SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Next-generation LHC: CERN lays out plans for €21-billion super-collider
CERN has unveiled its bold dream to build a new accelerator nearly four times as long as its 27-kilometer Large Hadron Collider—currently the world's largest—and up to six times more powerful.
The European particle physics laboratory, outside Geneva, Switzerland, outlined the plan in a technical report on 15 January.
The document offers several preliminary designs for a Future Circular Collider (FCC)—which would be the most powerful particle-smasher ever built—with different types of colliders ranging in cost from around €9 billion (US$10.2 billion) to €21 billion. It is the lab's opening bid in a priority-setting process over the next two years, called the European Strategy Update for Particle Physics, and it will affect the field's future well into the second half of the century.
[...] Not everyone is convinced the super collider is a good investment. "There is no reason to think that there should be new physics in the energy regime that such a collider would reach," says Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physics at Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. "That's the nightmare that everyone has on their mind but doesn't want to speak about."
Hossenfelder says that the large sums involved might be better spent on other types of huge facilities. For example, she says that placing a major radio telescope on the far side of the Moon, or a gravitational-wave detector in orbit, would be safer bets in terms of their return on science.
CERN press release and poster.
Also at The Verge.
(Score: 3, Informative) by melikamp on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:57AM (36 children)
Sabine's blog is the most addictive read of the year, for sure, but I agree with the why-not sentiment, because high-energy collisions produced completely unexpected results before (the infamous particle zoo which led to the discovery of quarks) and may yet produce completely unexpected results in the future as well. At the same time, it's hard for me now to get particularly excited about susy, so putting this on a slow burner sounds like a way to go. And isn't Europe overdue for a major war, anyway? Just kid, just kid :D
Seriously though, my literal money is on a telescope type thingy as well, because let's face it, we keep getting amazing insights about particle physics from astronomical observations like no tomorrow: spectroscopy and helium come to mind, as well as the afterglow of the big bang, and even beyond all that, there's helluva more to see just beyond the reach of Hubble/VLT, on the edges of the observable universe as well as exoplanets and stuff like that, which is virtually guaranteed to be a spectacular return on the investment. I mean, we KNOW there are stars and planets there, this one will not come back empty :) With a collider 6 times as powerful, otoh, there's this dreadful chance of "tightening the bounds" being the only outcome, which is ultimately not wasteful, but perhaps extravagant for the price.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:04AM (25 children)
Yes, but if we end by creating more dark matter in a controlled manner, we may slow the speed of Universe expansion!
Now, that is long term thinking!
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:51AM (24 children)
OK, you are probably going to think I am going nuts, and you are probably right, but what you are saying makes too much sense to me. I've been reading this blog so much the last week or so, that I have to stop myself almost daily from writing to Sabine (out of the cold) about how much sense this shit makes and what I think about it. And my latest Bordeaux-inspired idea is that there is this kind of fucked up reflection of the universe into itself on a distant (perhaps Planck) scale, where what we see as the large-scale structure stabilizes somehow and becomes the quantum foam of the universe we seem to observe with telescopes. And these cosmic filaments of galaxies and clusters literally vibrate due to the interplay of positive and negative gravity (even Susskind says dark energy gravitates, so even he believes in negative gravity without quite saying so), sending out waves and whatnot, and these waves and related events are perceived by us, on our level, as the particle physics.
The reflection goes kind of like this: the 100 million light years or so, the end-of-greatness scale, where a stable foamy structure seems to emerge, let's say that's somewhere in the neighborhood of the Planck scale, and so the large-scale structure we currently observe is like 150 Planck times since the big bang. If inflation has happened, then the universe expanded by a factor of about 10^26, which corresponds to the large scale structure homogenizing and creating a foam with bubbles roughly 1mm across. This sounds pretty unreasonable until you realize that we are in fact still expanding, and accelerating, and the inflation (the foaming) hasn't even began, and so by the time the foam finally emerges, the radius of a cell could strecth out to astronomical length. To boot, we don't know absolutely anything about dark energy, so it's quite plausible that the whole shebang starts contracting again at some point, and things get real foamy, which brings me to my final point:
If you are still reading this (can't really blame you if you are not), here's the reason I found your post so resonating: the universe, as we know, is expanding, and the large-scale structure is being blown apart, so there's a problem right there. How can the quantum foam form? Well, what if the currently stable structures, the galaxy clusters, start doing something really weird due to the presence of carbon-based life? What if clusters actually start redistributing the matter in the universe by flinging galaxies into the voids or whatnot, and that in turn slows down the expansion and brings the large-scale structure to a stable state? With this kind of reflection, it becomes at least plausible that the chemical life, which at this point seems to be likely spread evenly across the observable universe, at some point gets to determine (as in: design) what the laws of physics are.
Now put THIS in your pipe and smoke it.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:07AM (16 children)
You know, that sounds exactly like what I was thinking when I came up with the Heliocentric model of the solar system. Only, it turns out, I was right. I wish you equal success with your theorizing. Of course, you could just be crazy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:12AM (15 children)
Science doesnt care if you are crazy? However you do need to get a testable prediction out of the theory... Preferably something quantitative and precise.
P.S. the geocentric and heliocentric models of the solar system are equivalent. They are both correct, just using different reference frames. Humans generally prefer the aesthetics of the heliocentric model though and find it easier to work with.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:38AM (14 children)
Using different reference frames, one of which is just wrong, unless for religious reasons. And you have the hubris to question aristarchus? I gave the quantitative predictions, and given what I was working with, they were pretty spot on. So what perverse aesthetics do you prefer to work with, oh dark and non-enlightened AC? Please, go on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:46AM (13 children)
So you are are a relativity denier?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:45AM (12 children)
You who are so wise in the ways of science should not pose such a stupid question. There are some who seek to maintain the geocentric model by citing Einstein, and claiming that the center of the universe is arbitrary, so we could justifiably just pick earth as the center. [discovermagazine.com] [Plus, this would verify scripture, which seems silly and stupid otherwise.] But, there are Einsteinian problems with this.
For example, if the earth is the center of the universe, and discounting daily motion, which there really is no reason to do, we have to admit that galaxies, some which are at distances of 13 Billion light-years distant, orbit the earth once a year. I would leave the math to such a wise and opulent AC such as yourself, but what would you calculate the velocity of NGC 3034 [wikipedia.org]? And you are certainly aware that Einstein's constant, the C in the E=MC2, is the speed of light. So how is it that the Cigar Galaxy can cover. . . . Yes, Geo-centrism is absurd, silly. Quite close to the Electric Universe or Flat-earthers. So, no, I am not a relativity denier, and neither should you be.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:56AM (3 children)
Omg teh flat-earthers, with so many of them around, could it be that this theory is something more than stupidity? (I dare you, gentlereader, to find just one fucking piece of Earth that is actually geometrically flat, before you even begin to generalize.) It just seems like every developed country has a sizeable fraction of flat-earthers: USA, Australia, Japan... If a theory is espoused all around the globe, may be, just may be, it's worth some more investigation?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:14AM (1 child)
Ok, let's look: "is... all around the globe". More investigation finished: the Earth is a globe and round.
Next!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:58AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:58PM
the (cut) plane thru the LHC ring is completely (geometrically) flat, or so said the laser obeying the "straight" definition of space-time with gravity, used to build that ring-tunnel thingy ...?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:03AM (7 children)
If two trains are traveling towards each other at near the speed of light isnt their relative velocity ~2c?
The answer is no, and for the same reason your far away galaxies moving really fast relative to earth is not an issue.
Also, the only one bringing up religion is you. You think Ptolemy cared about christianity? I can care less about it other than it seems to somewhat defend against a majority of people treating their political party or government like the ultimate authority on everything.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:40AM (6 children)
What is that reason? There is no 2x the speed of light? Therefore: . . . what?
Oh, come now! But not in my mouth. Religion is what all these wacko theories are about. Why, for instance, would it be important, or even relevant, to make an argument for the Earth being the center of the Universe, unless you perhaps believed that the purpose of the creation of the Universe was to create this one insignificant planet, and grow some sort of self-conscious slime [They're Made out of Meat" [youtube.com]] that could conceive of itself as the sole purpose of a vast and expanding universe.
So again, it is the irrational forces that try to deny science, deny things like global warming and the insanity of Donald J. Trump. And history proves them wrong, as you will be proven wrong. Galaxies cannot exceed the speed of light, nor can the light from the galaxies exceed the speed of light. You need to reconsider your entire position, and perhaps update your life insurance. Or perhaps you are like the Orphelai? Or the Wedilai, only part meat? No brain, eh? Oh, there's a brain alright, but it's made of meat.
"I advise that we erase the records"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:54AM (5 children)
For some reason, I assumed you were familiar with the basic concepts behind modern physics: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/if-two-trains-traveling-at-0-5c-collide-head-on.486045/ [physicsforums.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:11AM (4 children)
Not me, the geocentrists. And "two-trains" is more "trolley-car" science. Can you say something about dark matter, instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:28AM (3 children)
He can't. His brain is all white matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:42PM (2 children)
Im not a "he".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)
OK.
You make Jordan Peterson cry!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @07:58PM
I'm not a "their" either. Just stop.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:17AM (6 children)
Or... we could be in a computer simulation, with limited resources, so that as our capacity to observe increases, the simulation must lower the 'volume' that we can observe to still offer us a consistent continuous view of the 'real world'. Every space telescope that we put in orbit will just increase the speed of 'Universe expansion' so that we'll observe less and less in increased details.
(grin)
Of course, we still continue to think the 'universal constants' are universal. We don't have any experimental proof the 'maximum speed of interaction' is the same nearby the Solar system and closer to the galactic core. In fact, as we sit tight around a puny star, can we distinguish between an 'expanding universe' scenario and the one of 'diminished speed of light/gravity towards the margins of the Universe'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:37AM (5 children)
How could you add "free will" to a computer simulation though? Even for the most basic program? Seems like that idea needs to go then.
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Wednesday January 16 2019, @11:08AM (3 children)
Similar with thermal noise in electronic components. The higher the agitation the more probable random bit flips, until... you know... even Trump can get elected. (grin)
Besides, what makes you believe you have free will now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday January 16 2019, @01:54PM
He's programmed to believe it. He doesn't have a choice in the matter.
On the other hand, I choose to believe free will is an illusion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @03:57PM (1 child)
Random/unpredictable-ness isn't the same thing as free will.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @03:00AM
You do need a way to incorporate that into your decision making process.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @02:59AM
Import the right libraries, duh.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:08AM (6 children)
As far as Im concerned the theories are bunk at this point. None are predicting anything, but if theres a slight signal hundreds of different explanations are apparently plausible: https://phys.org/news/2016-07-physicist-theory-mysterious-large-hadron.html. [phys.org] That tells me the standard model is too flexible regarding this type of data.
Thats why I just say collect the data in as objective a way as possible. Its exploratory, not for teting theories.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:13AM (5 children)
Thank you for you authoritative and respected opinion, fellow AC! Of course you realize, as a fellow AC, that some among us disagree. In fact, a majority of AC's have agreed that these theories are, in fact, not bunk. So you are wrong, fellow AC, and you can just go suck it. Like a virgin. YOU are too flexible, not that that is a bad thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @06:48AM (4 children)
Yet another person who thinks science runs on argument from consensus... its so sad. A pillar of western civilization is dissolving before our eyes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:46AM (3 children)
And another right-wing nut-job who thinks his dissension from the accepted state of scientific theory amounts to jack-shit. Pro-tip: It does not. This is the Lonely Johnson inverse scientific method, where you can just cut off his johnson, and that proves that global warming is not real, or at least not anthropogenic, or not man-caused, or our fault, because he does not understand any of those words, but wants to keep his johnson.
You know, that rug really tied the room together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:57AM (2 children)
Never said dissention means jack shit... thats your strawman (oddly typical of someone who thinks consensus is important to science...)
Only thing that matters is accurate and useful predictions, the more surprising the better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:13AM (1 child)
So here is the nice dissenting prediction:
Comment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @09:24AM
Thats not a prediction. The theories have stopped making useful and accurate predictions, and whenever they fail an excuse is made. Its a classic degenerating research programme.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @10:00AM (1 child)
Isn't US overdue for a civil war?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @08:38PM
Do not worry. The Queen of Heaven is on the move, in the USA, in Mexico, in Canada, in the Congo, in France, in Sri Lanka, in China, in Germany, her torch held high.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 17 2019, @12:22PM
The "why not?" here is opportunity cost. Even if you think there's nothing better that a society could be doing than science, $21 billion (which really is somewhere around $40 billion due to bullshitting in the budget numbers) buys a lot of science when it's not spent on a particle accelerator. It indicates that priorities are screwed up.