CERN makes push to build €21B super-collider(nature.com)
nature.com
CERN makes push to build €21B super-collider
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01866-9
139 comments
> The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test.
When I see things like that I often remember a quote I came across years ago when tracking down the origin of the Lord Kelvin "end of science" quote (that never actually happened)
> While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. - Albert Michelson - 1894
It seems like every generation someone claims we've reached the end somehow and while they are giving that speech some young experimental scientist is in the background going "hmmm, that's funny" to prove them wrong.
Ironically she repeats the Kelvin myth here in point 16 - http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...
When I see things like that I often remember a quote I came across years ago when tracking down the origin of the Lord Kelvin "end of science" quote (that never actually happened)
> While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. - Albert Michelson - 1894
It seems like every generation someone claims we've reached the end somehow and while they are giving that speech some young experimental scientist is in the background going "hmmm, that's funny" to prove them wrong.
Ironically she repeats the Kelvin myth here in point 16 - http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...
This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with:
“We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.”
Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades.
[1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.
“We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.”
Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades.
[1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.
Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades.
NOT true. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino behavior. See https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutr... for a some examples of that.
Unfortunately a large particle accelerator is not designed to tell us much about neutrinos...
NOT true. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino behavior. See https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutr... for a some examples of that.
Unfortunately a large particle accelerator is not designed to tell us much about neutrinos...
XENON1T is relevant here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-experiment-finds-...
How does the fact that we need a small modification to the Standard Model to account for Neutrino masses contradict what I said?
You claimed a complete understanding of the fundamental properties of every kind of matter we have done terrestrial physics on.
But we still don't have a complete understanding of the properties of neutrinos, nor a definitive understanding of how to properly tweak the Standard Model to include them. They are the only area of particle physics where experimental evidence did not fit the Standard Model, and therefore evidence of that discrepancy should be no more ignored than the failure of attempts to measure ether dragging should have been in Rutherford's day.
But we still don't have a complete understanding of the properties of neutrinos, nor a definitive understanding of how to properly tweak the Standard Model to include them. They are the only area of particle physics where experimental evidence did not fit the Standard Model, and therefore evidence of that discrepancy should be no more ignored than the failure of attempts to measure ether dragging should have been in Rutherford's day.
I claimed fundamental principles, not fundamental properties. :) I think there are a number of ways to add neutrino mass to the standard model without introducing new principles.
But this is at the end just semantics. We don't know by which mechanism neutrinos gain mass yet. We don't know any number of things about non-terrestrial observations. There clearly is plenty of physics to discover. But it's easy to underestimate the discrepancy to Kelvins days. When he made that statement the existence of electrons had not yet been discovered. Atomism was something coming out of chemistry, not out of physics, and at the close of the 19th century time it was still possible to doubt the reality of atoms.
You focus on ether dragging, but in fact it was not understood what the mirrors Michelson used were made of, or how they got their reflective properties.
But this is at the end just semantics. We don't know by which mechanism neutrinos gain mass yet. We don't know any number of things about non-terrestrial observations. There clearly is plenty of physics to discover. But it's easy to underestimate the discrepancy to Kelvins days. When he made that statement the existence of electrons had not yet been discovered. Atomism was something coming out of chemistry, not out of physics, and at the close of the 19th century time it was still possible to doubt the reality of atoms.
You focus on ether dragging, but in fact it was not understood what the mirrors Michelson used were made of, or how they got their reflective properties.
The standard model and relativity are treated as two completely separate things. This means we don’t actually understand the underlying physics the universe operates on. Even some very basic questions are completely unknown.
PS: By unknown I mean experimentally.
PS: By unknown I mean experimentally.
$21bn would buy a lot of blue sky PhDs who could consider new kinds of theory - actually new metaphors - which could suggest new kinds of experiments which might not need gigantic hardware or impossible energies.
At this point, spending more money on banging very small rocks together is unlikely to be useful. It might work, but a pause for creative and original thought seems like a more productive idea.
At this point, spending more money on banging very small rocks together is unlikely to be useful. It might work, but a pause for creative and original thought seems like a more productive idea.
We have a lot of blue sky physics PhDs doing just that right now, and they're not getting too far since the theory is massively under-determined given our lack of data.
Re: "unlikely to be useful," consider that every other major collider exploring new energy levels so far has found a new fundamental particle.
Re: "unlikely to be useful," consider that every other major collider exploring new energy levels so far has found a new fundamental particle.
That's why I was talking about the physics underlying terrestrial experiments explicitly. The intersection of GR and QFT does not appear here. We all desperately wish it were different of course. A new accelerator is also exceedingly unlikely to contribute anything to this question.
Well but it is a different think to saying "there's nothing to discover" and "the cost/benefit of discovering those would be too high" (at least for now)
She argued wittily against it almost a year ago:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...
I tend to mainly agree with her stance overall (and I happen to be a theoretical physicist.)
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...
I tend to mainly agree with her stance overall (and I happen to be a theoretical physicist.)
she is also the person who accused the people running LIGO of major scientific misconduct. After reading a bunch of what she's written I really don't think her opinions in these areas contribute a lot to the long-term scientific discussion.
She does seem to have made something of a side hustle out of arguing against large scientific experiments. From my point of view, just build it. Sure money could be better spent elsewhere in principle, but it could also be spent reasonably well on the FCC. And I never understood her degree of concern, the sums at play here aren't that big. She'd be better off just campaigning against tax avoidance if she's so concerned about the state coffers rather than arguing for cutting research spending which may or may not actually be redirected towards other research.
Her arguments looks valid for me. Can you explain your concern?
I just wanted to acknowledge the comments, the back-and-forth in this thread. It is a very interesting discussion, and following its references has been insightful.
Personally I know nothing of the field, and thus have no say in the matter either way.
Personally I know nothing of the field, and thus have no say in the matter either way.
What's more interesting to me than HEP is how HEP became such a big deal. I asked on HN before why people find HEP interesting and the responses were enlightening to me as someone who finds HEP boring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322857
Personally, I find turbulence much more interesting. The fact that it's orders of magnitude more important than HEP and also very intellectually challenging should give pause to those who have dedicated their lives to HEP. But my impression is that cultural forces have unfortunately convinced many of our best and brightest to go into HEP or other similarly impractical areas of physics. I guess that's better than working for Facebook to make people click on ads, but that's setting the bar low. If you're interested in physics, you can make a much better choice than HEP. (If you're open to areas outside of physics you may be able to make an even better choice.)
I can see why someone might view the "building blocks" of the universe as fundamental or how there are interesting philosophical questions that HEP can address. But turbulence is fairly ubiquitous; certainly that makes it "fundamental" in some sense. And there are philosophical implications of chaos and statistical mechanics; turbulence is part of both.
Personally, I find turbulence much more interesting. The fact that it's orders of magnitude more important than HEP and also very intellectually challenging should give pause to those who have dedicated their lives to HEP. But my impression is that cultural forces have unfortunately convinced many of our best and brightest to go into HEP or other similarly impractical areas of physics. I guess that's better than working for Facebook to make people click on ads, but that's setting the bar low. If you're interested in physics, you can make a much better choice than HEP. (If you're open to areas outside of physics you may be able to make an even better choice.)
I can see why someone might view the "building blocks" of the universe as fundamental or how there are interesting philosophical questions that HEP can address. But turbulence is fairly ubiquitous; certainly that makes it "fundamental" in some sense. And there are philosophical implications of chaos and statistical mechanics; turbulence is part of both.
I think hoping that people who enter academia will go into areas with significant practicality is a path that will lead to despair.
Some people just like what they like though. I studied computer science and really enjoyed the more abstract mathematical stuff like type theory and semantics. Probably less applicable than something like machine learning or robotics or NLP, but I like what I like.
Also, someone may have already mentioned this in response to your other post, but perhaps people are interested in things like astronomy and HEP precisely because they're so far removed from common experience. That was part of my personal interest in quantum computing (and as a corollary, QM).
Some people just like what they like though. I studied computer science and really enjoyed the more abstract mathematical stuff like type theory and semantics. Probably less applicable than something like machine learning or robotics or NLP, but I like what I like.
Also, someone may have already mentioned this in response to your other post, but perhaps people are interested in things like astronomy and HEP precisely because they're so far removed from common experience. That was part of my personal interest in quantum computing (and as a corollary, QM).
I too have waved my hand in the smoke from a snuffed candle, and sure it's fun for a while but pretty soon it just becomes a big mundane mush and I go out to look at the stars instead.
I think the scientific questions are just bigger in HEP, even if turbulence has more interesting engineering questions. Those are just fundementally differ t to different people.
This! To my understanding, as a dilettante in the science of fluids, turbulence is an open problem mostly only in subfields pretty far removed from everyday engineering:
The mathematicians question whether the Navier-Stokes continuum fluid model can be trusted to remain mathematically well-posed in all scenarios; but Navier-Stokes is just a second-order approximation to Boltzmann transport, and higher-order approximations are well known. If N-S were to blow up, it would merely indicate that the second-order approximation breaks down in some regime, necessarily involving shocks. But... I don’t think any experts in transport theory would be surprised by that. It would be more be like solving the mystery of rogue waves, and less like finding bigfoot.
The other group I’m aware of are those who study large-scale turbulence. The goal there is to summarize or coarse-grain the turbulence that goes on within a small computational volume, as a cost-saving measure versus using a more finely-resolved mesh in space and time. That’s valuable work with true social impact, such as in atmospheric forecasting and erosion studies. But... it’s kinda phenomenological. Not as much fun for many scientists.
The mathematicians question whether the Navier-Stokes continuum fluid model can be trusted to remain mathematically well-posed in all scenarios; but Navier-Stokes is just a second-order approximation to Boltzmann transport, and higher-order approximations are well known. If N-S were to blow up, it would merely indicate that the second-order approximation breaks down in some regime, necessarily involving shocks. But... I don’t think any experts in transport theory would be surprised by that. It would be more be like solving the mystery of rogue waves, and less like finding bigfoot.
The other group I’m aware of are those who study large-scale turbulence. The goal there is to summarize or coarse-grain the turbulence that goes on within a small computational volume, as a cost-saving measure versus using a more finely-resolved mesh in space and time. That’s valuable work with true social impact, such as in atmospheric forecasting and erosion studies. But... it’s kinda phenomenological. Not as much fun for many scientists.
> To my understanding, as a dilettante in the science of fluids, turbulence is an open problem mostly only in subfields pretty far removed from everyday engineering:
> The other group I’m aware of are those who study large-scale turbulence. The goal there is to summarize or coarse-grain the turbulence that goes on within a small computational volume, as a cost-saving measure versus using a more finely-resolved mesh in space and time. [...] But... it’s kinda phenomenological. Not as much fun for many scientists.
The turbulence "closure" problem you describe here is the main obstacle for the prediction of any turbulent flow. This is not far removed from everyday engineering! Practically speaking, the computational complexity of turbulence is far too high, so approximations become necessary.
You've described the basic idea behind large-eddy simulation, but I think you underestimate how interesting the theory could be there. Look into spectral theories of turbulence. I find this sort of research rather interesting, though it's formidable. My understanding is that some of the techniques Kraichnan applied to turbulence in the late 1950s were later independently redeveloped by quantum field theorists in the 1970s. (Note that I'm no expert in these models, but learning about them is on my TODO list.)
> The mathematicians question whether the Navier-Stokes continuum fluid model can be trusted to remain mathematically well-posed in all scenarios
The media unfortunately gives the wrong impression about the Navier-Stokes existence and uniqueness problem. This problem doesn't have much to do with turbulence in the computational complexity sense. I honestly don't see how proving that the Navier-Stokes equations do or do not have unique solutions is going to help turbulence. They've already proved that for 2D turbulence, but that didn't help solve 2D turbulence.
Anyway, your understanding of the problem is basically correct if not focused on the best examples. It's already known that the solutions aren't unique in inviscid compressible flows, but that doesn't stop people from using the compressible Euler equations as a model. They just add an extra condition to make the solutions unique (arguing that the other solutions won't appear in reality). My impression is that many people working on the NS existence problem believe that in certain circumstances the dissipation can become unbounded, and would be limited by different physical mechanisms that should be used instead. Practically speaking this might solved by simply using a different viscosity model, for instance.
> The other group I’m aware of are those who study large-scale turbulence. The goal there is to summarize or coarse-grain the turbulence that goes on within a small computational volume, as a cost-saving measure versus using a more finely-resolved mesh in space and time. [...] But... it’s kinda phenomenological. Not as much fun for many scientists.
The turbulence "closure" problem you describe here is the main obstacle for the prediction of any turbulent flow. This is not far removed from everyday engineering! Practically speaking, the computational complexity of turbulence is far too high, so approximations become necessary.
You've described the basic idea behind large-eddy simulation, but I think you underestimate how interesting the theory could be there. Look into spectral theories of turbulence. I find this sort of research rather interesting, though it's formidable. My understanding is that some of the techniques Kraichnan applied to turbulence in the late 1950s were later independently redeveloped by quantum field theorists in the 1970s. (Note that I'm no expert in these models, but learning about them is on my TODO list.)
> The mathematicians question whether the Navier-Stokes continuum fluid model can be trusted to remain mathematically well-posed in all scenarios
The media unfortunately gives the wrong impression about the Navier-Stokes existence and uniqueness problem. This problem doesn't have much to do with turbulence in the computational complexity sense. I honestly don't see how proving that the Navier-Stokes equations do or do not have unique solutions is going to help turbulence. They've already proved that for 2D turbulence, but that didn't help solve 2D turbulence.
Anyway, your understanding of the problem is basically correct if not focused on the best examples. It's already known that the solutions aren't unique in inviscid compressible flows, but that doesn't stop people from using the compressible Euler equations as a model. They just add an extra condition to make the solutions unique (arguing that the other solutions won't appear in reality). My impression is that many people working on the NS existence problem believe that in certain circumstances the dissipation can become unbounded, and would be limited by different physical mechanisms that should be used instead. Practically speaking this might solved by simply using a different viscosity model, for instance.
What makes you think people aren't looking at turbulence?
The difference is that you don't need a partnership of a dozen large governments to swirl things in a coffee cup, but you do if you want to expand on the previous generation of collider.
The difference is that you don't need a partnership of a dozen large governments to swirl things in a coffee cup, but you do if you want to expand on the previous generation of collider.
Scientists are trained to accept a philosophical stance that regards particle physics are more fundamental than turbulence. Most have never critically questioned the meaning of “fundamental” in physics:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldes...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/turbulence-the-oldes...
You can explain how turbulence arises from particles, but you can't explain how particles arise from turbulence, because they don't...
For comparison, the budget of the Department of Defen(ding US interests) is $721.5 billion, which is to say one could instead do something useful with all those billions instead of spending them killing people who made the mistake of being born near natural resources.
I'm not sure if a new particle collider is a good use of that money. But imagine you could put it towards science, innovation (like incentives for starting and running startups or businesses), and social programs (like healthcare, education).
Where would the US be after twenty years of that instead of spending it on military?
People think this idea is crazy, but if I were in charge, I'd keep a small but efficient force that can be scaled up and down quickly for dealing with Iraq or Iran scale enemies, and rely solely on nuclear weapons for defending against hostile superpowers - which is how any superpower conflict is likely to end anyway.
Yeah, you can't play the imperialism game like that, but it doesn't seem worth the cost anyway.
Where would the US be after twenty years of that instead of spending it on military?
People think this idea is crazy, but if I were in charge, I'd keep a small but efficient force that can be scaled up and down quickly for dealing with Iraq or Iran scale enemies, and rely solely on nuclear weapons for defending against hostile superpowers - which is how any superpower conflict is likely to end anyway.
Yeah, you can't play the imperialism game like that, but it doesn't seem worth the cost anyway.
Given what has played out in the last 6 months, I would say a hefty chunk of money should go towards studying emerging infectious diseases, vaccine development and anti-viral drugs.
Climate change, meteor strike avoidance, nuclear proliferation, ...
Detecting all Near-Earth Objects larger than several meters would be pretty cheap, but it just hasn't been funded. All it takes is one small space telescope sitting at L1.
To my understanding the US defence budget is mostly not intended for killing people but to enable taxes to be diverted to the military industrial complex (a form of state subsidy and employment scheme). It enables large scale force projections but I think that's only a nice bonus.
> instead do something useful
Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?
Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?
Can you prove that you will come across new theoretical breakthroughs with this research budget?
While I agree this is a huge expense, I do question the slippery slope of attacking research budgets. I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. Cutting research funding works well for election cycles, but doesn't do much for the folks down the road.
While I agree this is a huge expense, I do question the slippery slope of attacking research budgets. I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. Cutting research funding works well for election cycles, but doesn't do much for the folks down the road.
> I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'.
That makes sense, but you must also have a framework that tells you when something is just too much. It looks like you are comfortable with €21 BN, would €210 BN be also ok, or €2.1 TN or €21 TN? Which level does not justify the knowledge gain?
Fundamental knowledge is valuable, but in a world with finite resources you must always be able to compare with other valuable alternatives. Should we, the humankind, invest a few tens of billions into chasing hypothetical superpartner particles? Or we should invest in the ARC fusion reactor [1], that might help us cut down our greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor
That makes sense, but you must also have a framework that tells you when something is just too much. It looks like you are comfortable with €21 BN, would €210 BN be also ok, or €2.1 TN or €21 TN? Which level does not justify the knowledge gain?
Fundamental knowledge is valuable, but in a world with finite resources you must always be able to compare with other valuable alternatives. Should we, the humankind, invest a few tens of billions into chasing hypothetical superpartner particles? Or we should invest in the ARC fusion reactor [1], that might help us cut down our greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor
There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such. I'm thinking material science, magnet design etc that could benefit the health sector or other areas in society.
One could perhaps get those benefits through more direct means for less, but if not then it would make the collider technically useful.
One could perhaps get those benefits through more direct means for less, but if not then it would make the collider technically useful.
> There will surely be several interesting engineering spinoffs and such.
Just like military R&D. So what's the point of the comparison?
Just like military R&D. So what's the point of the comparison?
That it would likely not be entirely useless. Not saying it's the best use of the money.
Well no civilians are killed by constructing the collider, for one.
$721.5 billion per year, to be more specific.
While the collider cost is one-time.
While the collider cost is one-time.
While I still agree on wanting to direct money from military to science, it isn't a one time cost. In 2012, the yearly budget for the LHC was 1 billion [1].
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-d...
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-d...
That's still pocket change and pretty irrelevant in context since merely half of 1 year's budget of the US military would still be able to power the LHC for over 350 years.
The operating budget for LHC is $1B/year.
The military budget is practically not available for redistribution without a complete political overhaul. Many people could be fed and many nice projects could be financed with that money.
As it is, the supercollider money comes from the limited science budget, and buying the one thing means we can't have the other.
As it is, the supercollider money comes from the limited science budget, and buying the one thing means we can't have the other.
I don't think there's a substitution effect for these one-off mega-projects in practice. When the US collider was canceled, that money was transferred to other projects. It just wasn't spent on science at all.
While I agree. I'm seriously getting annoyed with every single expensive thing being compared to the US military budget (that is 1 trillion if you include the stuff hidden in the other parts of the budget).
Things need to stand on their own if they are worth. Removing the military is not politically viable, so we can come up with 1000s of fantasy project we could finance.
However, the problem remains the same, what is the alternative use for those 21 billion. No matter if you can use the military budget, in that case you also need to evaluate alternative uses for those 21 billions.
Things need to stand on their own if they are worth. Removing the military is not politically viable, so we can come up with 1000s of fantasy project we could finance.
However, the problem remains the same, what is the alternative use for those 21 billion. No matter if you can use the military budget, in that case you also need to evaluate alternative uses for those 21 billions.
The cost for the nuclear modernization that is the backbone of the nuclear arms race Trump is starting has been estimated to $1 Trillion[1], that's a better comparison since it's also the cost of a multi year project.
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernizatio...
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernizatio...
The return we gave gotten out of the military industrial complex is enormous. Without it there would have been no Silicon Valley, no Fairchild, no Intel, etc.
It has been money well spent, but I agree with you and President Trump that we should be bringing the troops home not wasting money and lives on endless wars overseas.
It has been money well spent, but I agree with you and President Trump that we should be bringing the troops home not wasting money and lives on endless wars overseas.
The cost of the MIC is not only measured in dollars, but also in lives
So is the return on investment.
The return is big, but what is it compared to the investment?
Many of the key advancements were made with military funding, but: A) the fact that the military did it first doesn't mean that somebody else wouldn't have done it a year or ten later. B) how much did we waste on our main goal of murdering people, compared to the amount of funding necessary for helpful scientific advancements?
If we threw $700 billion a year at anything, we'd see major scientific advancements happening almost by accident. We could have invested it in agriculture, or infrastructure, health, or ending poverty. All of those would produce major first order benefits in addition to the advancement of science and technologies.
Many of the key advancements were made with military funding, but: A) the fact that the military did it first doesn't mean that somebody else wouldn't have done it a year or ten later. B) how much did we waste on our main goal of murdering people, compared to the amount of funding necessary for helpful scientific advancements?
If we threw $700 billion a year at anything, we'd see major scientific advancements happening almost by accident. We could have invested it in agriculture, or infrastructure, health, or ending poverty. All of those would produce major first order benefits in addition to the advancement of science and technologies.
Military R&D is very different from civilian R&D. The life and death implications (for an entire state, not just its soldiers) adds a sense of urgency that cuts through certain types of red tape and allows funding to flow with fewer restrictions. The need to compete with other militaries creates projects that push the limits of multidisciplinary technology in a way that is far rarer in academia and industry.
Space, Imagine double peak apollo spending (8% of GDP so still less than the military (if you add the historical share of GDP for the military to nasa's peak share) for the last 50 years.
The technologies we got out of the space program are vast and while there was always a military aspect (there couldn't really not be given that the technology to put a satellite is basically an ICBM) a lot of the technology had civilian applications.
The technologies we got out of the space program are vast and while there was always a military aspect (there couldn't really not be given that the technology to put a satellite is basically an ICBM) a lot of the technology had civilian applications.
Sure yeah, fund the space program if you think that's important. Much better than throwing the money at the military, whose purpose is to destroy.
I’m not so sure. Money does not create innovation (but the need for money can). Nothing quite concentrates the mind like a struggle for you and your society’s very survival.
You personally may not be motivated by preventing the starvation of your homeless neighbors, but I think you speak too broadly. Especially if you think current military funding is a more important struggle. (Is China the bad guy now we need to defeat? Or are we still focused on the Middle East, I can never keep up).
This is such a loss of money. The practical aspects will never be used.
This will move some technologies a bit ahead but so would work on biology and medical areas. I would be much more happy to see people cured or otherwise helped than to know that a partcle is this or that.
This is in strong opposition to what happened in these areas of physics in the previous century. Things which were directives had a conceivable practical application.
What can you make out of events which happen at such energies, the kind we will never reach outside of such research centers.
This will move some technologies a bit ahead but so would work on biology and medical areas. I would be much more happy to see people cured or otherwise helped than to know that a partcle is this or that.
This is in strong opposition to what happened in these areas of physics in the previous century. Things which were directives had a conceivable practical application.
What can you make out of events which happen at such energies, the kind we will never reach outside of such research centers.
Science for its own sake is a noble pursuit. Not everything has to have commercial applications or to be "practical".
Agree. But another thing I must point out is that pure mathematics is an example of ‘doing stuff for the sake of doing stuff’ and it has had an incredibly long lasting influence, with physicists turning to pure mathematics research to aid with their own problems.
The solution just has to be a perfect fit with the problem to become practical in industry. We often do not see the practicality of such abstract ideas until they are abundant in use.
The solution just has to be a perfect fit with the problem to become practical in industry. We often do not see the practicality of such abstract ideas until they are abundant in use.
With mathematics you have at least hope to use it someday. Indeed, research on elliptic equations may not have been seen as important until widespread crypto hit.
Moreover, the cost is small. This is also the rational by which we can agree that philosophy is worth spending money on (because "general culture").
Here we have 20B€ so that some people discover the structure of a particle, knowing that it is exactly impossible to have a real life use because of the required energies.
Moreover, the cost is small. This is also the rational by which we can agree that philosophy is worth spending money on (because "general culture").
Here we have 20B€ so that some people discover the structure of a particle, knowing that it is exactly impossible to have a real life use because of the required energies.
It isn't "exactly impossible" though, it never is. You can find out a more efficient way to create it, or you might have more power available in the future.
All manmade elements have been extremely expensive to make the first ti-me, and that hasn't stopped them from being constantly used.
All manmade elements have been extremely expensive to make the first ti-me, and that hasn't stopped them from being constantly used.
There is no efficiency - juste pure energy needs. You cannot probe a quark with lower energy.
Then there is nothing to use from such experiments. The research is purely academic, it is not like the cure for cancer is hidden behind a gluon.
I can understand dumping even 20B€ in research which brings something tangible. Making sure that the structure of a quark is what we think it is is not one of these.
Then there is nothing to use from such experiments. The research is purely academic, it is not like the cure for cancer is hidden behind a gluon.
I can understand dumping even 20B€ in research which brings something tangible. Making sure that the structure of a quark is what we think it is is not one of these.
>There is no efficiency
There is certainly efficiency to consider when making energy. We can't tap into the full potential of any source, there are "hard limits" to many of our current methods, but that doesen't stop a paradigm shift from happening and making it so.
Many things studied before had no "tangible" use then, it doesen't come like that. It's iteration upon iteration, using previous work to achieve a little bit of something new. You cannot foresee the future beforehand.
There is certainly efficiency to consider when making energy. We can't tap into the full potential of any source, there are "hard limits" to many of our current methods, but that doesen't stop a paradigm shift from happening and making it so.
Many things studied before had no "tangible" use then, it doesen't come like that. It's iteration upon iteration, using previous work to achieve a little bit of something new. You cannot foresee the future beforehand.
At some point in physics there is no "paradigm shift". In order to probe such structures you need an enormous energy. An energy you have to build an accelerator to have.
What do you get in return? The confirmation or not of a theory which can be confirmed only at these energies. It is not as a non-confirmation would turn around physics, it would be just some strange thing happening at these energies.
Compare this with experiments from the late 1800 and early 1900. You had obvious holes in the theory (Michelson-Morley, the ultraviolet catastrophe, ...) - these experiments were showing that something in our everyday theory is wrong. Not some fluctuations at 20B€.
There are branches of physics where the research is really cool (notably solid state physics) and which you can make a real life use of. Particle physics is not one of them.
What do you get in return? The confirmation or not of a theory which can be confirmed only at these energies. It is not as a non-confirmation would turn around physics, it would be just some strange thing happening at these energies.
Compare this with experiments from the late 1800 and early 1900. You had obvious holes in the theory (Michelson-Morley, the ultraviolet catastrophe, ...) - these experiments were showing that something in our everyday theory is wrong. Not some fluctuations at 20B€.
There are branches of physics where the research is really cool (notably solid state physics) and which you can make a real life use of. Particle physics is not one of them.
As I've been saying, you don't know the point at which there is no more to learn. Even minor things can have major impact when combined with further research.
Things like "enormous" are subjective, and it's indeed not impossible to get such amounts cheaply in the future, even if you can't at the time reduce it's need.
It's easy to look in the past and point out the obvious when you already have all the answers, but trying to divine something that changes the way you think about current physics is not as simple.
Things like "enormous" are subjective, and it's indeed not impossible to get such amounts cheaply in the future, even if you can't at the time reduce it's need.
It's easy to look in the past and point out the obvious when you already have all the answers, but trying to divine something that changes the way you think about current physics is not as simple.
Things like "enormous" are not subjective in physics. We know that we need a certain density of energy to probe a particle. There are no miracles: it has to come from somewhere and it is not like there are sources of such energy that can pop up from nowhere. We simply do not have a place to harvest such energy on the global scale, and we know we won't have anytime soon. There are simply no sources for that.
> Even minor things can have major impact when combined with further research
We are talking about things happening at energies which are way beyond normal interactions. Let's imagine we pick a simple artificial signal from the sky, from a place that is 5000 light years away.
People will get crazy about aliens and loose their shit on how we are not alone. And so what - from a practical perspective there is exactly zero interest in this. We cannot use that information at all because whatever is there is unreachable.
There are however plenty of place in physics which are worth the effort (I mentioned solid state physics as one of the most promising ones). Not to mention biology where we are only right at the beginning and there are plenty of outcomes.
If we had infinite resources then fine. We do not have them. And putting 20B€ in some fancy research with zero practical interest (such as this one, or middle-ages French literature, or Platon philosophy, ...) is a tremendous waste of opportunities.
I understand that we need to fund research with no practical interest - this is part of what makes us human. Just not 20B€ when people are starving, dying, etc.
> Even minor things can have major impact when combined with further research
We are talking about things happening at energies which are way beyond normal interactions. Let's imagine we pick a simple artificial signal from the sky, from a place that is 5000 light years away.
People will get crazy about aliens and loose their shit on how we are not alone. And so what - from a practical perspective there is exactly zero interest in this. We cannot use that information at all because whatever is there is unreachable.
There are however plenty of place in physics which are worth the effort (I mentioned solid state physics as one of the most promising ones). Not to mention biology where we are only right at the beginning and there are plenty of outcomes.
If we had infinite resources then fine. We do not have them. And putting 20B€ in some fancy research with zero practical interest (such as this one, or middle-ages French literature, or Platon philosophy, ...) is a tremendous waste of opportunities.
I understand that we need to fund research with no practical interest - this is part of what makes us human. Just not 20B€ when people are starving, dying, etc.
I agree and would like to add that people have been proven to be very bad at making at least certain kinds of predictions.
Humans may still be around after 100 thousand years. The electron had not even been discovered just 130 years ago.
It is very difficult to make good predictions about the possible practical applications of our current physics knowledge. Of course, it is much more difficult to make such predictions about as yet undiscovered physics...
Besides, HEP experiments aim to expand our knowledge about the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental laws are by definition applicable to all energy scales.
Humans may still be around after 100 thousand years. The electron had not even been discovered just 130 years ago.
It is very difficult to make good predictions about the possible practical applications of our current physics knowledge. Of course, it is much more difficult to make such predictions about as yet undiscovered physics...
Besides, HEP experiments aim to expand our knowledge about the fundamental laws of nature. Fundamental laws are by definition applicable to all energy scales.
When you have 20B€ to spend, you first make a round of the real needs in science.
Understanding the structure of a quark is priority 100 compared to understanding how to cure MS.
In an ideal world where we have all the money we need, sure. In the world we are in one must make choices.
Understanding the structure of a quark is priority 100 compared to understanding how to cure MS.
In an ideal world where we have all the money we need, sure. In the world we are in one must make choices.
Just wait until you see your countries military budget!
eh, do they expect to find anything new?
To me, fusion research need more $$ and a higher priority as it has extremely practical applications for all humanity, from energy independence to global warming.
21b Euros is a lot of money, and apart the ongoing ITER effort, fusion research can be tackled from different angles with just half of that money.
To me, fusion research need more $$ and a higher priority as it has extremely practical applications for all humanity, from energy independence to global warming.
21b Euros is a lot of money, and apart the ongoing ITER effort, fusion research can be tackled from different angles with just half of that money.
The difference is that particle research doesn't stand to displace a multi trillion dollar industry with the world's biggest militaries to back it...
I don’t think the energy companies are exactly quaking in terror:
http://progressive.org/op-eds/let-cut-our-losses-on-fusion-e...
http://progressive.org/op-eds/let-cut-our-losses-on-fusion-e...
You kidding me? Energy companies would fucking love fusion energy as it'll still require power plants they get to control and power lines and all the infrastructure to transmit.
They absolutely fear solar energy though.
Why not both? It’s not unreasonable that some of the technologies (incl. data analysis) could be shared.
Right? People always love to pitch for their ideal alternative as if these were either-or situations.
Funds for a collider - why not fusion? Funds for space exploration - why not end world hunger? Funds for astronomy - why not medicine? etc..
It happens every time a relatively big budget is discussed as if it was some kind of lottery where only one gets the jackpot.
Funds for a collider - why not fusion? Funds for space exploration - why not end world hunger? Funds for astronomy - why not medicine? etc..
It happens every time a relatively big budget is discussed as if it was some kind of lottery where only one gets the jackpot.
Right... that logic makes sense assuming there is near limitless funds available...
Funding for all practical purposes is limited, and there is so much any nation, (or group of nations), can provide.
Sure, you 1. can cut other areas of the budged (health, defense, roads/infra, admin, pick what), or 2) raise taxes.... but even that has a practical bound.
Funding for all practical purposes is limited, and there is so much any nation, (or group of nations), can provide.
Sure, you 1. can cut other areas of the budged (health, defense, roads/infra, admin, pick what), or 2) raise taxes.... but even that has a practical bound.
To me, fusion research is another example of very poor return on R&D investment.
Because the way it is done really. Putting it all in some gigantic money pit with 50 governments each helping finance one part or another, each part bought from some company from each of the governments. The project is so slow that its out of date before its close to being finished.
However, 21$ billion allocated more like it was for Commercial Crew/Cargo by NASA would make more sense. Have many competitors who get a little money and get more to those who can actually prove out the system.
Building advanced commercial fission reactors and helping them with getting threw the currently idiotic license scheme would probably be an even better return on investment then fusion. But somehow the world has decide that fission is evil and only fusion can save humanity, even if that makes little sense from a physics perspective.
However, 21$ billion allocated more like it was for Commercial Crew/Cargo by NASA would make more sense. Have many competitors who get a little money and get more to those who can actually prove out the system.
Building advanced commercial fission reactors and helping them with getting threw the currently idiotic license scheme would probably be an even better return on investment then fusion. But somehow the world has decide that fission is evil and only fusion can save humanity, even if that makes little sense from a physics perspective.
No, because fusion is inherently flawed. The idea that it's some great thing to be striving for has little or no basis in fact.
Are you suggesting that we should just forget about it? What do you mean by "inherently flawed"?
Fusion, especially the mainstream approaches, does not appear capable of getting to a competitive energy source, even if it somehow (physically) "works". It's very bad from an engineering point of view, with showstoppers of materials, power density, complexity, maintainability, and reliability.
Daniel J. Boorstin described a celebrity as a person who is "well known for their well known-ness". Fusion is a technology that is similarly recursive: it's being investigated because it was being investigated, not because it's worth doing when examined freshly. Whatever rationale for pushing DT fusion that once existed has largely evaporated.
If fusion survives at all, it has to be as a lower key modest pure research effort into long shot ideas that might evade the showstoppers. And new blood should be kept out of the field until it's shrunk enough. Anyone going into fusion these days is being poorly advised.
Daniel J. Boorstin described a celebrity as a person who is "well known for their well known-ness". Fusion is a technology that is similarly recursive: it's being investigated because it was being investigated, not because it's worth doing when examined freshly. Whatever rationale for pushing DT fusion that once existed has largely evaporated.
If fusion survives at all, it has to be as a lower key modest pure research effort into long shot ideas that might evade the showstoppers. And new blood should be kept out of the field until it's shrunk enough. Anyone going into fusion these days is being poorly advised.
Fusion technology is very dangerous though. Just think what would happen to my Bitcoin portfolio if energy was suddenly almost-free :/
Not sure how ironic are you, but don't you think you'd massively win overall if the energy suddenly became free? Think how many problems it would solve :)
I'd hoped it was clear from the ridiculous comparison that I was being entirely sarcastic, but you are correct in assuming that people have some strange opinions nowadays :p
It could indeed be a problem if large parts of the economy were using proof-of-work crypto currencies by the time we figured out fusion energy, though.
It could indeed be a problem if large parts of the economy were using proof-of-work crypto currencies by the time we figured out fusion energy, though.
Two things:
1) The article is amazingly low on specifics besides "to uncover the Higgs Boson's secrets"
2) The only thing to agree with is what Sabine Hossenfelder says (as always): it costs way too much without any significant scientific potential. Meaning, there are not enough viable theories to prove on that thing.
Sure, people who will be getting paid from those $21B of public money are saying: "Another one! Even bigger and faster! That project will be definitely worthwhile!"
Sure, people who will be getting paid from those $21B of public money are saying: "Another one! Even bigger and faster! That project will be definitely worthwhile!"
In the current climate of inequity making the front pages of the news and dominating the public discourse, I would think such huge expenditures would be anathema to the populist agenda?
Because the beneficiaries of the jobs of this project are definitely not the disadvantaged in society (research-wise, or construction-wise). And I have to say, HEP's huge experiments seem to produce one-time headline discoveries (of a few hundred authors, yes), but then quickly become obsolete pieces of equipment.
And the science or industrial benefits themselves, of hitting the next tier beyond 13 TeV for such a collider? What is, and where does that benefit go? Does anyone have even an inkling of what results it will produce? Or is this just HEP on autopilot, "we need the next big one"?
Please don't trot out the usual "science for its own sake", as if that justifies any arbitrary amount of $ being spent without question.
At least astronomy produces pretty pictures for its funding.
Because the beneficiaries of the jobs of this project are definitely not the disadvantaged in society (research-wise, or construction-wise). And I have to say, HEP's huge experiments seem to produce one-time headline discoveries (of a few hundred authors, yes), but then quickly become obsolete pieces of equipment.
And the science or industrial benefits themselves, of hitting the next tier beyond 13 TeV for such a collider? What is, and where does that benefit go? Does anyone have even an inkling of what results it will produce? Or is this just HEP on autopilot, "we need the next big one"?
Please don't trot out the usual "science for its own sake", as if that justifies any arbitrary amount of $ being spent without question.
At least astronomy produces pretty pictures for its funding.
Infrastructure spending is in many ways just a large social safety net that happens to produce very useful things as a side effect.
The cost to build these things doesn't just go into an abyss, it gives an enormous amount of workers jobs in building it, and then employs tons of scientists for running it.
The west really needs to take a page from the CCP's book; you can raise people out of poverty by educating them and putting them to work on ambitious, far reaching infrastructure projects for the good of everyone. Much more desirable to most welfare solutions.
The cost to build these things doesn't just go into an abyss, it gives an enormous amount of workers jobs in building it, and then employs tons of scientists for running it.
The west really needs to take a page from the CCP's book; you can raise people out of poverty by educating them and putting them to work on ambitious, far reaching infrastructure projects for the good of everyone. Much more desirable to most welfare solutions.
Well, I appreciate that point. But the question is also whether the underlying activity or thing being produced gives benefit to how many people.
Because, as has been pointed out in the past, you could pay people to simply dig holes in the ground and have others fill them in, which would equally create work and productivity. But was it more worthwhile and beneficial than other ways the money could be spent?
Because, as has been pointed out in the past, you could pay people to simply dig holes in the ground and have others fill them in, which would equally create work and productivity. But was it more worthwhile and beneficial than other ways the money could be spent?
Physics has almost single-handledy enabled the last 100 years or so of economic growth. You could make a decent case that increase in inequity has something to do with a slowdown in the progress of physics: A lack of fundamental advancement means people are not making new stuff, but rather fighting over its distribution.
Now, I don't know if this collider is going to make any difference about that. Quite likely it won't. But given physics' track record, I don't think it's clear at all that there are very many things that the money would be better spent on.
Now, I don't know if this collider is going to make any difference about that. Quite likely it won't. But given physics' track record, I don't think it's clear at all that there are very many things that the money would be better spent on.
It's unlikely that physical phenomena that require machines the size of small countries to detect are going to lead to any practical use.
The LHC and HL-LHC after it will run until the thirties. We’re squeezing the absolute maximum out of the investment in the 27km ring we can here. LHC physics has produced tons and tons of results over the last 10+ years, it’s just that not all of them are exciting enough to the general public that you read about them. Still worthwhile though.
Money printer should go brrr?
Would it really be bad to simply print the money for CERN, ITER or other scientific projects? New money without anything in return is bad but here? In these cases we would get an actual collider/reactor/rocket/whatever - built by actual companies that employ actual people, run by actual scientists, maintained by actual engineers, ...
Would it really be bad to simply print the money for CERN, ITER or other scientific projects? New money without anything in return is bad but here? In these cases we would get an actual collider/reactor/rocket/whatever - built by actual companies that employ actual people, run by actual scientists, maintained by actual engineers, ...
What is the actual return of the project itself though? You could also print money to build a tower of babel and it seems like the same general benefits would apply.
> What is the actual return of the project itself though?
A better understanding of the universe we live in?
A better understanding of the universe we live in?
that's true for almost all human scientific or inventive activity, so the case for this has to be made in the face of opportunity costs.
21 billion could be spent on two hundred thousand(!) 100k grants to scientists. Building a giant machine to perform experiments that will likely merely confirm the existing models of particle physics while revealing very little of interest to society at large is pretty much indefensible.
21 billion could be spent on two hundred thousand(!) 100k grants to scientists. Building a giant machine to perform experiments that will likely merely confirm the existing models of particle physics while revealing very little of interest to society at large is pretty much indefensible.
This 21 billion will be spent on a similar project someday, anyway. This kind of research cannot just be written off... It is also nothing compared to (for example) the amount of money being spent by private companies on useless gimmicks. You are not paying for these directly with taxes, but you are paying indirectly anyway, if you think about it...
> 21 billion could be spent on two hundred thousand
The $1T F35 program has entered the chat.
The $1T F35 program has entered the chat.
I agree with you. But then again the corruption/waste in military procurement/development is a well-known issue. I think paying strong attention to return per bucks is a mindset we need to reintroduce in every sector.
C21 Billion for a super collider can be considered perhaps to be a form of Nerd UBI. At least there isn't much in the way of negative externalizes with that vs building weapons. Consider US defense companies have been lobbying against congressional efforts to stop Saudi Arabia from bombing Yemen.
Machines like this really show off the best we humans can do. I'm happy my tax money goes to the LHC and hopefully to this project too.
I agree. my only concern is that certain companies try to entangle themselfs in these public funded projects and gain large benefits in essence from tax money.
I think it would be good (in Europe at least) that bigger tech companies donate much more to these projects.
While I've been very interested in HEP as a teen and up, even as a "fanboy" the science potential seems very dubious.
When they approved the LHC, they were almost entirely certain they'd find the Higgs and there was solid arguments for why they should find more.
Now it seems much less clear that they stand to find anything groundbreaking by simply doing more of the same.
Personally I'd like to see more money being put towards condensed matter physics, quantum information science and similar areas which seems to have potential for much more practical applications.
When they approved the LHC, they were almost entirely certain they'd find the Higgs and there was solid arguments for why they should find more.
Now it seems much less clear that they stand to find anything groundbreaking by simply doing more of the same.
Personally I'd like to see more money being put towards condensed matter physics, quantum information science and similar areas which seems to have potential for much more practical applications.
Finding new particles isn't even the primary reason to build a new collider. Don't be fooled into thinking it's a new particle or bust.
I'm not.
Considering the vast amounts of money needed for these huge colliders, for me it's about diminishing returns. I just don't think anything we learn "down there" will have as much impact compared to other areas.
Instead I think now is a good time to slow down a bit, fund other interesting areas more, until we have a better handle on where to look. Then we can come back, if possible.
Considering the vast amounts of money needed for these huge colliders, for me it's about diminishing returns. I just don't think anything we learn "down there" will have as much impact compared to other areas.
Instead I think now is a good time to slow down a bit, fund other interesting areas more, until we have a better handle on where to look. Then we can come back, if possible.
Contrary to the headline it’s also not a done deal yet. They recommend further R&D to keep the possibility of FCC available.
Just imagine that €21B spent on biological/medical programs.
You should be more angry about 700B on defense spending in the US, or >2000B in bank/corporate bailouts. Rather than being upset that money is being spent on a good thing instead of an (in your eyes) better thing.
I'm biased, but that's exactly what I would like to see, and I think would have huge scientific returns.
That's on the order of magnitude of the NIH budget in the US. But it's spread across a huge number of researchers rather than just a few huge projects.
The Human Genome Project was only a $1B project which led to huge technology development in sequencers.
Other efforts at developing large canonical datasets have been less effective at spinning out clear tech wins, but they have had huge science wins.
I think biology has been really good at balancing having tons of churn from small independent labs pushing on new ideas, and coming together for big asks when it makes sense.
That's on the order of magnitude of the NIH budget in the US. But it's spread across a huge number of researchers rather than just a few huge projects.
The Human Genome Project was only a $1B project which led to huge technology development in sequencers.
Other efforts at developing large canonical datasets have been less effective at spinning out clear tech wins, but they have had huge science wins.
I think biology has been really good at balancing having tons of churn from small independent labs pushing on new ideas, and coming together for big asks when it makes sense.
There are medical spinoffs. eg Positron emission tomography = PET scan.
PET scans are a spinoff of accelerators -- accelerators of the kind built before WW2, with energies six or more orders of magnitude below that of the LHC. Cyclotrons are used to make 18F, a shortlived positron emitter that is incorporated into a fluorinated glucose derivative to act as a tracer detected by the scanner.
You're not going to see medical spinoffs from massively larger machines.
You're not going to see medical spinoffs from massively larger machines.
In the US, that would get you one new medicine, a few dozen yachts, and a few thousand citizens in debt :D
Biomed research is quite expensive, and $20b aint't that big.
The NIH budget is currently around $40B a year.
I support super-colliders for the same reason I support space research. If we aren't on earth to discover something greater than ourselves, what purpose do we have?
I could see the creation of a utopia or an equitable state as another purpose. I suppose some people don't support super-colliders because they want money to go to this goal instead.
I could see the creation of a utopia or an equitable state as another purpose. I suppose some people don't support super-colliders because they want money to go to this goal instead.
Some people don’t support supercolliders because they want us to “discover something greater than ourselves”, but they think there are better ways to do that, and money spent on huge HEP projects takes funding away from what could be more fruitful and interesting projects.
>If we aren't on earth to discover something greater than ourselves, what purpose do we have?
This almost sounds like the secular version of the tower of babel. The point of building scientific instruments ought not to be the worship of science as some sort of ritualistic activity.
We (ideally) engage in science to maximize human knowledge and insight, not to just build a utopia or the 2001 monolith.
This almost sounds like the secular version of the tower of babel. The point of building scientific instruments ought not to be the worship of science as some sort of ritualistic activity.
We (ideally) engage in science to maximize human knowledge and insight, not to just build a utopia or the 2001 monolith.
I think building a assemble in space, space telescope would be the best use for a mega project in science. I admit I don't know enough about colliders to evaluate the scientific impact.
But I think once we figure out how to assemble gigantic telescopes in space, the options for astronomy and maybe physics are huge.
With the ability to launch cheaply now, and with Starship maybe even cheaper in the future. You can build something truly gigantic in space.
What I think is more practically pressing is a commercial competition for next generation of fission reactors, but that was pressing since the 1970s and politics has ignore it. So that's not gone happen.
But I think once we figure out how to assemble gigantic telescopes in space, the options for astronomy and maybe physics are huge.
With the ability to launch cheaply now, and with Starship maybe even cheaper in the future. You can build something truly gigantic in space.
What I think is more practically pressing is a commercial competition for next generation of fission reactors, but that was pressing since the 1970s and politics has ignore it. So that's not gone happen.
[deleted]
If they make a bigger super collider they should call it the super duper collider.
That's pretty much how telescopes are named.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_Large_Telescope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope
New is old....SSC was about the same size though only 40TeV but by now would have had a magnet upgrade to surely push close to 100TeV
In choosing the lockdown we have ruled this out.
Along with support of minorities, disabilities and the environment and all such things.
The next half a decade isn't going to be much fun.
Along with support of minorities, disabilities and the environment and all such things.
The next half a decade isn't going to be much fun.
Maybe they could sell their old one to help finance the new one. I'd go in for a few shares of a particle collider.
Collider as a Service. You pay per collision.
They do sort of exist in a sense
https://www.diamond.ac.uk
https://www.diamond.ac.uk
This sort of thing exists!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Synchrotron_Light_Sou...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Synchrotron_Light_Sou...
I think they should just sell their antimatter. I bet you could sell it for billions per microgram.
Just imagine the unboxing videos.
Hey guys, it's xxStreamer420Xx, and today we're going to be unboxing dark matter from t̵̨̢͈͔̘̣̪͖̾̓̋͒̿̈́͘ḧ̷͙͈͕͉͙́̽̀̍́̚̕ȇ̸̻͎͇̥͚̪̬͛̒͑̕͝͠ ̴̢̖̞͓̬̩̭̦̰̠͔͎͔̟͙̋͆̄̅̎́͌̇͘͘͝͝͠a̴̧͉͎̹̅̃̓͋̅͛͗͠͠b̵̨͕͎͖͙̠̣̭̉̽̓͛͜y̴̡̡̛̹͖͇̙̝͜ş̶̝̮̻̙͉̤͚͍̪̩͓̞̓̔͛̇͑̓̎̀̑͌̊͜s̵̬̰͖̅̒̉̄̓͒̋͋̈̓̆͊͋͘͝.
What if I'll tell you Higgs boson’s doesn't exist? ╰(°▽°)╯
I think they should better explain how this thing works... It accelerate an electron!? And then there is some sensitive equipment to measure the charge!? Get a curve on a oscilloscope and if the curve is different it have discovered a new particle!?
I'm very curious about the so called gravity particle aka Higgs boson, but Cern would need to explain this in layman terms in order to get funded.
https://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cern/index.html
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/lhc-data-how-its-ma...
There are tons of resources written by them and others that explains how it all works. None of it is secret.
There are tons of resources written by them and others that explains how it all works. None of it is secret.
> "When physicists started building colliders in the 1940s, they did not have a complete inventory of elementary particles, and they knew it... [] The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test."
> "... particle physicists should focus on developing new technologies that could bring colliders back in a reasonable price range and hold off digging more tunnels."
> "It’s because too much science funding is handed out on the basis of inertia. In the past century, particle physics has grown into a large, very influential and well-connected community. They will keep on building bigger particle colliders as long as they can, simply because that’s what particle physicists do, whether that makes sense or not."