Re:CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
by garmaine on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @04:22PM
(#23619726)
The photoelectric effect paper of Einstein was 1905, no?
Re:CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
by dekhn on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @10:38AM
(#23614454)
photoelectric effect in 1921 was definitely not blue-sky research with no practical applications; it was one of the core problems in physics at the time.
Re:CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
by throw0101a on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @11:51AM
(#23615577)
> it was one of the core problems in physics at the time.
What were the specific "practical" problems that investigating and figuring it out that were solved?
Re:CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
by dekhn on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @04:15PM
(#23619640)
photomultiplier tubes. At the time the effect was discovered, PE was recognized experimentally (and exploited), but unexplained, and once it was, development of PMTs (critical to a wide range of practical technologies) was greatly sped up. This led to high quality television cameras not long after...
In 1921 the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won a Nobel, was blue-sky research with no practical applications. Fast forward a few decades and it was used as the basis for making laser: you know, those things that all modern communication uses to transfer information over long distances.
While it is up to debate how much to spend on "blue-sky research", cutting off funding to 'basic science' is rather short-sited as we cut off future 'practical' developments that can improve our lives if we don't have the foundations of the basics to build on.