Large Hadron Collider

[trufflesniffer]

Imagine that a group of explorers spot another group of people playing a board game (think checkers/draughts) using some stones to represent their pieces

Comments

[archdukechocula]

It would be more like looking very very carefully at the shape of a puzzle piece in order to figure out where the piece goes, although that analogy is also inadequate. In short, having a highly detailed understanding of the existence and properties of new and also known particles will give us a good idea about all sorts of other stuff, such as just how the big bang worked, how dimensions interact with matter on a fundamental level, if there are additional unknown dimension, and so forth. I mean, at one point, we had the same issue with atoms, and also quarks, and understanding each of these fundamental components of material things started with discovering them somehow, and examining their properties. Once we understood that, the games began, so to speak.

[trufflesniffer]

If the only thing you can ever encounter are the completed jigsaw puzzles, and they never fall apart whilst being used, what's the point of looking at an individual piece?

[archdukechocula]

I don't really grasp where you are intending to take the analogy, but that's not surprising since it was a strained one at best. But, lets try this another way. In fact, it is unclear to me what exactly it is you want to know. Do you want to know what material benefits this may have? Do you want to understand how the knowledge gleaned from the HSC may be converted into applications? What is it exactly you are trying to understand? To me the whole thing seems pretty clear. Greater understanding of the building blocks of matter gives us more accurate theories, and with more accurate theories, we can actually do applied science. It's not much difference from, say, how the theory of the atom was changed with the actual means to observe and interact with atoms, and how that new knowledge was essential to things like nuclear science, chemistry, computing, and a bunch of other stuff. Without verification of a hypothesis, we are flying blind. Once we get that verification, we can understand what hypothesis are correct, and how to direct our

[trufflesniffer]

Greater understanding of the building blocks of matter gives us more accurate theories, and with more accurate theories, we can actually do applied science.

I think it's this idea I don't necessarily agree with. Understanding micro-scale (even elemental) properties doesn't necessarily provide any useful insight into the behaviour of macro-scale phenomena, even when the latter is comprised entirely out of (emerges from) the former.
We are macro-scale phenomena. Everything we can intuitively understand and care about is macro-scale phenomena

[mindcontrol]

You don't think empirical evidence for the particle responsible for mass is a big deal?

[trufflesniffer]

I don't think I understand the longer-term consequences of actions long enough to say it's not. (As in, perhaps as a result of this research some radically new form of technology will be developed which will either 'save' or 'destroy' human civilisation.) But intuitively and emotively it doesn't feel so, not the mere fact that it has/has not/ might be discovered

[mindcontrol]

The value of science is not it's ability to make life better for meaty little humans. That is the P.R. job of science. When I peer deeply into the heart of science, as a young, aspiring researcher myself, it is not about 'helping the world'. It's about two things: insatiable curiosity and proving that you are right. As long as humans want to know whats around the corner, and will invest their life's work into a prediction of whats around that corner, science will continue to ask seemingly useless questions. This isn't bad, it's just another thing to pass the time before we shuffle off this mortal coil. If it costs 2 billion dollar to keep these thousand scientists entertained, its much more interesting to me than whether or not the next Vin Deisel film has computer generated effects.

[trufflesniffer]

I both agree and disagree with you. I'd suggest that, at an institutional level, the value of science has to be related to its longer-term instrumental function, as without spare resource capacity made possible by technologies (for which sciences offer the precursor) there would be no opportunity to 'do science

[thapunkprincess]

By 'stones' I suppose you mean testicles, and thus you are saying that you like to look very, very carefully at the testicles of scientists whilst they collide them - much like when I tried to comprehend the game of conkers.

[trufflesniffer]

I like your misuse of the word 'thus'.

[thapunkprincess]

My logic is infalliable