Slashdot Mirror


China Plans Particle Colliders That Would Dwarf CERN's LHC

ananyo (2519492) writes Scientists at the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) in Beijing, working with international collaborators, are planning to build a "Higgs factory" by 2028 — a 52-kilometer underground ring that would smash together electrons and positrons. Collisions of these fundamental particles would allow the Higgs boson to be studied with greater precision than at the much smaller (27 km) Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Europe's particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. Physicists say that the proposed US$3-billion machine is within technological grasp and is considered conservative in scope and cost. But China hopes that it would also be a stepping stone to a next-generation collider — a super proton-proton collider — in the same tunnel. The machine would be a big leap for China. The country's biggest current collider is just 240 meters in circumference.

219 comments

  1. Super-collider by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I said, "Super-collider? I just met her!" [audience laughs] And then they built the super collider. - Humorbot 5.0

    1. Re:Super-collider by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      Anecdote accepted. Snappy comeback not found.

      AWKWARD

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    2. Re:Super-collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humorbot 5.0
      Or as they say in Futurama, the laughter behind 'All My Circuits'.

    3. Re:Super-collider by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Will they have to buy a new one every year?

    4. Re:Super-collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACKWARD

    5. Re:Super-collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bwhaha you fucking nerds

    6. Re:Super-collider by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Will they have to buy a new one every year?

      No, but the first one will turn out to be a cheap knockoff with out of date hardware that only gets a tenth of the advertised resolution and fails to work when it's cloudy outside.

      Also the user manual will be so bad, they won't figure out how to use it until 2045.

    7. Re:Super-collider by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Will they have to buy a new one every year?

      No, but the first one will turn out to be a cheap knockoff with out of date hardware that only gets a tenth of the advertised resolution and fails to work when it's cloudy outside.

      They'll offer to replace it, but only if you pay the shipping costs to send it back to Shenzhen.

    8. Re: Super-collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Synackward

  2. Big leap for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The machine would be a big leap for China.

    Yup, you might even call it a Big Leap Forward.

    I'll go fetch my coat, thanks.

    1. Re:Big leap for China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big Leap Forward.

      Great Leap Forward.

      .

  3. How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cern had how many set backs while trying to power the thing up in the early stages of testing? With all the corruption China has I wonder how this will compare.

    1. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Either it will never work, or it's going to create a sub-atomic black hole that will eat up half of their installation, or it's going to create a soccer ball-sized black hole that could have destroyed our entire solar system if it weren't for the fact that aliens will stop them 3.14159265359 seconds before the event.

    2. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would aliens use seconds as a time measure?

    3. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because seconds are the one thing you dirty commies can't metricize!

    4. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew something was off in his posting, you nailed it!

    5. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does it say that aliens use seconds?

    6. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't use seconds. We do. Their actions can still be measured with any unit of time. We use ours, they use theirs.

    7. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they:

      ... the second has been defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

      It's clearly the obvious way to define time.

    8. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      They rounded it down to 9 billion even.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    9. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda coincidental then that they would do it in pi seconds before the critical event, don't you think?

    10. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because seconds are the one thing you dirty commies can't metricize!

      Actually 1 second is already the period of a 1 METER pendulum... so HA, you have been getting pinker every time you look at that dirty commie second hand on your watch!

    11. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't use seconds. We do. Their actions can still be measured with any unit of time. We use ours, they use theirs.

      unless they aren't aliens at all, but a super advanced civilization that left this planet after an inevitable asteroid impact was detected about 65 MYA. then it would only be natural that they would use seconds, but they might have been a tad bit shorter than our seconds.

    12. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so it comes to this , The great mineshaft race has finally begun !!

    13. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Who says aliens use base 10 math? Base 8 or Base 12 would make a lot of sense, and then their round numbers would be something totally different.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    14. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's a coincidence. Meter has dependency on second, not the other way around:
      the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
      the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

    15. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't it the french trying to metricize everything?

    16. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that the French Revolutionary government was a communist one. In fact I don't think communism even existed when the metric system was invented.

    17. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      If for reasons of cultural sensitivity they wanted to stop the explosion at our smallest common* unit of time they would use 1 second plus expansion time. Now a soccer ball is 11 cm in radius. If we assume the expansion to that size is done at light speed it will arrive there in .00000000003669 seconds. So they'll stop the experiment at t-1..00000000003669 seconds. They must use very precise clocks.

      *yes I know bout clock ticks, just go with it.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    18. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Or they will learn from previous experiments like they've done in other cases. Some of their neutrino experiments and their tokamak EAST were up and running in very short times for very low costs compared to western experiments because they paid attention to issues previous experiments faced.

    19. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the obvious corollary: all numbers are round in at least 1 base. Even if it's base pi.

    20. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either it will never work, or it's going to create a sub-atomic black hole that will eat up half of their installation, or it's going to create a soccer ball-sized black hole that could have destroyed our entire solar system if it weren't for the fact that aliens will stop them 3.14159265359 seconds before the event.

      3.14159265359 is an approximation in our numbering system.
      In the dimension aliens are from, they altered their space so it is exactly 3 seconds to them

    21. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of the number of hard drives sucked away from the channel market at that time! And the spin-up of those. Fortunately we can all enjoy ReRam or similar solid state mass storage systems at that time. Maybe.

    22. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the was never a need, the irony of all is that the day/hour/minutes/second was the only standard measuring unit for years before the metrification. Before the metric system the size of the imperial units varied between countries, even if the country was big it's possible that it had various values depending where you lived and worst is that the value even varied over time.

    23. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by budgenator · · Score: 4, Funny

      Base 2 is real cool, you can count up to 1023 on your fingers; sadly I keep getting thrown out of noisy bars every time I try to order 4 beers in binary.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    24. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use tP.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

    25. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      I wonder how many Slashdot reader will even understand that joke, and that makes me sad.

    26. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Then again, how many Slashdot readers are left-handed?

    27. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at China's past experiences in mining disasters (in the Earth, not BitCoin)...then go figure how much trouble they will encounter just digging the tunnels.

    28. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use my left hand for that anyway, in case someone gets enraged and grabs my finger and snaps it off like a cheap beef jerkey stick, I still have my good hand.

    29. Re:How many broken parts trying to spin up? by GPTurismo · · Score: 1

      Not to mention how great their non-US based construction has been as of late. (whistles while thinking of Styrofoam bridges.)

  4. Bigger Colliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually they're going to dig all the way to America to make a Super Duper Whopper collider!

    1. Re:Bigger Colliders by peragrin · · Score: 1

      It would be easier to build a ring around the earth. Bonus is that the vacuum can easily be established

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Bigger Colliders by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Inside a typical accellerator, the vacuum is typically about one-millionth of an atmosphere. At an alltitude of roughly 100 km., the air density is about 1/2,200,000 the density at the surface. That's obviously good enough,, but at that altitude drag still brings orbiting objects down to earth quite quickly. The quick rule of thumb is to have something up there long enough to be useful, minimum orbital altitude is about 300 Km. So yeah, vacuum is the least of your obstacles - you'll have more than you'll ever need.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    3. Re:Bigger Colliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already started a hole trying to dig to China as a child. Half of the work is already done!

    4. Re:Bigger Colliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inside of the LHC beamline is closer to ~10^-10 torr = 0.1 trillionths of an atmosphere. The entire beam line tube is in contact with liquid helium, so it acts like a giant cyropump. That said, what is important is the density of stuff in the way, which works out to about to about 1e-14 kg/m^3, which is what you would find around an altitude of 800-1000 km.

    5. Re:Bigger Colliders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus. alignment is hard enough when all the pole pieces are mounted on piezo on steel in concrete, how the fuck do you expect to align a synchrotron in space?

    6. Re:Bigger Colliders by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      Salt-water aquariums with sharks...

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  5. Sometimes I am jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For all the downside of the one-party system and semi-centrally planned economy, sometimes I am jealous that China can just move forward with things like this. Environmentalist cry about a rare species becoming extinct? Screw them. A few thousand people displaced? Deal with it. If something is in the nation interest, it gets done.

    1. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, the hell with stupid stuff like the environment or long-term effects! I want my toys!

      Idiot.

    2. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, journalist Thomas Friedman is jealous of China's "one party autocracy." Except he would use it in America to unilaterally shut down industries he sees as contributing heavily to AGW.

    3. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps one of the benefits would be an education system that teaches the difference between envy and jealousy.

    4. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Fortunately Friedman only has gadfly-level powers.

    5. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Envious of them because they're in the early planning stages of a collider that might be constructed almost 20 years after CERN's? It will be a nice step forward if they pull it off though.

    6. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Do you get those by being bitten by a radioactive gadfly?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      And is an idiot to anyone with half a brain to see. Why shits like him are even allowed to speak is beyond my understanding.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    8. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There are two major downsides to a one-party system centrally planned economy.
      1) Sometimes the guy at the top makes mistakes, and nobody who knows better can call him on them. See "Great Leap Forwards".
      2) Sometimes the guy at the top doesn't have the best interests of the country in mind, and nobody can make him.

      Mind you, the US recently has been exhibiting those very same problems. In the US it's fairly clear that the problem has been that:
      1) Corporations are not people. They should not have rights. (The stockholders should, as should the management AS CITIZENS. But not the corporation.)
      2) Plurality wins voting is solidly broken. It is just about guaranteed to result in vastly increaded corruption at the upper levels of the political process. It should be replaced by some form of majority (i.e., 50% or more) wind voting. One plausible candidate is Instant Runoff Voting. Another is Condorcet voting.
      2a) Multiple political parties, as currently exists in the US and Europe, is beneficial, but only in the context of a Majority Wins voting system. When combined with a Plurality Wins voting system they merely serve to disenfranchise those unhappy with the two major parties.
      2)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You forget the main downside of all centrally planned economies.

      Excessive concentration of power. Power corrupts...it's actually amazing that socialism works at all.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps another benefit would be the ability to execute pedants.

    11. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 0

      You're making the mistake of equating socialism with centrally-planned economy.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    12. Re:Sometimes I am jealous by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. That was point:
      2) Sometimes the guy at the top doesn't have the best interests of the country in mind, and nobody can make him.

      If you want to call that corruption you can. In my mind it merely includes corruption.

      FWIW, I don't think that power corrupts, rather it's lack of consequences. This is closely related, but not the same. But it's also true that power attracts the corruptible (as a gradient). Different people are corruptible in different ways and to different degrees. And one consequence of that is that they are attracted in differing amounts to different kinds of power. The guy who's attracted to being a policeman isn't the same as the guy who's attracted to being a politician, and neither is the same as the guy attracted to being a banker.

      P.S.: Yes, that's still an oversimplification. Think of it as a finger pointing at the moon. Look at the moon, not the finger.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  6. Make-work Project? by timrod · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a make-work project by the Chinese government to try to boost their economy. Construction is a huge business in China that accounts for a large portion of their GDP - that's why you see things like the "ghost cities" there, where construction workers built thousands of apartments and offices that aren't ever going to be used simply because the Chinese government needs to keep pumping money into construction.

    Digging a 57-kilometer underground tunnel would probably put plenty of construction workers to work for a while - not to mention hauling in all the equipment, doing all the wiring and piping, etc.

    1. Re:Make-work Project? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every country has make-work projects, some of them even have additional benefits - the EU is currently reviewing a energy savings plan where one of the main points is "costs will be offset by the jobs created to implement this directive". Make-work.

      In reality, the Chinese project is definitely not make-work if they plan to do actual research. The "ghost cities" you talk about are actually gradually filling up as more population moves from rural settings into the cities - this has been a long term goal of the Chinese government, but their "long terms" are a fair longer than the "around next election time" terms that westerners tend to think in.

      If you want to see some real "ghost cities" there are plenty in Spain, entire towns and cities, with airports, which were built to sustain the Spanish building industry during the 2008-2013 period, and the properties have never been put on the market.

    2. Re:Make-work Project? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a make-work project by the Chinese government to try to boost their economy. Construction is a huge business in China that accounts for a large portion of their GDP - that's why you see things like the "ghost cities" there, where construction workers built thousands of apartments and offices that aren't ever going to be used simply because the Chinese government needs to keep pumping money into construction.

      Digging a 57-kilometer underground tunnel would probably put plenty of construction workers to work for a while - not to mention hauling in all the equipment, doing all the wiring and piping, etc.

      At least they're doing something constructive with their projects for once. As fun as the empty cities might be for film makers and urban spelunkers they're otherwise a huge waste. Maybe we can get China to build a space elevator!

    3. Re:Make-work Project? by operagost · · Score: 1

      The "ghost cities" you talk about are actually gradually filling up as more population moves from rural settings into the cities - this has been a long term goal of the Chinese government, but their "long terms" are a fair longer than the "around next election time" terms that westerners tend to think in.

      True, running a government is so much easier without that pesky democracy to get in the way.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Make-work Project? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Or even the illusion of one.

    5. Re:Make-work Project? by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      China is actually experimenting with democracy on a local government level. The "shock therapy" theory of introducing democratic reforms all at once doesn't actually work.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    6. Re:Make-work Project? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Believe me, the Chinese government spends rather freely on maintaining the illusion.

    7. Re:Make-work Project? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about China.

    8. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be that guy. Republics are democracies.

    9. Re:Make-work Project? by khallow · · Score: 1

      A true Democracy would be a terrible system indeed, with the rich even more firmly in control. People give away their password for chocolate bars (70%) or even nothing (34%!), so voting for some obscure law, probably a chocolate bar would do just fine, or at least a threat of getting fired.

      Things change when you toss in the second or the third rich person. They will need to offer more than a candy bar.

    10. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      a republic could be a theocracy (see Iran). China's name is the People's Republic. Republic just means you use representive government. Now whether those representitives are selected by democratic elections, Clerics, or a Politburo determines what type of republic it is.

    11. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The "ghost cities" you talk about are actually gradually filling up as more population moves from rural settings into the cities - this has been a long term goal of the Chinese government, but their "long terms" are a fair longer than the "around next election time" terms that westerners tend to think in."

      I very much doubt that the Chinese govt planned or expected those ghost cities to stand empty for over a decade.
      Otoh it does not matter to the real estate speculators who made out like bandits on that bubble.

    12. Re:Make-work Project? by iserlohn · · Score: 1

      It's what they have always done. The candidates you get to chose however are all from the same party, or officially blessed.

      Haven't you heard of all that stuff going on in Hong Kong, how Beijing previously promised direct elections for the Chief Exec via Universal Sufferage in 2017, and just recently then they announced that all candidates have to be vetted by the 1200-person "Election Committee" stacked with pro-Beijing representatives? That caused ~500k people to take the streets and protest in Hong Kong.

    13. Re:Make-work Project? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      The "shock therapy" theory of introducing democratic reforms all at once doesn't actually work.

      It worked fine for South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Czech Republic...

    14. Re:Make-work Project? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to understand whose going to grow all the food once all these rural peasants (you know the ones who've been on their land for generations farming) get moved into the city.

      Honestly, I have no doubt that China can pull this off, but at what cost?

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    15. Re:Make-work Project? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Taiwan had various degrees of local democratic reform culminating in the first presidential election in 1996, but it wasnt until 2000 that the Kuomintang party actually lost power in an election.

    16. Re:Make-work Project? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      You should try understanding modern agriculture. The hint is that subsistence farming tends to be wildly inefficient.

    17. Re:Make-work Project? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      His friends all agree. Monocultures are unsustainable, or something.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      took 30 years and an imperial western army in Taiwan and S. Korea, and really hasn't started working well yet in Poland and the Czech Republic. Interesting, though, is that Iran, hated by the Americans, is a functioning democracy at all but the highest level.

    19. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those ghost cities are prison camps for future conquered nations.

    20. Re:Make-work Project? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I do not think US is a democracy. It is more like an oligarchy. Even if it was not an oligarchy and democracy system was working to advantage of all voters, in US there are plenty of people that are excluded from voting whether because their rights have been limited by court order or because their right were limited by virtue of being in a citizen of a wrong 'district'.

      I am also not convinced that US was meant to be democracy.

      Come to think of it democracy is a terribly difficult system to implement and I know no country but Switzerland that is even remotely approaching the ideal. The best the others do is an illusion called representative democracy which works good unless it does not.

    21. Re:Make-work Project? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      That's like saying " we have a functioning democracy, except our King tells everyone what to do, but all the ministers and the guy selling candy bars are elected!"

    22. Re:Make-work Project? by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      It's what they have always done. The candidates you get to chose however are all from the same party, or officially blessed.

      And that's different from the reality of Western "Democracies" how exactly? I'm not talking about what is, in theory, possible but rather what we actually observe.

    23. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Machines, like it happens everywhere else when people move from the farm to the city.

    24. Re:Make-work Project? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Wait wait wait.. are you saying they have leaders who actually plan more then 2 years in advance? Yeah right, next thing you will try to tell me is they have corporations that plan for longer then a quarter.

    25. Re:Make-work Project? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Classically that is why autocratic governments like dictatorships or absolute monarchies have been the best and worst cases. When they are run well they are unmatched in their ability to do good for their people, when run badly they are unmatched in just how bad they can get. All other forms of government trade the possible highs they could achieve against the risk of the lows they can allow to happen.

    26. Re:Make-work Project? by jythie · · Score: 1

      What we see in western democracies matches up pretty well with the theory, at least when you talk about actual political theories backed up with solid mathematical models as opposed to philosophical texts or armchair pundits.

    27. Re:Make-work Project? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Republic comes from the Latin "res publica", and normally means a government or country not headed by a hereditary monarch. That leaves a lot of room for all sorts of governing systems. The US is a republic and a democracy (or at least used to be, and can be again). The UK is a democracy but not a republic. Nazi Germany was a republic but not a democracy. North Korea is not a republic (with three Kims in a row, I'm calling it a monarchy) and not a democracy.

      My observation is that, the more democratic-sounding adjectives (other than a people or place name) are tacked on to "Republic", the less likely it is to be a democracy. You do not want to live in a Democratic People's Republic.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    28. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "shock therapy" theory of introducing democratic reforms all at once doesn't actually work.

      It worked fine for South Korea, Taiwan, Poland, the Czech Republic...

      Hate to rain on your parade but democracy hasn't worked out so well for the armpit of the world India.

    29. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you were referring to France, since that's where the LHC is located.
      Stupid French thinking they have a democracy when they're no better than the Chinese.

    30. Re:Make-work Project? by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

      What about Russia and all those really new former Soviet satellites? Like Ukraine? Out of all of them, only South Korea and Taiwan has experienced rapid economic growth to catch up, and that was AFTER a few decades of autocracy if not outright dictatorship to set things up properly. And Singapore is still for all intents and purposes an autocracy even after Lee Kuan Yew.

      And really, the Western powers have no right to expect and force others to democratize when all the Western powers grew their power under heavily restricted democracy before opening things up.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    31. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most Western democracies, several different parties end up in parliament and the government is formed by people from a number of those parties that together got support from a majority of voters. Anyone can start a party and any party can be succesful if they manage to attract enough voters. I would like to think that that is much more democratic than a one-party system.

      I must add that a small number of Western democracies (most prominently, the U.S.) have a fundamentally broken system that makes it very hard for more than two established parties to be succesful, which also provides a strong incentive for these two parties to grow towards eachother policywise. Such a system is indeed not far removed from a one-party system, but at least there is fundamentally a possiblity for citizens to get replace their government.

    32. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for Japan, Germany, Austria, Spain and Portugal. I am not so sure about Italy, though.

    33. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necissarily (e.g. China, Cuba, etc.). Neither does a democracy need to be a republic (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, etc.).

    34. Re:Make-work Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hhhmmmhmmm.. Burito Republic..

  7. But labor costs! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    Now if only they could find a source of cheap, expendable workers to mine the tunnel...

    1. Re:But labor costs! by OakDragon · · Score: 0

      May be a few Americans lining up for that job...

  8. Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The estimated replacement cost for the Tappan Zee bridge in NY is about $4B. A small bridge was replaced near me at a cost of over $100M. It seems like something of this magnitude will cost a lot more than $3B.... or it's an incredible scientific bargain at this price.

    1. Re:Cost Seems Low by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The cost of the LHC has been estimated at $9 billion. I know there are different labor costs between Europe and China, but there are lots of costs that can't easily be brought down. The tunnel's gonna need a whole lot of concrete, steel, etc. - global commodities whose cost doesn't vary that much by geography. The LHC is packed to the gills with custom components: everything from the the superconducting magnets to the RF generators to the detectors to the massive computing systems to sift through all the subatomic debris. Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom componentry (a question I can't answer - I simply don't know)...

      does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?

    2. Re:Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When your labor force is either given the option of working on this thing, or sewing soccer balls together with their teeth in a jail somewhere, it tends to keep the costs down.

    3. Re:Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know there are different labor costs between Europe and China, but there are lots of costs that can't easily be brought down. The tunnel's gonna need a whole lot of concrete, steel, etc. - global commodities whose cost doesn't vary that much by geography.

      Of course they can be brought down. When you own the entire chain from the part that digs up the iron from the ground to the place where you install the steel in the accelerator there is only one cost, labor.

      Tax-funded EU-projects like LHC have a dual purpose. On one hand they are there to make sure that EU are competitive when it comes to science but they also boost the local market and are generally required to buy everything from companies residing within EU.

    4. Re:Cost Seems Low by khallow · · Score: 2

      The tunnel's gonna need a whole lot of concrete, steel, etc. - global commodities whose cost doesn't vary that much by geography.

      And don't actually cost that much.

      The LHC is packed to the gills with custom components: everything from the the superconducting magnets to the RF generators to the detectors to the massive computing systems to sift through all the subatomic debris. Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom componentry (a question I can't answer - I simply don't know)...

      I doubt they do. And I doubt that lack of technical expertise is actually an obstacle. After all, prior to constructing the LHC, Europe didn't have that expertise either and yet all those devices got built just the same.

      does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?

      I bet the EU could do that too. But it'd require changing how they build such things.

    5. Re:Cost Seems Low by necro81 · · Score: 2

      After all, prior to constructing the LHC, Europe didn't have that expertise either and yet all those devices got built just the same.

      I disagree: there is a decades-long history of building similar, though simpler, devices in Europe and the United States. Sure, there was a lot of invention involves and new challenges to tackle, but a lot of the fundamental technologies already existed. More importantly, there was a substantial population of people who had experience in designing such (earlier) technologies, manufacturing them, getting them to work, and maintaining them. China does not have that kind of depth.

    6. Re:Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China does not have that kind of depth.

      They are heavily involved in collaborations with European and American scientists though, so they are getting quite a lot of experience from western machines. Other fields have already seen similar situations, where they went from almost no previous experiments to large experiments very quickly and for low costs. Some interesting contrasts can be seen in plasma experiments for example, where there is a huge difference between the ones that involved scientists from collaborations (EAST for example) to other smaller ones that did not.

    7. Re:Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tappan Zee handles a lot of traffic. I expect most of the costs will be in logistics, not in direct labor and parts. China has the luxury of siting a collider somewhere unpopulated (whether it was recently or not ;)).

    8. Re:Cost Seems Low by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK, so the first LHC cost $9billion. How much would the second one cost? I'd bet a LOT less.

      OTOH, this IS a new project, not a second LHC. That probably means that they'll run into new and unexpected problems. So the estimate is almost certainly wrong, and on the low end. (Not certainly. China's been doing some work with large 3D printers that print buildings, and, I believe, also tunnel construction machinery. And almost certainly on things I haven't heard about.)

      But, yeah, my guess is that the price is lowballed. This is true for most construction projects, and is NOT something special to China. If they bring it in on or under budget, THAT will be special to China.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Cost Seems Low by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The LHC is not an EU project. It is a CERN project.

  9. SSC circumfrence was to be 87 km by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    This is starting to get close to the Superconducting Super-Collider size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    1. Re:SSC circumfrence was to be 87 km by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      So, the SSC was to have 40 TeV collisions for protons while when this project upgrades to protons it will be less than 70 TeV. Guess the physics of energy loss just hasn't changed that much. It is good that the SSC science now has a chance to get done.

  10. Try the veal by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem with Chinese subatomic particles is that one half-life later you are ready for more.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  11. Earthquakes? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 0

    Sounds cool. But, given China's perpensity to have massive earthquakes, is the building of such a large collider a wise idea? I would think a 57 mile diameter ring of superconducting, supercooled magnets and high vacuum might have some integrity and alignment issues even after a minor tremor let alone a large quake.

    1. Re:Earthquakes? by chentiangemalc · · Score: 1

      Certain regions are prone to have earth quakes, but not all regions, and not around Beijing. Almost all that do occur are in 2.5 - 5.4 magnitude rnage "Often felt, but only causes minor damage." Sichuan has had some bad earth quakes (8.0,etc) but it is not near Beijing.

    2. Re:Earthquakes? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      China is big. Saying China is prone to earthquakes is akin to saying the USA is prone to earthquakes.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    3. Re:Earthquakes? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      The point the poster made, which I think is legitimate, is that even a very small earthquake could probably be catastrophic for a collider's integrity and alignment.

    4. Re:Earthquakes? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

      Remember that the accelerator is in a tunnel usually through rock. Unless there is a fault line through the ring - which would be really stupid - the accelerator will be shaken and will need realignment but the damage should not be enormous. They have very successful accelerators in Japan.

    5. Re:Earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should something like "facts" get in the way of people and their negative comments about a country they know close to zero about?

    6. Re:Earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/perpensity/propensity

  12. What in theory could physicists do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What in theory could physicists do if they could make stupid-big colliders, like the circumference of the Earth or the solar system?

    .

    1. Re:What in theory could physicists do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play 8 ball Pool but being American probably invent some weird god damn awe-full game no one else plays and call it the galaxy championship.

    2. Re: What in theory could physicists do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With something that big ... they could employ a lot of physicists. It's not like they're curing cancer, despite what Brian Greene will tell you.

  13. This is a collider of extraordinary magnitude by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

    It has our gratitude.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re: This is a collider of extraordinary magnitude by Xeriphan · · Score: 1

      They should build it...in DETROIT!

  14. Circumference by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Those are circumferences, not diameters.

  15. Only 240 GeV though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fair enough, it's a big tunnel, but the first iteration is only set to run at about 1/60th of the energy of the LHC according to the site. The super-proton upgrade *does* look interesting though.

  16. Bragging Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I didn't expect to read the phrase "much smaller" referring to the Cern LHC for quite a while.

    I wonder how much of this has to do with fundamental research and how much has to do with high energy physisists and governments wanting to be able to say that theirs is bigger than someone else's.

    1. Re:Bragging Rights by geniice · · Score: 1

      There was a largest collider competition towards the end of the cold war. Hard to say if CERN was part of it but the LHC did get some parts cheap due to the other projects being cancelled.

  17. VLHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So will it be known as the Very Large Hadron Collider?

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

      Very Large Hard-on Collider.

    2. Re:VLHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is not small! Asian collider is good size! Girlfriend say so!

  18. VLHC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or the Even Larger Hadron Collider?

  19. IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The LHC created a higgs boson by colliding protons. This Chinese collider is planned (according to TFS) to collide electons and positrons. IANAPP but I am not sure that would create a higgs boson. However colliding an electon and a positron would create energy )matter and antimatter) probably in the form of gamma rays.
    Whereas colliding protons and antiprotons will give of some energy in the form of neutrinos

    In fact electrons and positrons are Leptons, so wouldn't this be called a Large Lepton Collider (LLC)?

    1. Re:IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the chinese could be interested in Antimatter for fusion research. Maybe figuring out new storage techniques for antimatter.

    2. Re:IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An electron-positron collision has no net lepton number and could create anything that interacts with electrons, or anything that reacts with the byproducts (e.g. photons). This could result in a pair of quarks that produce the Higgs particle, or the creation of a W or Z boson, which is what the LEP did a lot of work on. An proton-antiproton reaction doesn't inherently produce neutrinos, but can.

    3. Re:IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist by jfengel · · Score: 1

      One pathway for electron/positron collision can produce a neutral Z and a Higgs. In fact, they already tried that at the Large Electron Positron collider, the predecessor to the LHC. It came very close, at 115 GeV. There were hints of the Higgs, and so it came as no real surprise to find it just 10% higher.

      This is actually a more efficient way of producing Higgs particles, at lower energies. The LHC produces the Higgs with two quarks, but there are six quarks involved in the proton/proton collision, so a lot of the energy you put in doesn't produce Higgs bosons. (In very rare instances you'll get two Higgs bosons, but most of the time the other quarks just produce other stuff.)

  20. LEP was 209 GeV by grimJester · · Score: 2

    This is a pretty small upgrade from the LEP that used to be in the current LCH tunnel. That went up to 209 GeV and ruled out Higgs masses up to 115 GeV. The Higgs is around 125 Gev, or 9% higher, and the energy of this is supposed to be 240 GeV, or 15% higher.

    That makes me wonder if the planned energy is enough for a useful Higgs factory. The ILC is supposed to do 500 GeV and would work well as a Higgs factory. That proposal would be more than twice as expensive though.

    It's of course possible the article has it wrong and it's really 240 GeV per beam, adding up to 480.

  21. Data beyond the standard model by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    The origin of the matter-antimatter imbalance in the universe is something that people try to solve using the standard model and indications that charge-parity symmetry breaking occurs in some interactions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... Much larger collides could explore this beyond leptons as well as ideas beyond the standard model such as supersymmetry and string theory and their connection with vacuum energy.

  22. Re:The only black hole created... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    As soon as people stop wanting power & control?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  23. We should act quickly! by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or the markets will soon be invaded by cheap made-in-China Higgs bosons. Although swiss-made Higgs are known to be by far more precise and accurate, the cheap chinese bosons will send CERN factory into bankrupt, unless some kind of duty is introduced to slow down foreign particles.

  24. U.S. in the rearview mirror by Lije+Baley · · Score: 0

    You've been hiding under a rock for forty years if you don't know what those white flags on the Brooklyn bridge mean.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    1. Re:U.S. in the rearview mirror by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The white flags mean some unionized cops get to collect overtime for removing them.

    2. Re:U.S. in the rearview mirror by GNious · · Score: 1

      You've been hiding under a rock for forty years if you don't know what those white flags on the Brooklyn bridge mean.

      What's a Brooklyn bridge?

    3. Re:U.S. in the rearview mirror by rossdee · · Score: 1

      " if you don't know what those white flags on the Brooklyn bridge mean."

      Don't we have to wait til Bridget Anne Kelly or David Wildstein publishes their memoirs?

  25. I wish them the best... but by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    I accept that China is now a leader in science and technology. I wish them the best on this project and I am sure it will yield fantastic science. I just hope by "international collaborators" they mean more than the Russian Federation. As an American, I hope we get in on the action.

    Just one thing though: if you are going to go to the trouble to build such a big and expensive machine, why not build a linear collider? I realize it would take more land, but I'm sure they have it and the science would be even better. Correct me if I am wrong, but after the second refit of the LHC, isn't the next big international European science project going to be a big honking linear collider? At that point, it won't matter that China's collider is bigger, you can get more interesting results from a gigantic linear collider. Although the idea of a super-proton collider does tickle me a bit.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:I wish them the best... but by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As an American, I hope we get in on the action.

      After consistently screwing China out of collaboration for decades I can't see that happening. They are building their own space station because you wouldn't let them co-operate on the ISS.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I wish them the best... but by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      You are probably right, and in respect to cooperation space I am most concerned. It is only a matter of time before a nation (probably China) declares a region in orbit theirs. Worse, I suspect someone will eventually try to lay claim to some or all of the moon (again, likely China). It is sad because science, especially space science, should engender cooperation. If anything ever inspires us to drop our imaginary borders, it will be science. Conversely, if we go extinct, science will be the weapon.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  26. Suboptimal Design by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In reality, the Chinese project is definitely not make-work if they plan to do actual research.

    True but a circular design for a electron-positron collider is far from the most efficient. At the energies needed to create the Higgs the energy loss caused by bending the electrons around in a ring means that the ring has to be far longer in circumference than a 'one-shot' linear collider would need to be. Worse if we find something even more exciting like Supersymmetry in our next run of the LHC starting this coming March you will never be able to increase the energy of a circular e-p machine to study it whereas with a linear collider you can extend it.

    A circular machine only makes sense with heavier particles like protons but I question whether the cost savings of a single tunnel for both an e-p machine and a future proton machine will outweigh the massive increase in the cost of the magnets and accelerating cavities for the e-p machine.

    1. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The cost of synchrotron radiation loss must be weighed against the loss of *THE ENTIRE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE* in a linear accelerator.

    2. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crust is only so thick. At some point, you can no longer build linear colliders on solid earth, even if you dig out a tunnel to take advantage of the crust's thickness to avoid the curvature of the earth.

    3. Re:Suboptimal Design by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      There are a variety of tradeoffs between circular and linear electron / positron machines. At very high energies (>~500GeV CM) the circular machines become impractical At low energies (100 GeV CM) a circular machine is considerably simpler and cheaper. Inbetween the trade-offs are not completely obvious.

    4. Re:Suboptimal Design by jythie · · Score: 1

      Not really. If nothing else, with a circular collider the beam can go around multiple times, increasing energy on every pass. The amount of energy you impart is only limited by how strong of a magnetic field you can create to twist the beam. With a linear collider when you run out of collider, well, run out. If you have 1km of linear collider you get 1km of acceleration, no more. They do not build all the big colliders as circles for the fun of it, they really are the most efficient design.

    5. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Suppose you can afford to build L meters of magnets that cause an acceleration of a.

      Make a circle out of it, and the maximum speed you can reach is sqrt(a*L/(2*pi)), when the centripetal acceleration matches a.
      Make a line out of it, and the speed at the end will be sqrt(2*a*L).

      sqrt(2) > sqrt(1/(2*pi)) so the line is the most efficient design for every value of L and a.

    6. Re:Suboptimal Design by HiThere · · Score: 1

      With a really large ring doesn't bremstrallung become less of a problem? And for protons that shouldn't be a problem at all.

      IIRC, when the Stanford Linear Accelerator was built there were comments to the effect than a longer one would always be impractical. This is clearly incorrect, as if one were built in space there wouldn't be any curvature problems, but it may inidcate that there are severe problems with building a longer one in a strong gravitational field.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Suboptimal Design by jythie · · Score: 1

      As an abstract problem maybe (though that is debatable). As an engineering problem when you actually have to build the thing, no. Actually, even as an abstract, still no.

    8. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The power loss by synchrotron radiation is proportional to the energy of the particle squared for a given magnetic field strength, or proportional to the energy to the forth power of energy for a radius. For protons that that experience less synchrotron radiation by a factor of (m_e/m_p)^4=~1e-13, the protons can continue to accelerate until their the limit of the magnetic fields to bend the protons. But for electrons, which experience ten trillion times as much power loss from synchrotron radiation, the limit is how much power can be put into each electron each time it goes around, and there is some maximum accelerating field strength possible with given technology. Considering how much lower energy this ends up at than the proton, the magnets can be a lot weaker than technology limits.

      For example, you could try using the same 52 km circumference to create 500 GeV electrons, then they would be radiating about 700 GeV of energy each on every trip around. They would lose more than their total energy on circuit, so you wouldn't accumulate energy going around, unless you could have already accelerated them that fast on less than a single pass. At the same time you could keep those 500 GeV electrons in that circle using 0.2 T magnets... something easy to make even without superconductivity.

    9. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 240 GeV electron in a 53 km circumference ring lose about 40-50 GeV per trip around. So the accelerator will be providing at least a sixth of the particle energy per pass around. If they don't want it to take forever to come up to speed, it will be even higher than that. A large part of the space along the beamline will be taken up by bending magnets, a small amount by focusing magnets, detectors, and accelerating cavities. If the bending magnets, which would not be needed in an accelerator, take up The thing that is being weighed here is not the efficiency of accelerating electrons, but that the tunnel can then be used in the future for a proton accelerator using expensive magnets, but in the mean time can be built for electrons using really cheap magnets.

    10. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could make it follow the curvature of the Earth, using bending magnets a lot cheaper and smaller than would be needed for a complete ring. Synchrotron radiation scales inversely with the radius of a circular path, so the curvature of the Earth would give a million times less synchrotron radiation than the size they specify here.

    11. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be the most unsubstantiated post I've ever seen. You didn't elaborate on the engineering differences. You didn't correct the abstract problem. Your only insight is that "the biggest collider is circular so it must be the best design", and you're stretching it like an English major.

    12. Re:Suboptimal Design by jythie · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I am not even sure where to begin with pointing out the problem with your reasoning. At minimal I can point out that a circular devices of 1km can be used as a 1km track, 2km track, 10, 20, 100, etc. A 1km linear one is only 1km, it is more efficient then a 1km path on a 1km circular track, but it is limited to 1km. You could build a 100km one, but it would be far less efficient then the 1km circular track.

      I can comment though that the people who spend their life designing, building, and using these devices probably know more about feasibility and limits then random internet posters. Even on small scales I have watched lab demonstration equipment get good energies out of circular accelerators that would take much larger linear ones to get the same output. What you are describing is some abstract idealized situations where materials are perfect (resistance is an issue with large linear accelerators) and issues of engineering or space do not need to be taken into account. So yeah, the people who build these for a living have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when it comes to the math.

    13. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At minimal I can point out that a circular devices of 1km can be used as a 1km track, 2km track, 10, 20, 100, etc.

      Without context, this is meaningless, as it depends on the particle and energies you are talking about. For given energies and particles (e.g. electrons at hundreds of GeV), a 1 km track circular track most certainly cannot be used as a 100 km track, because you would lose so much energy going around the circle, you would be essentially accelerating it from scratch every time it got to an RF cavity. Other posters already did some of the math, and you could get all you need to do it yourself from Wikipedia if you wanted. Or you could look at competing designs, where the ILC for example is expecting to get more than twice the energy using a similar length linear accelerator (actually half the length each for electrons and positrons).

      (resistance is an issue with large linear accelerators)

      What resistance? Energy loss of the beam? That is much, much larger in a circular accelerator. Resistance limiting the efficiency of RF cavities? Most now are superconducting, and the same limits apply to both circular and linear accelerators for a given particle. Resistance of wiring along the device? That wouldn't affect acceleration because each RF cavity would have its own klystron anyway.

      So yeah, the people who build these for a living have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when it comes to the math.

      It isn't about doing the math here, but about said people being good at playing politics, knowing that they could build a less useful, but much cheaper machine in the hopes that they could get more money down the line to build something useful by selling it as half-built. If the people providing the funding on the other hand wanted to just get stuff done, they would either fund a proton ring from the start, or a separate linear electron accelerator.

    14. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roger, the most important reason for building a circular machine is that the control of the beam can be done even though the beam is moving at the speed of light.
      The control is in the centre of the ring, and so to adjust a beam anywhere on the circumference the control system can send an adjustment command to any spot before any particle in the ring reaches that spot. So, eg., if a slight alignment problem is detected at (say) 0 degrees, by the time the problem arrives at the centre controlling system, the particles are at approximately 90 degrees on the circumference. The central system then sends a command down to the next spoke so that the alignment command arrives ahead of the particle detected, and the adjustment is made.
      In the case of a linear accelerator, since the beam is already moving at the speed of light, no alignment error could be detected and adjusted before the particle reaches a future point.

    15. Re:Suboptimal Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't just one particle going around, but many bunches each with very small spacing. If the alignment is out, then you will have problems with the second bunch that will arrive nanoseconds after the first one you see a problem with, long before any signal can get to a central location. Both circular and linear accelerators will can have local diagnostics that address alignment issues at the actual location of issue, no central control needed.

  27. Oh great! by guygo · · Score: 1

    Just what we need. From the people who brought you the Yutu moon rover...

  28. Pay people to dig holes, then fill them by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    They have hundreds of millions of single men which they need to keep employed.

    Good thing the US is mortgaging its future to keep China together today.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  29. Is the diameter relevant? by sinktank · · Score: 1

    I thought the power of these things were measured in TeV...

    Serious question to any engineers who know how to build these devices: is the diameter/length of the accelerator relevant to the performance or just to the cost?

    1. Re:Is the diameter relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spec chain goes like this:
            What energy do we want the beam to reach?
            What is the most powerful magnet we can possibly build?
            Since the bending radius is determined solely by the magnetic field and the momentum of the beam (and charge state, if you're accelerating ions), 1 and 2 completely determine the radius of the collider.

      So if you want a more powerful collider, it either has to get bigger, or you need even better magnets.

    2. Re:Is the diameter relevant? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      still it is meaningless to just fixate on diameter, energy of beam and type of particle(s) are the relevant parameters for determining what kind of useful physics can be done

    3. Re:Is the diameter relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For circular electron accelerators, the limit is not the magnets (for the energy and radius they give, you would need less than a Tesla of magnetic field strength) but how fast you can accelerate the electrons in a given space. They will lose a lot of energy from synchrotron radiation, and eventually your limit will be the where your acceleration is equal to the power loss from radiation. Relating the radius to this is difficult, as typically accelerating cavities are a fraction of the total circumference, and the accelerating gradient in them is not typically familiar to people outside of those building that such things (e.g. particle physicist and those working with the detectors likely don't know of state of the art accelerating gradients).

  30. They will spiral down just as USSR did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their economy, although growing, cannot continue its current direction and will eventually spiral down to where military spending cripples the rest of the economy; just as the USSR's economy did. Let's enjoy their limelight basking while we can, LOL.

    1. Re:They will spiral down just as USSR did. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US military spending : 640.0
      China military spending : 188.0

      Public debt as a % of GDP
      US : 72.50
      China : 31.7

      Looks like there is some room for them..

  31. US STEM Efforts in 2028 by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

    The President of the US will proudly announce the Free Education Market, in which all American children unable to afford a Million Dollar College Tuition common among even State Colleges on their own must apply for and accept a College Scholarship Loan from an approved provider in the National Marketplace. All recipients of these scholarships will agree to work for a salary reduced by up to 90% until the cost of the Scholarship is paid back plus interest of up to 20%. All Children who do not obtain a Scholarship from the Free Market will be barred from employment. The White House has hailed this a critical step in returning America to the forefront of the Science and Technology.

    1. Re:US STEM Efforts in 2028 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stem problem is a sad joke. Assume you have a student who is intelligent enough to do the course work. Would they invest what the sunk costs are to attend school to get a degree in STEM with full knowledge that their wage competition is going to be at the rate of an H1B visa indentured servant? The ROI just isn't there. If there are no qualified people to do the work then the H1B imports should be able to move easily from company to company at free market rates, not locked to the company that sponsors them at substandard rates with substandard working hours. Allowing H1B visas is just an excuse to fill tech jobs at below market rates. This practice removes economic incentive from STEM inclined and able students if they actually want to get a job and make a living wage.

  32. Good luck with that by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2

    LEP operated around 209 GeV in 27Km so this Chinese proposal of 240 GeV at 52Km is.. underwhelming. Realize things like labor cost less in China but this isn't a high rise they are making. LHC cost amost $5B to build. Where is China getting the magnets? I'm not sure US export controls will allow a sale. And then there are those pesky detectors which are technological marvels themselves.

    Still unfortunate that we can't scale up anti-proton production to levels necessary for high luminosity.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

      The 240 GeV is related to the Higgs mass, not the maximum energy possible in the ring. They could increase the center of mass energy to over 350 GeV in the ring and create top-antitop pairs.

      However, the diameter is really set by the proton energy desired for the successor machine and the superconducting magnets they expect to be feasible when that machine is built. China builds MRI magnets with NbTi now so they already have most of the cryogenic technology needed. No one can yet build Nb3Sn magnets required for the desired proton machine. Or for the LHC energy upgrade.

      The LEP magnets were mostly concrete. Fields were so low the amount of steel and copper needed was tiny, so these active materials were spaced out with concrete. Shrinkage over the course of construction caused some hiccups in the earliest days of LEP.

      As another commented, the Daya Bay neutrino detectors are quite sophisticated. China is also working on GEMs. They make excellent scintillators.

    2. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their interest is to study the Higgs boson, than at that energy the question would be, "What's the luminosity?" If they had good luminosity, than the slight improvement in energy would be more than enough.

    3. Re:Good luck with that by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I doubt that China could build the magnets in use now at LHC on their own and certainly you will need at least that much for a super proton/proton collider.

      Can you really compare the sophistication/complexity of Atlas/CMS or even D0/CDF to neutrino dectors?

      Does China have the systems capabilities to handle the data output of these types of experiments?

      The biggest problem China faces is they are not likely to get much help from western governments due to the technology transfer aspects.

    4. Re:Good luck with that by jfb2252 · · Score: 1

      Go to http://directory.web.cern.ch/d... Click on ATLAS and CMS, and find the directory of institutions. China is well represented on both. You may also scan the lists of 3000+ collaborators each, of course. China is also represented in detector collaborations at many other labs worldwide, including mine.

      When I last checked the price for a ROXIE license from CERN was 2500 Euros, SC magnet design software incorporating all they learned about magnetics and mechanics.

      I was involved in the SSC magnet project 25 years ago. Most of the difference between the SSC and LHC magnets is 4.5K planned operation of the former and 2K operation of the latter. Had LHC chosen to develop NbTiTa conductor they might have gotten another 15% in energy capability. This is old technology.

      I spent two years working on Nb3Sn wire and tape magnets before my SSC work. At one point I hoped ITER would move along fast enough to push Nb3Sn magnet development for accelerators. Conductor yes, magnet technology not in time. Since China has great ceramic expertise, they may do better than Western metal-bashers.

    5. Re:Good luck with that by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      interesting, thanks

  33. The flavour of sour grapes by jandersen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cern had how many set backs while trying to power the thing up in the early stages of testing? With all the corruption China has I wonder how this will compare.

    Of course CERN had problems - this is not engineering, but science. The big difference between the two being that you call it engineering, when you know in advance how to do, and science when you don't. No doubt, the first time a simple van-der-Graf accellerator was built, they had to overcome a number of problems; now, it is something you'd let a student do, because all the technical problems have been ironed out. And when/if China builds this new cyclotron, they will run into a large number of technical problems; of course they will. No need to start constructing fables about "all the corruption"; all that says is that you are suffering from petty envy.

    1. Re:The flavour of sour grapes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually China *does* have a lot of corruption. So does the US. But they have corruption in different places. (I can't speak for the EU, and I'm not even sure it's the same from country to country.)

      The question is "Does China have corruption in places that would grossly interfere with the construction of a large new particle accelerator? I don't know. The US did. The Supercollider proposed location was chosen because of corruption, and the project was cancelled because of corruption. OTOH, it would have been quite expensive, and very difficult. Corruption wasn't the only factor.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:The flavour of sour grapes by budgenator · · Score: 1

      If the Chinese decide building this collider is a matter of National Pride and Honor, God help anyone or anything that gets in the way; any corruption will just be greasing the wheels of the juggernaut.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:The flavour of sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No doubt, the first time a simple van-der-Graf accellerator was built, they had to overcome a number of problems;"

      Mostly to do with keeping the hamster in the wheel.

  34. this will not end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this will work out about as well as China's high speed bullet trains... China is too isolated, this kind of engineering can not be accomplished w/o real international cooperation on all levels.

    1. Re:this will not end well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is within the power of one fool is also within the power of another.

  35. steal technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They won't have to travel out of the country to steal technology; the world will bring it to them.

  36. Will It Cook? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Can they stir fry in that thing?

  37. Mmmmm by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    This story is giving me a hadron.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  38. China has no cost advantage here by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Even assuming China has the technical expertise to create that custom component

    China almost certainly has a labor force can make the gear or can hire people who can if there are specific skills needed.

    does it pass even casual scrutiny to think that China can make a collider of twice the size at one-third the cost?

    No. I'm a cost accountant and I can assure you that China will not enjoy any meaningful cost advantages on a project like this. China might have a minor cost advantage due to cheap labor on the digging portion of the project but it wouldn't be hugely cheaper. The biggest costs will be the gear that goes into the accelerator and China enjoys no meaningful cost advantage there. It's all custom electronics and other stuff which is simply very expensive no matter who does it.

  39. Earthquakes exist everywhere by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The point the poster made, which I think is legitimate, is that even a very small earthquake could probably be catastrophic for a collider's integrity and alignment.

    That's an engineering issue that would exist no matter where you built the accelerator. You think there aren't fault lines near the LHC? Fermilab's Tevatron is within the New Madrid seismic zone. There basically is no place on earth that doesn't get earthquakes from time to time. You have to engineer the device with this in mind.

  40. But it's going to be built by a ... GOVERNMENT!!! by whitroth · · Score: 1

    It can't work. I mean, no collider or supercollider can work, if they're built by a GOVERNMENT! Only private industry can build a working one...*

    Oh, that's right, all of them were build by governments. No company's going to do it, because there's no ROI, or if there is, it may not be for decades....

                      mark

    * Satire of libertarians, for libertarians, and others who aren't familiar with satire....

  41. Yeah, but it's China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They'll cut corners, use cheap materials, politicians will pocket cash (so will suppliers, developers and builders) and if they manage to actually build it and turn it on it'll fizzle out or explode spectacularly.

    1. Re:Yeah, but it's China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like their Bullet Train... even with a death penalty for corruption they can not stop systemic corruption.

    2. Re:Yeah, but it's China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haters are going to hate, but at least pick something that's remotely believable.

      Chinese bullet trains are now the world's most extensive and utilized high speed train service.
      Given that no news is good news in the bullet train business, there are no apparent systematic problems with the Chinese bullet trains.

      Besides, at least they have a bullet train network.
      Where are America's bullet trains?

    3. Re:Yeah, but it's China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, read some fucking news. chinese bullet trains DERAIL and KILL PEOPLE!

    4. Re:Yeah, but it's China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/22/boss-rail?currentPage=all

      How a High-Speed Rail Disaster Exposed China's Corruption

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision

  42. Electrons? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    A ring for electrons? I thought that was impossible at those energies.

  43. Re:Pen(cil) is measuring contest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear God. I can taste that level of bitterness from here.

  44. a good thing by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    I think we'd all rather see a world where China competes with the west in science and technology.

    I am a scientist and I complain a lot about corruption in funding, publishing, and public representation of science; but as a whole it's a very honest and productive enterprise. This is much better than competing to see who can maintain the lowest cost labor pool or the biggest weapons.

  45. The flavour of sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The big difference between the two being that you call it engineering, when you know in advance how to do, and science when you don't

    DEAD WRONG! When you have to figure out how to do it, it is engineering. When you can read a manual and know how to do it, it's IKEA. Engineering is building things to solve problems, science is about knowledge NOT building things. Of course, engineering uses science to engineer its solutions, and science uses engineering to acquire more knowledge. In any case, the LHC is a product of engineering, the conclusions after analyzing the data it gathers are science. I know because I'm an engineer with a Ph.D.

  46. Re:But it's going to be built by a ... GOVERNMENT! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Better be satire, because that is factually incorrect, there are industrial colliders, a subset of the thirty thousand of commercial particle accelerators in the world, government owned ones are 3% of the total.

  47. Re:We had issues of blackholes with LHC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you confuse buying cheap made in china crap from walmart with some of their higher quality stuff?

    Flip that keyboard you are using over and let us know what it says, most likely "made in China".

  48. Re:Pen(cil) is measuring contest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what speak language you do?

  49. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Either it will never work, or it's going to create a sub-atomic black hole that will eat up half of their installation"

    We all joke about this, but the fact is, science is not mature enough to really know what's going to happen when we start playing around in the sub-atomic layer of the universe.

    1. Re:By Neruos by messymerry · · Score: 1

      It won't stop at half their installation...

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  50. Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that my wife (a particle physicist at Fermi Lab) and I may get to spend some time in China? She already gets to go to CERN upon occasion! :-)

  51. It's engineering by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Engineering is the application of science to the real world. Colliders had already been built before, so it was not a scientific task to build/research a new one. There were undoubtedly a few problems to be overcome, but they were not really scientific ones.

    Of course once it had been built, it was science to find the Higgs and other particles by firing it up and seeing what happened.

    Similarly, the Manhatten Project was again largely engineering; they largely knew an atomic bomb was theoretically possible. The main problem was to work out how to build a bomb such that a reasonable bang would occur with a robustly engineered device. i.e. that the energy budget would not be lost in the tolerances that they were capable of at the time.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  52. Cover story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Sidonia was Chinese...

    PLA has been building an extensive tunnel network for decades. If they can connect a tunnel to the collider ring area, they can use the public construction of the collider tunnel as a cover to dump more earth from their secret tunnel projects.

  53. Re:But it's going to be built by a ... GOVERNMENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And none of the industrial colliders even approach the energy or luminosity of state sponsored and internationally sponsored accelerators.

  54. Priorities by Draugo · · Score: 1

    The sad thing about this is that US could do the same thing without problem but they choose to prioritize their military R&D instead of science R&D. Their military budged wouldn't even have a dent if they built one of these but no, must have new useless fighter jets instead.

  55. Most women agree by DogShoes · · Score: 0

    ...it's length, not girth that matters

  56. Re:But it's going to be built by a ... GOVERNMENT! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    correct, they instead actually create wealth and improve quality and length of human life

    interesting list is known subatomic particles vs. those actually used in practical application. For example antiproton, muon, and pion have been used commercially.

  57. Re:Pen(cil) is measuring contest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet, somehow the chinese (han) nation managed to multiply to more than 1.3 billion people by now, while white and black numbers stagnated or even declined.

    Yep, cockroaches sure can multiply, I'll give you that.

  58. Synchrotron Radiation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Not really. If nothing else, with a circular collider the beam can go around multiple times, increasing energy on every pass. The amount of energy you impart is only limited by how strong of a magnetic field you can create to twist the beam.

    Sorry but this is simply wrong. Look up synchrotron radiation. For electrons this is a very important effect and your machine energy is limited by how much energy you can give to the electrons on each orbit of the machine. Even for the protons in the LHC this is a noticeable, but not energy limiting, effect.