5 Facts about the LHC (I bet you never knew!)

It is something similar to when rutherford, Cockcroft and Walton split the atom,they probably didn't foresee nuclear power or the bomb. It we can understand what gives matter in the universe mass, it could open up the door to perhaps new propulsion systems, even a new energy source. Hard to say but this work is fundamentally important. Remember that most of the money spent is used to creat and push new technology and goes into the economies of the member countries and drives new innovations and growth.
. I'd rather spend it at CERN than give it to the Anglo Irish Bank.

mykc wrote: Is this the pinnacle of "big science"; can we justify such enormously expensive experiments? (I think that hugely expensive scientific projects can be justified solely on their potential to uncover new knowledge, even it has no foreseeable economic application, but that only a very few such experiments are justifiable at a time when we face so many other challenges. What should those experiments be? SETI?)

The Irish Government has repeatedly solved such a dilemma for us by refusing to join CERN (though some of our universities physics departments do contribute to experiments). CERN member states in blue:


The politics of science funding is backwards at present; largely imo due to the lack of politicians with any scientific background. If you've seen funding proposal forms, particularly here in the uk there are questions like 'What results will this experiment deliver?' 'what will the practical implications of your findings be?'. If we knew that we wouldn't be looking for finding to do experiments! Put clever people together and give them the means to experiment. It will produce something. And if experience teaches us anything, it's that whats comes out will not be what was expected. One of CERN's greatest achievements? The World Wide Web.

The cost of the LHC, probably the most expensive science experiment ever, is about €8billion. That's a much better investment than handing that kind of money over to, oh say, unsecured bondholders of bust banks.

It’s rare to find politicians that have a science background, with the exception of Margaret Thatcher and Dr Angela Merkel, were both scientists.
Politics in science is one thing, but having no science at the top with our politicians is a weak area for Ireland. Not only is Ireland not in CERN, it is not even a member of the European Southern Observatory (ESO). Every other EU nation is in ESO. The astronomy community here in Ireland including (Institutions and Universities) have been crying out for membership in the ESO for the last 20 years. Most of the 6 of the universities have astronomy/physics degree courses. The cost of membership was very little when you consider the money sloshing around during the Celtic tiger.

The attitude is,” this has a membership cost and what benefit is it for Ireland.” Although Ireland is a member of the European Space Agency there is a short term economic benefit for industry.

CERN and ESO are fundamentally dealing with pure science.

In Ireland, ministers are chosen who are TDs, TDs are elected almost exclusively who were first elected as county councillors. So then the question is, how many competent scientists do you know who would want to be county councillors and also be electable? It is a different skill set to be elected as a county councillor than a scientist. So we end up with ministers who are good at local election politicking, but not necessarily gifted in other domains.

It follows that when you have politicians without appreciation of science and its implications for future generations, there is no long term thinking or vision for the future.

Eamonn