I was listening to a call in radio show this morning, and the commentary from both camps made me chuckle. "This is an exciting time for particle physics!" (Nerds rule!) "Our tax dollars are being squandered to prove God doesn't exist" (uh, not our tax dollars, their tax dollars.) "Do you think they can get video of the creation of a new universe?" (Wouldn't hold my breath.) "When they collide quarks and the world ends, those scientists will have a LOT of explaining to do." (eh, notsomuch)
Link to pictures with commentary
3 comments:
You can probably guess what I think of much of this commentary.
I'm impressed that they can get the whole thing up and running in a reasonable timeframe. SLAC was only two miles long and a really temperamental beastie. This thing is much, much bigger and much, much, much more complex. On the other hand, maybe it won't be as subject to diurnal temperature shifts and (cough cough) it certainly will have things like newer, better power supplies which regulate better. It's like comparing a Prius to a Model T, I guess.
All the same, even though I like fundamental research, I kind of wish we humans would prioritize our expenditures a little differently.
One of the "expert" commentaries I heard this morning spoke to that concern re: spending on science like this, rather than on more practical applications. Pure scientific exploration like this expands our understanding of the big picture, which ultimately sheds light on the dark corners of that picture. Without the understanding of gravity, there'd be no magnetic imaging for medical diagnostics.
Yes, the "incidental discovery" argument is one that's often cited to help justify programs including space exploration. I'm not questioning the value or beauty of doing fundamental scientific research. Certainly high energy physics research is (or was) near and dear to my heart.
My concern is more of a budgetary/prioritization nature. There is a sea of fundamental and/or practical research which needs to be addressed, and there are finite funds to spread around. There are dead spots in the ocean, people with odd forms of cancer, developing artificial photosynthesis would be nice, there are ongoing issues regarding fossil fuel dependence, and it would be nice to have a retirement home for disenfranchised polar bears. (Can you tell that I made that list up on the spur of the moment?) And yes, exploring the validity and limitations of the Standard Model would be nice, and might even yield practical benefits in a few decades. I would agree that knowing more, rather than less, is generally a good thing.
It all needs to be done. There are finite funds. Where shall we put the money first? Of course, my concerns and opinions are a moot point: it's a done deal.
Hey, sorry for hogging your comments page!
Post a Comment