To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?

We don't have many frontiers left--and I think that humans have a need for them (this human does anyway). Particle physics and astronomy are among the very few frontiers that we have left. Research in these areas are the best hope we have of figuring out what this universe is all about. I, for one, would like to have as much knowledge as I can in this regard, before oblivion.Cheers.

The space station seems unlikely to gain us much either in knowledge or with resolving difficulties at home. I agree that we shouldn't be spending money on it. Ditto manned space flights (for the record).I thought that the collider was supposed to help verify a bit of theoretical physics. Are you saying that physics won't be advanced by the building of colliders?Upthread: Cavediver disagrees, if that is what you are saying.Also, how does this: jive with this: I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.Cheers.

I thought you might jump on that pair of words after I typed them--I'm getting tired of editing myself though.I can agree that the immediate monetary gain would be made by the contractors. However, the gain in knowledge would be shared by everyone who had an interest. And it seems there were some practical technological advances made as a result of the construction of accelerators in general: http://www.hep.net/ssc/new/history/factsheet.html#tso.This may sound trite--sorry. Other than taking care of each other and our co-habitants of this planet, I can think of nothing more important than the quest for knowledge with regard to the "origin" and nature of our universe. It is absolutely the greatest mystery facing us. We spend far too much time and energy gazing at our collective navel. I want to know that which is beyond our knowledge at the moment.Money allocated to such research is better spent than that which goes to the manufacture of more weapons to destroy each other.Okay, to some degree it seems you would agree with me. I guess I am having trouble figuring out why you like Hubble but wouldn't want to spend money on the SSC. I don't know how one would compare the amount of knowledge gained by one vs. the other, but I think the SSC had the potential for huge gains.Cheers. very small correction made--it was bugging the hell out of me This message has been edited by Michael, 02-19-2006 02:03 PM

One of the strengths that many of the sciences possess is that they are in some sense egalitarian. Anyone who has an interest, some minimum aptitude, and the drive to learn can begin with articles written for laymen (ideally by scientists in the field of interest) and gain some understanding of the current state of the science. If the desire is there, a person could go to the primary literature for further understanding of a subject.However, for certain areas of physics and cosmology, this is not the case.In message 142 of the topic "The Big Bang is NOT Scientific," Cavediver says to Buzsaw: And in message 153 of the same thread, Cavediver says: and This undermines a couple of statements I made earlier.In message 21 of this thread I say, with regard to spending public money on research in physics (specifically, the building of the SSC): and Up until now, my fantasy was that I could spend time after retirement (still many years away) studying physics and cosmology in order to gain some inkling of what this universe might be all about. I see now that I have no hope.My argument has crumbled.I no longer support public funding of physics or cosmology.

Cavediver, thanks very much for the reply.It isn't just for the sake of argument that I post this. Some of the things you said in that other topic bothered me quite a lot.I understand the context of the discussion you are having with Buzsaw. But a couple of your statements seem to support themselves: Except for a very very few people, no one has any clue about what the Big Bang is really about. Graduates with a degree in physics from a highly regarded university improve very slightly from having no clue about the Big Bang to having "effectively no clue."It is very safe to say that my intentions do not follow those of Buzsaw. My appreciation for physics originates from my studies toward an undergraduate degree in the subject (however, my degree in physics is not from one of the most highly regarded universities). Also, I am not predisposed to the wedging of any ideas regarding a creator into the universe. Well, it is not my participation in the field at the research level that I desire. What I hope is that anyone who has an honest interest in learning about the cosmos can do so without an advanced degree, and come away from their effort with something much more than "no clue" about what might be going on. This assures me a bit, though not completely--it just doesn't jive well with what you were saying to Buzsaw in the other topic.Cheers.

[qs=Chiroptera]... if a significant portion of the public cannot understand the work in any field enough to truly appreciate, then the enterprise becomes essentially ma[s]turbatory.[/qs]Chiroptera succinctly states the situation I am trying to address (perhaps I should not have interjected my personal reaction to your comments to Buzsaw).My interpretation of what has been said so far:

---

There are two ways by which anyone with an interest, some minimum aptitude, the drive, and an open mind can learn about particle physics/astrophysics/cosmology.The first way is to read and understand books written by scientists--for laymen--working in the given field of study. Examples of such authors would be Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene (Kip Thorne?, John Gribbin?--I think we should start another thread to talk about specific authors and books, if you are willing). If a layman were to stop here, the best that she would have is a set of analogies that attempt to describe the science but are insufficient for real understanding.The second way, and the only way to gain real understanding, is to get a PhD from a well-regarded university. But even then that real understanding will only be in the area of specialization.

---

I'd like to try to get your statement to Chiroptera in message 29 into this context: So, is there hope for the layman if she is just interested in understanding cosmological implications and not the advanced math?Do you disagree with Chiroptera in message 27?