6 ms·

CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

155 points by zeristor 8mo ago

dharma1 8mo ago
“Eric Schmidt, who founded Google” no he didn’t
- turtlesdown11 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dmix 8mo ago
    Do you have a source on that? I can't find anything besides he went to a Gala where he was in a photo with Maxwell and made an investment in a company her brother ran.
    - IncreasePosts 8mo ago
      Schmidt is a notorious SV playboy but all of his known extra marital partners have been well into their 20s
- mc32 8mo ago
  That kind of reporting is awful. How is it they can’t either go to Wikipedia or one of the LLMs (despite hallucinations, tend to get simple things right) and get some corroborating evidence before making such basic mistakes on an article?
  - Forgeties79 8mo ago
    Man I can’t even trust simple things these days from LLM’s. Hardly scientific but I just decided to do my own little test one time when I was on discord talking to some friends about The Game Awards back in December or so. ChatGPT would simply omit winners and/or categories - got it wrong (twice the same way, one unique way) 3 times. We tried Gemini, it gave 1 wrong answer and omitted 2 categories. It was impressive how much worse than a basic search they were at a simple “what were the results of the 2025 Game Awards?”
  - simianwords 8mo ago
    You are right. ChatGPT doesn’t catch this, instead catches things like CERN having 25 member states instead of 24. I would have expected it to catch it but it did not. I’m sure pro version would have though.
- giancarlostoro 8mo ago
  I can understand the confusion since he was CEO for the companies most critical years.
z3ratul163071 8mo ago
FCC is "physics" equivalent of easter island statues. Useless resource sink with no perspective productive outcome whatsoever.
notepad0x90 8mo ago
I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all! But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space. I've heard it said that research into this stuff will inevitably benefit all manners of other sciences, but hoping for a byproduct isn't the same as direct investment. I'm just asking in earnest if priorities are aligned properly. I'm sure many of these experiments and projects would be more useful if they were actually built in space! Even for space agencies, it's all sorely disappointing. Their focus is on research and experimentation, which wouldn't be a problem if there were plans that were getting executed with some vision or goal of actual progress in capabilities. Their planning is also too long-term. Why did artemis take 3 years? is it just to boast about being able to go back to the moon? By now this should have taken 3 months after over half a century. My point is not to be dismissive of the complexities, but to say that the state of things is being accepted as-is from what I'm seeing. Is there any actual solid plan to reduce at least launch times that factor? It would be amazing if humans launched enough infrastructure into space, that there were would be foundries and factories entirely in space, reducing the dependence on transporting heavy things from earth into space.Spacecraft and space station components could largely be manufactured by mining raw materials and manufacturing with them without depending on earth's resources directly. That's probably not realistic, but what I'm decrying is not so much lack of action, but lack of vision (outside of scifi), planning, and focus. That said, I'm just hijacking this to bring up that point of discuss. This is private cash, and I'm glad someone is donating to CERN for this research. I wish all the stuff I said could be funded with tax dollars. lay people need to see a vision, a plan, even if it can't be achieved in our lifetime, political will comes afterwards.
- potamic 8mo ago
  I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible! In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more. It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?
Fh_ 8mo ago
These projects are extremely expensive and the findings can alter humanity itself. That's why private donors sounds a bit sketchy
- murkt 8mo ago
  How can they alter humanity? What's the difference for humanity since CERN found Higgs particle? In what ways could the potential dark matter particle detection alter humanity?
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - niemandhier 8mo ago
    It’s a place where extremely skilled people work highly motivated on humanities hardest problems at scale. CERN pushed distributed computing and storage before anyone else hat problems on that scale. CERN pushed edge computing for massive data analysis before anyone else even generated data at that rate. CERN is currently pushing the physical boundaries of device synchronisation ( Check „ White Rabbit“ ), same for data transmission. CERNS accelerator cooling tech paves the way for industrial super cooling, magnet coils push super conduction… Companies are always late in the game, they come once there is money to be had: No one founded a fusion startup until we were close enough to the relevant tripple product.
    - vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
      Seems these are all positive things and it’s good that private donors are adding some money.
    - sylware 8mo ago
      You are perfectly right, this has been similar to the "space industry" (which includes 'ballistic nukes' knowhow maintainance). The thing with a bigger collider is it seems there are, not that honnest, scientists retro-fitting models in order to reach 'appropriate for this new collider' energy ranges where 'new physics' could be found.
user3939382 8mo ago
This should have a $1T budget not a B. We waste so much money on low efficiency computing infrastructure and energy that should be going to this.
- SecretDreams 8mo ago
  Maybe we can just have the AI hardware make the discoveries for us!
  - sandworm101 8mo ago
    A thousand gpus running a thousand LLMs will one day soon give us the next shakespeare. It will all be worth it in the end. Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain.
    - SecretDreams 8mo ago
      > Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain. Anything less would be a wasted opportunity!
    - TeapotNotKettle 8mo ago
      “ Perhaps my old age and fearfulness deceive me, but I suspect that the human species - the unique species - is about to be extinguished, but the Library will endure: illuminated, solitary, infinite, perfectly motionless, equipped with precious volumes, useless, incorruptible, secret.”
- tgv 8mo ago
  I have low expectations that physics can dig itself out of the hole it dug by building an even larger collider. It's not worth €1T to find out.
mike-the-mikado 8mo ago
As someone who supports pure science research, I would be interested to understand if any of the discoveries of CERN (and related projects) in the last 50 years (say) have proved to have practical application. (Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)
- colechristensen 8mo ago
  This is such a weasel question because you can keep saying whatever was new was "just technology" not pure discoveries. No, there hasn't been any big "new physics" since the standard model in the 70s, everything has been refinement and specifics. You can't go to Walmart and buy something that couldn't exist unless we knew the precise mass of the top quark or the Higgs boson. There have been a tremendous amount of developments and technologies that have come out of CERN with varying degrees of closeness to particle physics, but depending on who you're talking to, most of them don't count. >(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research) Ok, but Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN when he created HTTP, HTML, etc. The Internet through web browsers as you know it was created at CERN in order to enable scientific communication and collaboration.
  - mike-the-mikado 8mo ago
    I was hoping that someone would be able to point me to some practical technical advance enabled by discoveries or measurements at CERN (or similar establishments). It seems plausible to me that better understanding of the properties the subatomic particles might enable some previously unexploited technology (e.g. in quantum computing or sensing).
    - colechristensen 8mo ago
      Very very close to 100% of your entire lifetime experience of the world has only to do with the effects of gravity and the behavior of electrons both of which are extremely well understood and will be until (or if) a MAJOR paradigm shift in science that might not ever happen. Until theres commercial fusion or some extremely exotic high energy physics consumer products in hundreds of years the behavior of the strong force or discoveries about such just won't have impacts in daily life. Lots of technology has been developed and filtered down to everyone as a result of particle physics in the last 50 years but the actual end result discoveries not so much. We're waiting for revolution at ever higher energies and those might not be realized until daily life for humans looks extremely different. We're just sticking our toes in the ocean of knowledge and for daily life, we're stuck with electrodynamics.
sva_ 8mo ago
Maybe this one will finally make a black hole that ends it all https://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ https://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
- kachapopopow 8mo ago
  https://hasthelargehadroncollidercreatedablackholeyet.com/ https://hasthelargehadroncollidercreatedablackholeyet.com/ (Yep, of money)
- lelandfe 8mo ago
  source code has us at 89%
- dawnerd 8mo ago
  Or maybe just undo this weird timeline the last one put us in.
arthurfirst 8mo ago
it's already a black hole for funding
- chrystalkey 8mo ago
  Said the grumpy grandpa, shaking his hand at the cloudy sky. I dont know what value that comment contributed, funding research is always a long shot. And often times it fails, but that is kinda its purpose, we dont know what we dont know.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 8mo ago
    It's largely fans of Sabine Hossenfelder youtube channel, where some years ago sadly she shifted into just being a grifter selling conspiracy theories about the funding of particle physics. The audience here tends to vastly overweight contrarian near conspiracy theory style stuff, so this sort of comment shows up on literally every damn post about physics research.
    - chrystalkey 8mo ago
      Dont be too harsh on the first comment, I'm Sure he's a good guy. Interesting to see that hossenfelder thing, I was'nt aware of it. Her videos got recommended to me but title+thumb always felt like an over the top commentary with more drama than actual problem to be aware of. So I never clicked and at some point youtube stopped.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 8mo ago
        Yeah, it's sad she went that direction, because her educational videos that aren't agitpop are very good. It's just another example of how the incentives on modern social media pull people towards ragebait and other forms of grift.
  - mc32 8mo ago
    There’s an abandoned one around Dallas, the SSC. Lots of sunken cost in that one.
throwaway198846 8mo ago
As a non physicist I like the idea of a moun collider more - more compact (thus should be cheaper) as well as something which haven't done in similar energy scales and therefore more likely to need new technology in building it and finding something new.
- mikhailfranco 8mo ago
  Typo? I like the idea of a noun collider. Then we could smash apples and oranges.
assaddayinh 8mo ago
What changeable vectors are there except to scale up the energy levels? Can particles be altered prior to collission with the existing system to observe interesting effects?
- naasking 8mo ago
  Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and higher energy than radio frequency colliders like the FCC. If it has to go to particle physics, this money would be better spent on that research.
naasking 8mo ago
What a waste. So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC, and we're not even expecting any significant new insights from it.
- z3ratul163071 8mo ago
  amen
- thrance 8mo ago
  > So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC Ok, like what? Let the scientists at CERN decide what to spend their funding on.
  - naasking 8mo ago
    CERN shouldn't get that funding if they're going to push for the FCC. Funding is often contingent. Even sticking only to particle physics, there's lots of other research that could use that funding better, like wakefield accelerators and muon colliders.
    - thrance 8mo ago
      I mean, CERN is already funding many other projects? It's a huge organization. Why should the FCC specifically be forbidden to them? Who else than the actual CERN scientists has the competence to decide what to allocate funds to? I used to subscribe to this anti-collider contrarianism too, but then I realized that it is not that common among actual researchers.
- astrobe_ 8mo ago
  Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)
  - naasking 8mo ago
    1. That's not an argument unless the evidence for these payoffs is so huge as to dwarf the payoffs of 1000 smaller experiments. There is no evidence of this. 2. There is no world in which this applies to particle physics at this point, especially using radio frequency particle collider tech. This is known physics and there are no mysteries in the regime the FCC would reach.

155 points by zeristor 8mo ago

dharma1 8mo ago

“Eric Schmidt, who founded Google” no he didn’t

turtlesdown11 8mo ago
[flagged]
- dmix 8mo ago
  Do you have a source on that? I can't find anything besides he went to a Gala where he was in a photo with Maxwell and made an investment in a company her brother ran.
  - IncreasePosts 8mo ago
    Schmidt is a notorious SV playboy but all of his known extra marital partners have been well into their 20s
mc32 8mo ago
That kind of reporting is awful. How is it they can’t either go to Wikipedia or one of the LLMs (despite hallucinations, tend to get simple things right) and get some corroborating evidence before making such basic mistakes on an article?
- Forgeties79 8mo ago
  Man I can’t even trust simple things these days from LLM’s. Hardly scientific but I just decided to do my own little test one time when I was on discord talking to some friends about The Game Awards back in December or so. ChatGPT would simply omit winners and/or categories - got it wrong (twice the same way, one unique way) 3 times. We tried Gemini, it gave 1 wrong answer and omitted 2 categories. It was impressive how much worse than a basic search they were at a simple “what were the results of the 2025 Game Awards?”
- simianwords 8mo ago
  You are right. ChatGPT doesn’t catch this, instead catches things like CERN having 25 member states instead of 24. I would have expected it to catch it but it did not. I’m sure pro version would have though.
giancarlostoro 8mo ago
I can understand the confusion since he was CEO for the companies most critical years.

z3ratul163071 8mo ago

FCC is "physics" equivalent of easter island statues. Useless resource sink with no perspective productive outcome whatsoever.

notepad0x90 8mo ago

I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all! But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space. I've heard it said that research into this stuff will inevitably benefit all manners of other sciences, but hoping for a byproduct isn't the same as direct investment. I'm just asking in earnest if priorities are aligned properly. I'm sure many of these experiments and projects would be more useful if they were actually built in space! Even for space agencies, it's all sorely disappointing. Their focus is on research and experimentation, which wouldn't be a problem if there were plans that were getting executed with some vision or goal of actual progress in capabilities. Their planning is also too long-term. Why did artemis take 3 years? is it just to boast about being able to go back to the moon? By now this should have taken 3 months after over half a century. My point is not to be dismissive of the complexities, but to say that the state of things is being accepted as-is from what I'm seeing. Is there any actual solid plan to reduce at least launch times that factor? It would be amazing if humans launched enough infrastructure into space, that there were would be foundries and factories entirely in space, reducing the dependence on transporting heavy things from earth into space.Spacecraft and space station components could largely be manufactured by mining raw materials and manufacturing with them without depending on earth's resources directly. That's probably not realistic, but what I'm decrying is not so much lack of action, but lack of vision (outside of scifi), planning, and focus. That said, I'm just hijacking this to bring up that point of discuss. This is private cash, and I'm glad someone is donating to CERN for this research. I wish all the stuff I said could be funded with tax dollars. lay people need to see a vision, a plan, even if it can't be achieved in our lifetime, political will comes afterwards.

potamic 8mo ago
I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible! In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more. It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?

Fh_ 8mo ago

These projects are extremely expensive and the findings can alter humanity itself. That's why private donors sounds a bit sketchy

murkt 8mo ago
How can they alter humanity? What's the difference for humanity since CERN found Higgs particle? In what ways could the potential dark matter particle detection alter humanity?
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- niemandhier 8mo ago
  It’s a place where extremely skilled people work highly motivated on humanities hardest problems at scale. CERN pushed distributed computing and storage before anyone else hat problems on that scale. CERN pushed edge computing for massive data analysis before anyone else even generated data at that rate. CERN is currently pushing the physical boundaries of device synchronisation ( Check „ White Rabbit“ ), same for data transmission. CERNS accelerator cooling tech paves the way for industrial super cooling, magnet coils push super conduction… Companies are always late in the game, they come once there is money to be had: No one founded a fusion startup until we were close enough to the relevant tripple product.
  - vjvjvjvjghv 8mo ago
    Seems these are all positive things and it’s good that private donors are adding some money.
  - sylware 8mo ago
    You are perfectly right, this has been similar to the "space industry" (which includes 'ballistic nukes' knowhow maintainance). The thing with a bigger collider is it seems there are, not that honnest, scientists retro-fitting models in order to reach 'appropriate for this new collider' energy ranges where 'new physics' could be found.

user3939382 8mo ago

This should have a $1T budget not a B. We waste so much money on low efficiency computing infrastructure and energy that should be going to this.

SecretDreams 8mo ago
Maybe we can just have the AI hardware make the discoveries for us!
- sandworm101 8mo ago
  A thousand gpus running a thousand LLMs will one day soon give us the next shakespeare. It will all be worth it in the end. Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain.
  - SecretDreams 8mo ago
    > Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain. Anything less would be a wasted opportunity!
  - TeapotNotKettle 8mo ago
    “ Perhaps my old age and fearfulness deceive me, but I suspect that the human species - the unique species - is about to be extinguished, but the Library will endure: illuminated, solitary, infinite, perfectly motionless, equipped with precious volumes, useless, incorruptible, secret.”
tgv 8mo ago
I have low expectations that physics can dig itself out of the hole it dug by building an even larger collider. It's not worth €1T to find out.

mike-the-mikado 8mo ago

As someone who supports pure science research, I would be interested to understand if any of the discoveries of CERN (and related projects) in the last 50 years (say) have proved to have practical application. (Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)

colechristensen 8mo ago
This is such a weasel question because you can keep saying whatever was new was "just technology" not pure discoveries. No, there hasn't been any big "new physics" since the standard model in the 70s, everything has been refinement and specifics. You can't go to Walmart and buy something that couldn't exist unless we knew the precise mass of the top quark or the Higgs boson. There have been a tremendous amount of developments and technologies that have come out of CERN with varying degrees of closeness to particle physics, but depending on who you're talking to, most of them don't count. >(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research) Ok, but Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN when he created HTTP, HTML, etc. The Internet through web browsers as you know it was created at CERN in order to enable scientific communication and collaboration.
- mike-the-mikado 8mo ago
  I was hoping that someone would be able to point me to some practical technical advance enabled by discoveries or measurements at CERN (or similar establishments). It seems plausible to me that better understanding of the properties the subatomic particles might enable some previously unexploited technology (e.g. in quantum computing or sensing).
  - colechristensen 8mo ago
    Very very close to 100% of your entire lifetime experience of the world has only to do with the effects of gravity and the behavior of electrons both of which are extremely well understood and will be until (or if) a MAJOR paradigm shift in science that might not ever happen. Until theres commercial fusion or some extremely exotic high energy physics consumer products in hundreds of years the behavior of the strong force or discoveries about such just won't have impacts in daily life. Lots of technology has been developed and filtered down to everyone as a result of particle physics in the last 50 years but the actual end result discoveries not so much. We're waiting for revolution at ever higher energies and those might not be realized until daily life for humans looks extremely different. We're just sticking our toes in the ocean of knowledge and for daily life, we're stuck with electrodynamics.

sva_ 8mo ago

Maybe this one will finally make a black hole that ends it all https://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ https://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/

kachapopopow 8mo ago
https://hasthelargehadroncollidercreatedablackholeyet.com/ https://hasthelargehadroncollidercreatedablackholeyet.com/ (Yep, of money)
lelandfe 8mo ago
source code has us at 89%
dawnerd 8mo ago
Or maybe just undo this weird timeline the last one put us in.

arthurfirst 8mo ago

it's already a black hole for funding

chrystalkey 8mo ago
Said the grumpy grandpa, shaking his hand at the cloudy sky. I dont know what value that comment contributed, funding research is always a long shot. And often times it fails, but that is kinda its purpose, we dont know what we dont know.
- jasonwatkinspdx 8mo ago
  It's largely fans of Sabine Hossenfelder youtube channel, where some years ago sadly she shifted into just being a grifter selling conspiracy theories about the funding of particle physics. The audience here tends to vastly overweight contrarian near conspiracy theory style stuff, so this sort of comment shows up on literally every damn post about physics research.
  - chrystalkey 8mo ago
    Dont be too harsh on the first comment, I'm Sure he's a good guy. Interesting to see that hossenfelder thing, I was'nt aware of it. Her videos got recommended to me but title+thumb always felt like an over the top commentary with more drama than actual problem to be aware of. So I never clicked and at some point youtube stopped.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 8mo ago
      Yeah, it's sad she went that direction, because her educational videos that aren't agitpop are very good. It's just another example of how the incentives on modern social media pull people towards ragebait and other forms of grift.
- mc32 8mo ago
  There’s an abandoned one around Dallas, the SSC. Lots of sunken cost in that one.

throwaway198846 8mo ago

As a non physicist I like the idea of a moun collider more - more compact (thus should be cheaper) as well as something which haven't done in similar energy scales and therefore more likely to need new technology in building it and finding something new.

mikhailfranco 8mo ago
Typo? I like the idea of a noun collider. Then we could smash apples and oranges.

assaddayinh 8mo ago

What changeable vectors are there except to scale up the energy levels? Can particles be altered prior to collission with the existing system to observe interesting effects?

naasking 8mo ago
Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and higher energy than radio frequency colliders like the FCC. If it has to go to particle physics, this money would be better spent on that research.

naasking 8mo ago

What a waste. So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC, and we're not even expecting any significant new insights from it.

z3ratul163071 8mo ago
amen
thrance 8mo ago
> So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC Ok, like what? Let the scientists at CERN decide what to spend their funding on.
- naasking 8mo ago
  CERN shouldn't get that funding if they're going to push for the FCC. Funding is often contingent. Even sticking only to particle physics, there's lots of other research that could use that funding better, like wakefield accelerators and muon colliders.
  - thrance 8mo ago
    I mean, CERN is already funding many other projects? It's a huge organization. Why should the FCC specifically be forbidden to them? Who else than the actual CERN scientists has the competence to decide what to allocate funds to? I used to subscribe to this anti-collider contrarianism too, but then I realized that it is not that common among actual researchers.
astrobe_ 8mo ago
Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)
- naasking 8mo ago
  1. That's not an argument unless the evidence for these payoffs is so huge as to dwarf the payoffs of 1000 smaller experiments. There is no evidence of this. 2. There is no world in which this applies to particle physics at this point, especially using radio frequency particle collider tech. This is known physics and there are no mysteries in the regime the FCC would reach.