Fermilab shuts down particle accelerator due to lack of funding

The Tevatron, the only other particle accelerator that could have discovered the Higgs Boson besides the LHC, was shut down due to a lack of funding from the Federal government.

I don't know what to say, except some general disappointment. If you're not at the front of science, you're at the back.

Doesn't surprise me. Extraneous programs are the first to fall when the Federal fund hammer comes down...

1. The Higgs-boson doesn't exist. Its like the ether, or phlogiston - a theory that hasn't been supported by the evidence. I doubt we will ever find it, because it isn't there to be found.

2. Congress was right not to waste money on a wild goose chase. Government money should focus on applied sciences before theoretical sciences. It just makes more sense economics-wise. The only time that this rule should be broken is when not pursuing a specific scientific goal could jeopardize the survival of the nation, or the potential payoff is just too damn great to ignore - such as the Manhattan project, the Apollo program (not proving to the world that America could compete with the Soviets would have led to a gradual decline in American power and morale - the Apollo missions was vital to national security) or the human genome project, or the internet. Fermilab just doesn't fall under this category - there are no real potential payoffs that you could say would come from it. Even IF the higgs was discovered, it wouldn't suddenly give us free energy, or control of gravity, or health benefits - it would satisfy curiosity and expand our knowledge base, but there's no guaranteed technological progress from such a discovery (unlike those other programs I listed).

There's never "guaranteed" progress from the cutting edge of science. The discovery and investigation of the atom brought about electricity, but only hundreds of years after the theories were advanced and investigated.

There has to be theoretical science out ahead of practical science, or the practical science has nothing to apply to.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:48:55 PM by deathjavu

We just observed faster than light travel in reality. That alone does more to science in its entirety than any field of applied science short of building a way to replicate the effect on matter.

Full of Stars: Counterpoint - what scientific breakthrough should we be focusing on now, then? Go back to the moon? Re-invent the Internet? We've done the things you listed. What's to do now? They've effectively killed any hope for a Mars mission in the near-term, as we don't even have a vehicle now to get ourselves into orbit.

So the Higgs-Boson doesn't exist - you have proof it doesn't? They're looking for it. Perhaps they'll find proof that it doesn't exist - or would have if they were still operating.

President Obama had a speech in which he cited a need for a cause we can rally behind, and I agree with him on that. I can get behind some scientific progress.

If we knew what to research it wouldn't be science.

^Not confirmed just yet Tom. I'm with my professors on this one, and calling Shenanigans: those guys at CERN are just so desperate to find SOMETHING new that they are grasping at straws.

And if I am wrong about this, and they have in fact discovered the Mass Effect, then I'd fully support expanding fermilab, because then we'd have a definite goal in mind (FTL speed), rather than a "let's give these scientists tons of money to poke around at stuff and see what happens" mission. I'm goal-oriented, and as fun as poking something to see what happens can be, I don't think we should throw gobs of taxpayer dollars into it. Come to me with an objective and a good theory backing your idea, and I'll make it rain, but tell me that "something" might happen, the wallet stays in the pants.

This is dumb, cutting theory like this. You need theory as much as you need application. Application just does things. Theory tells you what is happening.

Total agreement - theory leads to understanding. Then you can exploit it in applied technology and learn some more.

You need to be able to just poke around at things if you want to figure out what is going on and thus formulate the theories we use in application!

Application isn't everything. We need theory as well.

What breadloaf said: if we knew what was going to lead to a breakthrough it wouldn't be science.

You need some sort of information or data to make a theory on and to verify it. It so happens that for most conditions that we're used to or that we can create easily, we have pretty good theories already. So you need some data from unusual and fairly difficult to create conditions, which is where the particle accelerators come in. 'Tis good science.

Okay first of all

• Finding proof that Higgs-Boson does not exist is also the job of CERN
• "Gobs of money"? One thing scientific research certainly does not have is gobs of money. It took a hundred countries across 30 years, spending a measly 7.5 billion. It's 2.5 million a year per country. A single primary school costs more money than that.

I think it's actually rather sad. I think it's a bad economic move, anyway. Particle research is rather low on my list of "overtly dangerous scientific research," so, it seems like a waste for so little money gained back. It's like that crap in Michigan...

Stuff I'd invest money in right now:

1. Metamaterials: "designer compounds", in short, stuff which we create from scratch with specific physical properties that we desire. Includes such things as "invisibility cloaks", self-healing materials, and carbon nanotubes.

2. Room temperature superconductors: I think that we are very close to this breakthrough. In fact, I'd wager that we will see the first such substances before the decade is out. I'd spend money here figuring out how to make them for cheap.

3. Fabricators: a "make-anything" machine. Basically 3-d printers Up To Eleven. Put one in every home, and make everything using recycled local materials broken down into their component molecules. In theory, we could even make food, replacement organs, and our children using the things.

4. Advanced flight: scramjets and ramjects. even more lightweight and strong materials. autopilots that are safer and more reliable than humans.

5. Lightweight nuclear reactors: love reading old Popular Science articles where we are supposed to have nuclear-powered cars and homes twenty years ago. Seriously though, why can't we build a smaller nuclear reactor? We've miniaturized most everything else in the meantime...

6. Cheap hydrogen gas production: plants do it cheaply - why we haven't figured out how to copy that ability is beyond me.

I like that list...

Also, I get that theory is obviously important, its just that you have to be a good judge of where it is a good investment of time and resources to pursue. The higgs-boson is, to me, a shot in the dark - its something we had to make up to fill in gaps in our current theory, but it never was based off of observational science. Attempting to MAKE an expected observation happen is kind of like wishing really hard for a candy fairy to come give you candy.

A better investment on the more theoretical side than bigger particle accelerators would be to invest in better telescopes. Macroscopic observations always seem to pay off better.

• Case in point, this recent nuetrino thing had nothing to do with CERN's particle accelerator at all - it was a different experiment involving one of their neutrino detectors. Like I said, invest in telescopes and particle detectors - it always gives dividends.

edited 30th Sep '11 7:20:20 PM by MyGodItsFullofStars

All of these things are being or have been researched, both by the government and by private companies.

1 & 2 are probably not that far away, 3 is impossible because of energy constraints (2nd law of thermodynamics, breaking down and remaking all that material is wasting tons of energy), 4 has had billions of dollars of research and will continue to get billions of dollars, 5 & 6 are silly because neither source of energy is a great long-term solution (actually, hydrogen gas is an energy storage system, rather than energy producing- and it isn't even that good at energy storage. A better choice for six would have been "high density batteries", imo).

edited 30th Sep '11 7:43:13 PM by deathjavu

Nuclear energy is the future of Humanity. Today with fission and all its advancements, tomorrow with fusion and our race to the stars.

1, 2, 3 have direct economic benefit, it better to have private research did this

6 is also science-y. no guarantee it will be practical, and to research this you have to investigate the underlying principles.

I'm almost positive that electrical theory/application is older than atomic theory. By centuries.

Depends on what you qualify as "atomic theory" and what you mean by "practical electronic applications".

But whatever. Maybe that wasn't the best example. I don't know, my head feels like a balloon so I'm not gonna argue it right now.

Well, I mean, technically the Greeks were investigating atomic theory. But they've found ancient batteries, so...?

edited 30th Sep '11 8:46:55 PM by deathjavu

You might be thinking of atomic theory and nuclear technology.

You cant create applied science without theoretical science. anyone who thinks otherwise isnt a scientist, has no idea what theyre talking about, and should kindly shut their mouths,

Dunno, I think the low hanging fruit worked okay. You know, stuff like levers and shit.