Comments on: In: dark energy. Out: cosmic rays.

By: Jeff B

Jeff B — Tue, 30 May 2006 03:08:54 +0000

Chris: Point well made and taken….fuse has gotten way too short, though not without “some” provocation.

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Sun, 28 May 2006 13:10:29 +0000

Reduced to ad hominem in record time jeff. Well done.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 27 May 2006 13:32:23 +0000

Greg: I would have thought a mathematics professor at a major university would be above such sweeping–not to mention insulting–generalizations as “crackpot” or “loser.” When did you conduct the comprehensive–and undoubtedly mathematically precise–study of the Senator’s “any and every reference” to energy in space station research? Sounds like you may have taken a “quantum leap” in the logic.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Sat, 27 May 2006 00:12:48 +0000

Jeff Foust: When Senator Hutchison attaches the word “harness” to any and every reference to “energy” in space station research, she doesn’t really create any unrealistic expectations. Instead, she sounds like a crackpot. The real fear is not that she might raise expectations, but that she might lower them, to zero, on the grounds that losers dictate the mandate for human spaceflight.

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Thu, 25 May 2006 13:20:35 +0000

But that outcome has not diminished the potential scientific value of the space station as a research platform.

The critics would agree with this statement, but not for a reason you’d like.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:16:53 +0000

I think that’s a valid concern, Jeff, and it applies to virtually every scientific experiment planned for ISS. The electrophoresis experiments flown aboard the shuttle and the bioreactor are two experiments that come to mind as having been touted as having great potential, the first for potential improvemets in pharmaceutial production and advancing treatments for diabetes, and the second for the growth of human tissue that could lead to advancements in organ growth, prosthetic enhancements, etc. There were critics and skeptics of both and neither one ended up–so far, at least–measuring up to advertised expectations. But that outcome has not diminished the potential scientific value of the space station as a research platform. ISS is being built as a unique laboratory with unique capabilities that cannot be replicated on Earth. It’s success or failure as a laboratory is not dependent on the “success” or “failure” of any given experiment conducted there, any more than any other laboratory. The vast majority of experiments done in any lab probably “fail” by one definition of that term or another. But even if they end up disproving a hypothesis upon which they were based, they have contributed to “scientific knowledge” by helping narrow the fous for subsequent research. Maybe the problem with ISS, AMS, etc., is that the expenditure of public money has to be justified, and the “system”–maybe even the “society”–tends to want to know in advance what the results will be, or at least what the range of possibilities are. I don’t know how easily that kind of expectation could be replaced by the notion of embracing basic science as something inherently valuable regardless of outcomes. It’s a conundrum, and this whole dialogue reflects why it’s a difficult one.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Thu, 25 May 2006 11:33:47 +0000

Jeff: I’m not opposed to flying the AMS, and I would be the last person to claim that we know all that there is to know about cosmic rays, dark energy, dark matter, or other astronomical phenomena. What I am concerned about are statements like the Senator’s that, even when couched in plenty of “perhaps” and “maybes”, could be setting unrealistic expectations for the research that the instrument in question would perform. (As I noted in the post, the energy production benefits of the AMS, as touted by Dr. Ting, are focused on technology spinoffs of the superconducting magnets for the instrument that could be used for nuclear power plants on Earth—not on production of energy from dark energy or the like.) What happens if AMS were to make it to the ISS, perform great science, but not make any contributions to energy production on Earth? I’d hardly consider that a failure, but one can imagine how some would try to spin it that way. AMS should stand (or fall) based not on hypothetical possible contributions to energy production on Earth, but on the quality of the basic science it would perform.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 25 May 2006 03:02:25 +0000

Sorry…attributed Matthew Brown’s Post about the debate to Paul…but both are right on, as well as Thomas Elifritz. Looks like I’m agreeing with everyone but Jeff so far, hehe.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 25 May 2006 02:10:58 +0000

Paul Dietz’ comment is exactly right on….there IS a debate….there is not a consensus….therefore there is the need for more research, to parahphrase what I see his meaning to be. Tell me Jeff, do YOU know exactly what will be discovered with the AMS experiment? Do YOU claim to know all there is to know about dark matter or dark energy? I may be wrong, but I think we do research to try to find those kinds of answers…if we knew the answers it wouldn’t be research. Ever since the STA speech you have been hung up on Senator Hutchison’s comments about something that MIGHT…just MIGHT provide an important clue to the physics of our universe that we simply don’t understand and that COULD, just MAYBE (the same words she used in your quote) provide clues to new energy sources. If you know something that no one else does about the absolute futility of even undertaking the experiment, for this purpose or for any other puropose, please let us all know, and we won’t have to try to find a way to launch it to the ISS.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:24:47 +0000

Superconducters. High temperature superconductivity.

Hmmm … One would think the ISS could handle that enabling technology. It must be a very dark place where Griffin has his head crammed into right now.