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

181–190 of 223 posts

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

#181

Post by vidarh »

LatteLazy wrote: post #145
vidarh wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It may be entirely speculative (I don't know), but that is CERNs leaderships job - if they don't plan ahead and spend small amounts on design studies now and it turns out new hardware is needed, and they need to start a project from scratch ten years down the line, then that's potentially 10k+ people (CERN currently has 2.5k on staff, of which a lot are not scientists, and ~12k external "users") having their experiments delayed for 10 years. Of course not all experiments would be affected.

CERNs yearly normal budget is ~$1.2bn. Spending a few million on design studies and planning now is a pittance as risk mitigation against delaying future experiments.

Once there's a need to commit serious cash, then these questions needs to be answered.

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

#182

Post by op03 »

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…

If you follow science budgets and their growth around the world $23Billion is no big deal - http://uis.unesco.org/apps/visualisations/research-and-devel...

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

#183

Post by Scaevolus »

jeanvalmarc wrote: post #139
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…

> failure of the LHC They detected the Higgs boson and incidentally invented the internet? https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cern-searches-for-1st-web...

That was CERN in the 90s, not the LHC in the 2000s.

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

#184

Post by ric2b »

nix23 wrote: post #67
paganel wrote: post #52

Earlier 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…

You know "spending" is not the correct expression, that money flows directly back into the economy (and supports thousand other scientific fields, like material science, sensor technology and often goes to small highly specialized corporations). And if you compare the money that flows into the military with ZERO gain for the World...those 23B are a water drop on a hot stone.

The money is an accounting detail. Lots of actual resources will be allocated to this that could be allocated elsewhere.

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

#185

Post by adrianN »

rowanG077 wrote: post #107
sandworm101 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supercolliders are low-odds science. Other instruments are pretty much certain to generate new science. A hubble replacement would not be low-odds given that hubble itself is still making discoveries. A 23 billion-dollar push for new antibiotics would not be low-odds either. Dollars should be spent where they are most likely to generate the most science. That isn't new supercolliders.

Dollars shouldn't be spend where they are most likely to generate most new science. That is a quick way to find yourself in a dead-end. Imagine we would have ONLY invested in supercolliders after high-energy physics was very fruitful. Many other fields would have been completely starved and we would now be in the (possibly) super collider dead-end while other physics is woefully behind.

I disagree, money should be spent were it's most likely to generate new science. But the people spending the money must take into account that we're really bad at putting good odds on where that is.

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

#186

Post by dukwon »

adventured wrote: post #144
9OzUIvDwF4LvfUM wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US's contributions to CERN are equipment and services rather than money, but indeed they are a big contributor. They are certainly the largest participating country in the LHC by number of scientists.

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

#187

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

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…

Don't apply the american model of funding that has resulted in failed colliders to how CERN is funded. CERN manages it's own money, that's the only reason why it managed to build LHC. Also not finding any evidence supporting a theory that up to that point consumed quite a lot of mental power in the physics world is a very important result on it's own.

CERN is also an important tool politically that helps keeping EU scientists in the EU. I see you are mentioning a lot of other random fields that are fashionable solutions to other problems. Besides the fact that it's the typical whataboutism response that anyone interested in a different field tends to give when a project gets funding, it completely misses how the CERN model works. CERN does particle research. If a member state doesn't like how it's funds are allocated they can choose to withdraw support and use them elsewhere. It's not CERN's job to increase solar panel efficiency.

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

#188

Post by 9OzUIvDwF4LvfUM »

adventured wrote: post #144
9OzUIvDwF4LvfUM wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US isn't on here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Member_states_and_budget

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

#189

Post by erulabs »

take_a_breath wrote: post #157
Bayart wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN isn't a person.

No, it's a crowd of people like I mentioned.

Well, crowds don't have opinions. People do. There in no hypocrisy when a group disagrees with itself - it is just people disagreeing with other people.
Post reply on HN