4 ms·
I disagree, that the authors aren't serious about it. They are just aware and state it clearly, that it is not realistic with current tech. But I do believe, th
by lukan 3y ago
I disagree, that the authors aren't serious about it. They are just aware and state it clearly, that it is not realistic with current tech. But I do believe, they would like to see it being build one day. They are from Japan btw. the only country that suffered from 2 direct nuclear hits.
"The whole paper feels like a con attempt by the authors to talk governments into building smaller muon colliders as an intermediate step. Of course these smaller colliders could also be used to study concepts of a higher energy collider that could produce anti-nuke rays. But for the most part, these smaller colliders would be incredible physics discovery machines."
So why a con attempt, when it is just logical to get there step by step by building smaller colliders, that also enable awesome new research?
If they would not have stated clearly, that the concept is too futuristic currently, then it would be a con attempt. But they did.
- sigmoid10 3y agoYou should really read the whole paper. They even talk about some of the other amazing possibilities these smaller colliders would offer despite being orders of magnitude away from providing anything close to what the paper's title suggests. Also, the authors are all particle physicists and some of them worked on future colliders like the ILC - which was supposed to be built in Japan, but is currently put on hold (practically cancelled) by the Japanese government due to economic reasons. That must have really sucked for them. If you worked with any particle physicists, you'd know that they don't really care much about politics. They wouldn't care more or less about nuclear disarmament than other physicists. But they definitely do care a lot about their experiments.