Many universities and advanced research facilities around the world contribute to a project as large as LHC, so the benefits are spread worldwide. However the location of LHC makes a huge impact on the scientific abilities and human resources of Europe.

As for how much benefit the average European derives from LHC, the question is really how much they benefit from the advancement of general scientific ability and human resources. Besides the innumerable everyday fruits of the advancement of science which average people enjoy today as compared with, say, 1803, there is the even more important fact that their future ability to establish a high quality of life, and to solve major problems, depends on their having an incredible skill and wisdom in dealing with the actual, factual world.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#14
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?

I think it's far to early to start talking about the LHC's value in a past tense.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#15
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?

This is, I think, a dishonest question, because we can't know "what they [got] out of it". There is a 5% probability that they might "get something out of it" in the future, and an unknown (likely greater than zero) probability that they will "get" a great deal out of it through readjustments of previously invincible models of how the universe is constructed.

Remember, we're trying to figure out why things have mass here, (which, I think, is rather prima facia a very important question to answer) and if we're wrong about how that phenomenon arises, we now have a very big clue to look somewhere else.

In short, they got petabytes of data out of it, and frankly, that will most likely prove to be invaluable in and of itself.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#16
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?

What they got out of it is that the standard model and supersymmetry are (likely) wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Higgs_boson

EDIT: actually it looks like they only searched a partial range of energies, there's still a chance to find it.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#17
The should/shouldn't argument is really about Free Riding basic research. For most companies this problem means deferring basic rEsearch to govt. Both directly (funding research) and indirectly (IP protection and care policy) governments free ride each others research. The US isn't perfect but generally we are the the horse and not the rider.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#18

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?

Suppose they got absolutely nothing out of it. This shouldn't matter. You cannot easily predict what rewards will come as a result of cutting-edge scientific research. It's a gamble. However, due to all the technologies we have right now as a result of expensive government spending on research, the general consensus is (or at least should be) that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

> It's a gamble.

Even gambles have odds. And, to me at least, it does matter if we get something valuable out of our tax dollars.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some slobbering hard-line libertarian who believes that any experiment with a negative result is wasted money. On the other hand, if the odds are that a positive or negative result is nowhere likely to benefit the public in a concrete manner (either directly or via its successor events and discoveries), then I do question whether it's wise to spend money on it.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#19

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?

Indeed. The question isn't, "Did this experiment advance scientific knowledge," the question is, "Was this a prudent and appropriate use of tax money, especially in light of the enormous opportunity costs inherent in any expenditure of tax money?"

That is ridiculous, ROI is relevant if you're talking about applied research where you have a short-term goal and can make the calculation.

But the LHC is basic research, you can't do ROI calculations on that. Instead, you dump as much money as you can into it, and then you know that decades down the line, you'll be very happy that you did it.

Re: RIP Higgs Boson (with 95% confidence)

#20

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?

Suppose they got absolutely nothing out of it. This shouldn't matter. You cannot easily predict what rewards will come as a result of cutting-edge scientific research. It's a gamble. However, due to all the technologies we have right now as a result of expensive government spending on research, the general consensus is (or at least should be) that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

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 generalities about how wonderful science is or vaguely handwaved "benefits" far outweighing the much-harder-to-handwave "costs".

I'm not saying these questions can't be answered. I'm saying the glittering, glib generalities being offered here ring very hollow against that level of real cost, and you need to brush your arguments up.

(Also, feel free to apply this to any other billion dollars you care to name. I think we take our spending of billions and trillions way too casually, personally. We can and in some sense must spend it (dollars can be hoarded but much of what they represent, like man-hours, can not), but more thought put into it would be nice.)

Post reply on HN