Slashdot Mirror


The Next Big Particle Accelerator

Guinnessy writes "This year more than a thousand physicists gathered for three weeks at Snowmass Village, in the Colorado Rockies near Aspen, to talk about the future of particle physics in the US. Physics Today has a report on the meeting which says that the community should build a 500-GeV electron-positron linear collider. That's powerful enough to make mini black holes."

257 comments

  1. Power! by rf600r · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cool. They can zap every remaining bit of power that California has left to make a black hole for a nanosecond.

    1. Re:Power! by Ghengis · · Score: 1

      And ladies and gentlemen... here we have a real live NON READER... they don't even know what country the thing will be in... but you'd have to read the article for that...

      --

      "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

    2. Re:Power! by benwb · · Score: 1

      There are three or four sites discussed in the article- one is california (also japan, midwest, fermilab)

    3. Re:Power! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to see this at Fermilab. I worked security out there for about a year, and the place is really nice. I don't know where they would fit the accelerator though- possibly on the southeast field?

    4. Re:Power! by Dead+Fart+Warrior · · Score: 0

      When he said "We have a non-reader" I believe he was talking about himself.

      --
      Quality straight pr0n goes here
    5. Re:Power! by TheStruuus · · Score: 1

      Finaly, something that pulls more power than my dual AMD motherboard. Sheesh..

    6. Re:Power! by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I think we can eliminate California. Would you build something like this in California and risk losing all your work in the next ________ (A: Earthquake B: Fire C: Power Outage D: Writer's/Actor's Guild Strike)

      Fermilab or CERN makes the most sense to me.

  2. .. by vbrtrmn · · Score: 0, Funny

    This year more than a thousand physicists were sucked into a mini-blackhole.

    --
    it's a sig, wtf?
  3. Great. by dave-fu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    One more super particle accelerator means one more chance for physicists to blow up the world.
    If the e-mail hoax is to be believed, anyhoo.

    --
    Easy does it!
    This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
  4. mini black holes by donabal · · Score: 0

    but then walmart will want to sell family-sized black holes...

    whats the world coming to?

    seriously... first fusion, then black holes. what's next? soon we will be back at the arms race... again..

    --donabal

    --
    Safety First Day?
    1. Re:mini black holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An intercontinental ballistic black hole (IBBH) and its smaller cousin, the cruise-missile deliverable black hole, would be wonderful new weapons!

    2. Re:mini black holes by geekoid · · Score: 2

      First of all, the arms race worked.

      Second of all, mini-black hole doesn't mean what you think it means.

      Third of all, the potetial for these is unlimited, clean, electricity.

      forth of all, the walmart line was pretty funny.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:mini black holes by James+Skarzinskas · · Score: 0

      This morning, I get to school. I go to library, and I check Slashdot. 'Cold Fusion' possible! Well, if that wasn't enough, I come back this afternoon before I leave, and, this device here is powerful enough to make mini black holes. I have a feeling by the time I go home, I'll click onto Slashdot and the number one article will be about some time travel machine ;)

    4. Re:mini black holes by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      "unlimited, clean, electricity"

      That's a good one. Also an old one. Most slashdot readers probably are too old to remember all the "electricity too cheap to meter" claims for nuclear power back in the 50s.

      Not that I am against nuclear power. I'm just in favor of realistic expectations.

  5. Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As long as there are people living below the poverty line, blue skies projects like this should not get funding from the federal government.

    1. Re:Waste of money by Lordrashmi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      People are poor because they don't apply themselves. Sure not everyone can be a millionare. I know I'm not but I work my ass off and make a decent living. Unless you are mentally retarded you should be able to support yourself with hard work, not federal handouts.

      I don't know if this project is justified, but think of all the benifits it could have. Maybe find a way to cheaper energy, solve some medical problems or many other things beyond what we can imagine.

      No one knows what it will do for sure, but giving 5 billion to lazy people isn't going to make life any better.

    2. Re:Waste of money by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      "People are poor because they don't apply themselves. Sure not everyone can be a millionare. I know I'm not but I work my ass off and make a decent living."

      Some people don't have the education to do much of anything, similar to your lack of any social education or insight into the way the world works.

      If you REALLY believe this and want some examples of why you are making yourself look stupid, let me know. Then you can thank me for giving you the education you obviously missed out on.

    3. Re:Waste of money by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      Some people don't have the education to do much of anything, similar to your lack of any social education or insight into the way the world works.

      don't give me that crap.....there are lots of successfull uneducated people in the world. J.D. Rockefeller was not educated, many small business owners are not well educated. education != success. I can show you many well educated poor people who walk throught the doors of the welfare office I work at. it takes self motivation to become successful.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    4. Re:Waste of money by snilloc · · Score: 1

      shame on you for feeding a troll.

    5. Re:Waste of money by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      I know that came off as rather harsh but I believe it to be true. Sure some people get dealt a really bad hand by life. Sure things happen that are not in our control. Through all that though, you do make your own path in life.

      I didn't have the best in life but I worked hard and made the most of what I had. I am quite happy with how I am doing.

      On the other hand, I have a cousin who is much smarter then me. He had a full scholarship to some college to get a degree in Physics. He works at McDonalds now. Why? Because he didn't feel like working hard in school.

      I know people who weren't the brightest, heck I will say below average intelligence who applied themselves to there jobs and make a decent living.

      Its NOT about education or surrounding. It is about work ethic and determination.

      I must say that there are exceptions but I believe this to be true the majority of the time.

    6. Re:Waste of money by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      I can show you many well educated poor people who walk throught the doors of the welfare office I work at. it takes self motivation to become successful.

      And I can show you a bunch of people who work harder than 99% of America, and are STILL barely getting by, barely able to feed and clothe their kids.

      Do you know a lot of poor people who just said "I'm going to try really hard!" then jobs just started magically appearing in places where there were no jobs? Did they find money on the ground that allowed them to move someplace with more work?

    7. Re:Waste of money by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      You had your anectdote, so here is mine.

      My best friend in high school was poor - dirt poor. She was 1 of 5 kids. Her Dad was a successful IBM'er, her mom stayed at home and took care of them. When she was 12, her dad lost it, and abandoned them. He lives in a shack in Florida.

      What did her Mom do? She found a cleaning lady job, and worked while the kids were at school. At night she took care of them. The money she made wasn't nearly enough. They were on welfare.

      Then she got a better job selling appliances. More money, this time enough that she CHOSE to get off welfare. 2 of the kids were old enough to work so they helped out. Still scraping to even put food on the table.

      Now, you tell me: what the hell should she have done differently? Work harder? In what way?

      If you think this is the exception rather than the rule, you need to open your eyes. Do you really think that most poor people WANT to be poor? WANT their kids to go hungry and get mocked at school for wearing dirty old clothes?

    8. Re:Waste of money by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      That would be a situation where it was totally beyond her control and welfare is in place for that.

      I guess my first comment came across way to harsh. I understand exactly what I think but have trouble putting it into words (I am a coder not a writer). Some people (Like your friends mom) deserve welfare and more help then she got. Unfortunately the majority of the people on welfare (from my personal experiences, I could be wrong) are the people who could have had much better if they would have applied themselves instead of thinking the government owed them something.

      Gratz to your friends mom for working so hard but still shame on the majority who could do better but choose to be leaches.

    9. Re:Waste of money by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      I can show you a bunch of people who work harder than 99%

      realy?!! name them.....tell me their situation, were they criminals and now are looking for a good job? do they have kids and are singel with out any support from the father? do they not apply for jobs because thoseare not the jobs they want even though they need to work to support them selfs?

      what ever their situation it all points back to the person who is responsable not society. people are not victims of their situation they are the cause of it.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    10. Re:Waste of money by TheRealBob · · Score: 1

      I've known a few people similar to the one's you describe and I agree with your viewpoint. The thing is, until this sort of situation is something you deal with on a personal level (through a friend for example) a lot of people just don't get it. Poor people to those who are not exposed to it are just 'those' poor people. "Get a job, loser" types.

      I disagree with both of the original posts on this though. Stopping scientific research and progress to help the poor is stupid. The research itself may someday lead to helping the less fortunate of the world. Imagine if electricity were so abundant that it was virtually free, homeless shelters would have just that much more money in the budget for helping with job search and education programs for the people they help.

    11. Re:Waste of money by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      So we should never do anything to expand our understanding of the universe?

      There will always be people below the poverty line. Welfare doesn't change that, it defines poverty. The only solution would be to lower the poverty line to zero.

    12. Re:Waste of money by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      See my response below for an example. If you want more, I can give them to you.

      people are not victims of their situation

      So, if I grew up in poverty, and had to drop out of school at age 12 to work to support my family, and never had any resources to help me learn, or even TELL me what to learn so that I could do better, then that is my fault? What should I have done differently? Work harder than 18 hour days?

      Your knowledge of society is so tiny I can't believe you even have a job.

      support them selfs?

      themselves

    13. Re:Waste of money by Occam's+Nailfile · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately the majority of the people on welfare (from my personal experiences, I could be wrong)

      Evidently your education didn't include any critical thinking, or you'd know better than to make generalizations such as this. It's impossible for you to know the relevant circumstances of the majority of people on welfare. If you had any sense you'd have avoided that premise in your argument, and stuck to the "think of what this could enable" premise.

      The parent of this thread is a pin-brained troll, and the reason he's wrong has nothing to do with whether or not poor people choose to be poor. It has to do with a flawed perception that dedicating resources to one or another science project "takes away" from money that could be going to the poor. If we wanted to eliminate poverty we could easily grit our teeth, and establish a minimum level of subsistence in this country. Anyone could be guaranteed that minimum level and no more, and the carrot-and-stick model to get people inspired to work would be to require useful employment to get anything above a hovel in a giant apartment building.

      I don't think our civilization is advanced or our culture mature enough to play with this kind of concept, but there's no doubt we have an excess of resources available to implement it. Done correctly it could eliminate a lot of our social problems. Done wrong it could cause more than it solves.

      But there's one thing for certain: generalizing about "lazy poor people" like you do isn't helping anyone think about it clearly. Tell me truthfully when the last time was you had to worry about where your next meal was coming from. If you don't remember, you don't have anything to say about this subject. Period.

    14. Re:Waste of money by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      Last time I had to worry about a meal was when I lost my job in a city 1500 miles from everyone I knew and I have no money. That was about 1 year and a half ago.

      When did you last worry about where your next meal was coming from?

    15. Re:Waste of money by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

      "And I can show you a bunch of people who work harder than 99% of America, and are STILL barely getting by, barely able to feed and clothe their kids.
      "

      Ok, I'm not part of this argument, but I'll bite anyway. Give specifics, not just vague "possible situations." I'll even let you get away with "harder than 90% of America", since 99% is very hard work indeed.

      I am very interested because I have managed people at the low end of the social ladder occasionally. The people that the temp agency would scrape together and send to us to do basic manual labor. Most of them won't pay attention to training and look for every excuse to goof off. Most of them. But a small percentage don't: they listen to training, they aren't afraid of hard work, some will try to figure out better or easier ways to do the work. I don't know how this small percentage wound up on the bottom of the labor pool, but I can promise you that at my plant they didn't stay there very long. It is too rare to find someone who is really willing to put in hard work to just waste them away in a low value job. Did they suddenly become rich? No, of course not... but they are allowed to climb to the next ladder of the labor pool, and if they can handle the more complex or difficult work, then they go even higher. It is always nice when such people are also good learners, but even "simpletons" who you know will carry at task through to completion without goofing off as soon as a supervisor isn't looking got snatched up into full time work and a higher pay grade so that they wouldn't be lost.

      I think it is possible that a thinking person who will work hard could find himself or herself on the bottom of the economic ladder. I don't believe that they would stay there very long. Even someone who is a slow learner, but is honest and willing to work "harder than 99% of Americans" can find plenty of places that will be happy to employ them and, while they might never get rich, could rise out of poverty.

      Of course, as long as we keep defining poverty as a percentage of the average income, then we will always have it.

      I admit that you could possibly prove me wrong with the phrase "barely able to feed and clothe their kids" because if someone really tried, they could have A LOT of kids. Is that what you mean, that you know someone with like twenty-four kids below age 18?

      Or is it your definition of "barely able to feed and clothe." I have known some spoiled brats that would consider not having the latest $150+ Nike shoes "barely clothed" even though I played just fine with pair of Chuck Taylor All Stars. Perhaps there might be someone who is a workaholic who is so additcted to the consumer and name-brand culture that they don't budget properly for the essentials. I mean, we don't all have to be Amish, but we don't have to turn brand loyalty into a religion either.

      So give us the specifics. You can use fake names to protect the subjects if you like, but use real people... if you really know them. Are these people just a victim of a very temporary setback? Are they baby factories? Do they lack budgeting skills? If it is just "the man" keeping them down, then I suggest that you give them the phone number of a good temp agency that supplies industrial labor pools; if they really work that hard, then it shouldn't take them long to find an employer that sees their value and brings them on full time.

    16. Re:Waste of money by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      there is no reason that a person should have to drop out of school. families can go on wellfare and the kids can go to school, also, kids can be put into foster care if their families can not support them......its how we can break the cycle, make the kids go to school, allow the deadbeat parents to go on assistence and give the kid an education.

      BTW my other point of education != success still stands.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    17. Re:Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no reason that a person should have to drop out of school.

      You are just digging the hole deeper and deeper for yourself. I just can't believe that you are this ignorant of what is going in America.

      How about people that are already on welfare and that doesn't go far enough? And that money goes to doctor's bills and medicine (no insurance)? How about kids that were kicked out of their house, or who were abused at home and left to protect themselves? Do you even realize this is reality?

      kids can be put into foster care if their families can not support them

      You know of a lot of openings in foster homes? For minority kids? How about for learning disabled kids? Maybe there are in the fantasy world you live in. Tell me about the foster kids YOU are helping.

    18. Re:Waste of money by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      look pal I work for the Welfare office, people that do not have medical coverage can get medicaid, especialy if they are already on welfare. crist we give people money to buy a freeking house!!! those kids that get kicked out of homes can go to shelters and turn there parents in, BTW getting kicked out is no excuse for not going to school, infact I believe it was a few years ago that a kid went, enrolled in high school and when he graduated he got a full ride to a university, they found out later that he was homeless and took care of him self.

      and when it comes to protective services, ALL childern have the RIGHT to get foster care if they are in an abusive home, even the minorities and disabled kids (BTW I do agree that Mental Disability IS a reason to be on Welfare, but not physical, minus total paralization....look at steven hawking, infact in a class I have at school there is a guy who can only move his left finger and talk....he is in a university)

      No excuse except that people just give up.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    19. Re:Waste of money by junkpunch · · Score: 1

      look pal I work for the Welfare office

      So shouldn't you be helping someone instead of browsing /. all day?

      those kids that get kicked out of homes can go to shelters

      Are there shelters in your town? There sure as hell aren't any in my town, or in any town near here.

      ALL childern have the RIGHT to get foster care if they are in an abusive home

      You DO know there are not nearly enough foster homes, don't you? Not even close. Unless you are opening YOUR home to foster kids, you should keep your mouth shut.

    20. Re:Waste of money by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      what ever....keep making excuses for people, because as long as people make excuses the problem will never get solved.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  6. Celeberity deathmatch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So which is the most embarassing way to die : the way Lupe Velez did, or the way Bob Crane did?

  7. Yeah, next thing you know... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they build a 500-GeV electron-positron linear collider. The next you know Michael Jackson will buy one to sleep in because it makes him younger.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    1. Re:Yeah, next thing you know... by PD · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Take back what you said RIGHT NOW!!! Michael Jackson is a good and decent ummmm.... man?

    2. Re:Yeah, next thing you know... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      There's nothing indecent about sleeping in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, a 500-GeV electron-positron linear collider, or even a coffin. Eccentric? Sure. But not indecent.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  8. Probably won't get built by kaszeta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, I doubt that it will get built.

    Like the SCSC before it, it will end up on the cutting floor of a supposedly cost-conscious Congress.

    I doubted that the current Congress would've approved something like this to begin with. With the current state of economy, and the fact that eventually we'll have to clean up the giant mess that the recent anti-terrorism and airline support bills have made of our budget, the outlook is grim.

    Hopefully they won't waste a lot of money partially building it and then abandon it like the SCSC.

    1. Re:Probably won't get built by Ghengis · · Score: 0, Troll

      At least not until the country is done building more planes, bombs, guns, cruise missles, light armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. to allow the bin Laden family to finally cash in on that life insurance policy.

      --

      "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

    2. Re:Probably won't get built by Bonker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubted that the current Congress would've approved something like this to begin with. With the current state of economy, and the fact that eventually we'll have to clean up the giant mess that the recent anti-terrorism and airline support bills have made of our budget, the outlook is grim.

      Remember that the congress who killed (and then buried) SCSC was a Democratic Congress. I had the opportunity to speak to a physicist in '93 who actually attended the hearings. His take on the whole deal was that the D's were pretty openly 'punishing' Texas for voting Republican in '92 by yanking all its 'pork-barrel' projects.
      There was never a cost/benifit analysis or any mention of science. It was all politics and greed.

      The SCSC development pumped millions into both Lubbock and Amarillo economies. It took quite a while for both those economies to recover from its burial... and it was literally buried. They filled in the trenches dug for the contstruction so that it could not easily be ressurected. While I think Clinton was a fairly decent president in terms of job performance, he rubberstamped this one. This kind of behavior got the D's very firmly ejected from both Senate and House in '94.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    3. Re:Probably won't get built by MikeyLikesIt! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unfortunately, I doubt that it will get built.

      The article, though, brings up a good point: why do we need this? One speaker told the audience that they need to convince other scientists WHY the money should be spent on this machine. In other words, what are the practical uses? Why should we care about discovering new particles?

      And before someone replies with the "science isn't supposed to be concerned with uses, only with knowledge" argument, let me remind you that $5,000,000,000 has a LOT of zeroes behind it. This money could fund a LOT of other scientific endeavours that are just as important as this one (important in the sense that knowledge is important).

      So when deciding which projects should be funded by the governments of the world, it is only natural that the people paying for it should ask why they are paying for it. If there are no forseeable (or even potential) practical uses, why should that project be funded rather than another one?

      --

      I dunno... What do you wanna do?

    4. Re:Probably won't get built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With the current state of economy, and the fact that eventually we'll have to clean up the giant mess that the recent anti-terrorism and airline support bills have made of our budget, the outlook is grim. "

      We can always just throw the mess into the black hole we've created.

    5. Re:Probably won't get built by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • Unfortunately, I doubt that it will get built

      Why unfortunately? I know that compared to the NSA or the defence budget, it's just noise, and the pursuit of knowledge is great and all. However, I'm just an ignorant taxpayer, so (accepting that I'll get modded as a troll) can anyone explain what material benefits we've got out of the accelerators that we've already built, and what we expect to get out of this one?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Probably won't get built by Suidae · · Score: 1
      Normally I would defend spending lots of cash on collider projects, but in this case, I think you have a very good point. As far as science research goes, that is truely an ass-load of money. I'd rather see it go to other projects and save the big-ass collider for later, perhaps the cost will come down as technology progresses and the designers get more crafty about blowing shit up.

      On the other hand, if the money doesn't go to the collider, it'll probably be sent to poverty level baby factories on welfair, in which case, I'd rather see the collider.

    7. Re:Probably won't get built by Suidae · · Score: 1
      Accelerator technology has given us lots of stuff in materials science, medicine and chemistry. The URL below covers some of it in detail:

      http://www.nap.edu/books/0309060370/html/110.html

    8. Re:Probably won't get built by elvum · · Score: 1

      Like the SCSC before it, it will end up on the cutting floor of a supposedly cost-conscious Congress.

      That's a good reason for not building it in the USA, but a bad reason for not building it. This is an international collaboration we're talking about. Most of the world's particle physics experiments manage very nicely with no significant US funding at all.

    9. Re:Probably won't get built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CERN will probably build it instead.

    10. Re:Probably won't get built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better understanding of physics, directly and/or indirectly, leads to :
      better semicoundutors.
      better super conductors.
      perhaps telportation.
      want that cheap energy via fusion?
      how about cheap or even possible transportation to the stars.
      knowledge untilmatly leads to a number of side effects that will help us ( and probably hurt us). What is interesting is that many blame science for hurting us, when more often than not it is a politician/warrior who is trying to apply it in the worst possible way.

    11. Re:Probably won't get built by Saige · · Score: 2

      $5,000,000,000 has a LOT of zeroes behind it. This money could fund a LOT of other scientific endeavours that are just as important as this one (important in the sense that knowledge is important).

      As important as this could all be, you are very correct.

      How much money did the gov't approve for nanotechnology? I think $400 million or so, maybe less.

      If all of this money for the particle accelerator was funneled into developing nanotech, it surely could help push things much farther along. I feel the development of nanotech is much more important than the accelerator at this time - the accelerator can be built later on for cheaper if other technologoies are built up now.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    12. Re:Probably won't get built by krlynch · · Score: 2

      You're comparing apples and oranges:

      Nanotech: $400e6 dollars/year x 12 years = $4.8 billion dollars

      $5e9 dollar over 12 years = $5 billion dollars

      I'm not suggesting that this changes your argument, but when you are making an argument based on comparing "dollar investments", you need to compare the right dollar amounts. I'm actually opposed to building such a machine in the US, but for other reasons.

    13. Re:Probably won't get built by mcelrath · · Score: 2
      Material benefits? Bah. We, as humans, want to know how the universe works. This is the same quest that scientists and theologians have been on for millennia. I am not content to accept "I push the ball and it rolls over there, I don't know why...it just does". We want to know WHY. Where did we come from? Why are we here? How did the universe start? How will it end?

      It's also hard to relate the "Higgs boson" to the above questions in explaining it all to lay persons. Ultimately, we want to know why the universe is the way it is, and part of that question is "what is the universe made of?", which is a far more difficult question than it might appear.

      It is unfortunate that it takes billion-dollar accelerators to answer these questions, but I think they're worth answering. And I'd rather have several accelerators than the equivalent of B-2 bombers.

      Also remember that "high energy" = "expensive" but it also equals short-distance. The stuff we find at 500GeV is also the stuff going on in the atoms on your skin. Another way of phrasing that "we don't know what exists above 200GeV" is to say we don't know what happens on distance scales shorter than 10^-19 meters (10^-3 meters for gravity).

      --Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    14. Re:Probably won't get built by nomadic · · Score: 2


      It's also hard to relate the "Higgs boson" to the above questions in explaining it all to lay persons. Ultimately, we want to know why the universe is the way it is, and part of that question is "what is the universe made of?", which is a far more difficult question than it might appear.


      Don't you mean "we, as physicists"? Why should a 5 billion dollar particle accelerator take precedence over space travel or new telescope construction? Personally I'm lukewarm on the idea of a particle accelerator being built with my tax dollars at the moment. 5 billion dollars would vaccinate a lot of children.

      It is unfortunate that it takes billion-dollar accelerators to answer these questions, but I think they're worth answering. And I'd rather have several accelerators than the equivalent of B-2 bombers.

      Agreed, but those aren't necessarily the only two options.

    15. Re:Probably won't get built by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      can anyone explain what material benefits

      Not all benefits are material.
      --
      -- SIGFPE
    16. Re:Probably won't get built by mcelrath · · Score: 2
      Don't you mean "we, as physicists"?
      Yes, I'm a grad student in theoretical physics...and I'm working on Higgs boson calculations for such accelerators.

      We could argue for years about how money gets allocated, and not get anywhere. It's not really the point. I'd agree with you on vaccinations, but the sad fact is that no government is dumping a lot of money into vaccinating people outside their countries. If you can convince them though, I'd be all for vaccinating the entire african continent.

      Why should a 5 billion dollar particle accelerator take precedence over space travel or new telescope construction?

      At this point (human) space travel is too expensive, even for governments. Governments should get out of it as fast as possible, loosen the suffocating regulations preventing the private sector from doing it, and see what happens. At $10,000 per pound, sure a government could put a man on mars for ~hundreds of billions, but is that really worth it for flags and footprints? I want to live on Mars, but no stupid flags and footprints are going to get me there. (I could rant at length on this subject...if your interested you can email me) More X-Prize's and fewer space shuttles will get us more for our buck and will get humanity into space sooner.

      As to space telescopes, these are also very important, and there are many projects to build space (and terresterial) telescopes. But in the long run, telescopes can only tell us so much about the universe. A critical unanswered question right now is that of "dark matter". The universe is composed of roughly 95% stuff we can't see (not stars, planets, nebula, etc). We don't know what it is. It could be fundamental particles that don't interact or only interacts weakly with normal matter (something that could be discovered by a particle accelerator, but not a telescope). Or it could be large, dark jupiter-sized objects (MACHOS), something that can be seen by telescopes but not particle accelerators. So it's not an either/or choice. We need both.

      I guess a more pertinent question is: why oppose an accelerator? Science is cheap by most government standards, and has possibly the largest long-term benefit. It's not like taxes will go up because we decided to build an accelerator.

      --Bob

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    17. Re:Probably won't get built by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
      • Material benefits? Bah. We, as humans, want to know how the universe works [... and on and on and on...]

      What a long way to go to say "No material benefits.". ;)

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    18. Re:Probably won't get built by Rogerborg · · Score: 2
        • can anyone explain what material benefits
        Not all benefits are material

      No material benefits then? Thanks.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    19. Re:Probably won't get built by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Hurrah! An actual answer! Thanks Suidae, I really appreciate that you took the time to post this (rather than launching into a smug tirade that doesn't actually answer the question). ;-)

      OK, now I'm trolling (a little), but I get so tired of sneering armchair scientists telling me that of course there are benefits, and if I can't see them, then they can't bothered explaining. You're not helping win the hearts and minds of Joe Taxpayer, guys.

      Thanks again, Suidae.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    20. Re:Probably won't get built by fiziko · · Score: 1

      One more perk to add to Suidae's post; there are a lot of useful spin-off technologies to any science on this scale. For example, the World Wide Web we're using right now was designed at CERN to allow a fast and easy way to exchange the data collected at that particle accelerator.

      --
      - W. Blaine Dowler
      http://www.bureau42.com
    21. Re:Probably won't get built by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      'Not all benefits are material' does not imply 'there are no material benefits'.

      --
      -- SIGFPE
  9. MMMMM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Black holes are yummy yummy good!

    WTF? Lameness filter encountered? Reason Junk character post. I'll give you junk characters!!! HAH!

  10. So... by The+God+Soldier · · Score: 1

    can I use this thing to catch ghosts?

    Or will BAD THINGS happen?

    1. Re:So... by beerits · · Score: 1

      I think you will be safe as long as you don't cross the streams.

  11. mini black holes by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet a beowulf cluster of those would really suck.

  12. Now does that mean... by Ghengis · · Score: 2, Funny

    Homer Simpson gets sucked into a black hole and ends up in our world, so if we get sucked in, do we end up in Springfield?

    --

    "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS

    1. Re:Now does that mean... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, I think you have to deal with some tedious, red, evil robot with spinning blades.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Now does that mean... by Calcbert · · Score: 1

      Then would we find out what state Springfield is in?

    3. Re:Now does that mean... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Its in kentucky, forgot which episode I think it was the "true stories of the rich and famous" one.

    4. Re:Now does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stuff which sucks in something and spits out somewhere else is called a wormhole. A blackhole is supposed to suck and completely to squash to pure singularity. Just FYI.

  13. Bad Things by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

    I may not be a expert in particle physics but opening a mini Black hole. Maby they can do it, but, what if there theories about controling it are dead wrong. I know enought about physics to know that somthing is not true untill tests prove it to be true. And since this is not tested, you can't prove it to be true. But testing and proving that the ideas of a black hole are true but how to control it / what might happen may not be true coud be rather bad.

    Be honest, it is rather interesting to me, but I am a little afraid at the same time tht this might be a step to far right now.

    my 2 cents plus 2 more

    1. Re:Bad Things by Dead+Fart+Warrior · · Score: 0

      Maby they can do it, but, what if there theories about controling it are dead wrong.

      NO WORRIES!
      There aren't any theories on controlling black holes. Can't violate rules that don't exist!

      --
      Quality straight pr0n goes here
    2. Re:Bad Things by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this is like saying:

      "I'm not an expert in cars, but what if they explode randomly?"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Bad Things by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      > my email name is latin, look it up

      No it isn't. It just means you are breastless.

      Rick Gutleber
      hooterfree@zycha.com

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    4. Re:Bad Things by Chocky2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There wouldn't be a problem, black holes that small would evaporate so quickly as to never be any risk. Plus it would be virtually impossible to accidently create one in the process of doing other things. And besides, cosmic rays of several hundred GeV smack into our atmosphere every day.

    5. Re:Bad Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite the same, because an explosion can be put out...we know how to control them. But a black hole, by my understanding, grows out of control.

      As I understand, a black hole contains so much mass packed so densely that nothing can escape it. As additional matter is sucked in, the black hole becomes more "massive" and its event horizon grows. When the event horizon grows, more matter gets sucked in....infinite loop.

      Perhaps the quantity of matter needed is the key issue to it not being dangerous. Perhaps black holes require more matter than the earth contains before they begin to grow to any measurable ammount, in which case it wouldnt really pose a threat.

      Anyone know what it would take for one of these to grow out of control?

    6. Re:Bad Things by dragons_flight · · Score: 4, Informative

      See this story.

      The main reassurance we have is that cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere do get to highly energies than we've ever created. Hence if those energies can create mini black holes, then it must happen naturally in the upper atmosphere. Mini black holes from the upper atmosphere have yet to the destroy the Earth, so there is good reason to believe that nothing created in the accelerator will either.

    7. Re:Bad Things by -=OmegaMan=- · · Score: 2, Funny

      "I may not be a expert in particle physics"

      Heavens! I find this statement absolutely shocking from someone named after a Dragon Ball Z character... I never would have guessed.

      ;-p

      --

      This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens

    8. Re:Bad Things by alcmena · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make much sense. Say, for example, our sun suddenly collapsed into a black hole. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would still have the same gravitational pull. Just because you make things smaller does not mean their mass increases.

      So, even if we took the entire mass in New York and compressed it into a black hole, it still should not have any bigger of a gravitational effect on Ohio than it did before. Or am I missing something?

    9. Re:Bad Things by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      Nick given to me >:)= not given to me by myself (can you say th same >:)= )

    10. Re:Bad Things by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      If it's a theory, it has already been tested, and the result supports it. You would actually have to prove it wrong - you cannot just dismiss and say "What if it's wrong?"

      I keep telling people, "If you don't like a theory, tough. IF you think it is wrong, the burden is on you to disprove the theory."

    11. Re:Bad Things by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      Yes I know the concept is there and all. But realy now, but the idea is still theory. Did I say anything like destroying the earth, mmmm no!! >:)=

      but its still just theory, and any theory is open to being just a bit off. So maby I worded this wrong above, but still seams a little mssed to me to try to create a mini black hole. Yes I am interested and am looking for more reading material, but gain this could still turn out to be a total failure. and thats a hell of a lot of energy they ae using to make this mini black hole. So no matter what why you want to look at it (black hole taking out the generator, Overload lead to explosion) there is a lot of risk here. And thats what I want to get across.

      and geekoid
      your comment is "I'm not an expert in cars, but what if they explode randomly?"

      Not being a expert dose not mean I know nothing about the subject. I have read some material on it and am looking for more, so please dont compare me to someone who speacks about things while they have not done any reading ont he subject. So this statement dose not apply to me, because I am pointing out (however unlikealy the chance) that there is the possability that things could go terabaly wrong.

      my 2 cents plus 2 more

    12. Re:Bad Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Theory in Physics does not necessarily work this way. There is a whole branch of physics, called Theoretical Physics. Their entire purpose is to think up ideas of how things probably work. Other physicists and engineers then try to back up the theories with experiments...

      It very well could be that a particular physics theory has some physical precursor to it, but many don't...

      Much of what happens in high energy physics is done as a result of a theoretical physicist's wild thinking...

    13. Re:Bad Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many scientists had similarly based fears about the first A-Bomb. Would the chain reaction somehow involve the atmosphere, and destroy the atmosphere?

      Since similar energies are involved in cosmic rays striking atoms in our atmosphere, which has yet to be consumed by a runaway black hole...

    14. Re:Bad Things by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about physical precursor. I said "tested". Testing can be done mathematically as well as physically, and the burden of disproving it is still the same.

      This is the way it works in Quantum physics, high-energy physics, superstring...all of the stuff that falls under "Theoretical".

    15. Re:Bad Things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The differance is that when cosmic rays hit the atmospehere, they hit slowmoving particles. Much like a bigass train hitting a wall. In a particleaccelerator, it's more like two bigass trains colliding, head on, at max speed.

      The differance is quite... Big...

    16. Re:Bad Things by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

      again you miss the point
      how do they know there method of doing it is rigth
      >:)=

      they don't
      yes they beleave this is whats happening in the atmosphere but are still not 100% certon of this. Its a theory. And yes I rember that debate about what if the A-Bomb is more powerfule then we had expected it to be. Well they had a right to wonder, becasue you nver know. The concept of one attom splitting into 2 , coliding with 2 more attoms making more atoms and so on could in theory go on long enough to case a bigger then expected explosion. But the theories did prove correct and there calculations proved correct. But the idea here is, you can never know until you try. But there lies the problem. Proving the theory is sometimes not fun.

      think about the first scientets who worked with radio active material, most to all died early, generaly from radiation poising over time.But they did not understand it fully but thee theories still hold true today. So its just the idea that somthing can go wrong. Be honest I want to know if it can be done, but they have to be carfule just in case.

      my 2 cents plus 2 more

    17. Re:Bad Things by mreece · · Score: 2

      >This doesn't make much sense. Say, for example,
      >our sun suddenly collapsed into a black hole.
      >Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it would still
      >have the same gravitational pull. Just because
      >you make things smaller does not mean their mass
      >increases.

      That's right. People are worrying over nothing. Of course, there are big differences very near the black hole, but not at any reasonable distance scale. Tiny black holes aren't much of a threat to anything.

      --
      Matt Reece
    18. Re:Bad Things by mreece · · Score: 2

      >but gain this could still turn out to be a total
      >failure. and thats a hell of a lot of energy
      >they ae using to make this mini black hole. So
      >no matter what why you want to look at it (black
      >hole taking out the generator, Overload lead to
      >explosion) there is a lot of risk here. And
      >thats what I want to get across.

      There is no threat. First, a few hundred GeV is not a lot of energy. It is a lot relative to the masses of fundamental particles (proton mass is ~ 1 GeV) but not compared to the sorts of energy scales you're used to dealing with on an everyday basis. Second, the goal of the accelerator is *not* to create a black hole, but to probe new physics at this high energy scale, like (hopefully) the Higgs mechanism (giving us a better understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking), and (again, hopefully) supersymmetry. There are many very good signs that we will learn a lot about physics in these energy scales, gaining insight into mechanisms that were previously out of the reach of our colliders.

      Electron-positron colliders are in some ways cleaner (in terms of the data we get from them) than proton-antiproton colliders (like the Tevatron at Fermilab or the planned LHC at CERN). The problem with building them is they must be linear; particles moving in a circle lose energy (it's called synchrotron radiation), and since electrons are so light they lose a *lot* of energy, so we can't use them in circular colliders like we can protons. One possible future alternative is a muon collider; muons are heavy enough to not emit much synchrotron radiation, so we could use them in a future collider, and the physics of muons is much like that of electrons, so we keep the "cleanness." This is farther in the future, though. One difficulty is that muons are harder to produce than electrons or protons; one way might be hitting a fixed target with a beam to produce pions, which then decay into muons.

      Anyway, my point is that the physics going on here is fairly well constrained by what we already know, so no disasters will happen. We will learn about physics in a bit more detail than we currently know about it, though, and a linear electron-positron collider has advantages that other types of colliders we could currently build don't. (Of course, it has its disadvantages too, but getting data from multiple kinds of experiments is important to be able to understand the results). There is absolutely no threat of a "mini black hole" eating the Earth, or the collider, or much of anything else. There's no sense worrying about disasters here. The decision to make is whether public funds should be spent on basic research, not on any dangers of this research.

      --
      Matt Reece
    19. Re:Bad Things by SIGFPE · · Score: 2

      The black holes would evaporate if Hawking radiation is for real. The first physical test of whether or not Hawking radiation really takes place would be observing mini black holes made in an accelerator...

      --
      -- SIGFPE
    20. Re:Bad Things by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      The first physical test of whether or not Hawking radiation really takes place would be observing mini black holes made in an accelerator...

      What would be unfortunate would be that being the last test.

      It would be nice if Nature came equipped with signs like: Proceed with caution!

      Dancin Santa

  14. oh boy, maybe we'll find a smaller piece of crap by nafeger · · Score: 0, Troll

    What is the hope with this? Scientists seem to be on the quest for the smallest possible things. If it were merely for the academic quest of finding smaller stuff I'd be all for it. However, it seems to me that in their search for particulars, they hope to understand the universal. It just seems like their heading in the wrong direction.

  15. Re:Mini black holes, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, let's kill a bunch of innocent people because their oppressive gang of unelected warlord leaders *may* be harboring Osama ibn Laden, who *may* have been responsible for the WTC incident...

    I'm sure your opinions have made you a lot of buddies at the office, but when you die you will face the Creator, who only knows Truth. Remember: it's "Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, except it's perfectly cool to kill non-Christians", or "Thou shall not kill, except people who are ethnically similar to the people who have sinned against America, the land of the Chosen".

  16. Molly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I love Molly Shannon!

    1. Re:Molly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! She doesn't know me, yet. If she did, she'd fall in love with me straight away.

  17. PSP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like in Andromeda - they bad guys have a weapon called a Point Singularity Projector (PSP) - a weapon that fires miniature black holes..

    Once again, science fiction paves the way for science fact! :o)

    1. Re:PSP! by TheRealBob · · Score: 1
      Once again, science fiction paves the way for science fact! :o)
      Ever think God is just sitting around watching? Thinking to himself... "Hmm, I wonder what they'll think up next?! Mini black holes! Damn what a cool idea!" Then goes off and makes sure all of creation will be able to handle the 'exceptions' that occur?
    2. Re:PSP! by abolith · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      no there is no God

      --
      if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
  18. Cool by Buzzwang · · Score: 1

    This could actually be kinda cool. I mean, money aside, they'll actually be able to start peeking into things that we can't go to yet. We can barely get off our own planet, let alone go check out the local scenery. This thing would let the smart-folks exmaine lots of local stellar stuff, after a fashion. Could be a great boon to scientific research.

    --
    Things you can say to your dog that you can't say to a girl: "How about a nice bone?"
  19. Cost (again) by crumbz · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the billions proposed to be spent on esoteric particle research would better be spent on applied materials science. Just a thought....

    1. Re:Cost (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or marital science.

    2. Re:Cost (again) by jnik · · Score: 2
      I wonder if the billions proposed to be spent on esoteric particle research would better be spent on applied materials science.

      Well, the fields are closer than you think. "Esoteric particle research" boils down to a better understanding of quantum phenomena, which includes nailing down the band theory of solids (among other things)--very important in understanding how to make stuff adhere and cohere.

      No, this doesn't have immediate application in the sense of "does material A or material B work better?" but it can help us answer the question "How do I design a material C to work the best?"

    3. Re:Cost (again) by crumbz · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Quantum mech has real-world applications for computing that we may see in the next 5-10 years. Something that was not imagined 80 or so years ago by Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, et al.

    4. Re:Cost (again) by UberNex · · Score: 1

      Well seeing as applied material science gets big bucks from companies and corporations this "esoteric" particle research (as well as most anything without a direct link to joe consumer)needs to get money from someplace. It might not have direct applications to everyday life, but it's stuff like this that makes life interesting.

    5. Re:Cost (again) by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      No. Band theory of solids has nothing to do with the Standard Model or string theory that is being tested by accelerators. That's like saying
      "implementing Quake 9 boils down to using C, which is very important in implementing the Linux kernel...." So what? Any code written for Quake 9 doesn't advance Linux kernel work at all. Do you see any solid state physicists lining up to say "band theory will grind to a halt unless you fund this collider"?

      Materials scientists already do a lot of good work on understanding materials and how to design good new ones. Like high-temperature superconductors, for instance. They owe more to chemists than high energy physicists.

    6. Re:Cost (again) by habig · · Score: 1

      Today's esoteric research is tomorrow's applied science. Let's not short our grandchildren's chances for cool new stuff.

      Franklin, Faraday, Maxwell, etc. had weird stuff in their time which later turned out to be rather useful. The same was true for the Curies, Rutherford, and then the whole quantum mechanics crowd in the 1920's.

      Where would we be now if at the time people had spent all their research resources on better steam engines instead?

  20. Ummmm... what? by supabeast! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, particle physics are not my cup of tea, but I am going to assume that if people are even beginning to think about building a five billion dollar particle accelerator, there must be some really good reason.

    So would someone who does have a clue enlighten the rest of us as to just WTF this thing would actually be good for? I mean, is this going to provide us with new ideas, knowledge, and technology that can greatly benefit mankind, or does it just let some really badass physicists find out what happens when they slam particles together really fast?

    1. Re:Ummmm... what? by rebelcool · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It helps form the basis of physics, of which one needs to know before that is then applied to technology and what not to benefit mankind.

      Kind of like before computers could be built, logic theory needed to be worked out. Back in the 1920s, logic theory was fairly useless and relegated to logicians in academia. Then the computer came along and logic theory found its place.

      --

      -

    2. Re:Ummmm... what? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're confusing corporate research with science.

      Science exists to find out what is, simply for the sake of it being.

      Corporate research exists to find out things to make money on (or minimize costs, same deal).

      I'm sure they didn't know for certain what they were going to get when they started playing around with most discoveries that led to the technologies that make our modern world what it is....

    3. Re:Ummmm... what? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will let scientists understand a little more, IF it allows them to understand the right things, it could allow scientest to build power plants with unlimited power, and clean.
      In the more immediate sense, it would create Jobs, and stimilate the local economy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Ummmm... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I support basic science for its own sake, it would be going too far to suggest that building a new particle accelerator could lead to the discovery of some great new power source. That is extremely unlikely.

    5. Re:Ummmm... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may well lead to new ideas and knowledge. As for "benefiting mankind", it all depends on your perspective. Is it going to result in a better microwave oven? No. Does mankind benefit from understanding the universe in which we live? I think so.

    6. Re:Ummmm... what? by greysky · · Score: 3, Funny
      From the Civilization CTP manual:


      Physics: Allows research of Magnetism, Steam Engine and Atomic Theory.

      Atomic Theory: Allows research of Nuclear Fission.

      Nuclear Fission: Uranium becomes a comodity and allows research of Nuclear Power.

      Nuclear Power: Increases ship movement and allows research of Fusion Power.

      Fusion Power: Eliminates the threat of nuclear plant meltdown and allows for the research of Future Technology.

      Future Technology: Adds to overall game score.


      So in a nutshell, we're trying to add to our game score.

    7. Re:Ummmm... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the more immediate sense, it would create Jobs, and stimilate the local economy.

      We don't need to create Jobs. We need to create Woz.

    8. Re:Ummmm... what? by dchamp · · Score: 1
      No kidding. One Jobs is enough.


      Actually, I think I have a better idea. If you clone Jobs, then put the two Jobs together in a room, they would clash so badly that a singularity may be created.


      I'm pretty sure they could do this a LOT cheaper than by building the huge accelerator.
      -dc

    9. Re:Ummmm... what? by jaoswald · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah, but logic theory was cheap. They didn't come with cups in their hands saying "give me billions of dollars for something that might be useful in the unforeseeable future." What about all the math done at the time that is still useless? I guess you just didn't bother to learn that. For good reason.

  21. Re:oh boy, maybe we'll find a smaller piece of cra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it were merely for the academic quest of finding smaller stuff, they'd be looking down JonKatz pants!

    BWAHAHAHAH!

    Can you imagine a big-ole-goat cluster of these!

    BWAHAHAHAH!

    fnord

  22. Re:oh boy, maybe we'll find a smaller piece of cra by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

    At this point, it seems that Very Big and Very Small are at two ends of a spectrum which looks a lot like a circle (kind of like left-wing and right-wing.) IOW, the same structures, e.g. strings, which manifest themselves at the smallest levels of matter, also seem to manifest on a grand, nearly universal scale. Human-scale (i.e. Newtonian) physics may actually be the exception to otherwise universal rules, an island of what we call normality in a sea of micro- and mega-scale weirdness.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  23. 500 GeV is nothin' by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2

    What about 1.21 gigawatts?

    (btw, the submitter meant energetic enough to make a mini-black hole. considering the very short time span that's not all that much power)

    --
    324006
    1. Re:500 GeV is nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many joules is that? And how long can it be sustained? Can we get a energy/time ratio of a gigawatt so we can run the flux capacitor?

    2. Re:500 GeV is nothin' by dragons_flight · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incidently, I was told that if Fermilab loses confinement on their Tevatron beam, it hits the ring with the force of a big rig hitting a wall. Hopefully the lost beam is distributed over a large enough section not to cause serious damage, but even then you get to hear an audible "WWHHuuuummmpp". The idea that a bunch of particles can get themselves heard is a little frightening when you think about it.

    3. Re:500 GeV is nothin' by gorgon · · Score: 1

      1 eV = 1.6 E-19 J
      So 500 GeV = 8E-8 J
      That would be much for a macroscopic object, but is pretty impressive for a subatomic particle.

      --

      And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
      Berke Breathed
    4. Re:500 GeV is nothin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Tevatron particle collider:

      First, the Tevatron's magnets store as much as 400 million joules of energy, equivalent to about 1,000 sticks of dynamite. Second, the beam accelerated by the Tevatron to 1 TeV is equivalent to more than 10 million joules, enough to drill a hole through the surrounding magnet. Third, the magnets require 25,000 liters of liquid helium, which could rapidly expand to 50 million liters of gas, enough to fill a blimp as long as a football field and five stories high.
    5. Re:500 GeV is nothin' by Dr.+Kinbote · · Score: 1

      That's per particle. Now, typical bunch charges
      are in the range of nanocoulombs, so we have around 10^10 particles. Sounds better?

  24. What blackholes? by vtechpilot · · Score: 1

    Gee thats odd, I don't remember the article mentioning black holes. I did read the same article as the rest of you guys right?

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
    1. Re:What blackholes? by JesseL · · Score: 2

      There is the (remote) possibility that the submitter actually knows somthing about particle physics and what it takes to create miniature black holes.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  25. Re:oh boy, maybe we'll find a smaller piece of cra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists need to understand the forces that control matter, and they can most easily do so by looking at the "small stuff." They are working on a theory that there are up to 12 dimensions that exist based on the collisions/particle interactions they have observed.

  26. Build it in the Right Spot by JJ · · Score: 2

    This machine will cost a lot of money, but how much will determine if it will get built. While Japan might be a great place to do it to keep symmetry, we need to learn from the SSC failure. It was (partially) built in Texas in spite of the fact that it would have been much cheaper at Fermilab. If this machine will be built cost considerations must be foremost. That probably means Fermilab again is the only realistic place.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    1. Re:Build it in the Right Spot by Malc · · Score: 1, Funny

      The article talked about building it in CA or Japan. That seems really sensible to me: build a $5 billion particle accelerator in an earthquake zone! ;)

    2. Re:Build it in the Right Spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might not be able to happen at Fermilab. Dekalb County, Il. is starting to get built-up pretty good. Some people in the area already want to put a road across Fermilab, so they periodically lobby Congress hard on it.

      All you need is one of them to get worried about some imagined health issue and, well...

  27. Because... by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...nobody really knows how gravity works, at a fundamental level. Gravitons, gravity waves, a quantum mechanical theory of gravity--all these things are related and outstanding (as in "not done yet").

    Those of us with even a passing familiarity with science can surely think of applications for a fundamental theory of gravity, but for the others of you here's a hint: anti-gravity, time travel, faster than light drives.

    --
    324006
    1. Re:Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not very likely that this accelerator will help us test quantum gravity. Quantum gravity scales are many orders of magnitude beyond our largest accelerators, which are themselves more powerful than the one being proposed. Accelerator physics isn't likely to do anything for quantum gravity, unless particular hypothetical large-extra-dimension proposals happen to be right.

    2. Re:Because... by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      From the Slashdot headline: That's powerful enough to make mini black holes. As pointed out by AC, this is only if some very speculative theories turn out to be correct.

      Here's a good NY Times article about the black hole idea.

    3. Re:Because... by Coolumbus · · Score: 1
      ...nobody really knows how gravity works

      Right, but some people have their own ideas... Have a look at this guy.

      His quote:

      "Now, this theory indicates that "Gravity" is the ultimate cause of God and that brain growth is the direct cause of God. Therefore it also indicates that gravity mediates brain growth. Science does not presently know how this works"

      Read and see for yourself. (Sadly, a waste of apparently good intellect if you'd ask me.)

      --

      --
      Slashdot signature: 'Laugh assist to nerd'

    4. Re:Because... by mreece · · Score: 2

      You're only partially right. Quantum gravity may be at a much higher energy scale, but we can still begin looking for signs of things like large extra dimensions. Or, for that matter, supersymmetry, which is of course fairly important for deciding whether or not string theorists are correct about things.

      --
      Matt Reece
  28. Ooh. by b0r0din · · Score: 1, Funny

    Building a high-luminosity linear electron- positron collider with a collision energy of 500 GeV--upgradable to 800 or 1000 GeV--was, for most participants, the obvious next big undertaking of the world particle-physics community.

    After all, there's nothing cooler than overclocking a black hole.

  29. most embarrasing ways to die: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miramax announces Don Knotts to play hacker Emmanuel Goldstein in upcoming movie "Takedown"

  30. rename California? by CrudPuppy · · Score: 1

    once they use all power reserves, could we then refer to California as "the black state with the black hole?"

    *grin*

    --
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
  31. No black holes here. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nowhere in the article does it mention creating mini-black-holes. The purpose is to try to create Higgs bosons and to precisely measure their characteristics to get a better handle on how electroweak symmetry breaking works.

    To create mini-black-holes, you'd need a Planck-energy accelerator. This is beyond our current ability to build, and will remain so for quite a while. Scientific American had an article many years ago about what you'd have to do to build a conventional linac that powerful; it ended up having to be constructed in space and taking 2% of the sun's power output to run.

    On a more mundane scale, we have experimental evidence (from cosmic rays of the same energy) that nothing catastrophically bad happens in collisions at energies of up to about 1.0e30 eV. We're not going to produce energies this high for a very long time either (current accellerators get in the 1.0e13 range at most; that's 100,000,000,000,000,000 times too low to be a concern).

    1. Re:No black holes here. by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in the article does it mention creating mini-black-holes. The purpose is to try to create Higgs bosons and to precisely measure their characteristics to get a better handle on how electroweak symmetry breaking works.

      Oh, sure, and then the whole world gets shrunk down to the size of a pea, and Stanley never gets to finish having sex with Bunny.

    2. Re:No black holes here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ** This is beyond our current ability to build, and will remain so for quite a while. Scientific American had an article many years ago about what you'd have to do to build a conventional linac that powerful; it ended up having to be constructed in space and taking 2% of the sun's power output to run. **

      Oh Really??? Hmm, perhaps someone should fill in the EU scientists about this being beyond our current capabilities and all that. Read the article at http://www.nature.com/nsu/011004/011004-8.html

      What I would like to know is how they are siphoning that 2% of the Sun's power to run this thing. Maybe they modulated the CERN main deflector dish in Geneva and are sucking it in that way? I knew that StarTrek "science" would come in handy someday.

      ELM
      Boldly going where many Anonymous Cowards have gone before...

    3. Re:No black holes here. by SL2C · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, there is a fashionable idea in particle physics these days which goes by the name of "large extra dimensions" (large compared to the ordinary Planck length), which would bring the Planck scale, where you could expect to create mini black holes, down a lot (depending on the number of extra dimensions, geometry of spacetime in these additional dimensions, etc.) Lots of free parameters, by which you can get anything you like, much like in string theory ;-)
      Anyway, in these scenarios you do expect black hole creation a the next linear collider, or in fact even at the LHC, currently under construction at CERN.

      Also, very briefly the way experimental particle physics has worked over the last decades is to build proton and electron (possibly muon in the future) colliders alternatingly.

      With hadron (proton) colliders such as the LHC you get high energies more easily because of less synchroton radiation (charges being accelerated, including going around a curve, radiate away a lot of their energy, increasing the power you need to operate the machine. This radiation is less if the particles are heavier, as is the case for hadrons). This way you create expected (and unexpected ;-) ) particles but identification and precision measurements are hard because hadron colliders are very messy (lots of unwanted particles created along the way, giving huge background to whatever you want to look at). This is because of the more complicated laws of physics of hadrons compared to leptons (electrons or muons).
      People hope to find "the" (i.e. standard model) Higgs boson or something more unexpected (supersymmetry, mini black holes, ...) at the LHC in fact.

      Then after some time when engineering has made enough progress to bring leptons up to comparable energies, you can do precision tests on whatever you have found already. Here it can be useful to have some data available from the hadron machine.
      Anyway, you need both if you want to be sure about the laws of physics.

      The question for the US IMO is if it wants to have world class particle physics in the future. Currently the strongest hadron collider in the world is at Fermilab in Chicago. This will be made obsolete (for direct fundamental particle searches) by the LHC, which is in Europe.

      If the US fails again to build a world class machine, it will be built somewhere else in the world (Europe or Japan) and US experimental particle physics will be between in-trouble and non-existent for decades.

      (I say this as a particle physicist in Europe.)

      On the question why it fundamental physics should be done - as far as technology is concerned, there are sometimes spin-offs in the short run (such as the WWW, developed at CERN), and revolutions in the long or very long run (e.g. all semiconductor technology would be unthinkable without basic research in quantum mechanics in the first decades of the 20th century). Maybe it will happen again. Nobody can tell. Also, it's culture and it's fun. Taxpayer decides if this is interesting enough.

    4. Re:No black holes here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CERN is not going to reach anywhere near the Planck scale. In most theories of quantum gravity, black hole production isn't thought to occur below the Planck scale. It's only a few very speculative and less conservative theories that predict otherwise.

  32. FYI... by Drakula · · Score: 1

    ...GeV = giga-electron volt = 10^6 eV, and that is a buttload of energy. That is the kinetic energy the particles will have when they collide, which is all they care about.

    --
    "It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
    1. Re:FYI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1GeV = 10^9 eV
      1MeV = 10^6 eV

    2. Re:FYI... by Drakula · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      I so rarely have anything to contribute that I got excited and boned the number. Oh well...

      --
      "It's comin' back around again..." -RATM
    3. Re:FYI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actially 10^6 eVs is not that much engergy at all... it's just concentrated in a very small space so it's a high energy density.

      An electron volt is only 1.6x10^-19 J... so we are talking about a total energy of less than a joule.

  33. yeah! by CrudPuppy · · Score: 1


    just think, with a inter-continental deliverable blackhole (ICDB), there wouldnt be all those pesky bodies to clean up when we want to use the real estate either!

    heh!

    --
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
  34. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  35. Science by virg_mattes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > As long as there are people living below the poverty line, blue
    > skies projects like this should not get funding from the federal government.


    Although I understand your point, there are a few issues to consider. The first is that, since the poverty line is more or less a percentage measure, there will always be people below it (it's like saying, "until everyone earns in the top 60 percent wage bracket"). The second is that there will always be social issues that require funding, but it's very short-sighted to say there should be no funding for science until all of the relevant social issues are solved, since all of the relevant social issues will never get solved, and pure science research often leads to practical applications that solve some of the social issues. You must always remember that funding is never an all-or-nothing proposition, and it shouldn't be. The developers of radio science could never have imagined that someday their ideas would be used (in MRI) to diagnose diseases without surgery, and saying that such studies shouldn't have been funded until we cured all diseases would have been very short-sighted.

    In short, most funding poured into scientific studies is wasted. The problem is, you never know beforehand which projects will be duds and which will transform the world. So, we must strike a balance, and this particular machine has showed much promise in revealing new secrets, so its price tag may very well be paid back with a cure for cancer or cheap, renewable energy that will make coal- and oil-fired power plants obsolete.

    Virg

    1. Re:Science by JohnsonJohnson · · Score: 1

      You are correct in noting that funding is not generally an either/or problem but I have two nits to pick:

      1) MRI is an outgrowth of NMR which is an application of quantum theory to chemistry. The basic research came out of the lab of R. Ernst in Switzerland and has little to do with radio research at all except for the fact that radio frequency signals are generated by the equipment.

      Most radio researchers are either concerned with coding problems such as spread spectrum techniques, the related problem of signal interference or miniaturization of radio devices. Except for the last of these (and only slightly) none of it is of interest to NMR or MRI researchers. The means to produce high frequency radio signals was solved by Marconi, Tesla, Hertz and others at the turn of the century. It is an obvious step from the existence of radio frequency signals and the quantum physics of a system with a magnetic moment to NMR so no one was surprised the problems are mostly technical.

      2) I don't have any evidence but I doubt most funded research can be considered "wasted". First of all most government research (and most research in general) is applied in nature. To get a grant you say I am going to develop a device (or method) that takes advantage of known physical principle X to solve problem Y. The most common example of "Blue Sky" research is the Apollo program (and the related Mercury and Gemini programs). In reality the Apollo program was far from "Blue Sky", the goal was to get to the moon using a rocket. Guess what they did after a long and painstaking development program?

      The spinoffs were a nice side effect, (except for Tang, do they still make the stuff?) but by no means a reason to justify spending on science. A better example of "Blue Sky" research where the goal is ill defined and of unknown practicality is pure mathematics research. The funding levels for pure mathematics research are in the round off error if you use single precision floats to calculate the federal budget.

      So one can argue whether the goals of government funded research are of benefit but to say that government funded science is by and large "a waste" is incorrect.

    2. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most, if not all, research is not wasted. It is as important to know what can't be done as it is to discover new ways to do things.

      Lots of the Apollo Program *was* blue sky, even if the project in and of itself wasn't. The fact that there was lots of spinoff was nice. And a lot of the biophysical research from Apollo was also "blue sky", in that we just didn't know what would happen.

      BTW, Project Mercury was solely to get an American into space/earth orbit. Gemini was a testing and development program for Apollo.

      And, yes, they do still make Tang, in many flavors besides hyperorange.

  36. Higgs Boson by szero · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Anyone a fan of Lexx? They get stuck on Earth, which they classify as a "Type 13" planet, a planet on the verge of self-destruction in their search for the Higgs-Boson particle (the particle theorized to be the basic building block of all mass in the universe.

    Type 13 planets usually get compressed to the size of a pea due to their discovery.

    If they didn't find it last year in Geneva... they may find it with something else.

    http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/science/p hy sical/11PART.html

    --
    "The more you know, the less you understand."
  37. Re:Mini black holes, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *may* be harboring Osama ibn Laden, who *may* have been responsible for the WTC incident...

    yeah you keep telling your self that and you *may* become convinced.

  38. Sid Meier's Slashdot by PinkStainlessTail · · Score: 1
    Between this and the fusion story, anybody else really itching to boot up Alpha Centauri? "Five more turns to the Singularity Inducer!"

    --
    "Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
  39. Scary happenings will happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a true story that took place at Yokosuka Japan. There is an American Naval Base there. When I first arrived in the spring of 1981 there was a white building on the corner of the property that the Naval Hospital was located. I learned that this building was the Morgue where many of the bodies of American Service Members killed in combat at Korea and Viet Nam had been staged prior to returning home to their families in the United States. Shortly after my arrival, bulldozers demolished the building to make way for two high rise apartment buildings that would house American Service men and their families. My family and I would be housed in one of these buildings after its construction. The buildings were named Kyuban and Jyuban Towers. The Japanese words for nine and ten, (there were already eight of these towers on base). Immediately after construction was completed, my wife was notified that she was to move into an apartment in Kyuban Towers, I was out at sea. She complied, and it wasn't long before she started noticing strange occurences in the apartment. Minor things like the lights being on and she was sure she had turned them off. Months later I returned home, and was please that we had moved into much better housing on base. But I was met with strange stories from my three year old son. He told me of a "Marine Sentry" who visited him each night in his room. I assured him that he was dreaming. My first night home I tucked him into bed and turned off all of the lights in the house. At 3:00 AM I was awaken by a presence at my side of the bed. It was my son, and all of the lights were on in the apartment. I asked him what was going on, and he said that the "Marine Sentry" was in his room and wanted the lights on. I ofcourse checked out his story to make sure the house was safe. No one else was in the house besides my family and I. I tucked my son back into bed and turned off the lights. The next morning I asked my son to discribe for me the man who kept visiting him in his room. That three year old boy floored me when he discribed an Infantry Marine in full combat gear. This problem continued for several weeks. One time, a buddy of mine suggested that I turn the lights out at the breaker box which was out of my sons reach and my son did not know where the box was. So I did. At 3:00 AM I awoke to the same scenario as always. So then my buddy agreed to spend the night in my sons room with him. At 3:00 AM I awoke to an awful rukus in my sons room. My son ran into my room to tell me that Mr. ***** was fighting with the Marine Sentry. When I arrived in my sons room, my buddy was sitting on the floor in the coner of the room, the bedroom looked as if a bar brawl had just occured. My buddy told me that he woke up and seen a Marine standing over him, he was wearing face paint to camoflague his appearance, and was in full combat gear. The Marine face looked as if he were in a jungle and he had stumbled onto an enemy camp. It was clear that the Marine was on a mission. But no Marine was there. From that night on, no one in the house seen the Marine again, but either he or one of his friends was still in the apartment as we still experienced strange occurrances. We could be setting at the dinning table eating and all of a sudden the tv would come on and go to full audio. Or, the washing machine lid would open and close and the washer machine would start up by itself. Try setting on the toilet without the bathtub/shower turning itself on. We put up with it as it seemed more amusing than annoying. We were never awakened in the middle of the night again though. Finally during our last week in the apartment it was obvious that the "ghost" wanted us to stay. Things began to disappear.

  40. please.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please, don't say stupid things. If RHIC did not create any Black Hole, and neither Tevatron did, how could NLC (or however you want to call it) cause problems? Absolutely non sense....

  41. Mini Black Hole by zarathustra93 · · Score: 1

    Why would they want to make another one after Disney's Black Hole? That was the worst movie ever!

    just in case you never saw the movie:

    http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue52/classic.htm

  42. No mini black holes! by rimdo · · Score: 2, Informative
    From The Pierre Auger Project:
    In the 1960's, a ground array of 19 detectors spread over 8 square kilometers was built at Volcano Ranch, New Mexico, by a team led by John Linsley. In 1963, his team reported an observation of a cosmic ray with an energy greater than 10^20 eV. Since then, several large detector arrays have been built to search for very high energy csomic rays. One such detector, called the Fly's Eye, and built in the Utah desert, observed a cosmic ray shower in 1991 that at its maximum contained 200 billion particles in the shower. The energy of the primary particle was 3 x 10^20 eV, the highest energy cosmic ray ever observed. While the composition of the primary particle isn't known with certain, the best guess is that it was a moderate mass nucleus (something like oxygen).
    If mini black holes can be created with collisions on the order of 5*10^11eV(=500GeV), then these cosmic rays should have produced mini black holes. There is no evidence that these much more energetic cosmic ray showers created a black hole, so I think we can safely say that mini black holes either are not produced by subatomic particles or that they have no noticable effect on normal matter.
    1. Re:No mini black holes! by UberNex · · Score: 1

      More than likely these mini black holes are indeed created during heavy cosmic particle bombardment. The fact that cosmic ray detectors haven't spotted them doesn't mean a thing, these detectors (fly's eye et al) do a good job of collecting info on the junk that these heavy cosmic visitors blow into when the cruise into our neighborhood. If and when a mini-black would be created it would have no chance of making it to the detector, let alone being detected by it. detectors generally only pick up one thing, you can throw non-charged partcles at an elctron grid all day long and not see anything, doesn't mean they aren't there.

  43. Hmm.. by jmccay · · Score: 2

    Hemos, I think you might be able to Patent the Playing a buffered live stream. Then you can charge them (and everyone else) fees. Wait, maybe I shouldn't have said that because that would give somebody ideas...

    --
    At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
  44. Bad Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How the hell is this funny? Think before you mod!

    A "beowulf cluster" is not an amount. A cluster of 2 is an amount. A cluster of 1,000,000 is another amount. Whether either of these is "large" is dependent upon context. A beowulf cluster of black holes has no meaning.

    Not every comment involving a beowulf cluster deserves to be modded up as "funny" or "insightful".

    Hence, the only humour present here (sadistic as it is) is the fact that someone modded this comment up as funny!

    1. Re:Bad Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, shaddap, you. It was funny. :P

    2. Re:Bad Moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to toggle your state of drug use.

  45. "Mini" by loosenut · · Score: 1

    What's the difference between a mini-black hole and a regular, run-of-the-mill, black hole? I mean, they are both singularlities, right? You don't get much more "mini" than that.

    1. Re:"Mini" by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      "What's the difference between a mini-black hole and a regular, run-of-the-mill, black hole?"

      One word: mass

    2. Re:"Mini" by elvum · · Score: 1

      A "mini" black hole has a smaller Schwarzchild radius: the accepted definition of the "size" of a black hole, equivalent to how close to the singularity you can get without being sucked in, never to return.

    3. Re:"Mini" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mini-black hole is smaller: less mass, smaller diameter (the diameter being where the event horizon is: the place where light can't escape). The smaller a black hole is the faster it 'evaporates' due to some some really wierd quantum effects. Basiclly pairs of 'virtual' particle get created then destroyed all the time. If these pairs are created right at the event horizon one partical could be within the hole, and one outside. The outside one can escape which means the black hole loses mass. The smaller and tighter the radius the greater the chance of a particle escaping. These mini-black holes are so small that should evaporate in minutes.

    4. Re:"Mini" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black holes don't HAVE to be singularities, they only must have a radius that is smaller than the schwarzchild radius. It is possible to have a black hole without a singularity.

    5. Re:"Mini" by cuteduo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      just had to say it....I see your schwartz is as
      big as mine. :)

    6. Re:"Mini" by TeknoHog · · Score: 2
      All black holes emit Hawking radiation, eventually evaporating completely. I guess one line could be drawn at black holes that (depending of the environment) have equal rates of evaporation and sucking in matter.

      Smaller black holes have a lower rate of sucking (M$ jokes welcome), but a higher rate of evaporation. Therefore large ones will continue to grow, and small ones will not last very long. The mini black holes created in particle accelerators have very short lifetimes, comparable to that of other exotic particles.

      (Disclaimer: IAAP)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  46. you physics nerd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God bless /. for allowing people like this to rack up karma points.

  47. You mean like by lww · · Score: 1

    my Ford Exploder^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Explorer? Or my Pinto?

  48. Re:The other thing . . . by JJ · · Score: 1

    . . . that killed the SCC was that it required rebuilding Fermilab first. (It's a step up system, you need the smaller one to inject particles into the bigger.) This was 25% or more of the budget. When killed it was at 40% completed. Add the two, and you get 65%, enough that few politicians will kill the project.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  49. Worthwile research by madbovine9 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The question about this being worthwile research is a valid one. Yes, it is. Will 10 years of research on a $5billion accelerator create a do-hicky to add to your computer/car to make it go twice as fast? No, it will not. But the study of the fundamental forces and high energy will bring better understanding of the universe and THIS will lead to the nifty gadgets that allow us to go WARP speed or whatever.

    It is much like the study of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, this study lead to nothing but a better understanding of quantum phenomenon. BUT, examing this came many applications: Lasers(espicially the diode laser, the pen laser) solid-state electronics (computers), fission (power reactors) and numerous others. Yes, some super-weapon was developed from this that could/can destroy the world, but more good was done for society (industrial western) than harm.

    On the subject of costs, $5billion is a lot of money for an individual, but this much divided amoung participating countries over 5-10 years construction time is a drop in the bucket of any countries budget. Hell, one stealth bomber costs on the order of $5 billion.

  50. Your chamber of commerse propoganda. by Tyler-Durden255 · · Score: 1

    No sorry,

    Temp public works jobs do spread the cash around and help the economy in a bad situation. Perminant public works jobs mearly expand in scope (like a black hole) and drain the economy because they are not selfsustaining fiscally but rely on you and I being able to fork over the tax dollars to pay for them.

  51. Re:Finally by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

    No, but it might send you back in time, stuck in other people's bodies, and cause you to hallucinate about a badly dressed guy who keeps slapping a brightly-colored Newton.

  52. Not Fair! by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They want to build a machine that creates silly black holes but they cut funding to the Superconducting Monkey Collider.

    We could have a much greater understanding of our universe by accelerating monkeys to near-light speeds and smashing them together. But congress cut funding the facility after some animal rights wackos said it wasn't nice. The expensive collider facility had allready been under construction since 1983 and taxpayer were spending 7.5 billion a year to finish construction.

    To keep the 45 mile underground facility from going to waste, it has become a federally fundered drag-racing track. But great science could have come from the Monkey collider. But now we'll never know.

  53. Creation of black hole a theory they are testing by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

    Based on that theory mentioned some time ago of gravity possible varying significantly below a few millimetres in width due to extra mini dimensions.

    I seem to remember reading an abstract for the proposal on xxx.lanl.gov.

    In any case, far from confirmed, and yes, even if the black holes are created, they evaporate almost instantaneously just as the they would if created by cosmic rays (but hopefully in a characteristic fashion we can measure)It'd be neat though if in fact they are created, and we could figure out a way to feed them fast enough. Perhaps even give them a charge?

    --
    -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  54. Found it! Or at least one. See the paper below. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005

    This one actually proposes trying to observe natural black hole creation!
    I know I found one discussing testing it in a supercollider too, however.

    --
    -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  55. Accelerating monkeys by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

    If you think that's not nice, have a look at Bonsai Kittens.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  56. See? This is why we need off-world research. by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

    You know, I'm a big fan of scientific experimentation, but when it comes to technologies that have even the slight possibility of being destructive - as in "goodbye planet earth and the human race" kind of destructive - perhaps it would be best to conduct this sort of research off-world. I think the technology is there to try permanent bases on the moon at least. Maybe on the moon, or on a space station, or an asteroid somewhere. Just not here.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  57. Another take on the subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://college1.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2001/0 7/10/856062.xml

  58. Re:No black holes here. (but Real Soon Now!) by jaoswald · · Score: 1

    Of course, these theories predict energy ranges "just within the reach of newly proposed accelerators." Once those accelerators are built and see nothing, the theorists will come back with adjustments so that they are "just beyond the reach of current accelerators, but within the reach of the next generation...."

    How convenient. The Higgs mass keeps creeping up as well.

    It is also highly misleading to credit high energy physics of the early 20th century with the development of semiconductor technology. This field owed very little to high energy research of any kind. Basic quantum mechanics was done to solve problems of atomic physics and thermodynamics (i.e. problems that even chemists would have recognized at the time), and then very quickly (even by Einstein) applied to solid state problems. The people who did cosmic ray (high-energy) research went nowhere.

    Basically, the energies probed by these accelerators explore degrees of freedom that are frozen out at room temperature. This physics may have had important practical applications if we were living three seconds after the big bang, but now, a few billion years later, things have cooled down to pretty low energies. That's why we have to spend billions of dollars to recreate high-energy conditions again. Don't fool yourself that this has any future practical impact.

    Well, actually, there's no harm in fooling yourself. Just don't try to fool others.

  59. clarification please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    the community should build...
    Do you REALLY mean 'Community' or slaves/servants/subjects that are forced to fund this, but yet told it is 'for their own good and that THE PEOPLE want it' (who are these people anyway? If they want something, they can darn well support it voluntarily)
  60. Read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can anyone explain [...] what we expect to get out of this one?

    mini black holes.

  61. Re:No black holes here. (but Real Soon Now!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the theories don't predict any particular energy range. All we know is that, if true, the range must be beyond what's already measured. This issue is hardly limited to this kind of experiment, of course. Take for instance photon mass. We don't know that it's zero, and we can never know that it's zero, we can only put increasingly better bounds on it, until and unless we find out that it's not zero.

  62. lmao by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

    You might have to understand more nuclear phsyics or just know this otherwise to realize that anything that is created along the lines of a black hole (by humans, for now) will have no adverse effects on the earth. Just a bunch more paranoid freaks sending out email telling everyone what they're scared about.

  63. a problem for circulating hadrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, this is a problem with hadron colliders.

    If the SPS confinement is lost, the beam will drill a hole through the machine. This has happened, when a lightning strike tripped the power.

    The LHC requires a special beam dump, because if the beam is lost it will deposit enough energy that it will literally blow up the machine where it hits. It won't rupture the tunnel or anything, but it will cause quite a mess.

    I saw some of the early work on the SSC emergency beam dump. The problem is that you have to turn on the deflection magnet very rapidly (and properly sync'd with the particle bunches), so that one bunch goes entirely down the "normal" beamline, and the next gets entirely deflected down the dump. You do not want any particles to be in the way when the magnet is partially on: they'd bend only partway, and slam into the throat of the "wye" between the lines.

    You also have to tie the trigger into the safety systems, so if anything trips -- RF, loss of power, magnet quench, whatever -- the beam is automatically dumped before it's lost.

    Leptons are less of a problem. If the LEP beam was lost, it would just harmlessly slam into the beampipe wall. Well, mostly harmless: it'd create a shower of "noise" particles, which if it happened in the wrong spot, might go into one of the experiments. This might damage some of the more sensitive electronics, crystals, or whatnot. I think Aleph claimed this happened once.

    But note that what they were talking about at Snowmass is a linear collider: no circulating beams. So just stop injection, and you're set. I suppose there might be some benefit to a last-minute dump to protect the detector, but it'll have to be triggered from the detector site itself.. remember the beam is essentially travelling at the speed of light! No upstream alarm signal will get there in time.

  64. Re:The other thing . . . by Upsilon · · Score: 2

    What the hell are you talking about? The SSC was supposed to be in Texas. Fermilab is in Chicago. How on earth could Fermilab be used as a step up system? Furthermore, what do you mean "rebuilding Fermilab"? Fermilab is built, was never unbuilt, and is running just fine.

    --
    I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.

    "That's right, I'm quoting myself."

    -Upsilon

  65. Re:The other thing . . . by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 1

    How does a collider in Texas require modifications to a collider in Illinois? I find it hard to believe that the SCSC was dependent on Fermilab for a particle source. I think you're thinking of a completely different collider project.

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  66. cool !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should make a black hole and then jump into it

  67. Re:My mistake. by JJ · · Score: 1

    I can see I wasn't clear enough in my post. Perhaps the word "replicating" instead of "rebuilding" would have been appropriate. In order to build the SSC in Texas, you had to replicate Fermilab to acclerate the particles to entry velocity. If you build the SSC in Illinois, then you've got Fermilab (as in, a 25% head start) and you just build the bigger ring.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  68. SSC, Black Holes, and Benefits by ChenLing · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Three points of information.

    1. The Super-Conducting Super Collider that was supposed to be built in Texas was, get this, already paid for! when it was canceled. The cost to clean it up would have paid running the facility for 5 years. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
    2. If the Large Hadron Collider, or this new collider, produces black holes (which is easily identifiable from other possibilities), then it will support several theories requiring more than four dimensions. Which is way cool! This is also quite safe, since cosmic rays energetic enough to produce black holes (of the possible 10 dimensional kind) have been observed hitting out atmosphere, and such small temporary black holes would evaporate before they can do anything.
    3. The benefits? Well considering that if we decide to build it now, it won't be ready to collect real data until about 2010 and that the data won't be able to be really analyzed for at least another 5 years means: it will not benefit the current administration at all, regardless of whether or not Bush Jr. gets re-elected.
    4. The real benefits? The thing is, we won't see any real benefits (except for odd offshoots like the WWW) for probably 20 years. Too long for most impatient Americans (myself included). However, that is where a lot of the really "cool" stuff comes from - semiconductors, which makes /. possible, came from experiments in refining "practical" quantum theory. The real (applied) benefits cannot be easily seen, since this will go beyong the limits of our current understanding. However, if you ever want to explore such concepts as anti-gravity, warping space for faster than light travel (required if we are to explore the stars), then this is the only ticket in town.

    --
    "You have the option of insanity. I do not. And that makes me crazy!" - Brian to Angela, My So-Called Life
  69. SUSY by styopa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Unfortunately I was unable to attend the Snowmass conference (I was studying in St. Petersburg, Russia), so I my information from the conference comes from fellow students in Uriel's Army (People from Snowmass would understand).

    Anyway, the Next Linear Collider (NLC) is very important for many reasons. Here are a few.
    • It is a multinational effort. The High Energy Physics (HEP) physicists know that the US government will not foot the entire bill. The HEP budget in the US will only increase by 0.6% (Physics Today June 2001)this year, so after ~3% inflation, thats a 2.4% decrease in spending power. We are hoping for funding from Japan and the EU. This type of physics already ignores boarders, but a multinationally funded collider will only help.
    • It will increase our knowledge of physics and the universe. The finding of the Higgs Boson, and perhaps other particles, will shed some light on what are the proper paths theorists should begin to look at.
    • Supersymmetry (SUSY, MSUGRA, etc...). This is the field that I am currently working in. I won't go into the nitty gritty details, instead explain to why some might find it interesting. If any of the flavors of supersymmtry are proven this provides strong evidence towards the leading string theories. Unfortunately we need a MINIMUM of 500 GeV to find the supersymmetric partners, and 800 GeV to have any cross section of the supersymmetric partners of the quarks.
    • Particle physics is not excatly thriving in the US right now. Maybe because we cannot come down and explain in simplistic terms what we are doing. If it is going to survive we need to do something big. Nothing big has occured since 1994 when the Top Quark (see sig) was discovered. The blips of the Higgs that CERN reported are shakey at best and currently RUN II at Fermilabs does not have the luminosity needed to find the Higgs.


    If you live in the US please contact your congressmen and tell them that you support the creation of the NLC.

    If you are in Europe, especially Germany, please contact your representatives and tell them that you support Tesla (the competing design for the NLC, the European design).

    If you live in Japan, either NLC or Tesla.
    --
    Disclamer - Opinion of Person
    1. Re:SUSY by rocksh · · Score: 1

      I was attending Snowmass in 1996 and what now? The same words, the same people talking about larger and larger and larger accelerators... That's all this people can do - the science this people can do is highly overestimated. How can I prove this statement? Lets try to be realistic. Any enterprise including this scientific enterprise can be characterized by some set of parameters. For instance price/value ratio is coming to mind if compared with P/E ratio for publicly traded stock. Price for large accelerators always runs in the Billions of dollars. What is the value? Seriously? On the shoulders of discoveries made in 1970-1980 LEP was build and produced first collisions in 1987. Does anybody remember that time?! - Higgs (it was in the 30-50 GeV range for sure that time:) was one of the primary goals for LEP. Not a trace. But billions of dollars were spent and the wheel starts turning. Top quark was discovered at Fermilab in 1996. If you consider the value of discovering first 5 quarks and neutrinos as 1.0 then the top quark will hardly run as 1/5-1/10. It is like discovering that your valet is in your pocket. LHC - another billion dollars enterprise - is due by the end of the decade and data taking is going to take much more years. Even if the Higgs will be found there it's value is already devalues by so many years of speculations and I wouldn't give it more that ½. And with all the background at LHC - can anybody guarantee that Higgs will be found? Is it the right place to look? I would suggest that P/E in the accelerator high energy physics runs now in the $1B/1.0 range and is very risky. Consider some other physics experiments in solid state, plasma, satellite, material science etc. Price tag runs in the $1-10M range. Consider 20-50 such experiments - even if one is successful one will have P/E = $100M/1.0. Let me suggest that building large accelerators is very unwise and very risky scientific project. This field is at least ~10 overpriced and overvalued. It has also 10 times more people that necessary for healthy development. And please don't tell that discovering supersymmetric partners and higgs particle is of grand important to the science - do reality check, ask your friends from different fields "How much importance do scientists outside your immediate community attach to your fervent quest for the Higgs boson?" This bubble is going to burst. Run, run away as soon as possible... :) Former hep (experimental) physicist

      --
      >
    2. Re:SUSY by The+Milky+Bar+Kid · · Score: 1

      If you live in the US please contact your congressmen and tell them that you support the creation of the NLC.

      If you are in Europe, especially Germany, please contact your representatives and tell them that you support Tesla (the competing design for the NLC, the European design).

      If you live in Japan, either NLC or Tesla.

      Why bother with this? Just interrupt the UN during a general assembly meeting (hack into the video feed), and announce that you have a super-collider that will create a mini black hole and destroy the earth unless they pay you (raise little finger to mouth) 100.... billion dollars....

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      --
      -- This post is about truth, beauty, freedom, and above all things, Karma
    3. Re:SUSY by krlynch · · Score: 2

      I'm all for cost benefit analysis, and the way you do that is to consider what past investment has returned in terms of economic activity. And if you DON'T count the WWW, particle physics since WWII in the US alone has DIRECTLY returned at a rate of approximately 12/1 ($12 of economic activity for every dollar invested) in many disparate fields (magnetics, electronics, medicine, etc.), while the INDIRECT results have seen offshoots in other fields that have led to returns of thousands to 1 (XRay diffraction and NMR, major advances in computation including data mining applications, parallel computation advances and high speed networking advances, high strength magnet research, civil engineering advances, large scale cryogenics, etc. etc. etc.)

      Of course the next major expensive project might fail to return anything, but we have no reason to expect that it will from a historical perspective, and we have many reasons to expect that it will end up returning fabulously on the investment made. That's what basic experimental science allows: advances in technology and understanding that have huge and lasting impact, both directly and indirectly, on the future.

      And for scientists outside of particle physics, it isn't about finding the "Higgs Boson", just like for particle physicists the Human Genome project is not about getting a detailed map of the human genes; I mean, frankly, who cares if you have a map and I have a Higgs? How is either discovery going to affect our lives? Directly, they don't. It only gets to the level of my interest when the information can be applied to improving the quality of life for people. A map won't give you that, but the offshoot technologies will ENABLE such future applied research.

      Similarly for particle physics: for people in other disciplines, it's about using the computer software developed at CERN to access data via a web browser, or using the magnet technology developed at Fermilab to build those spiffy maglev trains, or using the advances in free electron lasers developed at DESY to study protein reactions in real time. Science on the cutting edge ALWAYS requires major advances in the state of the art in experimental apparatus and the supporting technologies that can be directly and indirectly applied to other areas of "real life". So you never know WHERE those advances will be useful, but you damn well know that they WILL be useful. I realize you may be a disgruntled former physicist, but take the blinders off; there may be a BETTER way to advance the experimental particle physics enterprise, but it isn't by declaring the field dead because you can't see how continued research will affect the future. If that is your attitude, we might as well close down all science, entertainment, and other industries, and all go back to the fields and grow our own food because there isn't ANY valuable enterprise....

    4. Re:SUSY by rocksh · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree with most of your arguments about investment in basic research - no doubt basic research is indication of healthy society. Let society do just that - invest in thousands basic research projects and wait for return! But you missed the point against one huge accelerator project - it sucks all the money suffocating all other high energy research experiments and all your hopes for future spinoffs. Large accelerator project is a monopoly, huge factory specializing in begging money from government agencies, advertising nonexisting achievements and slave laboring people from around the world. On the quantitative side of estimates of returns ... well, it is open for discussion but it is good that people begin to think about such things and not just "Higgs bosons" :-)

      --
      >
  70. Re:See? This is why we need off-world research. by mcelrath · · Score: 2
    You've been watching too much poorly-researched scifi. (Yeah, I saw that Lexx...made me barf)

    Particles with MILLIONS of times the energy we are proposing hit our upper atmosphere every day. And we're still here. This speculation about the universe disappearing is completely bunk.

    Do an order-of-magnatude estimation of the cost to put one of these in orbit or on the moon. And remember it costs about $10,000 per pound to put stuff up there.

    --Bob

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  71. Re:Dad's old fashioned wisdom by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 2

    That might have worked on me. My youngest brother would have eaten them all just to prove he could.

  72. Re:No black holes here. (but Real Soon Now!) by SL2C · · Score: 1

    I thought I had made clear that I don't believe in large ED -- not without some explanation of the dynamics that make them large and stable, determines their size and geometry (the free parameters) (same applies to string theory and compactification). But large ED is what has led people to claim that black holes might be produced at colliders and this is why I mentioned it.

    And afaik, they were not invented to create a reason for building accelerators but to solve the hierarchy problem - how can the Planck mass (as extrapolated from Newton's law in 4d) be so many orders of magnitude larger than the electroweak scale (the other popular explanation of course is supersymmetry).

    And no, the Higgs mass does not keep creeping up, it is to some extent a free parameter but correlated to the others (in the standard model -- beyond that there may or may not be a Higgs at all). If the LHC doesn't find it, the standard model is ruled out. This would quite significant -- only massless particles, no beta decay, all well established low-energy phenomena. (Unless you bring in a modified theory of frozen-out dof of course.)

    Also I'm sorry if I led anyone into thinking that HEP drives technological advance. I personally don't care so much. I just want to know -- personal itch to scratch, ESR might say. Maybe it has some use, maybe not. I think the Web came out of CERN though ;-)

    However, for (theoretical) physics, and this includes condensed matter, it has been of crucial importance. Quantum field theory, gauge theory, renormalization group were all developed in high energy, by people interested not at all in low-energy effective degrees of freedom. Later they turned out to be quite useful in condensed matter: critical phenomena, superconductivity, etc. Same thing the other way around, the most prominent example is the Higgs mechanism applied to the electroweak gauge symmetry. There are so many examples where you take concepts and intuition from one branch of physics and make use of them in a completely different field.

  73. On the Pacific Rim? Earthquake zone? by Roy+Ward · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    > He reminded his audience that the joint work on the copper linac design in the US and Japan was undertaken with the understanding that the machine would be sited somewhere on the Pacific Rim, presumably in Japan or California.

    I understood that most of the Pacific rim (certainly Japan and California) are prone to earthquakes - isn't this undesirable for something large with fine tolerances?

  74. Think Huge by AntiSaint · · Score: 1

    They build these things then a few years later need to rebuild to build a bigger one, why not build a really HUGE one and do it once so the researchers will have decades worth of use from it without having to rebuild again

    500 GeV, try 500TeV

  75. A couple of things to note: by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1

    There are a couple of things you must note about particle accelerators. First, when they say 500 GeV (giga electron-volt, linear accelerator - the particles actually collide with an energy of 1000 GeV (or 1 TeV) because the electron (E-) and positron (E+) are accelerated in different directions, each with a potential of 500 GeV. Note that in a collision, the full 1 TeV is available for use in creating new particles. In a "stationary-target" experiment (such as ramming a proton into a stationary proton target), only about 10% of the acceleration energy is available for use in creating new particles and probing the depths of the nucleus. Also, when they say "500 GeV", note that the SSC (superconducting super-collider planned for Waxahachie, Texas) was supposed to be 10 TeV -- so since it was cancelled, this is just playing catchup to that. I know people like sources for info. The God Particle by Leon Lederman. This is one of the greatest books I've read in a while -- it's written by the director (for 10 years) of Fermilab and he's a Nobel winner - I totally recommend it.

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

  76. "Spin-offs" is a wrong argument by rocksh · · Score: 1

    Why idea of "spin-offs" is being used so many times and without success?! May be because it is wrong :) (Historical remark - it was the main argument during SSC hearing in 1993)
    "semiconductor technology would be unthinkable without basic research in quantum mechanics in the first decades of the 20th century" - true, but now think how little money were spent on basic research in quantum mechanics? And how many Scientists were around without $B funding copared to the bunch of administrators these days.

    If one follow reasoning and facts (as true scientific research should do) then conclusion is:
    Less money - more science :)
    Spinoffs are only applicable to the small "seed" research programs; any large research program should have clear measurable goals with price tag visible; it is intrincically unefficient and a waist of money and doesn't bring any spinoffs.

    Rockshell

    --
    >
  77. request: some common sense please. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1



    Could the scientist involved please their black holes somewhere other than next door to me?

    Why can't this thing be built in space? Then the real estate wouldn't as expensive.

  78. Where to spend the science money by Tablizer · · Score: 1
    Material benefits? Bah. We, as humans, want to know how the universe works. This is the same quest that scientists and theologians have been on for millennia. I am not content to accept "I push the ball and it rolls over there, I don't know why...it just does". We want to know WHY. Where did we come from? Why are we here? How did the universe start? How will it end?

    And I want to know how/if OOP is objectively better beyond vague cliches, but nobody has decent evidence.

    I might be a "troll", but you still have no evidence that oop is better.

    oop.ismad.com

  79. Stimpy, DONT PRESS THE BUTTON!!! by user+flynn · · Score: 1

    The jolly candylike button. Oooh its so tempting....

    --
    In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
  80. Yeah Right, better to destry Moon than Earth by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    You are right, better destroy Monn and cause no end of natural disaster than directly exploding the earth...

    BTW, mini black hole need an ENORMOUS quantity of energy to emerge (as far as I understand things like Infinite Mass = Infinite Energy..)

    BUT Destroying Moon to protect Earth is like burning your house to prevents Termits to eat it..

    Well, do as you wish, but if possible do it in another universe 8)

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  81. Re:Science (BRAVO!!) by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    BRAVO!!!! That is the most concise and logical explanation to date that I've heard that could shut up any conservative or liberal about scientific spending. Our country is where it's at because of people's umlimited imagination and the freedom to think openly. Our country is at the best at ALMOST everything. But we can get better by funding research that will payoff in unforseen exceptional ways.

  82. Re:See? This is why we need off-world research. by cryptochrome · · Score: 2

    For the record I wasn't referring exclusively to high-energy physics. Some of the more risky biological and nuclear experimentation would be better if not conducted on earth, so that radiation/invasive species/deadly diseases wouldn't spread so easily.

    As for high energy physics, it would best be pursued on a space station, maybe at a lagrangian point or farther, or on an asteroid.

    As for the cost, I never said you had to ship all the components from earth. Naturally space-based manufacturing should be in place before hand. There is plenty of money and products to be made up there, if only you're willing to take the initial costs and risks.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  83. Re:Dad's old fashioned wisdom by superflex · · Score: 1
    So what's the moral of the story?

    Christianity: It's always trying to ram crap down your throat.

    --
    sigs are for suckers
  84. Taxpayers? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1
    Taxpayer decides if this is interesting enough.

    The average taxpayer has only 2% of the understanding needed to decide which lines of research are most promising and deserving of funding. Thank goodness the taxpayer is not in direct control of this!

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  85. Poverty is relative by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The average American living below the "poverty line" has access to running water, penecillin, and free entertainment broadcast over the television networks. The wealthiest king of 500 years ago had none of these things. Poverty still exists in America only in a relative sense. In an absolute sense, it is as defeated as smallpox.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  86. Internal physics politics will doom this project.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just as it did the Superconducting supercollider. That project was largely doomed by an inability to justify scientifically the several different detector packages that the different political factions wanted to build because they couldn't agree to work together on a single, coherent project. This new project will fail similarly; particle physics is dead in this country.

    Besides, it is really a good idea to let these guys make black holes?