SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
CERN Council endorses building larger supercollider:
The CERN Council has unanimously endorsed the idea of building a newer, larger circular supercollider, dubbed the Future Circular Collider (FCC). The group made the announcement on June 19. The move is the first step toward building a 100 TeV 100-kilometer circumference collider around Geneva. As part of the vote, the group approved the launch of a technical and financial feasibility study for the new collider.
[...] The approval by the CERN council was not an official go-ahead for the project—it was a go-ahead to look into its feasibility. The next step will involve figuring out where to dig the new tunnel and whether it will be possible to do so in the area near the LHC. If the feasibility study and financial estimates work out as hoped, the next step would be actual approval for the project to move forward. Once that happens, the funds for the project would have to be made available by participating countries in Europe and the U.K.—and this time, perhaps, from other countries such as the U.S., China or Japan. Also, research efforts would have to be developed and launched to design and build the hardware needed for the project.
More at CERN : https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider
At this point the only construction CERN has endorsed is for the creation of a powerpoint and maybe a spreadsheet.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2020, @05:11AM
I don't think you understood the text I linked to.
The point is that the standard model has already been confirmed by experiment, in its entirety. In order to confirm the standard model, theory was used to say what energy is needed for the accelerator required to observe each particle. Right now, that same theory says the 100 km accelerator will not see anything new.
The people who claim that there is something to see even with just the 100 km accelerator are using different premises for their predictions, premises that have nothing to do with empirical facts.
Sabine is saying that rather than wasting resources on the new accelerator, use those same finite resources for other experiments where sane approaches predict something will be seen.
For instance make better observations of the sky, to figure out the darkmatter/darkenergy problems, the cosmological constant inconsistencies, etc.
And no, you can't claim that there are enough resources to do both.
As a society I'd say we first need resources to tackle climate change and address the loss of biodiversity. Otherwise we will have serious consequences within a lifetime (famine then wars). We're already seeing massive immigration, it's only going to get worse.
Please take the time to think about these things carefully. Even if you are a particle physicist who's out of a job because the LHC is shutting down, you are not allowed to claim that scientific fact is decided by your aesthetical preference. if you do that, you are lying and misusing resources.