PDA

View Full Version : Big Science



yajvan
10 September 2010, 07:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I must say I enjoy science. I like the notion that a human being can better understand their surroundings and then do something with it or comprehend it better.

Yet what I do not get ( probably appreciate is a better term) is really big science. An example would be CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Another that is really big will be the new space telescope called the Webb Telescope, being launched in 2014.
This telescope will be 2.7X bigger the Hubble scope in orbit today. Its main mirror diameter will be 6.57 meters ( 21.5 feet) in diameter. Now I am excited as to how far this telescope will be able to see and the great pictures, all that, that it will be able to transmit to earth.

I understand some of the benefits... these programs put people to work, it advances our understanding ( I think ) but I stuggle with it's practical value to society as a whole.
Does the common person reap the value? Do we feed the hungry? Is a pot-hole fixed, do you solve pollution and energy problems?
It seems to me if this was in the eyesight of big science more people would applaud the effort.

Yet I do not and cannot articulate the residual benefits that the common person benefits from other then velcro, pens that can write upside down in space, and perhaps advances in chip set technology. Are there other benefits ? I think so , but can you tell me more? To my chagrin I cannot list out those benefits that the common person can applaud.

We will soon go back to the moon - this makes sense if we can harvest some of the minerals for use ( one is Helium³ that is a source for generating power with little radio active 'exhaust' or left overs);

The world will continue to look to science for answers to our growing concerns - but these concerns need to be the focus of big science, not the residual leftovers that find their way into a product or service.
As I understand it , less than 10% of all the data that is collected in the big science projects is analysed and used. Yet the science community continues to generate more and more data . FYI data is not information as yet till someone exposes its value.

I cannot help but think of focusing NASA in total on some of the biggest issues that can be solved by technology - energy and the like.

Perhaps you can tell me where my blind spot resides - on the big science that is helping in a practical way.

praṇām


http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/csm-photo-galleries-images/in-pictures-images/spod-0910/10/8616027-1-eng-US/10_full_600.jpg

Eastern Mind
10 September 2010, 07:58 PM
Vannakkam Yajvan:

An old Scottish landlord who was a retired doctor once made the following comment to me. "Medicine is much more about science than it is about humanity." That was almost 40 years ago and I still remember. The truth within it must have resonated within me.

I share your concerns.

Aum Namasivaya

Riverwolf
10 September 2010, 08:12 PM
I think a better term for what you're describing would be "science purely for the sake of knowledge."

Knowledge for knowledge's sake is one of the largest desires for many people.

Now, when it comes to far-seeing telescopes, there isn't much practical benefit. But don't forget that NASA also has telescopes and sensors designed to find NEOs that could be threatening. I think that's quite practical. They've also got some projects about deflecting such things in case one ends up on a course for Earth.

I think things like that, which do have practical benefit, get the majority of funding.

Surya Deva
10 September 2010, 08:21 PM
Namaste,

I think all science is good. The more knowledge we have of the universe the more helpful it will be to us. However, I don't think it is big-science in which we will we find the greatest knowledge, but in small-science. When we penetrate deep beyond the atomic level of matter to the quantum and beyond we will discover the same truths that are contained within Hinduism. Practically, science has already verified that the akasha exists.

However, to get to the very subtle levels of reality, no scientific instrument will take us there. This can only be done in the mental lab.

kallol
10 September 2010, 10:11 PM
Dear yajvanji,

the different POV moves the people in different directions. And yes all directions are required to nourish the quest for science knowledge, the societal benefit, the spiritual upliftment, etc

Not all people will fit to a single direction and neither it should be, for all inclusive growth of any society or country in terms of knowledge, societal benefits, etc.

All directions of these lead to the spiritual refinement and understanding. More the society is helped (karmayoga), more the knowledge is gained (gyanayoga), the better it is for the mankind. Spiritual gyana yoga can be through many means and through many lives. Some are slow some are fast but all are moving towards that.

I do not see anything as wastage. There are various reasons. It can be because

1. There may be no means to understand or no need for the apparently waste data. We had collected BSR data long back but used it for one purpose. Much later we used the same for another purpose.

2. The data can be the ways the target cannot be reached. We normally term those as failure data. This is also knowledge.

3. Data which have targets but no useful applications. This apparently looks as wastage of efforts but still it adds to the pool of understanding of the subject. That way many people are wasting their efforts in many ways. :sleeping:

I look as a whole and not induvidually.

Love and best wishes :)

sanjaya
13 September 2010, 11:53 AM
I understand some of the benefits... these programs put people to work, it advances our understanding ( I think ) but I stuggle with it's practical value to society as a whole.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Does the common person reap the value? Do we feed the hungry? Is a pot-hole fixed, do you solve pollution and energy problems?
It seems to me if this was in the eyesight of big science more people would applaud the effort.
Yes, I understand what you mean. As an astronomer I get this kind of question all the time: what is all this stuff actually useful for? Chemists produce new materials for industrial use, and biologists create new drugs to cure disease. Even physicists in condensed matter and optics create new technologies. But the best answer that high energy physicists and astronomers can give is "it enriches our understanding of the universe and our place in it" or something like that. Being in these fields of physics is sort of like being a musician or an artist (but unlike a music or art major, you can get a good job at an engineering firm if the whole science thing doesn't work out :) )

I think that alone is a satisfactory answer. But if you're looking for something more practical, this sort of "big science" does have tangential applications. Studying basic science allows us to figure out what areas of science are useful for producing new technologies, and what areas aren't. For example, the CCDs that we use in astronomy to collect data have found their way into the home in the form of digital cameras. In the research that I do, we are forced to invent new fast-response electronics that could have all kinds of industrial applications. I'm sure our high energy friends at CERN have similar spinoff technologies.

We don't do research for the purpose of making new technologies. But those technologies are bound to show up in the course of our work.

yajvan
13 September 2010, 01:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjay,



Studying basic science allows us to figure out what areas of science are useful for producing new technologies, and what areas aren't. For example, the CCDs that we use in astronomy to collect data have found their way into the home in the form of digital cameras. In the research that I do, we are forced to invent new fast-response electronics that could have all kinds of industrial applications. I'm sure our high energy friends at CERN have similar spinoff technologies.

We don't do research for the purpose of making new technologies. But those technologies are bound to show up in the course of our work.

Yes, I see your point and this benefit has been reviewed by me on occasion. The ~logic~ offered as I see it is the trickle down effect. Soon or later it ends up in the market place and people use it. Yet for me it just seems unfulfilling. How so? Many billions of dollars are spent - many of those are tax dollars put forth by the public. And on occasion there is a product that makes its way into the home. Yet did it improve the quality of life of that family or community.

I am a very amateur astronomer . Having a CCD device is nice, but for me it is a hobby , I can live without it. I can live without a cell phone and many other conveniences e.g. gps system, etc.
So when big science is done and the ROI is indirect, the value is allusive to me ( other then jobs being created for the various manufacturers and scientist).

Many say it will contribute to answering some of man's most oldest questions why are we here, what is the origin of the species, from where do we come... all those questions, I can appreciate. Yet for the avg. person of every day life these questions are far from his/her preview. For the above avg. person, these questions are found in the
śāstra-s as I see it.

So now one typically thinks, well yajvan do you think having NO big science is the way to go? No , this is not my point of view. My point is for science to be purposeful vs. wondering, for results that are beneficial vs. nice to know , all when public tax dollars are being spent. If priviate dollars are being expended then I must remain silent.


Just recently I read of a scientist that spent some years and tax dollars revisting the actual size of a proton ( I think it was the proton). He found after N years on the project that the proton is really 4% bigger then expected and measured in the past. I am not certain how many millions were spent on this, and I guess it is good to know. But did it change any thing other then having to update science books?

I guess what I am looking for is a concluding remark on these programs i.e. We have concluded that protons are in fact 4% larger then past measuresd and that will change ____________ or we will now be able to _____________ , or now your car is really bigger then you think because the protons are 4% bigger and you will not be able to fit it in your garage any longer :)


I am continully reminded of what my teacher has told us on many occasions - knowledge is for action, action is for achievement and achievement is for one's fulfillment in life.

When I see knowledge that is idle, or purely speculative or hypothetical, or untargeted I am reminded of what he said and wonder to the point of that program's or persons endevor.


That is my rant, I could be wrong.

praṇām

yajvan
14 September 2010, 07:31 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

cutting big science... this occured in 2008 . I am not sure how far the program has progressed:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/01/08/4351459-big-trouble-for-big-science

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080107/slac.jpg

Ao
16 September 2010, 04:21 AM
Namaste Yajvan,

I guess if your perspective is solely on practicalities than big science won't have much of an appeal to you. But if your concerns are national (and I gather some of them are as you mention how taxes are spent) then you could consider that Europe and North America will soon be out-spent by China on large research projects like the ones you mention.

Personally, I see no problem with this, but some may. My own tiny little niche in society involves me doing research at times, and mostly it ends up being practical.

Best wishes

yajvan
16 September 2010, 12:02 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Ao



Namaste Yajvan,
I guess if your perspective is solely on practicalities than big science won't have much of an appeal to you. But if your concerns are national (and I gather some of them are as you mention how taxes are spent) then you could consider that Europe and North America will soon be out-spent by China on large research projects like the ones you mention.


Yes, I see your point. Yet I ask you to consider the per captia income of China compared to other nations. Also look at the total GDP of China compared to other nations.
Their 'big science' investments will fuel jobs for them. With 1.1 billion people that is a big concern for that nation. They soon too will have big health concerns . No less then 300 million in China smoke ( that is more then the total population of the USA). Soon their acceleration to modern day society will bring all of the stress and strain that accompany it... their pollution levels are unprecedented, population growth is enormous ( yet they are trying to manage that now), and with all the smoking you will see the increase in ill-health. This is my point - take the big science and make it practical for the issues of a society:

Alternative Clean Energy - supports health well being, etc.
Infrastructure - bridges, roads, etc. for efficient transport
Health and welfare of the community
Easy transportation
Promotion of meaningful and gainful employment
Education - both spiritual and academic
Maximize the symbiotic relationship with the environment and cosmos
etc. etc.
Oh... and good equipment to look at the stars! :) There is always room for science - that is just the systematic study of nature at the macro and mico levels.
It solves many of todays problems and issues when the task is presented in a practical and logical manner.
I am all for science on all levels - but big science, well , not so much.

praṇām

Ao
16 September 2010, 09:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Ao




Yes, I see your point. Yet I ask you to consider the per captia income of China compared to other nations. Also look at the total GDP of China compared to other nations.
Their 'big science' investments will fuel jobs for them. With 1.1 billion people that is a big concern for that nation. They soon too will have big health concerns . No less then 300 million in China smoke ( that is more then the total population of the USA). Soon their acceleration to modern day society will bring all of the stress and strain that accompany it... their pollution levels are unprecedented, population growth is enormous ( yet they are trying to manage that now), and with all the smoking you will see the increase in ill-health. This is my point - take the big science and make it practical for the issues of a society:
Alternative Clean Energy - supports health well being, etc.
Infrastructure - bridges, roads, etc. for efficient transport
Health and welfare of the community
Easy transportation
Promotion of meaningful and gainful employment
Education - both spiritual and academic
Maximize the symbiotic relationship with the environment and cosmos
etc. etc.
Oh... and good equipment to look at the stars! :) There is always room for science - that is just the systematic study of nature at the macro and mico levels.
It solves many of todays problems and issues when the task is presented in a practical and logical manner.
I am all for science on all levels - but big science, well , not so much.

praṇām

Namaste Yajvan,

Excellent point re: China and its burgeoning environmental and health concerns. The government there certainly needs to consider those issues when deciding where it invests its research money.

Regarding 'big science' itself, I think it is an important part of the overall picture. The things you mention are of course very beneficial to any society, and to my thinking a government should first and foremost address the baseline material needs of its citizens--investing in science the way you suggest would help achieve this. However, for those societies who can spare the resources (or who are willing to, I suppose, as the decisions to do so or not are ultimately policy-driven) 'big science' projects can bring enormous benefits not only in the form of material goods but in knowledge gained as well. This knowledge does not need to come with a price tag, it can be freely shared by its discoverers and all of humanity can benefit. 'Big science' has brought us a long way; sometimes in leaps and bounds, and sometimes by crawling along. I think it still has its place.

Best wishes

kallol
16 September 2010, 10:49 PM
The path of science is still not seen from the spiritual or the holistic POV. They try out what is easy for them with the available technology. But as the science progresses over the milleneum, it gets more and more aligned with nature.

Some thousand years back there was no way solar energy could be tapped, now there is technology but still to evolve.

Now we could have stayed as we had before if we feel that was more aligned to nature. The compulsion of the society, engagement, innovation, creativity, science, competitive lifestyle are the bondage which is very difficult to wish away.

Inspite of the micro deviations, the path is still moving towards more alignment to the nature which might come in another few hundreds of years.

The human birth is provided to elevate oneself from the tamas to rajas to satvik. It is a field for all and all need it. We all all types of people and that is why the stress, strain, competition, clashes, etc. All moving in various direction. Only the higher level pull, through the satvik and the ecosystem keep the divergence in check and pushes it towards more alignment.

Love and best wishes