Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Should Scientists Build a New Particle Collider In Japan?

gbrumfiel writes "The world's most powerful particle collider ended an epic proton run yesterday morning, and researchers are already looking to the future. They want to build a 31-kilometer, multi-billion-dollar International Linear Collider (ILC) to study the recently-discovered Higgs boson in more detail and to look for new things as well. Japan has recently emerged as the front-runner to host the new collider. The Liberal Democratic Party, which won this weekend's elections, actually support the ILC in its party platform. But it's not yet clear whether real money will be forthcoming, or whether European and American physicists will back a Japanese bid. What do Slashdotters think? Does particle physics need a new collider? Should it go to Japan?"

292 comments

  1. Why not? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    World class universities and scientists, a willing government and easy access to the country for foreign nationals. What's not to like?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Why not? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Located on God's shooting range...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Why not? by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      quakes.

      they should build it in Finland. no quakes, lots of free space.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seismic activity

    4. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes...tsunamis....

    5. Re:Why not? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      What's not to like?

      When you get on the train in Japan, the announcements that sound like a 12 year old girl on helium get tedious in a real hurry.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the should build it on the moon. no atmosphere, already cold (in parts).

    7. Re:Why not? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Earthquakes...tsunamis....

      Giant lizards... overgrown moths... Hello kitty... The list goes on.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Take the bus. Enjoy the breathy hashimarimaaaaaasu

    9. Re:Why not? by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      quakes.

      they should build it in Finland. no quakes, lots of free space.

      This. Not necessarily Finland, though that's not a bad idea, but someplace that is at least somewhat geologically stable.

    10. Re:Why not? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Plus, they have a large tract of land that is inhabitable on the surface. Easy access, no complaints from the locals!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    11. Re:Why not? by boristdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably the most expensive place to build on the planet, other than some small nation-states or large cities.
      Though Andorra may be pretty cheap.

    12. Re:Why not? by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quakes are the least of your problems... Think about the *mini-black holes*!!!
      They are created all the time in Geneva already to create the holes in their cheese, but a larger collider = larger black holes. The whole earth might turn into a hole-riddled-cheese! Think about the children!

      --
      rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    13. Re:Why not? by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      Are they asking for my permission?

      Because if you've got the money, knock yourself out. Just don't come looking for my tax dollars unless you want my strings attached.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    14. Re:Why not? by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      True. A mini black hole could cause earthquakes and tsunamis, but who on earth would be better prepared for such an apacolyptic event?

    15. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are in the US, anyway, your strings are your vote, and that's about it. It's a democracy, get over yourself.

      If you aren't in the US, then it's unlikely you have any more control, but in a few places, you might have less.

    16. Re:Why not? by aisnota · · Score: 1

      As much as Japan has wonderful people.

      Too many earthquakes make such a colossal collider feasible on those islands. Every site along the Pacific Rim of fire ought to be off limits for world class facilities in the world of science excepting those studying earthquakes or tsunami of course.

      --
      http://www.aisnota.com/slashdot/ Welcome to Logic and the Future
    17. Re: Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you talking about the Moon, or Finland?

    18. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the LHC wasn't even running at full power yet. Not hearing a compelling reason for another collider, especially since the LHC is just getting started.

    19. Re:Why not? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Which is a reason why to have it in Japan. Much easier to sight the LC when the beasts are in visual range.

      France would be a bad idea. You don't know where you will end up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(video_game)

    20. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should build it in Kansas. Nobody lives there, it's seismically sound, it'll never flood due to rising sea levels, and they could build it as large as they can imagine. It's a whole lot warmer than Finland and could use wind as a power source.

      Another good site would be near Amarillo, Texas. That's the location of over 1 billion cubic meters of helium. Liquid helium is used as a coolant for particle accelerators.

    21. Re:Why not? by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      If you are in the US, anyway, your strings are your vote, and that's about it. It's a democracy

      An no U.S. politician in their right mind is going to throw money at a project built outside the U.S., unless there are serious strings attached about how much of the construction will go to American firms, how many Americans will be hired, etc. Money always comes with strings attached.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    22. Re:Why not? by s13g3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed! What's not to LOVE about the idea of building a multi-billion dollar piece of scientific equipment whose scale qualifies it for one of the most mammoth--yet still delicate--engineering projects in human history, which depends critically on the entire thing staying in one piece (usually built below-ground) and in perfect alignment...

      in one of the most seismologically active countries on the planet.

      Brilliant!

      --
      "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    23. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World class universities and scientists, a willing government and easy access to the country for foreign nationals. What's not to like?

      Japan also has so much cheap open land, and rarely experiences earthquakes.

    24. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's up to the politicians and their strings, not some random solipsistic blowhard's on the internet.

    25. Re:Why not? by ByOhTek · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it will take time to build. It probably won't be done before the LHC comes up to full swing.

      Anyway, it's probably not just for research. It's probably also a 31km particle weapon for defense against N. Korea.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    26. Re:Why not? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Only above ground.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Why not? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...it'll never flood due to rising sea levels...

      Never never never?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:Why not? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In all seriousness Japan is pretty much earthquake proof. They got hit with a magnitude 9 quake and hardly anything collapsed, hardly any was killed. I was on the 5th floor of a shop in Tokyo at the time and really the damage was minimal.

      Tsunamis are a different matter but likely won't affect this thing. Plus it will be properly looked after and can't melt down or anything like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Why not? by Gliese+581 · · Score: 1

      Typhoons, earthquakes, a couple of volcanoes and comrade Kim (who's probably God to some people), Japan is not the best neighborhood for a high-energy project. The best location is probably still Europe, and not the US, Russia or China, among the most paranoid countries in the world.

    30. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about that suggestion for a second and ask yourself why is it uninhabitable ???

    31. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITER

    32. Re:Why not? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sure, buildings in Japan are highly earthquake-resistant, however that comes at a cost. Particle colliders are already ridiculously expensive to build; surely making it able to withstand a magnitude-9 quake is going to make it far, far more expensive. Why not build it someplace that doesn't ever get magnitude-9 quakes, such as Europe? When was the last time a quake of any significant magnitude hit Europe? Plus, there's world class universities and scientists there too, easy access for foreign nationals, willing governments, and a population that doesn't hate science unlike the USA.

    33. Re:Why not? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Did you never see the movie Contact, where some religious nuts sabotaged the multi-billion dollar project because it was "against God's will"? Kansas and Amarillo are full of people exactly like that.

      You don't have to worry about religious extremists in Finland or other parts of Europe.

    34. Re:Why not? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It certainly can't be built in the USA. We tried that before, and it was a complete disaster. If we tried it again, the same thing would surely happen: a new party would get elected and suddenly funding would be dropped and the project would just be left unfinished.

      It needs to be built in a nation that's serious about science and about completing the projects it starts.

    35. Re:Why not? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't base your world view on movies.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:Why not? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      When you look at the surface of the earth, in the metropolean areas. Japan has lots of countryside as well, and most of it will be underground anyway. Land costs are anyway small compared to the cost of building the perfectly aligned tunnels and equipment.

    37. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No US politician in their right mind is going to throw money at a project built outside of the US

      The Department of Energy funded a large portion of the $50 million Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan and is probably going to fund a good portion of the $1 billion Hyper-Kamiokande detector. Source: I work with Super-K data on a daily basis and I know quite a few Super-K collaborators. The photomultiplier tubes (vast majority of the cost of the detector) of Super-K were made by Hamamatsu Photonics, so it doesn't seem like much of the construction went to American firms.

    38. Re:Why not? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Difficult to ship back all the data though. The LHC produces 25 petabytes a year, and most of it will need to be sent back so people can work on it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Why not? by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 3, Informative

      When was the last time a quake of any significant magnitude hit Europe?

      Depending on what you define as "significant", Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Italy/) and Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Turkey) immediately come to mind. Both countries experience earthquakes quite regularly.

    40. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm Tsunami!?

    41. Re:Why not? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I heard CERN's experiments with black holes were actually made so that they could travel in time and build a dystopian future.
      Or was that just the plot of some japanese video game / anime?

    42. Re:Why not? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Japan doesn't have countryside, it has mountains.
      You need a perfect torus for a supercollider.

    43. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They know that once we've got nice, fast internet, there will be a mass exodus.

      - posted from moon base over 300 baud radio bridge.

    44. Re:Why not? by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      More than the time to build, it is the years of international negotiations, agreements and funding arrangements that will need to be put in place before a single shovel is put in the ground. If they start talking now, we'll be lucky if its ready 20 years from now. Discussions on ITER began in 1985, almost 30 years ago

    45. Re:Why not? by chispito · · Score: 1

      the should build it on the moon. no atmosphere, already cold (in parts).

      Those cold parts will be hot in 14 days.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    46. Re:Why not? by Ironchew · · Score: 2

      If we had the ability to build anything of this scale on the Moon and keep it habitable, sending back 25 PB/year would be trivial in comparison.

    47. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately Europe is bigger than Italy and Turkey alone.

      Also, have you checked the magnitude of those quakes? The biggest one in Italy was 7.4. In Japan, that was 9.0. Since the Richter scale is logarithmic, that's a huge difference.

    48. Re:Why not? by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      Reality will have to do then... I give you the Westboro Baptist "Church"

    49. Re:Why not? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      But you could feel the Kaliningrad/Poland/Russia 2004 quake in southern Finland (it shook my desk in Lohja, for example, and no, that wasn't the mine collapsing). Very few places are entirely free from the effects of quakes. Further north might be better though.

      Wouldn't the Finns prefer an F1 race than a particle accelerator?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    50. Re:Why not? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Truth is stranger than fiction, and as "Goose in Orbit" points out, there's the real-world WBC, who are probably worse than any religious nuts I've ever seen in any movie.

    51. Re:Why not? by agm · · Score: 1

      The "willing government" would fund this by taking money off unwilling taxpayers. There's *everything* wrong with that, and it doesn't take a libertarian to see it.

    52. Re:Why not? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Those cold parts will be hot in 14 days.

      Not the poles.

    53. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't colliders take huge amounts of power to operate? Japan is pretty short on power until/unless they get all those nuke plants back online. And since that is still rather controversial right now they had better have a confirmed power source before the commit to building it.

    54. Re:Why not? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The Japanese one is a linear collider. It complements the LHC, which is a synchrotron. The different types of machine are usually used to look at different things, and there has usually been a big one of each type operating (the Tevatron and SLC in the 90s, for example). Plus it takes ten years to build these things, after you spend years planning them.

    55. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just equip it with a 3D printer. Something breaks? No problem, just press a button and poof! New part. Isn't that what the 3D fanbois keep promising?

    56. Re:Why not? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Even if 3D printing were at that point (which it isn't, and won't be for at least a century or four), if we're talking about an extremely large part, such as a giant magnet, it's not just the manufacturing of the part that's a big problem, it's getting the thing installed. It's probably sorta like trying to replace the front strut tower in a car: I'm not talking about the strut/shock itself, I'm talking about the sheetmetal part of the chassis where that shock/strut has to mount, and even though it's an integral part of the car's welded chassis, has to be put together with sub-millimeter precision. Replacing that part is not a trivial task at all, and generally if it's damaged the car is "totaled". Maybe replacing supercollider magnets isn't quite that difficult, I don't know, but it's a lot easier to just build your collider in a seismically stable location than to worry about such things, instead of picking one of the most earthquake-prone places on the planet.

    57. Re:Why not? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a space shuttle full of hard drives.

    58. Re:Why not? by okazakiOm · · Score: 1

      > World class universities > Japan Pick one.

    59. Re:Why not? by tomofumi · · Score: 1

      and the best of all...we have Godzilla!

    60. Re:Why not? by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure we have been returning laser signals from reflectors on the moons surface for awhile now. I imagine bandwith is not a terrible issue, just latency. If you can make a nice array to something in orbit, you got 25 PB every 8 minutes. (or so)

    61. Re:Why not? by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      If your worried about price, I hear khazakhstan is very nice!

      (though in reality the Russians are permanently paying them for access to space now)

    62. Re:Why not? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Building giant, expensive, vibration sensitive equipment in an area prone to earthquakes seems like a bad call in the long run.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    63. Re:Why not? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How would WBC jin up a lawsuit by sabotaging a science experiment? You know what they are about?

      You're not making sense.

      The most dangerous anti-science nut types are the animal rights activists/ELF etc..

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    64. Re:Why not? by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 1

      Sabotage? Maybe not, I'll grant you. But I wouldn't put it past them to picket the front gate - and then call in the lawyers...

    65. Re:Why not? by BobJacobsen · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about Finns. You put enough Finns on anything and it's cool.

    66. Re:Why not? by hughk · · Score: 1

      There is a black hole in Geneva. It is called the Paquis (drugs, street hookers, etc.).However it existed before CERN.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    67. Re:Why not? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Is that a concession of the point? Grishnakh is a bigoted twit? Agreed!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    68. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly are a bit misread. The magnitude 9 was x hundred kilos of shore to the north east
      I live in Tokyo and was here, it was around 5 max and yes there was some damage a a few deaths here even.
      If it was 9 here there would not be a lot left standing plus I would suspect 100ks to millions of fatalities

  2. 31km in an Earthquake Zone by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does a multi-billion 31 km long particle collider that must remain aligned belong in one of the seismically most active areas of the world?

    1. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Pyrotech7 · · Score: 1

      Good point! But it will fit nicely with the nuclear reactors.

    2. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.

    3. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.

      Too many floridians. Sorry, pick another state and no Texas won't do.

    4. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only would it be in an earthquake zone, with a lot of obvious ramifications as to the stability/credibility of whatever data they generated,
      but frankly Japan is one of the most densely populated areas of the world, and I would think that if they believed they had the room to build
      this thing that they could make better use of the space for the indigenous population. I'm sure there are some people crammed into small urban
      apartments who would prefer to live in something a little nicer.

    5. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much extra will it cost to construct and maintain an earthquake proof collider? I'm sure it'll cost a lot extra, and think of the extra maintenance everytime they have an earthquake to make sure everything is still in alignment!

    6. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by stms · · Score: 1

      Not only that but another multi-billion dollar project that humanity already has 2 of? Isn't there something else that would benefit the scientific community in a new and different way?

    7. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by vlm · · Score: 1

      one of the seismically most active areas of the world?

      No problem, don't build it in the south. From memory Japan is Fing huge compared to what westerners think (like your average USA guy thinks Japan is smaller than Maine, but its huge, from like 20 degrees N to like 50 degrees N, making it, I believe, "taller" in N-S direction than the entire USA). Also the south is geologically active whereas the north is getting to be about as geologically stable as Wisconsin.

      Its kind of like saying the American West suffers horribly from earthquakes. Well, yeah, the city of San Francisco, sure. But not so bad in Montana as far as I know.

      You can google up a map of seismic activity if you'd like. I'm about 99% certain the south is shaking it up and the far north is pretty much inert.

      Finally this would not exactly be the worlds first earthquake resistant building. I think they can figure something out that'll work.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      The cities are crowded but there is still a lot of open land in between. There are still small towns and villages all over the place. Look at a population map of the place up close.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Japan_Population_density_map.svg

      http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/Japan-population-density-833x846.png

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    9. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The really good linear accelerator, transformed into a linear collider, is at Stanford. Next to the San Andreas fault

    10. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      From memory Japan is Fing huge compared to what westerners think (like your average USA guy thinks Japan is smaller than Maine, but its huge, from like 20 degrees N to like 50 degrees N, making it, I believe, "taller" in N-S direction than the entire USA).

      Japan runs from 24 to 46 degrees N, but it's no more than 200 miles wide anywhere as far as I can tell by glancing at the map. The us runs from 65N to 125N and is 3000 miles wide, it's a whole hell of a lot bigger. 9,826,675 km2 (3rd) vs 377,944 km2 (67th.) Japan is tiny. In addition Wikipedia (which is damned slow this morning) says that over 73% of Japan is unsuitable for development. Japan is not even on the top 20 list of countries where it makes sense to build something like this. As well, how are they planning to power it? Fire those nukes back up?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Talderas · · Score: 2

      At 377,944km2 Japan exceeds all but Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana in land mass and Japan is only about 4000km2 smaller than Montana.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    12. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      hurricanes

    13. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not only that but another multi-billion dollar project that humanity already has 2 of? Isn't there something else that would benefit the scientific community in a new and different way?

      If I have to move and my bed won't fit in any of my cars... Do you see where I am going with this?

      The idea was to build a larger collider since the two available aren't large enough to study Higgs boson in detail.

    14. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by dtmos · · Score: 2

      They should build this in Florida.

      I'm not against this idea at all, but the water table is so high in most places in Florida that it would be really difficult to do. One needs to drill down less than 20 feet in most places to reach water. It's why one sees so few (substantially zero) houses with basements in Florida.

    15. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      They would have to build it waterproof. These are usually build underground. You do not have to dig to far down to hit water in most Florida.

    16. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At 377,944km2 Japan exceeds all but Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana in land mass and Japan is only about 4000km2 smaller than Montana.

      So just to be clear, the US is the third largest nation, not the first or even the second, and it has four states with more land mass than Japan, and Japan isn't a small nation? Oooooookkkkkaaayyyyyyyyy. There's smaller, and the USA is massive, but that doesn't change anything I've said.

      If anything, Japan's accomplishments are all the more impressive when considered in terms of its land area, especially given what percentage of it is considered usable. But it is small. Why do you think they're so damned good at miniaturization? They have every motive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by charlieo88 · · Score: 2

      Why would you dig? If you don't want it outside, bury it. You don't need to first dig a hole to do that.

    18. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 3, Informative

      Outline of Japan superimposed on the US...

      http://mapfrappe.com/?show=7849

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    19. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Colliders are built underground, so hurricanes would only affect support structures. NASA seems to not have a hard time operating from Cape Canaveral, right on the ocean where hurricanes hit hardest.

    20. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, as long as they keep Dr. William Weaver at the ready for when the higgs-boson experiments inevitably go horribly wrong.

    21. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Every single No in my life couldn't explain how much of a bad idea this is.

      Such a collider would need considerably more precision than LHC would, not just power.
      Designing it in Japan would require an ungodly amount of work to ensure such precision with constant minor and occasional major quakes.
      That is money not worth spending for such a device when it could be in a place with stable land near the middle of a plate.

    22. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      The US runs from 65N to 125N

      Errr... on some hypersphere Earth, possibly. On the real earth, you can't get north of 90N.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    23. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Underground you say? How about flooding, or is that something that tends not to happen to underground structures during hurricanes?

    24. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like they're covering something the size of a bus. Or even a building. This is a massively tall, 30+ km ring. Where exactly do you plan to get *literally* a small mountain of earth to dump on it, never mind needing to find land that wasn't being used so you can completely cover 30+km's of it in soil. And a very thick layer of soil, so that's not just blown away. Also, you'll probably have to fill in the middle and perhaps raise it even higher, so you don't have a lake in the middle of the collider.

      Seems like it'd be a HELLUVA lot less problematic and easier to dig a big hole and throw the dirt that you dug up back on top.

    25. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Outline of Japan superimposed on the US...

      Superimposed on the contiguous states, yes. It proves precisely the same point I was making. It's long, skinny, and not equipped of that much land area. If 3/4 of that is unsuitable for such a project right off the top, and then you eliminate everything near a coastline, what is left? Answer: nothing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Megane · · Score: 1

      I hear we've already got a 22km long hole dug in the ground for them here in Texas. Okay, so it's oval and not linear, but it's already been dug.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    27. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It can't be built in the USA: we tried this before, about 20 years ago, and it was a disaster. The same thing would happen here: a new President would get elected and suddenly funding would be dropped and the project would never be finished. The USA needs to be left out of all serious science projects like this: we've proven we're simply not capable of following through with any large projects any more.

    28. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the Moon would be a better location than any place on Earth: there's no geologic activity there at all, AFAIK.

    29. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Tobenisstinky · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have said I was agreeing with you. "Look how tiny Japan is compared to the mainland US" And, yes, over half being mountainous kinda leaves sweet nothing for a 31 km ring.

      --
      wha'? where am i?
    30. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have said I was agreeing with you.

      I guess I should have allowed for the possibility :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by vlm · · Score: 1

      Wow its even bigger than I thought. Not something /.ers often hear. Interesting that no one disputes my memory that the south is geologically active and the north isn't, but there's endless squabbling about "taller than the USA" being accurate or not. I still stand by my claim that Japan is huge and an earthquake on the lower geologically active part is simply not relevant to the more or less inert north. There exists a meme and thou shall not dispute it.

      Its almost exactly like a foreigner hearing about a hurricane devastating New Orleans and calling his relative in Minnesota to see if he survived the dreaded storm.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    32. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by Talderas · · Score: 1

      One of my thoughts is that depending on the seismic stability of the mountain ranges, placing this inside mountains might be worthwhile.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    33. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by epSos-de · · Score: 1

      Technically yes, Japan is the seismically most active area of the world, but they are also capable to create structures that are flexible and do not move when the ground moves.

      Japan is probably the best country for making it tolerant to shaking, even if the flat Australia would be much better and cheaper.

    34. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by dwywit · · Score: 1

      'bout time somebody mentioned Oz. We gots big flat expanses, and bucketloads of sunlight for the PVs needed to offset the energy needs, everyone likes us, and the native critters can provide security services.
       
      Oh, and we've got Michelle Jenneke to keep the lonely scientists entertained.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    35. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      'bout time somebody mentioned Oz. We gots big flat expanses, and bucketloads of sunlight for the PVs needed to offset the energy needs, everyone likes us, and the native critters can provide security services.

      Oh, and we've got Michelle Jenneke to keep the lonely scientists entertained.

      Yep. Her.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    36. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's not a ring. It's a linear collider. But other than that, you're right. The LHC is dug down far enough that, were it in Florida, it would be a nice underground lake.

    37. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "The us runs from 65N to 125N"

      Hm... I always thought most of the US was south of us. And that 125N thing must be quite a trick.

    38. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Colliders are built underground, so hurricanes would only affect support structures. NASA seems to not have a hard time operating from Cape Canaveral, right on the ocean where hurricanes hit hardest.

      You can't build underground in Florida, at least South Florida. Dig 5 feet down and you hit the water table. Cape Canaveral is hardly a model to go by since it is (mostly) not underground. Operating on a hurricane area is not a big deal (I live hear, I know.) Sucks with the flooding if you live in a flood zone, but infrastructure is typically not damaged that much. Lots of interruption in communications, but that's about it. Having lived through hurricanes and earthquakes, I take the former any time.

      Anyways, I just got off the tangent here... anyways, no, Florida will suck for building a mammoth particle collider underground.

    39. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Not only would it be in an earthquake zone, with a lot of obvious ramifications as to the stability/credibility of whatever data they generated, but frankly Japan is one of the most densely populated areas of the world, and I would think that if they believed they had the room to build this thing that they could make better use of the space for the indigenous population. I'm sure there are some people crammed into small urban apartments who would prefer to live in something a little nicer.

      Despite the typical stereotypes, Japan is not a small country. All together, it is a bit smaller than California and they have vast tracks of mostly sparsely populated land (think Hokkaido). They got forest reserves up the wazoo. Japanese are tremendously concentrated (I'd say packed like sardines) in their urban areas, leaving a lot of open space between cities. Take a 2-3 hour drive out of Tokyo and you see nothing but open ranges and mountains.

      There is plenty of space there to build one of these things. It's not like we are talking about Andorra or the Vatican in terms of dimensions here.

    40. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Not only that but another multi-billion dollar project that humanity already has 2 of? Isn't there something else that would benefit the scientific community in a new and different way?

      Yeah, because 2 is just enough to conduct that type of scientific research </sarcasm>

    41. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      At 377,944km2 Japan exceeds all but Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana in land mass and Japan is only about 4000km2 smaller than Montana.

      So just to be clear, the US is the third largest nation, not the first or even the second, and it has four states with more land mass than Japan, and Japan isn't a small nation? Oooooookkkkkaaayyyyyyyyy. There's smaller, and the USA is massive, but that doesn't change anything I've said.

      If anything, Japan's accomplishments are all the more impressive when considered in terms of its land area, especially given what percentage of it is considered usable. But it is small. Why do you think they're so damned good at miniaturization? They have every motive.

      Most countries compared to the USA (or China, Russia or Brazil for that matter) are small. But when you take into account the average country size and the smallest countries, a country with an area greater than 300K sq/km is not small. To get a measure of what is small or large (in anything), don't just use the largest samples (the outliers), use the average.

    42. Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone by stms · · Score: 1

      Well I guess if they could do more with the new one that could be okay. Still there is much we don't know about the universe I'm sure there are other projects that could be more helpful to our understanding to it (or hell a dozen cheaper projects). We could probably build an interstellar space probe with that kind of money or send a human to mars or map the deepest reaches of the ocean or fund a shit load of research in any given field* the list could goes on.
      *medicine, neural networks, quantum computing probably all of them and more.

  3. Noooo! by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1
    Just imagine, how many starving people could be fed with all the money!!!111!1eleven1

    (Of course they wouldn't actually be rescued, the money would go to lobby organisations, military spendings etc. instead, but since that was always the case that does not have to be questioned.)

    --
    Trolling is a art!
    1. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We could feed *all* starving people with only the amount of food we waste.

    2. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine how badly all of those millions going to feed people is going to destroy the economy in the countries it will be contributed to, making it impossible for those that will not starve to buy locally grown food. You would need to keep those donations to keep coming because now the only food anyone can get comes from other countries.

      You don't work out problems by mindlessly giving people new stuff, but you will feel a lot better for sure. You help by strengthening the economy.

    3. Re:Noooo! by noshellswill · · Score: 0

      Just imagine how many starving reproducing fools could be sterilized with that money. A comfortable, self-sustaining earth population is about 750,000 million. We have 10x that now; the particle collider is a tekboi extravagance.

    4. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got this wrong. Money doesn't go from the government to lobby organizations, it's the other way around. Too many people are all too willing to ignore who really profits from the likes of lobby groups and such. We whine on about big industry when it's big government that nearly always gets the lion's share of everything. And they still can't get anything right with nearly unlimited resources.

    5. Re:Noooo! by gagol · · Score: 1

      Sure, you would volunteer right? Heck, we should make it mandatory for you cause I dont like your ideas. [/Sarcasm]

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    6. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand if no one needs to worry about starving anymore they can dedicate more effort to education and construction of infrastructure.

      The problem really is that we do it half-assed. We don't give out enough food to eradicate famine. We give out enough to encourage warlords to hoard it all for their armies and let everyone else starve.

    7. Re:Noooo! by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Hire them to work at the new facilities. Problem solved. Not particle physicists? Everywhere needs a janitor!

    8. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mom? Is that you? You know I don't like peas.

    9. Re:Noooo! by RicktheBrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is like a child who has not opened all of their Christmas presents and yet demands more. The Cern Collider is not even at maximum power yet. At least wait until a couple of years of using it at maximum power before deciding that we need a new one. How about the one that is on the international space station? I thought that there were collision from particles from super nova that were much more powerful than even the new Cern Collider. At least play with the toys you have now before asking for new ones.

    10. Re:Noooo! by Xiterion · · Score: 2

      Why not focus on the ultra high velocity particles coming in from space? In short, luminosity. The rate of collisions is so much lower and uncontrolled in terms of where the collisions happen that it's much more difficult to gather the bulk of data that is required to demonstrate statistical significance in the findings. Also, check out the pictures of the scale of the detectors installed at the LHC. They're positively enormous, and just as important to the performance of the facility as the power level of the beam line.

      As for why they're asking now? It took 10 years to build the LHC. Assuming they start construction today on a new collider, they will still likely be looking at a period of time somewhere around a decade before the new system comes online. Also, the proposed accelerator is a linear accelerator, which offers a differently optimized set of tradeoffs compared to something like the LHC.

    11. Re:Noooo! by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      A comfortable, self-sustaining earth population is about 750,000 million

      Cite?

    12. Re:Noooo! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Feeding useless eaters does nothing to move mankind forward, and DOES breed more useless eaters. Send them birth control instead.

      Quality of life goes with smaller families, even in the US. The idea of throwing food at people who refuse to change their culture to a less self-destructive one is silly. It may make donors feel good, but it isn't really "helping", "Helping" is teaching those people ways they can feed themselves, provide sanitation for themselves, pump and conserve water themselves, (there's a theme here) and become more self reliant.

      "Aid" can be economically toxic. For example, dumping clothing the First World doesn't need simply destroys local clothing makers by destroying demand for their products.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the one that is on the international space station?

      Do you know that it takes decades of planning, building and testing before such equipment can do any science, right? The ILC has been in the early phases of design since 2005, and the construction is not expected to end before 2025 (and it will take a little bit longer until useful data starts to come out of it).

      I thought that there were collision from particles from super nova that were much more powerful than even the new Cern Collider.

      True, but those particles lack a pair of critical qualities needed for particle science: repeatability and a controlled environment. It's not a question of power, but of controlled power.

    14. Re:Noooo! by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1

      The Cern Collider is not even at maximum power yet.

      As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed. Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Cern Collider!

    15. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the starving people live in areas where you can't grow food well. Giving them more food just encourages them to breed more and create more people that can't be fed. As long as we limit to helping people willing to help themselves, then giving food is an investment.

    16. Re:Noooo! by loufoque · · Score: 1

      I don't think elevens have much of a starving problem.

    17. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like a child who has not opened all of their Christmas presents and yet demands more.

      Sorry to spoil this for you, but despite Santa's best intentions, you'll never wake up and find your new collider under the Christmas tree. The one at CERN took a decade to build. They're planning/hoping for an upgrade in 2018 to keep the LHC significant. (see wikipedia)
      So, the way things currently stand, we'll be having to make due with hardware not up to the task for 5 years or so.

      Hardly a petulant child.

    18. Re:Noooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^THIS.

    19. Re:Noooo! by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Trolling is a art!

      /golfclap

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    20. Re:Noooo! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Some people call it "thinking ahead."

    21. Re:Noooo! by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      At least play with the toys you have now before asking for new ones.

      Its a linear collider, not a synchrotron. Totally different uses.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    22. Re:Noooo! by flayzernax · · Score: 0

      This assumes that people are "eaters" and a sub-human class of beings not capable of fully realizing their potential.

      You are wrong because these "eaters" exist because of artificial systems and means put in place by those that control those means. Money, power, information. To name a few.

      Ask yourself if you could share this world and all that you have, would you not share it to try and enlighten your fellow eaters so they could put their lives to good use rather then eating just to sustain themselves?

      Your argument is good, but its decieving in that it assumes people are less valuable "there then here".

    23. Re:Noooo! by Forbman · · Score: 1

      same uses, at least initially (Hulk-smash minute particles to make even smaller ones). Much different implementation, and much different design tradeoffs. No bremstrahlung in a linac, for one, until the beam hits the target.

    24. Re:Noooo! by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      They collide different types of particles with different results is what I was getting at. Less messy collisions, more precise measurements.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
    25. Re:Noooo! by hughk · · Score: 1

      A big collider takes a lot of money and politicking to get started. It is a massive engineering project (the LHC was lucky, the detector chambers were new but the ring was inherited from the LEP). The CERN people already talk about what is next because they know they must start thinking now.

      As for cosmic rays, yes they are incredibly powerful but undirected. You can't guarantee that the interesting particles will come into your detector any anyway, you normally end up with secondary collisions at best as the interesting particles interact at higher altitudes. Yes, you could fly a big detector, but they are extremely big and heavy,

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  4. Stability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These devices require a pretty solid footing to provide accurate measurements, after all you're mashing together *really small* particles, some of which are subatomic. An earthquake nudging something half a millimeter out of alignment could prove a setback much more expensive than the liquid helium leak they had at LHC earlier....

  5. Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This would make a perfectly reasonable news item; there's no need to solicit Slashdotters' opinions. People comment anyway.

    99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed, unless you're already knowledgeable on the subject. So why bother?

    1. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed, unless you're already knowledgeable on the subject. So why bother?

      Hold... what would we get to comment on, on slow news days like this? :-)

    2. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by craigminah · · Score: 2

      ...and 87% of all statistics are made up...

      /. postings include plenty of random things so this fits in just fine.

    3. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by telchine · · Score: 4, Informative

      99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed

      Yeah, I will, they'll have +5 Informative written next to them. What... don't you trust the Slashdot moderation system? Oh... wait!

    4. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and 87% of all statistics are made up...

      Citation needed. Every time somebody quotes that, the percentage is different.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's more like 97%, I read that somewhere.

    6. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it is made up 87% of the time. Of course this was made up too.

    7. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by craigminah · · Score: 1

      It's different because it's made up...

    8. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by u38cg · · Score: 2

      Note sure if whoosh....

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    9. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed

      I'm not worried. By your own logic there's a 99% chance your comment itself is ill-informed.

    10. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Here you go. That's will show you the real time present stat.

    11. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for point that out, I was wondering where the whooshing sound was coming from.

    12. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it goes up every time it's quoted.

    13. Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Because all the major media outlets have decided that every story should end with "tell us what you think!" so we can all "join the conversation." Slashdot is just playing me too.

      Probably what really happened is that nobody submitted today's "am I too old to change careers?" question and the editors had to come up with something on their own.

  6. Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Queue Bernard's law. No, and No. There's a lot more data to be gathered at CERN for a decade, and it just doesn't matter where it's built. However, when we've run the existing coliders to the extent of their ability to generate data, then it may be time to build a new collider and why not Japan.

    1. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ILC is a completely different design, with completely different goals. Previously, about 15 years ago, we had a hadron collider (the Tevatron) and a lepton collider (the LEP). The LEP was used as a basis to build the LHC; so now we have just hadron colliders (DESY is dual, but its energy range is way below the current frontier). A lepton collider gives us a way cleaner signal for weak and electromagnetic interactions, but gives us almost no insight on strong interactions; a hadron collider gives us a totally messy result, which includes a lot of strong interactions and noise-level channels for electroweak.In fact, at the LHC's energies, you see mostly gluon-gluon collisions, not even quark-quark. So, to actually see precisely the Higgs and measure its mass, a lepton collider would be great. A lepton collider would also give a clearer picture of wether there is something beyond the standard model (up to about half its center-of-mass collision energy at least), so al of us theoretical physicists would LOVE to have one.

      However, accelerating electrons and positrons in a curved path is very, very, VERY hard. They lose their energy about a million times quicker than protons; so, to get to TeV levels, the collider should be linear. Accelerating stuff in a linear collider is very, very hard (note: "only" two "very"s here) because you need to give it its energy on a shorter space (while a conventional collider would do so over lots of cycles). So, its engineering won't be easy, but we will get a lot of insights on both particle physics and electromagnetism (to accelerate the damn electrons); that electromagnetism expertise could be used, for example, for high speed trains.

      We absolutely should build a lepton linear collider. Whether it's in Japan or in the US (putting the Fermilab's infrastructure to good use), it will teach us a lot that the LHC can't.

    2. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Queue Bernard's law. No, and No. There's a lot more data to be gathered at CERN for a decade, and it just doesn't matter where it's built. However, when we've run the existing coliders to the extent of their ability to generate data, then it may be time to build a new collider and why not Japan.

      Who is Bernard? I believe you must mean Betteridge's law of headlines.

    3. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These things have a certain amount of lead time, you know. If you wait until you've exhausted the potential of current equipment, you'll end up with a decade-long gap.

    4. Re:Bernard's Law ... by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Modders please up the parent, most informative post ever.

    5. Re:Bernard's Law ... by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      Japan is currently planning to build a 500km/h maglev train line from Tokyo to Nagoya. At those speeds the track needs to be as straight as possible with few curves. This line will involve a lot of tunnelling as the proposed route runs down the mountainous spine of Honshu, Japan's main island.

      Building the tunnel for a linear accelerator alongside a major part of the maglev line would be a nice twofer; all the tunneling gear and an experienced construction crew is to hand.

    6. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh... The strawmen are typing!

    7. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a non-modder, I did something even better: shared it on FB. As many as 3 or 4 people could take notice :)

    8. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Blackeneth · · Score: 1

      So we spend billions of dollars to . . . more precisely measure the mass of the Higgs boson? Oh, that's worth it.

      But wait! There's important spin-off technologies, like . . . high speed trains.

      Only one problem - we don't need any freaking high speed trains!

      Now, if you could promise to figure out how to power cars with the Higgs boson, or create a Higgs boson bomb, that might draw some interest. But to spend billions of dollars to add a few decimal places to the mass of the Higgs? Physicists will soon have to accept that some of the knowledge they seek is too expensive to acquire.

      --
      -- Knowledge is power. -- Francis Bacon
    9. Re:Bernard's Law ... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      The track may be, but any tunnelling doesn't have to be, although the more precise it is the less jiggering and time spent actually aligning the track for the railway and desired tolerances. Same goes for the tunnels for this proposed accelerator. Doesn't matter if those tunnels are curved or straight.
      Granted, with this accelerator (whether it be for leptons or railroad cars), they're not going to have Maintenance Of Way equipment come down and lift up the accelerator tubes, shove some new ballast and ties under it, and then tamp it down to the point it meets desired tolerances, like they do with normal railroad tracks.

  7. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if there is a disaster it is sure to happen in Japan.

  8. Earthquake risks? by holiggan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just my 2 cents, but shouldn't the ILC be built on an area with a reduced earthquake risk?

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
    1. Re:Earthquake risks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese are also experts on building earthquake-proof facilities, and there are areas of relative stability in the country. Finally, Switzerland itself is seismically active (that's where the mountains come from), so obviously it's doable.

    2. Re:Earthquake risks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes affect less underground. The higher you go the more the shaking will be.

    3. Re:Earthquake risks? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"

      All of these jobs save lives while all that a sysadmin does is run a system so that people can do their job.

  9. Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by acidfast7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As someone who spends a lot of time in multinational scientific facilities (e.g. the Swiss Light Source) ... I don't understand the "Should it go to Japan?" question. It's infrastructure for the greater scientific community, so it doesn't matter where it's built.

    1. Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      That's because the question is not "should it go to Japan?", but "will the equipment be safe if it's built in Japan?".

    2. Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think people are worrying about the earthquakes.

    3. Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      Japan has the best earth conditions. You guys are overestimating the effects of earthquakes. Personally, based on my location, I'd like to see it built at DESY, but it's unlikely with the local soil conditions :(

    4. Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone that works at another light source, how naive are you? We're talking about billions of dollars (USD) being spent to construct the facility. The local industry benefits greatly from just the basic infrastructure construction contracts. Would the Japanese facility pick the best components for the job, or will the Japanese government get involved and insist on $x million being spent purchasing components from companies located in Japan only? If the politicians start dictating how the money is spent the costs could increase due to compromises being made on equipment capability or lack of reliability. Is there sufficient expertise to oversee the initial construction of the project without having a massive cost overrun: maybe all those people have been hired by CERN or retired or died? What if a project built in Switzerland can get funding from a larger group of countries compared to Japan? Maybe the Chinese won't contribute to a facility in Japan because of the disputed islands off the coast of Taiwan, but would fund it in Germany.

      I think its a very valid question and I don't understand why _you_ don't understand this.

    5. Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      I don't think about it as much because A) it's not allowed under European law (to force German-only components) and B) the Germans/Swiss tend to have the highest quality components so local is usually best anyway (e.g. Dectris Pilatus 6M detector). This wouldn't be an issue at Diamond or ESRF because of the EU laws and local access to the highest quality components. I COULD see how this would be an issue in the US/Japan with no such regulation.

  10. No, think instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the money for building the new collider would be invested in researchers and scientists to think for a cheaper and better way to examine the very same things they do in colliders, I guess we would start having results in some time. After figuring out how the next generation colliders would be, go and put the money building that to a new project to think about a yet better solution.

    I think this should be applied to the current space exploration too. Give money to scientists and have them thinking 8 hours a day, nothing more.

    1. Re:No, think instead by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      The 'cheaper' bit will come in time, as these experiments tend to push the state-of-the-art in so many areas.

      BUT, the ILC will be expensive, and that's unavoidable. In high-energy physics, higher and higher energies, and better, more sensitive detectors, are required to explore new physics. The accelerator and detectors required to do this are custom built, need to be basically developed from scratch -- and do not come cheap.

    2. Re:No, think instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All very true. To me it would sound more beneficial to have smart people thinking of better alternatives than constantly building new colliders. Of course that is done all the time, but I guess the people doing the thinking do not receive the same kind of financial backup that the building of the actual units have. For example, Bell Labs was in its time very successful in all kinds of things. These kinds of organizations would really need to be put together rather than building expensive stuff that lead to findings that haven't been very practical, mostly.

    3. Re:No, think instead by professionalfurryele · · Score: 2

      We did. The result of the thinking and design process was the ILC. Now we have thought for a bit and come to the conclusion that to examine our thinking we need an accelerator. The ILC has been on the drawing board for a long time now, we have known we would need it since before the LHC even began construction. Now don't get me wrong, I would love it if your idea was put into practice, I'm a theoretician. But basic research needs experiments, I cant do everything on my own and funding me to the exclusion of my experimental peers would be a waste of the taxpayers money I'm sorry to say.

    4. Re:No, think instead by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of work on alternate ways to build accelerators, some of it well funded like BELLA at LBNL, FACET at SLAC, and the muon-collider from Fermilab . While some of these ideas are very promising in the long run, they are decades away from being usable for a high energy high luminosity machine like ILC. Right now the only practical alternatives are room temperature accelerators (like SLAC), and superconducting machines like DESY/FLASH or CEBAF. Several years ago a comparison was done, an it was decided that superconducting was better for this application.

  11. First rule of government contracting by JBL2 · · Score: 1

    Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?

    1. Re:First rule of government contracting by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      You only say 'twice the price' because the change orders haven't come down.
      Take that coefficient and scootch it up a tad to the exponent area.
      Yeaaaah, baby. Tha's'um talkin' about.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:First rule of government contracting by JBL2 · · Score: 1
  12. Why did we need LHC? by ggpauly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wouldn't the Tevatron have found the Higgs particle had it been run a few months longer? Actually didn't it, and then the LHC confirmed it with higher confidence?

    Let the intelligent physicists figure out how to extend their science without so many billions of dollars. (hint: look up, there are collisions in the atmosphere at much higher energy than the LHC is capable of). Let the physicists outsmart Nature rather than funding agencies. Maybe they could concentrate better if they weren't so worried about construction, budgets, reports, etc.

    --
    Verbum caro factum est
    1. Re:Why did we need LHC? by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      It's kinda a welfare program for high end scientists. How else could billions be spent on ``science'' and benefit thousands of contractors. The liberal scientists get something fun to play with, and a bunch of special interest groups get billions of easy money to build and operate the thing.

      With that thought, perhaps U.S. should build one that's perhaps 150 miles, somewhere in mid west (nice and flat). Locate it such that it spans at least 4-5 states to get a bunch of senators for it. There are worse ways to prop up the economy... and this make work project might actually do something cool.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:Why did we need LHC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the Tevatron have found the Higgs particle had it been run a few months longer? Actually didn't it, and then the LHC confirmed it with higher confidence?

      Let the intelligent physicists figure out how to extend their science without so many billions of dollars. (hint: look up, there are collisions in the atmosphere at much higher energy than the LHC is capable of). Let the physicists outsmart Nature rather than funding agencies. Maybe they could concentrate better if they weren't so worried about construction, budgets, reports, etc.

      sure!! may I know where did you read this BS ??
      Tevatron observed some 2.5 sigma combining the two experiments (cherry picking the channels with largest excess it goes to 2.9 sigma), both numbers being in large excess of the expectation (likely due to very possible statistical fluctuation on the lucky side).
      Now if you want to extrapolate how many more "months" of Tevatron you would need to get to anything near a 5-sigma per-experiment discovery ... you can start from the 2.5 sigma (even if one should use the expected significance rather than the observed) and scale it with sqrt(luminosity).
      So in order to double it, you would need 4 time more lumi. If you want 5-sigma per experiment, you need another factor sqrt(2).

      How many months is this?
      The last two years of Tevatron running had record luminosity for that machine with ~5fb-1 in 2 years. The current available integrated luminosity is 10-12fb-1.. meaning to make 4 (or 5.6 ) times as much you would need about 12 to 15 years ...

    3. Re:Why did we need LHC? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2

      Another poster very ably picked apart your proposal that we use the Tevatron instead.

      As for observing high energy atmospheric collisions, no, that won't work either. I've seen the detector at SLAC's linear accelerator. It's as big as an office building. It is truly an awesome sight.

      You not only have to have high energy events happen, you have to have a very sophisticated detector built around where the event will happen in order to learn anything from it. Then, you probably need billions and billions of collisions, only some of which yield the reactions you're looking for, in order to get good enough statistics to have *any* certainty about what you've found.

      As if that weren't enough, another characteristic of atmospheric collisions is that any high energy particle quickly generates a cascade, a shower, of lower energy particles. This creates quite a soupy mess and detangling the event you're looking for from this is just mind-blowingly difficult.

      I do believe that it's already quite a challenging task to figure out what happened even in the relatively clean environment of the LHC. With the LHC comes a huge amount of supercomputing power and decades of code development. The LHC's page lists the Grid supercomputer they use as "the most powerful supercomputer in the world".

      You may want to entertain the notion that perhaps using the LHC instead of trying to observe natural reactions is in fact the cheapest, fastest, and best way to do the physics desired.....

      --PM

    4. Re:Why did we need LHC? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You have a complete lack of understanding of science, and economics.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Why did we need LHC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that it is the weakest point of your argument, but where are you going to build a 150 mile circular accelerator to span 5 states?

    6. Re:Why did we need LHC? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      (hint: look up, there are collisions in the atmosphere at much higher energy than the LHC is capable of). Let the physicists outsmart Nature rather than funding agencies.

      Are you even aware of how self contradictory you are? The atmosphere is very big. Nature causes the high energy collisions up there, but you never know where they'll occur and they happen so infrequently in a single spot that it would cost more to fly fleets of weather balloons and launch hundreds of detectors in space to capture the same number of collisions in the same amount of time. So instead the physicists outsmart Nature! They build their own high energy collision generator so they can cause a whole bunch of collisions in a single place and study them on demand. Or, are you saying that physicists should magically figure out how to cause distant supernovae to throw particles right when and where we want them?

      In case you're still not following, what you've said is: There's got to be a better way for physicists to isolate phenomena and study them than in controlled environments! Let's not give the professionals the funds they say they need to do the job we want them to do, and instead hope they'll find some other way they just haven't figured out yet! (hint: if there was a better way, they'd gladly do it.) Do you avoid the car mechanic, and instead take your car to church to have it wished into working order again? That's about how insane you sound to me...

  13. Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by eldavojohn · · Score: 2

    As someone who spends a lot of time in multinational scientific facilities (e.g. the Swiss Light Source) ... I don't understand the "Should it go to Japan?" question. It's infrastructure for the greater scientific community, so it doesn't matter where it's built.

    Sure it does! Political, geological and socioeconomic stability are prime factors in building one of these things. Why the SSC showed us that politics and economics will ruin your particle collider. So if Japan is better with their money than the US and has a geologically stable site and doesn't go to war with China in the near future, it's a good site.

    Selecting a good site will increase your chances of it actually becoming infrastructure for the greater scientific community. Just ask Weinberg.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      That's because the SSC was a US-only project, compared to the LHC or the SLS. The "I" in ILC stands for International, indicating that more than one country will pay for it. The SSC was cancelled because Congress didn't want to cover the rapidly expanding costs, this won't happen with the ILC. Also, Japan has "agreed" to cover roughly half of the total cost because it would be the "host" nation.

    2. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the SSC was a US-only project, compared to the LHC or the SLS. The "I" in ILC stands for International, indicating that more than one country will pay for it. The SSC was cancelled because Congress didn't want to cover the rapidly expanding costs, this won't happen with the ILC. Also, Japan has "agreed" to cover roughly half of the total cost because it would be the "host" nation.

      Even if the US had agreed to cover only half the cost of SSC, they would have canceled.

    3. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by acidfast7 · · Score: 2

      It's a moot point as science (funding) is dead in the US anyway. Most young scientists are leaving to work elsewhere, especially those with international experience.

    4. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a moot point as science (funding) is dead in the US anyway. Most young scientists are leaving to work elsewhere, especially those with international experience.

      So you're agreeing that the site matters greatly!

    5. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm stating that it would be ridiculous to build it within the US. Just about anywhere else (first-world) would be similar in risk.

    6. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LHC is an EU-Only project where other nations are welcome to participate. In particular the ones that have texan jackasses as presidents

    7. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Rostin · · Score: 1

      It's a moot point as science (funding) is dead in the US anyway. Most young scientists are leaving to work elsewhere, especially those with international experience.

      I'm friends with a fair number of US-trained young scientists, and the only ones I know who are planning to leave the country can't stay because they aren't US citizens. A small minority (~15% or so) plan to seek or currently have temporary postdoctoral positions overseas, but I doubt that many intend to make that arrangement permanent. I might add that I personally have experience doing research in another country, and I have no inclination whatsoever to leave the US. I admit that my personal, anecdotal evidence isn't proof against a larger trend, but it does make me suspicious. What makes you believe that "most" young scientists are departing the US?

    8. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting funding. Most biomedical scientists are finding the EU funding rates much more enticing than those of the NIH. FWIW, it's roughly a 40% success rate DFG (German Research Council) compared to 8-15% with the NIH.

    9. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The life sciences are a completely different area than other sciences in the US. All of the life sciences are dealing with an explosion of new scientists--too many, in fact, to deal with--because of the surge in popularity of those fields. I've heard horror stories of postdocs working in bio labs for $40k/yr until they're 40 because there simply aren't enough positions for research scientists available for the huge amount of graduates that are out there. The life sciences seem to have become saturated with young minds.

      Many other hard sciences, however, are not saturated. I am in the field of seismology. We are a relatively small community, and there is no lack of positions available. I see probably 5-10 recruiting e-mails a week for new grads and experienced scientists sent through the IRIS consortium's bulk mail system.

    10. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. Apparently the US doesn't fund large projects, anymore.

      Oh wait, it does.

    11. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

      blah, blah, blah.

    12. Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't need to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.

  14. Should be built in China instead by prasadsurve · · Score: 1
    With Austerity in Europe, Huge Deficits in US and Recession in Japan, China seems to be the economically viable place to build the particle collider.

    Quality Control issues will have to looked at carefully though.

    1. Re:Should be built in China instead by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You reasons are exactly why these projects should be undertaken right now in the US.
      Money is cheap, and the deficit is nearly as bad as the media is leading you to believe. Large projects help reduce deficit, create jobs, and build industries.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. Japan has room? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that Japan is very crowded and that most rural, open space is limited when it comes to construction or is protected park land. 31km is HUGE and if they have the room, well than go for it.

    1. Re:Japan has room? by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

      The flat parts of Japan are crowded, the interior, where the mountains are, is empty. That's why playing golf there is insanely expensive, but skiing is practically free.

  16. Why, did the LHC break down again? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I'm curious about the scientific justification of another particle collider. The data from the LHC, ATLAS, and so forth has been amazing and it's possible to collide almost any subatomic particle in them so why do we need another? I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Why, did the LHC break down again? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming that "liniar" is the key word.

      Also am I the only one that thinks it's hillarious that they build a multi billion dollar round thing that basically told them what they really wanted was a multi billion dollar straight thing!

    2. Re:Why, did the LHC break down again? by Anrego · · Score: 1

      * Linear

      Also like about 2/3 of the comments, I would be seriously concerned about the earthquake thing and the population thing. I mean maybe these are not as bad as everything thinks, but it seems like the two most obvious reasons "why not" wern't even addressed.

    3. Re:Why, did the LHC break down again? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The LHC can collide protons and bunches of protons and neutrons. There are a few other subatomic particles.

  17. No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Isarian · · Score: 4, Informative

    When will people stop publishing news articles saying "the Higgs has been confirmed to exist"? This is driving me bat-shit insane. No, the Higgs has NOT necessarily been discovered. Particles have been observed in the LHC at energy levels that match the expected characteristics of the Higgs, but we DO NOT KNOW if it is the standard model Higgs or just something else that looks like it. Goddamn.

    Read more: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342408/description/Higgs_hysteria

    1. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like a Higgs, it quacks like a Higgs, but we've been unable to confirm whether it walks like a Higgs. So, even if we do find that it doesn't walk like a Higgs; does that make the particle not-Higgs, or does it just mean Peter Higgs incorrectly predicted how the Higgs behaves?

    2. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since your "Higgs Hysteria" has been published, even more Higgs evidence found......things are looking good for what is called "the boring version of the standard model". It probably is the Higgs boson.

    3. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will people stop publishing news articles saying "the Higgs has been confirmed to exist"? This is driving me bat-shit insane. No, the Higgs has NOT necessarily been discovered. Particles have been observed in the LHC at energy levels that match the expected characteristics of the Higgs, but we DO NOT KNOW if it is the standard model Higgs or just something else that looks like it. Goddamn.

      Read more: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342408/description/Higgs_hysteria

      As far as I'm concerned, Sri Lanka has not been confirmed to exist. From my own personal experience, Sri Lanka might well be just a fabrication.

    4. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2

      Well, if it has the same energy level as a duck...

    5. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I *am* from Sri Lanka, you insensitive clod.

    6. Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed by Rhacman · · Score: 1

      And therefore, the Higgs Boson is made of wood and hence A WITCH!!!

      --
      Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
  18. Don't know what energy is needed yet by grimJester · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ILC would be able to measure properties of the Higgs more accurately than the LHC, but before the LHC has ran at 13 or 14 TeV for a while we don't know if there's other interesting stuff to see.

    If the LHC finds something new and the ILC has too low energy to produce it, it's wasted. Obviously those results would come long before the ILC is even close to finished, but it's important to keep options open until we know better. In addition there are other proposals for Higgs factories that would be cheaper to implement. Without new discoveries at the LHC the ILC may be pointless.

    1. Re:Don't know what energy is needed yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ILC would be able to measure properties of the Higgs more accurately than the LHC, but before the LHC has ran at 13 or 14 TeV for a while we don't know if there's other interesting stuff to see.

      It's a linear collider that will have between 1/10th and 1/20th the power of the LHC. It won't be measuring the properties of the Higgs.

    2. Re:Don't know what energy is needed yet by f()rK()_Bomb · · Score: 1

      It's a linear collider that will have between 1/10th and 1/20th the power of the LHC. It won't be measuring the properties of the Higgs.

      Maybe you should read about the aims of the ILC. One of its main points is studying the higgs.

      --
      "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
  19. Yes it should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the populace of Japan has the foresight to back the project with their tax dollars, then they deserve it. If you want another particle collider in the US or Europe then you need to get the populations priorities in order and spend more on STEM and less on war mongering, pointless drug wars, and other pork.

    1. Re:Yes it should by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      If the populace of Japan has the foresight to back the project with their tax dollars, then they deserve it. If you want another particle collider in the US or Europe then you need to get the populations priorities in order and spend more on STEM and less on war mongering, pointless drug wars, and other pork.

      They think its the porcine path to prosperity.

  20. Electricity, earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they restored electricity to normal levels yet in Japan?
    Last I heard industry in Japan was suffering from electricity shortage in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.

    Also i think a large scientific installation might be better off in a more seismicly stable region as
    they would just would cost a lot more if factoring in earthquake damage risks.

  21. Shelf Life by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 1

    Why do particle accelerators seem to have such a short shelf life?
    Is this it for the LHC? Im surprised that they are already looking for something larger, to study something that the LHC was aiming at doing.
    I am not a scientist, but I do find this stuff incredibly cool.

  22. Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a computer scientist my opinion is irrelevant and thus, shall be withheld.

  23. What a dumb question by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1

    A question of "do you want beer or not" is not meaningful. This is why you get reasonable but useless responses like the first one here which had a subject line of "why not?"

    For the article to have some legitimacy here, it should post the question in terms of altenatives:

    - should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should the money go towards a new orbiting telescope?
    - should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should a new accelerator be built in india?

    and so forth.

    while some such questions are a bit forced (I mean, we'd all like to have BOTH the accelerator and the telescope) if the question is framed in terms of decision making given scarcity, then we can discuss the merits and tradeoffs in a realistic way rather than the fantastic way that the headline suggests we should

    1. Re:What a dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should the money go towards a new orbiting telescope?
      - should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should a new accelerator be built in india?

      ah! binary questions, you got to love them, my take on this is
      ) yes
      ) no

      thank you....

  24. Seismic activity makes it unsuitable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan would be a poor location, as particle accelerators are EXTREMELY sensitive to seismic activity. I took a tour of Fermilab (the site of the Tevatron before it was shut down) recently and one of the operators there mentioned that Japan's big earthquake last year disrupted the beam (the Tevatron was still operational at the time). And Fermilab is in Illinois, about as far away as you can get from Japan. So putting it IN Japan seems like a very bad idea.

  25. Alberta, Canada by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 0

    How about Alberta? Very stable geologically, lots of open space and excellent transport links with Europe, North America and Asia. Plus mountains nearby so those moving from Geneva should be able to cope.

    1. Re:Alberta, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alberta would be perfect! We could use the mini-black holes would be an awesome solution to greenhouse gas emissions! Solving particle physics problems and climate change at the same time!

    2. Re:Alberta, Canada by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No universities or scientists in or near Alberta, and it's too close to the anti-science craziness of the USA.

    3. Re:Alberta, Canada by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Looks at my CompSci degree from the University of Calgary on the wall. Wonder what non-existant university in Alberta I recived it from? I'll admit it's not a hotbed of particle physics research, but it is on track to becoming one of the top-5 research Universities in Canada in the next few years.

    4. Re:Alberta, Canada by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I didn't know that. But again, one decent University (which probably doesn't do much in particle physics) in driveable distance doesn't seem sufficient.

    5. Re:Alberta, Canada by pod · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. Every major city in Canada has at least 1 university, and several colleges/technical institutes. It's not the frikkin 3rd world out here.

      Eastern Canada would work as well, but there is a somewhat higher risk of earthquakes there, whereas the prairies are very stable from geologic and weather perspective.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    6. Re:Alberta, Canada by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Alberta isn't exactly the most populated part of Canada; the Toronto and Montreal areas in the east are much more populated. The other provinces are pretty small by comparison. There's only about 1.2M people in the metro areas of Edmonton and Calgary (each). So no, it's not the 3rd world by any means, but it's much smaller in population than either Ontario or Quebec, and it isn't exactly known for a lot of leading universities. And unlike Switzerland, it may not be that easy to get appropriately skilled people (esp. scientists) to want to move there, as the area has a lot of things going against it (bitter cold, lack of proximity to major world-class cities (no, Calgary doesn't count, Vancouver does but that's a long drive), reputation as a very socially conservative area, etc.).

    7. Re:Alberta, Canada by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      Actually there are 6 universities in Alberta, but seeing as we just got running water in our Igloo's last year, it's would be easy to make that kind of mistake.

  26. Absolutely! by JestersGrind · · Score: 1

    They should build it right on top of Fukushima! If that doesn't produce giant lizards or superheroes, nothing will.

  27. How about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't we let them play with their current toy for a few more years and "branch out" a bit? I say we all get together and figure out this fusion thing once and for all. Put the big science spending into something that might be directly useful to the world.

    Other ideas include: 1. Fund "X-prize" like competitions for development of a self sustaining fusion reactor. 2. Start a materials engineering accomplishment of the year prize. 3. A Most important applied science (engineering) prize. 4. A prize for the development of the commercially sold device that saves the most energy over the life of the device.

    It seems to me that the toy they have now is only a few years old and has a LOT of useful science left to do. We should not put the funding of this tool at risk by trying to build a bigger one. We would likely be much better off spending money to improve this one over the next decade and not try to start another big multinational science project right now.

  28. the Biological Imparitive by m.shenhav · · Score: 1

    Not that I don't see the value in particle physics - but shouldn't we be spending the big bucks on research that might prevent our extinction?

    Isn't anybody bothered by the fact that its already quite easy for small nations and medium sized cooperation to develop potentially lethal bacterial and viral strains? Or that we don't have comprehensive and globally coordinated defenses for Meteorite impacts, Rogue AIs, Nano-tech catastrophe and so forth?

    But yes - all of this is speculative. What is not is the ongoing Climate Change, and far more importantly what is likely the Biggest Mass Extinction Event this Planet EVER experienced. While prevention of both these disasters is IMO futile, the mitigation of their damage to humanity is not. Come on Homo Sapiens, earn your name for once.....

  29. here we go again by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    At what point do we taxpayers say enough is enough? The LHC was crazy expensive to build and to run. They still havent definitively found a Higgs particle which is pretty much what it was built for, yet now after just 3 years its aparently already declared useless?

    At the end of the day, so freaking what if they do or don't definitively find a Higgs particle. How will that knowledge improve normal people's lives in any practical way that justifies the massive cost?

    1. Re:here we go again by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You really don't get it, do you? You just lack any understanding of science and who it integrates into society?

      People who think like you wouldn't have funded Einstein becasue you can't understand basic research doesn't have a end product goal.
      Find out all you can as accurately as you can. Industry, engineers, and many other clever people will figure out a use.

      Did anyone realize how solar cells would become important? lasers?

      Figuring out how the fabric or reality works will have profound effects on what we know. Clever people will build things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... I'd rather have funded Einstein (blackboard: $200, $10 for chalk per year - just kidding). At some point one might have to argue about the cost/benefit factor of science. With those massive amounts of cash, one could solve much more pressing problems that humanity currently has.

      Just to name a few: diarrhea due to polluted water is still one of the major killers in underdeveloped countries, do I have to mention Hepatitis and HIV?, schools, cancer research...?

      Ethics matter.

    3. Re:here we go again by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Why improve the lives of normal people in a practical way when you could stumbled upon a virtually unlimited energy source that could power a massive spacecraft and also propel it close to the speed of light. The one-percenters could sell spacecraft to each other and leave the "normal people" to deal with the polluted and destroyed planet they leave behind for a new life in a new star system.

    4. Re:here we go again by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me how knowing tHiggs exists suddenly gives us "a virtually unlimited energy source that could power a massive spacecraft and also propel it close to the speed of light".

    5. Re:here we go again by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      If resorting to factually incorrect personal attacks is really your best defense then you clearly must have no actual point that stends on its own merit.

    6. Re:here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit uninformed to have such a strong opinion. I'm just a layman, but I know the LHC was planned to operate >10 years, and it's going to continue being useful for quite some time. If we were to start a new machine now, it wouldn't be done for ~10 years, and it would also provide a different type of data (it's a linear rather than circular accelerator) that would give more detailed information on the Higgs.

      To your final point though, I'm not sure how fundamental science can be useful. Doesn't seem to have done anything else for our everyday lives. We should probably spend the money on more fighter planes.

    7. Re:here we go again by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... do you know where the computers and materials science that we use to make things like cancer cures and hepatitis vaccines come from? The quantum physics developed by the theorists like Einstein (a little bit) and his contemporaries (much more) and the experimentalists using previous generations of particle accelerators.

  30. weak physics case by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    The WP article says the physics case is the following:

            "1. Measure the mass, spin, and interaction strengths of the Higgs boson

            "2. If existing, measure the number, size, and shape of any TeV-scale extra dimensions

            "3. Investigate the lightest supersymmetric particles, possible candidates for dark matter"

    This is very weak.

    #2 is pretty much dead, since the LHC's observations don't look very compatible with large extra dimensions -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5830 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4683

    #3 is also pretty weak, since the LHC has disappointed the many people who were sure it would find supersymmetry. The strongest physical motivation for supersymmetry is at the electroweak unification energy scale, so it's looking less and less likely that it exists, based on LHC data at that scale. If the LHC can't even see it, then it's unlikely that the ILC, operating at an energy an order of magnitude lower, would be able to see it.

    So the only justification would seem to be to thoroughly characterize the Higgs. Is the LHC really incapable of doing this?

    In general, the LHC results are turning out to be every particle physicist's worst nightmare. So far, it's confirmed the standard model and failed to turn up any new physics.

    I suspect the reason Japan is such a good candidate is that the Japanese government's main vehicle for pork-barrel politics is construction projects.

  31. Absolutely Not! by fearofcarpet · · Score: 2

    As a scientist I have to say that we are the last people who should build something this large. For starters, our efforts are better spent doing science. Many of us are also old and out of shape. I suggest that, instead, we find some contractors to build it--they probably need the work more anyway. However, if it is decided that scientists should indeed build a collider, I want to be in charge of the hollering: "Shake it madam! Capital knockers!"

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  32. good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    building the next collider in japan should yield soem interesting physics.
    afterall the fukushima nuclear incident has charged the "aether" in japan with some
    interesting particles ^_^

  33. I have the answer! by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    I thought about it, and I've come to a definite conclusion. . .

    I don't know bupkus about linear accelerators, so I'll let the scientists and engineers who DO KNOW figure it out.

  34. Why not reuse the LHC? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Is there no way to profit from the existing investment?

    1. Re:Why not reuse the LHC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LHC will continue to operate for 10+ years, and will probably get energy upgrades. The proposal is a different type of collider which can do some new science that the LHC cannot (even with upgrades).

    2. Re:Why not reuse the LHC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LHC is designed to sling protons up to incredible speeds. Fast protons collide like sacks of nuts. With three tiny charged nuggets of quarky quarkiness each, flying about - the resulting mess shot out is hard to analyze and uncertain in energy involved. There's also energy loss as synchrotron radiation in operating the whole thing, being circular.

      The long and straight Linear Collider propels only electrons, single tiny charged nuggets of electrony electronness (or positrony positronness) not inhabiting a gluony bag with other residents, but truly propelled at an accurate constant energy. One lepton meeting one other of its own kind, plain and simple. The results of collisions are cleaner, well-defined, and won't give birth to products with all manner of combinations of quantum numbers.

      A Linear Collider would be very good for further Higgs research, large extra dimensions, and supersymmetry, with the best quantitative precision among all technologies currently known to Humans. The LHC (and Fermilab) are great discovery machines, like using a wide flashlight beam to see what's there, while an LC is like a laser for making detailed measurements.

  35. Re:It's about funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Japan, they need to stop printing money and let their currency appreciate

    Except that the Yen is still a fiat currency. You have argued before that all fiat currencies are garbage; now you are contradicting yourself by offering advice on how to improve on a fiat currency. If you were trying to honestly stay on message you would instead go back to your old argument of scrapping the yen and going to a gold standard.
     
     

    People do not live forever.

    Correct. So why should some people be sold into slavery - which is a pillar of your ideals - when they have finite time to live? Or do you see then death as being the reprieve from slavery? Does your church claim that those who were made into slaves on earth will receive a just reward after their passing?

  36. Would measure Higgs properties more accurately by grimJester · · Score: 1

    The LHC isn't that great for precision measurements of Higgs properties (mass, production cross section, branching ratios for decays). If there's a small deviation from the SM, the ILC could find what the LHC can't.

    For supersymmetry, I'm not sure if the ILC could see anything at all given how high the masses have been pushed by the LHC already, but upping the energy from the current 8 TeV to 13 or 14 and adding 10-100 times the data can still give the LHC a chance to find SUSY.

    Large extra dimensions was always a long shot. There's really no good case from theory for that showing up at current energies.

    1. Re:Would measure Higgs properties more accurately by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      Large extra dimensions was always a long shot. There's really no good case from theory for that showing up at current energies.

      As I understand it, yes, it was a long shot, but the theoretical motivation was that if it existed, LHC energies were the best-motivated place for it to show up. The theoretical motivation is that it makes the Planck scale the same as the electroweak scale. (What we think of as the Planck scale would not actually be the Planck scale.)

  37. me too, me too! I want one! by zerosomething · · Score: 1

    Is there really a demonstrated need for another large collider? If so build it but I'm not so sure this isn't a case of tool envy.

    --
    It all starts at 0
    1. Re:me too, me too! I want one! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue one we had microscopes that could see germs, we didn't need to build better ones?
      Once telescopes could see Pluto, should we have stopped?

      These are tools that are used to literally peer into the very fabric of reality. I say that without Hyperbole.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Of course, why is this even a question? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Do you expect giant robots to just appear?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. When are by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    we going to finally say no to these out-of-control children? Is it when they demand a collider that encircles the Earth for chasing the gimmeallyourcash-on? Just because it is science doesn't mean it has to be done and has to be done now. I suggest that finding out things about the Higgs boson and other exotics is a goal of such mindbending uselessness that it can very well be left for another century.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:When are by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      we going to finally say no to these out-of-control children? Is it when they demand a collider that encircles the Earth for chasing the gimmeallyourcash-on? Just because it is science doesn't mean it has to be done and has to be done now. I suggest that finding out things about the Higgs boson and other exotics is a goal of such mindbending uselessness that it can very well be left for another century.

      Says a fellow via a series of devices that directly benefited from quantum physics research...

      When will the Internet be "fast enough", when will we ever have CPUs that are fast enough and power efficient enough. When will we have enough energy cheap enough? You are aware that the search for the Higgs is only one of many particle experiments, right? Look, just because you're content to settle for the way things are now, doesn't mean the folks who aren't must be too.

      I've got one for you: Astronomers tell us that it's only a matter of time until another extinction level cosmic event. If you ask me, all of our war money should be diverted into science, energy and space programs, or else we're sure to face certain doom due to our inability to protect ourselves from the inevitable rock that's heading this way right now. We don't know the ramifications of studying physics in supercolliders, look at the Atom Bomb & nuclear power; We may unlock even more powerful secrets, eg: Economically viable fusion, or even quantum (antimatter) power.

      To answer your question: We can finally say no to the "out of control children" once we can safely say that our descendants are safe from extinction. Humanity be damned, we're the only sentient life in this pocket of the Universe; That's a treasure worth preserving as priority #1. That means more research, and lots of it. Perhaps you've given up on the race? If the future's not for you, that's fine: Find a tar pit and die in it, you're hindering the herd, you're the useless one.

  40. Earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My mental image of Japan is of a place which trembles a lot. For such an investment I wonder if the geology of Japan is adequate to maintain the shape and alignment of such a large device.

  41. Combine with undersea rail tunnel for lower costs? by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 1

    Could a linear collider share a tunnel with an undersea rail network like the Seikan Tunnel that already exists in Japan? Or would the railway interfere with its operation? There are other long tunnels in the world too, like the Channel Tunnel, but the undersea portion of the Seikan Tunnel does looks very straight.

    From looking at images of various parts of the LHC, it seems the majority of the collider's apparatus does not require that much space around it, although the actual detectors, etc, obviously will need quite a bit of room.

    If a rail network and linear collider could share a tunnel(s), I'm guessing it would save a significant wedge of cash and time.

  42. Re:It's about funding by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1
    He's not contradicting himself. Going back to a gold standard would indeed be the best thing, but stopping the money printing would be the next best thing and would bring many benefits to the Japanese economy. It's like trying to help an alcoholic. Sure the best thing is for them to stop drinking, but if you can't do that, at least get him to drink beer instead of everclear straight from the bottle.

    Correct. So why should some people be sold into slavery - which is a pillar of your ideals - when they have finite time to live?

    Please explain how wanting a monetary system that does not steal the wages and savings of the people via inflation is "selling people into slavery". Such a statement is a blatant non sequitor. You don't even attempt to answer the point he is making, you instead build a rickety strawman to poke at by ripping a sentence out of context. Which is kind of stupid because people can see the statement in context right above your post.

  43. ... or by jandersen · · Score: 1

    China might be better in many respects: Fewer earthquakes, money's definitely no problem, science shouldn't be a problem, and it will encourage even more cooperation with the West.

  44. Congratulations, you just shot... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    a hunter with a kazoo and decoy

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  45. Who turned the lights off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a particle accelerator in an country that has turned it's back on physics like atomic power. Right ... Where's the daily power going to come from?

  46. Yes & yes by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    If only cause we can get another one of these.

  47. Re:It's about funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not contradicting himself.

    No, he is. Read through some of his older posts - he loves to cite himself which makes that a very easy thing to do. Roman_mir (and his sock puppet udachny) states repeatedly that fiat currencies are not real currencies and are inherently worthless, or "not real money". Hence any action to assign value to a fiat currency is a contradiction of his core belief of fiat currencies being worthless, and therefore a blatant contradiction.
     
     

    Going back to a gold standard would indeed be the best thing, but stopping the money printing would be the next best thing and would bring many benefits to the Japanese economy

    Except that his argument is that fiat currencies are worthless. If stopping the printing of money will place value on a fiat currency, then his argument of fiat currencies being worthless falls apart.
     
     

    Please explain how wanting a monetary system that does not steal the wages and savings of the people via inflation is "selling people into slavery"

    Again, this comment was made in regards to roman_mir's repeated arguments. He argues for the elimination of minimum wage so that people can be paid as close to nothing as the market will allow. He sees the workers as being indebted to their employers and the employers as inherently having the right to treat them like cattle.
     
     

    you instead build a rickety strawman to poke at by ripping a sentence out of context

    No, it is not at all out of context. You just are viewing the context far too narrowly. Roman_mir comes here only to argue for his extreme conservative economic positions - even when he can't discuss them without contradicting himself.

  48. Why ask Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Slashdot have any Particle Collider Money? Hmmmm?

  49. It should be built in Uruguay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Uruguay, a small country in south america, pretty stable both politically and seismically. Great middle class and educated population. Just needing
    a little push to first world standards...

    1. Re:It should be built in Uruguay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second that, a great opportunity for south america in the most stable country in the region..

  50. That waxahachie tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about starting with something that's already been dug out. Pride might get past some of hype.

  51. Not in the looming neo-Dark Ages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely needed! However, don't deceive yourselves, the bad news is sources of funding have disappeared into the gaping holes caused by the could care less about science entitlement societies of the 21st century. Science as we know it barely made it out of the 20th century and will completely disappear in the looming neo-Dark Ages.

  52. can the LHC be upgraded? by volvox_voxel · · Score: 1

    Could someone tell me why the Cern machine can't be upgraded to smash muons rather than protons? Are they too short lived (2.2us?) I just wonder if it's possible to use the existing infrastructure and not spend another 20+ billion dollars. In an era of shrinking research budgets, It's worthy to be smart about how we allocate our money. What are the underlying problems?

    1. Re:can the LHC be upgraded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are too short lived. That short lifetime makes it a challenge to produce them, rob them of their initial, random motion, and then accelerate them to the required energy in the correct direction, all before they decay. Another problem is surprisingly the neutrinos they decay to. While neutrinos nomally hardly interact with anything, and can pass through light-years of lead with no problem, that depends on their energy, and at high energies they interact quite a bit more. So mucy, in fact, that they would be a hard-to-shield radiation hazard at the energies for a muon accelerator. The LHC was not built with this in mind. In particular, I think its straight parts may be too long (all the neutrinos produced in a straight segment of the accelerator will be going in the same direction, creating a concentrated neutrino beam). But that is a secondary problem, I believe. Primarily, the LHC is simply not equipped to do anything useful with the muons before they decay.

  53. Why not? by Milosch1 · · Score: 1

    We haven't tried that on them, yet.

  54. lol ... at 197M to build and 25M/yr to run ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 1

    you won't even get the tunnels built for a BIG project (like the ILC). lawls.

  55. Haven't they already built one? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    Why build one when you can have two at twice the price? - S R Hadden

  56. The unasked but obvious question.. by Brickwall · · Score: 0

    What does Sheldon Cooper think?

    --
    What was once true, is no longer so
  57. when they're done with it. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . they can pull it out of the ground, and mount it spinally on the carcass of the battle cruiser Yamato, and it will be a great weapon to defeat the Gammalons.

  58. The electron also hasn't been confirmed by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 1

    Well, strictly speaking, it's also not confirmed that the protons in the beams are standard model protons, and the same for every other particle. Once the Higgs diverges from the standard model, all other particles will diverge from the SM as well due to quantum corrections. Of course the corrections may be small, but if your threshold of calling it Higgs is "exactly like the SM", then no particle is confirmed to be an SM particle.

  59. I work on an existing collider in Japan, and ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work on the KEKB accelerator at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organisation[1] in Tsukuba, Japan. I also hold an ID card from CERN.

    KEKB powered the billion-dollar Belle experiment[2], which ran successfully gathering data for 10 years that led to the 2008 Nobel Prize in physics[3].

    There are two things you should know:

    1) Japan is a world leader in accelerator physics, design and construction

    These machines are comprised of highly sensitive electronics that weight tonnes. There are few countries in the world that have the ability to make their parts (and pretty much no country that can do it alone). It is interesting to walk around the LHC tunnel spotting little Japanese flags painted on various things.

    2) Japan is a world leader in earthquake-proofing facilities

    Even in the recent earthquake caused "No fatal damages to the buildings" at KEK. That is, a magnitude *9* earthquake still left everything in a repairable state. If you want to see what such an earthquake does to facilities in a real particle collider - check out [4], in its full "An X-ray diffractometer fell down and was broken" glory :)

    As for those who mentioned 'alignment'. Recalibration is a part of every particle facility of this scale, and re-alignment is a standard part of operations, even in areas of more geological stability.

    [1] http://www.kek.jp
    [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_experiment
    [3] http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/
    [4] http://www.kek.jp/intra-e/Introduction/column/quake110311_e.pdf

  60. Island nation by hansley · · Score: 0

    I humbly suggest mauritius or any indian ocean rim islands.
    Far from the quaky region, easy access by plane but yet isolated and nice all year round weather..
    http://www.investmauritius.com/
    Powering by wind or better solar energy the collider and cooling by seawater..
    and it wont be the first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometre_Array)

    --
    What am i, but stardust
  61. MUON COLLIDER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a muon collider, because muons are much cooler and cutting-edge than mere electrons and positrons

  62. Darker than Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, didn't anyone think of the anime Darker than Black. It had a similar setting, and some "incident" happened with the experimentation there. The similarity is eerie!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darker_than_Black

  63. Really? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    No universities or scientists in or near Alberta, and it's too close to the anti-science craziness of the USA.

    That's news to me - last I checked there were universities in Edmonton (University of Alberta), Calgary and Lethbridge. Of the top 10 Canadian Universities the UofA is also the furthest from the US and as a scientist working there I can definitely confirm that there are lots of scientists in the faculty there. Finally I can even see that you got your nickname wrong: Grishnakh was an orc, not a troll.