Why?

My sister just called. She was showing this blog to her coworkers and one of them had a question: Why?

This is sort of the dreaded question. We aren't curing cancer, we don't sell a product, so why? I always like the idea that basic research physicists, especially high-energy physicists, are like philosophers with better data. We ask the questions: Where do we come from and why are we here? But then we actually answer them and prove our answers with data. My work is to help develop the tools that we need to better ask those question. A better accelerator (hopefully, a plasma-based one) means that we can further probe into those questions.

Although it isn't our goal, we occasionally make your life tangibly better (e.g. the world wide web was invented as a tool for high-energy physicists at CERN - our sister lab in Switzerland). But I like to think humanity is a little better off in general because science helps it to understand the universe it occupies. I'm still young, leave me be with my Pollyanna ideals.

***********
Add On:

My friend would also like to mention that in addition to the world wide web, particle physics has also given the world CRTs (cathode ray tubes -- think TVs and old-style computer monitors), radiation cancer therapy, quantum computing. In fact, a lot of computing developments have been specifically developed to fulfill the esoteric computing needs of particle physicists, then deployed elsewhere. And most importantly analog Pong... So there.

Comments

[Dave Bacon]

Hey if particle physicists are claiming quantum computing as their own, it must mean that quantum computing is finally gaining acceptance in the world of physics. Now if only physics departments would start hiring quantum computing theorists...

Also just a small comment: you say high energy physicists ask "Where do we come from and why are we here?" I can agree heartily with the first question, but I have a bit of a problem with the "why are we here?" part. Mostly because when I read this question it makes me think of finding some purpose out of the equations of physics. And I'm not sure if understanding the standard model really tells me why I'm here in this sense.

[Rune Aamodt]

I'm actually an undergrad student going for a masters in particle physics myself (and hopefully I'll advance to a PhD eventually), and though I can't speak for everyone in the field, at least I know that my motivation is to be able to make a living exploring the unknown. And to me philosophy and teology is basically fumbling in the dark, at least when it comes to trying to grasp what we don't know, but in particle physics (and science in general) we have experiments (and scientific integrity) to help light the way to a better understanding of nature, the universe, and ourselves.

And sure, it's not like physicists are rock stars or anything, but (at least to me) this career seems much more interesting than for example one where I would be sitting in front of a computer day in and day out programming. In fact, I can't really think of anything else (being realistic) that I would rather do in todays job market.

[Syzygy]

When you say that particle physics has given the world "radiation cancer therapy", don't forget to include radiation cancer.

[Caolionn]

Dave -- The "why are we here" comment was more in reference to the matter-antimatter asymmetry. In other words, why have we come into extistence without being annihilated. Not intended to mean anything profound in terms of the meaning of life, merely why does it exist.

Rune -- I think that you are being a little unfair to philosophers, some of whom do attempt a scienctific method (I am thinking Rawls-type philosophy). Although we might think their method is bunk, their limitations is due in part to including people in the equation. It is a similar problem that is seen in economics, which I believe can never be a true science since it cannot fully model the irrational behavior of people. I think we still ask philosophical type questions, but we have a better method of answering those questions since we are able to remove people from the equation. That is only a half-truth since people still analyze the data.

Syzygy -- You are right. Big bombs is another contribution. Being a bit of a pacifist, it is not a contribution that makes me proud.

[Dave Bacon]

Sweet. I thought maybe that is what you meant. Instead of "Why are we here?" it's more like "Why are we what we are?" Well enough quibbling for this morning.

[Rune Aamodt]

"Rune -- I think that you are being a little unfair to philosophers, some of whom do attempt a scienctific method (I am thinking Rawls-type philosophy)."

But I thought Rawls was more of an ethics and moral-type philosopher? I guess I should read some of his works before I speak more on it.

"Although we might think their method is bunk, their limitations is due in part to including people in the equation. It is a similar problem that is seen in economics, which I believe can never be a true science since it cannot fully model the irrational behavior of people. I think we still ask philosophical type questions, but we have a better method of answering those questions since we are able to remove people from the equation. That is only a half-truth since people still analyze the data."

I never really thought about it like that, but I see your point.

[Aaron]

"When you say that particle physics has given the world 'radiation cancer therapy', don't forget to include radiation cancer."

When you say that birth has brought the world life, don't forget to include death.

?

[Aaron]

""Hey if particle physicists are claiming quantum computing as their own, it must mean that quantum computing is finally gaining acceptance in the world of physics. Now if only physics departments would start hiring quantum computing theorists..."

Umm... am I missing something? As far as I know, Richard Feynman (1) was a particle physicist. If by "finally gaining acceptance in the world of physics" you mean "being unequivocally demonstrated years ago," yes -- quantum computing is finally gaining acceptance in the world of physics (2). And last time I checked, Stanford, Berkeley, and MIT (3) had physics departments.

(1) http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html
(2) http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20011219_quantum.html
(3) http://feynman.media.mit.edu/quanta/nmrqc-darpa/index.html