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.