I'm not sure we are speaking the same language, here.
Higgs Boson found
- Thread starter gturner
- Start date
Maybe because i am a tax payer and have never been on welfare in my entire life. Even when i was jobless, i relied on my savings and not on welfare checks and i am proud of that. I sympathizes with those who work for a living and pay their bills and taxes. Folks like that are very practical and do expect their taxes will result in something useful for their children or even their children's children. Whether in North America, Europe or Asia, Tax payers are all the same. We hate wasteful government spending especially in times of economics difficulty like now days.
If the discovery of the Higgs boson eventually leads to better things for my children and nieces and nephews, i am all for it. I may not live to enjoy the practical benefits in 50 years or 60 years time but at least my children or my children's children will.
And that's different from most people... how? You know, scientists pay taxes, too. Or are you saying that working on science is some kind of "welfare"? Does it apply to other government-sponsored endeavours? Police forces? Health services? The military? Are they on "welfare", too?
You mean, exactly how Christopher already explained scientific research actually works?
So scientific research is "wasteful government spending" now? Wow.
Even the biggest scientific research projects are a tiny expenditure compared to defense, entitlements, health spending, interest on the national debt, etc. The 2012 US federal budget allocates only about $30 billion to general science, space, and technology, compared to $778 billion for Social Security, $716 billion for defense, $484 billion for Medicare, $129 billion for veterans' benefits, etc. Out of a total $2.25 trillion dollars, science spending accounts for less than a percent and a half of the budget. If anything, we don't spend nearly enough on it.
Anyway, the Large Hadron Collider is operated by CERN in Europe. America is one of the six "observer" nations that contribute some of the financing, but most of the money comes from the 20 Member States of CERN. So the cost to the taxpayers in any one country is trivial. (According to the LHC's British FAQ, "UK’s direct contribution to the LHC is £34m per year, or less than the cost of a pint of beer per adult in the UK per year." And the UK is the third-largest contributor to CERN's budget after Germany and France.) So I don't see what an American taxpayer would have to complain about.
Well until the next budget at least when the price of alcohol will go up again. But I suspect that the money spent on the LHC will not figure highly on Brit's list of things that waste tax payers money, towards the top you'll have things like the EU, the Government of the day (or rather a policy or policies from them) etc..
Actually, he does have a good point, and all scientists would agree that there is such a thing as wasteful scientific research spending, which is evidenced when they have trouble getting a grant because some utterly idiotic mega-project is sucking up all the money. I'm sure you'd agree a $5 billion dollar grant for cold fusion research would probably be a waste of $5 billion.
You have to watch out for wacko projects, peer driven vanity projects, expensive programs to add one significant figure to a constant that even scientists round off anyway,
and projects that muddle on because the funding is being spent in the district of someone on the Senate committee that allocates funding (such as the Webb Telescope, whose costs continue to grow out of control).
Bang for the buck is part and parcel to scientific management, allowing panels of scientists to weigh costs and benefits and choose among thousands of proposals, such as $500,000 to study the mating habits of an Amazon tree frog versus $500,000 to test it and 20 other frog species for medically useful compounds.
For another example, the funding conflicts between manned space flight and unmanned probes. Land a Mars rover the size of a mini-Cooper or gather three more data points on why astronauts feel queezy, which will just confirm that yes, they feel as queezy as the previous hundred?
Or to address that question more directly, the ISS cost $100 billion so far. Did we learn anything worth that much? How much basic science could've been done instead?
When you defend any level of spending on any science project from the position "But it's science!" you sacrifice some of the best tools of science, which is evaluating what questions are best worth asking, which answers would be more important than others, how hard those answers will be ferret out, and what potential implications they have. It can't be done perfectly of course, since it's dealing with unkowns and unkown unkowns, but we all have to make spending decisions on imperfect information and do the best we can.
On EmoBorgs point, if I was looking for bang for the buck in applied nuclear physics to help energy production, I would put money into liquid fluoride thorium reactor research, which gets virtually no funding in the West but could have far reaching implications, perhaps replacing all the coal plants in India, China, and everywhere else, even helping us switch to a hydrogen or all electric transportation system. China has launched a huge thorium reactor program and intends to retain the intellectual property rights on every aspect.
Hypothetically if the end result of a $5bn grant was a working and practical cold fusion reactor it wouldn't be a waste. Nor would it be a waste if a side effect was a practical technology or dsicovery.
Sometimes what determines the difference between a waste and it not being a waste is the end result.
Sometimes what determines the difference between a waste and it not being a waste is the end result.
^Yeah. And even if cold fusion weren't viable, the attempt to make it work could lead some unexpected new discovery or new way of looking at things, and that could produce practical benefits nobody would've seen coming. So it wouldn't be a waste. In science, it's not a failure if you don't get the results you expected, because you still learn something from the attempt, and knowledge is power. Science only fails if nothing at all is learned -- and that's what will happen if there's too little money available to even make the effort.
I mean, come on, the whole reason we do science is because we don't know in advance what the answers are. So it's pretty oxymoronic to imagine that we can know ahead of time what questions are worth exploring and what questions aren't.
I mean, come on, the whole reason we do science is because we don't know in advance what the answers are. So it's pretty oxymoronic to imagine that we can know ahead of time what questions are worth exploring and what questions aren't.
^ But if I gave you $5 billion to hand out as grants to fund any research avenues you thought would produce interesting and important results (or negative results), how likely would you be to just give the whole lump to a cold fusion fanatic?
You'd sit there staring at grant proposals for nano-technology and micro-machines, advanced particle detectors, new high-temperature superconductors, solar probes, Bose-Einstein condensates, pulsed-laser fusion and fission studies, and neutron sources more advanced than Europe's ISIS. In the back of your mind you couldn't shake the feeling that the $5 billion cold fusion experiment would just result in a giant building filled with a heap of nickel, platinum, Perrier, and tomato paste, along with ten years of "We're on the cusp of maybe getting a result!" Perhaps you'd kick in for $5 million to even see if the idea is worth further study, but I really doubt you'd go all in. Sometimes a field needs to have someone like the Curies demonstrate the reality of an effect on a small scale (radioactivity!), or evidence that beyond a certain energy level something significant will happen, before you go fund a Manhattan project.
You'd sit there staring at grant proposals for nano-technology and micro-machines, advanced particle detectors, new high-temperature superconductors, solar probes, Bose-Einstein condensates, pulsed-laser fusion and fission studies, and neutron sources more advanced than Europe's ISIS. In the back of your mind you couldn't shake the feeling that the $5 billion cold fusion experiment would just result in a giant building filled with a heap of nickel, platinum, Perrier, and tomato paste, along with ten years of "We're on the cusp of maybe getting a result!" Perhaps you'd kick in for $5 million to even see if the idea is worth further study, but I really doubt you'd go all in. Sometimes a field needs to have someone like the Curies demonstrate the reality of an effect on a small scale (radioactivity!), or evidence that beyond a certain energy level something significant will happen, before you go fund a Manhattan project.
That's a ridiculous, straw-man question. Obviously no one who comes off as a "fanatic" is going to get that kind of funding. But if someone has a legitimately reasoned proposal and a valid methodology and it seems like there might be something to discover, then it could be worth investigating, and it would be allocated as much funding as seemed reasonable for the investigation.
The problem with the whole cold fusion thing is that the media got into it and imposed their usual misunderstandings and misrepresentations of how science works. Yes, the cold fusion experiments didn't produce the results that Pons and Fleischmann initially reported, but that's part of how science works and is supposed to work -- you do experiments, you report the results, and other scientists test those results, trying to replicate them and thus either verify or refute them. If the results are refuted, then you've still learned something. It doesn't mean the people who did the experiment were "fanatics" or frauds or something. It meant they formulated a hypothesis to explain their results and later tests disproved that hypothesis. That's how science works. That's what makes it so much more powerful and valuable than religion and politics and other ideologies: because it's honest enough to admit it can be wrong and thus can learn from its mistakes. Because science requires facing the possibility of error, tracking it down, and correcting it.
And maybe Pons and Fleischmann didn't discover fusion, but it seems there was something going on in that reactor that isn't understood, and maybe if the media and public opinion hadn't gotten in the way and hung them out to dry for not producing cold fusion, they would've been able to keep investigating, figure out what was really going on, and find something new and useful. And maybe somebody else would come up with a different idea for how fusion could be achieved at low temperatures and that might be investigating too. Unfortunately, the media and the general public got involved and imposed their foolish stigmas about making mistakes, and scared scientists off of doing their jobs.
^ Well, Pons and Fleischman weren't fanatics, but boy did they attract some! The usual type that goes on about Tesla's energy secrets and whatnot. I guess I should've clarified that someone who would want a $5 billion dollar cold fusion grant at this point might be somewhat less than objective.
Good thing nobody did that, then. Nice strawman, tho.
Then it's still a nonsensical and dishonest question, because you know perfectly well that nobody like that is ever going to get such a grant. Please don't waste our time with strawmen.
^ It's not a strawman, it's pointing out the obvious fact that you wouldn't give nearly equal weight to all grant proposals, becasue not all proposals have equal merit, even though technically they all could claim "it's science!"
This whole digression started when someone asked what kind of economic benefits we might get from the discovery of the Higgs, and got a response I'll paraphrase as "Shut up. It's science!"
A better response perhaps would've been "This is part of the fundamental model of the universe. Fundamentals are very, very important." At first blush, someone might not think finding a new boson was more significant than finding a new Brazilian beetle, and finding the boson cost billions. So patiently explaining the importance of its discovery and that the costs were more than justified is more reassuring to the taxpayers, and taxpayers do have a finite amount of patience and tolerance for science spending when they're told to shut up. It's basic PR.
This whole digression started when someone asked what kind of economic benefits we might get from the discovery of the Higgs, and got a response I'll paraphrase as "Shut up. It's science!"
A better response perhaps would've been "This is part of the fundamental model of the universe. Fundamentals are very, very important." At first blush, someone might not think finding a new boson was more significant than finding a new Brazilian beetle, and finding the boson cost billions. So patiently explaining the importance of its discovery and that the costs were more than justified is more reassuring to the taxpayers, and taxpayers do have a finite amount of patience and tolerance for science spending when they're told to shut up. It's basic PR.
And the reason that is a strawman is that nobody was actually suggesting doing any such thing. I just reviewed the thread, and the only person to postulate anything of the sort is you. You introduced the idea and then refuted it, so you're basically just arguing with yourself, not with anyone else who's actually participating in this thread. And that's the very definition of a strawman: a position that is not actually being proposed by anyone, but that a debater introduces solely in order to knock it down.
And that is an incorrect and unfair paraphrase. I did not see anything in the post you responded to which conveyed that attitude. What iguana_tonante actually said was, "So scientific research is 'wasteful government spending' now? Wow." That's all. Saying "not all research is wasteful" is not the same thing as saying "Every conceivable research project is equally valuable," any more than saying "not all people are over 6 feet tall" is equivalent to saying "every person is under 6 feet tall." So you're completely misrepresenting what was actually said. Nobody here is proposing the thing you're claiming they are.
EmoBorg:
I am just curious. What possible benefits can we gain from the discovery of the Higgs Boson? Is there any future practical applications due to the result of this discovery?
The reason i ask this question is that i am hoping for a star trek like energy matter conversion technology in the future. That technology will end all conflicts that are fought for non energy resources like the ones we see in Africa and South America.
yes it is all about economics. That was billions of dollars of tax payers money spent by CERN on research. I am all for research provided it has some practical applications for the future. I want folk's tax money to be accountable. That is nothing wrong with that.
Emoborg wrote:
(Emoborg had to go to advanced emoticons for that one)
Maybe because i am a tax payer and have never been on welfare in my entire life. I sympathizes with those who work for a living and pay their bills and taxes.
We hate wasteful government spending especially in times of economics difficulty like now days.
EmoBorg had a normal taxpayer's point about spending (try getting an NIH grant for research that won't have any potential practical benefit, even 50 years down the road), and taxpayers do have a say in how their research money is spent, even if they have to bend the ear of a Congressman. They are more than willing to slash funding for police, health, and the military, and often have as soon as a desperate need for such services abates. Or just look at the long, long list of cancelled research aircraft and NASA rockets.
From their perspective, they are funding R&D that will hopefully improve things here, and why would they consent to spend any money to make things worse or have no effect at all? So they've put in oversight boards and panels to review spending, making sure research grants aren't being spent on yachts and vacation houses in the Virgin Islands, or pet hobby projects, or projects that will spend billions to add another digit to the Stefen-Boltzmann constant.
Energy to matter conversion technology perhaps isn't in the offing, given that the first Higgs cost up to $1.25e+33 dollars per troy ounce to produce, but nailing down some of the fine points of the standard model experimentally does move things along. So I would tell EmoBorg that CERN is vastly cheaper than the ISS (less than a 10th the cost), and making groundbreaking fundamental discoveries, as opposed to having one astronaut doing experiments, one of which involved using a slingshot to shoot Angry Birds at balloons in zero-G. - and I'm a human space proponent!
Unfortunately Europe can't afford to operate CERN in the winter when electricity prices are high, but perhaps research there will lead to discoveries that will let them keep the lights on all year round.
I am just curious. What possible benefits can we gain from the discovery of the Higgs Boson? Is there any future practical applications due to the result of this discovery?
The reason i ask this question is that i am hoping for a star trek like energy matter conversion technology in the future. That technology will end all conflicts that are fought for non energy resources like the ones we see in Africa and South America.
yes it is all about economics. That was billions of dollars of tax payers money spent by CERN on research. I am all for research provided it has some practical applications for the future. I want folk's tax money to be accountable. That is nothing wrong with that.
Emoborg wrote:
(Emoborg had to go to advanced emoticons for that one)
Maybe because i am a tax payer and have never been on welfare in my entire life. I sympathizes with those who work for a living and pay their bills and taxes.
iguana_tonante said:
We hate wasteful government spending especially in times of economics difficulty like now days.
iguana_tonante said:
EmoBorg had a normal taxpayer's point about spending (try getting an NIH grant for research that won't have any potential practical benefit, even 50 years down the road), and taxpayers do have a say in how their research money is spent, even if they have to bend the ear of a Congressman. They are more than willing to slash funding for police, health, and the military, and often have as soon as a desperate need for such services abates. Or just look at the long, long list of cancelled research aircraft and NASA rockets.
From their perspective, they are funding R&D that will hopefully improve things here, and why would they consent to spend any money to make things worse or have no effect at all? So they've put in oversight boards and panels to review spending, making sure research grants aren't being spent on yachts and vacation houses in the Virgin Islands, or pet hobby projects, or projects that will spend billions to add another digit to the Stefen-Boltzmann constant.
Energy to matter conversion technology perhaps isn't in the offing, given that the first Higgs cost up to $1.25e+33 dollars per troy ounce to produce, but nailing down some of the fine points of the standard model experimentally does move things along. So I would tell EmoBorg that CERN is vastly cheaper than the ISS (less than a 10th the cost), and making groundbreaking fundamental discoveries, as opposed to having one astronaut doing experiments, one of which involved using a slingshot to shoot Angry Birds at balloons in zero-G. - and I'm a human space proponent!
Unfortunately Europe can't afford to operate CERN in the winter when electricity prices are high, but perhaps research there will lead to discoveries that will let them keep the lights on all year round.
Last edited:
