Is someone able to ELI5 what the previous LHC actually achieved? (not a loaded question, I genuinely don't know)
CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
51–60 of 223 posts
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#52Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment, particularly suggesting the search of symmetries and mathematical beauty (I guess) was enough of a justification for the work even though it essentially is contrar…
> Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible
I am in the same boat as you, more precisely I was, especially after reading guys like Jacques Ellul who had written against this particular project since back in the '80s.
But then I started thinking that keeping that many smart and motivated people busy working on stuff that will not be as societally disruptive as the work of many past great scientists is not the worst thing in the world, so I personally see those billions of euros as an acceptable opportunity cost that gives us the chance not to be the direct contemporaries of a nuclear weapons race like back in the '60s or the early '80s (because back then the "best" way to keep those scientists busy was to ask them to build bigger nuclear bombs and bigger rockets).
Incidentally I see the anti-competitive stance of the FAANG companies when it comes to their employees in the same vein. Better for a very smart engineer to spend his/her life doing menial work inside one of those companies than for him/her to build the next AI startup which in the wrong hands will not be good for society as a whole. And that type of technology always ends up in the "wrong" hands.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#53> 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…
Protontherapy alone is enough justification in my opinion. Add the many kinds of detector offshoots that find their way to industry. The web itself, if you wanna go back a bit further. Aren't those worth it you think?
How is proton therapy a justification? The protons in PT have energies six orders of magnitude below that of this proposed FCC. Are you saying that the historical precedent of PT means FCC will also have that sort of spinoff? That's not a legitimate argument.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#54Everyone complaining about funding of projects at CERN using a website running in the www[1] which might not exist if it wasn't for CERN...
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hint, they are not the same scientists. You're making a category error.
I’m well aware of the differences between particle physics and climatology. My point, which you have just made the logical fallacy of straw manning, still stands. Scientists of all fields have commented on climate change, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson have all opined in climate change, yet also advocate for vanity projects such as the large hadron collider.
Since LHC isn't a vanity project your whole argument breaks down. Also, climate change is largely not a topic for science, but for politics. Politicians know what to do, they just don't want to. No amount of science can fix this.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#56Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment, particularly suggesting the search of symmetries and mathematical beauty (I guess) was enough of a justification for the work even though it essentially is contrar…
> Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible I am in the same boat as you, more precisely I was, especially after reading guys like Jacques Ellul who had written against this particular project since back in the '80s. But then I started thinking that keeping that many smart and motivated people busy working on stuff that will not be as…
Spending tens of billions of dollars to keep scientists distracted so they might not potentially work on damaging projects is beyond absurd. For a start, I don't even think there's consensus that the Manhattan project wasn't beneficial as a whole, given the relative peace we've had since the second world war. What you said completely undermines a community that has undoubtedly advanced society more than any other.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#57> 62-mile
It's 100 km. Even when the news is unrelated to the U.S. journalists cater to a retarded measurement system.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#58Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment, particularly suggesting the search of symmetries and mathematical beauty (I guess) was enough of a justification for the work even though it essentially is contrar…
I tend to think of this xkcd [1] comic when people talk about 'solving the big problems we face' instead of doing blue-sky research. [1] https://xkcd.com/1232/
> [...] instead of doing blue-sky research.
In 1921 the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won a Nobel, was blue-sky research with no practical applications. Fast forward a few decades and it was used as the basis for making laser: you know, those things that all modern communication uses to transfer information over long distances.
While it is up to debate how much to spend on "blue-sky research", cutting off funding to 'basic science' is rather short-sited as we cut off future 'practical' developments that can improve our lives if we don't have the foundations of the basics to build on.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#59Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment, particularly suggesting the search of symmetries and mathematical beauty (I guess) was enough of a justification for the work even though it essentially is contrar…
You are contradicting yourself here:
"spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment"
The proposed collider is an experiment. It might incidentally find support for SUSY (unlikely) but its purpose would be to produce precision data about high energy physics, whatever that physics is.
As others have noted, the Engadget article is also misleading, since what has been approved is not a collider, just a design study.
Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible I am in the same boat as you, more precisely I was, especially after reading guys like Jacques Ellul who had written against this particular project since back in the '80s. But then I started thinking that keeping that many smart and motivated people busy working on stuff that will not be as…
Spending tens of billions of dollars to keep scientists distracted so they might not potentially work on damaging projects is beyond absurd. For a start, I don't even think there's consensus that the Manhattan project wasn't beneficial as a whole, given the relative peace we've had since the second world war. What you said completely undermines a community that has undoubtedly advanced society more than any other.
> that has undoubtedly advanced society more than any other.
From here [1]
> Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm,[1] and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol,[2] is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in a large-scale nuclear war.
There's a whole list of similar incidents (and I'm pretty sure not all of them have been officially reported). Personally I care more about the feelings of communities that don't bring us one button-push away from annihilating us as a species.