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

171–180 of 467 posts

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

#171

Post by elashri »

I read the article and wondered where the author got the next hadron collider to be LHC++ and how he got this estimation for the cost. Anyway I remember that a couple of years ago I was talking with my of my professors and he mentioned LHC++ which was a OOP software environment proposed (1).

Anyway as someone inside experimental HEP field, I would encourage anyone who wants to understand more about finding and ideas to try to follow up the snowmass process as an example on how the dynamics of funding and new ideas for the future forms, discussed and gets priorities (at least in US)

Snowmass process is basically a series of meeting for the US HEP community where they discuss the US strategy and funding requests for the coming decade. the last one was in 2014 and now this process which takes about 3 years (probably more this time thanks to covid). It is really insightful but technical in nature but try to read more about it and the final report that gets to DOE committee to act as advisory guideline from the community.

[1] https://cds.cern.ch/record/451601/files/p59.pdf

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

#172

Post by dTal »

levi_n wrote: post #168
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…

> ...than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations. Genuine question from an ignorant layperson: was confirming the existence of the Higgs boson not significant?

In a scientific sense - no. It was predicted, it was found. No theories needed rewriting.

Significant would have been if they'd failed to find it.

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

#173

Post by orbifold »

grumbel wrote: post #37
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…

But isn't that also exactly why the whole effort is a bit futile? If it takes this much effort to detect that an event is even happening, you end up describing something that only really happens in a lab situation and has not much relevance for the real world. That said, LHC cost $4.75 billion that's pretty much nothing compared to the amount of money that gets thrown around in the tech world. So might still be worth…

We need to figure out what we are missing, namely what is dark-matter, how does it interact with the currently visible matter, are there extra dimensions and so on. Once that it is figured out it might well be that we could engineer systems beyond our wildest dreams, we just don’t know yet.

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

#174

Post by morbia »

levi_n wrote: post #168
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…

> ...than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations. Genuine question from an ignorant layperson: was confirming the existence of the Higgs boson not significant?

(Former PhD student in Particle Physics Pheno here, far from an expert)

Of course it was a significant discovery, but honestly it would have been a far more interesting if we detected literally nothing. It's kind of weird because it was marketted as a success story to the public (and don't get me wrong, it was) but theorists were very confident that it was there by 2012. Thus far, it behaves exactly as expected according to the standard model and that is very dull.

HEP would have been left in a very funny position if we didn't find it. No Higgs Boson would have been fascinating from a theory perspective, but good luck trying to get funding for a new collider when you found nothing with the old one.

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

#175

Post by fsloth »

dTal wrote: post #172
levi_n wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations. Genuine question from an ignorant layperson: was confirming the existence of the Higgs boson not significant?

In a scientific sense - no. It was predicted, it was found. No theories needed rewriting. Significant would have been if they'd failed to find it.

I would claim finding it was equally significant. Theory is not reality but just a model until verified. I know there is a trend in physics where computing is supposed to suffice without actually verifying anything but that is just wrong - I presume this notion is driven by the incentives to focus on publishing more than tedious collaboration.

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

#176

Post by rendall »

concordDance wrote: post #137
musha68k wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is so rich it can easily afford all of the great project ideas outlined in the article in addition to a new LHC (and then some). Let's think big indeed, the author unfortunately has a very reductive vision for the future. Instead how about: A renaissance of funding - BIG SCIENCE - education, jobs. That was basically the promise of the EU - peace through wealth - let's create some more. Let's bring back the exc…

What's it currently doing with that money? I guess we could get rid of funding healthcare and trying to help people out of poverty so that a small number of people get to use a very expensive toy... You know what would be an awesome big science project that would immeasurably improve future people's lives? Sequencing all genes and using that data provide free embryo selection services to everyone who wants to be a pa…

Terrifying but intriguing idea. China's one-child policy led to widespread female infanticide and a generation of missing girls. What would prevent some similar unintended consequence in Europe?

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

#178

Post by toxik »

morbia wrote: post #174
levi_n wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations. Genuine question from an ignorant layperson: was confirming the existence of the Higgs boson not significant?

(Former PhD student in Particle Physics Pheno here, far from an expert) Of course it was a significant discovery, but honestly it would have been a far more interesting if we detected literally nothing. It's kind of weird because it was marketted as a success story to the public (and don't get me wrong, it was) but theorists were very confident that it was there by 2012. Thus far, it behaves exactly as expected accor…

I’m pretty sure there remains a discrepancy between the predicted mass of the Higgs boson and the measured mass in experiments. Is this resolved then?

I was under the impression that this was a smoking gun for something being off with the theory, a bit like the ultraviolet catastrophe that led to QM or the orbital aberration that was resolved by GR.

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

#179

Post by waqf »

ncmncm wrote: post #163
waqf wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we solve fusion, surely we have a lot of cheap energy (and attendant economic output) to throw at solving physics?

No. It would cost far, far more to extract useful energy from fusion than using well-understood renewables. And, we control plenty of energy. The project is to concentrate it in one spot.

What is meant by "solving fusion" if not making fusion an economically viable source of power?

And I didn't mean to suggest that available energy was the limitation on building LHC++, but rather that available economic surplus was.

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

#180

Post by ahoka »

orbifold wrote: post #170
musha68k wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe is so rich it can easily afford all of the great project ideas outlined in the article in addition to a new LHC (and then some). Let's think big indeed, the author unfortunately has a very reductive vision for the future. Instead how about: A renaissance of funding - BIG SCIENCE - education, jobs. That was basically the promise of the EU - peace through wealth - let's create some more. Let's bring back the exc…

Europe has an aging population, which is obese, smokes and has heart problems. It is a dying continent whose boomer generation has decided to transfer large amounts of IP to China for a short term profit, while refusing to have children, protesting against the establishment and being generally useless in their youth. The millennials and gen-z is royally screwed, the writing has been on the walls for years.

Baby boomers refusing to have children? What?!
Post reply on HN