"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48D### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 24-Sep-08 19:21, somebody wrote:

> > * 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.

When I say "practical application", I am not looking for a tautological
answer (ie "by discovering X, we learned X"). So we learned X. Fine. What's
the practical benefit? What's the application?

> > * 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.

What does high energy physics have anything to do with GPS?

> > * 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)

No, the goal was was exactly precisely 100% to *be* at the moon before
somebody (not me) else. Nobody cared about the journey. Why romanticize
something that was essentially a pissing contest?

> > * 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.

Nobody did, and I know nobody will. Knowledge for knowledge's sake is NOT a
_practical_ expectation.

Post a reply to this message