"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

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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* I'm not a science luddite. Far from it. However, not all science is equal,
economically and ethically speaking. There are points where the law of
diminishing returns makes certain pursuits - how shall I put it tactfully -
stupid. Science without regard to the human factor is just stamp collecting.

* Sure, most of mathematics is theoretical, but it's much, much cheaper to
do mathematics, and one can pursue _many_ branches for a fraction of the
cost. LHC is akin to spending 10 billion dollars to find the 10 billionth
prime. Sure, an impressive feat on paper, but a _singular_ feat, and with no
feasible practicle applications.

* Laymen are, unfortunately, impossibly confused about the depth and breadth
of physics and media and publicists prey on this. HEP (high energy physics)
is a deep, deep end, far removed from mostly applied branches of physcis
such as quantum optics, quantum computing, condensed matter, solid state...
etc. I would much welcome a 10 billion dollars investment in any or all of
those fields, that have proven or at least feasible returns on investment.

* Some of you claim "yes, but what if we scoffed at this or that research in
the past..." To those, I remind you of Sagan's (yes, I'm aware of the irony,
as I believe much of cosmology to be a waste of resources too) quote
(paraphrased) : "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown". In other words, just because we benefited
from expensive experiments in the past (though not many, if at all, at this
magnitude), we cannot assume any expensive experiment is worthwhile. Each
case needs to be investigated for its own merits.

* And it's not true that we did not foresee any practical applications for
the major breakthroughs in the past. It's a romatic myth that scientists are
always working against the grain and that science is completely an
unpredicable and wild pursuit.

* Having said that, there have been many dead ends in science too. History
tends to push them under the rug. Spending has been limited, though. As the
frontiers are pushed, ever more expensive experiments are needed.

* 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.

* Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
that explains everything? We have all the way to go to Planck energy (well,
yes and no, there are suggestions we need not, which is a good thing, as we
possibly cannot, but my general point is valid): LHC will at best answer
some questions and posit some even finer ones. Do we then build a 10
trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? Where do you draw the line
in such a singleminded pursuit? For if you believe a line needs to be drawn,
"where" is a valid question. If not, well, even if you don't closely follow
high energy physics, you surely can agree on probabilistic grounds that it
would be a fantastic coincidence for you and I to witness the end of
physics.

Post a reply to this message