Live data from Hacker News

Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider

bigthink.com

91–100 of 467 posts

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

#91
post #8
post #5

> What it could discover is entirely speculative. Thats the point of discovery and arguably a point in favour of doing this

For the cost though, you should probably fund a lot of other science. Climate change mitigation perhaps?

Elon Musk was willing to put up upwards of $40bn to buy out Twitter. If a private individual can leverage that kind of money, $100bn seems like peanuts for an international scientific endeavour.

Heck, Germany just greenlit a €100bn special budget for expanding its military capabilities.

It's not that world governments don't have that kind of money to spend on the Climate crisis, it's that they aren't interested and motivated to do it. Germany's special budget was justified with Russia being an existential threat but the Climate crisis has been recognized as an existential threat for decades, yet almost all countries have been dragging their feet.

NATO recommends member nations put 2% of their annual budget into defense. Imagine its members (let alone most countries) would have done the same for combatting Climate change.

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

#92
As a former experimental particle physicist, I don't think string theory or supersymmetry is going to be a description of nature. I say that despite spending a couple of years searching for SUSY. But I still think the cost of building a LHC++ (that is, the FCC or the SPPC) is justified. The current theoretical "dead end" or maybe swamp fundamental physics is in is precisely due to a lack of data.

Of course, there are a lot of smaller experiments that one could do, also in particle physics, that have great value. One example was the Muon g-2 measurement, another is anything neutrino physics. We can get a lot of interesting input and test our theories without going to the "energy frontier". Physicists understand this very well. But there are a bunch of questions that you can only really answer if you go to those higer energies.

As for the costs, 100 billion is a lot, but not when you compare it to other large infrastructure projects, or especially military spending (and note the Chinese proposal SPPC would be a lot cheaper!). I think if we could shave off 100 billion of military expenses and put it into basic research, it would be a great win for society. That's not realistic you say, with all the threats out there? Great, I agree, but now we have a nice project! Lets put as a common goal that we want to be able to do this kind of research, and then improve our societies nationally and globally so that we can reduce our military spending and do this kind of research.

100 billion ($/€) is the amount that Germany is spending as a special budget in response to Russia's aggression, in order to become the nation with the 3rd highest military spending on the planet. If it weren't for the war in Ukraine, we could put it all into such a project.

If we had averted COVID in it's early stages - like we did with SARS-1 and MERS - imagine all the resources we could have put into research instead.

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

#93
post #64
post #3

Ah... the yearly bigthink article that we should stop funding other experiments and put everything into fusion.

That is the exact opposite of what the article argues. It says to stop putting everything (or rather, a ridiculous amount of money) into high energy particle physics and start funding other experiments.

Right, the article doesn't argue for fusion funding.

But elsewhere the author has advocated it with "fusion power is a goal worth spending billions on". And in his "Why Particle Colliders Will Go Extinct" article, he supports the billions spent on fusion.

The author's other writings include:

- Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate

- Fleeing Paris Accords Makes Scientific Sense

- NSF Should Stop Funding Social 'Science'

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

#94
post #39

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…

This video is relevant here https://youtu.be/9qqEU1Q-gYE

Thanks for awesome channel!

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

#95
post #88

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…

Aren't Hossenfelder and Smolin basically paying their bills by being contrarians though?

Well, the same way that String Theorists are paying their bills from the taxpayers, mostly by pushing that theory as Physics.

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

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except that you don't know what the secondary benefits are until you find them so you should keep every avenue open A short story about the discovery of microscopes from https://lettersofnote.com/2012/08/06/why-explore-space/ Had the rich noble simply invested his money in doctors instead of the person with a hobby of playing with glass, they might have instead discovered more uses for leeches

This is always a factor of amazement (pun intended) for me.

To quote the writer of the line uttered by the equanimous Jeff GoldBloom.

https://i.imgur.com/XpKoQIf.gif

Seriously, this is where 'black budgets' are a thing.

There is serious money pumped into the MIC and the secondary effects are far more than tertiary at this point. Dark breakaway.

How much is a dollar worth in space. Asking for a Musk of mine.

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

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good point with secondary benefits being equal.

WiFi > a secondary benefit was developed from speculative theoretical research in radio-astronomy : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WiFi

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. More realistically : we can only build one car in the entire world, where a tiny minority of people can even understand the potential benefit, and anything they see will be completely useless for everyone else in day to day life because we need a civilisation level effort to even detect the implications of their theory. If their theory had some real world implications - you would…

Europe is so rich it can easily afford all of the great project ideas outlined in the article in addition to a new LHC (and then some). Let's think big indeed, the author unfortunately has a very reductive vision for the future. Instead how about: A renaissance of funding - BIG SCIENCE - education, jobs. That was basically the promise of the EU - peace through wealth - let's create some more. Let's bring back the exc…

I thought I was an optimistic but you dwarfed me on this to the point of skepticism.

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

#99

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.

Military research has enormous positive primary effect as it's one of the main ways to prevent wars. Nuclear weapons already prevented Cold war from going hot, saving tens of millions.

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

#100
post #8
post #5

> What it could discover is entirely speculative. Thats the point of discovery and arguably a point in favour of doing this

For the cost though, you should probably fund a lot of other science. Climate change mitigation perhaps?

Doesn’t need to be either or. Money printers seem to work just fine
Post reply on HN