CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

Post by gonzobonzo » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 1:36 AM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #19

raziel2701 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this work important? To me it just feels so distant from my reality. At the core of this, is there an answer to the "who cares?" attitude? Because if the answer is that we might incidentally create new useful technology in the build up of a new collider, why not just diversify the investment and put that money into a bunch of smaller projects? Hedge your bets sort of thing. Why support this and not allocate mo…

First thought: I'm not the greatest at coming up with a stirring polemic justifying pushing out boundary science. Next thought that come to my head is, how do I boundary-test this. ex. work my way backwards, what was the last collider worth building? It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc." As far as high-temperature supe…

Post by davrosthedalek » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 1:58 AM UTC

sigmar wrote: post #35

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look forward to it. I listened to her a lot recently because YouTube decided ever “next video” bump while I drove should be her.

My view- she, like many, has been conditioned by social media to optimize for clicks by having contrarian and anti-establishment views. She's not positioned to have a particularly well-researched opinion on 95%+ of the topics she covers (which is understandable considering how many hundreds of videos she has made). I watched her for a bit, but stopped when I researched a topic deeper and found her analysis very super…

Post by davrosthedalek » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 2:09 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #31

refulgentis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope this doesn't seem abrupt, and when/if it does, that it comes across as coming from a place inviting further discussion and appreciating your curiosity. That's one of the effects of the pitch framing by Sabine: the design intent is not about smashing stuff at higher energy , despite the basis of the critique requiring that it is . My comment above is really long, but tl;dr the impetus for both facilities is sma…

Electrons and positrons have been smashed together before. It has been done at CERN before, too. The premise of this experiment is to do it at higher energy than has been done before. The scientific goals of that experiment are somewhat more unclear, though. The LHC had a landmark scientific purpose, finding the last particle in the standard model. There is, as far as I can tell, no specific experiment that can be th…

Post by neals » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 2:19 AM UTC

Post by daseiner1 » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 2:32 AM UTC

neals wrote: post #47

I feel like with all the silly things humans do, every remotely feasible physics experiment should be top priority on getting funding and attention. Isn't finding out how the universe works, by far, the only thing that matters?