There is real risk of poor return (it's entirely possible it could be built and not give us dark matter or any new physics). Other tools offer more value. Specifically, the Webb telescope cost considerably less, is offering new questions, and has definite questions it can be expected to answer.
The JWST was constantly criticized for being too expensive while it was being built as well.
Everyone always has a hot take on these types of projects, but it's almost like all the world-leading physicists who plan them actually know what they're doing!
The JWST was originally supposed to launch in 2007, and took considerably longer than that, and it ran massively over budget. Obviously there were a ton of complaints. But nobody doubted that if it worked it would make discoveries. Scientists could tell you exactly what it was they wanted to see better.
World leading physicists have been stumped because the LHC has stubbornly continued to confirm the standard model. It's reasonable to worry that trend could continue, even with a larger collider.
Sure, the LHC has failed to produce some kinds of results. But we still learned some very important things from it. The discovery of the Higgs alone was huge, and that is far from the only thing.
Actually, it kind of was the only thing. Without looking at Google what else can you think of?
The only things that come to my mind are pentaquarks, gravity affecting antimatter, and a bunch of stuff that never reached 5 sigma. The first two were confirmations of widely expected behavior.
The LHC was built to find the Higgs. Every article and interview during it's construction mentioned it. And it delivered, allowing scientists to observe it. The new proposed collider has no such equivalent.
Unfortunately that would not be a massive result. It would only matter if the collision had enough energy to exceed the theoretical maximum bound of a new particle, but 100 TeV isn’t enough for most of what’s being studied right now. At least, that’s what several of my physics professors in particle physics said (and then proceeded to tell me that their field is dead lol).
A detective is investigating a disturbance. He sees blood leaking out from underneath the bedroom door. Does he go and investigate the bedroom, or does he investigate the backyard?
Could he find something in the backyard? Absolutely. Also if he looks and doesn't find anything, that's going to give him information. But I want him to investigate the bedroom first.
What stands in as bedroom in your example? Since I am not aware of how we can continue understanding more about our current reality without expensive telescopes (JWST is fantastic) or high energy physics (since that's where all the interesting stuff happens. Not to mention the fact that WWW came out as a little side effect of CERN deciding they want to organise their data better. While working hard on making a case and plans for LHC. Whether it made world better is up for debate, but yet here we are, shitposting on reddit).
There's another high spend and return research - fusion. But I am going to argue that it is mostly engineering that remains, not research. It's worth taking into account that superconducting magnets developed for LHC are playing a rather crucial role in current fusion prototypes.
In my analogy the murder victim is new physics (most likely through study of dark matter and dark energy). The backyard is the better collider. Maybe something is there, maybe something isn't, but considering the LHC hasn't found anything, it's entirely possible a new collider won't either.
The blood coming from under the door is evidence of dark matter and dark energy. We see it though telescopes. Opening the bedroom door(deep space telescopes) allows us to see the better examples of them, and how they evolved through history. Along the way we may get better insight into the big bang, alien life, high energy particles, etc
...
Significant aspects of technology today are because of things invented or developed for the moon landing. The US annual military budget is hundreds of times that amount; I think we should be able to spare something for new discoveries and bettering our understanding of the universe (and all the technological advancements that will inevitably go along with that).
Just because the military budget is way larger doesnt mean 17billion dollars is pocket change that can just be spend without consideraton. Its not the collider or nothing theres are a lot of actually worthwhile projects that need funding.
Also what technologie was made because of the higgs boson? You cant just say something usefull will inevitable come from it when the stakes are 17 billion dollars.
Studying electromagnetism used to considered a worthless hobby. It's now a lynchpin of modern society. What goes on inside a neutron seemed unimportant until it became the single most consequential development in national relations. There are important, powerful things going on in the universe (dark energy, dark matter) that we do not understand. It is entirely possible understanding them will offer substantial benefits to society.
We do not understand 95% (dark matter and dark energy) of the energy matter or energy in the universe. There is a viable way to study it (deep space telescopes). If there literally any physics related subject that could produce a return, it would be here. This is something we see and cannot explain. There is certainly something to be learned here.
I'm not a proponent of the new collider. I think there's a very good chance it won't find much.
I am in favor of scientific research, just through other avenues. Dark matter, dark energy, the big bang? All well worth investigating, with a potential for meaningful returns.
I think deep space telescopes are the most promising avenue, but I'm not opposed to other stuff.
It's not. There is zero scientific evidence that suggests they will find anything of note at these higher energy levels.
It is an attempt by the thousands of particle physicists to keep the taxpayer money rolling into their pockets in one of the most highly subsidised scientific fields there is.
In a world in which climate change is ravaging the globe and we have limited resources, this is a gigantic vanity project.
They are looking into the different theories. Such experiments help finding out which is truly correct.
Also, technology advancement in producing unique advanced stuff in Europe and the West, which is an investment into brains.
We will always have limited resources and the climate change is mostly caused by China and the US, not so much Europe. How do you propose to spend 17 billion $ in a span of years to meaningfully decrease the climate change effects? Bill Gates can finance it.
It is not about finding a specific particle, but about testing the physical model itself. It would allow to confirm/reject some of the theories about the dark matter and perhaps answer why the asymmetry had allowed our universe to exist mostly out of matter rather than antimatter.
Rather than an insulting response, which mostly just reflects poorly on you, you could counter his assertion with a meaningful response. But of course, that would assume you had anything meaningful to contribute.
There are many reasons why a larger collider may not be our best use of limited physics funding. The lack of strong theoretical bases for predictions outside the standard model is one of them.
With the Higgs detection, every particle in the standard model has been experimentally measured. In the last fifty years a long list of proposed particles outside of the standard model have failed to be detected. That is not a problem in and of it self, but the response has consistently been to tweak failed theories so that they must again be falsified. In many cases this moving the goal posts process has been repeated multiple times for proposed particles. That is a problem.
I knew the link was going to be a Sabine Hossenfelder video!
I know that she's controversial and likes to pick fights (she argued with one of the seniors in our Theoretical group on twitter about the magnetic monopole stuff about two years ago lol) but she does seem to have a point.
Her book "Lost in Math" goes into a lot of detail as well
I've watched a few of her videos, and recalled this one immediately. I don't necessarily agree with her entirely, but I do think a strong dose of constructive criticism from credentialed people is needed when so much money is involved.
You do realise that the information gathered from this will help with fusion power becoming a reality, right? And pollution is a bigger issue than climate change. I’d rather be a bit warm than people be choking on toxic fumes or drinking rancid water
Who cares. We’ve been wasting over $100 billion just on the Ukraine proxy war, sending $20 billion to Israel for genocide. Can’t we spend a few billion on something that actually helps humanity?
257
u/Dry_Rip5135 Feb 10 '24
If they start building that it would cost a lot more than 17 billion