God Particle Detected at CERN

bnt · 14-12-2011 01:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The only people mouthing off in this thread are the people trying to silence the voices who are asking questions about the cost benefit of this type of research.

Nothing wrong with asking questions. Do you think you're the first or only person to do that? The BBC, while reporting the findings, were asking just that question.

Yes, CERN has cost billions ... which is still less than has been spent on bank bailouts. If the cost benefits of CERN were clear in advance, it would not be research, would it?

seamus · 14-12-2011 01:24PM

opinion guy wrote: »

The LHC is a €7,000,000,000 experiment just to...

Ignoring the "is it useful" arguments, I think you're unaware of the scales at play here in terms of money.

The LHC is a 20-year project with a budget of €7.5bn over the entire 20 years. The combined GDP of the project sponsors (i.e. those who fund CERN) over those 20 years works out to 252 quadrillion euros. In other words, funding to the LHC works out at 0.003% of GDP for the countries involved - that's if you ignore the fact that much funding is coming from non-CERN countries.

To scale it down, the cost of the LHC is 78c per person in the CERN countries, per year.

Cancer research in the UK, by comparison receives around €6.40 per person per year in the UK. Cancer research in the United States works out at around $10 per person per year.

So this means that two things are quite clear:

1. The LHC project is not being prioritised over other arguably more important projects in terms of funding.
2. The LHC is a comparatively cheap piece of research, despite its scale.

foxyboxer · 14-12-2011 01:24PM

All this talk of costs and expense for the LHC yes but I recently read that the combined budget for the two Hobbit prequels will be $570 million dollars. Yep, over half a billion dollars on two MOVIES!

If costs are a factor for researching physics, then let's discontinue Physics Departments in University's across the world, publish a comprehensive physics manual and have done with the matter :rolleyes:

foxyboxer · 14-12-2011 01:28PM

seamus wrote: »

Ignoring the "is it useful" arguments, I think you're unaware of the scales at play here in terms of money.

The LHC is a 20-year project with a budget of €7.5bn over the entire 20 years. The combined GDP of the project sponsors (i.e. those who fund CERN) over those 20 years works out to 252 quadrillion euros. In other words, funding to the LHC works out at 0.003% of GDP for the countries involved - that's if you ignore the fact that much funding is coming from non-CERN countries.

To scale it down, the cost of the LHC is 78c per person in the CERN countries, per year.

Cancer research in the UK, by comparison receives around €6.40 per person per year in the UK. Cancer research in the United States works out at around $10 per person per year.

So this means that two things are quite clear:

1. The LHC project is not being prioritised over other arguably more important projects in terms of funding.
2. The LHC is a comparatively cheap piece of research, despite its scale.

/Thread :cool:

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 01:39PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

I can't re-create the conditions immediately after the big bang in my bedroom* but I can do it with 7 billion spare cash. :pac:

You need a particle accelerator to determine what matter is made of, but you need the LHC to determinie why it is matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#High_energy_physics.2FParticle_physics

* that would be a Large Hardon Collider <ba-dum-tish>

Ok not arguing with any of that.
Now tell me why that matters ?
Tell me why that justifies 7 billion that could be spent on more practical things - even other particle physics. Or say fusion research. Something with a useful benefit to all of us.

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 01:43PM

seamus wrote: »

Ignoring the "is it useful" arguments, I think you're unaware of the scales at play here in terms of money.

The LHC is a 20-year project with a budget of €7.5bn over the entire 20 years. The combined GDP of the project sponsors (i.e. those who fund CERN) over those 20 years works out to 252 quadrillion euros. In other words, funding to the LHC works out at 0.003% of GDP for the countries involved - that's if you ignore the fact that much funding is coming from non-CERN countries.

To scale it down, the cost of the LHC is 78c per person in the CERN countries, per year.

Cancer research in the UK, by comparison receives around €6.40 per person per year in the UK. Cancer research in the United States works out at around $10 per person per year.

So this means that two things are quite clear:

1. The LHC project is not being prioritised over other arguably more important projects in terms of funding.
2. The LHC is a comparatively cheap piece of research, despite its scale.

I'm sorry - you don't get to ignore the 'its not useful' argument.

Cancer research is useful

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 01:43PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I hope the people posting here about using money to do nothing other than cure cancer and feed the world etc... are all working in these particular fields and not wasting their time working in factories making unnecessary items like toasters or in shops selling unimportant items like cameras or flowers, I also hope you are not giving large amounts of your money to Diageo or Heineken and are donating all disposable income to help feed the starving masses and medical research.

I do my part. Do you ?

Chuck Stone · 14-12-2011 01:49PM

seamus wrote: »

:
1. The LHC project is not being prioritised over other arguably more important projects in terms of funding.
2. The LHC is a comparatively cheap piece of research, despite its scale.

That fact that the cost is diffuse does not legitimize the spend.

The fact that 7Bn is being spent on the LHC means that it is not being spent elsewhere on projects that might benefit out people now rather than some far off future.

The Iraq War was originally estimated at approx 50 to 60 billion. 50 to 60 billion spread out over the population of the participant countries is a small diffuse cost to each individual but that doesn't mean that the Iraq war was desirable.

I'm not comparing the LHC with war btw - just making a point.

Chuck Stone · 14-12-2011 01:50PM

bnt wrote: »

Nothing wrong with asking questions. Do you think you're the first or only person to do that?

Well seeing as it has been estimated that approx 100,000,000,000 (100Bn) people have lived on this planet I'm going to err on the side of caution and say no.

Yes, CERN has cost billions ... which is still less than has been spent on bank bailouts.

What kind of bizarre logic is this that keeps getting repeated in this thread? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions of dollars - does that make the bank bailout any more virtuous?

If the cost benefits of CERN were clear in advance, it would not be research, would it?

The cost is estimated at 7ish Billion. The benefits are near indeterminable.

braintoxic · 14-12-2011 01:54PM

Terry wogan will turn in his grave

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 01:59PM

Oh I see its comedy hour again.....

So a neutrino went into a bar.

There was a storm.

Sometime later a butterfly flapped its wings.

seamus · 14-12-2011 02:13PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry - you don't get to ignore the 'its not useful' argument.

Cancer research is useful

And so is the LHC. Just in different ways.

Of course, you've been trying to claim that it will only do one thing and nothing good will come of it, but you have nothing on which to base that claim.

You're just continually rehashing the, "Physics knows all it needs to know" fallacy without providing any sound basis on which to assert that the LHC is a waste of money. "It could be better used now". Probably, but you could say the same for most things. LUAS cost €1bn to build. That could have been better spent on vaccinating children in sub-saharan Africa or fighting poverty in South America.
The basis of deciding whether to spend money on something isn't, "Could we spend it somewhere else?". Because every time you ask that question, the answer will always be "yes". The decision is based on, "Is this a worthwhile endeavour?". And yes, the LHC is a worthwhile endeavour.

At the end of the day we might end up just being to tick a few boxes. But even that's surprisingly important. It's scientific verification. If you don't verify theories, then it's impossible to progress very far with future theories. You could go all the way back thousands of years and say that all science was a total waste of time. Sure we already had an answer - "God did it". Why did we waste our time and resources trying to verify any theories?

That is, we have our scientific model, but it's unverified. So in order to extrapolate further on that, we need to extrapolate along two lines - What if we're correct and what if we're wrong. As you try to extrapolate further, the level of uncertainty in your equations increases and your certainity in any part of decreases as you keep having to account for the "what if" scenarios every time.

However, if you verify a theory, you can discard the "what if we're wrong" line of reasoning and suddenly a whole pile of new theories can be formulated based on solid underlying calculations rather than calculations that may not be correct.

Seriously, you may as well say that we should abandon all research unless we can point to a definite outcome that will provide benefit to humanity. Why are we wasting money digging up old bones from Dinosaurs and prehistoric human sites? We know that evolution occurs, we don't need any more proof, so there's nothing of value to be gained by digging up a few bones, right?

foxyboxer · 14-12-2011 02:15PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Ok not arguing with any of that.
Now tell me why that matters ?
Tell me why that justifies 7 billion that could be spent on more practical things - even other particle physics. Or say fusion research. Something with a useful benefit to all of us.

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project for example has a budget of 10 billion Euro.
The LHC is not just about the Higgs. Not just 7bn for one particle alone. Physicists now have a practical tool for research. It's not a case of "Ok, we've found it, now let's disassemble this yoke"

ATLAS one of two general purpose detectors will be used to look for signs of new physics, including the origins of mass and extra dimensions.
CMS the other general purpose detector will, like ATLAS, hunt for the Higgs boson and look for clues to the nature of dark matter.
ALICE is studying a "fluid" form of matter called quark–gluon plasma that existed shortly after the Big Bang.
LHCb equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the Big Bang. LHCb will try to investigate what happened to the "missing" antimatter.
<wikipedia>

Was the Hubble telescope a waste of money? Sure they're only pretty pictures!
Was Landing on the Moon a waste of money? Sure there isn't anything there!
etc
etc

Chuck Stone · 14-12-2011 02:16PM

We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here said the barman.

A Neutrino walks into a bar.

It's me Neutrino!

Knock Knock.

Science (Lol) Cat.

Cú Giobach · 14-12-2011 02:44PM

opinion guy wrote: »

I do my part. Do you ?

No. I give a lot of my money to Heineken, work at something that is pretty much involved in what could be called a luxury and only occasionally drop the odd coin in a box.
Your point?

revell · 14-12-2011 02:50PM

:P

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not comparing the LHC with war btw - just making a point.

If you want to make this point, you have to draw an equal sign between war and LHC.:P

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 02:56PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No. I give a lot of my money to Heineken, work at something that is pretty much involved in what could be called a luxury and only occasionally drop the odd coin in a box.
Your point?

What was your point with your previous post ?

skelliser · 14-12-2011 02:57PM

there are some amount of foolish people on this thread.

we have already said countless times that research at CERN has directly lead to new diagnostic and treatments for cancer.
If CERN hadnt existed many people would not be alive today.

so naysayers, with this knowledge is CERN a good thing?
yes or no

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 03:02PM

skelliser wrote: »

there are some amount of foolish people on this thread.

we have already said countless times that research at CERN has directly lead to new diagnostic and treatments for cancer.
If CERN hadnt existed many people would not be alive today.

so naysayers, with this knowledge is CERN a good thing?
yes or no

ok let me break this down for you

Stating that the LHC is very expensive and questioning the cost/benefit of it DOES NOT EQUAL TO saying CERN is a bad thing.

Of course its a good thing. Christ its unbeleivable how badly you all are missing the point

foxyboxer · 14-12-2011 03:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

ok let me break this down for you

Stating that the LHC is very expensive and questioning the cost/benefit of it DOES NOT EQUAL TO saying CERN is a bad thing.

Of course its a good thing. Christ its unbeleivable how badly you all are missing the point

....but a Large Hadron Collider has never been built before so costings were always going to be questioned.

I guess the rationale taken during construction was if you buy cheap, you buy twice as in "This collider isn't nearly powerful enough, we require a bigger one" therefore more funding.

It is still only operating at half it's capacity AFAIK and may have found the particle.

skelliser · 14-12-2011 03:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

ok let me break this down for you

Stating that the LHC is very expensive and questioning the cost/benefit of it DOES NOT EQUAL TO saying CERN is a bad thing.

Of course its a good thing. Christ its unbeleivable how badly you all are missing the point

hang on a minute!

you and others have constantly but forward the agrument that the money would be better spent on feeding the starving or cancer research.

You have clearly been shown that CERN as contributed alot more to the world then has been put in. Thus showing the cost/benefit has been worth it.

and now your saying its a good thing?

what exactly are you saying cause you seem to be contradicting yourself now.

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 03:09PM

seamus wrote: »

And so is the LHC. Just in different ways.

Of course, you've been trying to claim that it will only do one thing and nothing good will come of it, but you have nothing on which to base that claim.

You're just continually rehashing the, "Physics knows all it needs to know" fallacy without providing any sound basis on which to assert that the LHC is a waste of money.

I DID NOT say physics knows all it need to know. Please don't put that in quotes and attribute it to me.

"It could be better used now". Probably, but you could say the same for most things. LUAS cost €1bn to build. That could have been better spent on vaccinating children in sub-saharan Africa or fighting poverty in South America.

But LUAS has a pracitcal pay back.

The basis of deciding whether to spend money on something isn't, "Could we spend it somewhere else?". Because every time you ask that question, the answer will always be "yes". The decision is based on, "Is this a worthwhile endeavour?". And yes, the LHC is a worthwhile endeavour.

Why is it worthwhile ?
I'm still waiting for someone to justify 7billion.

At the end of the day we might end up just being to tick a few boxes. But even that's surprisingly important. It's scientific verification. If you don't verify theories, then it's impossible to progress very far with future theories. You could go all the way back thousands of years and say that all science was a total waste of time. Sure we already had an answer - "God did it". Why did we waste our time and resources trying to verify any theories?

That is, we have our scientific model, but it's unverified. So in order to extrapolate further on that, we need to extrapolate along two lines - What if we're correct and what if we're wrong. As you try to extrapolate further, the level of uncertainty in your equations increases and your certainity in any part of decreases as you keep having to account for the "what if" scenarios every time.

However, if you verify a theory, you can discard the "what if we're wrong" line of reasoning and suddenly a whole pile of new theories can be formulated based on solid underlying calculations rather than calculations that may not be correct.

Satisfying the curiousity of some boffins doesn't justify 7billion.

Seriously, you may as well say that we should abandon all research unless we can point to a definite outcome that will provide benefit to humanity. Why are we wasting money digging up old bones from Dinosaurs and prehistoric human sites? We know that evolution occurs, we don't need any more proof, so there's nothing of value to be gained by digging up a few bones, right?

I am absolutely not saying abandon all research. I'm saying prioritise reasearch that can make a difference in the real world. There is lots of practical use in paleontology. Its very informative for climate modelling -something of crucial importance today. Oh I also read they will attempt to clone a mammoth from some cells the found in a bone - which is simply awesome. Go forth my mammoth minnions!!! Go forth and conquer!!!!

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 03:12PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

....but a Large Hadron Collider has never been built before so costings were always going to be questioned.

I guess the rationale taken during construction was if you buy cheap, you buy twice as in "This collider isn't nearly powerful enough, we require a bigger one" therefore more funding.

It is still only operating at half it's capacity AFAIK and may have found the particle.

Isn't there a hadron collider aisle in Aldi ???:pac:

skelliser wrote: »

hang on a minute!

you and others have constantly but forward the agrument that the money would be better spent on feeding the starving or cancer research.

You have clearly been shown that CERN as contributed alot more to the world then has been put in. Thus showing the cost/benefit has been worth it.

and now your saying its a good thing?

what exactly are you saying cause you seem to be contradicting yourself now.

I'm saying you have failed to understand what we are saying and need to reread the thread.

laugh · 14-12-2011 03:13PM

What a debate, 7 billion is chicken feed for something as important as this.

skelliser · 14-12-2011 03:13PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Why is it worthwhile ?
I'm still waiting for someone to justify 7billion.

ah, how about the advancement of the human race, knowledge, understanding how we got here so we can understand were we are going.
what is existence?
what is the nature of the universe?
how did it all start?
why?

simple questions like that!!

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 03:15PM

skelliser wrote: »

ah, how about the advancement of the human race, knowledge, understanding how we got here so we can understand were we are going.
what is existence?
what is the nature of the universe?
how did it all start?
why?

simple questions like that!!

Not justifiable reasons when we have HIV, cancer, climate change etc to deal with. Sort that **** out first, then we can find the Higgs

skelliser · 14-12-2011 03:15PM

laugh wrote: »

What a debate, 7 billion is chicken feed for something as important as this.

its unbelievable!

Cú Giobach · 14-12-2011 03:15PM

opinion guy wrote: »

What was your point with your previous post ?

That I hope people who ask that money and other people's time and effort should be put into those endeavours are also doing it themselves.

opinion guy · 14-12-2011 03:16PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That I hope people who ask that money and other people's time and effort should be put into those endeavours are also doing it themselves.

And so I answered you. Where was your confusion ?

skelliser · 14-12-2011 03:17PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Not justifiable reasons when we have HIV, cancer, climate change etc to deal with. Sort that **** out first, then we can find the Higgs

facepalm!

once again, CERN has lead to new advances in diagnostics and imaging to help the war on cancer and other medical illnesses.

God Particle Detected at CERN

Comments