Thread by @skdh

“Arguments” for a bigger particle collider that I’m sick of hearing (thread)

1) So-and-so many billions is only such-and-such a tiny amount per person per day.

Yes, right. Same with any other billion-dollar investment. So your point is what?

2) Tim Berners-Lee invented the www while employed at CERN.

Yes, right. But he (and others) had been thinking about such technology before that, and if not then and there, it’d have happened soon elsewhere.

Also, if the www hadn’t been designed with particle physics in mind by someone with little understanding of sociology, psychology, and economics, maybe it wouldn’t be the crappy place now that it is?

Even Berners-Lee isn’t happy: vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/t…

3) A big particle collider would benefit many tech industries and scientific networks.

Same with any other big investment into experimental science => Not a good argument for a particle collider in particular.

4) It will be great for education, too!

If you want to invest into education, why dig a tunnel along with it?

5) We don’t know that we will find something new, but we have to try!

We do not have infinite resources, so we have to invest money carefully. We should invest in experiments that hold a promise of a breakthrough discovery.

6) Money is wasted elsewhere too! (The most common example I hear is the US military budget.)

The existence of stupidity is not an argument for more stupidity.

7) But a lot of particle physicists will end up without work!

Such is the fate of obsolete professions.

8) Knowledge about particle physics will get lost if we do not continue.

We have scientific publications to avoid that. If particle physicists worry whether that will work, they should maybe learn to write comprehensible papers.

I explained in more detail why I don’t think a larger particle collider is a good investment given the current state of knowledge here:

backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/partic…

(end of thread)