Whats the point?

Duff Man Jr.

There is all this research being done by uber smart people into quantum mechanics, string theory, billions of dollars for the lhc etc. Is the end result only going to basically satisfy a curiosity of where the universe came from and is going? If the TOE was completed tomorrow would anyones life change?

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?(obliviously they wouldn't be passionate about it and therefore not as efficient in the area, but thats not the point)

I not arguing for this, just wanna see what people think.

Azelfafage

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?.

Blue skies research gets the best results.

Fleming was not looking for antibiotics.

Cancer is DNA replicating out of control.
Crick and Watson stumbled on to the DNA mechanisms which underly cancer.

They did not know previously.

Improving on what you already know is not pure science.

"That lazy fella Galileo looking at the sky..........why doesn't he get a real job?"

.

Spear

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There is all this research being done by uber smart people into quantum mechanics, string theory, billions of dollars for the lhc etc. Is the end result only going to basically satisfy a curiosity of where the universe came from and is going? If the TOE was completed tomorrow would anyones life change?

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?(obliviously they wouldn't be passionate about it and therefore not as efficient in the area, but thats not the point)

I not arguing for this, just wanna see what people think.

You're using the World Wide Web produced by physics researchers to question if physics research produces anything? The same system now used for grid computing by Folding@Home, Predictor@Home, GPUGrid etc to develop cures for cancer and AIDS?

Sleipnir

What's the point in researching cancer if we spend far more money on weapons that are designed to kill more and more people?
Why don't we use the money we spend on weapons to fund work on real-world problems such as cancer or aids?

Would you rather we still thought that the earth was the centre of the Universe and that God created the earth in seven days?

Podge_irl

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?

Last time I checked I'm a crap biologist.

Turtwig

Well if we take the NASA as an example.
What is the point in sending men to the space?

Well you get Shoe Insoles,
Water Filtrations System,
Motion Sensors for Car Airbags (and subsequently Nintendo Wii).
The Not so Visible Tooth Braces,
The IR Ear thermometer.
Fire Resistant Suits.


Quick Google Got me this Wiki list of dozens more.
Also a slight aside, but MRI technology would not be possible without the pursuing of the theory of super conductivity.
Game Theory in mathematics has helped improved the efficiency of manufacturing processes.

Spin-offs could occur anywhere at any time in science, and it's why the private industries invest heavily in it.

eZe^

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There is all this research being done by uber smart people into quantum mechanics, string theory, billions of dollars for the lhc etc. Is the end result only going to basically satisfy a curiosity of where the universe came from and is going? If the TOE was completed tomorrow would anyones life change?

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?(obliviously they wouldn't be passionate about it and therefore not as efficient in the area, but thats not the point)

I not arguing for this, just wanna see what people think.

The research CERN have done in the past is the reason why you can come onto this website here question their usefulness. They created the world wide web, and soon we'll have it's replacement, the grid, which funnily enough was also created at CERN.

Also, humans as a species have always been about constantly progressing, and constantly being curious and being consciously aware of their existence. I mean, you make it out that only CERN are wasting their time with research, but what about car companies? Why should they bother continuing spending millions and millions making cars that are just a little faster and look nicer? Sher we have plenty of cars now that will get us from A to B...

The simple answer is that humans will ALWAYS be striving to answer questions and continuously progress. The shame is you don't realise how important institutes like CERN have been in developing the technology that goes into everyday things like microwaves, mobile phones, your computer, the internet, your ipod, etc.

EdwardHunter

eZe^ wrote: »

Spin-offs could occur anywhere at any time in science, and it's why the private industries invest heavily in it.

Precisely. Everything advance that has been mentioned here has been spin-offs of the core goals. But that is usually the way with scientific advances! Science typically has very lofty, pure goals that don't necessarily have a an obvious application.

Turtwig

:mad:

EdwardHunter wrote: »

eZe^???? wrote:

Spin-offs could occur anywhere at any time in science, and it's why the private industries invest heavily in it.

Precisely. Everything advance that has been mentioned here has been spin-offs of the core goals. But that is usually the way with scientific advances! Science typically has very lofty, pure goals that don't necessarily have a an obvious application.

2Scoops

This reminds me of the Republicans ham-fisted attempts to 'freeze,' i.e. reduce, the NSF and NIH budgets last year as an election strategy! Damn eggheads wasting tax payers' money when it could be spent on the military and tax breaks for the rich. It actually strikes a cord with many Americans who want lower taxes (at any price, ironically).

McCain: Did you hear they're studying the DNA of bears in Montana? Palin: Or fruit fly research in Paris, France? :rolleyes:

Turtwig

2Scoops wrote: »

This reminds me of the Republicans ham-fisted attempts to 'freeze,' i.e. reduce, the NSF and NIH budgets last year as an election strategy! Damn eggheads wasting tax payers' money when it could be spent on the military and tax breaks for the rich. It actually strikes a cord with many Americans who want lower taxes (at any price, ironically).

McCain: Did you hear they're studying the DNA of bears in Montana? Palin: Or fruit fly research in Paris, France? :rolleyes:

The fruit fly blunder was brilliant!!:D

ZorbaTehZ

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There is all this research being done by uber smart people into quantum mechanics, string theory, billions of dollars for the lhc etc. Is the end result only going to basically satisfy a curiosity of where the universe came from and is going?

"only going to satisfy a curiosity"? It's odd that you can be so blasé about something as important as a complete understanding of the universe!

And to echo Podge's thoughts, theoretical physics isn't exactly terribly useful in cancer research, hence why you don't see biologists learning QFT etc.

Professor_Fink

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

There is all this research being done by uber smart people into quantum mechanics, string theory, billions of dollars for the lhc etc. Is the end result only going to basically satisfy a curiosity of where the universe came from and is going? If the TOE was completed tomorrow would anyones life change?

I agree with a lot of what others have said, but they haven't gone far enough. Less than 100 years ago physicists made two big discoveries: general relativity, and quantum mechanics. Together these have been absolutely responsible for the emergence of the world we see today. Quantum mechanics in particular gave rise to transistors and integrated circuits, and so is responsible for pretty much every bit of electronics you have ever seen in your life. It also underpins how atoms and molecules interact and so is the basis for vast swathes of chemistry and biochemistry. You may also like to know that advances in physics are responsible for pretty much every medical imaging device.

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?(obliviously they wouldn't be passionate about it and therefore not as efficient in the area, but thats not the point)

And MRI doesn't help? Or PET scans? Or Xrays? Or any of the modern drugs that have been developed using modern chemistry instead of random trial and error? Or the transistor? Somehow I suspect that has impacted far more lives than pretty much any other advance in the last 100 years.

Physics is the driving force behind a large part of human progress and it is fundamentally naive to suggest we abandon it to work on some particular problem of the day. You don't think nuclear fusion will massively change things? A lot of physics is motivated by fundamental questions, but in the process of answering these questions we develop new tools and technologies along the way, which have a good track record of being beneficial to mankind.

The question is also naive in that it presupposes you can essentially force physicists to work on whatever problem you want. You simply can't. We work on what we think is interesting. If I was told tomorrow that I couldn't work in physics, I think I'd probably go apply to Google. Not because the work would change the world, but simply because I'd find it interesting.

Duff Man Jr.

People are taking me up wrong, I'm all for cern and the like. What I was trying to do was break it down to its simplest form. Say was the final goal of the lhc for example is to understand the origins of the universe. I'm not saying that research hasn't led to many important discoveries, but these have never been the goal of the project. Where the goal of cancer research is a cure for cancer.
If both were successful tomorrow the only tangible benefit would come from cancer research.The benefits from cern would be spin off perks, which are great, but the aim of the project has no immediate tangible benefits.

Last time I checked I'm a crap biologist.

The question is also naive in that it presupposes you can essentially force physicists to work on whatever problem you want. You simply can't. We work on what we think is interesting. If I was told tomorrow that I couldn't work in physics, I think I'd probably go apply to Google. Not because the work would change the world, but simply because I'd find it interesting.

Obviously you can't force physicists to do something else, and if all physics research was abandoned that doesn't mean advancement in other areas.
But if it broken down to pure numbers, many of the worlds smartest people work in physics, if this added brainpower was used for medical research it would produce much more intimidate and tangible results.(This is hypotethetical and could never happen for a million reasons, I know)

Turtwig

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

People are taking me up wrong, I'm all for cern and the like. What I was trying to do was break it down to its simplest form. Say was the final goal of the lhc for example is to understand the origins of the universe. I'm not saying that research hasn't led to many important discoveries, but these have never been the goal of the project. Where the goal of cancer research is a cure for cancer.

It's quite simple really.
Experiments at CERN aim to understand stuff better.
Cancer research uses the principles of what is already understood and applies them to the area of cancer in order to understand it better.
Without the initial understanding by experiments like CERN, cancer research wouldn't even get off the ground.

Neither CERN nor Cancer research know with 100% certainty at the beginning their goals are attainable but they still have to try for them.

Podge_irl

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

But if it broken down to pure numbers, many of the worlds smartest people work in physics

Well no, many of the world's smartest physicists work in physics.

Professor_Fink

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Obviously you can't force physicists to do something else, and if all physics research was abandoned that doesn't mean advancement in other areas.
But if it broken down to pure numbers, many of the worlds smartest people work in physics, if this added brainpower was used for medical research it would produce much more intimidate and tangible results.(This is hypotethetical and could never happen for a million reasons, I know)

I think Malty's response was spot on. Ultimately our of pretty much everything is built upon our understanding of physics, and improvements in our understanding of physics often propagate to other fields leading to advances their.

Even without this being the case, however, I would still contest your claim your point that only the cancer research would lead to tangible results soon. I think you are severely misunderstanding quite how deeply advances in physics influence your day to day life. Even if we restrict our selves to a medical setting (which is by no means the most relevant to how long you live and your quality of life) a large chunk of medical imaging is the result of nuclear research: PET scans, MRI, xrays (and in case you didn't know CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Reaserch). Tell me those don't have a tangible use? In fact, you could argue that they are more useful than a new treatment for any one condition, as they can be used to diagnose so many different conditions.

Azelfafage

Europeans are smart enough to know that CERN will pay its way in the long term.

The mental energy the Americans put into getting an American on the moon made Americans the technological masters of the earth.

.

nesf

There's a paper whose title escapes me, I think it's something like the Free Market for Research or the Economics of Research or something like that written by a very prominent chemist way back in the early 20th century it was written as a submission to the British body for deciding on how research money would be spent or something. Someone may be able to find references for it, it used to be on this PC but got lost a few years back along with my collection of other interesting papers.


Basic idea was this (and this was from when Planned Economies were en vogue and people wanted to have a Planner directing all research, which is still present in our system today in various forms) can a planner do a better job than the individual researcher in terms of picking what project that researcher should pursue. i.e. should the research project come from on high like manna or be the brainchild of the head researcher(s) who are going to work on it.

I'm wrecked and haven't slept in 36 hours so I'll be brief. The answer is the planner is never better except when they use very broad heading for which to accept proposals for. The research ideas need to come from the guy on the ground with the years of training and experience who'll be doing the research (and the academy in general, by extension).

Someone may know the reference and they can save me trying to summon a memory years old of a paper read.

Azelfafage

One of the best books ever written about the history of science was "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler.

Still in print after 50 years.

Koestler describes the agonies of the mathematician Kepler's despairing attempts to figure out the movements of Mars better better than Kepler himself.

(At the same time Kepler was trying to save his too-clever mother from being burned as a witch!)

Science,like mathematics, is a magical mystery tour.

Should be always.

Amazon sell Koestler's book The Sleepwalkers today.

Well worth a read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sleepwalkers-History-Changing-Vision-Universe/dp/0140192468/ref=sr_1_1/280-5324018-1394520?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259231743&sr=1-1


.

Tears in Rain

Not quite Science, but also consider how number theory, one of the more obviously 'useless' branches of Mathematics gave us cryptography...

But still, I think we divert ourselves from an interesting discussion when we answer the question "what's the point of pure scientific research" with examples of practical benefits and inventions that have been borne of pure research.

Let us instead consider how we can justify spending vast sums of money on discovering the laws of nature if we take it (incorrectly) as a given that this research will have few practical benefits. Personally, and I'm sure the majority in this forum would agree with me, I believe its perfectly justified, and there is great beauty in learning the laws of nature, but I'd have a hard time justifying expenditure like that at CERN to someone on the street, even though it's a deeply held conviction of mine that it's absolutely worthwhile.

So how would you people justify it?

Podge_irl

Tears in Rain wrote: »

So how would you people justify it?

It's potential value is simply indescribable. I don't mean that as a cryptic way of saying it's got value, I mean that it's indescribable. It could lead to any number of things we can't possibly envision.

On a practical level, its actually not all that much money over a 20 year period shared by numerous countries. And its one of the few global and noble pursuits by mankind.

Bodicea

At the most fundamental level the goal is a complete understanding of the universe and how it works. When Einstein arrived on the scene with relativity, followed by quantum mechanics it then became the goal to tie in relativity with quantum mechanics, one theory that fits all. They are still working on that. If they do solve that mystery then it will be something else...Its simply the curiosity of the human mind.

Its natural human curiosity to want to understand how things works and how things relate to each other. Im sure you would love to understand how your car works, or your tv or ipod. People in physics have the same curiosity but are much more driven by that curiosity. They dont set out to invent anything, or discover any thing other than the answers they seek...but imagine where we'd be if they didnt...still in caves no doubt.

If, along the way, as by products, the likes of teflon and transistors and medical equipment werent being invented then the industry wouldnt have gotten as big as it is, or get anything near the funding it does.....The governments are not funding the research in itself per say...they are after the by products and the revenue it generates.

Look at Einsteins E=mc^2. Nuclear weapons came about as a result of that (much to einsteins regret). Do you really think any of the superpowers would walk away from an industry that has the potential to make its country the most powerful or most attractive.

Look at the silicon based industries. they are all by products of cutting edge research in physics. None of the silicon vallies in the world would exist if it werent for the physics industry...and look at all the revenue the governmetns would be missing out on. No government in its right mind would walk away from that.

So, wrt to the point, there isnt one, other than a complete understanding of how our universe works. However, its the by products that have the politicians and business heads salivating. Of course they are going to fund it, cos it will pay off 100 fold in time, as evidenced by the last 50 years.

wyrn

ZorbaTehZ wrote: »

And to echo Podge's thoughts, theoretical physics isn't exactly terribly useful in cancer research, hence why you don't see biologists learning QFT etc.

Ah now, science is becoming more diversifed. (Well no physicists are taking over, shh!). I know of a few theoretical physics friends working in biology!

I believe there was some project involved with looking at plant leaves and how healthy cells around bad cells killed themselves off in order to stop the bad cells or something to that effect. Don't hold me on it.

As to the original question from the OP - SHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh! Otherwise I'm out of a job!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Duff Man Jr. wrote: »

Could all these uber smart peoples time be better served working on real world problems such as cancer or aids?

These aren't issues in the grand scheme of things. We could blow ourselves up and the only thing in the universe to be meaningfully affected would be the moon.

CIE

Spear wrote: »

You're using the World Wide Web produced by physics researchers to question if physics research produces anything? The same system now used for grid computing by Folding@Home, Predictor@Home, GPUGrid etc to develop cures for cancer and AIDS?

Never mind the future possibilities of physics leading to the development of medical instruments purposed to bring such cures about, as noted by others already. (No production of antimatter, no PET scans.)

Kevster

What's the point in even getting up each day then? That's what you're fundamentally saying. There's no point to anything, but at least guys like me can get a career out of research while earning a decent stipend/wage. Nothing we ever do now will mean anything in the grand scale of things, but we just do stuff anyway for th hell of it.

You sound more disillusioned with life (and/or depressed) than anything else.

Kevin

LionelNashe

I'd take a different view than most of the responses so far. The spin-offs and unexpected benefits are 'nice to have', and maybe essential for our species survival in the future, but the bigger questions are more important. Why does anything exist at all? Why isn't there just nothing? I think that we should explore every avenue - physics, cosmology, philosophy, whatever, to try and arrive at an understanding. The grave is waiting for all of us, and I'll be a bit miffed if I have to go into it with these unanswered questions.

krd

Bodicea wrote: »

At the most fundamental level the goal is a complete understanding of the universe and how it works. When Einstein arrived on the scene with relativity, followed by quantum mechanics it then became the goal to tie in relativity with quantum mechanics, one theory that fits all. They are still working on that. If they do solve that mystery then it will be something else...Its simply the curiosity of the human mind.

If, along the way, as by products, the likes of teflon and transistors and medical equipment werent being invented then the industry wouldnt have gotten as big as it is, or get anything near the funding it does.....The governments are not funding the research in itself per say...they are after the by products and the revenue it generates.

Look at the silicon based industries. they are all by products of cutting edge research in physics. None of the silicon vallies in the world would exist if it werent for the physics industry...and look at all the revenue the governmetns would be missing out on. No government in its right mind would walk away from that.

Transistors were not the product of a curious bumbling naive boffin faffing about. They were created with the intention of replacing tubes. Edison was trying to make light bulbs - Graham Bell was trying to make a telephone - Tesla was trying to make an electric generator - Intel were trying to make microprocessors.

Most useful materials science is not done out of some airy fairy notion of expanding human "knowledge" for the sake of it. It's to make stuff. Intel will put funding up for thousands of scientist to do materials work - They then make faster chips - sell faster computers. The guy who invented the wheel - was trying to invent the wheel.

The hippy notion of doing science for science sake is poison. The body of scientific knowledge, even for the most obscure fiddling about becomes useful at some point.

Pointless knowledge is pointless - spending decades paying researchers to count every blade of grass in Stephen's green would be pointless.

Something that is not worth knowing - is not worth knowing.

Our modern world is completely built on modern science. The alchemists who were messing about with chemicals, may not have had the ultimate aim of turning base metal into gold - but they might have had a dream they'd find something useful that would make them rich. They were trying to make useful stuff, find out useful information. The first Chinese quack who mixed human piss, ash, and some charcoal together - and accidentally discovered gunpowder wasn't just messing around out of curiosity he was trying to get rich.

The Cern scientist may eventually discover something useful - like how to switch on and off gravity - if it can be done. That would be useful.

sponsoredwalk

krd wrote: »

The hippy notion of doing science for science sake is poison.

So Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Maxwell, Newton, Sagan, Perelman, Hardy, Rudin, Halmos, Gauss, Kepler, & [insert name here] were all working for materialistic concerns as opposed to a "hippy"-ish belief in something esoteric? Well, I'm glad I know all of the books I've read are wrong. Finally I understand why Maxwell wanted to unify Electricity & Magnetism - to give us modern tv & radio...

To talk about usefulness is about as useful as saying a red wall is red. It's obvious... Well, at least to most people who have colour vision :rolleyes: Everything people do is useful, even the bad things.

Also, counting blades of grass might not seem so useful, but what if one were to find new species among the grass? I mean, who knows what could happen, it just takes the right person. Why start with a defeatist attitude?

Why do anything? The notion of doing science for science sake is kind of derrogatory, people do not do scientific research to please "the science god", it's to satisfy, at least for most people, some sort of curiousity. Funnily enough, it seems to only help the entire race when people attempt to solve mysteries. I think it's such a statement about the modern day that we can actually get such a huge number of people together to build & use something like the LHC, something that is really trying to search for the most mysterious aspects of life that we aren't 100% sure exist. It's inspiring!

krd wrote: »

Something that is not worth knowing - is not worth knowing.

Well, Poincare definitely thought all of the signs leading up to Relativity Theory weren't worth knowing, he even considered Einsteins Relativity not really even worth knowing.

Poincaré never acknowledged Einstein's work on Special Relativity.

From - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9#Poincar.C3.A9_and_Einstein

Also, Rosalind Franklin thought the geometric details & hydrogen bonding aspects of the x-ray crystallography samples they were working on in the 50's weren't worth knowing, luckily she was wrong.

We are forced to always ask, "useful to whom?".

Who decides?

krd

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Maxwell, Newton, Sagan, Perelman, Hardy, Rudin, Halmos, Gauss, Kepler, & [insert name here] were all working for materialistic concerns as opposed to a "hippy"-ish belief in something esoteric? Well, I'm glad I know all of the books I've read are wrong. Finally I understand why Maxwell wanted to unify Electricity & Magnetism - to give us modern tv & radio...

If you read my comment again you'll see you have me wrong. Sorry, I was a bit cranky yesterday but I do have a point.

I am against the hippyish airy fairy notion of 'knowledge for knowledge sake'. It's a trite and meaningless platitude.

If you see from the list of names you've mentioned. All those those scientist (ok I'm not happy about one or two of the names). Worked with a solid purpose to build upon and expand the canon of solid scientific knowledge. Had Newton decided to spend his life writing rambling treatise on angels, where would we be?

'knowledge for knowledge sake' should never be used by any scientist or mathematician to justify their work. Anyone who knows a rough history of early maths, knows the faffing about with circles and triangles eventually became essential to our modern world. The abstract and seemingly pointless maths, mathematicians work in today, may at some point unlock elements that will become essential parts of our everyday lives in the future.

As for counting blades of grass in St. Stephen's green: If a new species of grass were to be discovered through this method, all very well. But is that a solid and efficient method to discover this new species? Could we do it a different way? Could we build a machine, where we could mow the grass and feed the cuttings through, that would identify different strains of grass DNA? Could we build our knowledge solidly, so we would know what the variations in the plant DNA would mean in the first place?

Counting all the blades of grass in St. Stephen's green, and "knowing" the number for the sake of "knowing" it is as pointless as knowing how many holes it takes to fill the Albert hall - worthless knowledge.

Platitudes have no place in science - they belong in religion. The last thing science needs to be plagued by is the poisonous obscurantism of religion.

I will say, I do not "understand" quantum physics - because I have never studied the necessary canonical maths and science to properly understand the current knowledge on the subject - there are other bits of science I know well (though I've forgotten my maths and equations - use them or lose them) because I have studied them. But you have possibly millions of people around the world who think they understand string theory and black holes, who possibly would have difficulty preforming long division, because they think it's like some religion; you just have to believe in it and have a fuddled notion, to have a little scientific piety. 13 year-olds who think they can build time machines with toy magnets.