Susskind: Large Hadron Collider unproductive

Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQAcLW6qdQY

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't
done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,
costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still,
spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have
spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).

It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.

On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't
done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,
costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still,
spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have
spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).

It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.

Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of.

RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely nothing
from the ISS.

Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can think of.

If one day the medical research done up there helps to save *your* life,
would that be "positive" enough for you?

Blithering idiot.

Do not feed the troll.

(This has nothing to do with amateur astronomy, the topic of this newsgroup.)

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 19:46:59 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 03:42:36 UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:30:09 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't
done anythi=
ng since then. Begs the question if building an even larger,
costlier line=
ar accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade.
Still,
spending=
$15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have
spend $150 b=
illion for nothing (ISS).

It's wrong to say we've got nothing from the ISS. Haven't you
seen
some of the many beautiful videos from there? It has also given
good
training in international cooperation. And it has given Americans
the
valuable insight that they are not always best at everything, now
that they are forced to rely on Russia to get their astronauts to
and
from the ISS and have been so for almost 8 years.

You may of course argue if what we got from the ISS is worth the
cost
or not. But it's just plain wrong to say we got absolutely
nothing
from the ISS.

Add up all the positives and divide into $150 billion. Then divide
the $150 billion by any other worthwhile public projects you can
think of.

Doing that may produce a result you think is too small, but it will
still be larger than zero.

RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).

Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category

And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its
bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some
orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

On Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:54:15 UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).

Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category

And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its
bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some
orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters.

Where, on your 9" green screen monochromatic CGA monitor?

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 10:54:15 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything since then. Begs the question if building an even larger, costlier linear accelerator. LHC is down now, getting a power upgrade. Still, spending $15B and finding something (the Higgs) is better than to have spend $150 billion for nothing (ISS).

Please do not post here again until you have a minimum clue:

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/results_category

And if you post, either please do not use Google Groups, or work around its
bugs. For example, your lines are light-years long, give or take some
orders of magnitude; the agreed limit is 80 characters.


You can resize your browser window to show only 80 characters per line, or whatever number you prefer.

On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything
since then.

That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone
justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best
instrument available for high-energy research.

Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for
new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to
energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too.

The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built.

John Savard

On Monday, 17 December 2018 01:58:51 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 7:50:13 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
Yes, it did facilitate providing proof of the Higgs, but hasn't done anything
since then.

That's sort of a "What have you done for us lately?" comment, since that alone
justified the effort in building it. Now that it exists, it's the best
instrument available for high-energy research.

Maybe it will point out that an even bigger accelerator is genuinely needed for
new physics. The negative result that the Standard Model is pretty good to
energies as high as it can reach, while unexiting, is useful too.

The blame belongs to the way the Universe works, not how it was built.

John Savard

You can't be serious. It's like spending $1 billion on a moon rocket that can't break orbit then blaming the rocket.