7 ms·

The LHC has not been a failure. First you complain about the lack of experimentation, then you complain when they perform experiments. It is normal in science

by yiyus 6y ago

The LHC has not been a failure. First you complain about the lack of experimentation, then you complain when they perform experiments. It is normal in science to formulate a theory, design an experiment, and then having to discard the theory in view of the experimental results. That's the scientific method, and that's what has happened with SUSY (kind of). You also claim the goal of new collider is to validate SUSY, but they say is to study the Higgs boson, the one that was discovered using the LHC. It is also normal that scientists worry about their niche and try to find funding for research in that niche. Else, the only research we would do would be cancer treatments, but that would not be effective in the long run. Huge amounts of money like this one always call people attention, but it is not so much. If you compare the cost of the LHC with the amount spent in defense by the countries involved during the same period, these are peanuts. You will find all kind of reasons to spend this money somewhere else, and some of them may be valid, but fundamental research is still necessary.

sandworm101 6y ago
The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics, that greater understanding that progresses mankind. What did the previous collider discover? It certainly validated current theories, but did it create anything new? If it did, why do we yet need a new one? If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different?
- ben_w 6y ago
  1. Science is a low-odds, high-reward process; any given piece of work probably does nothing, but the overall impact is literally everything that happened since the agrarian era 2. Even successful research leads to papers with impenetrable names like “An MgB-Superconducting Shield Prototype for the Future Circular Collider Septum Magnet”, whose value I am not even qualified to comprehend unless someone explained it to me with a YouTube video 3. Because I don’t understand it and I can observe the value of it without understanding it, I’ll trust the physicists doing the experiments when they tell me they want a bigger and more expensive tool for their future experiments
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    Supercolliders are low-odds science. Other instruments are pretty much certain to generate new science. A hubble replacement would not be low-odds given that hubble itself is still making discoveries. A 23 billion-dollar push for new antibiotics would not be low-odds either. Dollars should be spent where they are most likely to generate the most science. That isn't new supercolliders.
    - rowanG077 6y ago
      Dollars shouldn't be spend where they are most likely to generate most new science. That is a quick way to find yourself in a dead-end. Imagine we would have ONLY invested in supercolliders after high-energy physics was very fruitful. Many other fields would have been completely starved and we would now be in the (possibly) super collider dead-end while other physics is woefully behind.
      - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
        I wonder what happens if we push 30 billion into pure non-physics math.
      - HPsquared 6y ago
        There's this thing called the 'white elephant' though. History tends to downplay such things.
      - drdeca 6y ago
        Why not evaluate (estimate) the expected value of sample information of the different experiments, and compare the costs of the different experiments to the EVSIs? Is it too difficult to estimate the EVSI ?
        rowanG077 6y ago
        Any metric you can imagine is nothing more then a guess. That's why it's research. The researchers guess and tests. Some guesses can be observably better but that's not quantifiable. At least that's what I think.
- nix23 6y ago
  >What did the previous collider discover? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? Why do we think building a bigger telescope then Hubble will be any different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    (1) higgs was confirmed, proven rather than discovered. It wasnt new physics. (2) Hubble is dieing. It will not last forever but still makes new discoveries, new science, regularly. A replacement is needed. And the JWST is a totally different device, not just bigger. We probably need both the JWST and a new Hubble.
    - jonquark 6y ago
      The Higgs was discovered at the LHC. Before that there had been theories with no experimental evidence.
      - dumbfoundded 6y ago
        The point is more that we can do experiments where we expect to observe interesting things or experiments to validate existing theories. If you have an experiment to validate an existing theory, it doesn't really make sense to repeat the experiment on a much large scale unless you anticipate actually being part of the first category (new observation, no theory). The problem with colliders is that the next energy thresholds where we expect to observe unexplained phenomena are a couple orders of magnitude greater than the proposed collider. So we could really only confirm existing theories unless something major is hiding in the energy gap. This seems unlikely. Critics want to put the money towards avenues where we're likely to observe new things instead of confirming validated theories.
    - travisporter 6y ago
      As a counterpoint, black holes were also proven rather than discovered. We have to do these sort of validation experiements, or it's not science.
- privong 6y ago
  > If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? The LHC likely would keep running for a generation, even if this new collider is constructed. The article notes that construction wouldn't begin until 2038. It doesn't say how long construction would take, but my guess is at least a decade (the LHC took a decade to build). So that's 30 years between now and the likely earliest time a new collider would be constructed, or 40 years since the LHC first went operational. Since the new collider would require construction of a new ring, it's possible the LHC would continue to operate while the new one is under construction, collecting more data. The reason one needs a "bigger microscope" is due how signal to noise typically increases. In a simplified scenario, you're talking about poisson noise (shot noise, counting noise) dominating the error budget. The Signal-to-noise goes as the square root of the number of counts. So in order to double the S/N, you need to quadruple the number of events. In the case of a particle accelerator, that means doubling the amount of time. The proposed collider would be 100 TeV, so ~6x more powerful than the LHC. All else being equal, the LHC could do some of the same experiments, but it would take it 36x longer to do them to the same statistical significance. Put another way, 1 year of operation of this proposed collider could achieve results it would take 36 years of the LHC to build up. 4 years of the new collider (doubling the signal to noise over the 1 year) would require 144 years (4 * 36) of the LHC. But particle physics isn't a slow ramp-up in energy. There are collisions that can only be accessed once you reach particular energy thresholds. Unfortunately my understanding is that there aren't predicted "interesting" features above the LHC's energy range which are even remotely accessible in the distant future. So if you want to build a facility solely to find things that theories predict, this new collider may not get you much. But science is often advanced by experiments which find unexpected things, and you don't find those unless you look. Overall I think the argument "let the LHC run for 40 years instead" is not a compelling one because of how shot noise works. The "maybe we'll find something new!" argument for a new collider is high-risk / high-reward, so I'm not sure how compelling I personally find it.
  - privong 6y ago
    Correction: > In the case of a particle accelerator, that means doubling the amount of time. This should say: "means quadrupling the amount of time" [to double the S/N].
- jrvidal 6y ago
  > The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics I would argue that the goal of a top-tier collider is to go to new energy ranges, plain and simple. Absence of new phenomena is gained knowledge, albeit a bit boring, but still.
- vidarh 6y ago
  > If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. They are doing that, are are doing upgrades to get more use of out of the LHC. The new planned collider is for about a generation from now. If this goes ahead, it will be starting construction in nearly 20 years from now. > If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? CERN has a specific remit. They're planning for that remit. If their funding sources do not think the odds justifies the expense, they'll cut funding, but it's not CERNs job to sit back and not come up with plans for what to do next. It's CERNs job to look at what they can do to enable further science within their remit. They've come up with this as one option and decided to move forward with planning. That does not mean it will happen - if they don't get funding in place it won't, or will be delayed. In the meantime the shorter term upgrades to the LHC may or may not end up supporting their case for the new collider depending on the results they get.
  - davrosthedalek 6y ago
    CERN is very particular about what they go for. They are fully aware of their special status as a transnational research enterprise. They only seek out projects out of the reach of a single country.
- techphys_91 6y ago
  > If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. The LHC was built between 1998 and 2008, but its design started in the 1980's. Many of the people who worked on the LHC at its early stages have either already retired, or will be expected to retire relatively soon. The FCC is still in its very early stages and similarly long timescales are predicted for its completion. Building and operating a huge, complex machine like this isn't something we can just stop for a generation or two and pick up where we left off. In my view, if we want to maintain the skills required to build these facilities we need to invest in new, large projects now.
  - ganzuul 6y ago
    An important insight. Akin to budget not used will never return. However, honesty about the situation should be rewarded; not punished.
suifbwish 6y ago
His point when right over your head

by yiyus 6y ago

sandworm101 6y ago

The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics, that greater understanding that progresses mankind. What did the previous collider discover? It certainly validated current theories, but did it create anything new? If it did, why do we yet need a new one? If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different?

ben_w 6y ago
1. Science is a low-odds, high-reward process; any given piece of work probably does nothing, but the overall impact is literally everything that happened since the agrarian era 2. Even successful research leads to papers with impenetrable names like “An MgB-Superconducting Shield Prototype for the Future Circular Collider Septum Magnet”, whose value I am not even qualified to comprehend unless someone explained it to me with a YouTube video 3. Because I don’t understand it and I can observe the value of it without understanding it, I’ll trust the physicists doing the experiments when they tell me they want a bigger and more expensive tool for their future experiments
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Supercolliders are low-odds science. Other instruments are pretty much certain to generate new science. A hubble replacement would not be low-odds given that hubble itself is still making discoveries. A 23 billion-dollar push for new antibiotics would not be low-odds either. Dollars should be spent where they are most likely to generate the most science. That isn't new supercolliders.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    Dollars shouldn't be spend where they are most likely to generate most new science. That is a quick way to find yourself in a dead-end. Imagine we would have ONLY invested in supercolliders after high-energy physics was very fruitful. Many other fields would have been completely starved and we would now be in the (possibly) super collider dead-end while other physics is woefully behind.
    - mrmonkeyman 6y ago
      I wonder what happens if we push 30 billion into pure non-physics math.
    - HPsquared 6y ago
      There's this thing called the 'white elephant' though. History tends to downplay such things.
    - drdeca 6y ago
      Why not evaluate (estimate) the expected value of sample information of the different experiments, and compare the costs of the different experiments to the EVSIs? Is it too difficult to estimate the EVSI ?
      - rowanG077 6y ago
        Any metric you can imagine is nothing more then a guess. That's why it's research. The researchers guess and tests. Some guesses can be observably better but that's not quantifiable. At least that's what I think.
nix23 6y ago
>What did the previous collider discover? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson >why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? Why do we think building a bigger telescope then Hubble will be any different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope
- sandworm101 6y ago
  (1) higgs was confirmed, proven rather than discovered. It wasnt new physics. (2) Hubble is dieing. It will not last forever but still makes new discoveries, new science, regularly. A replacement is needed. And the JWST is a totally different device, not just bigger. We probably need both the JWST and a new Hubble.
  - jonquark 6y ago
    The Higgs was discovered at the LHC. Before that there had been theories with no experimental evidence.
    - dumbfoundded 6y ago
      The point is more that we can do experiments where we expect to observe interesting things or experiments to validate existing theories. If you have an experiment to validate an existing theory, it doesn't really make sense to repeat the experiment on a much large scale unless you anticipate actually being part of the first category (new observation, no theory). The problem with colliders is that the next energy thresholds where we expect to observe unexplained phenomena are a couple orders of magnitude greater than the proposed collider. So we could really only confirm existing theories unless something major is hiding in the energy gap. This seems unlikely. Critics want to put the money towards avenues where we're likely to observe new things instead of confirming validated theories.
  - travisporter 6y ago
    As a counterpoint, black holes were also proven rather than discovered. We have to do these sort of validation experiements, or it's not science.
privong 6y ago
> If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? The LHC likely would keep running for a generation, even if this new collider is constructed. The article notes that construction wouldn't begin until 2038. It doesn't say how long construction would take, but my guess is at least a decade (the LHC took a decade to build). So that's 30 years between now and the likely earliest time a new collider would be constructed, or 40 years since the LHC first went operational. Since the new collider would require construction of a new ring, it's possible the LHC would continue to operate while the new one is under construction, collecting more data. The reason one needs a "bigger microscope" is due how signal to noise typically increases. In a simplified scenario, you're talking about poisson noise (shot noise, counting noise) dominating the error budget. The Signal-to-noise goes as the square root of the number of counts. So in order to double the S/N, you need to quadruple the number of events. In the case of a particle accelerator, that means doubling the amount of time. The proposed collider would be 100 TeV, so ~6x more powerful than the LHC. All else being equal, the LHC could do some of the same experiments, but it would take it 36x longer to do them to the same statistical significance. Put another way, 1 year of operation of this proposed collider could achieve results it would take 36 years of the LHC to build up. 4 years of the new collider (doubling the signal to noise over the 1 year) would require 144 years (4 * 36) of the LHC. But particle physics isn't a slow ramp-up in energy. There are collisions that can only be accessed once you reach particular energy thresholds. Unfortunately my understanding is that there aren't predicted "interesting" features above the LHC's energy range which are even remotely accessible in the distant future. So if you want to build a facility solely to find things that theories predict, this new collider may not get you much. But science is often advanced by experiments which find unexpected things, and you don't find those unless you look. Overall I think the argument "let the LHC run for 40 years instead" is not a compelling one because of how shot noise works. The "maybe we'll find something new!" argument for a new collider is high-risk / high-reward, so I'm not sure how compelling I personally find it.
- privong 6y ago
  Correction: > In the case of a particle accelerator, that means doubling the amount of time. This should say: "means quadrupling the amount of time" [to double the S/N].
jrvidal 6y ago
> The goal of every top-tier collider is new physics I would argue that the goal of a top-tier collider is to go to new energy ranges, plain and simple. Absence of new phenomena is gained knowledge, albeit a bit boring, but still.
vidarh 6y ago
> If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. They are doing that, are are doing upgrades to get more use of out of the LHC. The new planned collider is for about a generation from now. If this goes ahead, it will be starting construction in nearly 20 years from now. > If there is no new physics from the last experiment, why do we think that building a bigger microscope will be any different? CERN has a specific remit. They're planning for that remit. If their funding sources do not think the odds justifies the expense, they'll cut funding, but it's not CERNs job to sit back and not come up with plans for what to do next. It's CERNs job to look at what they can do to enable further science within their remit. They've come up with this as one option and decided to move forward with planning. That does not mean it will happen - if they don't get funding in place it won't, or will be delayed. In the meantime the shorter term upgrades to the LHC may or may not end up supporting their case for the new collider depending on the results they get.
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  CERN is very particular about what they go for. They are fully aware of their special status as a transnational research enterprise. They only seek out projects out of the reach of a single country.
techphys_91 6y ago
> If there is new physics to study let us keep the experiment going as is to study that for a generation or two. The LHC was built between 1998 and 2008, but its design started in the 1980's. Many of the people who worked on the LHC at its early stages have either already retired, or will be expected to retire relatively soon. The FCC is still in its very early stages and similarly long timescales are predicted for its completion. Building and operating a huge, complex machine like this isn't something we can just stop for a generation or two and pick up where we left off. In my view, if we want to maintain the skills required to build these facilities we need to invest in new, large projects now.
- ganzuul 6y ago
  An important insight. Akin to budget not used will never return. However, honesty about the situation should be rewarded; not punished.

suifbwish 6y ago

His point when right over your head