God Particle Detected at CERN

opinion guy

hooradiation wrote: »

I'd be offended at you being such condescending little shit if it weren't for the frailty of everything you've tried to argue.

Reported for personal abuse

Chuck Stone

seantorious wrote: »

Didn't capitalism cost €34 billion a few years ago? I'd rather have the LHC than AIB.

That wasn't capitalism. That was corporate cronyism and propping up a system that failed.

foxyboxer wrote: »

I think given all the talk of a €2 TRILLION eurozone bail out superfund for European banks, 7 billion for CERN is pretty small fry. Now is that ethical when you consider wordwide poverty? Priorities are wrong in that regard but that's for another thread altogether.

And compared with the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it's even smaller still. Again that's about propping up a crony corporate system that failed.

Which means... erm.... nothing.

Haelium

People need to stop looking for immediate benefits, science is not utilitarian, if it was, we wouldn't get very far. If we understand something, we can use it to solve problems, Einstein did not come up with the theory of relativity so that we could have GPS's, but out of curiosity. Who knows what benefit this might have? Even if it doesn't, it will allow us to enter other areas of research that will almost definitely produce something useful.

KeithAFC

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

And we had those things long before we had science. What's your point? There is no either/or here, we can improve things in more than one area of life at once.

The point is do priorities not count? In the list of things that matter in the world, how far up would the importance of knowing what made the universe be? I don't think it would be up as high as some people think.

Haelium

KeithAFC wrote: »

The point is do priorities not count? In the list of things that matter in the world, how far up would the importance of knowing what made the universe be? I don't think it would be up as high as some people think.

Poverty is not a problem that you can just throw money at.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

CT scanners DO NOT use particle accelerators, they DO NOT use superconducting magnets, they DO NOT use helium. They are sophisticated x ray machines made possible by the semiconductor industry. They take sequential x rays in sequential locations and use the power of computers to reconstruct an image.

He probably meant MRI.

Mickeroo

force eleven wrote: »

Still won't change the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow, and life will go on. Why spend billions on this?

Waste of money. Millions of starving,poverty striken people won't give a fig about Higg.:mad:

There's no such thing as a waste of money when it comes to scientific research. Besides, only a tiny fraction of our state's or any state's money is spent on science every year, not nearly enough to be honest. Quite a few important discoveries in the past were purely accidental as a by product of other research, like penicillin for example.

This is about space exploration but a lot of the points ring true here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdwOlk6HIVc

Oh and they thought they had found the Higgs a few months ago too and they hadn't, so this thread is fairly jumping the gun!

Chuck Stone

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Chuck, by the OTT way you've argued your myopic objections to the LHC in a number of threads, you obviously have some emotional prejudice against it.

Nope. Just some questions.

If we followed the kind of Luddite policy yourself an opinion guy espouse, Newton would have sat under a tree with a bump on his head saying "This changes everything.....but I'll say **** all in case they think I was wasting my time sitting under an apple tree for the craic.

What Luddite policy did I advocate? You're strawmanning. I love modernity.

People are kicking up a stink because some of us have reservations about how resources are being used.

Those are perfectly legitimate concerns. If you have difficulty with people asking questions about resource allocation then that's your foible.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

Equally - the computer sitting in front of me is there thanks the captalism - not some doe eyed scientists trying to better mankind. Yes the laser was originally invented without a practical purpose (although there was theoretical purpose). But did it cost 7 billion ? No.

The computer sitting in front of you is there thanks to Collosus, the British code breaking computer from WW2. This was followed in the states by ENIAC in 1946. At the time it was used solely as a research and design tool, and computers for personal use were certainly not envisioned at that time.

Similarly when the British and Germans were developing the jet engine it was never envisaged that it would be used on passenger planes.

In short, what I am getting at, is that just because the future technolgocal advancements resulting from this work cannot be envisaged now it does not mean they will not come to pass.

Oh, one more thing. Guess who developed the internet, which you are now using to complain about CERN?

That's right, CERN.

Chuck Stone

Mickeroo wrote: »

There's no such thing as a waste of money when it comes to scientific research.

I very much doubt that.

This is about space exploration but a lot of the points ring true here:

I have a soft spot for space exploration because it seems to catch the imagination in a way that other scientific endeavour doesn't - at least for me anyway.

CrazyRabbit

1. Theorise that something exists.
2. Prove it exists.
3. Learn to manipulate it.
4. Reap the benefits.

In terms of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, we are still on step 2. If they are successful at CERN, we will have moved to step 3.
Step 3, in itself may take decades any certainly many billions more.

But...I think most people struggle to even conceptualise the benefits in step 4. It's like asking people from the 1940's to guess at how electronics would shape the work in 70 years time. It's beyond the imagination of most. We are talking about having the ability to manipulate matter at sub atomic levels. The possibilities are mind blowing....including a permanent end to poverty.
Think of it as genetic engineering...but for the universe.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

The computer sitting in front of you is there thanks to Collosus, the British code breaking computer from WW2. This was followed in the states by ENIAC in 1946. At the time it was used solely as a research and design tool, and computers for personal use were certainly not envisioned at that time.

Not really. You can go as far back as the Jacquard loom when looking for the heritage of the computer.

Also when people talk about war related advancement they seem to lose their context faculties.

WW2 was massively destructive. It killed tens of million of people but hey lads - it's okay because we accelerated aerospace technology.

It's not so simple.

foxyboxer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQNpucos9wc

Yay Science!

ScumLord

Chuck Stone wrote: »

That wasn't capitalism. That was corporate cronyism and propping up a system that failed.

Those are unavoidable failures of capitalism, it happens over and over again in every capitalist society. Unchecked capitalist corporations would sell their parents organs for profit that's just the way the system works it encourages inhuman behaviour.

seantorious

KeithAFC wrote: »

The point is do priorities not count? In the list of things that matter in the world, how far up would the importance of knowing what made the universe be? I don't think it would be up as high as some people think.

Have you ever seen a kids face when they see something new, a cat, dog or something else and their face lights up because its new. That's the face of scientists when new science is discovered and they consider the amazing possibilities.

I sincerely feel sorry for people like you who are so bitter they will never enjoy the feeling of childhood again. And instead dimunitise everything with "costs" and "priorities" that they really don't even care about themselves.

Chuck Stone

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not really. You can go as far back as the Jacquard loom when looking for the heritage of the computer.

Also when people talk about war related advancement they seem to lose their context faculties.

WW2 was massively destructive. It killed tens of million of people but hey lads - it's okay because we accelerated aerospace technology.

It's not so simple.

The only thing that loom did for computing was introduce the punched card as a data input method. It did no actual computing. It did not use Boolean logic. It was not anywhere near being a Turing complete computer (which is what ENIAC was).

Did I say anywhere that WW2 was a good thing? No, I didn't, so there's no need to put words in my mouth to construct a strawman.

What I was saying is that future benifits of basic research can be far greater than anyone at the time can imagine.

Chuck Stone

ScumLord wrote: »

Those are unavoidable failures of capitalism, it happens over and over again in every capitalist society. Unchecked capitalist corporations would sell their parents organs for profit that's just the way the system works it encourages inhuman behaviour.

Yes but the problem is that they are not allowed to be failures. If it were a truly free market then the debts left behind by these catastrophic failures would not have been socialized.

seamus

KeithAFC wrote: »

The point is do priorities not count? In the list of things that matter in the world, how far up would the importance of knowing what made the universe be? I don't think it would be up as high as some people think.

Of course they do. And that's why europe has put 7.5bn into it and not 75 billion. Because the money put in accurately reflects its importance.

Research and technology has to work concurrently or progress will be very slow. We could pump ever spare cent we have into cancer research. Then we'll hit an impasse and realise, "Oh ****, we should probably be researching in electron microscopy in order to improve the quality of our research." So then cancer research has to go completely on hold and people die while we figure out how to make better microscopes.
On the other hand, if we spread out our budgets and provide funding to all sorts of research concurrently, the improvements can complement and converge and everyone progresses at a faster rate than they would in isolation.

FrostyJack

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes but the problem is that they are not allowed to be failures. If it were a truly free market then the debts left behind by these catastrophic failures would not have been socialized.

Creating more starving poor people, the same people you think should have the CERN money? But giving them free money would be socialism not capitalism, which are you for?

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

The only thing that loom did for computing was introduce the punched card as a data input method. It did no actual computing. It did not use Boolean logic.

The point I was making was that the computer came about by increments. There is no one point that can be magnified as the day the computer was invented.

Did I say anywhere that WW2 was a good thing? No, I didn't, so there's no need to put words in my mouth to construct a strawman.

I didn't say you did think WW2 was a good thing.

Duggy747

I believe there needs to be patience for the LHC results of it's studies to be seen and felt rather than to expect it to churn out life-changing things every couple of months.

It helps accelerate our current understanding, theories, and studies of technology, medicine, and the universe. It helps breaks walls or offer new kinds of ideas and solutions to current problems in these fields.

There's never any clear path along the lines of "Today, we're going to cure X diesase by doing Y". Pouring millions into cancer research only to realise a current study was wrong because something else wasn't done or noticed or realised would be a better case of a waste of money.

Where do we draw the line on when we've helped enough people then we can give the green light on scientific studies of this scale? Don't they adjust budgets for these things based on their potential rather than just "Feck it, here's some cash. Build a fancy machine that don't do nothing!"

Chuck Stone

FrostyJack wrote: »

Creating more starving poor people, the same people you think should have the CERN money?

Are you saying that if the system hadn't been propped up people would have starved en masse?

But giving them free money would be socialism not capitalism, which are you for?

I guess I'd be a proponent of the free market but would have no problem with localized voluntary socialism (like co-ops and factories owned by workers). I don't like state socialism.

KeithAFC

seamus wrote: »

Of course they do. And that's why europe has put 7.5bn into it and not 75 billion. Because the money put in accurately reflects its importance.

Research and technology has to work concurrently or progress will be very slow. We could pump ever spare cent we have into cancer research. Then we'll hit an impasse and realise, "Oh ****, we should probably be researching in electron microscopy in order to improve the quality of our research." So then cancer research has to go completely on hold and people die while we figure out how to make better microscopes.
On the other hand, if we spread out our budgets and provide funding to all sorts of research concurrently, the improvements can complement and converge and everyone progresses at a faster rate than they would in isolation.

Fair enough. I do just wish more did go into poverty and world hunger etc. I understand Science is important for many things. Perhaps it is just me who isn't too bothered how the Universe came about.

goose2005

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A neutrino was checking in for a flight and he was standing at the desk before anyone seen him arriving.



Gets coat.

Some helium saw him ... but didn't react.

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

Some helium saw him ... but didn't react.

How noble.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

How noble.

'Tis gas alright.

44leto

A barman says sorry we don't serve neutrinos

A neutrino walks into a bar.

CrazyRabbit

44leto wrote: »

A barman says sorry we don't serve neutrinos

A neutrino walks into a bar.

Did you post this joke before or after the other guy? I'm not sure who came first.

44leto

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Did you post this joke before or after the other guy? I'm not sure who came first.

Yeah I did in an alternate universe where I am still 4Leto.

opinion guy

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Did you post this joke before or after the other guy? I'm not sure who came first.

They both did. But then somebody read it and then only one of them did.