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

81–90 of 223 posts

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

#81

Post by orbifold »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39
orbifold wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is one project it also is an umbrella to fund a large number of smaller projects. Whole institutes were funded and build in part to develop detector components for the LHC. A project like this gives everyone a common goal and pushes technology development in sectors that are critical to Europe's high tech economy. It also has consequences for the IT sector in Europe. Before cloud companies had to deal with P…

> it also is an umbrella to fund a large number of smaller projects Then justify the spending on those merits. Spending for the sake of spending isn’t a great argument. Why is a new supercollider a better use of resources than, say, a new telescope? Or a suite of gravitational wave or neutrino detectors? A host of fusion research reactors? The opportunity cost of spending shouldn’t be ignored just because it isn’t en…

Because sometimes it is better to keep a large number of people occupied with one specific goal instead of trying to convince them to do something else. This ultimately boils down to people, most of them are very smart and capable and could do any number of other things, but basically want to work on fundamental particle physics. You couldn't easily convince them to build a telescope instead (a totally different set of people finds that fascinating) or any of the other things you listed. Besides there are (smaller) collaborations that work on all of these other things you mentioned as well.

Furthermore there is good motivation to keep nuclear / particle physics research as centrally organised as possible because the people working on it would be equally capable of producing nuclear weapons. For example a good number of the people working with CERN in France sit right across the Institute that developed their nuclear weapons.

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

#82

Post by jonquark »

sandworm101 wrote: post #73
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

(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.

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

#83

Post by travisporter »

sandworm101 wrote: post #73
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

(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.

As a counterpoint, black holes were also proven rather than discovered. We have to do these sort of validation experiements, or it's not science.

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

#84

Post by readarticle »

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.

For what it’s worth, the usage of “retarded” as an insult is rapidly becoming as antiquated as the ridiculous measurement system in question. Usually implies either immaturity, ignorance, or in grouping with a certain, very online crowd.

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

#85

Post by vikramkr »

orbifold wrote: post #81
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it also is an umbrella to fund a large number of smaller projects Then justify the spending on those merits. Spending for the sake of spending isn’t a great argument. Why is a new supercollider a better use of resources than, say, a new telescope? Or a suite of gravitational wave or neutrino detectors? A host of fusion research reactors? The opportunity cost of spending shouldn’t be ignored just because it isn’t en…

Because sometimes it is better to keep a large number of people occupied with one specific goal instead of trying to convince them to do something else. This ultimately boils down to people, most of them are very smart and capable and could do any number of other things, but basically want to work on fundamental particle physics. You couldn't easily convince them to build a telescope instead (a totally different set…

I dont think the idea is to keep these particle physicists occupied. I think the idea is to fund other underfunded areas of physics while the particle physicists keep playing with the LHC.

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

#86

Post by aronpye »

sgift wrote: post #55
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.

Since LHC isn't a vanity project your whole argument breaks down. Also, climate change is largely not a topic for science, but for politics. Politicians know what to do, they just don't want to. No amount of science can fix this.

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. spending money on something that adds no clear value is the definition of a vanity project.

P.P.S. My argument also doesn’t hinge on whether the LHC or its successor is a vanity project or not, I think we can all agree spending 20bn+ on lifting people out of poverty or combatting climate change is a much more worthy recipient of tax payer dollars.

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

#87

Post by nix23 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #73
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

(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.

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

#88

Post by tonyedgecombe »

Faaak wrote: post #74
blueblisters wrote: post #4

> It could be a hard sell, especially as the new collider wouldn’t have as clear a goal as the LHC did. However, particle physics and the Standard Model are at a place where the application of science is needed to validate theories. I mean I understand the need to keep pushing the boundaries of fundamental physics, but how long do you justify such spending on a single project? That same money could possibly be pumped…

Meanwhile, US's DOD budget in 2020 is 718 billion dollars.. So yeah..

The fact that a huge amount of money is wasted in one area doesn't justify wasting a smaller amount somewhere else.

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

#89

Post by peteradio »

f00zz wrote: post #17

Honest question, what are some engineering spin-offs that could come out of this? I'm asking because I'm reminded of a Peter Thiel interview where it's mentioned that, despite changing our view of the universe, no "real world" applications came out of the quark model discovered in the 1960s. This is different from a project like ITER, which is also hugely expensive but could be a game changer.

This is kind of a bullshit answer, but basic atom level understanding and experimentation leads to atomic bomb level outcomes. Now imagine you understand a few levels deeper. Do you think these types of engineering spin-offs are going to be widely known, or instead would they be kept very guarded?

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

#90

Post by Torok »

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.

I mean it's obviously all about funding the right projects isn't it? Going to an obviously hyperbolic extreme for the sake of the argument, say that the EU invested billions in determining if the moon is really made of cheese then that's obviously a waste of money even if it is a scientific investment.

There's a non negligible amount of people, even those who have worked at CERN previously, saying that it just doesn't make sense to put more investment into a new supercollider which might just show that there's an energy desert of particles in the regime it's testing.

You're also falling prey to the fallacy that HN acts as a single entity, in reality everyone here has different opinions and can't just be all lumped in one bucket saying HN thinks this or that. It's obviously going to seem contradictory if you view it as if it's a single person

Post reply on HN