5 ms·

Blissfully, I found an IEEE article that collects the stuff I'm aware of in one neat package. https://spectrum.ieee.org/supercolliders https://spectrum.ieee.org

Blissfully, I found an IEEE article that collects the stuff I'm aware of in one neat package. https://spectrum.ieee.org/supercolliders https://spectrum.ieee.org/supercolliders The shell games are: 1. claiming it is a proton collider[^1 source] designed to look for new particles [^2 comment]. 2. false equivalence between China putting in their latest 5 year plan to make a plan to make something that will transition to being a proton collider. And it's worse than that: If they immediately started after the plan was complete and on schedule, they'd be done in 2048 and transition from e/p to protons in 2066. CERNs plan is to be done with e/p in 2042 and transition to protons in 2070. That's 4 years later, but it's comically irrelevant. That's not getting done sooner, that's just transitioning to doing stuff we already can do faster, the cool thing and why both are interested in building one is the electron/positron collider stuff, not scaled up proton collider stuff. Content: - The project would transition to a proton collider at the end of its lifespan as a novel tool, in 2070. - It is proposed to operate by 2042, assuming funds dispersed over 12 years, starting in 2030. - It will operate as a electron-positron collider for the intervening ~3 decades before transitioning to essentially LHC with 4x power. - Electron / positron is a unique collision form, chosen to allow for more precise measurement, such as the LHC discoveries of discrepancies in the Standard Model. - This is very important work. The more precise you nail down these uncertainties, the more theorists can do to verify their work, allowing the experimentalists to know where to look for new stuff, if any. [^1 source] Via Sabine link: "CERN wants to build a new particle collider which will smash protons together at roughly 6 times the energies seen at the Large Hadron Collider." [^2 comment] This is the undercurrent of the whole criticism, I cannot explicitly source it to one sentence. It's also bizarre: I can't remember the last time experimentalists got to discover something without the theorists telling them where to look. It's cheaper that way! LHC was a failure too by that standard. There simply aren't any candidates in the theory that are accessible at humanities near-term energy levels, the Standard Model's worked beautifully, modulo these tantalizing discoveries at LHC of small discrepancies that electron/positron collisions let you explore.

raziel2701 2y ago
Why is this work important? To me it just feels so distant from my reality. At the core of this, is there an answer to the "who cares?" attitude? Because if the answer is that we might incidentally create new useful technology in the build up of a new collider, why not just diversify the investment and put that money into a bunch of smaller projects? Hedge your bets sort of thing. Why support this and not allocate more into high temperature superconductivity for example? I don't understand what is the justification that entitles such a large amount of money to a singular project.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  First thought: I'm not the greatest at coming up with a stirring polemic justifying pushing out boundary science. Next thought that come to my head is, how do I boundary-test this. ex. work my way backwards, what was the last collider worth building? It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc." As far as high-temperature superconductivity, I'm virtually certain if there was consensus a $XXB facility would concretely advance that, I assume it'd get funded. I'm not certain, but I believe someone with more wherewithal / had skin in the game would argue that there's no reason to think this isn't that facility. (in that, advancing the boundary of physics tends to bring breakthroughs down the pipeline)
  - gonzobonzo 2y ago
    > what was the last collider worth building?...It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc." It seems like the LHC wouldn't pass this test? In which case, continuing down the path wouldn't make sense under this criteria.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Right! :) (the thing is, "continuing down the path" is a Not Even Wrong (in the Pauli sense) description of what's going on. It's a hopelessly confused. At least, I have given up hope: I wrote a quite detailed post, with both a TL;DR and longer, linking out to an approachable article, explaining this.)
- jfengel 2y ago
  There is a lot of interest. It may not be the most efficient use of money, but people like the feeling that scientists are trying to unravel the most fundamental nature of the universe. People got so excited about the Higgs boson, despite having no idea what it really means. They kept asking if it had an application, but seemed to accept that the answer is "no". I'll admit, I too would rather put the money into an array of different sciences. But the money goes where you can get interest, and a lot of other science happens in the margins.
pclmulqdq 2y ago
As far as I know, there isn't much theory behind the "important work" being done here, just "let's smash stuff at higher energy and see what shakes out." Science is supposed to go the other way. You are supposed to have a theory or a set of theories and then use experiments to test them. If this experiment can falsify the standard model in a meaningful way, that's cool, but it's a lot better if it can actually prove something else. Still, it's not clear that the something else is worth the massive expense and effort. Do we have $X00 billion worth of theories to test here?
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I hope this doesn't seem abrupt, and when/if it does, that it comes across as coming from a place inviting further discussion and appreciating your curiosity. That's one of the effects of the pitch framing by Sabine: the design intent is not about smashing stuff at higher energy, despite the basis of the critique requiring that it is. My comment above is really long, but tl;dr the impetus for both facilities is smashing electrons and positrons and specific features of those collisions that let physicists hone in on the discoveries made at the LHC, not moar energy leading to new particle observations that theory never predicted.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Electrons and positrons have been smashed together before. It has been done at CERN before, too. The premise of this experiment is to do it at higher energy than has been done before. The scientific goals of that experiment are somewhat more unclear, though. The LHC had a landmark scientific purpose, finding the last particle in the standard model. There is, as far as I can tell, no specific experiment that can be the headline for this new machine because the LHC pretty much did its job (modulo some error) and string theory et al need higher energy. There are a bunch of guesses about the higgs field and about dark matter that failed to materialize at the LHC, so now we want moar energy to see if that fixes our problems. As to the theory they will be proving, maybe there are a few minor ones about the higgs field, but that's pretty much it at this point.
    - 2y ago
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
Whatever you think of Sabine, it's not accurate to dismiss this as spinning lies for clicks. Very similar core points are also made here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x It seems accurate that this is an expensive proposed experiment with less expensive alternatives, with very real debate about costs and benefits. I'm in the "spend more money on theory first" camp. You keep saying that theorists should guide experimenters, but you seem to mean that in the limited sense of poking a little harder at the Standard Model and hoping it breaks. Meanwhile there are all kinds of open questions where fundamental theory around and parallel to the Standard Model is underdeveloped. It might well be better to spend a few billion on doing something about that first, then designing experiments to test whatever falls out.
- anoncareer0212 2y ago
  Be careful when rushing. Your viewpoint as expressed is perfectly rational. However, you know that both of these claims asked about are blatantly false, and were distracted by the idea that saying those claims is false also implies all alternatives proposed are based on lies. To wit, the ask was "Is it really true that there a no theories that are proven or discarded with this experiment, and that the Chinese have plans to do it much faster? Her video is pretty damning." Both of those things are clearly false. The Chinese part is blatantly false, to the point it can be worked out by a laymen who knows years ascend. The Standard Model itself is in question, modulo semantics about proven/disproven and the philosophy of certainty, by any reasonable definition, theory is at stake.
Jabbles 2y ago
[1] Sabine says "It’s a two-phase project, the first one, called the FCC-ee would collide electrons and specifically measure the properties of the Higgs boson." approximately 20 seconds into the video. It's unfair to merely critique the headline. If you do not wish to watch the video, here is a transcript: https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c "This is very important work." is just an opinion. "The more precise you nail down these uncertainties, the more theorists can do to verify their work, allowing the experimentalists to know where to look for new stuff, if any." Sabine's point is that there are countless theories and parameters that can be changed to fit any measurement. New results will eliminate some, but it will not reduce the total number of possible theories, as others will be constructed to fit the results without having any reason to think one is more true than another.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I'm not sure why you're addressing me or telling me I didn't watch the video, but I humbly request, on behalf of the community, that next time you've figured out what someone else did and want to announce it, you pause and reflect on: A) exactly what and whose words you're taking umbrage with B) if you are attempting to mind read. Concretely: If you don't think OP got the right understanding from the video, so their questions were fundamentally Wrong and Shouldn't Be Asked and Impugned Sabine by their very nature of being asked, that's fine. Own that. If you think it's unfair of me to quote Sabine without quoting the entirety of a 30 minute transcript, well, more power to you. But that doesn't mean I didn't watch it or whatever other crock is being imagined. Just ask! :) Curiosity and discussion are why we're here. :)
  - Jabbles 2y ago
    Um, ok: When you say: "The shell games are: 1. claiming it is a proton collider" it seems to me that you're implying that Sabine is not disclosing the fact that it's a two stage project. And I'm pointing out that it's one of the first things she says in her video.

raziel2701 2y ago

Why is this work important? To me it just feels so distant from my reality. At the core of this, is there an answer to the "who cares?" attitude? Because if the answer is that we might incidentally create new useful technology in the build up of a new collider, why not just diversify the investment and put that money into a bunch of smaller projects? Hedge your bets sort of thing. Why support this and not allocate more into high temperature superconductivity for example? I don't understand what is the justification that entitles such a large amount of money to a singular project.

refulgentis 2y ago
First thought: I'm not the greatest at coming up with a stirring polemic justifying pushing out boundary science. Next thought that come to my head is, how do I boundary-test this. ex. work my way backwards, what was the last collider worth building? It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc." As far as high-temperature superconductivity, I'm virtually certain if there was consensus a $XXB facility would concretely advance that, I assume it'd get funded. I'm not certain, but I believe someone with more wherewithal / had skin in the game would argue that there's no reason to think this isn't that facility. (in that, advancing the boundary of physics tends to bring breakthroughs down the pipeline)
- gonzobonzo 2y ago
  > what was the last collider worth building?...It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc." It seems like the LHC wouldn't pass this test? In which case, continuing down the path wouldn't make sense under this criteria.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    Right! :) (the thing is, "continuing down the path" is a Not Even Wrong (in the Pauli sense) description of what's going on. It's a hopelessly confused. At least, I have given up hope: I wrote a quite detailed post, with both a TL;DR and longer, linking out to an approachable article, explaining this.)
jfengel 2y ago
There is a lot of interest. It may not be the most efficient use of money, but people like the feeling that scientists are trying to unravel the most fundamental nature of the universe. People got so excited about the Higgs boson, despite having no idea what it really means. They kept asking if it had an application, but seemed to accept that the answer is "no". I'll admit, I too would rather put the money into an array of different sciences. But the money goes where you can get interest, and a lot of other science happens in the margins.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

As far as I know, there isn't much theory behind the "important work" being done here, just "let's smash stuff at higher energy and see what shakes out." Science is supposed to go the other way. You are supposed to have a theory or a set of theories and then use experiments to test them. If this experiment can falsify the standard model in a meaningful way, that's cool, but it's a lot better if it can actually prove something else. Still, it's not clear that the something else is worth the massive expense and effort. Do we have $X00 billion worth of theories to test here?

refulgentis 2y ago
I hope this doesn't seem abrupt, and when/if it does, that it comes across as coming from a place inviting further discussion and appreciating your curiosity. That's one of the effects of the pitch framing by Sabine: the design intent is not about smashing stuff at higher energy, despite the basis of the critique requiring that it is. My comment above is really long, but tl;dr the impetus for both facilities is smashing electrons and positrons and specific features of those collisions that let physicists hone in on the discoveries made at the LHC, not moar energy leading to new particle observations that theory never predicted.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Electrons and positrons have been smashed together before. It has been done at CERN before, too. The premise of this experiment is to do it at higher energy than has been done before. The scientific goals of that experiment are somewhat more unclear, though. The LHC had a landmark scientific purpose, finding the last particle in the standard model. There is, as far as I can tell, no specific experiment that can be the headline for this new machine because the LHC pretty much did its job (modulo some error) and string theory et al need higher energy. There are a bunch of guesses about the higgs field and about dark matter that failed to materialize at the LHC, so now we want moar energy to see if that fixes our problems. As to the theory they will be proving, maybe there are a few minor ones about the higgs field, but that's pretty much it at this point.
  - 2y ago

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

Whatever you think of Sabine, it's not accurate to dismiss this as spinning lies for clicks. Very similar core points are also made here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x It seems accurate that this is an expensive proposed experiment with less expensive alternatives, with very real debate about costs and benefits. I'm in the "spend more money on theory first" camp. You keep saying that theorists should guide experimenters, but you seem to mean that in the limited sense of poking a little harder at the Standard Model and hoping it breaks. Meanwhile there are all kinds of open questions where fundamental theory around and parallel to the Standard Model is underdeveloped. It might well be better to spend a few billion on doing something about that first, then designing experiments to test whatever falls out.

anoncareer0212 2y ago
Be careful when rushing. Your viewpoint as expressed is perfectly rational. However, you know that both of these claims asked about are blatantly false, and were distracted by the idea that saying those claims is false also implies all alternatives proposed are based on lies. To wit, the ask was "Is it really true that there a no theories that are proven or discarded with this experiment, and that the Chinese have plans to do it much faster? Her video is pretty damning." Both of those things are clearly false. The Chinese part is blatantly false, to the point it can be worked out by a laymen who knows years ascend. The Standard Model itself is in question, modulo semantics about proven/disproven and the philosophy of certainty, by any reasonable definition, theory is at stake.

Jabbles 2y ago

[1] Sabine says "It’s a two-phase project, the first one, called the FCC-ee would collide electrons and specifically measure the properties of the Higgs boson." approximately 20 seconds into the video. It's unfair to merely critique the headline. If you do not wish to watch the video, here is a transcript: https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c https://www.youtube-transcript.io/videos/elvEcWc7U7c "This is very important work." is just an opinion. "The more precise you nail down these uncertainties, the more theorists can do to verify their work, allowing the experimentalists to know where to look for new stuff, if any." Sabine's point is that there are countless theories and parameters that can be changed to fit any measurement. New results will eliminate some, but it will not reduce the total number of possible theories, as others will be constructed to fit the results without having any reason to think one is more true than another.

refulgentis 2y ago
I'm not sure why you're addressing me or telling me I didn't watch the video, but I humbly request, on behalf of the community, that next time you've figured out what someone else did and want to announce it, you pause and reflect on: A) exactly what and whose words you're taking umbrage with B) if you are attempting to mind read. Concretely: If you don't think OP got the right understanding from the video, so their questions were fundamentally Wrong and Shouldn't Be Asked and Impugned Sabine by their very nature of being asked, that's fine. Own that. If you think it's unfair of me to quote Sabine without quoting the entirety of a 30 minute transcript, well, more power to you. But that doesn't mean I didn't watch it or whatever other crock is being imagined. Just ask! :) Curiosity and discussion are why we're here. :)
- Jabbles 2y ago
  Um, ok: When you say: "The shell games are: 1. claiming it is a proton collider" it seems to me that you're implying that Sabine is not disclosing the fact that it's a two stage project. And I'm pointing out that it's one of the first things she says in her video.