Hot take / prove me wrong: Space telescopes, astrophysics, and other "big" science have not yielded and are not likely to yield NEARLY as much practical benefit for mankind as biology, medicine, nuclear physics, and other "small" science.
However, many _many_ technologies have come out of the space race and other space related endeavors--you might be surprised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
And these are just concrete technologies. A lot of research done to reach the endpoint was, of course, used in many other areas of research. Even just manufacturing breakthroughs--taking something possible "in theory," and actually producing an instrument to do the thing involves a lot of research that bears fruit for basically anyone paying attention.
Of course there is! We are not just looking at pretty pictures. We are also refining our understanding of physics.
Dark matter alone is a glaring indicator that we don't understand what's going on nearly as much as we should. Without any telescopes we wouldn't even know that our theories had a problem.
Improved physics understanding has always led to technological leaps. Be it electromagnetism, photonics, or even just relativistic effects. And now, quantum computers.
> For every dollar invested by the government the American economy and other countries economies have seen $7 to $14 in new revenue, all from spinoffs and licensing arrangements.
https://www.21stcentech.com/money-spent-nasa-not-waste/ (more reading: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/hq/library/find/bibliographies/...)
This suggests that we're under-investing in NASA, since the ROI of the marginal government dollar is surely nowhere near that high. Basically to first approximation, we should start at the bottom of "ROI per marginal dollar" in the federal budget and reallocate those dollars into NASA and other basic research. I suspect agricultural subsidies and military spending are two places where you will find extremely low ROI at the margins.
(In other words I don't think we should be trading off between "big" vs. "small" science.)
I do agree that the stuff that's immediately practical should be a priority. I'd be in favor of substantially expanding research to solve immediate problems facing humanity (e.g. cancer, climate change, pandemics, energy and food shortages) but I have no objection to our current funding of space exploration.
First we consume stuff, then after we have grown so tired of stuff that we can't even fanthom acquiring more stuff we can have a discourse about philosophy.
Learning about the Universe really is philosophy after all.
The only philosophers of that kind that produced an advancement in terms of stuff being consumed are the ones who did it all inside their heads and the only expense they needed was paper and pen (Einstein, Feynman, Bohn, Maxwell..)
They are showing the way by minimizing costs and delivering huge practical benefits.
This argument -- which is brought up in every sophomoric conversation about the nature of science -- is extremely poor and unjustified. Of course Einstein, Feynman, Bohn and Maxwell relied on observations. Their theories fit the data that was collected before them. If you ever want to give the next Einstein a chance to build an even more useful theory, you need to observe more data. Period. This is how science works, you observe the world, you build a model that predicts it, rinse and repeat. There is no such thing as "purely pen and paper" in science and it categorically can never be. The idea that Einstein came to relativity through pure reasoning is silly, his theory was formed to explain observations that cannot be predicted by other models. Of course it involved tons of pure reasoning and mathematics, but the basis was only empirical observations.
That is factually wrong upon a basic research. All their work was based on experiment
How much did LIGO cost? Was it worth it in order to remove the 0.00001% chance that Einstein was wrong?
Well, their theory extended into more extreme regimes. Blame them for making theories about such small or fast things.
> Was it worth it in order to remove the 0.00001% chance that Einstein was wrong?
Even Einstein thought that GWs would be unobservable, they were basically a fringe theory, much like wormholes. The change across both astronomy and general relativity due to observing GWs is also quite vast. It could show us the currently unknown neutron star matter equation of state, which could have profound impacts on a quantum theory of gravity.
I don't think you really know what you are talking about frankly, both the LHC and projects like LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA have had HUGE impacts on physics. I work on LIGO myself, specifically on new methods for reducing quantum noise, and that has huge impacts on high precision measurements. One example would be the incredible new breakthroughs in non-classical states of light, such as squeezed light. Yesterday in journal club we read a paper about how squeezed light could be used to greatly enhance the sensitivity of the tracking of biological particles. Also not only new practical techniques, but a huge amount of interesting new fundamental quantum measurement theory came about due to these detectors. The list goes on and on, I could fill many pages listing both the primary science and secondary technology (especially quantum technology) benefits that came from LIGO. It was absolutely 100% worth it
Amazing! What does it all mean for my quality of life?
When we discovered fire it was a huge bump in quality of life well before we understood the mechanisms of molecules and atoms being agitate by the rise in temperature.
After the 70s we hit a brick wall. All the stuff after we'll never get to use practically, including LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA, LHC etc.
I have the maximum respect for theoretical physicits but they are just humans among 10 billion humans.
10 billion humans won't accept to pay huge amount of money to solve what essentially has become a murder mystery for people with an IQ>180, solving it won't have any impact. Especially when the majority of them are starving and have no A/C in an increasingly warm planet.
New pharmaceuticals, medical sensing technology, better optical disk drive technology, quantum computing, new battery technology, etc.
> After the 70s we hit a brick wall. All the stuff after we'll never get to use practically, including LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA, LHC etc.
Obviously not true at all, I mean the world wide web was invented at the LHC, but a huge amount of technology has been invented since the 70s. Have you literally been living under a rock? Or maybe the 22 in your name means you were born this year. That would explain it. You just have no idea what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't. You are ignorant, and making it plain to everyone. You haven't actually done any research into what physics breakthroughs have been made or what technology has come of it since the 70s. You are just assuming and running off your ignorant mouth about it. Give it a break, go do some reading, and then come back, rather than remaining in your dark, ignorant hole.
Aspirationally. The hated oil and gas people didn't need billions of dollars and huge amount of press to come up with fracking. But it's a reason why the US is in a better shape than the rest of the world with regards to the energy crisis unfolding.
Aspirational stuff doesn't count. A technology only counts after a layperson can point at it and describe how it makes their life easier.
> I mean the world wide web was invented at the LHC
I correct you. At the LHC cafeteria to be precise which costed about 0.01% of the whole project. Let's specify.
> You haven't actually done any research into what physics breakthroughs have been made or what technology has come of it since the 70s
It wasn't new theoretical physics. What I mean is that the kind of stuff that Hakwing has produced for example we will never get to use it, and verifying stuff that we already know it works at the macro level (which theoretical physicists have to admit will always be our level as mammals macro creatures) doesn't produce any benefit for society.
Kipp Thorne is talking about building something like LIGO but in space, what's that for? How much will this monstrosity cost? What will be the ROI?
While these people are trying to solve a murder mystery , the rest of the population is rightfully in pain because they don't have food, shelter or their loved ones die of diseases such as Malaria or TB. Even in the rich world we are still at the mercy of cancer and heart disease.
> rather than remaining in your dark, ignorant hole.
I can say the same things about you. Unhealthy obsession with a problem, no matter how beautiful or cool, makes you completely ignore the realities around you in terms of people and quality of life and undue setbacks as well as unrealized potential, which is a much worse perspective that not being able to tell if trillions of years from now the Universe will die of a big freeze or a big rip
Why should we stop inventing and discovering things? Just because you want immediate gratification?
> I correct you. At the LHC cafeteria to be precise which costed about 0.01% of the whole project. Let's specify.
I don't accept that distinction
> It wasn't new theoretical physics. What I mean is that the kind of stuff that Hakwing has produced for example we will never get to use it, and verifying stuff that we already know it works at the macro level (which theoretical physicists have to admit will always be our level as mammals macro creatures) doesn't produce any benefit for society.
It actually produces huge direct benefits for society immediately
> Kipp Thorne is talking about building something like LIGO but in space, what's that for? How much will this monstrosity cost? What will be the ROI?
Physics isn't done for ROI, apart from the scientific return. And I will do so, by applying for grants, and taking YOUR MONEY to do it. You don't have a choice, unfortunately. The tax man will come with a gun to take the money from you and give it to me to do science. And oh what a wonderful thing that is! Btw, LISA will not be too expensive, since it is just three satellites. The space based interferometers are much cheaper than stuff like JWST because they can operate at high losses and without any lenses or much optics at all. We do optimise to reduce the budget
> While these people are trying to solve a murder mystery , the rest of the population is rightfully in pain because they don't have food, shelter or their loved ones die of diseases such as Malaria or TB. Even in the rich world we are still at the mercy of cancer and heart disease.
We can solve more than one problem at once. We are not one person.
> I can say the same things about you. Unhealthy obsession with a problem, no matter how beautiful or cool, makes you completely ignore the realities around you in terms of people and quality of life and undue setbacks as well as unrealized potential, which is a much worse perspective that not being able to tell if trillions of years from now the Universe will die of a big freeze or a big rip
Who said I am ignoring such things? Do you think that physicists are misanthropic. Let me repeat: one person can do one thing, while another can do another thing. I will go into more detail:
When you have two organisms in the world, such as two separate humans, they can make their own decisions and do different things. For example, even though you may want to watch one TV show, I can watch a different one on my own TV. While you may want to work as a doctor, I can work as a physicist. Different humans can make their own choices to do their own thing. It isn't a metaphysical requirement of the universe that all effort is put into the same thing
Doesn't have to be immediate, but there has to be gratification in very practical terms. Taxpayers deserve it. LIGO and James Webb telescope won't yield anything for them. Same goes for the ISS. The ITER fusion project is a different animal, it has low odds but huge upside in very practical terms. Same for the money spent on nuclear fission in the 20th century.
> And I will do so, by applying for grants, and taking YOUR MONEY to do it.
Thank god for the existence of the Cayman Islands and BVI and Bermuda and UAE I guess.
> We can solve more than one problem at once. We are not one person.
Sure but there is a reason why BioNtech, Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca can knock at capital markets door 24/7/365 and publicly, while theoretical physicists only have POTUS, or EU Commission President door. People who have arrived at the pinnacle of the human experience, don't have to worry about anything so they can afford to sign off expensive projects (with money which is not theirs to begin with) and done solely for intellectual curiosity which don't yield any benefit.
> Do you think that physicists are misanthropic
No, but the lack of awareness and not collectively stopping to ask questions about ROI and quality of life returns for projects is a bit off. It's one of the only fields where stuff gets routinely written off as a loss (of time and money), and we are at a stage where the rare wins only produce brain juices and prizes for the ones who solve the murder mystery do jour...
You're drawing a line between astrophysics and nuclear physics?
It will acquire data pertinent to most of the open problems of physics.