Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Even if curiosity is a good goal completely separated from application, something I personally do not believe, than it is still worth wondering if the LHC and high-cost particle physics gives the most important knowledge per dollar spend.

Indisputably so, but that is an entirely different line of argument. Which is not, IMO, served very well by conflating it with a narrowly technological cost/benefit analysis.

There is indeed a case to be made that high energy physics and space exploration aren't sufficiently scientifically interesting to warrant the budgets they have, and if that is the case, then evaluating the applications makes sense, because then you need to sell it directly to industry.

But I will maintain that that's a different kind of analysis.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 21st, 2008 at 10:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
High energy physics is close enough to dying of success that the LHC should have been built because it can and just in case it shows that an essentially correct theory of matter at the regimes that can be probed experimentally in the foreseeable future has been known since the 1970's.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 21st, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series