Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Are particle physicists wasting our money? Here comes the science from a physicist   (youtube.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

339 clicks; posted to STEM » on 22 Oct 2020 at 10:36 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-22 10:38:57 PM  
The short version:

All scientists believe that the funding available for their research is too low, in part because of those jerks over there who get all the money and chicks but are just filthy casuals compared to the hard & real science of your chosen field which will totally revolutionize the world in 5 to 10 years assuming your grant goes through.
 
2020-10-22 11:03:22 PM  
Better than bombs.
 
2020-10-22 11:04:27 PM  
understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless
 
2020-10-22 11:15:12 PM  
Um... no.

The Intel i9-7980XE 18-core processor should pull about 1.3 teraflops. 23 years ago, breaking the 1 teraflop barrier involved a room-filling supercomputer named ASCI Red, running at maximum capacity for the military. Next year's gaming rig will have more power than the most powerful computer we could throw at nuclear research 23 years ago.

One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.
 
2020-10-22 11:15:56 PM  
I do have some major disagreements with her about physics though she should be listened to.  I think in some way the fundamental physics of the universe should be simple which is not her cup of tea.

I am with her 100% on the proposed new collider.  As things stand, we really don't have a reason to expect that it will find new physics. They have been guilty of moving the goalposts.  Resources are not unlimited and there are many things in physics research that are more likely to provide actual results let alone chemistry, astronomy, and biology.  Now if good reason to suspect an advance come up we can reevaluate then.

I will agree with her on the need for more research on the foundations of quantum mechanics.
 
2020-10-22 11:22:14 PM  

Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless


In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.
 
2020-10-22 11:30:37 PM  

FormlessOne: Um... no.

The Intel i9-7980XE 18-core processor should pull about 1.3 teraflops. 23 years ago, breaking the 1 teraflop barrier involved a room-filling supercomputer named ASCI Red, running at maximum capacity for the military. Next year's gaming rig will have more power than the most powerful computer we could throw at nuclear research 23 years ago.

One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.


Nothing the LHC, etc does is even remotely relevant to CPUs.  The LHC does not probe things at nanometer sizes whatsoever.  It probes much smaller sizes. And the proposed replacement goes even smaller. The colliders that probe nanometer scales were built decades ago at a tiny fraction of the cost being proposed.
 
2020-10-22 11:38:52 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: FormlessOne: Um... no.

The Intel i9-7980XE 18-core processor should pull about 1.3 teraflops. 23 years ago, breaking the 1 teraflop barrier involved a room-filling supercomputer named ASCI Red, running at maximum capacity for the military. Next year's gaming rig will have more power than the most powerful computer we could throw at nuclear research 23 years ago.

One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.

Nothing the LHC, etc does is even remotely relevant to CPUs.  The LHC does not probe things at nanometer sizes whatsoever.  It probes much smaller sizes. And the proposed replacement goes even smaller. The colliders that probe nanometer scales were built decades ago at a tiny fraction of the cost being proposed.


Missing the point.
 
2020-10-22 11:42:53 PM  

Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless


Did you even watch the video?

She is questioning, with damn good reason, that the proposed collider will help us understand fundamental physics.

She does propose spending money on fields that she feels are more likely to advance fundamental physics like the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Heck, even in particle physics there is important work being done that does not require a hideously expensive new collider.
 
2020-10-22 11:53:38 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless

In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.


My h index is pretty measly , but it is double digits, and that is without self citations.. with that said, I am moving out of research because I'm tired of playing exactly this penny wise pound foolish funding game here in the USA.  Every CFP demands explanation how the work will be transformative. Good luck with transformative breakthroughs when you eschew basic and fundamentL scientific research.

The crux of her point and yours is that fundamental basic research should not exist, that only applied research should.  Speaking of return on investment, without curiosity we shouldn't exist. It would truly a waste  of how we relate to entropy in the universe.
 
2020-10-23 12:46:42 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Jim_Callahan: Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless

In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.

My h index is pretty measly , but it is double digits, and that is without self citations.. with that said, I am moving out of research because I'm tired of playing exactly this penny wise pound foolish funding game here in the USA.  Every CFP demands explanation how the work will be transformative. Good luck with transformative breakthroughs when you eschew basic and fundamentL scientific research.

The crux of her point and yours is that fundamental basic research should not exist, that only applied research should.  Speaking of return on investment, without curiosity we shouldn't exist. It would truly a waste  of how we relate to entropy in the universe.


Great.

My theory of the universe is quantum particles are actually faeries. They are just too tiny to detect. I need 20 billion dollars to build a sensor that will be able to detect their tiny little heartbeats. I don't actually know how exactly to detect a thing I only knows exists based on how other stuff reacts to it. But it must be there and even if I'm wrong at least we'll have ruled out heartbeats as a possible means of detection.

I await your check.
 
2020-10-23 1:30:50 AM  

SomeAmerican: All scientists believe that the funding available for their research is too low...


Some fields do get disproportionate funding while others are left with few resources.  I had to entirely fund my own thesis work on the mechanics of subaqueous braided rattan engineering.
 
2020-10-23 2:15:12 AM  

FormlessOne: One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.


Not all fundamental physics is particle physics.  We understand tunneling because people investigated thermal phenomena and atomic spectra.  Very little of our present-day semiconductor technology would be missing if nobody had ever built a particle accelerator.

Our understanding of particle physics itself, much like cosmology, has done approximately squat for technology.  What benefits the study of those fields have brought to technology have been tangential accidents.  Somebody's accelerator needs better superconducting magnets, we get NMRI machines big enough to stick a human into, sort of thing.  The greatest impact that particle physics research has had on the general public didn't even have to do with the accelerators -- it was just that some of CERN's nerds wanted a better way to organize information on the internet, and invented a "hypertext" system of linked pages to do it, then an American put a picture of a squirrel with big nuts on it and here we are.

But that's not why we study those fields.  We study them because we (or at least some fraction of we) don't like being ignorant.  It pisses us off that we don't know what the hell is going on, so we turn over stones and pull at loose threads and push unlabeled buttons.  We think it's worth paying to do that, technological spinoffs be damned.

Particle physics has found some curiously loose threads indeed, but it's far from the only field with deep, fundamental head-scratchers.  It's perfectly valid to question the intensity of the financial focus on that one area of inquiry when the money and effort it consumes might plausibly be directed to other areas.  I don't think the questioning will be that consequential -- it's politicians that hold the big purse strings, and they fund colliders for prestige far more than for science.
 
2020-10-23 4:30:10 AM  
Learning new things requires smashing particles together with ever increasing energy levels, which means ever increasing costs to build newer and bigger colliders.

Does it eventually reach a point where the amount of money needed is so large that it could fund several other areas of science instead?  Yes.

If we could figure out how to predict in advance how a protein coded as a DNA or RNA sequence would fold itself in 3d space, for instance, it would completely revolutionize medicine.
 
2020-10-23 6:10:57 AM  

Leader O'Cola: Jim_Callahan: Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless

In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.

My h index is pretty measly , but it is double digits, and that is without self citations.. with that said, I am moving out of research because I'm tired of playing exactly this penny wise pound foolish funding game here in the USA.  Every CFP demands explanation how the work will be transformative. Good luck with transformative breakthroughs when you eschew basic and fundamentL scientific research.

The crux of her point and yours is that fundamental basic research should not exist, that only applied research should.  Speaking of return on investment, without curiosity we shouldn't exist. It would truly a waste  of how we relate to entropy in the universe.


That is emphatically NOT what the crux of her point is.  The crux is that we have no reason to suspect that it will discover what they promising.  The odds are that it will find nothing and that the goal posts will be move yet again.

BTW, she works in basic research.
 
2020-10-23 6:58:28 AM  
Her Youtube channel is interesting. I think two of her videos are related to this one and may shed more light on this. The first is 'What does the future hold for particle physics?' and the second is 'REALLY Big Experiments That Physicists Dream Of'

I thought her video on Heisenberg was interesting (albeit unrelated to the subject of this thread).
Heisenberg's Microscope
Youtube UFYnsxLuFdQ
 
2020-10-23 7:57:09 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Leader O'Cola: Jim_Callahan: Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless

In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.

My h index is pretty measly , but it is double digits, and that is without self citations.. with that said, I am moving out of research because I'm tired of playing exactly this penny wise pound foolish funding game here in the USA.  Every CFP demands explanation how the work will be transformative. Good luck with transformative breakthroughs when you eschew basic and fundamentL scientific research.

The crux of her point and yours is that fundamental basic research should not exist, that only applied research should.  Speaking of return on investment, without curiosity we shouldn't exist. It would truly a waste  of how we relate to entropy in the universe.

That is emphatically NOT what the crux of her point is.  The crux is that we have no reason to suspect that it will discover what they promising.  The odds are that it will find nothing and that the goal posts will be move yet again.

BTW, she works in basic research.



she literally admits that the collider and its proposed experiments would help rule out various hypotheses and theories.   There is NOTHING wrong with gaining information by process of elimination through negative results.    By admitting so, she is confirming that indeed the collider and its experiments will add knowledge and increase understanding.   My point (where I agree with her) is that it may not indeed give us *the answer* nor something that can be directly monetized.  Her point is that accordingly it isn't worth the money; my point is that it is.   And for someone who is so concerned with weasel words and slimy gamesmenship of grant writing and "comment" publications as appears to be, she sure uses quote a lot of those techniques in her own video.   There's nothing wrong with hypocrisy, it just comes off though as her cynically trying to gain a slight edge in her own funding success by trying to drag down others while they're all actually playing exactly the same game.   And finally, if she is arguing that the research might not deliver what it promises, and for that reason alone it shouldn't be funded, then yes, she is advocating for APPLIED research, not BASIC research.  You can choose to wrap her words in other language, you can say "she didn't explicitly say that', but its the only .... outcome... of what she is advocating for when it is put into practice.
 
2020-10-23 8:10:05 AM  
I dont think we're spending enough.
 
2020-10-23 8:38:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Leader O'Cola: understanding the fundamental nature of existence in the universe is priceless

In this case it has a pretty specific price tag and the benefit is effectively (and, amusingly, possibly literally in this case) non-existent.

I know you've probably never been involved in actual research science, but think about it for half a second and you'll probably realize that when potential subjects of study include "literally anything that physically exists" you have to choose your battles to a certain extent, especially regarding researcher man-hours but monetary cost is also a valid concern to filter what you study by.

Essentially the argument this video is putting forward is that there aren't unresolved areas of study that this new equipment would allow us to resolve that justify the expense of the equipment. That's basically the discussion every lab ever has had about every piece of equipment it's ever bought or built.


Yes. Nail sustainable nuclear fusion power and save the world first, then go back to your niches.
 
2020-10-23 8:53:46 AM  

FormlessOne: Um... no.

The Intel i9-7980XE 18-core processor should pull about 1.3 teraflops. 23 years ago, breaking the 1 teraflop barrier involved a room-filling supercomputer named ASCI Red, running at maximum capacity for the military. Next year's gaming rig will have more power than the most powerful computer we could throw at nuclear research 23 years ago.

One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.


So you're saying my next gaming rig will be powered by dark matter?
 
2020-10-23 8:57:45 AM  

Tom Marvolo Bombadil: SomeAmerican: All scientists believe that the funding available for their research is too low...

Some fields do get disproportionate funding while others are left with few resources.  I had to entirely fund my own thesis work on the mechanics of subaqueous braided rattan engineering.


Science gets funded in direct proportion to the power of the politician(s) where the science is being done. The actual value of the science is irrelevant.
 
2020-10-23 8:59:07 AM  

Befuddled: Her Youtube channel is interesting. I think two of her videos are related to this one and may shed more light on this. The first is 'What does the future hold for particle physics?' and the second is 'REALLY Big Experiments That Physicists Dream Of'

I thought her video on Heisenberg was interesting (albeit unrelated to the subject of this thread).
[YouTube video: Heisenberg's Microscope]


Cool, I always wanted to learn how to make Meth.
 
2020-10-23 9:19:12 AM  
FormlessOne:
One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.


Not to be that guy, but accelerator-based particle physics of the last 70 years or so has not taught us anything about quantum tunneling.  Condensed matter physics has taught us about quantum tunneling and the electronic properties of solids.

(That's not a knock on particle physics, but an acknowledgment that physics as a discipline is much broader than what happens at accelerators and what Brian Greene talks about.)
 
2020-10-23 11:43:21 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: I do have some major disagreements with her about physics though she should be listened to.  I think in some way the fundamental physics of the universe should be simple which is not her cup of tea.

I am with her 100% on the proposed new collider.  As things stand, we really don't have a reason to expect that it will find new physics. They have been guilty of moving the goalposts.  Resources are not unlimited and there are many things in physics research that are more likely to provide actual results let alone chemistry, astronomy, and biology.  Now if good reason to suspect an advance come up we can reevaluate then.

I will agree with her on the need for more research on the foundations of quantum mechanics.


The money should be set aside to add to the pile that will be needed to build a really big orbital collider, where we can get really big energies.
 
2020-10-23 2:12:14 PM  
Building colliders is like buildinh babylon tower. And people wonder why water level is rising. Wake up sinners
 
2020-10-23 5:53:06 PM  

FormlessOne: Um... no.

The Intel i9-7980XE 18-core processor should pull about 1.3 teraflops. 23 years ago, breaking the 1 teraflop barrier involved a room-filling supercomputer named ASCI Red, running at maximum capacity for the military. Next year's gaming rig will have more power than the most powerful computer we could throw at nuclear research 23 years ago.

One reason why is that we have a much better understanding of quantum tunneling and how it affects CPU design. Because we have a better grip on transistor design at nanometer sizes, we can pack more power in a smaller space while minimizing or eliminating quantum tunneling at that scale.

And that's just one relatively trivial application of the work particle physicists have given us.


Intel?

Can't do anything better than 10nm while AMD will be on 5nm.

Sure blame Intel quantum tunneling for it.
 
2020-10-23 9:14:50 PM  

Leader O'Cola: she literally admits that the collider and its proposed experiments would help rule out various hypotheses and theories. There is NOTHING wrong with gaining information by process of elimination through negative results.


Her point is that the theories that it will eliminate are not theories that anyone expects to be valid and given the thousands of competing theories on dark matter elimiating them one by one at a cost of $12billion dollars a time is wasteful and their methods need to change.

She also points out that the many predicted new particles that should be found in the TeV range never materialised and yet the scientists that predicted them have not changed their theories or methods and that is bad science.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.