This is infuriating. A negative result is a successful experiment. Don't hamper efforts to fund science with the argument that science might figure out it was wrong.
Europe explored the universe where America did not.
I guess you never heard of a little project called the International Space Station?
The SSC was supposed to be a $4 billion project. That's what Congress was told in 1987. By 1993, it was projected as a $12 billion project. Guess where that $8 billion would have come from if the SSC project had continued? From other science projects--and most likely the ISS would have been the first on the chopping block.
America continued exploring the universe just fine--but with a broad approach instead of putting everything toward exploring one narrow area.
We're seeing a repeat of this with the new space telescope, although the outcome may be different this time. The projected costs have grown massively, and the projected launch date has been pushed WAY out. It's been defunded this year, with Congress specifically calling it out by name as to receive no funding. The Congressman who put that language in has said that this is meant to be a warning to the project's managers that they need to get their act together, and then funding can come back.
If there are significant scientific discoveries to be made on the ISS, the Europeans will also benefit from them.
Europe's exploration of the universe has a different focus, not a better one.
$8 billion was a huge amount in the science compartment. It is completely irrelevant that some other compartments might have had much bigger budgets.
I would rather shovel billions at universities with little more than an unenforced request that they spend it on pure research, than allow Congress any control over scientific funding at all.
Mainly I just think that drawing attention to scientific funding as some kind of waste of taxpayer money when it is such a drop in the bucket is more about serving the interests of the American conservative establishment in villainizing intellectuals than actually solving a problem.
While you may consider this point unrealistic or unhelpful to the argument, it cannot be characterised as irrelevant. Adding the word 'completely' only weakens your case.
According to the treasury department, by 2010, projected cost of TARP was $30-50bn. That's /two/ orders of magnitude out.
You also handily miss out the multiplier effects of military spending, and act like the government is taking the money and shoving it up the ass of a small animal. In fact, the vast majority is given to US industry and to US citizens. I'm sure if you Google'd you'd find the source I'm looking for who described the US Military as the world's largest welfare system.
A few billion to further the human understanding of the world around us vs the 1.4 trillion spent on the war effort. I know which I'd rather have backed.
What did they get out of it? (Honest question.) Also, supposing the Higg's Boson did exist and this experiment found it, how much benefit would the average European derived? How much less benefit would people from other countries enjoy?
But the LHC is basic research, you can't do ROI calculations on that. Instead, you dump as much money as you can into it, and then you know that decades down the line, you'll be very happy that you did it.
How do you know that? Has all blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line?
That's the wrong question.
"Has blue sky research in history resulted in massive benefits decades down the line?"
is a better one and the answer is a most definitive yes, many many many times the amount of money put into it, on the order of trillions of dollars.
Do each and every blue sky pure R&D experiment yield such results? Heck no! Neither does any known investment vehicle.
I asked the question I meant to ask. The point is not that we should stop doing blue sky research if examples exist where it has produced no benefit. It is quite obvious that blue sky research has been useful to us over the course of time. That fact does not give anything called blue sky research carte blanche to spend taxpayer money.
The point is to weigh the likely benefits of all the various types of blue sky research available to us at any given time and try to spend more on research that is likely to be useful.
> Neither does any known investment vehicle.
And like any investment vehicle, I ask that we consider whether any given piece of blue sky research is likely to appreciate or be a money sink. This was, if you'll read back, my original query. I don't understand why the people in this forum consider this question so outrageous.
Good idea in theory perhaps, but how do you suggest to make that assessment?
Or: basic science is a public good, and is underinvested in by free markets.
Ask any lab director what the risk level (of failure) of pure R&D is and they'll happily respond "very high". Pure R&D is such a high gamble that its virtually not commercially viable. And history shows that successful research often does not immediately benefit the organization that conducted the research.
But nearly everything you interact with on a daily basis was blue sky research at some point. The electricity you use, the car you drive, the networks you communicate on, the rf technology that underpins that, the processors that control your devices, the components that make up a modern microprocessor, the storage and memory technologies in your electronic devices, probably much of the food you eat, the products you clean yourself with, nearly all of the medicine you might take and pretty much any modern medical techniques you may benefit from, the water you drink, the plumbing and sewage systems you use and on and on and on and on.
Unless you live in a purposely technologieless enclave (and even those groups benefit from time-to-time from pure R&D), you personally benefit in uncountable ways from the research that was the result of what many people thought was pouring money down a hole.
But your point That fact does not give anything called blue sky research carte blanche to spend taxpayer money.
Is also absolutely true. That's why its important to put knowledgeable people in the decision making process to pull the trigger on something like this and we don't end up burning money on perpetual motion machines or faith healers.
Also, take a look at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/chap_8.pdf, table 8.1, for estimates of rates of return on scientific research.
- Liquid crystals observed. - Materials science research into the properties of liquid crystals, during which the TN-effect was discovered. - Industry scientists looking for a display technology that did not rely on vacuum tubes use the TN-effect to develop practical liquid crystal displays.
I don't see where the blue sky research on quantum mechanics plays into this, but it seems like you know more about this than I do so maybe you can point out the link I am missing. Maybe you mean the materials science research on liquid crystals, but it seems to me like materials science is largely a practical field whose main question is, "Is there anything useful we can do with this stuff." I don't think of it as blue sky research the same way I think of particle physics.
The study you linked is mostly about practical R&D in an industry setting and seems to suggest it's very difficult to measure the economic impact of basic research. But there was some interesting information in there, and thank you for that.
As for the study - yes, such returns are very difficult to measure or even estimate accurately, as the range of estimates suggest. But won't you agree that a) the consensus is that R&D is extremely valuable, and b) this can probably be extrapolated to basic scientific research?
(I feel that I am about to gain a convert to the cause of supporting scientific research... my time here has been well spent).
I could apply this quote to all kinds of other ways of spending money, and it would hold true (e.g. infrastructure or social programs). And while you can't do ROI calculations on long-range programs, you can make informed decisions about which are more likely to provide the greatest benefits. In fact, if you are talking about spending billions of dollars of other people's money, you have a moral and ethical obligation to do exactly that.
People who make the decisions to spend money on this scale - US$ 9 billion! - must be well qualified to make such decisions, and do so after careful consideration of various alternatives.
I think it was the right decision. Of course opportunity cost must be considered - you could have had, instead: 1 new Nimitz class aircraft carrier (without the air wing), OR 4 new B-2 bombers OR 1 extra week of Bush tax cuts....
Surely not an argument from authority. Before we can accept this reasoning, we have to have proof that the people allocating the research funds have interests that well match those of the public, not just the scientific community, and we must also have proof that they have a good track record of applying those interests to ends that match them.
You cannot easily predict what rewards will come as a result of cutting-edge scientific research. It's a gamble. However, due to all the technologies we have right now as a result of expensive government spending on research, the general consensus is (or at least should be) that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.
Even gambles have odds. And, to me at least, it does matter if we get something valuable out of our tax dollars.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some slobbering hard-line libertarian who believes that any experiment with a negative result is wasted money. On the other hand, if the odds are that a positive or negative result is nowhere likely to benefit the public in a concrete manner (either directly or via its successor events and discoveries), then I do question whether it's wise to spend money on it.
You can't make valid predictions about the expected benefit of any single experiment before running it for the first time. All we have to go on is the history of major scientific undertakings, and the technologies they have eventually lead to.
That history primarily shows two things: sustained serious scientific research correlates with technological advances and breakthroughs, and governments are usually the only ones willing and able to throw large amounts of cash at a project for a long time before the results start coming in or making money.
Not so. For example, it was hypothesized long before the first human-initiated fission event that the energy from fission would possibly be useful for creating a bomb. The research and physics that went into actually developing the thing was still cutting edge even though predictions had been made about its long term practical applications.
There's no way to place an easy upper bound on the payoff of the less-expected outcome, so your cost-benefit analysis can't simply ignore the possibilities that you consider unlikely.
Asking what we (the human race) got for nine billion dollars (225,000 person-years of work, at a generous 50 years in the workforce the life work of 4,500 people) deserves more than glib generalities about how wonderful science is or vaguely handwaved "benefits" far outweighing the much-harder-to-handwave "costs".
I'm not saying these questions can't be answered. I'm saying the glittering, glib generalities being offered here ring very hollow against that level of real cost, and you need to brush your arguments up.
(Also, feel free to apply this to any other billion dollars you care to name. I think we take our spending of billions and trillions way too casually, personally. We can and in some sense must spend it (dollars can be hoarded but much of what they represent, like man-hours, can not), but more thought put into it would be nice.)
What if these advanced particle accelerators reveal that we understand physics incorrectly (which would be the case if the Higgs doesn't exist)? What if, for instance, we discovered that faster-than-light travel is possible through portals that we can construct out of quantum materials? And then 10-15 years later we have a functional portal device? How much would this improve our lives? (Hint: who needs cars? planes? trains?)
What if we discover a new computing method based on the research started by these particle accelerators, better than quantum computing, that eventually gives us so much computing power that we are capable of developing human-like AI? Or an AI that is many times more powerful than humans? How much would this improve our lives? (Hint: who needs to work anymore?)
Who knows what we will be capable of? It's a fucking gamble. As it stands, we don't know. But the potential rewards outweigh the costs so much as to render them ridiculous.
Might also be a good time to point out that the Internet did not fulfill it's intended goals either -- a communications network resistant to withstanding the loss of huge chunks of it's infrastructure most likely caused by large scale nuclear bombardment by the Soviets.
All I'm meaning to do here is tell you that your argument does not work. It doesn't work for convincing people, and it doesn't work as a matter of practice the vast majority of the time anyway. Take a straw man: the human species joins together and pools all our resources and the planet's resources into some giant project that, while lots of credible people claim is very unlikely, everyone helps out anyway. But it doesn't work out, and by the time we call it quits we're so starved for resources that we go extinct. Repeat with variations in as many hypothetical worlds as you wish, and maybe 1 or 2 get it right and the payoff was totally worth it because it made humans rulers of the universe or something. That's not a good gamble.
Do you believe that if the possible positive utility to be gained wasn't so vast, we shouldn't do scientific research because then the improbability of that utility and/or the costs that factor in begin to weigh on it? If so, that's an interesting belief. For myself, I don't find the probabilities that unlikely nor the costs that high, I don't need to posit the possibility of untold fortunes due to scientific research to argue that we should continue doing it.
Many universities and advanced research facilities around the world contribute to a project as large as LHC, so the benefits are spread worldwide. However the location of LHC makes a huge impact on the scientific abilities and human resources of Europe.
As for how much benefit the average European derives from LHC, the question is really how much they benefit from the advancement of general scientific ability and human resources. Besides the innumerable everyday fruits of the advancement of science which average people enjoy today as compared with, say, 1803, there is the even more important fact that their future ability to establish a high quality of life, and to solve major problems, depends on their having an incredible skill and wisdom in dealing with the actual, factual world.
Remember, we're trying to figure out why things have mass here, (which, I think, is rather prima facia a very important question to answer) and if we're wrong about how that phenomenon arises, we now have a very big clue to look somewhere else.
In short, they got petabytes of data out of it, and frankly, that will most likely prove to be invaluable in and of itself.
Of course not. Only when this is ancient history will we truly know the results of the experiment in a practical sense. But we can hazard guesses, and if we are informed (which I am not) those guesses have some chance of being right. Anyway, your consequent doesn't follow: an inability to know the concrete answer to any given question does not make the question dishonest.
> which, I think, is rather prima facia a very important question to answer
Important for what purpose? Human happiness? Some concrete goal of technology or economics? The abstract advancement of knowledge? Some mix of all of these things?
I agree that it would be nice to know where mass comes from, but that fact absent any useful application (or a probability of a useful application) is of limited value to me.
> that will most likely prove to be invaluable in and of itself
It is hard for me to believe that the data itself will be something anyone would be willing to pay money for. Do you mean invaluable in some other sense?
I guess if you don't see potential applications of understanding where mass comes from, we're at a bit of an impasse here. It is difficult (if not impossible) to make predictions about what the discovery will bring, but the mere possibility that this research could or might lead to the ability to manipulate mass seems rather valuable to me, in many concrete ways.
[UPDATE:
I guess if you want to see this as a gamble, you need to take into account the very good track record of abstract scientific discovery leading to enormous benefits. Given that understanding electricity, magnetism, relativity, and countless other scientific discoveries have brought incalculable value to the human race, I guess I don't understand why one wouldn't believe that science was worth the gamble.]
Only because I don't know the science behind it. I asked the question to be informed. Everyone is so busy trying to show that I am wrong to ask the question that no one has taken time to answer it.
What potential applications are there of knowing where mass comes from in the level of detail we are speaking about here (i.e. the proof of the SM or the suggestion of one of the Higgless theories)? Of course, you could give me science fiction, but I'm hoping for applications that are likely.
RE: your update, excellent, and I agree, although people were able to make predictions about technologies arising from much of the abstract research of the past long before it became practical. I am asking for such predictions, if they exist, or confirmation that no such predictions currently exist. I have not been able to find any in all my searchings, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong places.
You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.
I guess this sentiment, which is seen throughout this thread, is my main objection to the whole thing. This is spiritualism, pure and simple. Science, no matter about what, is good, because it's science. We know this because of our history, and we embrace it like a totem.
What I wish is that we had a scientific mindset about our science, about determining what science is most useful, etc., but all I can see here are variations on the assumption that, if it's an expensive science project, it must be useful somewhere down the line.
How many people could have forseen GPS recievers as a consequence of General Relativity?
On the other hand, having a clear conceptual framework allows these people to pin-point what areas might be causing problems. It allows for effort to be focused and justifies certain fixes. Especially in costly scenarios such as this one, where there might not have been a second launch given the failure of the first.
But I picture it like this, in my very naive way.
1) launch satellites
2) after some time, engineers notice the clocks keep running behind/ahead (I always forget)
3) engineers debate, and have no clue what's happening
4) engineers build fix to re-synch the clocks every 24 hours or so
5) gps system works fine, engineers remain puzzled
And then of course
6) after years of puzzlement, some kid figures out what's going on
However, my limited knowledge of the problem precludes me from understanding if a simple 24 hour re-sync would address the underlying problem.
From what I do understand the accuracy/precision of the GPS system would be affected. I'm also inclined to believe that even with a regular re-synch, the overall usefulness of the system would be affected. As I don't believe the re-synch itself would be exempt from the underlying problem.
What I do know is that given our better conceptual framework we're able to leverage very precise location information; this leads to a more useful and productive GPS system than we would have otherwise.
Take the example of Vannevar Bush's memex, one of the most impressive attempts at technological prognostication. If you, during the 1930's and 40's, seriously believed in the potential of his ideas, would you have advocated for research into microfilm, or semiconductors? Or would you have dismissed the memex as science fiction too far out of reach to be used as a reasonable goal, when in reality it was less than half a century away? The man who best saw the value of the invention got all the implementation details wrong.
Potential applications could be in energy generation or the creation of ultra light materials, which could open the doors for affordable space travel (or just better more fuel efficient travel here on earth). Understanding how mass works is one of the final puzzle pieces in physics, and could lead to countless breakthroughs in a number of areas. It's not a trivial theoretical pursuit.
Just about everybody in this thread is arguing the opposite of that.
Edit: Someone who knows more may be able to give you something less fictional that could result. The problem is, there's really no way of knowing until long after the experiment has been finished (which is what everyone else here is saying). Scientific funding is already too dependent on whether an experiment appears to be likely to yield marketable results. Recently there was an article on HN about how the experimental leukemia cure that has been in the news almost didn't get funding, because it was viewed as not likely enough to be successful. It's still too early to tell, but this method of manipulating T-cells to destroy cancer cells could lead to an out-and-out cure for many types of cancer, which would be a huge milestone in medical history.
All of which has little to do with CERN, except to say that only funding things that are likely to lead to new technology would probably prevent us from making discoveries that lead to new technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Higgs_boson
EDIT: actually it looks like they only searched a partial range of energies, there's still a chance to find it.
I don't have numbers at hand, but a large amount of the data the detectors spew out is un-necessary, and needs to be sorted quickly (think real-time or very nearly), so that the back end computing resources can actually keep up with storing it. There is a huge grid infrastructure (data transfer and compute resources) dedicated to the LHC. The problems the scientists and engineers had to solve to get the LHC running will come up in some shape down the road, and we'll benefit from this.
We can list off a whole lot of advances that were made for pure science that are ridiculously useful for us today (spectroscopy, lasers, atomic clocks, nuclear reactors, even particle accelerators, off the top of my head). We may also wish to keep in mind that solving the infrastructure problems scientists face also gives society great payoffs.
Of course, even such a conclusion would not suggest that we should cease all blue sky research. Obviously that would be very silly. But it might make sense to think about whether it is possible to guess ahead of time what research is likely to have practical benefits and what research is not. This way we can spend more money on research likely to have benefits and less on research that is probably useless except for the knowledge's own sake.
You seem to think that a $10B collider was built just because it was possible, not as part of a deliberative/strategic process, partly influenced by a European/American contest for intellectual leadership in this area?
Surely you know that the worldwide particle physics community has been contemplating the value of this research for about 20 years? (Since the SSC planning stages.) And that European political bodies have deliberated it at length?
I'm not in that community, but my friends who are, are spending a lot of time in Geneva the last couple of years! The value of bringing all that talent in to contribute ideas, and some of them to stay for years, is hard to estimate, but it must be huge. I'm sure Europe is a great place for physics PhDs and postdocs these days.
First, let's draw an analogy to the territorial expansion of the human race. Engineering is like building cities, while basic research is like exploration and mapping. Before Columbus set sail there was an inkling that he might be able to find something of value, but nobody knew whether it would be gold, spices, etc., and certainly nobody foresaw the creation of an eventual world superpower. Plus, city builders need explorers to identify suitable sites for new cities, and to make sure that an expanding city isn't about to run itself off a cliff (or into some other unforeseen territorial hazard).
Second, imagine that engineering is like exploring a pitch black cave. Basic research is a flashlight we can shine in various directions. Engineers can make incremental steps forward, but without science lighting the way, we won't know whether we're about to run into a wall.
Third, grandiose projects like the LHC or ISS serve as an inspiration to scientists and engineers in all fields. Even if the primary activity of a giant project yields no useful results ("Not finding the Higgs" in the case of the LHC, and "Being in space" in the case of ISS), the supporting research and engineering teams will develop useful technologies to solve related problems (like the grid computing systems others have mentioned).
To sum up, basic research like that done at the LHC is necessary to expand the possible solution space for further scientific research and engineering. The further we push the limits of human understanding, the more branching-off points we create for the minds of applied scientists and engineers. The more different things we have to think about, the more likely we are to think useful thoughts that haven't been thought before. We need the LHC et. al. to be at the forefront of knowledge to provide plenty of well-traversed, fertile ground for applied science and engineering.
As you read this you are using one of the direct benefits of Europe's funding for CERN two decades ago.