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

241–250 of 467 posts

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

#241

Post by SiempreViernes »

japanuspus wrote: post #73

As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad). The shor…

> I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit

Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results.

Or are you seriously imagining that there is a cabbal of old researchers that have found a much better way to explore things but for political reasons is keeping it secret?

Why is it so impossible for you to believe that people have done honest attempts at finding new ways to do the fundamental physics they want to explore for decades and keep coming to the conclusion that they'll need big machines to do anything worthwhile on the timescale of a PhD position?

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

#242

Post by mhh__ »

pfortuny wrote: post #205
mhh__ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that they are physicists and no one has actually been able to properly find an alternative to string theory isn't that what they're supposed to be doing? Isn't the main alternative LQG which is apparently a dead end?

There can be lots of new alternatives. Why not fund those instead, by creating “moonshine physics departments”? (That is just a comment, not a suggestion). The problem with String Theory is it unfalsifiability and that it has not even grown to explain 3D phenomena AT ALL. 40 years later. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity (both special and general) gave results in a single decade.

What do you mean by 3D phenomena?

String theory is as far as I have ever read the only thing even close to a working theory in this area. That doesn't mean it's correct but in my admittedly limited understanding of the literature many alternatives are either dead or are similar to string theory only without the underlying principles.

People do work on alternatives. there are a lot of smart people unhappy with string theory they just can't actually provide any alternatives.

One thing I'd like to say as well is that if someone does provide an alternative there will be a large movement of minds. This always happens in science, people like to think of physicists as a kind of unionized cabal but this isn't true historically or today as far as I'm concerned. Certainly not with the physicists of tomorrow.

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

#243

Post by throwawayffffas »

I completely disagree, 100 billion might sound like a lot of money, but it's not. It's going to take like 20 years to build/assemble right? That's like 5 billion a year the EU GDP is 17.9 trillion per year. It's worth it just to keep all these physicists and engineers employed.

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

#244

Post by glenstein »

morbia wrote: post #174
levi_n wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations. Genuine question from an ignorant layperson: was confirming the existence of the Higgs boson not significant?

(Former PhD student in Particle Physics Pheno here, far from an expert) Of course it was a significant discovery, but honestly it would have been a far more interesting if we detected literally nothing. It's kind of weird because it was marketted as a success story to the public (and don't get me wrong, it was) but theorists were very confident that it was there by 2012. Thus far, it behaves exactly as expected accor…

>Of course it was a significant discovery, but honestly it would have been a far more interesting if we detected literally nothing.

Well you would have needed the LHC to confirm that, too, right? As a totally uneducated person just remembering media and online discussion about it at the time, I think the most interesting possibility was the detection of entirely new particles, which didn't happen.

And in the run-up to the LHC, I think there was a lot of hope in the possibility of finding stuff, but maybe there's not as much hope now.

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

#245

Post by chriswarbo »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #239
morbia wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Former PhD student in Particle Physics Pheno here, far from an expert) Of course it was a significant discovery, but honestly it would have been a far more interesting if we detected literally nothing. It's kind of weird because it was marketted as a success story to the public (and don't get me wrong, it was) but theorists were very confident that it was there by 2012. Thus far, it behaves exactly as expected accor…

Not a particle physicist, but I think the entire history of human scientific discovery is set again that proposition. Namely: (1) that we have a fundamental theory that describes the Universe; (2) that it is within our technical capability to experimentally verify the reality of that theory; and (3) we choose not to do so. It's easy to monday-morning quarterback a result that was successful and unexciting, but imagin…

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.

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

#246

Post by blablabla123 »

grumbel wrote: post #37
ivanb wrote: post #7

Yeah, no. Only LHC can generate particle events in a highly controllable environment with enough energy. In physics there are energy thresholds. Below a certain level of energy a certain event just never happens. The low hanging fruit of discovering new physics looks like this. Build a bigger machine to collide particles with even more energy. Observe what comes out. It's a clear direction. Just throw money at the pr…

But isn't that also exactly why the whole effort is a bit futile? If it takes this much effort to detect that an event is even happening, you end up describing something that only really happens in a lab situation and has not much relevance for the real world. That said, LHC cost $4.75 billion that's pretty much nothing compared to the amount of money that gets thrown around in the tech world. So might still be worth…

From a purely isolated Experimental (Physics) point of view this might be true. But of course both theory and experiments are highly intertwined. For instance if you would like to observe Neutrinoless Double beta decay in nature, even if it exists, you might never get a chance to actually measure it because it would occur so seldomly. With setups like the LHC there is actually a realistic chance (if such phenomena exist) to measure them and thus applying that knowledge to various theories existing or in the making.

That said, of course particle physics results have direct applications. For instance in speculative commercial applications of Nuclear fusion and also Quantum Computing is connected to particle physics. I mean even GPS systems are based on 4D space time. Not entirely sure if any of that can be directly attributed to research happening in colliders but this is just one part of the field, mainly the experimental part - which can verify/falsify theories or result in new ones.

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

#247

Post by esarbe »

Veen wrote: post #233
esarbe wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's just that; embryo selection. It's not an euphemism for what you wrote because an embryo is not a child and you cannot murder an embryo. From Wikipedia: "A child (plural children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty [...]" You are also conflating the abortion of an embryo with murder; only human persons can be murdered, embryos are not persons, therefore no murder. I sincerely ask you to…

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. (At least from a scientific point of view.)

But maybe I didn't clearly state my case, thus the misunderstanding.

The point I'm making is as follows. Embryos are not children and thus they are not persons. Just as I cannot murder my toe (it might be human, but it's not a person) I cannot murder an embryo.

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

#248

Post by dylan604 »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #241
japanuspus wrote: post #73

As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad). The shor…

> I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results. Or are you seriously imagining that there is a cabbal of old researchers that have found a m…

>Not entirely sure how this "lets ignore the knowledge we've accumulated and start over afresh" idea is supposed to mesh with the notion that science is a product that builds on earlier results.

This is coming from a forum where it's normal to see "something that already exists, but written in $newLanguage/Framework" as a thing to celebrate. So why not just redo science but with newShiny so we haven't actually achieved anything? /s

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

#249

Post by neltnerb »

They could even pay scientists a more reasonable wage and make funding easier to get with all that money and maybe not have an unsustainable university system where even amazing researchers can't get multi-year reliable funding (in the US, I know it is less bad elsewhere).

But sure, go build a $100B machine out of habit.

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

#250

Post by dekhn »

dgb23 wrote: post #152
mhh__ wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't Hossenfelder and Smolin basically paying their bills by being contrarians though?

That’s a passive aggressive ad hominem without any substance whatsoever. These people are not some obscenely rich opportunists in power. They are working scientists, who draw public interest because they say interesting things and they are part of a larger discourse. Now Hossenfelder isn’t known for her fingerspitzengefühl when it comes to criticizing others, but I have yet to find an instance where she doesn’t treat…

I don't think her analysis of LIGO made any sense at all.
Post reply on HN