Live data from Hacker News

CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

engadget.com

21–30 of 223 posts

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#21

I'm surprised it got through. $23B is a lot of money, and it will cost A LOT more when you start adding up the operational costs. In comparison, the space shuttle was $1.5B per launch "amortized" over 135 launches. One of the effects of the Space Shuttle is that it hogged the budget of NASA (around 30%). Really worthwhile exploration and other space science programs got less funding because the Shuttle program was so…

It didn't get through yet though, the CERN council approved of a feasibility study for this particular idea after considering and rejecting several other ideas.

I don't really get what the FCC has to do with this?

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#22
post #17

Honest question, what are some engineering spin-offs that could come out of this? I'm asking because I'm reminded of a Peter Thiel interview where it's mentioned that, despite changing our view of the universe, no "real world" applications came out of the quark model discovered in the 1960s. This is different from a project like ITER, which is also hugely expensive but could be a game changer.

Ultimately the end goal is a grand unified theory of everything, all the forces and how they work together.

Maxwell's equations were completely theoretical (read: useless) and ahead of their time - but are fundamental to the invention of radio. Foundational research creates opportunity, it cant really be targeted.

For something like particle research, the fallout (pun not intended!) will take their time to shape anything our engineering cap availity can take advantage of.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#23

> The aim is to start construction of the new tunnel by 2038 Not in my lifetime, I guess.

Did you know that though vitrification, state of the art cryogenics researched have achieved to preserve 100% of the structure of a pig brain? The science for preserving with 100% accuracy your brain is already here. Those scientists use this technology to preserve organs and the cryogenic property is just a side effect. We simply need an enterprise that reproduce their results on human brains (shouldn't be different than a pig brain) and that commercialize it.

The process replace blood and other brain fluids with a chemically toxic fluid. Which means that while the structure is preserved, any attempt at resurrecting the brain would need an advanced technique that would gradually replace the toxic fluid with fresh blood/Cerebrospinal fluid and the replacement should be 1) total 2) the replacement process should not destroy structure. Intermediary new kinds of fluids in the process might make the transition easier/safer. Once your brain is filled with the right amount of blood and of cerebrospinal fluid and has no toxic fluid left in order for the brain to function, a minimal level of hormones / molecules will need to be dispatched in the brain.

Once all of this is achieved remains the problem of interfacing your brain with a new body.

Happily once cryogenized (technically doable today) resolving all the others necessary steps will take time and you will have time. With not so much money you could be kept vitrified (not frozen) for a millennium or two. It seems unlikely but still is a possibility that an advanced civilization could not by design uncryogenize you without affecting your structure. But the structure being preserved they could make a copy of you (numeric or not), while this has its lot of metaphysical issues It's still a path far more hopeful than eternal death. As a reminder our normal life is mostly as metaphysically weird as most of our cells are replaced every 5 years? What's define YOU is totally unclear and continuous

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#24
post #20

> It could be a hard sell, especially as the new collider wouldn’t have as clear a goal as the LHC did. However, particle physics and the Standard Model are at a place where the application of science is needed to validate theories. I mean I understand the need to keep pushing the boundaries of fundamental physics, but how long do you justify such spending on a single project? That same money could possibly be pumped…

> That same money could possibly be pumped into more immediately useful "hard" applied problems like fusion reactors Interesting, I just checked the number for ITER (i.e: Europe's main fusion project), the project has been estimated at around €20-30 billion (with some pessimistic estimates from the US at around €60 billion for the completion of the reactor). And that's considered a VERY HIGH cost and has been the mai…

Think of CERN more as a cultural endeavor. It's the big, permanent, multigenerational physicists jamboree. The big colliders are not the goal, they are merely the foundation. The meat is in the detectors and experiments that are attached and that would not be possible elsewhere. Sure, the flagship experiments are also important in their own right, but their function as a rallying point, as a halo product for everything else that is happening there is a big reason why they should be funded.

A reactor project is a much less colorful affair, focused on a single deliverable. More contractors, less postgrads. There should be money for both.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#25
post #17

Honest question, what are some engineering spin-offs that could come out of this? I'm asking because I'm reminded of a Peter Thiel interview where it's mentioned that, despite changing our view of the universe, no "real world" applications came out of the quark model discovered in the 1960s. This is different from a project like ITER, which is also hugely expensive but could be a game changer.

You're not going to want to hear this but I think deep down a lot of these scientists who are so desperate for physics beyond the standard model, theoretical and experimental particle physicists don't view fusion or plasma science as a hard science as is their search for new physics.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#26
post #13

> The aim is to start construction of the new tunnel by 2038 Not in my lifetime, I guess.

well 2038 is the end of time .....

With climate change on the horizon, focusing on another collider is search of validation for SUSY is abjectly irresponsible.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#27
post #20

> It could be a hard sell, especially as the new collider wouldn’t have as clear a goal as the LHC did. However, particle physics and the Standard Model are at a place where the application of science is needed to validate theories. I mean I understand the need to keep pushing the boundaries of fundamental physics, but how long do you justify such spending on a single project? That same money could possibly be pumped…

> That same money could possibly be pumped into more immediately useful "hard" applied problems like fusion reactors Interesting, I just checked the number for ITER (i.e: Europe's main fusion project), the project has been estimated at around €20-30 billion (with some pessimistic estimates from the US at around €60 billion for the completion of the reactor). And that's considered a VERY HIGH cost and has been the mai…

ITER is just a demonstration system, it will hopefully produce a modest energy surplus. As just one step towards an actual useful fusion energy source, Its a proof of concept and it's cost need to be considered in the context of the whole endeavour.

The new collider will be a fully functional 'production' system that we fully expect to probe new physics, and test specific scenarios that will require it's particular capabilities. It's an end product and the latest in a highly successful, proven series of systems. By itself that doesn't make it worthwhile, but I think a high cost for a final system is a different beast from a high cost from a test project.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#29

> It could be a hard sell, especially as the new collider wouldn’t have as clear a goal as the LHC did. However, particle physics and the Standard Model are at a place where the application of science is needed to validate theories. I mean I understand the need to keep pushing the boundaries of fundamental physics, but how long do you justify such spending on a single project? That same money could possibly be pumped…

In an ideal world, both happens at the same time. Applied physics require fundamental research. It's impossible to say what will come out of it, but most of today's technologies comes from research that allowed us to understand our environment. Fundamental research takes time, maybe this project will allow future generations to solve problems they are facing.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#30

I'm surprised it got through. $23B is a lot of money, and it will cost A LOT more when you start adding up the operational costs. In comparison, the space shuttle was $1.5B per launch "amortized" over 135 launches. One of the effects of the Space Shuttle is that it hogged the budget of NASA (around 30%). Really worthwhile exploration and other space science programs got less funding because the Shuttle program was so…

This is CERN. They approved a study into building one.

They exist to study these things. Take away the toys and the institution has a hard time justifying itself. This is mostly self preservation.

In my opinion we should give the Lhc a 25 year leash and then give the whole super-high energy colliders thing a rest.

Put the funding into other research areas in physics; the reductionists have had their turn :)

Post reply on HN