• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

why is it a waste of money ?

wookielover

Well-known Member
from the inspirational picture thread. why do certain people think the cern experiments are a waste of money ?
 

DJT75

Distinguished Member
...because like me, they don't understand it, don't have a single ounce of interest in it, find it utterly dull, and spend the little amount of time they actually are occupied by it wondering Why? And really what is the point?
 

Toasty

Distinguished Member
Cern is a unique research environment that has spawned such innovations as the world wide web. I heard a figure that Cerns budget is that of 4 universities, small beer compared to other sectors that bleed billions.

It's a shame science and R&D is so far down the priority list, as Brian Cox put it the other night, more money has been put into the failing bank sector this year than has been spent on Science since Jesus and look what they've done with that drip of funds, only created the industrial world.
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
It's a waste of money because without CERN we wouldn't have the world wide web and how much time is wasted by people having useless debates on the internet, when they should be doing some work?
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
Because they don't understand how, over time, the information obtained from the likes of the LHC works into everyday products.
For example, GPS requires extremely accurate clocks in the satellites which came out of 'blue sky' research.
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
Because they don't understand how, over time, the information obtained from the likes of the LHC works into everyday products.
For example, GPS requires extremely accurate clocks in the satellites which came out of 'blue sky' research.
We're already benefiting as the engineering that led to the building of the LHC gave us advances in, for example, medical scanning equipment.
 

Knyght_byte

Distinguished Member
People forget that almost everything they take for granted, happened because people with some money (or access to funds that generally came from taxes) decided to experiment. As mentioned, the LHC is responsible for many offshoot advances, typically in the medical world, but with lots of general applications as well.

Yes, its actual aim is a bit futuristicky for conventional life, but then, that big long cable being laid under the ocean seemed a bit of a folly cost wise to a lot of people too, I mean, when you can get a message there by ship in so many weeks, why would you need to speak to them straight away?.....
 

johntheexpat

Distinguished Member
It's a waste of money because without CERN we wouldn't have the world wide web and how much time is wasted by people having useless debates on the internet, when they should be doing some work?


I think that CERN had access to the technology and the expertise to utilise it before others, but I don't believe that without CERN it wouldn't have evolved.

They got there first, but it would still have evolved without them.
 

Toasty

Distinguished Member
I think that CERN had access to the technology and the expertise to utilise it before others, but I don't believe that without CERN it wouldn't have evolved.

They got there first, but it would still have evolved without them.

Indeed, but it it could also have evolved commercially, which would have been dreadful.
 

sheriffwoody

Distinguished Member
can i ask something REALLY ****ing stupid please?

what would happen if you were able to stand inside the LHC as they were firing round all the particles etc?
I understand they shoot the protons round at something crazy like 11,000 times a second, but what would happen if whilst they were going round, you could somehow climb inside of the LHC?

would they collide with you? would it do any damage to you etc?
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
I think that CERN had access to the technology and the expertise to utilise it before others, but I don't believe that without CERN it wouldn't have evolved.

They got there first, but it would still have evolved without them.
Yeah and someone else could have written all those plays, it's just Shakespeare got there first.
 

Iccz

Distinguished Member
can i ask something REALLY ****ing stupid please?

what would happen if you were able to stand inside the LHC as they were firing round all the particles etc?
I understand they shoot the protons round at something crazy like 11,000 times a second, but what would happen if whilst they were going round, you could somehow climb inside of the LHC?

would they collide with you? would it do any damage to you etc?

Not stupid at all. First off, it's not possible to stand inside the accelerator, unless you are a borrower, it's actually a very small (a couple of inches tops) space. We also have to remember that inside the pipes are special conditions and inside them is a near perfect vacuum (not somewhere you'd want to be in the first place).

But let's for example say you were stood next to the pipes (not likely to happen) as there is a valid possibility (though, also very unlikely).

First you need to understand how the LHC works, inside the vacuum pipes there is a beam consisting of charged particles that move at very close to the speed of light (99.99999999(I don't know how many recurring nines)%) which is one hell of a lot of momentum, I have no idea what it would be analogous to... either way it's a lot.

So you're stood next to the pipes (some 17 miles long or so) during a run and the two beams inside the machine are fired up, naturally a great many particles will stray off track from the beam and hit the magnets which guide the beam, when they do this radioactive particles are generated, so we have to consider how much radiation is contained within that tunnel - not enough to kill you in a short period but over time it could be a lot. But, the main thing would be if the beam were to go out of control, you'd be looking at trillions of particles moving at an incredible speed as a focused beam, if something were to go majorly wrong it could possible break through the pipes and if there was a person there... well, things wouldn't end well for them, the beam would easily go straight through them (only a small beam, possibly <1mm), and expose them to radiation. I wouldn't want to bet on the survival of anyone in the way of it.
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
You would come out with super-human strength.

NASA is a waste of money.

Gee, developing the technology to put up weather satellites doesn't help people to know what is happening with typhoon, get communication satellites working (Sky/Freesat anyone?) etc..
 

krish

Distinguished Member
Brian Cox said on last Thursday night's This Week (on BBC1 after QT) that it was all CERN budget on the LHC, and that it costs the UK taxpayer the same as that of an average European university
- thinking about that and what we definitely DO NOT GAIN (apart from more dole claimants) from the many Mickey Mouse institutions and their taxpayer funded (About ESRC | ESRC | The Economic and Social Research Council) media studies and social 'science' work, the value of it is not even worth debating imho ;)
 

andyparksy

Well-known Member
Think there is a big difference between NASA use now and use before...... No doubt some huge gains from the space programme but I think there is a realisation that from a research point of view we are experiencing diminishing returns which is why the shuttle programme has gone.

Think it will be more about maintaining what we have than learning new things from going into space.

Cern, on the other hand, is only just starting to give the rewards and I think not only the ones from an engineering point of view that came about from building the thing, but the ones we will get from a greater understanding.

Oh, and afaik the web didn't evolve through cern, but was created by it, so I don't think you can say it would have evolved anyway......
 

krish

Distinguished Member
Think there is a big difference between NASA use now and use before...... No doubt some huge gains from the space programme but I think there is a realisation that from a research point of view we are experiencing diminishing returns which is why the shuttle programme has gone.
+ there was the Cold War
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
Gee, developing the technology to put up weather satellites doesn't help people to know what is happening with typhoon, get communication satellites working (Sky/Freesat anyone?) etc..
'NASA' was a very expensive option to perfect a technology, the Chinese invented, several centuries earlier. Apart from lowering communist self esteem, I can't think what other benefits the space race gave us.
 

jendo

Active Member
The smart question to ask is: "how much return can we expect from our investment in science."
One assessment about the Apollo space program suggests that for every $1 spent, $14 came back into the US economy.
Brian cox did a TED talk on this subject.



In tough economic times, our exploratory science programs -- from space probes to the LHC -- are first to suffer budget cuts. Brian Cox explains how curiosity-driven science pays for itself, powering innovation and a profound appreciation of our existence.
 

dc8900

Distinguished Member
'NASA' was a very expensive option to perfect a technology, the Chinese invented, several centuries earlier. Apart from lowering communist self esteem, I can't think what other benefits the space race gave us.

Well developments from NASA tech include: LCD, colourmatic glasses e.g. transitions glasses, microwaves, thermos containers, alkaline high packed batteries, ticket scanners, solid state recorders etc and the list goes on...

here is also a quick (not sure if exhaustive) rundown: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Brochure_10_web.pdf

or a more extensive edition: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Spinoff2010.pdf
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
The smart question to ask is: "how much return can we expect from our investment in science."
One assessment about the Apollo space program suggests that for every $1 spent, $14 came back into the US economy.
What's to say that hasn't anything to do with the procurement process, with private companies over charging. I read during the 1980's about contractors charging NASA $1 for a screw whereas for a private contract they charge by the lb weight and a dollar could get you several dozen screws.
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
Well developments from NASA tech include: LCD, colourmatic glasses e.g. transitions glasses, microwaves, thermos containers, alkaline high packed batteries, ticket scanners, solid state recorders etc and the list goes on...

here is also a quick (not sure if exhaustive) rundown: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Brochure_10_web.pdf

or a more extensive edition: http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2010/pdf/Spinoff2010.pdf
I would call that list into serious question because we had a thermos flask at school that was made during the 1940's and LCD was invented by RCA if I recall correctly. Also how can you invent 'microwaves'? That's like saying they invented soundwaves.
 
Last edited:

dc8900

Distinguished Member
I would call that list into serious question because we had a thermos flask at school that was made during the 1940's and LCD was invented by RCA if I recall correctly. Also how can you invent 'microwaves'? That's like saying they invented soundwaves.

as in microwave ovens... (but I'm sure you knew that) and the LCDs that we saw in our TVs was a direct derivative of LCD panels found in the space shuttle programme
 

captainarchive

Distinguished Member
as in microwave ovens... (but I'm sure you knew that) and the LCDs that we saw in our TVs was a direct derivative of LCD panels found in the space shuttle programme
I'n not sure when NASA began but Percy Spencer was manufacturing microwave ovens during the 1940's. And if you Google LCD panels, NASA 'again' isn't in the picture I thought it was RCA but it's someone called T Peter Brody and the technology goes back as far as 1888 apparently.

The History of the Microwave Oven
 

nvingo

Distinguished Member
what would happen if you were able to stand inside the LHC as they were firing round all the particles etc?
The first point is that nobody is in the vicinity as the LHC is cooled by liquid nitrogen to an operating temperature very near absolute 0 (-273ºC). Any particulate damage would be secondary to death by freezing.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom