Chinahand Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Having said that, it's an awful lot of money being spent for what is essentially a glorified prestige project. Radio 4 this morning quoted a journalist who'd worked out that it was a pint of beer per person per year. There are always countless demands upon society's money and in the grand scheme of things taking the budget away fom the LHC and moving it else where is unlikely to make a significant difference all in all, so I, for one, am glad that we are able to probe the very highest energies existing in our universe. Getting an understanding of gravity, and hence relativity and cosmology will be a huge filip to human knowledge. Lets face it, we are basically clueless about dark energy and the acceleration of cosmic expansion. It must be a hugely exiting time to be involved in this type of pure science. Our current theories are running up against seemingly insurmountable problems and are having to bolt on ever more complex explanations to match observations. Not quite epicylces, but also not too far away either - we are currently learning more about the universe than we are understanding and the LHC will be a major new testing ground for the myriad competing theories. Just wish my maths was good enough to actually understand it, rather than the gloss the scientists have to provide for the layman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 bluemonday should recognise these:- We believed that we were superior to the universe that gave us birth. We believed we could transcend this dimension... and in the end... we resolved to storm the gates of heaven itself. We applied all of our wisdom, all of our knowledge, to opening a door to another dimension... a place we believed was the well of souls, the foundation for all life. We would touch the face of God and, in so doing, become gods ourselves. We forgot that a door may swing in two directions. We were so concerned with getting out that we never stopped to consider what we might be letting in... until it was too late... One mistake... one mistake... out of many... so many others Indeed I do. Thirdspace. Now that'll be an eye opener............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Having said that, it's an awful lot of money being spent for what is essentially a glorified prestige project. Radio 4 this morning quoted a journalist who'd worked out that it was a pint of beer per person per year. I have to say, and with no slight intended against you, I can't stand such measures. Of course it doesn't seem like that much money when viewed in such terms, but it's a massive amount when viewed in terms of what else it could fund. There are always countless demands upon society's money and in the grand scheme of things taking the budget away fom the LHC and moving it else where is unlikely to make a significant difference all in all, It might seem that way, but only because you're envisaging the money being dissipitated across the entire country. £34 million per year (not to mention the £70 million annual subscription to CERN) could however make a significant contribution to science in this country, helping to fund a number of projects rather than just one. Despite all the fanfare regarding the LHC, the fact of the matter is that science in this country is in dire straits: the science budget was cut by £68 million last year, useful but less glamourous projects are having their funding slashed, university science departments are nearly universally operating on a shoe string, and a hell of a lot of research students are finding it impossible to secure even basic funding. In the current economic climate, this is only going to get worse in the coming years. So yes, it may be heartening to see such exciting physics being done in the centre of Europe, but it's little more than a very expensive lick of paint covering the rusting hulk of UK science. The LHC gets money because it has the potential to generate good copy, and for no other reason. Meanwhile, science as a whole is being starved (and it wasn't exactly in the most healthiest of states to begin with). The money may not seem much in absolute terms, but every penny counts when coffers are running low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 It seems there might really be casualties if it fires up, albeit for less scientific reasons Scientists get death threats from idiots over possible apocalypse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 It seems there might really be casualties if it fires up, albeit for less scientific reasons Scientists get death threats from idiots over possible apocalypse "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat." That's got to be the scientific quote of the year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 8, 2008 Author Share Posted September 8, 2008 tell us a date...I want to marry my girlfriend next year! Well there's the end of your world right there mate..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaefell050 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Well there's the end of your world right there mate..... Hehehe probably! If it does end on Wednesday, at least I don't have to write a rubbish Romeo and Juliet essay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat." That's got to be the scientific quote of the year! Some more quotes regarding the LHC, made me laugh (a bit anyway) "The chances of this ending the universe are 50,000,000 to 1, i'm sorry, but if there is any chance of this ending the universe, don't switch it on. It's like if my son asked for a train-set in the loft, i'd say sure, but if he said can I have a train-set that might end the universe, i'd say how about a bike." Frankie Boyle, Mock The Week "The LHC will not create a black-hole, if it does create a black-hole, they will be infinitisimally small and exist for a fraction of a second and then i'll get a Nobel prize." Stephen Hawking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 That's not what's happening: something can't be created from nothing. What they're trying to do is convert energy and matter (which in relativistic terms are essentially the same thing) into a different kind of matter. The stated purpose being to help complete our picture of the Universe and test the standard model. I can't find it, but I have seen a science documentary on TV explaining that worlds can be formed from nothing. If I ever find it, then I'll let you all know, as it was highly interesting at the time. I'm fascinated by all the new developments in science and technology and only wish that I could understand it better, but it seems something new is happening everyday now. Amazing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 The LHC gets money because it has the potential to generate good copy, and for no other reason. Meanwhile, science as a whole is being starved (and it wasn't exactly in the most healthiest of states to begin with). The money may not seem much in absolute terms, but every penny counts when coffers are running low. over £100m a year is a lot of money. 20,000 x £5,000 a year. I don't see that the project gives much value for money in terms of useful everyday benefits, patents etc. The same money could fund a lot of research projects. Shouldn't the money be managed by a funding authority who decide which projects should get research grants? (or was this the case, and they decided LHC should get £100m + a year?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 I can't find it, but I have seen a science documentary on TV explaining that worlds can be formed from nothing.If I ever find it, then I'll let you all know, as it was highly interesting at the time. Tis true, our big bang and universe was formed from the 'nothing' of a singularity - though, you never know, that singularity could have been caused by scientists cocking about with the equivalent of a LHC in a parallel universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Tis true, our big bang and universe was formed from the 'nothing' of a singularity Except of course that the singularity of the big bang is supposed to have contained all matter and energy, and so was far from 'nothing' (just as the singularity of a black hole is not nothing, but matter of infinite density). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 over £100m a year is a lot of money. 20,000 x £5,000 a year. I don't see that the project gives much value for money in terms of useful everyday benefits, patents etc. The science doesn't necessarly even have to have everyday useful benefits (although this is often desirable as profits from established projects can then be reinvested to help sustain departments and research groups). Despite a tendency to view things like the Standard Model and the LHC as the be all and end all of science, the fact of the matter is that the vast bulk of scientific research being done today has little, if anything, to do with and no use for bleeding edge particle physics of this kind. I believe the funds are managed by a funding body, the STFC (I may be wrong about this), but they're bloody useless at the best of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 over £100m a year is a lot of money. 20,000 x £5,000 a year. I don't see that the project gives much value for money in terms of useful everyday benefits, patents etc. The same money could fund a lot of research projects. Without physics research of this kind, you wouldn't have X-ray machines or CAT scans, TV sets, lasers, solar cells, transistors. So without this kind of particle physics research electronics or computers for that matter, or nuclear power and medical isotopes. Without CERN specifically you wouldn't have the internet and other spin-offs such as superconductor advances. You can't simply look at the 3bn and decide it's too much money, you've not seen the benefits yet! It may be that our entire species depends on advances in the understanding of particle physics to get us over our current resource challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Without physics research of this kind, you wouldn't have X-ray machines or CAT scans, TV sets, lasers, solar cells, transistors. So without this kind of particle physics research electronics or computers for that matter, or nuclear power and medical isotopes. There's an entire world of difference between the discovery of and research into things like electrons and X-Rays which have a macroscopic effect, and more esotetic subatomic particles and forces that we are barely in any position to even detect, never mind manipulate. CERN aren't producing a grand new theory here, where the applications and possibilities are unimaginable, they're trying to test a pretty old established one. Without CERN specifically you wouldn't have the internet and other spin-offs such as superconductor advances. We would have the internet, since that was the product of a U.S. advanced studies programme in the middle of the century. The World Wide Web was developed at CERN, but there's no reason to suppose it wouldn't have been developed anyway. You can't simply look at the 3bn and decide it's too much money, you've not seen the benefits yet! It may be that our entire species depends on advances in the understanding of particle physics to get us over our current resource challenges. Similarly, you can't tell that our entire species doesn't depend on advancements in a particular field of botany or inorganic chemistry. Thus I propose they be bunged £3bn immediately, even though they may not have the "whatta scoop!" factor everyone loves about the LHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.