Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 12:58:36 06/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 04, 1999 at 00:36:25, Prakash Das wrote: >On June 03, 1999 at 20:57:21, James B. Shearer wrote: > >>On June 03, 1999 at 18:36:31, Prakash Das wrote: >> >> >>> Building the super collider in Texas (instead of shelving it) would have >>>produced some great advances in high energy physics, and many applications to >>>other areas. >> >> The super collider in Texas was the same sort of wasteful megaproject >>that you properly object to in space. Both push existing technology well past >>the point of diminishing returns. >> James B. Shearer > > I have to disagree.. yes it's a megaproject too, but building such a >supercollider is very complex. It's not the same with the wasteful projects of >sending spacecrafts.. those have very low returns and huge problems. > > The super collider would have allowed us to discover things which we cannot do >now. Right now we are restricted to CERN. The SLAC (stanford linear accelerator) >and Fermi Lab are too small. > > The problem with the texas supercollider was not with physicists. Most >physicists (that is, those actually knowledgeable about the workings) agreed it >would have been a tremendous advance to physics. The problem was with the >politicians who do not have the ability to judge scientific projects, even with >advisors. So it would have good for physics, that doesn't mean it was worth spending $5000000000 on. I doubt even most physicists actually believed this was the best way to spend the money. James B. Shearer
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.