5 ms·

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 signi

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 9mo ago
amen
thrance 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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_ 9mo ago
Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)
- naasking 9mo 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.
  - surgical_fire 9mo ago
    Do you have evidence that "1000 smaller experiments" would give payoffs? And how do you measure payoffs? With how much money you get in return? Should scientific research expect this?
    - naasking 9mo ago
      Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.
      - astrobe_ 9mo ago
        Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series)
        naasking 9mo ago
        CERN and large construction projects like the FCC employ tens of thousands of physicists and engineers across decades. It's hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it.

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 9mo ago

amen

thrance 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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_ 9mo ago

Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)

naasking 9mo 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.
- surgical_fire 9mo ago
  Do you have evidence that "1000 smaller experiments" would give payoffs? And how do you measure payoffs? With how much money you get in return? Should scientific research expect this?
  - naasking 9mo ago
    Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.
    - astrobe_ 9mo ago
      Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series)
      - naasking 9mo ago
        CERN and large construction projects like the FCC employ tens of thousands of physicists and engineers across decades. It's hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it.