4 ms·

> Today we have detectors and computing power that let us observe the natural experiment of the universe with a precision and diligence that would be impossible

> Today we have detectors and computing power that let us observe the natural experiment of the universe with a precision and diligence that would be impossible when LHC was commissioned. Couldn't the LHC be upgraded then to take advantage of this? Sounds like a much cheaper option. But I'm not a physicist at all so I'm sure I'm oversimplifying.

fnands 4y ago
The detectors on the LHC get upgraded regularly, between every run some part gets updated. Computing-wise as well, better computing resources are there. The fundamental limitations isn't the detectors or computers, it's the energies you can reach with a collider of that size. Yes you can completely retool the LHC, which will probably allow you to do slightly better precision measurements, but won't strongly affect the energies you can probe. To get to really high energies you need to build bigger. As a (former) particle physicist, I am also a bit sceptical if going bigger is better; the LHC was a calculated risk, with the goal of finding SUSY, which was a very plausible theory at the time. The FCC seems to be a shot in the dark. There is the argument that if we don't build a bigger one now we'll lose a lot of expertise, but that feels like a knee-jerk reaction from the community.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > to get to really high energies you need to build bigger Superconducting magnets enable much higher energies in smaller (granted, theoretical) fusion reactor designs than previously possible. Does the same not apply to colliders?
  - rimunroe 4y ago
    Colliders already use superconducting magnets
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      With new developments, you can use much smaller magnets.
- Sakos 4y ago
  > we'll lose a lot of expertise, but that feels like a knee-jerk reaction from the community. It's a valid concern that must always be considered. It's the kind of thing that's been biting Intel in the ass for the past 7 years. Even if your decision is "we'll lose a lot of expertise and that's okay", it needs to be a conscious, well-grounded decision, otherwise that is a knee-jerk reaction based on your own biases and assumptions that could have significant, even irrevocable, consequences for the future.
ephimetheus 4y ago
Like the sibling comment says: we’re currently doing this. Higher energies are not really feasible without a bigger ring though so we’re increasing the beam intensity (sort of) to produce more physics per time unit. This very likely won’t reveal any new physics processes, but it will allow us to increase the precision in many measurements we do and could allow us to find discrepancies or otherwise increase our understanding of the existing model. This is effectively a measure to maximize the output we can get from the machine, so to maximize the return in investment. There’s a lot of debate in the field what should happen next. FCC is one possibility, but I’m personally sceptical (even though I work at CERN myself). It seems to me there’s a clear need for a Higgs-factory as a follow up to LHC, but that doesn’t have to be a ring collider, a electron positron linear collider could fulfill this purpose as well.

fnands 4y ago

The detectors on the LHC get upgraded regularly, between every run some part gets updated. Computing-wise as well, better computing resources are there. The fundamental limitations isn't the detectors or computers, it's the energies you can reach with a collider of that size. Yes you can completely retool the LHC, which will probably allow you to do slightly better precision measurements, but won't strongly affect the energies you can probe. To get to really high energies you need to build bigger. As a (former) particle physicist, I am also a bit sceptical if going bigger is better; the LHC was a calculated risk, with the goal of finding SUSY, which was a very plausible theory at the time. The FCC seems to be a shot in the dark. There is the argument that if we don't build a bigger one now we'll lose a lot of expertise, but that feels like a knee-jerk reaction from the community.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> to get to really high energies you need to build bigger Superconducting magnets enable much higher energies in smaller (granted, theoretical) fusion reactor designs than previously possible. Does the same not apply to colliders?
- rimunroe 4y ago
  Colliders already use superconducting magnets
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    With new developments, you can use much smaller magnets.
Sakos 4y ago
> we'll lose a lot of expertise, but that feels like a knee-jerk reaction from the community. It's a valid concern that must always be considered. It's the kind of thing that's been biting Intel in the ass for the past 7 years. Even if your decision is "we'll lose a lot of expertise and that's okay", it needs to be a conscious, well-grounded decision, otherwise that is a knee-jerk reaction based on your own biases and assumptions that could have significant, even irrevocable, consequences for the future.

ephimetheus 4y ago

Like the sibling comment says: we’re currently doing this. Higher energies are not really feasible without a bigger ring though so we’re increasing the beam intensity (sort of) to produce more physics per time unit. This very likely won’t reveal any new physics processes, but it will allow us to increase the precision in many measurements we do and could allow us to find discrepancies or otherwise increase our understanding of the existing model. This is effectively a measure to maximize the output we can get from the machine, so to maximize the return in investment. There’s a lot of debate in the field what should happen next. FCC is one possibility, but I’m personally sceptical (even though I work at CERN myself). It seems to me there’s a clear need for a Higgs-factory as a follow up to LHC, but that doesn’t have to be a ring collider, a electron positron linear collider could fulfill this purpose as well.