Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Funding science

Funding science
April 23, 2012, 07:17:15 PM
"The New York Review of Books has an article penned by Steven Weinberg lamenting the future of physics, cosmology and this era of 'big science' in which we find ourselves. A quote from Goldhaber sums up the problem nicely, 'The first to disintegrate a nucleus was Rutherford, and there is a picture of him holding the apparatus in his lap. I then always remember the later picture when one of the famous cyclotrons was built at Berkeley, and all of the people were sitting in the lap of the cyclotron.' The article is lengthy with a history of big physics projects (most painfully perhaps the SSC) but Weinberg's message ultimately comes across as pessimism laced with fatalism easily understandable given his experiences with government funding. Unfortunately he notes, 'Big science has the special problem that it can't easily be scaled down. It does no good to build an accelerator tunnel that only goes halfway around the circle.' Apparently this article mirrors his talk given in January at the American Astronomical Society. If not our government, will anyone fund these immense projects or will physics slowly grind to a halt due to fiscal constraints?"


It's unbelievable to me that government does not want to fund big science. Then again, we're spending all our money on pensions, welfare, diversity programs and bureaucracy. Even in the military -- a huge portion of their budget is diversity, compliance, labor, etc. oriented.

Re: Funding science
April 24, 2012, 05:59:28 AM
I'd fuck rather have my tax check go toward science than public education, diversity or public television.