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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by notepad0x90 »

I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all!

But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space.

I've heard it said that research into this stuff will inevitably benefit all manners of other sciences, but hoping for a byproduct isn't the same as direct investment.

I'm just asking in earnest if priorities are aligned properly. I'm sure many of these experiments and projects would be more useful if they were actually built in space! Even for space agencies, it's all sorely disappointing. Their focus is on research and experimentation, which wouldn't be a problem if there were plans that were getting executed with some vision or goal of actual progress in capabilities. Their planning is also too long-term.

Why did artemis take 3 years? is it just to boast about being able to go back to the moon? By now this should have taken 3 months after over half a century. My point is not to be dismissive of the complexities, but to say that the state of things is being accepted as-is from what I'm seeing. Is there any actual solid plan to reduce at least launch times that factor?

It would be amazing if humans launched enough infrastructure into space, that there were would be foundries and factories entirely in space, reducing the dependence on transporting heavy things from earth into space.Spacecraft and space station components could largely be manufactured by mining raw materials and manufacturing with them without depending on earth's resources directly. That's probably not realistic, but what I'm decrying is not so much lack of action, but lack of vision (outside of scifi), planning, and focus.

That said, I'm just hijacking this to bring up that point of discuss. This is private cash, and I'm glad someone is donating to CERN for this research. I wish all the stuff I said could be funded with tax dollars. lay people need to see a vision, a plan, even if it can't be achieved in our lifetime, political will comes afterwards.

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

#112

Post by potamic »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #111

I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all! But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space. I've heard it…

I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible!

In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more.

It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?

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

#113

Post by fragmede »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #99
jocaal wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be great if we had line-item vetoes on our tax forms. However, we don't. You have to fund some things you don't like or agree with, and so do I, and so do the rest of the taxpayers. That's just how taxes work. Like capitalism and democracy, taxes suck, but nobody has come up with adequate substitutes that check all the necessary boxes.

Why wouldn't I veto everything except the give me back my money tax? Now, I'm not actually ridiculously selfish asshole that doesn't think of others or the long term consequences of my choices, but it's a prisoners dilemma, with everybody else in your country, and defecting gives you money back. Cynically I don't think that'll work.

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

#114

Post by astrobe_ »

naasking wrote: post #97
surgical_fire wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.

Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series)

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

#115

Post by Certhas »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #111

I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all! But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space. I've heard it…

This is science for science sake. To advance knowledge. You argue for direct investment for building space faring capabilities, rather than for advancing knowledge, but then you should state why you want these space faring capabilities.

Because they are cool? I think that's essentially the reasoning behind putting people on the Moon. If you believe there are valifld economic reasons for space, why do we need tax dollars? And also: I don't see it. Space is so hostile an environment to humans, that it's hard to understand why we should invest in capability to be there personally. People aren't even investing to harvest Greenland's resources, and they are infinitely more accessible.

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

#116

Post by mikhailfranco »

throwaway198846 wrote: post #38

As a non physicist I like the idea of a moun collider more - more compact (thus should be cheaper) as well as something which haven't done in similar energy scales and therefore more likely to need new technology in building it and finding something new.

Typo?

I like the idea of a noun collider. Then we could smash apples and oranges.

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

#117

Post by notepad0x90 »

Certhas wrote: post #115
notepad0x90 wrote: post #111

I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all! But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space. I've heard it…

This is science for science sake. To advance knowledge. You argue for direct investment for building space faring capabilities, rather than for advancing knowledge, but then you should state why you want these space faring capabilities. Because they are cool? I think that's essentially the reasoning behind putting people on the Moon. If you believe there are valifld economic reasons for space, why do we need tax doll…

For starts for science itself. If transporting things to space wasn't so costly, so much more experimentation would better be done in space.

Yes it's cool, but that isn't why. It's because of resources and human progress.

I want mirrors in space that direct/magnify sun light to destinations on earth for example.

So many of human problems today have to do with resource scarcity. The "old" world had this, and the discovery of the "new" world in the west solved lots of problems.

Every tech we have to day, every advancement in medicine, industry,etc.. from steam engines to the internet and AI is a result of the discovery of the americas. the center of trade and commerce shifted to western europe, and western europeans used lots of means including conquest of the americas by force , enslaving africans,etc.. to get gold and riches from the americas back to europe. The improvement in the quality of life for western europeans meant they could focus less on subsistence and survival, and focus on science, industry and reformations.

Space is extremely hostile to humans. You're not wrong about that, but it isn't beyond humans' capability to conquer it. Solving the obstacles in the way of space expansion requires solving things that have the ability to improve humans' lives greatly. It means we could also conquer the polar zones and tundras much more easily, and be more resilient to climate change. Like how western europe benefited from the Americas, and how they pillaged gold from the americans, so is there gold and riches in space to be pillaged and improve the lives of the world on earth. Back in the 1800s, the west was a hostile (no comparison to space of course) place people with no options went to, space could be that for a while.

Humanity can't survive in a stagnant way. We will always need more space and more energy.

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

#118

Post by naasking »

thrance wrote: post #110
naasking wrote: post #63

What a waste. So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC, and we're not even expecting any significant new insights from it.

> So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC Ok, like what? Let the scientists at CERN decide what to spend their funding on.

CERN shouldn't get that funding if they're going to push for the FCC. Funding is often contingent. Even sticking only to particle physics, there's lots of other research that could use that funding better, like wakefield accelerators and muon colliders.

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

#119

Post by naasking »

astrobe_ wrote: post #114
naasking wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.

Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series)

CERN and large construction projects like the FCC employ tens of thousands of physicists and engineers across decades. It's hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it.

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

#120

Post by CamperBob2 »

fragmede wrote: post #113
CamperBob2 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be great if we had line-item vetoes on our tax forms. However, we don't. You have to fund some things you don't like or agree with, and so do I, and so do the rest of the taxpayers. That's just how taxes work. Like capitalism and democracy, taxes suck, but nobody has come up with adequate substitutes that check all the necessary boxes.

Why wouldn't I veto everything except the give me back my money tax? Now, I'm not actually ridiculously selfish asshole that doesn't think of others or the long term consequences of my choices, but it's a prisoners dilemma, with everybody else in your country, and defecting gives you money back. Cynically I don't think that'll work.

It wouldn't be a "Give money to anyone you like" kind of choice, but "Allocate money to these departments." Funding that you assign to one category would have to come out of another. Think basic research is a waste? Allocate less to NSF and more to foreign aid, or to something else that you prefer. Don't want to fund welfare? Move the money to defense, and so forth.

Obviously still open to gaming and abuse, but it's not as if the current system isn't.

Post reply on HN