Physics in America at Crossroads and in Crisis

[dragon04]

Perhaps one of our physicists could help me out, but the SSC being of insufficient power on orders of magnitude to get anywhere near energies required to investigate the Planck Limit, is not having it that dire to physics in America?<br /><br />Are there tangible and profound benefits?<br /><br />However, this, and the experimental nuclear fusion reactor that won't be built in the US (IIRC) seem to be indicators of a national de-emphasis on Physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well...<br /><br />Recollect that we're now years after the SSC. What they're now proposing is certainly far more capable, and right on the cutting edge of high-energy physics. Easily capable of proving/disproving the Higgs Boson, for example, or so I am led to believe.<br /><br />Btw, the SSC was supposed to be scalable, which is to say upgradeable to current levels.<br /><br />I agree with you partially as to the ITIR - but then again, cutting edge, high-energy physics has always been a collaberative effort. This is nothing new. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

It's not clear that you have to go all the way to the Planck limit to see something interesting, as Yevaud mentioned if the next generation of coliders doesn't see the Higgs boson for instance then my impression is that the Higgs mechanism would be in serious trouble. There are plenty of theories that predict that lots of interesting beyond the standard model stuff should start popping up in the next generation (and of course many theories that suggest that nothing unexpected will show up) - given that they would be pushing energies that have not been achieved before in any controlled experiment, we really don't know what will happen, and that I think is the point for building the thing. Who knows, a smoking gun for large extra spatial dimensions might be lurking at a few tens of TeV - that I think would be a philosophically profound discovery. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>if the next generation of coliders doesn't see the Higgs boson for instance then my impression is that the Higgs mechanism would be in serious trouble. There are plenty of theories that predict that lots of interesting beyond the standard model stuff should start popping up in the next generation (and of course many theories that suggest that nothing unexpected will show up) - given that they would be pushing energies that have not been achieved before in any controlled experiment, we really don't know what will happen, and that I think is the point for building the thing. Who knows, a smoking gun for large extra spatial dimensions might be lurking at a few tens of TeV - that I think would be a philosophically profound discovery.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />this very much recalls to mind that saying that grass is always greener behind next fence or horizon but I guess that's what drives science<br /><br />like we always go to planets expecting to find wholy grail and then it turns up we kick more or less the same dust as in our backyard and we are no wiser in our understanding and we set our hopes on next missions and so it goes on<br /><br />no wonder common people find it a problem to fund with billions of real hard cash such pipe dreams of theorists, that is not to say I would be against it, as I said better spend it on colider than some welfare project even if it turns up that those higher energy collisions don't reveal anything new beyond what we know<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doubletruncation]

<font color="yellow">vanDivX:<br />like we always go to planets expecting to find wholy grail and then it turns up we kick more or less the same dust as in our backyard and we are no wiser in our understanding and we set our hopes on next missions and so it goes on</font><br /><br />I would tend to agree that just shooting about in the dark in terms of designing experiments etc is probably not the most effective method (particularly when it's something that's very expensive). It is good to have at least some motivation that you'll learn something interesting. I guess particle physicists can point to the long history of learning more about the "fundamental" building blocks of nature by looking at smaller sizes (discovery of the atom, the nucleus, quarks), and it's pretty clear that the only way to probe smaller separations is to use higher energies. In that sense I don't think it's completely aimless - it's pretty clear that if you want to learn more about particle physics in a controlled manner, building higher energy colliders is a way to do it. Of course it is a lot of money, and as an astronomer I would much rather see the money spent on space telescopes if it came down to it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />, ideally though we could afford everything. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Time to stop talking and start acting.<br /><br />1) How many people are willing to write to their local papers and congressmen saying taxes should be increased to pay for more scientific research?<br /><br />2) How many people are willing to write saying a funded project should be canceled, i.e. sending men back to the moon, or the war in Iraq, to increase funding for scientific research?<br /><br />No one should ask for the government to spend more money without asking for increased taxes and/or cancellation of a specific project. However you can ask for research in anything, not just large accellerators. Right now only a tiny fraction of fully qualified research proposals are funded through NIH, NSF, DOE, etc.