US Particle Colliders In Need of Funding

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Particle Colliders In Need of Funding

Posted by samzenpus on Friday August 31, 2012 @12:09AM from the keeping-the-lights-on dept.

DevotedSkeptic writes "When the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland seized the world record for the highest-energy collisions in 2010, it also sealed the fate of the leading US particle collider. The Tevatron, at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, was closed the following year to save money. Now, physicists at another US physics facility, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, are trying to avoid a similar end. On 13 August, researchers at the ALICE heavy-ion experiment at the LHC at CERN, Europe's particle-physics lab near Geneva, announced that they had created the hottest-ever man-made plasma of quarks and gluons. This eclipsed the record temperature achieved at RHIC two years earlier by 38%, and raised uncomfortable questions about RHIC's future. Tribble still hopes to avoid having to close any of the three facilities. In 2005, he notes, a similar crisis was averted after an advisory committee laid out the dire consequences of flat funding for the future of US nuclear science. In the end, Congress came through with the budgetary increases required. 'What we want to do here is to spell out what will be lost under different budgets,' he says. His committee is planning to hold a final meeting in November, in time to influence the budget requests from US funding agencies for the next fiscal year."

77 of 133 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

One word by famebait · 2012-08-31 00:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Kickstarter

--
sudo ergo sum
1. Re:One word by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-31 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing they're looking for more than a few million dollars* - crowdfunding is probably not their best avenue, even if putting it on kickstarter or - and more likely because of the type of project it would be - indiegogo could bring it a lot more exposure (similar to the Tesla museum project).
  * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Heavy_Ion_Collider#Financial_information
  "fiscal year 2007, requested: 143.3 million U.S. dollars"
2. Re:One word by Sique · 2012-08-31 00:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  You know that the Tevatron was built with US$ 120 mio of 1983, meaning something about half a billion today? And that there were significant upgrades since then, costing another half a billion? And there are operating costs and much more. And it will never turn a profit, being a purely basic research facility. I don't know if you will get enough money for that on kickstarter.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
3. Re:One word by DexPleiadian · 2012-08-31 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly the first thing I thought about. If we can get thousands of dollars for video games that *likely* will not move society forward as a whole, we can get thousands of dollars for giant atom smashers.
4. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:30 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Three words: move to Switzerland
5. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And lose the "made in the almighty US" label? Oh, the horror!
6. Re:One word by f3rret · 2012-08-31 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh that depends on entirely on what benefits are offered, like you know how that Neil Stephenson sword fighting thing would give you a sword if you gave them a ton of cash?
  Well maybe this fancy new accelerator should offer stuff like "for donations over $1.000.000 you will get to place an object of your choosing in the path of the beam, for donations over $10.000.000 you will get to place yourself in the path of the beam, hopefully developing superpowers (and hopefully not supercancer or super radiation poisoning)".
  
  --
  Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
7. Re:One word by aliquis · 2012-08-31 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Kickstarter
  But I already pledged all I could afford on the Mars project :(
8. Re:One word by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-08-31 01:11 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And lose the "made in the almighty US label*? Oh, the horror!
  *Label Made in China
9. Re:One word by aliquis · 2012-08-31 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  Latest top hit @ CERN:
  We don't collide in America - but we're not - sorry!
10. Re:One word by davetv · 2012-08-31 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the LHA project could on-sell those non-higgs partial proton fragments to physicists who don't have access to a super-collider.
  
  Win for everyone!!
11. Re:One word by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 01:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I know you're joking, but people sometimes seriously suggest donations/fundraising as a way to run facilities like DoE labs... but it's usually a bad idea.
  Specifically, it's not sustainable. Massive science experiments such as those run by the DoE need decades of commitment. Donations and fundraising are simply too variable and capricious to support them. Constantly shriking and growing budgets is wasteful, because you have to cyclically fire/hire personnel, mothball equipment and then pay to rebuild it, and so on. This is always disruptive, but for massive experiments (e.g. accelerator projects) it would be hugely wasteful. This is to say nothing of the fact that an uncertain funding environment will not attract the best talent.
  Another possible problem is that soliciting external donations is that it doesn't grow your budget--the higher-ups will simply use it as an excuse to cut part of your budget... leaving you in the exact same position you were in before (actually worse, because you are now depedent on different capricious funding streams). There are ways to pull in external funding from other agencies, but it must be done carefully and with support/guarantees from those providing the base funding (in this case, Department of Energy, which in turn is funded through congress).
  Disclosure: I work at Brookhaven National Lab. The above are my views and do not represent an official message from BNL or DoE (thus, posting AC).
12. Re:One word by crazyjj · 2012-08-31 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, you joke. But private funding is the way to go. If these things are really going to produce results, let's let them sell the rights to raise funding. Would keep them from closing, at least.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
13. Re:One word by Type44Q · 2012-08-31 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  for donations over $10.000.000 you will get to place yourself in the path of the beam
  There are some people I can think of...
14. Re:One word by h4rr4r · 2012-08-31 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad they need millions not thousands.
  It would be a great way to show the government that the people care though.
15. Re:One word by pixelpusher220 · 2012-08-31 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  No, they already have one...the Beijing Beltway
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
16. Re:One word by aliquis · 2012-08-31 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe we can fund it all with the central banks (and politics) instead.
  Let them kick the can out into space rather than down the road.
17. Re:One word by drerwk · 2012-08-31 02:42 · Score: 2
  
  Sell the rights to what? The exact mass value of a Higgs boson? The cross section of U-235 for neutron capture?
18. Re:One word by mbone · 2012-08-31 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  ...for donations over $10.000.000 you will get to place yourself in the path of the beam, hopefully developing superpowers (and hopefully not supercancer or super radiation poisoning)".
  I think that the outgassing from the vaporing flesh would ruin the vacuum containment system.
19. Re:One word by mbone · 2012-08-31 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, they've got them too.
20. Re:One word by tnk1 · 2012-08-31 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is that taxes are starting to become a capricious and variable way of making science budgets too.
  Kickstarter is certainly a joke for things like this, but I don't think the idea is completely off-base, if it was done correctly and on a sufficient scale. I bet you could make a case to enough people to get this off the ground.
  Hell, you could make a kickstarter to simply raise a budget for a Stage I mass media project to support a later fundraising project. Your goal is to get X congressmen or celebrities on your side via lobbying or advertising and then when the goals are met, the people at certain levels get to meet or get time with those people. The people on your side are then committed to doing work to make sure your greater fundraiser goes through.
  The major problem is that you will eventually have to involve the politicians to get the right to build things that big and that will make things start to cost real money as you bribe the various people to make sure they don't start burying you in red-tape. You'd probably have to start off by making sure that you are ready to employee constituents represented by key elected officials in sufficient ratios so that it is in their interests to clear away the barriers, or at least not erect them in the first place.
  Creating a whole new model for science funding may not be easy or straightforward, but it could be interesting.
21. Re:One word by tnk1 · 2012-08-31 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Companies pay for the right to name sports stadiums because that gets their company name talked about in the news constantly. The LHC gets talked about a lot too. They might well go for something like the Exxon-Mobil Large Hadron Collider or something. Stranger things have happened.
Crisis? by msauve · 2012-08-31 00:21 · Score: 1

Maybe a personal crisis, if your government funded livelihood is at risk.

But, there's absolutely nothing in the article which makes a compelling case. The best they can plead is "We can still do useful work here, even though we can't do anything unique."

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:Crisis? by jpstanle · 2012-08-31 01:21 · Score: 2
  
  When it comes to cutting edge particle physics research, "We can still do useful work here," sounds like a pretty compelling case to me.
2. Re:Crisis? by BlueStrat · 2012-08-31 01:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah 'cause the republitards are so invested in science eh ?
  The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years, and they still have the WH and the Senate. They spent staggering amounts of other people's money.
  Funny how the "Party of Science!!" didn't see fit to bother spending any of that loot on these projects.
  Heck, they still could. There's billions of (un)Stimulus money still unspent that Obama could use Executive Orders to direct a tiny fraction of towards these projects and fully fund them.
  Actions speak louder than words, and the Dems through their actions are screaming that their political pals getting a boatload of our cash is far more important than science, despite what they say in their talking points on TV.
  Truth be told, *neither* party really gives a rip about all that "science stuff" when it comes right down to it, if it doesn't give them some kind of political advantage and/or funnel some cash to an ally.
  Stop being so blinded by (D) and (R) partisan distractions. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like a mind-numbed drone.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
3. Re:Crisis? by msauve · 2012-08-31 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  You must work for the government. Why pay once when you have the opportunity to pay twice!
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
4. Re:Crisis? by ultranova · 2012-08-31 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe a personal crisis, if your government funded livelihood is at risk.
  
  Yes... so what do the scientists who can't work in the US because there's funding do? Move elsewhere. And with them goes the scientific edge, so technological, military and economic ones will soon follow.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
5. Re:Crisis? by hrvatska · 2012-08-31 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years
  Democrats did not control congress for two years. For most of 2009 democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and almost everything that the democrats attempted to pass was threatened with a filibuster. 60 seats are needed to defeat a filibuster. In January of 2009, after the 2008 elections, Democrats had 59 seats in their caucus..57 democrats and 2 independents; the republicans 41. On January 20, 2009, after suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman, challenged the election results. So at the beginning of February, 2009, democrats had 57 elected senators in their caucus55 democrats and 2 independents. On May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 55 democratic members and 2 independents. Still three votes shy of defeating a republican filibuster. On July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. Still 2 short of bypassing a republican filibuster. July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009. The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority. Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!
  This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month. Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.
  Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office in February of 2010.
  Considering that almost every major democratic legislative initiative faced a filibuster, how do you figure the democrats controlled congress for two years? If a party can't get legislation through congress can they be said to control congress?
6. Re:Crisis? by hrvatska · 2012-08-31 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  I was addressing the point that the democrats controlled congress for two years, not whether they passed any legislation during the time they had a filibuster proof majority. Obamacare made it through the senate on December 24, 2009, during that 4 month window I mentioned. What is all that other legislation you are referring to? How many bills can you cite that democrats were able to push through despite republican opposition?
7. Re:Crisis? by khallow · 2012-08-31 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  So they had one to two votes shy of full control of the Senate which in turn would have meant full control of Congress. I wonder why so many people still make excuses for this. It's painfully clear that they should have had greater control of both branches of Congress and the presidency than they did.
  
  And that the Democrats should have been able to do most of what they wished. All they needed was a few Republican defectors and they had plenty of political capital with which to make those bribes.
  
  Instead, they couldn't even get their own people on board. Obamacare, for example, was a huge own goal. It was remarkably bad, hurried, ponderous law and required massive bribes just to Democrat congresspeople in order to pass. And it lost the House for the Democrats.
8. Re:Crisis? by khallow · 2012-08-31 15:46 · Score: 1
  
  than considering that maybe one side of the political aisle actually is better for them.
  What makes you think that's an issue? I find in these claims that people conflate their interests with the interests of other people or of society in general. What's good for my interests, isn't necessarily what's good for yours.
  
  I also find it interesting that people ignore the camel in the tent, the US's financial situation. Something has to be cut.
Research is no dick-contest by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:28 · Score: 1, Informative

Sadly, politicians do not realise that.
Research is about finding new things about the universe and this accelerator does not compete with that. They are different machines, made to examine different pieces of the universe and by adding the findings we learn more than if we had only one or two accelerators.
Sadly, funding is tied to "highest energy", "longest tunnel", "highest temperature" and those who cancel the projects do not get that it actually is not about "Hehe, now we showed them damned europeans/americans/chinese/russians!!!1" but about... research.
1. Re:Research is no dick-contest by firex726 · 2012-08-31 00:36 · Score: 2
  
  That's why I like the LHC...
  Everyone chips in and it's up to them to decide how to use their money. They don't have to keep going back every year to re-interview for their jobs.
2. Re:Research is no dick-contest by crazyjj · 2012-08-31 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they realize it. That's why they're letting the Europeans do all the heavy-lifting at LHC. Why duplicate their efforts when they've agreed to foot the bill and share all the research?
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
3. Re:Research is no dick-contest by Chrisq · 2012-08-31 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  like he said... it's not competitive, therefore also non-duplicative. just because it can be done in two places does not mean it *will* be done in both places. LHC is concerned with a whole lot that the RHIC isn't capable of. So, a lot of work the RHIC can do just fine will not be done at the LHC as it's got "better" things to do.
  Exactly. Its the different installations and methodologies that are important when someone has as "I'm not sure if this is something real or a problem with our instruments" moment.
4. Re:Research is no dick-contest by kermyt · 2012-08-31 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong! If you cannot duplicate the results of an science experiment independently, then it didn't happen. This is science not religion. Science works off of provability and reproducibility. Just because "I said so" doesn't make it so.
5. Re:Research is no dick-contest by drerwk · 2012-08-31 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Really depends on what you are trying to prove - a second LHC need not be built to prove the Higgs as there are more than one detector finding comparable results. However, finding a second monopole would go a long way towards confirming the Valentine's Day even at Stanford.
6. Re:Research is no dick-contest by Chris+Burke · 2012-08-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  If you cannot duplicate the results of an science experiment independently, then it didn't happen.
  That's not true. Experiments are indeed considered to happen despite not having been reproduced.
  Point of fact: the RHIC cannot exactly reproduce experiments done at LHC, and vice versa, because they are different machines colliding different particles with different detectors. The "reproducibility" actually occurs within each of the distinct colliders, as they collect more data from more runs of the same experiment to verify that they continue seeing the same results.
  However one can check if the results of one experiment are consistent with the results of another.
  
  Just because "I said so" doesn't make it so.
  Which is not the consequence of not building a second LHC to reproduce all the exact same experiments, so true but not relevant.
  Instead, they say "I have reams and reams of extremely high quality data, published here". Also, the LHC does itself have a form of reproducibility, in that there are two detector experiments -- ATLAST and CMS -- that measure many of the same things. However they are not identical machines, and so the experiments are once again not exactly reproduced. Since in the instance of the Higgs candidate discovery they did agree, this is considered a form of reproduction.
  LHC and RHIC are different machines with different capabilities for running different experiments. Thus, that is what they should (and have no choice but to) do. The results should be compared for discrepencies, but expecting literal reproduction of experiment from one device at the other is unrealistic and an overly simplistic usage of the idea of reproducibility in science.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
Shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 00:30 · Score: 1

And this is why it was shortsighted to close down the SSC project before it was completed. All of this research could be taking place here in the US
1. Re:Shortsighted by crazyjj · 2012-08-31 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  What does it matter where it's taking place, as long as it's shared?
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
2. Re:Shortsighted by luis_a_espinal · 2012-08-31 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  What does it matter where it's taking place, as long as it's shared?
  Because it's not just about knowledge sharing, but also about obtaining first-hand build-shit-of-uber-magnitude know-how (and the middle/upper-middle engineering/scientific jobs created in the process.)
Two strageies by Overzeetop · 2012-08-31 00:34 · Score: 2

(1) have the RHIC invade another country. It's the easiest way to spend several hundred million dollars "off the books"
(2) spread the management and construction out over the territory of no less than 51 Senators and/or 220 Reps. Why do you think NASA is scattered all over the country? It's not because there are prime launch sites in TX, OH, and MD, among others.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:"Rob from the rich"? by alen · 2012-08-31 00:48 · Score: 1

no, they should just make up a story that people are causing the universe to expand and we need to find a way to slow it down
you need a scary story about how people are at fault to play on guilt feelings and the fear of change and the unknown
The USA is losing interest in science... by Viol8 · 2012-08-31 00:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

... it seems to me as an outsider. Which is ironic that it was science and engineering that created the USA as it is today. I don't know if its a dumbed down education system, lack of political direction or just a slowly growing luddite mentality. If it doesn't want to be an also-ran following in Chinas heals (as it already is in the manned space race now) then it better do something about it fast. But I won't hold my breath.
1. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-08-31 01:47 · Score: 2
  
  I won't say that it's a dumbed down education system that is causing this, but I will say that our education system is suffering. I don't know where along the way we decided to value hedge fund managers, investment bankers and stock traders over the people who teach our children, clean our streets and put out fires, but we're there.
  I do honestly believe that it has quite a bit to do with the undying stereotype of the bookworm. In recent months there has been quite a bit of coverage on the presidential race (obviously). In multiple stories, multiple individuals have stated that the various candidates from the Republican party have been trying hard not to seem too "bookish". To me, being "bookish" isn't an insult. To me, being well-read, well-researched, and well-prepared is a good thing.
  I'm not saying this is entirely a republican view either, but they seem to be getting most of the coverage.
  I believe that the root cause of all of this is media. Media wants a good story. Good almost always equates to painful, sad, or stupid. So, we get coverage of the jackasses who protest soldier's funerals. We get 24/7 coverage of murder, rape and despair. We get 24/7 coverage of religious whackos being proud in their ignorance, forcing their views on everyone in the name of 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom of religion', and giving normal, rational and intelligent religious folks across the nation a bad name.
  I honestly believe that mass media is to blame for how we view most social problems. I honestly believe that there's money to be made in stereotyping people on welfare and printing that story, which then will inadvertently lead to a generation of folks brought up believing that message. I'm not saying that the choices to cover inane, idiotic, painful and sad stories were made in a dark room by billionaires. I do not believe that. What I believe is that stupid sells. People want to escape the mundane aspect of their lives, so stupid stories, sad stories, murder and mayhem sell easily.
  This then creates a generation of children brought up on these dumbass stories. These children see less-harm in that type of media, and get bored with it. Therefore, media outlets have to amp up their stories. Then more children. Then worse stories.
  Science, no matter how you frame it, is inherently un-sexy. Engineering, believe it or not, doesn't turn that many people's knobs.
  You know what does? Snooky.
  Does that taste like ashes in your mouth? It should.
2. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by Barnoid · 2012-08-31 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I totally agree - and it's not just the US.
  I might also add that the technology helped quite a bit in dumbing us down in the sense that it enables us to know what's going on anywhere on the planet almost immediatly. Most (online) newspapers scramble to get those stories out as fast as possible which then leads to the situation where all news outlets present the exact same story by Reuters. I remember when newspapers still did their own stories. Now I even get live feeds from, say, the Apple-Samsung trial: "13:30 the judge entered the courtroom." aso.
  And as you mentioned above, it's the dumbass stories that generate a lot of clicks. Some vampire celebrity cheats on her boyfriend with her director, gets kicked out, is depressed, will they get together, ....and even though I was born on a different continent and currently live in yet another continent - newspapers here and back home are full of this useless information.
  Same goes for TV. Everything TV has to offer these days is braindamaged 'who's got talent', 'whatever factor' and 'survivor camp' "reality shows" and a million variants of CSI.
  I research/teach at a university. We have trouble getting motivated students these days, very few kids are interested in science - they might have to sit down and actually use their brains. And it will get worse - a survey among middle school kids on what they would like to do later found that they want to become a celebrity, a lawyer, or a plastical surgon.
3. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by khallow · 2012-08-31 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  It's the "free lunch" mentality. Be it in the corporate board room or the voting booth.
4. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by Hatta · 2012-08-31 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Dumbing down of education, standardized testing, homogenized media, the rise of religion based politics, an ever narrowing political spectrum in which science is nothing but a talking point... It's all of the above.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
5. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by labnet · 2012-08-31 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think your government started ruling for corporations rather than the people. Eg. Creating faux wars to enrich a few sociopaths thus stripping money from the lower and middle classes.... Using 9/11 to strip away fundamental rights.. Plus you have become a lazy consumer society. The USA is on a slow slide to corporate fascism.
  
  --
  46137
6. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by khallow · 2012-08-31 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  It's the "we've wasted too much money buying votes from the poor, the elderly, and the scared to fund science" mentality.
  Not to mention the considerable gulf between funding science and actually doing science.
7. Re:The USA is losing interest in science... by khallow · 2012-08-31 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Keep in mind that the whole reason big physics projects are being threatened in the first place, is because it is of value to a large portion of the electorate. The political forces that are trying to preserve federal spending aren't going to threaten to take away, oh hypothetically, Halliburton "cost plus" reconstruction contracts in Iraq because that would trigger a "Hey, that's a great idea!" response from the typical US voter.
FRIB not fully funded as well by quetwo · 2012-08-31 01:13 · Score: 2

One of the new projects, announced just months before CERN opened was the Federal Rare Isotopes Beam project in Lansing, Michigan. Since congress committed to funding it fully in 2008, it's only received a small portion of the full funding -- with the current congress kicking the pledges down the road year after year. Funding has been augmented for this facility by private investors, but that will also dilute the type of research this facility will be able to do once it is complete..
1. Re:FRIB not fully funded as well by Mt._Honkey · 2012-08-31 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  FRIB is being mismanaged into the ground, and in my opinion shouldn't be built anyway. Nuclear physics is turning into an expensive brain drain that steers bright students away from doing actual science. These days nuclear physics is basically alchemy. IAANP
  
  --
  
  Don't Bogart the fish sticks
Just went on RHIC tour by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 01:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I just went on a RHIC tour on August 5th with my son. The tour guide said that one of the things that was special about the RHIC was that it can smash atoms of different types. For example they said that they could smash a gold atom into a uranium atom which is not possible at any of the other particle accelerators. I am just a layperson so I don't know if this is really unique but the tour was absolutely awesome. I thought that I would only be able to see this from a distance. But the tour guides (grad students) let you climb all over this thing and take pictures and ask lots of questions - they were very patient. I got to poke my head right into the business end of this thing. Very cool.
Kickstarter or something? by ZenDragon · 2012-08-31 01:24 · Score: 1

They should put this on kick starter or something? I for one would be more than willing to donate to a US based facility. Granted its would prob only provide a small portion of their funding but would at least show the government that the people are more interested in furthering our understanding of science than we are in killing terrorists and spying on our own citizens. Just sayin.
Get rid of the TSA, problem solved by smooth+wombat · 2012-08-31 01:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

The TSA budget is $6.5 billion. Get rid of the TSA and their security theater and that will go a long way towards funding these scientific endeavors.
I realize defunding the TSA will immediately allow the hordes of terrorists lurking in our country to go into action, but that is a chance we'll have to take if we want to slow or halt the downward spiral of science in this country.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
1. Re:Get rid of the TSA, problem solved by BlueStrat · 2012-08-31 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  The TSA budget is $6.5 billion. Get rid of the TSA and their security theater and that will go a long way towards funding these scientific endeavors.
  I realize defunding the TSA will immediately allow the hordes of terrorists lurking in our country to go into action, but that is a chance we'll have to take if we want to slow or halt the downward spiral of science in this country.
  But Michael Chertoff has 25 scanners on his dresser.
  He got to get paid.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:The Land of Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 01:32 · Score: 1

No funding for science. Poor education standards.
I bet Mitt Romney even gets elected.
I blame ubiquitous television.
I don't blame television.
First I blame the politicians that don't give a flying fuck about the future of our country, and second I blame those idiots citizens that think that voting is some kind of multiple choice game. All choices are equal. Well no, not all choices are equal, and yes there are people/polticians (from both sides) that care for the future. And you as a citizen have to care enough to vote for them, even if some of them are outside the mainstream political establishment. This congress is not self appointed, some (a lot of) fucktards elected these senators that are masturbating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year instead of doing serious work. If you don't care, why the hell do you think politicians should care.
They're rich, their future is assured. Yours is not (unless you're equally rich).
Obvious Solution by organgtool · 2012-08-31 01:39 · Score: 2

These physicists should get private funding instead of expecting the U.S. government to keep bailing them out. I'm sure there would be plenty of private companies looking to put money towards a project that would benefit humanity without ever making a profit. And if not, then that means there was nothing valuable to be gained and we haven't wasted any more money on such nonsense, right?
1. Re:Obvious Solution by Mt._Honkey · 2012-08-31 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure if trolling. There is a difference between "nothing valuable" and "nothing monetizable within 6 months".
  
  --
  
  Don't Bogart the fish sticks
Obviously by greatgreygreengreasy · 2012-08-31 01:42 · Score: 2

... the answer is privatization. The private sector can always do a better job than government, and is much more efficient! Republicans NEED to win this fall so that they can cut funding completely, cut harmful regulations on nuclear research, and get this country back to science's true mission, making money! ~

--
LRN 2 SWM
Appeal to sense of pride by InfiniteWisdom · 2012-08-31 02:07 · Score: 1

If there's one thing politicians of all flavors love it's jingoism. Maybe what we really need to do is reignite the sense of competitiveness by pointing out how the Europeans are leaving the US in the dust when it comes to making new discoveries like the Higgs Boson, and give them something to harp about to their voters when the US wins the race to make the next big discover.
yeah? so does my lab by Goldsmith · 2012-08-31 02:16 · Score: 1

I think I speak for a lot of scientists when I say we all could use more funding. This isn't to say there isn't enough money out there for us to do great things, but we all need to think hard about what we're doing and why.
I know I've moved out of some research areas because I couldn't really make a compelling argument that society needed to invest in them right now.
Maybe particle physicists should think about how many billions each year we really need to spend smashing things together at near the speed of light. Sure, it's cool, but maybe we have what we can reasonably expect to get out of the field at this point. For the last 10 years, observational cosmology has been a much more cost effective investment for probing the same research areas. Maybe it's time for those guys to ramp back up.
Do it the Apple way by Noughmad · 2012-08-31 02:17 · Score: 2

1. Get a patent for a round underground object
2. Sue CERN
3. Don't really need this step, it's just here for formatting.
4. Profit!!!

--
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Flag waving by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-08-31 02:21 · Score: 1

They are different machines, made to examine different pieces of the universe and by adding the findings we learn more than if we had only one or two accelerators.
Actually in the case of the Tevatron and the LHC that is not true. Once the LHC started up there was very little that the Tevatron could do that the LHC could not do a lot better. The two machines have a huge overlap in their physics programs. I am not sure whether that is true for RHIC as well since I am not a heavy ion guy but it would not surprise me. While it is true that electron-positron colliders have different physics programs we are comparing hadron colliders to other hadron colliders so the overlap is huge.

Typically what happens with older accelerators which lose the "highest energy" crown, and attendant research program, is that they convert into going into extremely high luminosity machines which can be used for neutrino beams and/or high intensity meson or muon beams for precision fixed target experiments. So while it might be tough for the US to lose its accelerators and hand the lead over to Europe just providing funding for the existing accelerators without some program to repurpose them would be an exercise in flag waving and not much to do with science.

If the US wants to compete it needs to build the next generation of machines (e.g. International Linear Collider) or develop serious plans to redevelop existing accelerators to function at the precision frontier....which is a decision I hope it will make. If not there will probably be a slow down in the field while other countries take up the slack but the march of science will continue with, or without, the US in the vanguard.
Basic Research Needs Gov't Funding by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-31 02:34 · Score: 1

China is not your #1 creditor, it's the largestforeign creditor.
The US is its own largest creditor (states, cities and various funds like Medicare).
http://lmmartin.hubpages.com/hub/Who-are-Americas-Creditors-or-Debt-Economics-for-Beginners
The innovation at CERN came from government funded money. You cannot dispute that.
1. Re:Basic Research Needs Gov't Funding by mbone · 2012-08-31 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  The innovation at CERN came from government funded money. You cannot dispute that.
  All high energy experimental physics since roughly 1940 has been government-funded research.
Re:This is not the US government's job by Urza9814 · 2012-08-31 02:35 · Score: 1

I once heard a story about a very early demonstration of electricity. I believe it was in France, though I can't recall exactly who the scientist was. But anyway, he was giving this big demonstration about how he could connect two coils of wire, wrap one around a compass, and then by moving a magnet through the other, it would make the compass needle move. After the demonstration, a woman approached him and basically said 'this is all very interesting, but what _use_ is it?' to which he replied 'of what use is a newborn baby?' -- i.e., I have no clue; we're not there yet, but I'm sure we'll figure out something.
That discovery is why you can post on Slashdot. Why we have computers. And lightbulbs. Cars, jets, telephones, shit there's probably not a single item that you own that would have been possible as it currently exists without electricity. Obviously it's pretty important part of modern life. What if people had thought like you, and never continued research into this phenomenon because it didn't appear to have any practical use?
Who doesn't need better funding? by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-08-31 02:41 · Score: 1

US Particle Colliders In Need of Funding
Get in line.
Simple solution by PPH · 2012-08-31 02:45 · Score: 1

Install one of these.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Is this science or a competition? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-08-31 03:01 · Score: 1

The USA doesn't need the world's best particle collider. Our scientists need access to the world's best particle collider. It's much more efficient for several countries to fund one big machine than to have a giant competition for who has the bigger proton gun.
1. Re:Is this science or a competition? by wvmarle · 2012-08-31 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  In the scientific interest, I think it's good to have a second collider.
  One key aspect of the scientific method is that experiments are repeatable, preferably on a different machine. This to make sure there are no systemic errors, where you think you see something but actually it's an artifact of your machine. That artifact shouldn't be there on a different machine. So having a second one can be very useful, if only to confirm results, which while not as sexy as making the discovery is also important.
  On the other hand, competition is good, it's what drives people forward. It's what got people to the moon some decades ago.
  Now the problem of these colliders is of course the huge cost of building, maintaining and operating them. As a European I think it's cool that the biggest one is now in Europe, though it'd be even cooler if the US would be building an even bigger one. Or have some matching ones. Even if their power is less, I can't imagine that everything below the power levels reached by the LHC has been researched already.
2. Re:Is this science or a competition? by joe_frisch · 2012-08-31 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've seen, competition between accelerator projects leads to better machine performance. The SLAC B-factory / KEK-B competition resulted in both machines operating well above their design performance. I'm seeing similar effects with the new X-ray FELs. When there is no competition it is too easy for a lab to take an overly conservative approach.
  There is an advantage to having the cutting edge machines in your own country to attract the best scientists and engineers.
  In many ways the technology development for these accelerators is more valuable to society than the basic science that they produce. A variety of research tools with direct industrial application were developed as a result of high energy physics R&D: Spallation neutron sources, Synchrotron light sources, X-ray FELs, etc. These may seem somewhat esoteric devices, but there is $10s billion invested in them world wide and they are valuable for a variety of materials, biological and energy research.
3. Re:Is this science or a competition? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-08-31 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  In the scientific interest, I think it's good to have a second collider.
  One key aspect of the scientific method is that experiments are repeatable, preferably on a different machine. This to make sure there are no systemic errors, where you think you see something but actually it's an artifact of your machine. That artifact shouldn't be there on a different machine. So having a second one can be very useful, if only to confirm results, which while not as sexy as making the discovery is also important.
  That, at least, is valid. But it doesn't mean the USA has to build it and certainly doesn't mean there's any scientific merit in doing it alone.
  
  On the other hand, COOPERATION is good, it's what drives people forward. It's what got people to the moon some decades ago.
  Fixed that for you.
  
  Now the problem of these colliders is of course the huge cost of building, maintaining and operating them. As a European I think it's cool that the biggest one is now in Europe, though it'd be even cooler if the US would be building an even bigger one. Or have some matching ones. Even if their power is less, I can't imagine that everything below the power levels reached by the LHC has been researched already.
  Or we could just keep Tevatron on line in that case.
4. Re:Is this science or a competition? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-08-31 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is an advantage to having the cutting edge machines in your own country to attract the best scientists and engineers.
  I think that advantage might be outweighed by the cost of building and maintaining another $8,000,000,000 collider.
  
  These may seem somewhat esoteric devices, but there is $10s billion invested in them world wide and they are valuable for a variety of materials, biological and energy research.
  I can see that there was some materials and energy research involved, but biological? I think the biological implications of getting hit with a TeV proton are pretty clearly understood.
Re:This is not the US government's job by mbone · 2012-08-31 03:42 · Score: 1

I believe that was Michael Faraday, in London. If you search you will find various versions of this quote and its setting (that he said it to the Prime Minister, for example), but I heard that he said it at the Friday Evening Lectures at the Royal Institution, which he started and was very popular at. These included demonstrations, and it wouldn't surprise me much if that was a regular question, to which he had a regular answer.
RHIC has higher luminosity by Lawrence_Bird · 2012-08-31 05:24 · Score: 1

while LHC has higher energy. LHC will alays have to contend with bound free pair production which will limit its luminosity. RHIC can also do research with polarized proton collisions.
Of the three projects, the Mich St FRIB is most likely to be cut as both RHIC and CEBAF have upgrades underway or nearly complete and have significant backlogs, up to a decade, of users with experimental plans. FRIB is still on the drawing board and thus can wait until better times.