Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

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

#141

Post by vidarh »

LatteLazy wrote: post #65

This article and the title (and subject) seems invite uninformed speculation. Some people who are pro-particle-research will point out that you never know what is there till you look. Others will point out CERN has not achieved much with the LHC yet and that this research is highly speculative. I have 2 questions: Can anyone make a good case why this is necessary? The only experiment listed is Higgs Dark matter work.…

This isn't starting tomorrow. This is going to take 2-3 decades, starting with a design study.

So part of the point here is future-proofing. Upgrades to LHC are due to take place. We don't know what the outcome of experiments after those upgrades will be. We don't know where other research will get us to over the next decade or two.

If we want a new collider in place 3 decades from now then it is time to start planning, so that if we find out a decade from now it is essential for future progress we've got a decade less to wait.

It's not a given this will be built - we have at least decade and a half to decide whether to put down the full amount. But that is not a justification for not spending a tiny fraction of the cost to take the project forward.

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

#142

Post by diegoperini »

phkahler wrote: post #102
nix23 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know her book, and i think quantum theory is NOT beautiful nor is the string/M-Theory beautiful, she's for sure is partially right because everyone want's to find a Einstein equation, but she also has a big blind spot for the dirty stuff that is the quantum-theory.

>> everyone want's to find a Einstein equation Yeah, I've been thinking that for a while. Ever since relativity physicists have been looking for weird or counterintuitive explanations for things. This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory.

> This is why they like Dark mater, dark energy, many worlds. Spooky action at a distance, string theory.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

-Dark matter: Observed phenomena, unexplained yet. Understanding of it is so little that mathematical beauty is a secondary concern.

-Dark energy: Observed phenomena, multiple conflicting explanations with huge calculation mismatch. Einstein already said dips on this with his cosmological constant.

-Many worlds: Unobserved and lacks a definitive consensus of what it could look like.

-Spooky action at a distance (entanglement): Observed and understood with incredible accuracy. Remaining questions are more philosophical than scientific unless we understand other not yet solved problems.

-String theory: This is an umbrella term for multiple theories, finally unified (kinda) under M-theory. Whether they are true or not doesn't change the fact that thinking about them has improved mathematics itself immensely. Leonard Susskind says string theory has been the best "calculator" ever invented to understand complex geometry spacetime "might" have.

When the time we understand how silly we were with our guesses comes and these theories become obsolete, it still will not prove that thinking about them were a useless enterprise.

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

#143

Post by Invictus0 »

cygx wrote: post #108
BurnGpuBurn wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must say, that is a pretty weak result given the humongous amount of money sunk into it. And all those new understandings have no real world implications except for how some smart people think reality works. I'd say, let's not repeat this massively expensive debacle and fund some more promising fields that may actually solve some of the worlds problems. I know this is not a popular opinion and I'm quite sure they'l…

Compared to all the others things humanity chooses to waste money on, fundamental science is a steal, in particular considering that our ability to understand nature is what sets us apart from all other animals competing in the rat race that is existence.

The fact the humanity wastes money on other things is not a good justification for wasting money on another collider.

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

#144

Post by adventured »

9OzUIvDwF4LvfUM wrote: post #91
Faaak wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, US's DOD budget in 2020 is 718 billion dollars.. So yeah..

That isn't relevant. CERN isn't a US government project and the US doesn't provide funding. The cumulative budgets of the EDA member states €223 billion in 2018[1]. [1] https://www.eda.europa.eu/docs/default-source/brochures/eda-...

> CERN isn't a US government project and the US doesn't provide funding.

That's news to US taxpayers, which have provided money to CERN projects for decades, including LHC. Half a billion dollars for LHC was considered a lot of money back in 1997 (when US GDP was ~37% the size it was in 2019).

2008: "On Monday, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation announced that the United States has completed - on budget and ahead of the September 30, 2008 milestone - its contribution to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Under its agreement with CERN, the U.S. contributed $531 million of accelerator components and particle detectors for the LHC."

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/us-contribution-lhc-budget-and-...

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

#145

Post by LatteLazy »

vidarh wrote: post #141
LatteLazy wrote: post #65

This article and the title (and subject) seems invite uninformed speculation. Some people who are pro-particle-research will point out that you never know what is there till you look. Others will point out CERN has not achieved much with the LHC yet and that this research is highly speculative. I have 2 questions: Can anyone make a good case why this is necessary? The only experiment listed is Higgs Dark matter work.…

This isn't starting tomorrow. This is going to take 2-3 decades, starting with a design study. So part of the point here is future-proofing. Upgrades to LHC are due to take place. We don't know what the outcome of experiments after those upgrades will be. We don't know where other research will get us to over the next decade or two. If we want a new collider in place 3 decades from now then it is time to start planni…

I take you're point, but this is all still entirely speculative as far as I can tell. Do we need it now? No but we might in 30 years! Or we might not. And there is no good reason to think we will.

Particle physics has felt very tapped out for a while. And we still have the LHC and LHC upgrades to answer the few questions left Remember.

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

#147

Post by vidarh »

avar wrote: post #135
vidarh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not either or. E.g. ITER cost more than LHC, and the successor to ITER is in the works with construction expected to start years before this new collider would. $23bn is a lot of money, but it also is a pittance when you're planning a project that will take ~30 years to be operational. E.g. for comparison the EU is planning ~$100bn for its science programs for the next 7 years; on top of that all the member stat…

It's really not low single digit. Firstly it's a proposal for ~€100bn (not ~$100bn), the current program is ~€80bn. Secondly if you look at the spending[1] more than 50% of it by any reasonable measure is "soft" science funding (such as reinvesting in high-tech industry). I'm happy CERN is doing it's thing, but let's not hide the ball here, any way you look at it it's a huge portion of the EU's fundamental science re…

> Firstly it's a proposal for ~€100bn (not ~$100bn), the current program is ~€80bn.

€100bn is $113bn; ~€80bn is $90bn.

$100bn is close enough.

> It's really not low single digit.

EU budget != European science funding. The $100bn number was used to illustrate that the amount is not that huge, with the addition that "on top of that all the member states have their own projects, and non-EU European states have their own science funding."

As I pointed out elsewhere, e.g. Norway, which is one of the 23 CERN members but not an EU member, has an annual R&D budget of $6bn. Over the roughly 30 year period of this project, that's $180bn.

Even if you assume half of that is what you consider "soft" funding (quite likely), Norway alone could fund all of CERN and this new collider (of course that would devastate Norway's other science programs).

As it stands, Norway's contribution to CERN is about $30m/year, which adds up to the highest per capita contribution of any CERN member. The UK for example pays less than half as much per capita.

It is overall likely (I haven't checked) that CERN adds up to less than a single percent of the science budgets of its member states alone. The CERN member states make up less than half of European countries (though most of the biggest and richest), so it's fairly safe to assume it takes up less than a percent of overall European science funding.

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

#148

Post by szatkus »

midrus wrote: post #137
noobermin wrote: post #38

Made 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…

Who is susy and why do we need to validate her?

For lazies: super-symmetry.

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

#149

Post by rsynnott »

noobermin wrote: post #26
Taniwha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Focusing"? It's 23 billion over a few decades.

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

#150

Post by rsynnott »

aronpye wrote: post #32
noobermin wrote: post #28

Earlier 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.

People are only permitted to care about one thing, now?
Post reply on HN