Vacation Reading
Finished "The Particle at the End of the Universe" by Sean Carroll. Learned a lot about particle physics, field theory, and what the Higgs is all about. Maybe I'll share a bit of the meat in another post (don't know if any who read this are interested, but it's good practice for how I might explain things to my students anyhow), but for now just a few choice quotes about the importance of fundamental research.
"In 1831, Michael Faraday, one of the founders of our modern understand of electromagnetism, was asked by an inquiring politician about the usefulness of the newfangled "electricity" stuff. His apocryphal reply: 'I know not, but I wager that one day your government will tax it'" (p 14).
"When [Heinrich Hertz] was asked what his radio-wave-detecting device would ultimately be good for, he replied, 'It's of no use whatsoever.' Prodded to suggest some practical application he replied, 'Nothing, I guess'" (p 122).
We've discussed the advisability of governments spending money on scientific research before and I doubt there's much new to add, but Carroll does mention that economist Edwin Mansfield "argues that public spending on basic science yields an average return of 28 percent" (p 275).
Another point I found interesting is the competition between scientists for funding. The LHC cost around $9 billion and even other physicists would argue that the money could've been better spent elsewhere. But NASA's annual budget is about $17 billion. I think I might trade of year of NASA for the discovery of the last fundamental particle of the Standard Model (our updated version of what matter is at the most fundamental level, rendering the proton, neutron, electron model rather quaint).
Lastly, in 1969 physicist Robert Wilson was asked about Fermilab by Senator John Pastore, "Is there anything connected with the hope of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?" (p 269). When pressed after replying in the negative a number of times, Wilson eventually gave the rejoinder:
"In 1831, Michael Faraday, one of the founders of our modern understand of electromagnetism, was asked by an inquiring politician about the usefulness of the newfangled "electricity" stuff. His apocryphal reply: 'I know not, but I wager that one day your government will tax it'" (p 14).
"When [Heinrich Hertz] was asked what his radio-wave-detecting device would ultimately be good for, he replied, 'It's of no use whatsoever.' Prodded to suggest some practical application he replied, 'Nothing, I guess'" (p 122).
We've discussed the advisability of governments spending money on scientific research before and I doubt there's much new to add, but Carroll does mention that economist Edwin Mansfield "argues that public spending on basic science yields an average return of 28 percent" (p 275).
Another point I found interesting is the competition between scientists for funding. The LHC cost around $9 billion and even other physicists would argue that the money could've been better spent elsewhere. But NASA's annual budget is about $17 billion. I think I might trade of year of NASA for the discovery of the last fundamental particle of the Standard Model (our updated version of what matter is at the most fundamental level, rendering the proton, neutron, electron model rather quaint).
Lastly, in 1969 physicist Robert Wilson was asked about Fermilab by Senator John Pastore, "Is there anything connected with the hope of this accelerator that in any way involves the security of the country?" (p 269). When pressed after replying in the negative a number of times, Wilson eventually gave the rejoinder:
It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of man, our love of culture. It has to do with: Are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending (p 270).

Comments