So here we have mankind again trying to meddle in shit that we just shouldn't. I present to you the National Ignition Facility in all of its glory. The idea here is they are going to take 192 really powerful lasers, and shoot all of them at a bit of hydrogen fuel ( or whatever gives them the biggest bang). The idea is that by doing so the nuclei of the atoms of the fuel inside the target capsule are made to fuse together releasing tremendous energy. Now, I am not a pessimist and am all for scientific discoveries, but I think that there is a limit on what we should be trying to stick together. Last I was taught was that fusion is what causes things like the sun.
Now, I admit that out friends over in Switzerland haven't created a black hole yet like everyone said that they would, so perhaps we won't have a small sun in our back yard too soon either.
I love innovation in science, and know that these types of experiments will lead to a better future. I am just not sure where the line is. Is there a line, who gets to decide. I do think that 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS is a bit much, granted it was over the past 13 years so really it is only 269 MILLION a year to develop a theoretical device to produce energy that may or may not be able to be tapped once it is created. I mean, really. 269 Million a year is a small price to pay for the advancement of... of... I am still having a hard time figuring out who is going to benefit from this.
I offer you no solutions to the problem of where to invest money, everyone has their hands out these days so perhaps this will pay off. Time will tell. But for now, FUCK ME 3.5 Billion...
Who needs a Death Star
On
2010-10-08
4
comments
4 comments:
Hey, the inside of it looks like Cerebro!
On a more serious note, I'm not certain that it's a given these sorts of things will actually lead to a better future. I mean, for every discovery of Velcro or micronization of lasers for use in portable CD Walkmans (remember those?) there are dozens of studies of deep space quasars going on that really actually have little to no positive effect on the day to day.
I haven't seen any evidence to draw a line between the understanding of theoretical particle science (quarks anyone?) and a benefit of modern society - that said I haven't looked ALL that hard.
Last observation:
If you have to spend 2,000 Gigawatts of laser energy to release 1,200 Gigwatts of freed hydrogen energy, you're still out 800 Gigawatts.
How many trees do you have to burn to generate 800 Gigawatts? I have no fucking idea (I bet it costs about 3.5 billion dollars though, d'oh!).
So the study of the atom goes a little like this. The more we understand about the atom, the more we understand about matter. By having a better understanding of matter we can create better/new materials and polymers that will allow us to make new/better technology. Though there really hasn't be a leap since the discovery/invention of the modern day circuit board and its components.
That is hugely summarized, but covers the gist of it. I understand what you are saying about the quark though, and I personally feel that innovations like that should take a back seat to improving the livelihood of human kind and nature to a more equal and stable level.
Cool - yes, materials science of course. But yeah, at a certain point it's just become the scientific equivalent to masturbating endlessly to porn.
Okay.
I'm in favor of needless science then I guess.
Needless science vs needless military.... I'll take the science.... or maybe the health care.... fuck it, give me a gun and I'll take what I want!!!
Post a Comment