For one thing how to build an even larger collider (its already planned) to further analyse the results
.So you think science must be always driven by revenue?
British Scientist to End World on Wednesday
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
.So you think science must be always driven by revenue?
I find it beneficial that scientists, engineers, and their like continue to push the bounds of known science. Sure the cost of these things might be rather huge and the results of them might not trickle down to the regular folk for years or decades to come. But these scientists are really compelled at figuring out how shit works not only in our world but the entire universe. The closer we come to understanding it the better off we will be (I hope so at least).
Sure it's a noble effort but as far as I could tell we're at stageof diminishing returns scientific stagnation making itty bitty steps ...evolutionary science not revolutionary. The golden years are long gone and that's sad.
Also it seems like nowadays a lot of scientists are happy to spend their whole life doing research because they get paid to do it. They don't really care if they find anything just going through the motions like an assemby worker. If they didn't get paid they probably wouldn't spend their whole life trying to solve scientific problems through their owning experiments and tinkering.
Also it seems like nowadays a lot of scientists are happy to spend their whole life doing research because they get paid to do it. They don't really care if they find anything just going through the motions like an assemby worker. If they didn't get paid they probably wouldn't spend their whole life trying to solve scientific problems through their owning experiments and tinkering.
Last edited by a moderator:
Umm, the potential experiments and finding from the LHC could make all of those pale in comparison. For instance if we find a partical that is responsible for gravity and find out it's not just some unknown energy... well you can imagine. Also the findings or proving wrong of past theories could help restart our entire thinking process and lead to even more interesting findings. That's the beauty of science, as far as we've come so much is still unknown.
/me waits impatiently for his anti-gravity belt....
RudeCurve - I hear what you're saying, I just totally disagree with you on this one with it. This will be producing some mind-blowing results.
RudeCurve - I hear what you're saying, I just totally disagree with you on this one with it. This will be producing some mind-blowing results.
/me waits impatiently for his anti-gravity belt....
RudeCurve - I hear what you're saying, I just totally disagree with you on this one with it. This will be producing some mind-blowing results.
Yeah that's what they're saying, but what would be a REALISTIC mind blowing result find? It seems nobody f*king knows, not even the scientists.
Realistic? I can't think of a great discovery that was thought realistic, because it would have been known. We don't know everything about reality.
That's exactly my point, none of the scientist have any clue as to realistically what they'll find from this experiment unlike say Nikola Tesla who new what to expect from his experiments because his calculations already told him what to expect. All these scientist are just making a bunch of nebulous guesses as to what they'll find they haven't even got a single clue which brings it back to my question, what do we hope to find???
For one the first thing most expect to find is the Higgs Boson. Also, you make it sound like Telsa did a billion simulations, which he sure did a lot of calculations but it wouldn't even compare to what these scientist do today. They're just guesses though, very educated ones just like Tesla's... this is a tool of experimentation, not some proof of concept...
Horseless carriages were not "realistic"
Light that didn't come from the fire or sun was not "realistic"
Flying was not "realistic"
The very notion of germs was not "realistic"
Splitting atoms (hell, the very notion of atoms) was not "realistc"
The first four are things that were able to be determined by a single person, because the technology needed to overcome those things was simple enough.
However, what you're asking for is simply not realistic. Nuclear fission is not something a single person can undertake, nor is it easy -- but it is easily one of the biggest discoveries of the last century. Breaking protons apart into their discrete pieces may turn out to yield the biggest discoveries of this century, but to do so cannot be done by one or two enterprising individuals.
The technology involved in science of this scale (and at this point in our technological development) is simply not possible without large funding and large groups of very knowledgeable people.
Ok so this particular problem requires large scale everything, understood, but again we're back to the same question. What is this big discovery of the century that you speak of?? And WHY would it be the discovery of the century? If it's because of the magnitude and scale of the experiment then no it wouldn't be revolutionary.
Regarding your examples as to what were realistic.
The horse carriage is certainly a realistic invention, just like a flying car is a realistic invention. We don't have a flying car yet, but we will.
Light, well if it comes from fire and from the sun and is associated with heat, all basic observable phenomenons, a normal intelligent person would conclude that maybe light could come from other "things" too and there might be heat involved.
Flying, well birds can fly and some others can almost fly like chickens, basic observations. If fish can swim maybe we can swim too? If birds can fly maybe we can fly too if not now maybe sometime in the future?
Germs, let's see we have big animals, small animals, and tiny insects...hmmm...is it possible that there a micro organisms aka germs? Very possible.
So basically colliding particles will yield a tiny piece of a large puzzle. This piece we don't even know what it is or if it exist hence this experiment. If we don't find it then we will need to do more experients because we still would not be able to conclude that it doesn't exist. In other words anyting we find would not realistic.....ok....is that an answer? No because an aswer is not possible...ok...thanks anyway.
Whoopi f*kin doo...wake me up when someone discovers time travel ok?
And how exactly do you expect time travel to be discovered without first knowing the basic workings of the universe?
You don't go straight from some guy sitting under a tree working out the maths of falling objects to time travel, faster than light drive and anti gravity.
Yes, huge discoverys were made in the past by single individuals. Thast because those things were relatively easy to discover requiring no special technology and relatively little pre-requisite knowledge to do so. We have come a long way since then but there could and very likely are even more important things to discover which yes, could well eventually lead to amazing technologies like those mentioned above. Maybe not as a direct result of what they're doing at LHC but its still a vital link in the chain. Its not like we could have just skipped everything between the first wheel and todays sports cars, progressiion has to be taken in steps and this one is absolutely necessary if we expect to get to those eventual "sci-fi" like technologies.
The point is that until you know how the universe works, you have no idea what your going to be able to do with it. Thats no excuse to say that we simply shouldn't bother to investigate.
If your expecting it to run utilising some sort of anti-gravity like the movies then i'm interesed to hear how you expect said anti-gravity to be discovered without first investigating it? Because particle physics research (which anti-gravity would be very much related to) is absolutely what LHC is all about.
One of the purposes of the LHC is to either confirm or refute our basic understanding of the contruction of the universe. Its guarenteed to return one of those results and your saying thats a tiny piece of the puzzle?
It also has the potential to identify what dark matter actually is, you know, that stuff that makes up something like 85% of the matter in our universe but which we know absolutely nothing about. You think thats an insignifcant discovery?
You missed my point.
I didn't say it did. I'm just trying to find out what they're trying to find and what it would mean, but nobody knows, not even the scientists.
If you think Tesla's revolutionary discoveries were easy to find you're deluding yourself. A scientist today would be lucky to even discover a single one of Tesla's revolutionary discoveries back then let alone dozens.
You mean like antigravity, teleportaton and time travel? I don't know about you but the majority of scientist don't believe in those things. Only a few believe those things to be even possible because the math says that it COULD be possible not that it WILL be possible.
Well as I said it's a noble effort, but I still don't know what it is they're trying to find or if it's simply an expensive slot machine.
Huh? I don't think anyone has proven that dark matter actually exist? AFAIK DM is just a concept, theory.
Yup, this experiment should either discover it or discredit that theory; same with the Higgs Bosen thingy.
Erm? Nikola Tesla "knew" what to expect from his theories exactly as much as the scientists working the LHC do today. The Standard Model theory predicts the Higgs Boson, and if it is found, then the theory gains further plausibility - remember: it's still not proven true, 'cause that's not possible!
Not that different than what Tesla did back in the days (although Popper wasn't even alive at the time...).
Ugh, are you serious?
Answer me two things:
In the 1300's, what could civilization hope to prove by continuing to sail west beyond the horizon? Nobody knew what was there, nobody could even tell you what was there. The overriding popular theory at the time was either that the world was flat and you'd sail right off, or you'd run into mythical or even ethereal lands filled with monsters, demons or worse.
And second:
Why do you continue to use the term "discovery" when you continue to refute the fundamental meaning of the word? Don't understand what I mean? Let Merriam Webster help you out:
Answer me two things:
In the 1300's, what could civilization hope to prove by continuing to sail west beyond the horizon? Nobody knew what was there, nobody could even tell you what was there. The overriding popular theory at the time was either that the world was flat and you'd sail right off, or you'd run into mythical or even ethereal lands filled with monsters, demons or worse.
And second:
Why do you continue to use the term "discovery" when you continue to refute the fundamental meaning of the word? Don't understand what I mean? Let Merriam Webster help you out:
Merriam Webster said:
What do you want? I can't comprehend what your question even is here. Do you seriously think every experiments out come was already known? The LHC is a tool to perform experiments once out of our reach. In the past discoveries happened in big bangs because there was no means to fund or support constant research. Since the industrial age research has become a part of our existence. No, we tend not to find whiz bang huge discoveries anymore because we progress to them instead of just get lucky. The LHC will lead to discoveries that will lead to other research that some day will impact our lives in very meaningful ways, I can guarantee that. Be it the discovery of a predicted particle or the proof that said particle just doesn't exist. Both are invaluable to science.
It's like you read a history book that didn't include Tesla's equally numerous failures. It's part of science, a failure is often times just as worthy as a success.
Similar threads
