The Sword and Laser discussion
The Higgs-Boson exists (or a subatomic particle that's never been seen before at the very least)
date
newest »
newest »
The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind.
@David Sven,Listen to what Prof. Brian Cox has to say about that view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGI-k...
David Sven wrote: "The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind."Why spend money on pure research? There are soo many benefits that have come about from pure research.
Computers might not exist today without information found through pure research and I doubt anyone can say that computers haven't immeasurably helped medicine.
Who could have foreseen that doing research into radiation could have helped cancer treatment?
Just because you can't see a direct line to benefits doesn't mean that there is nothing beneficial to humankind because of this research.
David Sven wrote: "The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind."Seriously ?
A post in a fantasy/science fiction web forum that knocks pure scientific research ?
Want to complain to Guttenbuerg that all his tinkering with that pesky old printing press with its movable type could be time better spent doing something usefull, like finishing up projects in his blacksmith shop ?
I'm looking forward to reading up on this today and over the next few weeks. I saw that the Bad Astronomer has some stuff on his site, and I'll have to check out what Dr. Cox says.
Pouria wrote: "@David Sven,Listen to what Prof. Brian Cox has to say about that view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGI-k..."
Yeah, that just reinforces my opinion. I'm not knocking pure research. I'm knocking priorities.
Nick wrote: "Computers might not exist today without information found through pure research"
Except computers were not developed purely as a means of satisfying human curiousity. They were developed with specific applications in mind ie automated calculation. And studying radiation makes sense when the stuff tends to kill people - so again useful. And they split the atom to generate energy - not to create radiation to study.
We can still prioritize real problems and expect to benefit from "spin off" discoveries.
The Hadron Collider is definitely cool - but I think its just contributing to the current stagnation of science by directing funds away from more practical application.
Stan wrote: "Want to complain to Guttenbuerg that all his tinkering with that pesky old printing press"
I think it cost him a little less than 10 billion tax payer dollars. And the printing press has a specific application.
By way of comparison, $10 billion dollars is less than 1.5% of US military spending for 2011 or of the total TARP expenditure to bail out American banks in 2008, just over half of public monies spent on the 2012 London Olympics, and the amount spent on cosmetic surgery in the US in 2009.
Joe wrote: "By way of comparison, $10 billion dollars is less than 1.5% of US military spending for 2011 or of the total TARP expenditure to bail out American banks in 2008, just over half of public monies spe..."As I said, priorities are all screwed up.
David Sven wrote: "Except computers were not developed purely as a means of satisfying human curiousity. They were developed with specific applications in mind ie automated calculation."You didn't read my sentence that you quoted. I said you wouldn't have computers without the pure research that came before it that had no practical application at the time the research was being done. So the building blocks necessary to create a computer were founded through pure research. A lot of that mathematical but some of it was done in physics.
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/a...
----------
The reasons we have practical computers now, and did not have them 100 years ago, is not that meanwhile we have discovered the need for computers. It is because of discoveries in fundamental physics which underwrite modern electronics, developments in mathematical logic, and the need of nuclear physicists in the 1930s to develop ways of counting particles.
Nick wrote: "I said you wouldn't have computers without the pure research that came before it that had no practical application"You mean like the abacus? The Sumerians might have had something to say about that - and I doubt they spent a disproportionate amount of their science budget on it.
Read my responses before just replying. We aren't arguing about the discoveries that had practical applications that came before computer but the pure science discoveries of which there were many that were essential in making a computer a reality. Either way, you are obviously going to think what you want to regardless of the evidence. So I'm done participating in this discussion with you.
This is a significant find in understanding our universe. I think that anything that helps us understand our universe *and* the very small at the same time can only lend itself to helping us understand all that stuff in between, which, weirdly enough, could include understanding cancer and finding cures for it.It's not like the different sciences are walled off from each other. They cross paths quite often!
I don't know, I think it's pretty damn cool that we may have an authentic explanation regarding mass in the universe. This may very well allow us to navigate gravity in an entirely new way.
David Sven wrote: "You mean like the abacus? The Sumerians might have had something to say about that - and I doubt they spent a disproportionate amount of their science budget on it. "You can't crack the human genome on an abacus, nor model protein folding, nor a myriad other things important to cancer research. Those require powerful computing devices built on microprocessors, which are only possible thanks to research in quantum mechanics. Any discovery in quantum physics, including the Higgs boson, has the potential to enable us to build smaller, faster microprocessors which are vital to cancer research.
So I guess the FlashForward didn't happen then.
David Sven wrote: "The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind."http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fa...
"In recent years, NCI’s budget has been relatively flat, averaging approximately $4.9 billion per year over the past 6 years."
And that is in the US alone.
David Sven wrote: "The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind."That's how you know who is a Fantasy geek or a /science fiction geek :P
@David Sven,
Listen to what Prof. Brian Cox has to say about that view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGI-k...
Is the British Association for the Advancement of Science an important association? I don't think I can take it seriously with that kind of president.
David Sven wrote: "Nick wrote: "I said you wouldn't have computers without the pure research that came before it that had no practical application"You mean like the abacus? The Sumerians might have had something to..."
It is a good thing people like you were not around to decide the funding for the mathemetician Gottfried Leibniz who invented the binary language used by computers as a "pure" research exercise well before computers were invented (in the 1600's I think)
Pure research always pays off. There are way too many practical examples of this to even really argue about - so I don't know why I am even bothering to type this.
I guess this will be my last post on the subject as I dislike encouraging troll-like behavior in forums.
Stan wrote: "Pure research always pays off. There are way too many practical examples of this to even really argue about - so I don't know why I am even bothering to type this. "Except my comments are limited specifically to the Hadron Collider and its disproportionate funding. I am not anti research, science or maths or research funding.
And Leibniz budget was relatively modest I believe - and simplifying logic to mathematical expression though abstract has a direct logical correlation to problem solving - ie simplified problem solving is going to pay off - in solved problems obviously. Looking at something through the big machine when there is no way to tell what you are actually looking at - not so much. There is nothing actually stopping us applying the assumption of the Higgs Bosun particle to practical applications(or even the proposal of practical applications) if they exist.
Which means there is now pressure to tell an increasingly less skeptical public what it wants to hear to keep the money flowing. And if governments can find a way to justify taxing it, they will.
Darren wrote: "David Sven wrote: "I am not anti research, science or maths or research funding."You kind of are, David."
Uhh - not sure how to respond to that sort of logic. Perhaps by matching it with - "No I'm not?"
Nick wrote: "http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...-----------------------------
Any time you win a bet with Prof Hawking your having a good day.
Unless of course your one of his grad students.
That would be bad.
David Sven wrote: "The pressure to perform must be enormous. I wonder if they considered putting that 10 billion dollars to cancer research - or to something else that's actually going to benefit mankind."When I saw this announcement, I ran out and told my girlfriend, who responded in almost the exact same way. You could almost hear the air being let out of that balloon, cue the sad trombone.
I see the point of applied vs. basic research, and you're right that that's an awful lot to be spending, especially when Europe and the US are both so shaky financially at the present, but I would say that the long term benefits will very likely justify the cost with future applications. Time will tell, though.
Erick wrote: "I see the point of applied vs. basic research, and you're right that that's an awful lot to be spending, especially when Europe and the US are both so shaky financially at the present, but I would say that the long term benefits will very likely justify the cost with future applications. Time will tell, though. Exactly my point. But I'm more concerned with the misinformation being fed to a public that really should be more skeptical of, and less willing to delegate critical thinking to, scientists.
For example, we are told the Higgs Bosun is a particle with a specific purpose - ie you can't call it a Higgs Bosun unless you can see that purpose demonstrated. Oops - The Hadron Collider is only capable of detecting sub atomic particles - it is not actually capable of observing,deducing or assigning purpose or function to any sub atomic particle that may be observed. It never was. Now what's wrong with the general population holding scientists to account for sensationalizing or exaggerating the possibilities to justify their grants? And now they get another 4 years worth of funding.
My real problem however is that unless proven otherwise, things like Higgs Bosun and dark matter fall under the category of metaphysics. And the scientists can howl all they like but the truth is dark matter and Higgs Bosun particle are not based on discoveries or observation - they are simply there because the math of current cosmological models doesn't work without them. So things like the Higgs Bosun Particle are introduced as a Dues Ex Machina (ie a "God particle") to fudge the math and justify maintaining the model.
So my other concern is the funding of a metaphysics project (which I'm not fundamentally opposed to given enough justification) that is not presented as such. If you want to spend 10billion dollars on a metaphysics project, at least acknowledge that's what you are doing.
BTW did you guys know that the Internet started in CERN?Yes there was a clear application for it, but the funding that started that was actually for "metaphysical" research.
Its never as simple as we like to think it is. Most big discovers that changed our lives were accidents and serendipitous.
On the question of funding, the Nation Cancer Institute averages a budges of US$4.8 billion a year (source:http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fa...), while the budge of CERN amounts to about US$1 billion as of 2010 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Fin...).
Now remember that the cancer research funding is only for cancer, and no other medical research, and only for 1 such governmental institute, of which there are many others in other countries. I am not even considering the funding from private pharmaceutical companies such as GSK (which has recently been convicted of fraud).
SO there are the numbers, You can make your own judgments.
David, I can't blame you for not understanding how they researched the Higgs. You're not alone. I don't fully understand it myself either. But what I understood is that they are fully aware off your concerns. They never said they are 100% sure it exists. But the chance that it doesn't is so little after all this research. They have thousands of TB's of data that they analysed for it. Think you missed that vital part of their explanation. I suggest you read more about it.I think you totally off with your reasoning. At least on how you think about the funding. Money is not important here, it is the science.
That is what is wrong in the world. We are focusing on money, on how much research costs. We should focus on the problems we have and how to solve them and on the questions and how to answer them instead of freaking coins. But that is a different discussion entirely.
The Internet started in the US. The World Wide Web started at CERN. Yes there is a difference.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
Not to split particles but…getting back to Higgs Boson.
Let's try a Feynman sort of analogy.
The folks at CERN went looking for "something"
in a very specific place. Well they found "something" and it was right around where they were looking.
The problem is that they're not quite sure what that "something" is. Or if they would have found it "elsewhere". They are no where near the point where they can explain it to their grandma.
(The real criteria for understanding)
Bram wrote: "They never said they are 100% sure it exists. But the chance that it doesn't is so little after all this research. They have thousands of TB's of data that they analysed for it. "Yeah, see that's what I'm talking about. He (The scientist) said - They are 100% sure - There's lots of data. Well I guess that settles it then. No further justification required because he say he thinks . . .
Oh, can you just tell me what you actually saw by the way? Was that a subatomic particle maybe you say? And you are pretty sure it the Higgs Bosun? Yes? And can you explain what properties the observed particle has in common with a hypothetical Higgs Bosun? Oh, they are both subatomic particles you say? Great. Thanks for clearing that up. Oh you want another 4 years worth of funding to study the data? Have you not done that already? Its just I was pretty sure your 99.9999% certainty was a result of data collected. Oh, you are certain that you will be that certain after 4 years or so? Why's that? Oh of course, I forgot you have a lot of data.
Bram wrote: "I think you totally off with your reasoning. At least on how you think about the funding. Money is not important here, it is the science. That is what is wrong in the world. We are focusing on money, on how much research costs. We should focus on the problems we have and how to solve them and on the questions and how to answer them instead of freaking coins. But that is a different discussion entirely. "
Man, I was totally on the pro-theoretical science side, but I have to disagree with that entirely! I think that is the issue that David Sven originally raised, along with how applicable the discover was, and the point is entirely valid. The vast majority of basic research is done on government dime, meaning that it's publicly funded, meaning funded by us as taxpayers. There has to be some point at which people say, "That's too much, it's not in our interest, shut it down!" And where that point is is definitely up for debate; all the talk about NASA having its funding cut is an especially poignant example of this. But to say "All funding, all the time! Science!" is unrealistic and (I shudder to say, but it's true) fiscally irresponsible. Especially when you consider it was $6.4 billion to build and $30 million in electricity to maintain for a piece of equipment that studies a particular subsection of physics.
Where's the line? I can't say, but if the US spent $1 billion on this project, I can definitely understand why people are questioning its relevance.
Why are you focusing so much on how much money the Higgs research did cost? Yes, we are spending tax money on it. If I understand correctly what you are saying, you think it is a waste of money. Well, 10 billion spend on Higgs research is a bargain compared to spending trillions on the US defense budget. Spend all those trillions on science instead. Hmm, daydreaming right now on the possibilities and how much it would help making the world become a better place. But that is how I see all this money crap. Call me an idealist. :-)
Bram wrote: "Why are you focusing so much on how much money the Higgs research did cost? Yes, we are spending tax money on it. If I understand correctly what you are saying, you think it is a waste of money. We..."I'm not disagreeing with you; I think far too much is spent on our defense budget. But assuming that that validates spending on anything else is only adding gasoline to the fire. And I don't think it's a waste of money either; I said previously that I think that the research will lead to useful applications down the line and justify the cost.
But not being willing to consider the cost of scientific research is concerning. It's entirely valid to ask what the point of it is, as many are at this discovery, and by that same token, a judgement should be made on whether those applications and implications are worthwhile. Single-minded pursuit of science regardless of the cost, financial or otherwise, is some dangerous groupthink, as the old parable of Jurassic Park shows. And when you're doing it at the cost of the government and its people, you definitely have a responsibility to them to prove and provide something worthwhile.
So, yes, I think David Sven's argument is valid, if only that someone needs to ask if of any scientific pursuit. And I think the future will show that it is worthwhile, as the examples from the past that everyone has used have shown. But I think that's also hypothetical, and it has yet to be proven what those applications will be, especially in light of its enormous cost.
Erick wrote: "It's entirely valid to ask what the point of it is, as many are at this discovery, and by that same token, a judgement should be made on whether those applications and implications are worthwhile."The point of all this? It is what we are as humans. We are explorers. That is what makes us great. That is what drives us every day. To discover the unknown. Without that being in us we would never be what we are today.
An interesting video of Theoretical physicist Garrett Lisi explaining the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK0qkk...
Let's not forget that if a cure for cancer was discovered, it would have to be priced at $1,000,000 a dose, or more, to make up for the huge cash cow that is cancer care.
If only they hadn't torn down that rain forest, then Sean Connery would have had the solution back in 1992!http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104839/
Ah hah, I found the Higgs:
Higgs Boson explained on Charlie Rose:http://www.charlierose.com/view/inter...
"we were looking for it so long, originally we wanted to call it the goddammed particle"
-----------------------------
Scientists at the home of the world's most powerful collider say they've found a subatomic particle that's never been seen before — a particle that could be the fabled Higgs boson.
"This is a very, very preliminary result, but we think it's very strong," said Joe Incandela, spokesperson for the CMS experiment at CERN's Large Hadron Collider.