The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE on Sunday June 28, 2020 @04:20PM (#23671736)

That's the same argument as weapon developers use, and weapon development contributed much more to fundamental physics than particle accelerators. The majority of funds after the WWII flowed to physics thanks to the nuclear arms race.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by rowanG077 on Sunday June 28, 2020 @07:04PM (#23672746)

So what's your point? The weapon developers are correct of course. But the difference between weapons and super colliders is that super colliders are designer to help humanity instead of destroy it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @05:57AM (#23699746)

I can assure you weapon developers also think they benefit society. They usually say: WWIII did not happen only because of nuclear weapons. The question here is, what would benefit society more, spending said $21B on virology research or on a collider? Or maybe if you spend $21B on AI research, the computer will solve all the remaining theoretical problems of string theory in 0.21 s.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by rowanG077 on Wednesday July 01, 2020 @03:35PM (#23705515)

Of course weapons benefit society. I didn't say they didn't...

[ Parent | on HN ]