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

CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

physicsworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 126 posts

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#81

Post by naasking »

chmod775 wrote: post #70
naasking wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an answer to the specific question asked. Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.

> Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost. It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form f…

> It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery.

Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted, and then we built devices to find them, eg. the Higgs was predicted in the 1960s. There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.

There is better frontier research that could use those funds for much better payoffs. For instance, just sticking with particle physics, Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper than the LHC while achieving the same energies. We've also never built a muon collider, and so that's largely unexplored territory.

We just don't need another radio frequency particle collider, we've reached the limits of what they can do within a reasonable research budget.

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#82

Post by pjmlp »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #46
pjmlp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What matters is that exists, and is another possibility for treatments. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/

I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes. This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.

Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#83

Post by elashri »

naasking wrote: post #81
chmod775 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost. It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form f…

> It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted, and then we built devices to find them, eg. the Higgs was predicted in the 1960s. There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program. There is better…

> Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted

That's not true at all. To give just few examples.

Electron was not predicted but Thomson found it during first fundamental particle discovered came from cathode‐ray experiments, not from a prior microscopic theory of matte. Remember this was during thr 19th century.

Another one is the muon discovered in 1936 which was detected as "heavy electron" in cosmic rays. it did not fit any clear theoretical need in nuclear physics at the time, leading Rabi to quip “Who ordered that?”

Heck there are many more examples that I will bypass the comment limits if I tried to list them (resonances in particular will be very numerous).

You can of course move the goal target by narrowing what you mean by particle but this is exactly why physicists try to define what they talk about before making an argument.

> There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.

Really? There is a huge volume of the feasibility study about the physics program of FCC. Are you claiming that it is false. Have you even read it?

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#84

Post by bonsai_spool »

pjmlp wrote: post #82
bonsai_spool wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes. This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.

Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs. Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

> Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.

> Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.

There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#85

Post by surgical_fire »

jocaal wrote: post #55
mrtksn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With that kind of fundamental science I would expect no practical applications but guidance for researchers that work on practical applications. There are many ideas on how the universe works, right? Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable. It must be somewhere between knowing if there's alien life or n…

What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the…

This makes no sense.

"Decoupling science from the state" is just bullshit from "government icky, taxation is theft" morons.

No, governments should definitely fund scientific research. When it is public it is the only guarantee that it will benefit everyone. Scientific research done by private entities is kneecapped by their financial interests (and be very sure they will bury any advance that jeopardize their financial interests).

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#86

Post by surgical_fire »

naasking wrote: post #77
astrobe_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)

1. That's not an argument unless the evidence for these payoffs is so huge as to dwarf the payoffs of 1000 smaller experiments. There is no evidence of this. 2. There is no world in which this applies to particle physics at this point, especially using radio frequency particle collider tech. This is known physics and there are no mysteries in the regime the FCC would reach.

Do you have evidence that "1000 smaller experiments" would give payoffs?

And how do you measure payoffs? With how much money you get in return? Should scientific research expect this?

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#87

Post by Certhas »

hammock wrote: post #79
bryant wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before your edit: The world wide web: https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web certain medical imaging: https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/medipix-partic... grid computing advances: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00104... PIMMS: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/ Medicis: https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/cern-accelerates-me... FLASH radiotherapy: https://…

It’s an interesting question. After all we were using electricity, batteries, electric motors, radios and telegraphs long before we ever discovered electrons and photons. But discovering the electron was necessary for us to develop vacuum tubes. And developing quantum mechanics was necessary for developing transistors. Think about the relative impact of the telegraph vs the vacuum tube. When we do eventually find som…

Quantum Mechanics, protons, electrons... That's the theory of everyday matter. You don't need very special situations to see their effects. Understanding the underlying equations enabled us to do more with what we already have.

High energy stuff only exists unstably for fractions of seconds. I find the idea that any of Standard Model physics, nevermind beyond standard model physics, could lead to a technological advance like the transistor extremely unconvincing.

Technological advance and scientific advance sometimes align. But there is no law that the former by necessity follows from the former. The expectation that they do is an extrapolation from a very brief period of human history.

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#88

Post by westurner »

sampo wrote: post #18
Fh_ wrote: post #2

These projects are extremely expensive and the findings can alter humanity itself. That's why private donors sounds a bit sketchy

> findings can alter humanity itself Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found. From the 1970s to 2010s, physicists believed in a theory called supersymmetry, which predicted supersymmetric partner particles for the known elementary particles. But these should have been already found…

> Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found.

Before LHC Large Hardron Collider (CERN), there were other experiments with lower raw and final recorded data rates: SppS (CERN; MB/s; 1-10 Hz), SLC (SLAC (Stanford); 50 MB/s; 2 Hz), LEP (CERN; 100 MB/s; 1-5 Hz), Tevatron (Fermilab (Chicago); 250 GB/s, 100-400 Hz), HERA (DESY; 500 MB/s; 5-20 Hz), LHC CMS/ATLAS (CERN; 40 TB/s; 1000 Hz).

HL-LHC (CERN; 10X LHC;)

FCC-ee (CERN), FCC-hh (CERN)

Non-confirmed non-elementary particles of or not of the Standard Model?

What about Superfluids and Supersolids (like spin-nematic liquid crystals)? Are those just phases? Is the phase chart for all particles complete?

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#89

Post by jocaal »

surgical_fire wrote: post #85
jocaal wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the…

This makes no sense. "Decoupling science from the state" is just bullshit from "government icky, taxation is theft" morons. No, governments should definitely fund scientific research. When it is public it is the only guarantee that it will benefit everyone. Scientific research done by private entities is kneecapped by their financial interests (and be very sure they will bury any advance that jeopardize their financi…

How are radio telescopes and mars rovers in my interest? How would you know what is in my interest? I worked for my money so the person in the best position to judge what is in my interest is me. I am sorry for you if that is such a hard concept to understand.

Re: CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

#90

Post by sandworm101 »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #58
sandworm101 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A collider produces far more than new particles or explanations. They produce papers and phds. In effect, thier primary goal is to produce stem careers. The new particles are just the public announcements. The collider doesnt even need to be functional. Much/most of the work occures before first light, before anyone turns it on. The design of the ring and its innumerable detectors and subsystems takes decades. So a g…

>The same discussion can happen re the ISS. Its primary purpose was not science. But it's worth noting that many experiments took place on ISS covering few domains, examples being AMS (cosmology), CAL (quantum physics), SAFFIRE (combustion), and Veggie (botany/sustainability).

And the LHC did science too. But, in both cases, the amount of science generated was not worth the money and/or the same could have been acomplished at far lower cost via other means.
Post reply on HN