CERN pushed distributed computing and storage before anyone else hat problems on that scale.
CERN pushed edge computing for massive data analysis before anyone else even generated data at that rate.
CERN is currently pushing the physical boundaries of device synchronisation ( Check „ White Rabbit“ ), same for data transmission. CERNS accelerator cooling tech paves the way for industrial super cooling, magnet coils push super conduction…
Companies are always late in the game, they come once there is money to be had: No one founded a fusion startup until we were close enough to the relevant tripple product.
Going larger would cost more, and add risk.
So like, yes? The obvious thing to do is to analyze our models and come up with experiments to do within energy ranges which are plausibly accessible with near future technology.
I’m not sure I have any idea what the hardest problem in the humanities is.
The point is, you don't know in advance. I admit it's a bit more far fetched with these experiments that are so far removed from everyday life, but they're still worthwhile.
Three examples of how humanity would not be as we know it today without CERN.
As Alumni, there are many other changes that trace back to CERN.
We don't sit only on the H1 beer garden and go skiing.
What I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify, is how the very largest gargantuan accelerators can ever have practical relevance. How can effects and products which can only be studied with accelerators that are many miles large ever have application in hospitals unless those hospitals are also many miles large? Not going to lie, I get "NASA invented Tang" vibes whenever this subject comes up; like the medical applications of small accelerators are obvious and parsable to the public, so they are used to sell the public on accelerators the size of small countries.
Mechanical, electronic, informatics, chemistry, physics,...
Hence why CERN eventually created an industry collaboration office, responsible for finding business partners that would like to make a business out of such discoveries.
https://knowledgetransfer.web.cern.ch/activities-services/co...
Are you speaking about proton therapy? I don’t think there’s any evidence that works better than alternatives
This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.
Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.
> Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.
There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.
It can deliver radiations to the brain that will peak at the exact position of the cancer, and reduce irradiation in sane tissues. The 'better' is 'less irradiation to sane tissues' that in turn reduces the risk for new cancers.
Note: I'm not expert on the matter, but I had technical visits to IBA and know several PhDs that work there
I mean exactly that, clinical trials demonstrating that proton therapy is superior to radiation therapy. This is not a question about the physics but about how patients respond (and whether the expense of delivering proton therapy outweighs the expected marginal benefits).
https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/proton...
But on the subject of discoveries and practical uses, the IBA cyclotrons are also used for other purposes than proton therapy: cleaning exotic fruits from dangerous substances and personalized medicine.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The study was designed to show non-inferiority, which doesn't preclude their ability to show an improvement. It would be helpful to see other studies before determining that proton therapy is better (or even non-inferior) to radiation therapy. It's certainly much more expensive, which shows up in the study as many subjects being denied insurance coverage.
From my visits, they mostly focus on children that have some very nasty cancers, the IBA hospitals are all designed with children in mind (to avoid stressing them), and from my memory, a unique hospital is often enough to treat a whole country for the kind of cancer they target.
Now, if it is on par with classical radiotherapy BUT it gives less subsequent problems, it might be worth the cost as subsequent problems can be as expensive or even more than the original treatment. It becomes an actuarial issue to know where is the tradeoff.
I only argue that if they are equal in quality of treatment and the 'total cost' is the evaluation parameter, it is way more complex than the treatment itself, and it could be justified to use proton therapy, even if more expensive.
Nice talk anyways :)
The internet existed, hypertext existed, it was just happenstance that it was put together there. It would have happened somewhere, maybe not exactly the same protocol but the same end result.