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

81–90 of 467 posts

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

#81

Post by tiborsaas »

uejfiweun wrote: post #10
ivanb wrote: post #7

Yeah, no. Only LHC can generate particle events in a highly controllable environment with enough energy. In physics there are energy thresholds. Below a certain level of energy a certain event just never happens. The low hanging fruit of discovering new physics looks like this. Build a bigger machine to collide particles with even more energy. Observe what comes out. It's a clear direction. Just throw money at the pr…

Does this sort of thing give us tangible benefits? Is it worth the investment? I get things like materials science, supercomputers, AI research, etc. But these colliders are so expensive, all for the sake of discovering a tiny subatomic particle that we have no way of using, AFAIK. But I know nothing, am I wrong here?

We can't directly use the particles that are being discovered, but we can use the theories that they can confirm to be correct.

By confirming a theory you can use the entire framework to come up with useful ideas. This is what happened to General relativity.

If people only asked "ok, that star is a little bit off, but will that lead us to faster horses?" would look funny in hindsight.

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

#82

Post by patrick0d »

bjornsing wrote: post #23

I fully agree. I’d even go one step further: don’t spend that 100 billion on physics at all. That’s taxpayer money that actually can be spent on feeding the hungry. That’s the humane thing to do, and I bet a much better investment in science too, since those hungry will have a chance to become scientists. PS. I have a masters in engineering physics and several friends who are physicists. I’m also a science nerd. But…

Why not take the 100 billion from somewhere other than frontier physics research. I always consider these articles small minded since the people writing them don't consider projects outside of their domain that eat up more funding than something like LHC++. It's such a zero sum situation where there is a 100 billion grant for grabs and the author wants it spent on one project in place of this one.

The more research we do the better and 100 billion spent over approx 20 years by over a dozen countries is a far cry from putting all our eggs in one basket.

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

#83

Post by musha68k »

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…

It seems to me as if the journalist had to write about something [outrageous] to fulfill their article quota? There are some good ideas buried in there but isn't it a reductive vision indeed? There probably is no reason to fund this and all the good ideas he also mentions.

We also need BIG SCIENCE to solve global warming and many more issues.

Let's not narrow our focus on some fiscal numbers that are basically inconsequential for such a rich place as is the case with Europe.

Let's do the opposite instead. Let's bet on an actual vision for once again - I miss the 1960s!

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

#84

Post by xcambar »

dmpk2k wrote: post #47

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 b…

Anything compared to the US annual military budget seems cheap and a good idea.

PS: Dear commenter, please don't "how about X?" in comments. I know you're smart. So smart you can find a counter example. Congratulations, you're clever.

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

#85

Post by black_puppydog »

trinovantes wrote: post #49
black_puppydog wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well I agree that big projects make sense in many cases, and I don't want to be misunderstood as arguing against basic research.

Frankly, given the amounts we spend on things I fundamentally disagree with, I'd even say "sure let them have at it and let's find another 100B somewhere in the military budgets of the world, divert them to more research."

But even if you want to focus on "big, milestone" projects like the LHC[++] you can go for other challenges where you know that there's a tangible benefit to be had at the end.

Fusion research for example comes to mind. Hugely expensive, interesting, rewarding if successful, track record of secondary inventions.

I'm sure there are others. Off the top of my head, carbon capture and storage, better (more sustainable) battery/storage tech, elimination of rare earths in electronics, ...

There's no shortage of big, hard problems

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

#86

Post by trinovantes »

yakak wrote: post #60
trinovantes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Allocating resources worth billions on one avenue is not keeping every avenue open, it is forgoing thousands of avenues that don't force you to decide like this.

Is it just one avenue? While I'm not a particle physicist, my layman understanding of LHC is that it can be used to test many theories that would otherwise go unsolved. Should we only research things that are cheap to test and eventually mass producible?

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

#87

Post by tragomaskhalos »

dmpk2k wrote: post #47

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 b…

Tongue slightly in cheek, these data point to the answer - get Musk to pay for this thing. It'd consume a big chunk of his wealth but it's probably at least pitchable given his interest set.

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

#88

Post by mhh__ »

japanuspus wrote: post #73

As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad). The shor…

Aren't Hossenfelder and Smolin basically paying their bills by being contrarians though?

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

#89

Post by black_puppydog »

virtue3 wrote: post #61
black_puppydog wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

silicon valley is a DIRECT result of the secondary effect of radar systems. https://web.stanford.edu/group/ree/archives/archive08/usa/pr... shrug . It's always hard to guess?

Military research has produced a lot of secondary inventions, sure. But look at its funding as well. There's a reason why so many companies work in that sector: the amount of money in there is just huge. So of course that sector will produce more byproducts in absolute terms.

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

#90

Post by throw457 »

brazzy wrote: post #70
throw457 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we solve physics we solve everything if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.

> If we solve physics we solve everything A particle collider does not, in fact, "solve physics" in any meaningful way, especially not in terms of practical applicability. > if we solve fusion we have solved fusion. The comment you are replying to has explained in some detail why this is not true.

Why bother doing science at all if it's not practical applicable right? Such a nonsense argument I wonder how you think any scientific progress is made.
Post reply on HN