CERN approves plans for a $23B, 62-mile long super-collider • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by HPsquared » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

kens wrote: post #159

nix23 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What did the previous collider discover? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? Why do we think building a bigger telescope then Hubble will be any different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

The James Webb Space Telescope is an interesting case. It has gone hugely over budget. The original budget was $1.6 billion and is now around $10 billion. In 2010, the journal Nature called it "The telescope that ate astronomy" because its expanding budget was stopping other important astronomy projects. [1] The JWST is also hugely behind schedule, to the point that XKCD mocks it [2]. Originally scheduled for 2007, t…

On the JWST, I wonder how much could have been saved by scrapping the project and starting over with a clean slate.

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

#172

Post by drdeca » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

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.

Why not evaluate (estimate) the expected value of sample information of the different experiments, and compare the costs of the different experiments to the EVSIs?

Is it too difficult to estimate the EVSI ?

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

#173

Post by HPsquared » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

nix23 wrote: post #87

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.

What do you mean with 'new physics'? And no, the higgs was a theory, now proven right (maybe you mean that by 'new physics'?) Sorry but your view on the world is just depressing, its like we need 'new science' 'new physics' whatever that means, but building the experiment to proof a theory is right, is too expensive? And no the JWST is a space telescope NOT something completely different from hubble, it's a telescope…

I'm not the OP, but the thing that's depressing to me is putting so many of our resources into basically a repeat of what was already done, but slightly bigger and with no expectation of finding anything significant. I mean, are we out of ideas?

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

#174

Post by aronpye » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:18 PM UTC

rossvor wrote: post #130

aronpye wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, if it isn’t clear, is that scientists who think the world is being put in danger by climate change shouldn’t be requesting or otherwise accept money that would be better spent combatting said existential threat. To accept money on huge projects with no clear benefit to humanity when there are much more pressing matters at hand is either to deny those problems don’t exist or act with hypocrisy. P.S. spend…

Following your logic we should just give up spending any money on any non climate science. Science is what enabled us to lift billions out of poverty in the first place.

Actually the washing machine and basic sanitation is what has lifted a large part of the world out of poverty, not high energy physics.

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

#175

Post by aronpye » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

rsynnott wrote: post #150

aronpye wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m well aware of the differences between particle physics and climatology. My point, which you have just made the logical fallacy of straw manning, still stands. Scientists of all fields have commented on climate change, Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Neil Degrasse Tyson have all opined in climate change, yet also advocate for vanity projects such as the large hadron collider.

People are only permitted to care about one thing, now?

It’s called priorities, so yeah. Do you care more about people or about discovering super symmetry?

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

#176

Post by nix23 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:26 PM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #173

nix23 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean with 'new physics'? And no, the higgs was a theory, now proven right (maybe you mean that by 'new physics'?) Sorry but your view on the world is just depressing, its like we need 'new science' 'new physics' whatever that means, but building the experiment to proof a theory is right, is too expensive? And no the JWST is a space telescope NOT something completely different from hubble, it's a telescope…

I'm not the OP, but the thing that's depressing to me is putting so many of our resources into basically a repeat of what was already done, but slightly bigger and with no expectation of finding anything significant. I mean, are we out of ideas?

23B is NOT 'many' resources, and this is why they do it:

SOURCE https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00173-2

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

#177

Post by raincom » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #38

Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible. A few years ago, a bunch of physical philosophers tried to justify this turn of particle physics in general away from experiment, particularly suggesting the search of symmetries and mathematical beauty (I guess) was enough of a justification for the work even though it essentially is contrar…

Search of symmetries and mathematical beauty can't 'justify' any theory in physics. The whole movement of justificationism of knowledge was dislodged after Popper's attack.

Experiments that seek anomalies are very important. Experiments that can discover new phenomena are important. Yes, it makes pragmatic sense to NOT invest $23B; and do something else.

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

#178

Post by aronpye » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

simion314 wrote: post #100

aronpye wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to stop pollution we need to invest money in an alternative, you simply can’t stop the economy to prevent pollution, Covid-19 style, forever and expect society not to regress to pre-industrial revolution. Hence, in order to fund an alternative you need the funds to fund an alternative, which necessitates not spending limited tax payer dollars on limited impact science experiments. From my comment elsewhere:…

CERN invented the WWW, WWW lifted people from poverty like me that I work from a village in a third world country as a developer. Maybe the super magnets,detectors, software, mathematics and who knows anti-mater or black holdes could also have a similar effect as WWW. There is a lot of money in he world that is pent in entertainment industry so make a carbon tax or invent some economic mumbo-jumbo to grab a percent f…

I’ll grant you that HTTP and HTML technologies did come out of CERN, but access to clean water and a sewage system amongst other things is what lifted you out of poverty. It’s no good having access to cat memes if you’re dying from dysentery. Developed countries were out of extreme poverty long before the internet and WWW was invented.

Besides, issues like climate change and resource contention will disproportionately affect impoverished countries. I think combatting those issues is a higher priority than investigating particle physics with no immediate or apparent benefit. Would you rather use that money for a particle accelerator or give everyone access to clean water?

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

#179

Post by cartoonfoxes » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

nix23 wrote: post #87

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.

What do you mean with 'new physics'? And no, the higgs was a theory, now proven right (maybe you mean that by 'new physics'?) Sorry but your view on the world is just depressing, its like we need 'new science' 'new physics' whatever that means, but building the experiment to proof a theory is right, is too expensive? And no the JWST is a space telescope NOT something completely different from hubble, it's a telescope…

JWST covers different wavelengths than Hubble, which is a meaningful difference as far as telescopes go. The proposed LUVOIR or HABEX telescopes would be the successors to Hubble.

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

#180

Post by rowanG077 » Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

drdeca wrote: post #172

rowanG077 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not evaluate (estimate) the expected value of sample information of the different experiments, and compare the costs of the different experiments to the EVSIs? Is it too difficult to estimate the EVSI ?

Any metric you can imagine is nothing more then a guess. That's why it's research. The researchers guess and tests. Some guesses can be observably better but that's not quantifiable. At least that's what I think.