this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
1628 points (95.1% liked)

Science Memes

12676 readers
3569 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Maybe they should do a Kickstarter.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm pretty bullish on science investments, but I've heard multiple arguments that this thing is probably not worth the money. The most prevalent argument I've heard to the contrary is basically "we could discover something that might be interesting." But like very little in terms of concrete measurable returns on investment for it.

This article does a good job of arguing against it I think. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-doesnt-need-a-new-gigantic-particle-collider/

My mind isn't made up on the topic, so like can anybody explain to me why this thing is actually worth 30+ billion dollars?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

If they already knew the intended results it wouldn't make sense to do it. Science of this kind is like "here's something we haven't tried yet", which itself is pretty difficult to even come up with.

Also, money spend on something like this doesn't just disappear. It goes around the suppliers doing it and returns to the state eventually. Of course someone will pocket some money but when talking billions it's more of an investment in the area than a cost or even an investment in the actual collider. A used collider isn't worth that amount of money , so where'd it go? It didn't disappear. Money goes round.

It creates a lot of jobs and when looking at the entire supply chain, it feeds a hell of a lot of people, even if the scientific result is "oh well it didn't do anything at all." That way, it might be cheaper than supplying social security/basic income for that amount of people.

At the end of the day, in the grand economic scale, we're all riding on the shoulders of whoever digs out the the resources from the Earth, so we need to make these kind of very important projects to make it appear as if everyone else is actually producing anything at all. The science is just a nice side effect.

Will this do?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any advance that didn't at some point depend on people just dicking around to see what they could see.

"What happens if we spin this stick really really fast against this other stick?"

"Cool! What happens if we put some dried moss around it?"

"That's nuts, man! Hey, I wonder what happens if we toss some of our leftovers in there?"

"C'mon over here, guys. You gotta taste this!"

At worst, a project like this keeps a lot of curious people in one place where we can make sure they don't cause harm with their explorations. At best, whole new industries are founded. Never forget that modern electronics would never have existed without Einstein and Bohr arguing over the behaviour of subatomic particles.

Say the actual construction cost is $100 billion over 10 years and operational costs are $1 billion a year. Compared to all the stupid and useless stuff we already spend money on, that's little more than pocket lint. We could extract that much from the spending of one military alliance and it would look like a rounding error. Hell, we could add one cent to the price of each litre of soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and bottled water and have money left over.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The next step.. a human collider

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The fact they are suggesting 100km in circumference tells me that the size of this thing was not planned based on scientific research, but they wanted an easy, big number. That being said, go science! I'm all for additional research, provided they don't explode our planet, as I would be mildly upset if they did that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›