CERN Visit

[NuclearPhoenix]

Steven,

I was going to mention ITER, from this point of view it's really the same "issue" with that project :D

But yes, I think it's really hard to tell too. I certainly wouldn't want to be that guy that announced the end of CERN or something. For now, I think we're still definitely getting a lot of new knowledge out of that. Don't forget that it's not just CERN itself doing its main science goals, it's also many universities and research institutes that are building hardware and software for CERN. I can tell you from my experience around here that a lot of people are working on advancing machine learning, cluster computing, researching new kinds of radiation detectors (e.g. material science for new semiconductor detectors) and that alone is just a great benefit to physics/science in general.

The same is true for ITER. Does it have problems? Sure. Is it always behind schedule? Yup. Does it cost an absolute fortune with only limited hope in its success? Probably. But oh boy, did it ever advance plasma physics and material science (e.g. super conductors, reactor walls, ...). These mega projects are a great motor to all the other related fields of physics. Not sure if there would be more or less progress if you distributed the money to a lot of smaller projects...

I really do hope that the bureaucracy and administration of these projects doesn't eat up more of the budget than absolutely necessary...

[Chase]

I definitely see a need at times for a very large budget experiment from time to time, but personally I hesitate when the theoretical physics that backs the project is a bit lacking in substantiality if that makes sense. With quantum mechanics, there was a thorough theory that was agreeing with almost all other experiments thus far, large and small. It makes sense that they would want to follow the train of experimentations to its limits.

With the LHC and similar modern ultra-large budget projects, a lot of them are lobbying for upgrades and even larger budgets based on the fact that they failed to achieve their predictions with the last version. To what extent do we need to chase the rabbit down the hole before we conclude that we are going towards a dead end? I get that it is hard when there is always the looming possibility that the discovery we've been searching for just requires a few more TeV to observe.

I guess in conclusion, I can't say whether they are wastes of money or not. But when there are a lot of other fields of physics (or science in general) that are struggling to scrape up scraps of funding from anywhere they can to explore less flashy topics but with substantial results, it feels a bit lopsided in priorities.

Then again, it doesn't seem like the older methods of science are working nowadays so maybe this is all part of humanity learning how to keep up the scientific discoveries? Maybe I'm being pessimistic but I doubt a single person is likely to be the cause of the next breakthrough like they have been in many of the past discoveries.

[Sesselmann]

Chase,

Those special people who change our understanding of physics only come around every 300 years or so, and throwing lots of money at 300 ordinary people unfortunately does not get us the same result.

Steven