3 ms·
There is nothing to imply that there is something to be discovered at that energy scale (100 TeV), and likely any potential breakthrough is far from the reach o
by dilivion 3y ago
There is nothing to imply that there is something to be discovered at that energy scale (100 TeV), and likely any potential breakthrough is far from the reach of the FCC. At least the LHC was aiming for the Higss (which could also be discovered at the Tevatron, but this was not certain at the time) and there was a great hope for supersymmetry. Perhaps the funding would best be used in other endeavors…
- tobias2014 3y agoIs knowing the presence of something more valuable than knowing the precise absence of something? In my opinion both drive our knowledge forward and challenge our current understanding and development of models.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- saiya-jin 3y agoSure we can build more weapons, do social experiments that mostly fail and burn tens if not hundreds of billions with 0 or almost 0 returns, plenty of examples around. Heck, things like biofuels in EU have clearly negative overall impact yet we burned cash on it like there is no tomorrow. This is not taking budget from other scientists who will have to play with rocks for next few decades, the whole article sounds like an envy of rather weird folks ("Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy" is really not the best places to ask such questions). Overall, one of better uses of public money I've seen in past decade. > Because of the extra radiation generated by the machine, it would need to sit twice as far underground as the Large Hadron Collider. Since I live nearby, happy to see the proposed circle is mostly in France, relatively far from our place. Of course if some small black hole is created by accident it may not matter much.