4 ms·

The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going

The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. There was at one point truly a fight about the relative importance of the various fields, but the condensed matter people won that. Just look at lightsources.org again, that's 30 facilities worldwide, with 24000 users in Europe alone over the last five years. CERN has basically 1 facility for HEP, with maybe 9000 users worldwide. At this point these call for shutting down particle physics for a few generations while the technology magically develops feel more like jealousy that protein structure isn't as sexy for the public as the search for beyond the standard model physics.

xyzzyz 7y ago
> that protein structure isn't as sexy for the public as the search for beyond the standard model physics. You mean, looking for a cure for cancer isn’t as sexy for the public as some arcane things with strange particles nobody understands?
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Doesn't seem like it, cure for a certain type of cancer is a pretty clear utilitarian goal after all: you either do it or you don't type of thing. Also, lab coats are pretty famously not very flattering for your figure.
godelski 7y ago
Considering that x-ray lithography still isn't a thing, I'd say that we have a lot more to do with x-ray research. Also, according to CERN[0] >As of 2017, more than 17 500 people from around the world work together to push the limits of knowledge. CERN’s staff members, numbering around 2500...comprising over 12 200 scientists of 110 nationalities, from institutes in more than 70 countries. [0] https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-people https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-people
nurbl 7y ago
X-ray lightsources are improving too, not just multiplying. They are an important tool for many areas of science, not just physics but chemistry, biology and pharmaceutics to name a few. Whether there's any "new physics" left to discover there I guess depends on your point of view, but there's still plenty to learn about how matter works.
djaque 7y ago
> The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. And that's based on what? The number of lightsources in the world? There's dozens of research groups studying quantum computing. I guess they should just pack up and move on to less developed fields. In reality, there are huge open problems with synchrotron light sources that people are spending their careers on (and I don't think they're jealous of HEP). What I'm more interested in, however, are university scale sources of xrays and matter for atomic scale physics. Even though there are a few dozen facilities around the world, all of them are oversubscribed. Many times if you apply for time on a synchrotron you'll be denied because there just isn't space for you. Even companies that pay for time (and yes these machines don't just impact local job counts) don't always get a slot. It would be transformative to take some of these techniques (and more advanced ones) to a wider audience.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  That's based on you calling for HEP to be defunded in favour of X-ray sources, pretty heavily implying that CERN somehow blocks the x-ray field. I'm just pointing out they it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, three dozen international facilities with commercial customers doesn't sound like particularly lean times. If mere over-subscription is to be given such weight, then I call for x-ray sources to be fully commercialized and the public money going to build medium energy gamma ray satellites! We ain't got even one of those flying at the moment so we basically don't know what happens in the sky at those energies. Hows that for reasonable? In reality the HEP people mostly actively chose that field in competition with atomic and molecular physics et al, and if you kill HEP for generation most of the new students will keep choosing something else.

xyzzyz 7y ago

> that protein structure isn't as sexy for the public as the search for beyond the standard model physics. You mean, looking for a cure for cancer isn’t as sexy for the public as some arcane things with strange particles nobody understands?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Doesn't seem like it, cure for a certain type of cancer is a pretty clear utilitarian goal after all: you either do it or you don't type of thing. Also, lab coats are pretty famously not very flattering for your figure.

godelski 7y ago

Considering that x-ray lithography still isn't a thing, I'd say that we have a lot more to do with x-ray research. Also, according to CERN[0] >As of 2017, more than 17 500 people from around the world work together to push the limits of knowledge. CERN’s staff members, numbering around 2500...comprising over 12 200 scientists of 110 nationalities, from institutes in more than 70 countries. [0] https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-people https://home.cern/about/who-we-are/our-people

nurbl 7y ago

X-ray lightsources are improving too, not just multiplying. They are an important tool for many areas of science, not just physics but chemistry, biology and pharmaceutics to name a few. Whether there's any "new physics" left to discover there I guess depends on your point of view, but there's still plenty to learn about how matter works.

djaque 7y ago

> The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. And that's based on what? The number of lightsources in the world? There's dozens of research groups studying quantum computing. I guess they should just pack up and move on to less developed fields. In reality, there are huge open problems with synchrotron light sources that people are spending their careers on (and I don't think they're jealous of HEP). What I'm more interested in, however, are university scale sources of xrays and matter for atomic scale physics. Even though there are a few dozen facilities around the world, all of them are oversubscribed. Many times if you apply for time on a synchrotron you'll be denied because there just isn't space for you. Even companies that pay for time (and yes these machines don't just impact local job counts) don't always get a slot. It would be transformative to take some of these techniques (and more advanced ones) to a wider audience.

SiempreViernes 7y ago
That's based on you calling for HEP to be defunded in favour of X-ray sources, pretty heavily implying that CERN somehow blocks the x-ray field. I'm just pointing out they it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, three dozen international facilities with commercial customers doesn't sound like particularly lean times. If mere over-subscription is to be given such weight, then I call for x-ray sources to be fully commercialized and the public money going to build medium energy gamma ray satellites! We ain't got even one of those flying at the moment so we basically don't know what happens in the sky at those energies. Hows that for reasonable? In reality the HEP people mostly actively chose that field in competition with atomic and molecular physics et al, and if you kill HEP for generation most of the new students will keep choosing something else.