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

Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 467 posts

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#41

Post by ThePhysicist »

rlpb wrote: post #28

My understanding is that most (or at least many) very significant scientific discoveries were serendipitous. They were discovered while looking for something else. So statements like "When you don’t have much to go on, and limited resources, it’s better to aim at problems that you know are out there. Those things will lead you to new discoveries." don't make sense to me. I'd find this article and its opinion more cre…

For serendipity to work its magic you need to be able to explore the solution space. In high energy physics that usually means putting more energy into a system, as (naively said) that will increase the amount of stuff that will happen. So I'm all for building bigger and bigger accelerators, even if they cost trillions of dollars to make, as we have only explored a tiny piece of the energy scale so far, and we're pretty sure very interesting stuff happens at higher scales (ultimately, grand unification of all forces).

Also, there's a mutual relationship between theory and experiment in physics. The LHC was well motivated by theoretical predictions (most notably the Higgs boson) that needed experimental verification. In physics you have to put your theories to the test, otherwise they're not worth much. Each experimental result is like a nail that fixes a part of your theory space (by excluding possible alternative theories), and that then allows you to explore the space further with greater confidence. Hence the more nails, the better.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#42

Post by dizhn »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #6

I wouldn't mind them building it if they just used their own money. Spinoff cern companies have earned a $trillion or more revenue and probably a hundred billions profit from things like medical imaging gear. They could well afford to fund themselves and a new collider without begging the public for money. Cern really should be investigated and audited publicly, but it would take Delloites and PWC to follow that pape…

Do you know any public sources about this topic I can look at?

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#43

Post by radu_floricica »

rlpb wrote: post #28

My understanding is that most (or at least many) very significant scientific discoveries were serendipitous. They were discovered while looking for something else. So statements like "When you don’t have much to go on, and limited resources, it’s better to aim at problems that you know are out there. Those things will lead you to new discoveries." don't make sense to me. I'd find this article and its opinion more cre…

You're missing the second part of his argument. Serendipitous discoveries can come from anywhere, so it does make sense to pay attention to cost. Which would you think would be a better bet for a random win, 100k separate experiments, or just one large experiment that's a scaled up version of something we already have?

If you say the second, you have severe scope neglect: 100k is a huge number.

Of course, one expensive experiment may be the right call in some situations, but only if you have good reason to think it'll pay off. Either because you're certain it will, or because the expected utility of unknown results is larger than the cost (expected utility being probability times value). This very much isn't the case here.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#44

Post by perryizgr8 »

rvieira wrote: post #9

Driven by this post, out of curiosity I started looking at the price tag of some mega-projects around the world. Interestingly, the most expensive ones are almost always highway systems. Can someone briefly explain why? I'm my naive view it's mostly asphalt and terrain work.

Probably because highways are almost always public projects, funded by taxpayer money. There is little incentive to be efficient and cost effective.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#45

Post by radu_floricica »

black_puppydog wrote: post #27
popinman322 wrote: post #24

The LHC's development produced a number of new technologies (e.g. radiation resistant microcontrollers, and gas electron multipliers). Could the next generation produce more, valuable tech? I also don't have the expertise to tell whether the article is being overly reductive with the project's goals: are there other questions (besides new particles) that can only be answered with a larger collider? The summary of the…

I see the same argument (secondary innovations) being made for war-time/military research. But I don't buy it there, and I don't buy it here. Investing the same money in something that has a known and positive primary effect will produce the same amount of secondary benefits. So if you can think of something more fruitful to do with these 100B, do that; the secondary benefits will keep coming anyhow.

Good point with secondary benefits being equal.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#46

Post by est31 »

scandox wrote: post #34
irthomasthomas wrote: post #6

I wouldn't mind them building it if they just used their own money. Spinoff cern companies have earned a $trillion or more revenue and probably a hundred billions profit from things like medical imaging gear. They could well afford to fund themselves and a new collider without begging the public for money. Cern really should be investigated and audited publicly, but it would take Delloites and PWC to follow that pape…

That sounds kind of like what every government dreams of - an institution you fund that does important scientific work and also generates a thriving ecosystem of private sector companies? If that's a scam then please take the shirt off my back.

Yeah, it might be a non competitive investment for private investors because of the high risk compared to the low return or because the benefits are only seen years down the line, so results in a low annualized rate (you need to do it via nth root, not via dividing the returns by n). So governments do that investment instead. As a government you see things differently. Unless it goes abroad, the money is never gone, but is just going circles in your economy. If there is an added benefit of improvements decades down the line, even better.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#47

Post by dmpk2k »

I have started calculating things in LHCs.

The LHC is a massive machine with advanced technologies, took a decade to design and build, involving 10k scientists and the international community, and cost $9B.

  - Squadron of F-35 aircraft: ~0.2 LHCs
  - JWT: 1.1 LHCs
  - ITER: >2 LHCs
  - Elon Musk's wealth: 24 LHCs
  - Microsoft's market cap: 30 LHCs
  - US annual military budget: 90 LHCs
  - US national debt: 3389 LHCs
Given the bizarrely huge numbers casually throw around nowadays, I think it's useful to keep some perspective.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#48

Post by r3x_m »

I'm just a layman who loves physics, but this article does make a point. The LHC was built to definitively prove or disapprove existing theoretical models, like the Higgs boson. If the exponential increasing of cost of the LHC++ can't even promise new proofs or discoveries, then isn't that money better spent on other scientific experiments that will advance science? I'd have no problem with Europe spending that money on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), or many other projects.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#49

Post by trinovantes »

black_puppydog wrote: post #27
popinman322 wrote: post #24

The LHC's development produced a number of new technologies (e.g. radiation resistant microcontrollers, and gas electron multipliers). Could the next generation produce more, valuable tech? I also don't have the expertise to tell whether the article is being overly reductive with the project's goals: are there other questions (besides new particles) that can only be answered with a larger collider? The summary of the…

I see the same argument (secondary innovations) being made for war-time/military research. But I don't buy it there, and I don't buy it here. Investing the same money in something that has a known and positive primary effect will produce the same amount of secondary benefits. So if you can think of something more fruitful to do with these 100B, do that; the secondary benefits will keep coming anyhow.

Except that you don't know what the secondary benefits are until you find them so you should keep every avenue open

A short story about the discovery of microscopes from https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/

Had the rich noble simply invested his money in doctors instead of the person with a hobby of playing with glass, they might have instead discovered more uses for leeches

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#50

Post by throw457 »

sliken wrote: post #20
throw457 wrote: post #3

Ah... the yearly bigthink article that we should stop funding other experiments and put everything into fusion.

Fusion does remind me of the space program. Surprising new solutions in a wide range of sciences. Easy to produce superconducting ribbons being one of the big successes so far. Said ribbons have lead to significant improvements in electro magnets, improving both field strength and decreasing the magnet sizes. Said magnets are useful for a wide variety of applications (outside of fusion), like improved MRI machines. T…

If we solve physics we solve everything if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.
Post reply on HN