I'm pretty bullish on science investments, but I've heard multiple arguments that this thing is probably not worth the money. The most prevalent argument I've heard to the contrary is basically "we could discover something that might be interesting." But like very little in terms of concrete measurable returns on investment for it.
If they already knew the intended results it wouldn’t make sense to do it. Science of this kind is like “here’s something we haven’t tried yet”, which itself is pretty difficult to even come up with.
Also, money spend on something like this doesn’t just disappear. It goes around the suppliers doing it and returns to the state eventually. Of course someone will pocket some money but when talking billions it’s more of an investment in the area than a cost or even an investment in the actual collider. A used collider isn’t worth that amount of money , so where’d it go? It didn’t disappear. Money goes round.
It creates a lot of jobs and when looking at the entire supply chain, it feeds a hell of a lot of people, even if the scientific result is “oh well it didn’t do anything at all.” That way, it might be cheaper than supplying social security/basic income for that amount of people.
At the end of the day, in the grand economic scale, we’re all riding on the shoulders of whoever digs out the the resources from the Earth, so we need to make these kind of very important projects to make it appear as if everyone else is actually producing anything at all. The science is just a nice side effect.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any advance that didn’t at some point depend on people just dicking around to see what they could see.
“What happens if we spin this stick really really fast against this other stick?”
“Cool! What happens if we put some dried moss around it?”
“That’s nuts, man! Hey, I wonder what happens if we toss some of our leftovers in there?”
“C’mon over here, guys. You gotta taste this!”
At worst, a project like this keeps a lot of curious people in one place where we can make sure they don’t cause harm with their explorations. At best, whole new industries are founded. Never forget that modern electronics would never have existed without Einstein and Bohr arguing over the behaviour of subatomic particles.
Say the actual construction cost is $100 billion over 10 years and operational costs are $1 billion a year. Compared to all the stupid and useless stuff we already spend money on, that’s little more than pocket lint. We could extract that much from the spending of one military alliance and it would look like a rounding error. Hell, we could add one cent to the price of each litre of soft drinks, alcoholic beverages, and bottled water and have money left over.
Has the LHC resulted in any kind of tangible returns on investment so far? I know they proved the existence of the Higgs Boson, but all that did as I understand it was verify what we were already pretty sure of.
I'm just having a hard time understanding why we can't blow 30 or 100 billion or whatever on something else like fusion research. Or just something with a more concrete "if we pull this off it solves <gigantic international problem>" kinda prospect.
I understand science can walk and chew gum at the same time, but this in particular seems like a shitload to spend and a lot of land to disturb so that particle physicists can nerd out in an underground torus proving theories but maybe not moving the needle much for mankind.
The thing is, that you can’t predict, what fundamental science will lead to. In the case of the LHC the tangible returns are technologies, that can be adapted to other fields, like detectors. There are enough other arguments, why a bigger accelerator is a bad idea, where you do not need to trash fundamental research as a whole.
You have any links to info on these technologies? I've done some googling today and in the past and come up with little specifics on the LHC gave us X or helped lead to the development of X that is now being used for Y.
And I'm not saying we need to trash research. Just that research could be done on things that more directly answer some of the very real problems we have right now before this planet goes up in flames. Building another even bigger more expensive collider seems really indulgent from where I'm sitting.
And we can agree to disagree. I'm not big mad they're proposing this. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense based on the information I have available.
These things are really special interest. They developed small scale particle detectors, that are nowadays used in medical physics for example (PET scanners and so on). Then their electronics need to be very insensitive to radiation damage, that is also important for everything space related. There is probably some R&D on superconducting magnets as well, that can be adapted to other purposes, but I am not too up to date in this field and I am not sure, if Cern is a major player there.
I also think there are better places to put this kind of money, including on projects that we are certain have obvious potential to change the world for the better.
What I was getting at was the very idea that we absolutely have to know what the return is before we start. Just because we know the potential return doesn’t mean that it’s not research (as in your fusion example), but just because we can’t identify a return ahead of time doesn’t mean there won’t be one.
Also, I don’t know if there have been any tangible benefits from the LHC. Precision manufacturing? Improvements in large-scale, multi-jurisdiction project management? Data analytics techniques? More efficient superconducting magnets? I don’t know if those are actual side effects of the project and, if they are, I don’t know that the LHC was the only way to get them.
Edit: or, like the quantum physics underlying our electronics, maybe we won’t know for 50-100 years just how important that proof was.
Yeah, but you could also fund a lot of other research with this budget. The point is, physicists just don’t know, if there are more particles existing. There is no theoretical theory there predicting particles at a certain mass with certain decay channels. They won’t know what to look for. That’s actually already a problem for the LHC. They have this huge amount of data, but when you don’t know, what kind of exotic particles you are looking for and how they behave, you can’t post-process the data accordingly. They are hidden under a massive amounts of particles, that are known already.
Yes, with finite resources, we have to make choices. As long as there are some resources for people to just poke around, I’m good with whatever. If we’re actually looking for some place to drop a few billion, I actually don’t think another collider should be on the list, let alone at the top.
The problem as I see it is that “but what good is it” is used to limit pretty much all fundamental research.
So why don’t they just use post processing to remove all the known particles and start looking at the particles that remain, discover a new one, remove it, continue until there’s none left?
There are multiple reasons for that. We don’t know the decay channels of already discovered particles precisely. So there might be very rare processes, that contribute to already known particles. It is all a statistical process. While you can give statements on a large number of events, it is nearly impossible to do it for one event. Most of the particles are very short-lived and won’t be visible themselves in a detector (especially neutral particles). Some will not interact with anything at all (neutrinos). Then your detectors are not 100% efficient, so you can’t detect all the energy, that was released in the interaction or the decay of a particle. The calorimeters, that are designed to completely stop any hadrons (particles consisting of quarks) have a layer of a very dense material, to force interactions, followed by a detector material. All the energy lost in the dense material is lost for the analysis. In the end you still know, how much energy was not detected, because you know the initial energy, but everything else gets calculated by models, that are based on known physics. A neutral weakly interacting particle would just be attributed as a neutrino.
Guys, the trick is to get it partially built and then cancel funding. Then scientists will never trust you to fund anything ever again, and you get to act like science is a waste of money while you’re spending ridiculous sums on fighter jets.
That project put my dad out of business. Government gave him (part of) the contract, he did a bunch of work for years and then poof, project gone, not gonna pay you for it.
I would have loved for the SSSC to have been built as well. It probably wouldn’t have found the highs boson till 2010 or maybe as early as 2009. The computer technology of the 90s would have severely limited the things ability to be understood. CERN creates GB of data per second. I can’t imagine what that thing would have done, and then we need to be able to process that much so we can filter out the noise.
I was 12 when it was announced that they weren’t gonna finish buildt it, and even though I was just a kid in IN, something shattered for me that day. That was almost as bad as watching Challenger.
Having the corpse of the Supercollider Superconductor in my backyard growing up (not literally) makes me wonder what could have been if the US wasn’t so shortsighted.
With all the development around Waxahachie, Midlothian, and Ennis, There's a very good chance that many backyards are now built over the loop's proposed path.
The feds give the states more than $16b per year to build and run shitty, custom made IT systems for their Medicaid programs. It’s basically a subsidy to IT companies. There are thousands of examples like this, where spending money on fundamental science is clearly a better investment.
Yeah everything’s been kinda fucked ever since, hasn’t it… i mean… it was 2008 right before obama being elected and i really don’t think the “correct” path of the future would have involved r-money or mccain winning so at least SOME shit would be the same, but still…
LHC didn’t start seriously smashing shit (beyond previous energies done by other colliders) until after 2010 though. I think everything went tits up about 2012, tbh - the year they found the Higgs Boson. I kind-of jokingly subscribe to the idea that the world ended. I mean, it just checks so many boxes to me, it truly seems that the universe as it stands right now is fundamentally different than it should be after the passing of one single decade.
okay i can DEFINITELY agree with you about 2012, shit’s been super fucking weird since SPECIFICALLY that year.
the worst day of my life was December 22nd 2012 and I remember it very clearly because I couldn’t figure out WHY.
I just felt awful to a degree i have NEVER felt before or ever again since. Not even once. Not even a little.
It was a distinct watershed moment that divided my entire life into “before” and “after”.
I figured it was just some freak hormonal imbalance that walloped me out of nowhere but it’s weird that that was the only time and that it coincided with such a distinct … difference in how the world was between ‘before that’ and ‘after that’.
now, the higgs boson event was on a different date, certainly, but that day… i will never be able to forget it.
If it works like telescopes, the Very Large Hadron Collider, then the Extremely Large Hadron Collider, and then the Overwhelmingly Large Hadron Collider.
Ok… What are you even talking about? Most fusion solutions use the same second stage for power generation as many other power generation solutions. Heating water to spin a turbine. That is the same thing as all coal, natural gas, petroleum, and solar thermal. In a roundabout way you could even say hydro is just generating power from heated water if you abstract it to include the rain cycle that moved the water behind the dam. There is literally 0 “weakening” that is needed to generate power from fusion under the current predominant paradigms that are being researched. Tokomaks and inertial fusion both generate fusion and bleed the excess heat off to boil water. The only method with promise that does not use this method compresses colliding superheated plasma vortex rings in a strong magnetic field to induce fusion causing the plasma’s magnetic field to ramp up and push back against the containment field. The flux is captured directly into an electrical current that is shunted into a capacitor bank so it can be slowly discharged into the grid. This last method is the only one that has the potential to overload the grid if some sort of runaway event happens, though I don’t see how it would happen as every stage of it is reasonably confined by well-known physics.
Add comment