Large Hadron Collider nearing completion

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Yes, my point is that the money should be given to people researching cancer or AIDS or ecological conservation or alternative fuels or something else that is more likely produce tangible benefits rather than some vague theoretical particle.
[/QUOTE]

Erm…a lot of the things you would rather have research done on directly benefit from high energy physics.

Medicine makes use of accelerators these days.

  • Beams of neutrons or protons are used in cancer treatments.

  • CAT scanners came from detection equipment used for particle accelerators

  • MRI in hospitals evolved from initial work done on powerful magnets used in particle accelrators.

  • PET scanners work because of a material developed for use in detectors for particle physics.

  • Synchrotron radiation (long thought a useless but inevitable energy bleed in accelerators) is used in so many things I couldn’t begin to list them here. A few are x-ray lithography (used in making computer chips) and studies of large biological molecules. “One team of scientists working at SLAC was recently able to determine the structure of the gene responsible for Lou Gehrig’s disease. Another group is using this radiation to develop drugs to block the action of a key enzyme in the replication of the AIDS virus.” (cite ).

Whoa! Hey! Look at that last thing! AIDS research from particle physics!

Thing is no one knew before these things were invented that they could be used in these ways. As noted at first synchrotron radiation seemed more of a hassle than anything useful. Yet from that many, many nifty things you take for granted have been developed.

If they had followed your notion that it is all a waste then advanced computer chips would not exist, treatments for AIDS and cancer would not exist. Various medical scanners would not exist and they’d be back to slicing you open to see what is up.

Will the LHC provide any noticeable benefits? Well, some new technologies have been developed for its construction. There is the new analogue to the Internet they have developed to manage massive data transfers which may well trickle down to the rest of us someday. Whether the LHC research will produce something practical no one knows. How could they? Could be profound…could be nothing. It may take decades to know. Einstein’s figures on time dilation seemed purely academic. Took 75 years or so for those equations to find a use in GPS satellites which would not work without the adjustments to their clocks informed by the theory of relativity.

Basic science is good generally.

And to reiterate…the LHC will NOT destroy the world.

102

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
For someone who throws around the word “bullshit” like a foosball, the o.p. certainly seems oblivious to his own peculiarly scented excrement. In between vacillating between barely literate contempt for and avowed ignorance of “String Theory” (which is related to the Higgs boson in the same way that John Lennon was related to Kipling’s Sea Vitch) he champions the tinfoil-hatism of apocalyptic doom hypothesized by people incapable of comprehending basic particle physics, and then campaigning that the money “wasted” on abstract physical science instead be applied to avenues of applied research which are hardly bereft of plenteous funding. Whether the money spent on the construction and operation of the Large Hadron Collider is a good value of science dollars is a topic worthy of intelligent and informed debate, unfortunately not to be found in this thread. Instead, the o.p. tosses out non sequiturs, ad hominin, and argumentative fallacy like a parade clown throwing candy.

As for the value of the pursuit of abstract knowledge, no one can really predict what will eventually come of any given nugget of information. However, experimental discovery of the Higgs boson will not only refine some models of particle physics (and dismiss others); it will also improve insight into how the physical world works on a fundamental level (or at least, a more fundamental level than we do now) which will have significant impact upon future technology. One might as well have asked James Clerk Maxwell what use there was in his theory and experiments of electromagnetism and expect him to respond with prognostication of color television, computed axial tomography, and the iPod. Arguing against abstract knowledge in toto on the basis that it doesn’t make your porridge taste better today isn’t mere Ludditism; it’s a complete avowal of the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of better understanding the world and to the benefit of future generations. There are any of a vast number of ways in which money that could be used to benefit the needy is frivolously squandered; on entertainment, fashion, recreational travel, sports, cars, et cetera ad nauseam. The Large Hadron Collider isn’t taking bread out of anyone’s mouth, and it isn’t being powered by the extracted spleens of Indonesian children. Any argument predicated on the basis is absurd in its essentials; abstract knowledge at large has been of much greater value to mankind than any amount of present money.

Perhaps, when you are done raving from blithe ignorance about your choice outrage du jour, you could organize some kind of petition to feed the poor or contribute money to AIDS research. You know, since you are all heated up about those causes. Or are those just a convenient screen to conceal an innate contempt for things that you don’t understand?

With regard to social and political problems like war, poverty, famine, et cetera, science has provided plenty of solutions, some of which, of course, end up contributing to the problem rather than dissolving it. Science and knowledge are tools, not solutions in and of themselves. When wielded artlessly or with malice–say, the Green Revolution or nuclear weapons–they create more problems. We could resolve the problem of world hunger, fresh water, and basic medical care today–with existing technology, and at far less than nations spend vying with one another over territorial boundaries or black goo–if the political will and universal cooperation permitted it. This isn’t a problem that science and technology can or will solve. Blaming scientists of “wasting money” in pursuit of basic knowledge is like blaming your car mechanic because you got a speeding ticket.

Stranger
[/QUOTE]

Video alert.

103

Maybe that missing theoretical particle IS the cure for AIDS. Ever think of that, Mr. Smartypants?

104

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Physicists can’t.
[/QUOTE]

Sure they can!

  1. Turn on Large Hadron Collider dealie.
  2. Form black hole which swallows the Earth.
  3. Profit! World hunger problem over.

:smiley:

105

[QUOTE=Astroboy14]
3) Profit! World hunger problem over.

[/QUOTE]

I like Stranger’s idea of using the extracted spleens of Indonesian children to solve world hunger better. It’s probably tastier, too.

106

[QUOTE=Uzi]
I like Stranger’s idea of using the extracted spleens of Indonesian children to solve world hunger better. It’s probably tastier, too.
[/QUOTE]
I think something may have been lost in translation…

Stranger

107

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
I think something may have been lost in translation…

Stranger
[/QUOTE]

Well, you know, a little babelfish here, a little babelfish there and suddenly they think you’re invading Poland. Streak of bad luck there bud, see you after WWIII.

108

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
I think something may have been lost in translation…

Stranger
[/QUOTE]

Ya think? :wink:

109

[QUOTE=Jragon]
Well, you know, a little babelfish here, a little babelfish there and suddenly they think you’re invading Poland. Streak of bad luck there bud, see you after WWIII.
[/QUOTE]
“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloddier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”

Stranger

110

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]

[QUOTE=Uzi]
I like Stranger’s idea of using the extracted spleens of Indonesian children to solve world hunger better. It’s probably tastier, too.
[/QUOTE]
I think something may have been lost in translation…
[/QUOTE]

  • munch munch munch *

Why do you say that ? They taste great !

  • munch munch munch *
111

Stranger, I just wanted to say, you’re one of my favorite posters on this board.

:: applause ::

112

[QUOTE=cmyk]
Stranger, I just wanted to say, you’re one of my favorite posters on this board.

:: applause ::
[/QUOTE]

I, too, have admired your posts over the years. Your contribution to this thread is masterful. Take a bow.

113

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I read cosmology for fun, and usually find it pretty clear, but this book is one of the most difficult I’ve read. I need to find time to read it again. I don’t visualize very well, which might be some of the problem. I also think explaining an immature area is harder than explaining a mature one.
[/QUOTE]
For what it’s worth, NOVA has made some episodes dealing with string theory. Three hours of stringy goodness. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the videos but I sure enjoyed watching them, although I can’t help but feel nervous at the idea of another brane crashing into ours and restarting the universe.

114

I enjoyed watching them a year or so ago… I think I’ll re-watch, they were excellently produced. In case you didn’t know, that’s Brian Greene (author of The Elegant Universe, and The Fabric of the Cosmos) in much of those videos. He does a good job, the ham!

115

You know what, I’m going to watch those videos. Maybe I will learn something after all.

116

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]

Wikipedia quotes the budget of the collider at 2.6 billion Swiss francs - personally I think that money would be better spent helping the poor, than put towards a device which has the potential (however small) to destroy our planet and will contribute almost nothing to society beyond perhaps observing a theoretical “Higgs boson” and making a bunch of scientists feel good about themselves. But what do I know, I’m just an ignorant Midwestern boy from a podunk town who never took physics in high school.

Has anything, besides a war, ever sucked up such a giant amount of money with so few potential benefits?
[/QUOTE]

Also from Wikipedia:

The U.S. government estimates the cost of the War on Drugs by calculating the funds used in attempting to control the supply of illegal drugs, in paying government employees involved in waging the war on drugs, and to satisfy rehabilitation costs. … In total, roughly $45.5 billion was spent in 2005 for these factors…

Just to emphasise:

  • the **total cost ** of the collider is currently estimated at $5-10 billion
  • the US spends **5-10 times this amount annually ** on the War on Drugs

And here’s what you get for your $45.5 billion annually:

  • Drug use has increased in all categories since prohibition
  • increased potency and growth of marijuana crops within the United States, and an increase in cocaine smuggling which is easier to move and yields a higher profit margin
  • marijuana could be the single most targeted drug in the drug war. It constitutes almost half of all drug arrests…As of 2006, marijuana has become the United States of America’s biggest cash crop
117

Lemme see if I got this straight: The Europeans are going to turn on a big whatzit. One that could’ve been built at Fermilab, with lots of financial benefits coming to the western suburbs of Chicago and, IIRC, the ring passing under my house. A whatzit which, despite all of the publicity surrounding it, will almost absolutely NOT unleash forces that will destroy the universe.

So, where’s the fun in that? I’m becoming impatient with physicists. First, the atomic pile under Stagg Field did not destroy the University of Chicago, much less the world. Then the first atomic bomb test did not set fire to the atmosphere. And now this?

Feh. Wake me when the scientists have something real to back up their claims.

118

[QUOTE=dropzone]
Feh. Wake me when the scientists have something real to back up their claims.
[/QUOTE]

I think the scientists are resting their hopes on gray goo. Just give it a few more years.

119

http://www.zimbio.com/CERN+Hadron+Collider/articles/39/Next+gen+internet+Grid+Internet
One of the side effects of the Hadron is already here. There is a possible increase in data delivery of 10,000 times. The incredible data that will be produced by the Hadron has resulted in a brand spanking new concept of data transferral. Not all analysis will be done in Geneva . Connections have been developed that will likely result in obsoleting broadband.

120

[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I think the scientists are resting their hopes on gray goo. Just give it a few more years.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Promises, promises. I’ll believe it when I see my front yard turning into trillions of nanobots.