3 ms·
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 fu
by 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?
- 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.