Fuck you, religious America.

I should have been more clear: space and time.

I mean, there's an entire universe in our bodies but when someone mentions *the universe*, usually it's about space and time.

Well, we're venturing into a topic I'm less sure about, but if I recall correctly, at the very least time, is defined as the continued the workings of the universe. Time is not finite. It had a beginning, and there are several legitimate theories stating that it will come to an end (Big Rip, Big Crunch, etc...). I'm not certain about this, so if anyone knows for sure, please correct me.
 
Which was already a hard sell economically and hasn't produced a single piece of data to date (to my knowledge). Doing the pure science is a wonderful thing, but there are both financial and engineering considerations that are natural limiting factors on our ability to do so, If the LHC further narrows down the possibilities for us, but the next step in confirmation is going to require a collider that rings the equator, we have a serious problem.
 
Which was already a hard sell economically and hasn't produced a single piece of data to date (to my knowledge). Doing the pure science is a wonderful thing, but there are both financial and engineering considerations that are natural limiting factors on our ability to do so, If the LHC further narrows down the possibilities for us, but the next step in confirmation is going to require a collider that rings the equator, we have a serious problem.

Ok, I figured it was clear from the pluralization that I was referring to the idea of building the mega-devices needed to produce the data. I am aware that the large hadron collider itself is a colossal, expensive and (essentially) a failure. However it is the most well-known such device even though there are are others which HAVE produced data through different means.

We build the devices we need to test the theories that we have, and it's never easy.

And, DW, I can't afford to fly to Italy to collide with anything of yours, be it your hadrons, your cat, or your motorcycle.
 
Ok, I figured it was clear from the pluralization that I was referring to the idea of building the mega-devices needed to produce the data. I am aware that the large hadron collider itself is a colossal, expensive and (essentially) a failure. However it is the most well-known such device even though there are are others which HAVE produced data through different means.

We build the devices we need to test the theories that we have, and it's never easy.

And, DW, I can't afford to fly to Italy to collide with anything of yours, be it your hadrons, your cat, or your motorcycle.

Understood. Do you feel our ability (and/or willingness) to continue building bigger and better experiments will continue unabated or will the science eventually outpace our ability to figure it out, effectively meaning an end to scientific endeavor?
 
I'm hoping for the latter, because I believe what the human race REALLY needs to do is stop utilizing the limited resources we have trying to figure everything out and use them instead take a better look at the things we know to be true and go from there.

Seriously, how will learning everything about the entire universe improve OUR lives as human beings on earth? Sure, we may someday figure out where everything came from, but once that happens, then what? We still live and die the same lives. Is it really that important? I think it's more fun to imagine what could be out there than to know for sure.
 
Understood. Do you feel our ability (and/or willingness) to continue building bigger and better experiments will continue unabated or will the science eventually outpace our ability to figure it out, effectively meaning an end to scientific endeavor?

I doubt that will ever happen. Whenever the cry of "That's impossible!" happens, someone says "oh yeah?" and fucks up the idea of what's possible.
 
Kevin's post, though, is an example of one of the obstacles we can predict - the willingness of people to continue to pay for pure research that doesn't necessarily have practical application. So far we have always overcome this, but is it reasonable to assume that will always be the case?
 
Kevin's post, though, is an example of one of the obstacles we can predict - the willingness of people to continue to pay for pure research that doesn't necessarily have practical application. So far we have always overcome this, but is it reasonable to assume that will always be the case?


Technology becomes cheaper as it becomes more refined, so while I expect that in the long run we'll have spent trillions of dollars for what seems like relatively little, but in fact has resulted in not only an increase in knowledge but an increase in the general standard of living. All the money in the world is worth a generation of children who don't have to scavenge through garbage or suffer the pain of intestinal parasites or what have you. It's hard to see the big picture. But scientists make their living by convincing people to give them money, so I think that an entire industry of shysters can come up with something in time to avoid Kevin's doomsday race condition.
 
I didn't really mean to imply that I think we're in a doomsday race. I mean I think it would behoove mankind as a whole to make better use of the things we have and know here instead of chasing pipe dreams and assuming it will all pay off in the end.

I ask again, does it REALLY matter to us what's out there beyond our earth? We've got our place in the universe right here, and we can't even properly take care of that.
 
What happens when we inevitably use up the resources of our planet? It WILL happen, regardless of how efficient we may become. Everything (and everyone) has to run on something, and all the somethings on this planet are of finite supply. Eventually we will have to go elsewhere. Also, understanding of physics in the greater universe helps with advancements that are more relevant to us.