somebody wrote:
> discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation collider
> than LHC.

Ten years is a rather short time for practical applications from 
something like this. How long between discovery of Maxwell's equations 
and practical applications thereof? How long between the invention of 
relativity and the launching of GPS satellites?

> suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? 

Remember that 10 billion dollars today is closer to what, 100 million 40 
years ago? Something like that.

> * 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.

We came, we saw, we conquered. Why go back? We did what we needed to do. 
Plus, nowadays, due to advanced in understanding of elementary physics, 
we can send space ships without people that can go to the moon and back.

> It was one-upmanship, clear and
> simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a result
> is NASA trying to save face.

Evidence?

> * 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.

The Higgs boson is what gives matter mass. A good understanding of that 
may settle research into a number of questions that have practical 
applications for things like faster-than-light travel, reduction of 
inertia, and so on, I'd expect.

Science is most interesting when you find something you *didn't* expect. 
That's kind of the point of doing the experiments. Asking what practical 
results are assured to come from scientific experiments is like asking 
how long it'll take to fix the bugs you'll find when you do the beta 
testing next week.

> LHC will at best answer some questions and posit some even finer ones. 

So?

> Do we then build a 10 trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? 

Eventually. Why not?

> Where do you draw the line in such a singleminded pursuit? 

You don't. Indeed, you're begging the question by asking about it as a 
"singleminded pursuit". (In the actual meaning of "begging the 
question". :-)

At what point do you give up on medicine trying to cure old age? Why the 
single-minded pursuit there?

> 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.

I think that's what some people are worried about: The LHC causing the 
end of all physics. ;-)

Seriously, tho, why do you think anyone thinks the LHC will be the last 
such experiment?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message