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

Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

bigthink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 467 posts

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#71

Post by popinman322 »

black_puppydog wrote: post #27
popinman322 wrote: post #24

The LHC's development produced a number of new technologies (e.g. radiation resistant microcontrollers, and gas electron multipliers). Could the next generation produce more, valuable tech? I also don't have the expertise to tell whether the article is being overly reductive with the project's goals: are there other questions (besides new particles) that can only be answered with a larger collider? The summary of the…

I see the same argument (secondary innovations) being made for war-time/military research. But I don't buy it there, and I don't buy it here. Investing the same money in something that has a known and positive primary effect will produce the same amount of secondary benefits. So if you can think of something more fruitful to do with these 100B, do that; the secondary benefits will keep coming anyhow.

I agree that the opportunity cost of dropping 100B on this is very high, but what if the new data enables tech that can't otherwise be achieved?

We could definitely postpone this work and invest in more impactful work in the present. It might be worth reconsidering this once we've worked through climate change, energy consumption, and the drinking water crises we're facing.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#72

Post by [deleted] »

Ekaros wrote: post #22
rvieira wrote: post #9

Driven by this post, out of curiosity I started looking at the price tag of some mega-projects around the world. Interestingly, the most expensive ones are almost always highway systems. Can someone briefly explain why? I'm my naive view it's mostly asphalt and terrain work.

These projects are also big in length and width. So just volume and area is considerable compared to buildings.

[deleted]

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#73

Post by japanuspus »

As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad).

The short history of physics in TFA is spot on: Einstein and the quantum pioneers added abstractions to build physical theories with prediction power, whereas current high-energy physics theory seems to be mostly a mathematical exercise. This has been confirmed by numerous insiders, including by Hossenfelder as mentioned in the article, and Lee Smolin ("The trouble with physics") who is also a theoretical physicist.

Things have changed a lot since accelerators became a must-have for high-energy physics: Today we have detectors and computing power that let us observe the natural experiment of the universe with a precision and diligence that would be impossible when LHC was commissioned. I find it much more likely that we would learn new physics by giving 10-year grants to 1000 young physicist of revolutionary spirit, and let them use the tools they could build themselves, than by handing that money to the old guard which has produced nothing of significance for the last two generations.

[1]: The industrial subsidy angle is not touched upon in TFA, but it is clear that there is a large number of people and companies making a good living from mega-physics, and talking to colleagues in the field, I get the distinct impression that it is not always they physicist walking in the front when asking for more machines.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#74

Post by FairlyInvolved »

rvieira wrote: post #9

Driven by this post, out of curiosity I started looking at the price tag of some mega-projects around the world. Interestingly, the most expensive ones are almost always highway systems. Can someone briefly explain why? I'm my naive view it's mostly asphalt and terrain work.

Several people have answered this from the angle of why the cost is large, but missed the other (necessary) angle - the benefits are also massive and well understood. Plenty of potential projects have huge costs but they don't exist because the benefits aren't big enough, highways exhibit a sort of survivor bias in the mega project world.

Highway systems create massive economic benefits that are relatively simple to calculate, just in the raw # hours saved which massively increases productivity. This can be well captured by the state through taxes or (less frequently) by private industry through tolls - i.e. the people that direct their construction.

Other mega projects have much less certain benefits, or the benefits are harder to capture by those with the ability to allocate resources because incentives aren't sufficiently aligned.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#75

Post by redleader55 »

dmpk2k wrote: post #47

I have started calculating things in LHCs. The LHC is a massive machine with advanced technologies, took a decade to design and build, involving 10k scientists and the international community, and cost $9B. - Squadron of F-35 aircraft: ~0.2 LHCs - JWT: 1.1 LHCs - ITER: >2 LHCs - Elon Musk's wealth: 24 LHCs - Microsoft's market cap: 30 LHCs - US annual military budget: 90 LHCs - US national debt: 3389 LHCs Given the b…

As someone born in a country near Russia, 5 squadrons of F-35 change my life in a more significant way that 1 LHC.

Nit: MSFT market cap is ~210 LHC.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#76

Post by VaxWithSex »

ivanb wrote: post #7

Yeah, no. Only LHC can generate particle events in a highly controllable environment with enough energy. In physics there are energy thresholds. Below a certain level of energy a certain event just never happens. The low hanging fruit of discovering new physics looks like this. Build a bigger machine to collide particles with even more energy. Observe what comes out. It's a clear direction. Just throw money at the pr…

But we have thrown money at the problem and for years haven't gotten a result. After the Higgs: Silence... nothing new.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#78

Post by waqf »

throw457 wrote: post #50
sliken wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion does remind me of the space program. Surprising new solutions in a wide range of sciences. Easy to produce superconducting ribbons being one of the big successes so far. Said ribbons have lead to significant improvements in electro magnets, improving both field strength and decreasing the magnet sizes. Said magnets are useful for a wide variety of applications (outside of fusion), like improved MRI machines. T…

If we solve physics we solve everything if we solve fusion we have solved fusion.

If we solve fusion, surely we have a lot of cheap energy (and attendant economic output) to throw at solving physics?

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#79

Post by konschubert »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #6

I wouldn't mind them building it if they just used their own money. Spinoff cern companies have earned a $trillion or more revenue and probably a hundred billions profit from things like medical imaging gear. They could well afford to fund themselves and a new collider without begging the public for money. Cern really should be investigated and audited publicly, but it would take Delloites and PWC to follow that pape…

I don't think that's true. CERN itself didn't create many (any?) successful companies. People who worked at CERN went on to create companies, but that doesn't create any money for CERN.

Happy to be corrected.

Re: Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

#80

Post by samstave »

japanuspus wrote: post #73

As a low-energy quantum physicist, I completely agree: Experimental high-energy physics has become primarily an industrial subsidy scheme[1], and if we want the highest chance of reaching a grand unified theory, it seems the money would be much better spent elsewhere (cosmology, space-based observatories, research positions for young physicists without publish-or-perish incentives to run for the latest fad). The shor…

>As a low-energy quantum physicist...

===

Thats just how I read your comment to begin with.

In Steven Wrights voice.

"People ask me what I'm into... Low energy quantum physics... its basically everything"

Post reply on HN