madbadgalaxyman
22-02-2019, 09:56 AM
I think that the following (quoted below) is an interesting post by Alex, asking whether or not Gravitational Wave astronomy is really the way forward in astronomy, and asking whether or not the amounts of money spent on LIGO could better be spent on other types of telescopes. To question whether or not the Gold-plated Ultra-Expensive hobbyhorse of a particular Large Group of scientists is worth what it costs in terms of the project's scientific returns, is sometimes to be accused of being anti-science (e.g. when US legislators failed to fund the Superconducting Supercollider (a giant particle accelerator), this accusation was regularly made about them) - but in my view it is actually doing science a service to compare the relative costs of various anticipated scientific projects and also to consider the relative discovery potentials of the various projects that could potentially be funded.
We should firstly bear in mind that LIGO has so far cost some 1.1 billion US dollars.
In comparison, we can note that this sort of money could instead buy:
- a ground-based optical/infrared telescope of 20-30 meters in aperture.
- a Space Telescope to investigate a particular wavelength domain ; e.g. The Herschel Space Observatory cost 1.1 billion Euros, and it has turned Star Formation studies from being a purely theoretical field into an active and very detailed Observational science!
- a number of small orbiting telescopes to investigate previously unexplored parts of the electromagnetic spectrum ; e.g. GALEX (a far-ultraviolet survey of the sky) cost 150 million dollars and it has discovered a great amount.
Incidentally, a similar discussion is ongoing in the field of particle physics;
you may be surprised to learn that there are actually Many (yes, many) well-respected and very-high-profile physicists (in other words, people having the requisite Specialist Knowledge to be able to make highly informed commentary) who feel that the multi-billion-dollar cost of the very biggest particle-colliders is not justifiable in terms of their actual scientific return; but obviously there are Truly Massive swarms of thousands of particle physicists who would love an Even Much Much More Expensive instrument than their current state-of-the art, the Large Hadron Collider;
just consider that up to that point at which the LHC discovered the Higgs Boson, a cool 13 (!!) billion dollars had been spent on the instrument and its operations !!
(( see: this intriguing article on “how much did it actually Cost(!) to discover the Higgs Boson?”…..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#eb982a339480 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#eb982a339480)
))
It is quite true, as Alex Says, that there are always bunches of physicists and astrophysicists claiming that their particular proposed multi-billion-dollar instrument will undeniably lead to major discoveries and revolutionize our scientific knowledge.
John Horgan, in Scientific American, makes a similar point:
http://https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/ (http://https:/blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/)
Of course, the question of whether or not a particular example of one of these “Most Most XXXXy” mega-science-projects is “worth the money in terms of scientific return” or not….. is a difficult one to answer; very hard for science to answer and very hard for society to deal with, given that even those with expert-level knowledge of the most relevant specialties within science will disagree about what is the best way forward in advancing humankind’s knowledge of the physical world.
Another point I would like to make is;
it is all very well to blow all of the research budget on a very very small number of Truly Gigantic projects, but would it not be better if some of the money was instead spent on ensuring the optimal development of that Marvelous Machine that is undeniably our primary research tool……the human mind. Human society should firstly Find and then Properly Educate a greater number of the very very very smartest people in the world, as there are large numbers of highly intelligent people who could potentially be extremely valuable to science and to society; but they are unable to contribute at a high level because they don't get a really good education.
We should firstly bear in mind that LIGO has so far cost some 1.1 billion US dollars.
In comparison, we can note that this sort of money could instead buy:
- a ground-based optical/infrared telescope of 20-30 meters in aperture.
- a Space Telescope to investigate a particular wavelength domain ; e.g. The Herschel Space Observatory cost 1.1 billion Euros, and it has turned Star Formation studies from being a purely theoretical field into an active and very detailed Observational science!
- a number of small orbiting telescopes to investigate previously unexplored parts of the electromagnetic spectrum ; e.g. GALEX (a far-ultraviolet survey of the sky) cost 150 million dollars and it has discovered a great amount.
Incidentally, a similar discussion is ongoing in the field of particle physics;
you may be surprised to learn that there are actually Many (yes, many) well-respected and very-high-profile physicists (in other words, people having the requisite Specialist Knowledge to be able to make highly informed commentary) who feel that the multi-billion-dollar cost of the very biggest particle-colliders is not justifiable in terms of their actual scientific return; but obviously there are Truly Massive swarms of thousands of particle physicists who would love an Even Much Much More Expensive instrument than their current state-of-the art, the Large Hadron Collider;
just consider that up to that point at which the LHC discovered the Higgs Boson, a cool 13 (!!) billion dollars had been spent on the instrument and its operations !!
(( see: this intriguing article on “how much did it actually Cost(!) to discover the Higgs Boson?”…..
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#eb982a339480 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#eb982a339480)
))
It is quite true, as Alex Says, that there are always bunches of physicists and astrophysicists claiming that their particular proposed multi-billion-dollar instrument will undeniably lead to major discoveries and revolutionize our scientific knowledge.
John Horgan, in Scientific American, makes a similar point:
http://https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/ (http://https:/blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-the-gravitational-wave-claim-true-and-was-it-worth-the-cost/)
Of course, the question of whether or not a particular example of one of these “Most Most XXXXy” mega-science-projects is “worth the money in terms of scientific return” or not….. is a difficult one to answer; very hard for science to answer and very hard for society to deal with, given that even those with expert-level knowledge of the most relevant specialties within science will disagree about what is the best way forward in advancing humankind’s knowledge of the physical world.
Another point I would like to make is;
it is all very well to blow all of the research budget on a very very small number of Truly Gigantic projects, but would it not be better if some of the money was instead spent on ensuring the optimal development of that Marvelous Machine that is undeniably our primary research tool……the human mind. Human society should firstly Find and then Properly Educate a greater number of the very very very smartest people in the world, as there are large numbers of highly intelligent people who could potentially be extremely valuable to science and to society; but they are unable to contribute at a high level because they don't get a really good education.