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

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

home.cern

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

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

#121

Post by constantcrying »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #81
Jabbles wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But one of her points is that many of the jobs of current physicists depend on the status quo. That seems almost tautological. She then alleges that that clouds their judgement on the best use of research funding. I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC. So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowin…

But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

>But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

Her argument is that very particular niches of science receive extreme funding leading to advanced results in particular areas, which other areas can not meaningfully engage with. This funding imbalance is not "decided by the scientists", in any meaningful way.

Nowhere does she imply that she should decide who gets funding, in fact she wants an end to publicly funded research. I really dislike it if people criticize other based on made up arguments about them, like you did.

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

#122

Post by constantcrying »

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?

>every remotely feasible physics experiment should be top priority on getting funding and attention.

There are innumerable "feasible" experiments, far exceeding global GDP.

>Isn't finding out how the universe works, by far, the only thing that matters?

Is trying to maximize our understanding of a small part of physics really the best way to go about this. Is it even more important than curing cancer.

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

#123

Post by Jabbles »

refulgentis wrote: post #117
Jabbles wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[1] Sabine says "It’s a two-phase project, the first one, called the FCC-ee would collide electrons and specifically measure the properties of the Higgs boson." approximately 20 seconds into the video. It's unfair to merely critique the headline. If you do not wish to watch the video, here is a transcript: https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c "This is very important work." is just an opinion. "The mor…

I'm not sure why you're addressing me or telling me I didn't watch the video, but I humbly request, on behalf of the community, that next time you've figured out what someone else did and want to announce it, you pause and reflect on: A) exactly what and whose words you're taking umbrage with B) if you are attempting to mind read. Concretely: If you don't think OP got the right understanding from the video, so their…

Um, ok:

When you say:

"The shell games are:

1. claiming it is a proton collider"

it seems to me that you're implying that Sabine is not disclosing the fact that it's a two stage project. And I'm pointing out that it's one of the first things she says in her video.

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

#124

Post by pclmulqdq »

7thaccount wrote: post #38
pclmulqdq wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, there isn't much theory behind the "important work" being done here, just "let's smash stuff at higher energy and see what shakes out." Science is supposed to go the other way. You are supposed to have a theory or a set of theories and then use experiments to test them. If this experiment can falsify the standard model in a meaningful way, that's cool, but it's a lot better if it can actually prove…

There is the scientific method of course (what you're talking about), but I think it isn't entirely insane to sometimes just do a ton of experimenting and see where you end up. Edison did a lot of the latter.

Yes, noted non-scientist Edison who stole pretty much everything he claimed to have invented.

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

#125

Post by 77pt77 »

Ygg2 wrote: post #76
77pt77 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Theory precedes experiment. It always has This is laughably false, even in fundamental physics. No one saw neutrinos coming for example.

> No one saw neutrinos coming for example. Other than Pauli, you mean? It was hypothesized around 1930. Discovered in 1934. The basis of scientific method is following: 1. You notice something. 2. You ask a question. 3. Form a hypothesis. 4. Experiment. 5. Analyze. 6. Draw conclusions.

> Other than Pauli, you mean?

After linear momentum was missing in collisions!

Pauli speculated that neutrinos would exist after an experimental anomaly.

No one really saw it coming.

No one saw 3 generations coming either, for example.

In fact, people were baffled.

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

#126

Post by 77pt77 »

exe34 wrote: post #65
77pt77 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> her content for maximum rage/anger/emotional response rather than accuracy Yes. The content mirrors the thumbnail style.

I've started to watch one or two videos of hers, but I don't respond very well to emotional rants. So I stopped.

It's a shame because some of her content is actually good.

It's not like she's Kaku or something.

Alas...

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

#127

Post by justapassenger »

elashri wrote: post #7

Before discussions go into some generic direction about the field. This is a huge feasibility study contain different aspects done by hundreds of people. People who are mostly interested about the physics case of FCC should read/skim at least through the first volume [1], second chapter (Specificities of the FCC physics case) the first four sections. This is about 35 pages with somehow accessible language to people w…

[dead]

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

#128

Post by T-A »

refulgentis wrote: post #36
MadnessASAP wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not much of a particles guy but isn't the lack of "expected" discoveries itself a discovery?

You nailed it. In addition, they're absolutely correct, some subset of particle researchers were wish-casting for SUSY stuff. In addition, there's a significant substantive difference between "$X was defined and built for discovering $Y" and "some subset of $X hoped for proof of their theory $Y via $Z being discovered" -- there was also some subset that hoped for proof of string theory , or innumerable other things.…

Experimenters always were more skeptical; I hypothesized asking phenomenologists for a reason. I like Adam Falkowski's description of what it was like in [1] (about the end of dedicated SUSY working groups at CERN):

the existence of SUSY was almost a fact for a bulk of researchers working on the topic. This certainly was reflected in hiring practices, and you had a large group of top researchers whose entire publication list was tied to supersymmetry

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/supersymmetrys-lo...

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

#129

Post by pclmulqdq »

tsimionescu wrote: post #110
anoncareer0212 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lay out above, the IEEE article linked lays out, and you come across to me as having domain knowledge to understand that having electron-positron collisions at the same energy level of LHC lets us nail down the hints of what we saw at LHC -- persistent deviations in the standard model that require new theory. When we get new theory, then we go hunting new particles, presuming its physically possible (as you point o…

> No one thinks new particles will be discovered. Blatantly false. Plenty of FCC docs from CERN itself mention the possibility that new particles could be discovered, from dark matter to axions. They even think they could help gather data to guide searches for supersymmetric partners. [edited to add links and quotes] https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/reports/EPPSU18_FCCint.pdf > In addition to the dark matter examples give…

Supersymmetry is on its last legs after the LHC didn't find any supersymmetric particles. WIMPs and other dark matter particles are now no longer speculated to be on the menu because they are too light for this energy range.

There's lots of "could" in your own post and your sources. Very little "will" - as in "will test X theory."

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

#130

Post by tsimionescu »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #129
tsimionescu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one thinks new particles will be discovered. Blatantly false. Plenty of FCC docs from CERN itself mention the possibility that new particles could be discovered, from dark matter to axions. They even think they could help gather data to guide searches for supersymmetric partners. [edited to add links and quotes] https://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/reports/EPPSU18_FCCint.pdf > In addition to the dark matter examples give…

Supersymmetry is on its last legs after the LHC didn't find any supersymmetric particles. WIMPs and other dark matter particles are now no longer speculated to be on the menu because they are too light for this energy range. There's lots of "could" in your own post and your sources. Very little "will" - as in "will test X theory."

The poster above was claiming, in several posts, that the people at CERN and experimental particle physicists more broadly are being unfairly represented by claims that they are including possible new particles in the case for building the FCC. They even found an IEEE publication about it that (apparently) made no such claims and stuck to well motivated physics.

I was merely showing that there is nothing unfair about it, as all materials about the FCC, at least from CERN, come with beliefs about the chance that new particles could be found. Sure, they don't make hard claims that they will be found. But even these claims that they could be found are unfounded. It's just as likely that I'll spot a WIMP in my oven if I look carefully while it's pretty hot as WIMPs being found at the FCC. This speculation has no place in serious discussions about this level of spending and human effort.

If this were an abstract discussion at a panel and someone was asking "what are some speculations about what we could see at the FCC", it would be perfectly fine to go on about SUSY and dark matter detection and axions and whatever else. But this has no place whatsoever in official documents about the scientific purpose of allocating billions of euros to this project. It is blatant speculation to pad out an otherwise pretty thin motivation. It's like writing a proposal for a new build system at your company and including speculation that it might detect security vulnerabilities automatically, or it might reduce build times a hundred fold.

Post reply on HN