[bowsamic]

> The only philosophers of that kind that produced an advancement in terms of stuff being consumed are the ones who did it all inside their heads and the only expense they needed was paper and pen (Einstein, Feynman, Bohn[sic], Maxwell..)

That is factually wrong upon a basic research. All their work was based on experiment

[Bubble_Pop_22]

Extremely cheap experiments.

How much did LIGO cost? Was it worth it in order to remove the 0.00001% chance that Einstein was wrong?

[bowsamic]

> Extremely cheap experiments.

Well, their theory extended into more extreme regimes. Blame them for making theories about such small or fast things.

> Was it worth it in order to remove the 0.00001% chance that Einstein was wrong?

Even Einstein thought that GWs would be unobservable, they were basically a fringe theory, much like wormholes. The change across both astronomy and general relativity due to observing GWs is also quite vast. It could show us the currently unknown neutron star matter equation of state, which could have profound impacts on a quantum theory of gravity.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about frankly, both the LHC and projects like LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA have had HUGE impacts on physics. I work on LIGO myself, specifically on new methods for reducing quantum noise, and that has huge impacts on high precision measurements. One example would be the incredible new breakthroughs in non-classical states of light, such as squeezed light. Yesterday in journal club we read a paper about how squeezed light could be used to greatly enhance the sensitivity of the tracking of biological particles. Also not only new practical techniques, but a huge amount of interesting new fundamental quantum measurement theory came about due to these detectors. The list goes on and on, I could fill many pages listing both the primary science and secondary technology (especially quantum technology) benefits that came from LIGO. It was absolutely 100% worth it

[Bubble_Pop_22]

> I don't think you really know what you are talking about frankly, both the LHC and projects like LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA have had HUGE impacts on physics. I work on LIGO myself, specifically on new methods for reducing quantum noise, and that has huge impacts on high precision measurements. One example would be the incredible new breakthroughs in non-classical states of light, such as squeezed light. Yesterday in journal club we read a paper about how squeezed light could be used to greatly enhance the sensitivity of the tracking of biological particles. Also not only new practical techniques, but a huge amount of interesting new fundamental quantum measurement theory came about due to these detectors. The list goes on and on, I could fill many pages listing both the primary science and secondary technology (especially quantum technology) benefits that came from LIGO. It was absolutely 100% worth it

Amazing! What does it all mean for my quality of life?

When we discovered fire it was a huge bump in quality of life well before we understood the mechanisms of molecules and atoms being agitate by the rise in temperature.

After the 70s we hit a brick wall. All the stuff after we'll never get to use practically, including LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA, LHC etc.

I have the maximum respect for theoretical physicits but they are just humans among 10 billion humans.

10 billion humans won't accept to pay huge amount of money to solve what essentially has become a murder mystery for people with an IQ>180, solving it won't have any impact. Especially when the majority of them are starving and have no A/C in an increasingly warm planet.

[bowsamic]

> Amazing! What does it all mean for my quality of life?

New pharmaceuticals, medical sensing technology, better optical disk drive technology, quantum computing, new battery technology, etc.

> After the 70s we hit a brick wall. All the stuff after we'll never get to use practically, including LIGO, VIRGO, KAGRA, LHC etc.

Obviously not true at all, I mean the world wide web was invented at the LHC, but a huge amount of technology has been invented since the 70s. Have you literally been living under a rock? Or maybe the 22 in your name means you were born this year. That would explain it. You just have no idea what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't. You are ignorant, and making it plain to everyone. You haven't actually done any research into what physics breakthroughs have been made or what technology has come of it since the 70s. You are just assuming and running off your ignorant mouth about it. Give it a break, go do some reading, and then come back, rather than remaining in your dark, ignorant hole.

[Bubble_Pop_22]

> New pharmaceuticals, medical sensing technology, better optical disk drive technology, quantum computing, new battery technology, etc.

Aspirationally. The hated oil and gas people didn't need billions of dollars and huge amount of press to come up with fracking. But it's a reason why the US is in a better shape than the rest of the world with regards to the energy crisis unfolding.

Aspirational stuff doesn't count. A technology only counts after a layperson can point at it and describe how it makes their life easier.

> I mean the world wide web was invented at the LHC

I correct you. At the LHC cafeteria to be precise which costed about 0.01% of the whole project. Let's specify.

> You haven't actually done any research into what physics breakthroughs have been made or what technology has come of it since the 70s

It wasn't new theoretical physics. What I mean is that the kind of stuff that Hakwing has produced for example we will never get to use it, and verifying stuff that we already know it works at the macro level (which theoretical physicists have to admit will always be our level as mammals macro creatures) doesn't produce any benefit for society.

Kipp Thorne is talking about building something like LIGO but in space, what's that for? How much will this monstrosity cost? What will be the ROI?

While these people are trying to solve a murder mystery , the rest of the population is rightfully in pain because they don't have food, shelter or their loved ones die of diseases such as Malaria or TB. Even in the rich world we are still at the mercy of cancer and heart disease.

> rather than remaining in your dark, ignorant hole.

I can say the same things about you. Unhealthy obsession with a problem, no matter how beautiful or cool, makes you completely ignore the realities around you in terms of people and quality of life and undue setbacks as well as unrealized potential, which is a much worse perspective that not being able to tell if trillions of years from now the Universe will die of a big freeze or a big rip

[bowsamic]

> Aspirational stuff doesn't count. A technology only counts after a layperson can point at it and describe how it makes their life easier.

Why should we stop inventing and discovering things? Just because you want immediate gratification?

> I correct you. At the LHC cafeteria to be precise which costed about 0.01% of the whole project. Let's specify.

I don't accept that distinction

> It wasn't new theoretical physics. What I mean is that the kind of stuff that Hakwing has produced for example we will never get to use it, and verifying stuff that we already know it works at the macro level (which theoretical physicists have to admit will always be our level as mammals macro creatures) doesn't produce any benefit for society.

It actually produces huge direct benefits for society immediately

> Kipp Thorne is talking about building something like LIGO but in space, what's that for? How much will this monstrosity cost? What will be the ROI?

Physics isn't done for ROI, apart from the scientific return. And I will do so, by applying for grants, and taking YOUR MONEY to do it. You don't have a choice, unfortunately. The tax man will come with a gun to take the money from you and give it to me to do science. And oh what a wonderful thing that is! Btw, LISA will not be too expensive, since it is just three satellites. The space based interferometers are much cheaper than stuff like JWST because they can operate at high losses and without any lenses or much optics at all. We do optimise to reduce the budget

> While these people are trying to solve a murder mystery , the rest of the population is rightfully in pain because they don't have food, shelter or their loved ones die of diseases such as Malaria or TB. Even in the rich world we are still at the mercy of cancer and heart disease.

We can solve more than one problem at once. We are not one person.

> I can say the same things about you. Unhealthy obsession with a problem, no matter how beautiful or cool, makes you completely ignore the realities around you in terms of people and quality of life and undue setbacks as well as unrealized potential, which is a much worse perspective that not being able to tell if trillions of years from now the Universe will die of a big freeze or a big rip

Who said I am ignoring such things? Do you think that physicists are misanthropic. Let me repeat: one person can do one thing, while another can do another thing. I will go into more detail:

When you have two organisms in the world, such as two separate humans, they can make their own decisions and do different things. For example, even though you may want to watch one TV show, I can watch a different one on my own TV. While you may want to work as a doctor, I can work as a physicist. Different humans can make their own choices to do their own thing. It isn't a metaphysical requirement of the universe that all effort is put into the same thing