Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Wasted science money?

6 posts in this topic

Found an extremely interesting article that highlights my view on what has been happening lately on theoretical physics.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists

I've seen huge amount of money going into small number of projects and results are either non existent or insufficient for the money being spent.

My point is we need much better supervision of these projects and especially accountability. I have a special hate for all the money that is going into dark matter/energy projects, while many competing theories dismiss it completely!

 

The worst by far is the AMS project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Magnetic_Spectrometer#Results

Estimated early cost: $33M. Estimated final cost: $2B!

Scientific breakthroughs after 11 years in space? ZERO!

Dark matter found? ZERO!

Minor scientific achievements? ZERO!

 

JWST might actually do very useful discoveries, but at a cost of $10B, it's just bad allocation of money.

ITER fusion reactor is just a waste of money. Yes, fusion will come, but most likely faster through private companies with budgets 100x smaller. Not only that, it will come too late for a meaningful climate change impact and it might end up not being commercially competitive against solar+batteries.

I'm a big follower of fusion, as a rocket, but ITER is just a waste of money!

 

All these projects are just made for university teachers to be occupied and for the industry to be rich. The longer and more expensive it is, the better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMS yes it's disappointing. But some experiments produce no results, and that is in itself a result.

 

I'm a big fan of JWST

 

Fusion coming through more efficient private industry who will solve the obstacles that have been plaguing brilliant minds for 40 years. Namely how to magnetically contain 100M Centigrade fusion plasma reliably so it remains dense enough for fusion to occur, and doesn't leak too much.

 

We are not even certain it can be solved. There is no guarantee that fusion can ever be made to work, but private industry are going to pour 10s of billions into solving a problem that has been 20 years in the future for 60+ years. 

 

Sorry but you are delusional in your insistence that private industry does everything better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the rebuttals.

 

Guardian - Letters

 

Big Think

 

There are others out there. I've heard from a few of Sabine Hossenfelder's ex and current colleagues in the last couple of weeks. Nobody has a particularly high opinion of her. But I guess that is easy to say after the fact.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30.9.2022, 07:11:40, capslock said:

What is fusion as a rocket?

2 options:

a) you use a fusion reactor to produce electricity, that can then be used to power ion engines.

b ) you directly use the exaust of the fusion process

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theGman

The issue is not if it is useful or not. The issue is money allocation. The rebutal only shows examples from 60-100 years ago.

The Higgs bosom is the best example. It was predicted 60 years ago and detected a few years ago. That was a very important prediction for the standard model.

No other particle prediction comes close to the importance of the Higgs bosom. One day we either run out of particles to be found or the return from research is too small to justify it. And in my opinion we are reaching that point. The majority of the rest are schollar parasites trying to justify their salary, their position and their conference participations.

I've mingled or worked with over 100 PHDs in physics. My current company has around 40 PHDs in physics. But I also worked with university researchers. I know first hand the huuuuge difference between both. Uni researchers have no pressure and rely on a small breakthrough for the next 20 years, and sadly don't realize (or don't want to) that at some point they become irrelevant.

On the other hand, the PHDs I work with at my company are active people, which have to perform every month, and also push the limits of knowledge, while providing revenue to pay salaries!

 

I clearly remember a researcher from Fraunhofer, that created a polarizing CCD more than 10 years ago. On the same day, I met our SONY contact, who showed me a prototype of the same type of camera, just better in any way and ready for mass production. We currently use such camera on our products.

SONY developed this camera independently from the Fraunhofer guy. Why didn't the Fraunhofer guy pushed for its commercialization? He had no interest in it. He wanted to make a career, not have lots of work to make something commercially available.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0