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

Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

physicscentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 33 posts

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#11

Post by pokjhnboi »

tzs wrote: post #7
d2 wrote: post #4

In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.

What kind of game changing things are you thinking of? Colliders help us learn what model is correct (or rather let us eliminate incorrect models) of very low level physics. We don't remotely have any technology to do anything with physics at that low a level, so isn't knowing which model may be correct pretty much going to remain of theoretical and philosophical interest only? It's good to figure that out, but it is…

Space program yes - ISS no

I'm an astronomer and I think the LHC is a better bet than the ISS. The ISS does no astronomy work and just diverts funds from science 9especially by demanding the shuttle stays) the microgravity / materials science is compromised by having people on board which means a high level of vibration from people and life support .

The 'science' it does do is mostly school science project stuff

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#12

Post by d2 »

tzs wrote: post #7
d2 wrote: post #4

In retrospect I think the collider would have been a better investment than the ISS because it would have yielded science that has game changing potential for us as a species and more science that we can use. I'd rather understand what we're made of than know how flora and fauna behave in orbital space.

What kind of game changing things are you thinking of? Colliders help us learn what model is correct (or rather let us eliminate incorrect models) of very low level physics. We don't remotely have any technology to do anything with physics at that low a level, so isn't knowing which model may be correct pretty much going to remain of theoretical and philosophical interest only? It's good to figure that out, but it is…

What an absurd comment. Newtonian physics seemed sufficient and special and general relativity seemed academic until we applied them both to build GPS. You stand on the giant shoulders of theoretical physicists from the moment you open your eyes every morning. How dare you deny them any available tool to continue to keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed.

All the applied research and aerospace programs you're referring to would not have been possible without the strong foundation that theoretical research provided.

Think you're going to build a star drive by continuing to throw matter in the opposite direction as fast as you can? Some hard working theorist who you deem to be too philosophical could be coming up with the fundamental laws of nature that we need to go to the stars if guys like you hadn't denied funding for the SSC.

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#13

Post by jswanson »

nhoss2 wrote: post #3

well if it was this vs the ISS, then they made a fantastic decision, just look at the ISS now! But too bad it had to be one or the other and not both.

Indeed.

Also imagine what could have come out of this by now had it gone online in the mid 90's. They haven't even gotten the LHC up to full speed yet, but it's already yielding interesting results.

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#16

Post by bitsm »

Wow, crazy to see these pics. My dad worked at the SSC, managing the magnet manufacturing facility. I remember touring some of these buildings, and seeing some of the magnets. I still have a SSC mug at home. :)

In the end, I think it may just have been too much of an oxymoron to pair the words "Waxahachie, TX" and "world-class research facility", it's just not something most of America was ready to embrace.

It's too bad though, we really lost a great opportunity to build something great in the middle of Texas. It would have changed everything there, that's for sure.

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#19

Post by yread »

jf wrote: post #5

If you found this pictures to be interesting, you might also like some of photo sets of other abandoned facilities: Vandenberg Missile Sites: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215762296233064... A Missile Silo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215760341039595... USA Refinery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelbug/sets/7215759418921441... (See also: http://uer.ca )

Not nearly as high tech, but I really like these picture of an old abandoned magnesite processing plant in Kosice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asebest/1919339156/in/set-72157...

They should shoot Fallout - the movie there.

Re: Urban Decay: Exploring an old abandoned particle collider facility

#20

Post by rdl »

When the SSC was cancelled, I decided I never wanted to be a scientist (I was 15 or so); it would be so horrible to work on a program like this and be entirely dependent upon the government for funding, then have it killed. Entrepreneurship seems much more incremental; if you raise 50% as much money, you can still often do things, just with more risk and pain; if you have a big grant funded science project, 50% in getting it funded gets you very little more than 0% success.
Post reply on HN