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

61–70 of 223 posts

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

#61

Post by ben_w »

sandworm101 wrote: post #49
yiyus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LHC has not been a failure. First you complain about the lack of experimentation, then you complain when they perform experiments. It is normal in science to formulate a theory, design an experiment, and then having to discard the theory in view of the experimental results. That's the scientific method, and that's what has happened with SUSY (kind of). You also claim the goal of new collider is to validate SUSY,…

The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics, that greater understanding that progresses mankind. What did the previous collider discover? It certainly validated current theories, but did it create anything new? If it did, why do we yet need a new one? If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experimen…

1. Science is a low-odds, high-reward process; any given piece of work probably does nothing, but the overall impact is literally everything that happened since the agrarian era

2. Even successful research leads to papers with impenetrable names like “An MgB-Superconducting Shield Prototype for the Future Circular Collider Septum Magnet”, whose value I am not even qualified to comprehend unless someone explained it to me with a YouTube video

3. Because I don’t understand it and I can observe the value of it without understanding it, I’ll trust the physicists doing the experiments when they tell me they want a bigger and more expensive tool for their future experiments

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

#62

Post by twic »

paganel wrote: post #52
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…

> Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible I am in the same boat as you, more precisely I was, especially after reading guys like Jacques Ellul who had written against this particular project since back in the '80s. But then I started thinking that keeping that many smart and motivated people busy working on stuff that will not be as…

If we didn't spend those billions on this new collider, we could spend them on other scientific projects, which could also keep those scientists busy.

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

#63

Post by nix23 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #49
yiyus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LHC has not been a failure. First you complain about the lack of experimentation, then you complain when they perform experiments. It is normal in science to formulate a theory, design an experiment, and then having to discard the theory in view of the experimental results. That's the scientific method, and that's what has happened with SUSY (kind of). You also claim the goal of new collider is to validate SUSY,…

The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics, that greater understanding that progresses mankind. What did the previous collider discover? It certainly validated current theories, but did it create anything new? If it did, why do we yet need a new one? If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experimen…

>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

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

#64

Post by erk__ »

rubidium wrote: post #30
crispyambulance wrote: post #11

I'm surprised it got through. $23B is a lot of money, and it will cost A LOT more when you start adding up the operational costs. In comparison, the space shuttle was $1.5B per launch "amortized" over 135 launches. One of the effects of the Space Shuttle is that it hogged the budget of NASA (around 30%). Really worthwhile exploration and other space science programs got less funding because the Shuttle program was so…

This is CERN. They approved a study into building one. They exist to study these things. Take away the toys and the institution has a hard time justifying itself. This is mostly self preservation. In my opinion we should give the Lhc a 25 year leash and then give the whole super-high energy colliders thing a rest. Put the funding into other research areas in physics; the reductionists have had their turn :)

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.

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

#65

Post by LatteLazy »

This article and the title (and subject) seems invite uninformed speculation. Some people who are pro-particle-research will point out that you never know what is there till you look. Others will point out CERN has not achieved much with the LHC yet and that this research is highly speculative.

I have 2 questions:

Can anyone make a good case why this is necessary? The only experiment listed is Higgs Dark matter work. But that seems speculative and also is already being done at ATLAS.

If this is not speculative, is it still a good use of money compared to spending the same cash on (say) genetics or AI or nano materials, all of which seem to be areas both in need of funding and with high potential for break throughs?

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

#66

Post by ghaff »

curiousgal wrote: post #57

> 62-mile It's 100 km. Even when the news is unrelated to the U.S. journalists cater to a retarded measurement system.

Do you actually think that is a helpful comment? Mainstream publications tend to use the units commonly used in the country where they're located and may, depending upon style, also provide conversions. However, for casual everyday use, there's no particular advantage to km over miles just because it's based on powers of 10.

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

#67

Post by nix23 »

paganel wrote: post #52
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…

> Made this comment below but spending billions on another collider in an attempt to essentially validate SUSY is irresponsible I am in the same boat as you, more precisely I was, especially after reading guys like Jacques Ellul who had written against this particular project since back in the '80s. But then I started thinking that keeping that many smart and motivated people busy working on stuff that will not be as…

You know "spending" is not the correct expression, that money flows directly back into the economy (and supports thousand other scientific fields, like material science, sensor technology and often goes to small highly specialized corporations). And if you compare the money that flows into the military with ZERO gain for the World...those 23B are a water drop on a hot stone.

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

#68

Post by mrfusion »

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…

That’s sad. I really thought space could open up some new physics.

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

#69

Post by nix23 »

paganel wrote: post #60
e4325f wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending tens of billions of dollars to keep scientists distracted so they might not potentially work on damaging projects is beyond absurd. For a start, I don't even think there's consensus that the Manhattan project wasn't beneficial as a whole, given the relative peace we've had since the second world war. What you said completely undermines a community that has undoubtedly advanced society more than any other.

> that has undoubtedly advanced society more than any other. From here [1] > Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm,[1] and his decision to disobey orders, against Soviet military protocol,[2] is credited with h…

Ahh..your talking about politic not science, that's something completely different.

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

#70

Post by cygx »

GordonS wrote: post #51

Is someone able to ELI5 what the previous LHC actually achieved? (not a loaded question, I genuinely don't know)

The big one was the discovery of the Higgs boson, a missing piece of the so-called 'standard model' of particle physics, plus a bunch of other stuff (lack of evidence for super-symmetry so far, discovery of some tetra- and pentaquarks states, potentially some hints of physics beyond the standard model from B-meson decays, ...).

In large part, it 'merely' confirmed our current theories, disappointing people hoping for revolutionary discoveries.

Post reply on HN