I'm not thinking about their future potential, but what has come to pass.
Crap.
Is my poll too hard, or does it suckass?
Is my poll too hard, or does it suckass?
The LHC will get my vote when it produces some actual RESULTS.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 6 2009, 04:11 PM)
The LHC will get my vote when it produces some actual RESULTS.
Ah, but HST has been recently upgraded too.
But then again "the Earth could be exploded."
Ah, but HST has been recently upgraded too.
But then again "the Earth could be exploded."
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Nov 6 2009, 01:21 PM)
Ah, but HST has been recently upgraded too.
The LHC has a long way to go before it can even look at Hubble's record without shame.
The LHC has a long way to go before it can even look at Hubble's record without shame.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 6 2009, 05:29 PM)
The LHC has a long way to go before it can even look at Hubble's record without shame.
OK true.
I should have said "who believes LHC will out-do HST"
OK true.
I should have said "who believes LHC will out-do HST"
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Nov 6 2009, 01:30 PM)
I should have said "who believes LHC will out-do HST"
Yeah, not happening any time soon.
That's not to say that the LHC is a bad investment, but the HST was a much more cost-effective contribution to science.
I'm wondering what they will do if they can't find the Higgs Boson...
If the theory that predicted the Higgs Boson is in error, that has to be the #1 most expensive error in history.
Yeah, not happening any time soon.
That's not to say that the LHC is a bad investment, but the HST was a much more cost-effective contribution to science.
I'm wondering what they will do if they can't find the Higgs Boson...
If the theory that predicted the Higgs Boson is in error, that has to be the #1 most expensive error in history.
More expensive than "God is on our side" ?
Anyway, to a taxonomic botanist, both LHC and HST are near worthless.
Anyway, to a taxonomic botanist, both LHC and HST are near worthless.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 6 2009, 02:20 PM)
More expensive than "God is on our side" ?
Hmmm, I was thinking more about mathematical errors at the time.
Unless discoveries made by one or the other lead to technologies that would allow the taxonomic botanist to do their job better.
Hmmm, I was thinking more about mathematical errors at the time.
QUOTE
Anyway, to a taxonomic botanist, both LHC and HST are near worthless.
Unless discoveries made by one or the other lead to technologies that would allow the taxonomic botanist to do their job better.
I don't know if you'ld count the LHC as a Botanist win then, but they did build an impressive computing center and a lot of botany is "stamp collecting" into large databases.
QUOTE (rpenner+Nov 6 2009, 03:28 PM)
I don't know if you'ld count the LHC as a Botanist win then, but they did build an impressive computing center and a lot of botany is "stamp collecting" into large databases.
I'm worried that the LHC might be overspecialized. Whether they find the Higgs Boson or not, what else can it be used for? There are a finite number of mysteries that can be unraveled by that particular machine, and maybe not enough to justify the price tag if the Higgs particle is not found. On the other hand, Kudos the the people who paid for it. They have a great commitment to science.
I'm worried that the LHC might be overspecialized. Whether they find the Higgs Boson or not, what else can it be used for? There are a finite number of mysteries that can be unraveled by that particular machine, and maybe not enough to justify the price tag if the Higgs particle is not found. On the other hand, Kudos the the people who paid for it. They have a great commitment to science.
I was hoping to coax (particle physicists) people into saying how awesome LHC can be.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 7 2009, 06:10 AM)
I'm worried that the LHC might be overspecialized. Whether they find the Higgs Boson or not, what else can it be used for? There are a finite number of mysteries that can be unraveled by that particular machine, and maybe not enough to justify the price tag if the Higgs particle is not found. On the other hand, Kudos the the people who paid for it. They have a great commitment to science.
Wasn't a lot of it funded by taxpayers? Or were there large private donations?
Wasn't a lot of it funded by taxpayers? Or were there large private donations?
LHC by far, though what will become of either is yet to be seen.
Expensive mathematical errors: I suggest a mighty contender.
The Treaty of Tordesillas defined whether land would belong to Spain or to Portugal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
and the separation line was apparently defined to give all Americas to Spain.
Though a piece of Brazil was at the East of the line, which seemingly nobody knew at that time (or at most a few Portuguese...) allowing Portugal to establish a colony which widened to become Brazil.
-----
LHC: you can't compare a past project with a coming one!
And if the LHC proves that Higg's boson doesn't exist (not just fails to find it) it'll be just as useful as finding it.
Or if it finds decisive clues about dark matter, or similar amazing things...
And even better, if it finds particles that hadn't been expected at all.
-----
The HST would have been even more fantastic, had it been launched on time. Being a decade late, it provided observation capabilities just in pair with coming ground-based observatories which were then cheaper, as adaptive optics went of age. Nasa does a fantastic job of public communications, but astronomers don't necessarily dream of the HST for their observations, since the Keck or the VLT are available.
The Treaty of Tordesillas defined whether land would belong to Spain or to Portugal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
and the separation line was apparently defined to give all Americas to Spain.
Though a piece of Brazil was at the East of the line, which seemingly nobody knew at that time (or at most a few Portuguese...) allowing Portugal to establish a colony which widened to become Brazil.
-----
LHC: you can't compare a past project with a coming one!
And if the LHC proves that Higg's boson doesn't exist (not just fails to find it) it'll be just as useful as finding it.
Or if it finds decisive clues about dark matter, or similar amazing things...
And even better, if it finds particles that hadn't been expected at all.
-----
The HST would have been even more fantastic, had it been launched on time. Being a decade late, it provided observation capabilities just in pair with coming ground-based observatories which were then cheaper, as adaptive optics went of age. Nasa does a fantastic job of public communications, but astronomers don't necessarily dream of the HST for their observations, since the Keck or the VLT are available.
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Nov 15 2009, 02:04 AM)
LHC: you can't compare a past project with a coming one!
That's why its an opinion poll.
No mathematical rigor needed
And the question remains: If Hubble was mediocre, why did NASA bother to fix and upgrade it?
That's why its an opinion poll.
No mathematical rigor needed
And the question remains: If Hubble was mediocre, why did NASA bother to fix and upgrade it?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.