21–30 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is an argument for private donor-based science instead of public investment.
But OP said that the government could also pony up billions of dollars for the project. The main point seemed to be that universities are wasting their endowment with fancy buildings instead of doing science.
why not finish the one in Texas? yes the facility probably needs repairs but a lot of initial work is done I would think?
I thought particle physics were coming to an end? After CERN found the Higgs boson then nothing. The ROI of a more powerful accelerator is abysmal. It is impossible to know how large a new collider needs to be and if anything interesting will be found. Use the money on a moon-base instead and then mars.
There are tens of thousands of us still driving the field (with many open questions) forward.
why not finish the one in Texas? yes the facility probably needs repairs but a lot of initial work is done I would think?
I wish that would happen, the SSC design is even more powerful than LHC. But not sure Texas is culturally the optimal place for such high science these days. Part of the opposition to SSC back in the day was religious. CA or NV might be better.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/02/23/come-and-take-it-emi...
Wouldn't most alternatives be significantly cheaper and more likely to provide new scientific information?
Finally, after seeing the politics of the Superconducting Super Collider, I don't envision any hope of a significantly larger accelerator within the next 100 years unless some incredible theoretical breakthrough makes it irresistable.
why not finish the one in Texas? yes the facility probably needs repairs but a lot of initial work is done I would think?
Shouldn't we consider other possible ways of spending the moneys required, such as an AI endeavor perhaps? Wouldn't most alternatives be significantly cheaper and more likely to provide new scientific information? Finally, after seeing the politics of the Superconducting Super Collider, I don't envision any hope of a significantly larger accelerator within the next 100 years unless some incredible theoretical breakth…
Shouldn't we consider other possible ways of spending the moneys required, such as an AI endeavor perhaps? Wouldn't most alternatives be significantly cheaper and more likely to provide new scientific information? Finally, after seeing the politics of the Superconducting Super Collider, I don't envision any hope of a significantly larger accelerator within the next 100 years unless some incredible theoretical breakth…