Hacker News Reader

The value is not really in the finding, but more in the seeking. It's the surprise discoveries that happen along the way that have huge practical applications, not just what we thought we were looking for.

You have to seek to find. Even if they are on the wrong track it's better to seek than not.

> 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.

The basic underlying assumption is that more knowledge is inherently more valuable than less knowledge, even if you don't have a specific application in mind for that knowledge.

How many people could have forseen GPS recievers as a consequence of General Relativity?

How is the GSP receiver a consequence of GR (honest question)? I know internal clocks of the satellites have to compensate for time dilation, but to be honest I don't see why that couldn't have been 'fixed' with an empirical solution devoid of theoretical basis. After the first launch, of course.

I think the empirical solution would not be as straight-forward as you proclaim. Namely, because lacking any clear understanding of the science any number of theories might crop up that attempt to explain the perceived anomaly thus hindering efforts at finding a workable solution. Some of the emergent theories might actually lead to declaring outright that the concept is flawed and unsolvable.

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.

I'm not disagreeing that a conceptual framework is superior.

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

I can definitely see it playing out that way.

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.

Apologies - it's actually SR that's key to the whole idea (though GR corrections are also very important to the accuracy). Without the observed SoL being independent of the relative motion of the user and the satellites, the entire concept is pretty unworkable.

The rational perspective is to look at history and realize that every attempt to predict long-term technological progress has gone laughably wrong. Lacking reason to believe we are now much better predictors, we should simply not allow our research efforts to be directed much by where we think they will lead.

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.

There's a lot of potential applications for mass manipulation, if it's possible. You'll be hard pressed to find specific examples, because a lot of them depend on how mass manipulation would be possible.

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.

> although people were able to make predictions about technologies arising from much of the abstract research of the past long before it became practical

Just about everybody in this thread is arguing the opposite of that.

OK, I'm not a physicist, so my first thought when I hear "manipulate mass" is Star Trek. Specifically, inertial dampers. One of the big impediments to interstellar travel is the length of time and amount of energy it takes to accelerate to near-light speed. But if we could manipulate mass, perhaps we could create a field that reduces the mass of a spacecraft thus reducing its inertia? Science fiction? Probably. But it'll sure be a concrete advancement when I'm sending you a (mass-less) postcard from Alpha Centauri.

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.