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."

20 of 257 comments (clear)

  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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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 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!
    2. 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.
  4. mini black holes by wiredog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet a beowulf cluster of those would really suck.

  5. 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 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
    3. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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