| | | |
Home /
More cost effective research  Uploading ....sci.physics thread on the worth
of costly experiments motivated by the
desire to rationalize theroies and models
propmoted for the glorification of races, religions and nations.
===========
Greysky - 22 Jun 2004 18:42 GMT
> Ref: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/11
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> also decays in ways not predicted by theory. The results will be
> presented at Fermilab today.
These collider experiments only show how creative the universe is at dumping
excess energy into more stable particles. We keep prodding Nature into
giving up her secrets by observing what happens when we keep adding more and
more energy into small volumes, and Nature rewards our efforts by letting us
see how she takes out the trash...
Greysky
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Thomas Dent - 28 Jun 2004 11:03 GMT
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > The SELEX collaboration at Fermilab in the US has discovered a new
> > sub-atomic particle that consists of a strange quark and a charm
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Greysky
Who are you to judge what is "Nature's trash" and what is meaningful?
Physics starts from the position that ALL OF NATURE is potentially
meaningful and NONE OF IT is trash.
The moment someone reacts to an unexpected experimental result by
turning their back on it and saying "Nature's trash", science is dead.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Greysky - 29 Jun 2004 07:42 GMT
> > > The SELEX collaboration at Fermilab in the US has discovered a new
> > > sub-atomic particle that consists of a strange quark and a charm
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Who are you to judge what is "Nature's trash" and what is meaningful?
Just an observer who sees the mad particle dash for what it really is - the
branch of science that provides phenemenological evidence for how Nature
makes an unstable situation stable. We pump up the volume, mom nature turns
it down, over and over again...
> Physics starts from the position that ALL OF NATURE is potentially
> meaningful and NONE OF IT is trash.
Indeed. The trashcan man is one othe most important jobs a city worker can
have. If you don't believee that just hang around NY during a garbage
strike.
> The moment someone reacts to an unexpected experimental result by
> turning their back on it and saying "Nature's trash", science is dead.
I am not pulling anyone's grant money. By all means, bang the rocks together
harder and harder. I just happen to think there are other projects funding
can be given too as well, but in this climate, particle physics is just
about the only big money PC thing governments are still writing the checks
for. That's too bad. There are discoveries that will never happen, but hey,
complain about my position if it makes you feel good.
Greysky
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Thomas Dent - 29 Jun 2004 19:22 GMT
"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> Just an observer who sees the mad particle dash for what it really is - the
> branch of science that provides phenemenological evidence for how Nature
> makes an unstable situation stable. We pump up the volume, mom nature turns
> it down, over and over again...
I don't understand what you mean by this. The W and Z bosons and the
top quark don't seem to be an example of 'turning down the volume' -
on the contrary, they sound to me like some of the notes in the
unfinished symphony of the Standard Model.
The new experimental result is actually quite a *low energy*
experiment with presumably a more sensitive detector. Because it's at
a few GeV there is all the strong interaction stuff to contend with.
This is rather difficult to model accurately. At much higher energies,
things should get much simpler - and the W,Z and t are evidence that
they do.
> The trashcan man is one othe most important jobs a city worker can
> have. If you don't believee that just hang around NY during a garbage
> strike.
Living in Greece I have plenty of experience of strikes. However, this
doesn't seem relevant to particle physics. One man's trash is another
man's archaeological evidence.
> I just happen to think there are other projects funding
> can be given too as well but in this climate, particle physics is just
> about the only big money PC thing governments are still writing the checks
> for.
For example? What is being underfunded, in your opinion, that is so
worthwhile that we should do it instead and give up any hope of
discovering the Higgs and supersymmetry, or whatever lies in place of
it? What is so urgent that we should stop operating the TeVatron? (And
I happen to believe that the world can find the Higgs *and* treat AIDS
in the developing world, for example, one does not exclude the other.)
Perhaps you don't know that particle physics funding in the US is
actually pretty low at the moment. Has been ever since the SSC was
cancelled.
And "PC"? What do you mean by that? Hard science has never been "PC".
> There are discoveries that will never happen,
So you can predict the future of science with absolute confidence? If
this is the case, we need no more experiments. What's the mechanism of
electroweak symmetry-breaking? - just ask Greysky!
> but hey,
> complain about my position if it makes you feel good.
It's you who started complaining, about 'Nature's trash' and the 'mad
dash' of particle physicists who 'bang rocks together'. Particle
physics is pointless trash, you as good as said. I'm just pointing out
how it might not be.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 29 Jun 2004 16:53 GMT
> > > The SELEX collaboration at Fermilab in the US has discovered a new
> > > sub-atomic particle that consists of a strange quark and a charm
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> The moment someone reacts to an unexpected experimental result by
> turning their back on it and saying "Nature's trash", science is dead.
If what you say is true,
why are trillions of dollars
spent trying to make some model credible,
rather than simply browsing through the "trash"?
There is virtually an infinite amount of "trash"
lying around, and experiments should focus on
finding out what some of this "trash" tells us,
rather than wasting billions of dollars on
billion dollar experiments to prove some favorite model,
and support welfare scientists, who feed off of the taxpayers.
Contrary to what the taxpayer supported charlatans say,
the most fundamental advances in knowledge
comes from serendipity in the free market
( Browsing through the trash.),
not from conducting costly, taxpayer-funded experiments
designed to enhance the credibility of some model.
The government should not give grants
to the same people and groups to be used to
rationalize the same old models,
over and over.
If the people need or demand something,
the government should generate EXPLICIT standards
with an escalating award dollar amount,
and make cash awards to the person or organization
that meets the standard.
In other words, if society needs a certain cure for cancer,
AIDS, etc. a standard stating what is needed should
be generated, and the award should start at
a small dollar amount and slowly grow
until it reaches an amount that makes it a bad investment
for the taxpayers.
Laws should also be passed
to prohibit public funds and the mass media
from deifying people in the sciences
as this leads to multi billion dollar
taxpayer supported education, useless experiments,
and the use of inferior and inefficient models,
such as Lamarckism and General Relativity.
--
Tom Potter
http://www.tompotter.us
|
|
|
| | | |
|
