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

CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 223 posts

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#161

Post by at_a_remove »

pas wrote: post #158
at_a_remove wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently posted a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveri... in another thread. Go on and look at it. Cross off composite particles like Antihelium-4 and antihydrogen, just look for the timeline of newly verified particles by decade. Note that each was predicted far in advance of the actual verification. (As a side question, ask "What newly predicted fundamental particles are we attempt…

Isn't the best way to try to see if the Standard Model breaks is by pumping more energy into it? (And watching for the decay channel anomalies and whatnot?) What are other ways to check its predictions?

No, not really. Diminishing returns. I've pointed it out elsewhere, but there's no stopping point for that approach. Make an accelerator that goes around the world. Dismantle the Solar system to make an even larger accelerator. Continue onward and use self-replicating probes to slowly convert, over millions of years, the Milky Way into another accelerator ring. Where do you stop? You can always do more until you paperclip replicator the observable universe into one big accelerator.

Like I said, I advocate for looking for more clever ways to look for new physics, rather than bigger ways. And you must accept the concept that at some point we may have discovered all fundamental particles that can be found in the Big Baryon Bashers and that all accelerators after that are completely wasted effort, but we'd never know that, because we would say, "Well, we didn't find anything there. Gotta build a bigger one!"

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#162

Post by gumbo »

foxyv wrote: post #122
erk__ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should problably note that this collider is first planned to begin building around 30 years after the LHC was in put into operation. And it will probably take longer to build as well so put around 10 more years on that and you have 40 years after the LHC was put into operation.

So $23 billion over 40 years that would make it about 50 million a year. Just a few million more than what the US military spends on viagra.

You mean ~500 million.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#163

Post by MayeulC »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #50
mrfusion wrote: post #45

Has anyone considered a collider in space? It seems like you could have huge distances. And just let the particles fly in the vacuum between acceleration points?

If you want to store the beam, you need a ring. And the size of the ring is given by the minimum bending radius, which is given by maximum field strength you can achieve, and energy loss from bremsstrahlung in the bends, which you have to put back. So space doesn't really help: You'll still need a circle of magnets. Approximating the circle with a polygon means you split up a smaller circle with straight segments. Bu…

Fairly good points. And I guess you would actually need twice the amount of energy for station keeping, unless you were to use an unstable orbit on-purpose, and use the gravity as an assist for accelerating particles, now that I think of it.

Well, in any case, so much for the circumsolar collider described in the Three Body trilogy. I guess it might still be doable/useful with some hypothetical future technology, though.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#164

Post by AnimalMuppet »

take_a_breath wrote: post #71

HN: Governments don’t fund enough scientific research projects. Also HN: Governments shouldn’t be funding this scientific research project. Can’t win with this crowd.

The HN readership is not homogeneous. The site makes a lot more sense when you understand that.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#166

Post by mrmonkeyman »

rowanG077 wrote: post #107
sandworm101 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supercolliders are low-odds science. Other instruments are pretty much certain to generate new science. A hubble replacement would not be low-odds given that hubble itself is still making discoveries. A 23 billion-dollar push for new antibiotics would not be low-odds either. Dollars should be spent where they are most likely to generate the most science. That isn't new supercolliders.

Dollars shouldn't be spend where they are most likely to generate most new science. That is a quick way to find yourself in a dead-end. Imagine we would have ONLY invested in supercolliders after high-energy physics was very fruitful. Many other fields would have been completely starved and we would now be in the (possibly) super collider dead-end while other physics is woefully behind.

I wonder what happens if we push 30 billion into pure non-physics math.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#168

Post by dumbfoundded »

jonquark wrote: post #82
sandworm101 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) higgs was confirmed, proven rather than discovered. It wasnt new physics. (2) Hubble is dieing. It will not last forever but still makes new discoveries, new science, regularly. A replacement is needed. And the JWST is a totally different device, not just bigger. We probably need both the JWST and a new Hubble.

The Higgs was discovered at the LHC. Before that there had been theories with no experimental evidence.

The point is more that we can do experiments where we expect to observe interesting things or experiments to validate existing theories. If you have an experiment to validate an existing theory, it doesn't really make sense to repeat the experiment on a much large scale unless you anticipate actually being part of the first category (new observation, no theory).

The problem with colliders is that the next energy thresholds where we expect to observe unexplained phenomena are a couple orders of magnitude greater than the proposed collider. So we could really only confirm existing theories unless something major is hiding in the energy gap. This seems unlikely.

Critics want to put the money towards avenues where we're likely to observe new things instead of confirming validated theories.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#169

Post by HPsquared »

rowanG077 wrote: post #107
sandworm101 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supercolliders are low-odds science. Other instruments are pretty much certain to generate new science. A hubble replacement would not be low-odds given that hubble itself is still making discoveries. A 23 billion-dollar push for new antibiotics would not be low-odds either. Dollars should be spent where they are most likely to generate the most science. That isn't new supercolliders.

Dollars shouldn't be spend where they are most likely to generate most new science. That is a quick way to find yourself in a dead-end. Imagine we would have ONLY invested in supercolliders after high-energy physics was very fruitful. Many other fields would have been completely starved and we would now be in the (possibly) super collider dead-end while other physics is woefully behind.

There's this thing called the 'white elephant' though. History tends to downplay such things.

Re: CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider

#170

Post by ddavis »

booleandilemma wrote: post #146

Non-scientist here - do existing colliders like the LHC become useless, or can they still be used to make new scientific discoveries?

The physical accelerator will become useless (the magnets). The tunnel where the LHC exists right now is the old home of the LEP collider.
Post reply on HN