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

CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

home.cern

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#81

Post by SiempreViernes »

Jabbles wrote: post #72
gr_norm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have repeatedly heard from people who work in physics research that she's optimized her content for maximum rage/anger/emotional response rather than accuracy, particularly as of late. The tidbits of truth and warranted skepticism lend the rest of it undue credibility. Sadly, good science reporting doesn't get the advertising revenue that manufactured-scandal tabloid-style reporting does. I think her critical persp…

But one of her points is that many of the jobs of current physicists depend on the status quo. That seems almost tautological. She then alleges that that clouds their judgement on the best use of research funding. I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC. So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowin…

But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#82

Post by SiempreViernes »

sonofaragorn wrote: post #46
sigmar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view- she, like many, has been conditioned by social media to optimize for clicks by having contrarian and anti-establishment views. She's not positioned to have a particularly well-researched opinion on 95%+ of the topics she covers (which is understandable considering how many hundreds of videos she has made). I watched her for a bit, but stopped when I researched a topic deeper and found her analysis very super…

I'm not sure that is fair. I've been reading her blog for over a decade, and she has always taken a contrarian view.

I think it's fairly accurate, it's true that she was always contrarian, but back in the 2010's it was a more respectable type of questioning.

These days she's clearly rage baiting with titles, which is typical algorithm submission behaviour.

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#83

Post by dgellow »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #61
daseiner1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i’d imagine food shelter and dignified employment rank just a little higher. in terms of higher-order needs, meaningful connection and love are quite a bit more important to me.

> food shelter and dignified employment None of those are technological or even theoretical problems, tho. We (humanity as a whole) thoroughly understand all of them. Whatever your post meant with listing them is stemming from politics more than scientific understanding. I don't think there's a politician's head collider out there, but maybe we should build one.

Resource allocation is political

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#84

Post by atoav »

jmyeet wrote: post #33

So I'm normally a fan of science but I'm torn on this one because, as far as I can tell, there's no clear objective with this collider. It just seems to be bumping up collision energy (to ~100TeV) and hoping something interesting pops out. The LHC had a clear objective: to experimentally validate the Higgs boson, which it did. There have been a ton of experiments since but AFAIK all those have really done is invalida…

What you're actually saying is that there is no single and symbolic issue it is tackling, you know landing on the moon type stuff.

That however is not how modern particle physics operates. A particle accelerator of the scale of CERN runs many experiments at once as with higher energies more becomes measurable. The idea here isn't that we have a hypothesis of a small thing existing and therefore we build a giant microscope, the idea is that we know we do not have a complete understanding of what happens in thst domain, so we build a giant mkcroscope to look at it. I am pretty damn sure there is a line of theoretical physicists who already know what to try once a bigger accelerator is around. And we have other benefitial developments coming out of that.

The fact that you write this on the internet, a thing which was in no small part created by CERN should probably also tell us something.

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#86

Post by aziaziazi »

9dev wrote: post #79
magicalhippo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are those who wants to go larger, by building a submerged collider[1] in the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico which could do 500 TeV. Using established technology from offshore industry it's supposedly not as crazy nor costly as one might first imagine. There was a nice and fairly accessible talk[2] given at Perimeter Institute, which gave some background and went into this and the FCC. [1]: https://ar…

[flagged]

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what’s supposed to be in place of the "Gulf of Mexico".

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#87

Post by Jabbles »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #81
Jabbles wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But one of her points is that many of the jobs of current physicists depend on the status quo. That seems almost tautological. She then alleges that that clouds their judgement on the best use of research funding. I'm sure that if you asked a range of physicists if _their_ area of research should receive more funding instead of the FCC, you would see less support for the FCC. So we, as outsiders, are stuck not knowin…

But if you don't trust the budget priorities that the scientist themselves create, why would you trust Sabine's opinion on those priorities?

I don't know what Sabine would spend $40B on instead, but intuitively that seems like it could buy a lot of research in a lot of areas, rather than picking particle physics.

And it doesn't have to be physics, it could be cancer research, or not even research: each country involved could upgrade their sewage system instead.

But Sabine doesn't have to have all the answers to be right to point out that there's an enormous conflict of interest if you ask particle physicists whether they'd like $40B. Of course they'll say yes.

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#88

Post by magicalhippo »

9dev wrote: post #79
magicalhippo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are those who wants to go larger, by building a submerged collider[1] in the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico which could do 500 TeV. Using established technology from offshore industry it's supposedly not as crazy nor costly as one might first imagine. There was a nice and fairly accessible talk[2] given at Perimeter Institute, which gave some background and went into this and the FCC. [1]: https://ar…

[flagged]

> A deluded clown pretends otherwise

Was just trying to be funny, but point taken. Will refrain from that one going forwards.

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#89

Post by h4ny »

johnny22 wrote: post #55
gr_norm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have repeatedly heard from people who work in physics research that she's optimized her content for maximum rage/anger/emotional response rather than accuracy, particularly as of late. The tidbits of truth and warranted skepticism lend the rest of it undue credibility. Sadly, good science reporting doesn't get the advertising revenue that manufactured-scandal tabloid-style reporting does. I think her critical persp…

I just won't give my eyeballs to science content like that. I don't care if she has anything useful to say.

That's a fundamentally biased attitude though. It's not very different from saying: "oh, that guy's got tattoos, I'm not going to engage because he's probably a gangster."

Unless someone has proven to you that they are not trustworthy, you choosing not to listen is a... personal choice at best. So don't try to chalk it up like if it's not presented in a certain way that's to your taste it's not real science and/or it's fake news.

Re: CERN releases report on the feasibility of a possible Future Circular Collider

#90

Post by haswell »

h4ny wrote: post #89
johnny22 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just won't give my eyeballs to science content like that. I don't care if she has anything useful to say.

That's a fundamentally biased attitude though. It's not very different from saying: "oh, that guy's got tattoos, I'm not going to engage because he's probably a gangster." Unless someone has proven to you that they are not trustworthy, you choosing not to listen is a... personal choice at best. So don't try to chalk it up like if it's not presented in a certain way that's to your taste it's not real science and/or it…

I disagree with this analogy. Fearing all tattoos is mostly built on prejudice. If you knew the tattoos were gang tattoos, there might be reason for caution.

Choosing to engage with the attention economy and optimizing for engagement/rage as Sabine does undermines the validity of what she says because the incentive structures in the media environment she’s chosen to embrace.

I think it’s more like Sabine joined a gang, and while it’s possible that she has useful things to say, it’s also difficult to know where her allegiances lie, and which things she says are to keep the gang leaders happy.

Audience capture is real, and she’s been on that path for awhile now I think.

Post reply on HN