Dhakks asks in an earlier post whether the Large Hadron Collider is worth the billions that are being spent on it. My answer, quite simply, is yes. In fact, my only regret is that the US abandoned the even bigger Superconducting Super Collider in 1993. They should probably build it now, or an even bigger one.
I have two reasons. The first is my bias towards supporting scientific research - knowledge for knowledge's sake.
There are a number of problems with Science as we know it today. Most of the world lives comfortably unaware of the extent of ignorance and incongruity that the Human race is condemned to. If you'd like an entertaining version of our lack of knowledge, I would recommend "A Brief History of Nearly Everything."
A quick summary is as follows. We don't really understand where life came from or indeed what life is. We have discovered, just of late, that most of known biology is but a small fraction of life on Earth, most of the rest we don't know and don't understand. In Physics, the two great theories relativity (the theory of really big things) and quantum mechanics (the theory of really small things don't agree at the crucial point where they meet, and if we look into space and try to explain everything we see with existing theories, then the only explanation is that 96% of the Universe is made of stuff we don't know anything about. This is only the stuff which we know that we don't know. Who knows how much we don't know we don't know.
The experiments on Large Hadron Collider will, among other things, test the current standard model of the quantum physics, look for the Higgs boson, and start looking at whether String Theory is really valid. All this for a cost less than the amount the US spends on potato chips in a year.
These are just the experiments currently scheduled. Over time, it could yield surprising results that enable us to explore the reaches of what we don't know.
Does this knowledge have any practical value? Not immediately. However, those theorists working on quantum theory in the early 20th century could never have imagined the types of technologies their theories made possible. So, the results it generates could be the foundation of science and technology in the future. It all depends on what we learn, and we won't know that until we try.
However, there is a second more practical reason for building it.
The LHC is undoubtedly going to be the best particle accelerator in the world for many years to come. This means that the over 40 years of dominance that the US has had in the world of particle physics may end, as the best and the brightest from around the world will congregate to Europe and not the US for particle physics. That could, very soon, have noticeable economic consequences for both the US and Europe, and may be well worth the $2+BN that Europe has shelled out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Investing into the edge of any type research has often been subjected to this vein of questioning.
Honestly, if you are the cutting edge, then almost by definition, you don't know the value of what lies beyond. If you do, you may still be doing something new, but it isn't as cutting edge.
NPV as a concept is always valid. Trouble is it still relies on human estimates. And the benefits of abstract research is particularly difficult to pinpoint.
I want to reiterate something Domino talked about. The known, but still hard to quantify benefit of attracting the best minds. Not only does the best research in that field now get done in Europe, this project will end up pollinating the best minds (students, junior researchers) for the future as well.
I do think it's America's loss. In a different setting, but along the same lines, I believe stem-cell research suffered a significant setback in the US over the course of the last few years. We may catch up eventually, but it sucks to be 'follower'.
Post a Comment