On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:
> "Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> wrote
>> somebody wrote:
> 
>> | Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
>> billion
> 
>> Please don't feed the troll

why not?

> There have been many more responses than I expected and can individually
> answer, so I will follow up the most thoughtful of the responses above, and
> summarize my answers:
> 
> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.

It more or less was found where it was predicted. Hence it proved we 
understood something. While some have honestly tried to answer this and 
similar questions I think it is time for you to answer this on: Assume 
that the top quark was not detected as predicted, explain how this would 
have changed our understanding of matter and give examples of practical 
applications that would have been either possible or impossible or 
different when that the top quark not exists. Alternatively proof that 
it would not have made a difference.

> * I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
> discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation collider
> than LHC.

Yet, the Higgs boson was not found, eventhough some theories expected it 
to be within range of the then current equipment.

> * Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of this
> magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit, why not
> suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give much bigger
> and surer yields.

No, it wouldn't. Because this and other technology was developed to 
support scientific research at first and only then the potential for the 
general public was discovered. You could have poured money directly into 
grid computing, the internet and GPS (to name a few examples that came 
up), except nobody would have had the vision to do so.

> * Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs) are/were
> huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it, we would have
> visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was one-upmanship, clear and
> simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a result
> is NASA trying to save face.

You totally missed the point of the moon program. It was not intended to 
go to the moon, it was intended for the process of going. The journey is 
far more important than the arrival. (somebody (not you) said that much 
better)

[snipped some more of the same]

Let me also observe this: I know a lot of research that could in 
hindsight have been skipped, some of the failures I had even predicted 
before the start. In fact I do now predict that one specific 
multimillion euro EU program that just started is going to fail. 
(Knowing that, I'll do my best to safe it, eventhough I am not part of 
it, but that is beside the point)
Some of the research I did previously can be classified as a failure 
too. Some of my best work on the other hand I could not have done 
without those failures. You grossly underestimate the importance of 
failures.

Observation two: many governments and organisations have tried to cut 
expenses by observing that about 1/3rd of the projects fail and not 
supporting the bottom halve. Guess what: the numbers are still the same, 
you can not predict which project will bring something and which will 
fail. The only thing we know for sure is that the bureaucracy needed to 
'identify the weaker plans' eats a very substantial part of the budget. 
We now spend much more on research because we tried to do it cheap.

I assume that this 'somebody' from north america has a brilliant idea 
how you can improve the practical use of research while cutting costs. I 
work in science, I have seen a lot of ideas to do just that and the one 
thing they have in common is that the have failed miserably and 
expensively. So, if you have a good idea, please don't tell me.

> * Hence my question, what possible practical expectation is there from this
> experiment? Feel free to ask around. No honest scientist will give you an
> answer.

Many will and did, but whatever they say will be disregarded by you as 
irrelevant. So why would you even ask such a question.

> * Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
> that explains everything? 

It might, but it will probably not. And I do hope it won't.

Post a reply to this message