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

191–200 of 467 posts

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

#191

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fnands wrote: post #166
GekkePrutser wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today we have detectors and computing power that let us observe the natural experiment of the universe with a precision and diligence that would be impossible when LHC was commissioned. Couldn't the LHC be upgraded then to take advantage of this? Sounds like a much cheaper option. But I'm not a physicist at all so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying.

The detectors on the LHC get upgraded regularly, between every run some part gets updated. Computing-wise as well, better computing resources are there. The fundamental limitations isn't the detectors or computers, it's the energies you can reach with a collider of that size. Yes you can completely retool the LHC, which will probably allow you to do slightly better precision measurements, but won't strongly affect th…

> to get to really high energies you need to build bigger

Superconducting magnets enable much higher energies in smaller (granted, theoretical) fusion reactor designs than previously possible. Does the same not apply to colliders?

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by martin_a »

rendall wrote: post #176
concordDance wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What would prevent some similar unintended consequence in Europe?

We're not some fucked up dictatorship state?!?

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

#194

Post by sinenomine »

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…

Embryo selection[1] is criminally underrated. It is a method to permanently enhance the genetic potential of a child of any given couple. It is already live and there are living children, the only remaining issue is scaling[2].

1. https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

2. https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/first-...

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

#195

Post by musha68k »

brazzy wrote: post #182
musha68k wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a zero sum game though. Europe could pay for all of these projects. That would be even better, don’t you agree?

Allocation of science funding is a zero-sum game. Increasing science funding is a quite different game.

Exactly my point, in the end this is just up to voters.

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

#197

Post by Aerroon »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #107

Government finances don't work the same way as other finances. A normally functioning democracy can basically invent as much money as it needs to (see Covid relief packages). If there's political will to do an LHC++, three ITERs and two ISS's, the money will appear. If there's opposition to the LHC++ and it gets scrapped, that doesn't mean that the funds will be re-allocated. They will just disappear.

>see Covid relief packages

And after this the US has hit levels of inflation that it hasn't seen for 50 years. Before that inflation was that high in WW2.

Printing money is not free, neither is tax money.

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

#198

Post by moonchrome »

l33tman wrote: post #56
moonchrome wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. More realistically : we can only build one car in the entire world, where a tiny minority of people can even understand the potential benefit, and anything they see will be completely useless for everyone else in day to day life because we need a civilisation level effort to even detect the implications of their theory. If their theory had some real world implications - you would…

And yet 15M people yearly are still visiting those "useless" pyramids 4600 years after they were built.

I don't really want to dispute that, just want to paint a more realistic of what these scientific projects actually are. They are not investments for sure.

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

#199

Post by Aerroon »

bullen wrote: post #151

The "best" thing to come out of CERN is HTTP. I think breakthroughs are often perpendicular to the energy, so the best investment in understanding the universe is probably to explore it. Unfortunately that also requires alot of energy. Rate of change is going to slow down with the price of energy going up.

On the other hand, a protocol like HTTP was probably inevitable anyway. It just happened to be the one that won out.

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

#200

Post by dncornholio »

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…

> I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit, and let them use the tools they could build themselves, than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations.

In my opinion, we are hitting diminishing returns.. It's harder to learn new things now than ever before. You need big machines to do anything interesting?

Post reply on HN