Slashdot Mirror


CERN's New Collider Design Is Four Times Larger Than the LHC (vice.com)

If built, the Future Circular Collider will be 10 times more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider, and could discover new types of particles. From a report: The 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson particle at CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is widely considered to be one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in history. It validated a half-century of research about the basic building blocks of matter, and remains the crowning achievement of modern particle physics. Now, CERN wants to follow up on the LHC's smashing success with a super-sized structure called the Future Circular Collider (FCC).

This next-generation particle accelerator would boast 10 times the observational power of the LHC and would stretch across 100 kilometers (62 miles), encircling the Swiss city of Geneva and much of the surrounding area. CERN published its first conceptual design report for the FCC on Tuesday. The four-volume roadmap was developed over five years by 1,300 contributors based at 150 universities, according to a statement.

145 comments

  1. Diablo by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Future Circular Collider will be 10 times more powerful

    FUCC!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Diablo by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      The current one failed to create a black hole so they need to try again.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Diablo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we need a larger hardon collider to fucc that black hole

    3. Re:Diablo by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Naah, the next step up from the LHC is the BFHC.

  2. Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Note, I'm not against scientific discovery, but....

    1. How much is this going to cost?
    2. Who is going to pay for this?

    1. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot and you but lets focus on whats important

    2. Re:Two questions. by spth · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.

      For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier, 40% more than the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

    3. Re:Two questions. by igor.sfiligoi · · Score: 1

      For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier

      So... really cheap?

    4. Re:Two questions. by Merk42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.

      17 Gillion Dollars??

    5. Re:Two questions. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Mexico?

    6. Re:Two questions. by spth · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'd assume that it will be paid mostly by CERN member states. Top contributors to CERN's 2019 budget:

      • Germany (21%)
      • United Kingdom (16%)
      • France (14%)
      • Italy (10%)

      See https://fap-dep.web.cern.ch/rp... for details.

    7. Re:Two questions. by spth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mexico is not a CERN member state, which pay most of the CERN budget.

      While Mexico has a co-operation agreement with CERN, it (like most countries with observer status or co-operation agreements, which also includes the US, Russia and China) has apparently not contributed to the 2019 budget: https://fap-dep.web.cern.ch/rp...

    8. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering Europe doesn't throw billions worth of € in stupid military macho shit we've got the means to fund basic research on a grand scale. Less weapons, more science.

    9. Re:Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      I'd assume that it will be paid mostly by CERN member states.

      Well don't do that. The precedent has been to rely on considerable funding and resources from the US:

      The US provided one-third of the cost of each detector, about $165 million to each. A lot of this was built in the US, funding US hi-tech jobs.

      The US also contributed $200 million to the accelerator.

      The US contributes about a third of the cost of running the detectors.

      Pretty good for a mere "observer" state. Doubtless the US will be invited to observe a few billion into Future Circular Collider as well.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    10. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gigabux.

    11. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of this was built in the US, funding US hi-tech jobs." - and you left this off because you wanted to pretend it was all benevolence, like a dumbass

    12. Re:Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      you left this off

      It's literally copied verbatim in the quote I made; line number 3.

      US funding prerogatives are no better or worse than the equally self serving funding within CERN member states. I knew some nasty chumplet such as yourself would emerge, so I carefully included that bit. What I didn't anticipate was a blithering idiot that can't even read.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    13. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gazillion.

    14. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is how I beat Civ! Go for the science!

    15. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not acknowledging it's in the US best financial interest to build the detectors and instead present it as benevolence in your above rant. Sorry, that's right there to read, you can't miss it.

    16. Re: Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Among other things, the US contributed those failing magnets, which caused lots of damage and delayed the start of the LHC significantly.

      Ah yes, the superconducting magnets. The very thing that does the actual accelerating in LHC. Having relied on the US to build — and then faithfully rework — said magnets, Europe has likely not developed a domestic source for such components. This means the most likely path forward is to again rely on the US for FCC magnets.

      Certainly CERN is free to forego further such incompetence on the part of the US, but I suspect this will not be a consideration as CERN lobbies the US for many more billions in contributions; cold hard cash, in-kind materiale, academic resources, etc. So don't be surprised if the FCC achieves most of its particle velocity with US made magnets as well.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    17. Re:Two questions. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.

      For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier, 40% more than the Gotthard Base Tunnel.

      A heck of a lot less than a wall though.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    18. Re:Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      You're not

      I included the incriminating bit of language that discounts the motives of the US. You missed that, and you look like a fool because of it. That's your problem.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    19. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is nice they have someone protecting them so they can do such things.

    20. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico

    21. Re:Two questions. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I'm no fan of Trump but the walls cost is much less than an aircraft carrier. The main complaint is that it is a waste of money compared to using it for other border enforcement, and that it results in a physical monument to Trump's ego.

    22. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.

      17G's is only $17,000. (1.7e4 US dollars).

      That's like almost as much as a Ford-class automobile.

    23. Re:Two questions. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      17 G$

      Zimbabwean?

    24. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is great news. America, financed by the PRC, spends metric fucktons on money to give generous bonuses to military contractors. It still does have a strong military though. However, You are saying your European military is weak. The logical thing for America to do is to invade peace loving Europe and steal a.k.a liberate the LHC.

      Peace is boring as fuck. Lets give war a chance. It is time to liberate all those poor hadrons that are being mercilessly torn apart in those fascist European vacum chanbers.

      You should neved brag about being weak.

    25. Re: Two questions. by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Oh shut up you two children. Have you read the science goals pdf yet? No, I thought not.

      Well I have not read any more than the executive summary and I have some good news for both of you. No one is going to fund it. No one is going to fund it because it has no purpose that will fit in a tweet. It is not being built to find or prove anything, it is being built just because it can do more of the same but better.

      I think you should put your money into genetics and medicine instead, leave measuring the ~ phase factor of the Higgs ~ to the Chinese because they are infinitely adept at copying stuff that people have already done in style (see landing on the dark side of the moon).

      The future is bright and it is also very tiny, it is in microbes, viruses and cells. Put a fuckton of money into the basic research on it and it will be an industry bigger than 'tech' inside 40 years. I speak as a former semiconductor manufacturing engineer so my guess is at least as good as yours. Also have you seen what is going on in genetics? Or how much compute power is going into the field? - protein folding I am looking at you right now.

      Don't get me wrong, my favorite hobby is cosmology and particle physics. But my new hobby is now microbiology.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    26. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why spend trillions on expeditionary forces when you can have nucular weapons, anti-air defenses, anti-ship missiles etc. for mere dozens of billions?

    27. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No surprise that the people behind the large Hardon collider has a web site named fap-dep.web.cern.ch

    28. Re:Two questions. by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      Si unit prefix not us colocial for thosand see alks GB (Giga Byte)

    29. Re: Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh shut up you two children. Have you read the science goals pdf yet? No, I thought not.

      Well I have not read any more than the executive summary and I have some good news for both of you. No one is going to fund it. No one is going to fund it because it has no purpose that will fit in a tweet. It is not being built to find or prove anything, it is being built just because it can do more of the same but better.

      I think you should put your money into genetics and medicine instead, leave measuring the ~ phase factor of the Higgs ~ to the Chinese because they are infinitely adept at copying stuff that people have already done in style (see landing on the dark side of the moon).

      The future is bright and it is also very tiny, it is in microbes, viruses and cells. Put a fuckton of money into the basic research on it and it will be an industry bigger than 'tech' inside 40 years. I speak as a former semiconductor manufacturing engineer so my guess is at least as good as yours. Also have you seen what is going on in genetics? Or how much compute power is going into the field? - protein folding I am looking at you right now.

      Don't get me wrong, my favorite hobby is cosmology and particle physics. But my new hobby is now microbiology.

      I can believe that you're staring very hard at microscopic things that nobody else can see, and it's possible that you've just decided to take up microbiology as a hobby, but reading your comment it seems more likely that you're coming down with a touch of schizophrenia.

      And if not, fuck you.

    30. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you get the wall cost from?

      https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/apr/28/scott-peters/would-trumps-border-wall-cost-same-one-and-half-us/

    31. Re:Two questions. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you mean considering you have the US protecting you, you can afford to spend it on science....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    32. Re:Two questions. by spitzak · · Score: 1

      That does sound much closer than I thought.
      I am assuming only a few hundred miles of "wall" need to be built to satisfy Trump's ego, but if that article is correct even this costs the same as an aircraft carrier when my guess was about 1/10. And if he really insists on a wall or fence everywhere that is not the Rio Grande it seems it would cost more. If an actual solid wall along the north shore of the Rio Grande is needed then it is going to cost a significant fraction. As pointed out the California high speed rail is a good indication of the main problem: the people owning the land will realize they have a windfall and demand exorbitant prices. Also if illegal immigrant labor is actively avoided in the construction it will be much more expensive.

    33. Re: Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      my new hobby

      There is no place for amateurs in medicine or genetics. Should you beat all the odds and actually come up with something significant you'll quickly learn just how unwelcome your contribution is and how many different tools the medical industry and the governments that fund it have to divest you of your work. If it is even remotely dangerous you'll die a pauper and/or in prison, vilified as a reckless fool.

      Enjoy.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    34. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Detector. Detector. Detector.

      Most of the toal cost was for the tunnel and the accelerator and its upgrade.

      Clever to sink a little money into the detectors to get access to the results.

    35. Re:Two questions. by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      Well since China and Japan combined bought more than 2 trillion dollars of US debt, technically THEY are the ones paying for it.

    36. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least an aircraft carrier has some use!

      The Wall is a white elephant, a dongle, a monument to racist stupidity. The $5 billion cost is a total lie; Colbert's back-of-the-envelope estimate is more like $2 trillion. Let that sink in for a moment. $2 trillion, about the same as the combined cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Do you want to pay the equivalent of another war in the Middle East? You'd be better off creating a pile of dollar bills in front of the Washington Monument, and setting fire to it. At least you'd get some light and some heat for your $2 trillion.

    37. Re:Two questions. by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      the tunnel

      The US has helped dig enough trenches in Europe.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    38. Re:Two questions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or about 1 month of GDP.

  3. An accurate Slashdot science post ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya know, I miss the good ole' confused units, non-sequiturs, factual errors and idiotic speculation.

  4. ... because the last one didn't destroy the earth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we needed to go bigger. Maybe that's why we haven't met aliens yet. At some point all intelligent species build a big enough collider, and well...

    I've read Thrice Upon a Time....

  5. Do it up big! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    They failed in their quest to cause a black hole formation or an unknown particle/quark reaction similar to a nuclear detonation so it's time to scale it up, boys! If Britain is trying to blow up all of Europe, they might as well too.

    1. Re:Do it up big! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They failed in their quest to cause a black hole formation...to blow up all...

      Pretty close, it caused an orange hole.

    2. Re: Do it up big! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure?

  6. Scienctists have a dream... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, for the cost of this monstrosity, what else could we do? Where I like dreams like this, are we SURE that we need the collision energies this new collider will give us? What burning questions will this tool help answer that the old one didn't? Are we sure there isn't any way to improve the current collider without drilling more than 180 miles of tunnels?

    Yea, I know that much of what we *could* find out with this thing is nothing more than educated guessing, but I wonder about the cost and schedule needed to build something this size. Is there something else which holds more promise than driving sub-atomic particle physics to higher energies? Are there benefits here? I mean other than providing answers to settle the various bets made by proponents of the various competing theories now?

    Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration? Just a thought guys.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration? Just a thought guys.

      I came here to say this.

    2. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Or maybe invest more in plasma wave linear accelerators which can potentially be much smaller.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    3. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by crgrace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I get what you're saying, and people have been making the same arguments since the very beginning. In fact, when Ernest Lawrence was trying to build his first cyclotron (and thus jumpstart high-energy physics) he asked the local power company (PG&E) for funds and they responded in a very similar way to your response. Luckily, Lawerence was able to get the money, a Nobel prize, and pave the way to a new era in team-based science.

      To answer a couple of questions, you're right that it is unclear if a new collider would turn the physics world on its head. It would certianly produce large numbers of Higgs particles and therefore make studying the Higgs much easier. It could also rule out many potential string theories (and theories on supersymmetry). If it did find supersymmetric particles that would be earth-shattering, as it would overturn the current standard model and would hold the promise for un-imagined future technologies.

      As for whether you need a larger collider, yes, basic high-school physics can show that only a larger diameter will let you further increase the energy at the interaction point (assuming a circular hadron collider).

      Now, you ask is this worth investing in, instead of, say, biomedical or genetic research. I think this is a false dichotomy. The answer is we should invest in both and all. Besides increasing our knowledge of physics, accelerator research has led to a huge number of useful technologies that were invented along the way. For example, high energy physics were among the first "Big Data" applications and dealing with this data led to the World Wide Web. In addition, breakthroughs enabling digital cameras, clean energy, materials science, and bioimaging have been made possible in the last few decades based on experience gained building these kinds of accelerators. I think there are benefits here and this is work worth doing.

    4. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      But, like it or not, we have limited resources to invest. It's not a false dichotomy, what holds the most promise for the application of the resources we have? An "All of the above" option doesn't exist when the request for resources exceeds the available resources. Plus it would be stupid to start this project unless we are committed to see it though because starting then giving up would be a monumental waste.

      All I'm asking is that we evaluate the possible benefits of perusing all kinds of research and make an educated guess as to where the funds would have the largest chance of paying off and choose accordingly. IF it turns out that drilling another 180 miles of tunnels for an accelerator that's capable of say 10X the energy holds the most promise of expanding our scientific knowledge in useful ways, then we invest in it.

      All I'm asking is that we at least THINK about how we allocate funds and try to be intelligent in what we invest in as we really do have limited resources here.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the Swiss could buy 1.5 aircraft carriers with that money, but once they can control black holes they will dominate the world. Its pretty easy to get your way when you can reduce the entire earth into a singularity.

    6. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      are we SURE that we need the collision energies this new collider will give us?

      Yes, if you read the reports they give some examples:

      "However, several experimental facts do require the extension of the Standard Model and explanations are needed for observations such as the abundance of matter over antimatter, the striking evidence for dark matter and the non-zero neutrino masses. Theoretical issues such as the hierarchy problem, and, more in general, the dynamical origin of the Higgs mechanism, do likewise point to the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model."

      Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration?

      Huge amounts of money are already going towards bio-medical research, both by governments and commercial interests: "Globally, in excess of US$200bn is invested each year in biomedical research." link
      There is already a multi-billion dollar international research project on fusion energy (see ITER). Fusion energy commercialization in an engineering challenge and not fundamental research and is already be addressed by commercial investment: Tokamak Energy, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, TAE Technologies, General Fusion, Helion Energy, LPPFusion, Proton Scientific and others.
      Space exploration is being funded: "global government investment in space exploration totaled $14.6 billion in 2017" link and space exploration is also going commercial, witness SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and United Launch Alliance.

    7. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by crgrace · · Score: 2

      Well I would submit we (and by we I don't mean me as an American but research administrators of the CERN member states) most definitely do think this stuff through. CERN does a lot of work besides LHC (although LHC is their key experiment at the moment) so a new collider isn't necessarily make-work for them.

      It is really, really difficult to be intelligent in this type of thing because of so many "interests" at the table. The amount of money the USA has spent on the nuclear weapons program since the 1940s is approx. 1 Trillion USD (inflation adjusted). Sure, you can make a good argument the nuclear weapons program kept the cold war cold, but 1 trillion?

      I think it is a false dichotomy because the "limited resources" is self-imposed more than anything. Of course we can't invest infinite dollars, but we can invest enough we can sustain meaning research programs into all the areas you suggest (and we do).

    8. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sold. The name "plasma wave linear accelerator" sounds new and cool. "Large Hadron Collider" sounds old and boring. And big and clunky. Not very sciency.

    9. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or maybe invest more in plasma wave linear accelerators which can potentially be much smaller.

      Wouldn't work - wrong kind of particle accelerator.

      There are two kinds of particle accelerators, and you use one or the other depending on the science you want to do.

      The LHC is basically a particle accelerator - you take two particles (consisting of multiple quarks) and slam them into each other. This generates lots of collisions, and the quarks smashing into each other generate all sorts of new particles. As you can see, an accelerator like the LHC is used to perform "new science" - to discover what can only be done by colliding lots of random quarks and particles together to see what new forms of particles you get. This works because the particles you collide aren't uniform (a neutron or proton is not a homogeneous thing - and they can have three or four quarks). Thus when they collide, you're smashing things with varying energy and composition, to form new things of varying composition. Thus when trying to discover the undiscovered, like the Higgs boson, you need this kind of collider - it generates the random variations and energies you need to discover.

      The other type of collider uses electrons, which are very precise. You use these colliders to perform in-depth science - if you're probing stuff, the fact that you can control the electron beam precisely is why it's good - the energy distribution is highly controlled so you can probe the properties of whatever you're exploring. If you find a way to reliably make Higgs, for example. you can use this kind of collider to probe its properties. And since they are only accelerating really light electrons, they can be much smaller to get them to higher energy levels. Accelerators like the LHC have to accelerate heavy particles by comparison so it takes a lot more energy and time.

    10. Re: Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advances in particle accelerators have led to free electron lasers capable of imaging molecular processes in real time. Hughe advances in bio-medical research are being made right now because of this. Diseases including cancer will one day be eradicated because of these investments. It's not just about smahing some stuff together to find elusive particles...

    11. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA's 2017 budget was more than 14.6 billion, FFS.

    12. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the estimate return on investment for keeping the Cold War "cold" is somewhere between $40 and $60 trillion PER YEAR, depending on your estimates of how much of the Earth would have been wiped out by tens of thousands of nuclear explosions.

      Plus, being alive, and all that.

      Yeah, I'd call that a pretty good return on investment.

    13. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, like it or not, we have limited resources to invest. It's not a false dichotomy, what holds the most promise for the application of the resources we have?

      I'd tend to argue regardless of what you think it is a false dichotomy precisely because the FCC is projected to cost $17 billion and be finished no sooner than 2050. So far an average of ~$566 million/year, we have the potentially to substantially improve our understanding of particle physics either in confirming or contradicting our expectations. It's funny to me that there was a time that there was a fear of the Science-Industrial Complex taking over the budget of countries like the US. Instead, the US was taken over by the Military–Industrial Complex invested in making billion dollar planes and aircraft carriers that cost $13 billion. I can only imagine how twisted an SIC would be, especially in wasteful spending given the MIC. But I'd much prefer throwing away $300 billion/year on the many potential projects, from colliders to bioresearch to fusion even if all the turned up was impractical results.

      Now, if you want to argue that the choice between a MIC and SIC is a false dichotomy, that's something to debate. However, I definitely believe any discussion that tries to quickly justify the need for a science project being a functional waste and cost/benefit analysis must occur is generally absurd because of "limited resources".

    14. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Look how much productive science has come out of Fermilab over the last 10-15 years, when many said it would be obsolete with the LHC online.

      You use what you have.
      If you can get something newer and shinier, you of course insist you must have it - scientists are normal people.

      --
      -Styopa
    15. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burma Shave!

    16. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good...go away now

    17. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Well, for the cost of this monstrosity, what else could we do?

      Apparently we could buy 2/3's of an aircraft carrier. I'd say that relatively speaking the cost is modest.

    18. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The above is on several points incorrect or just confused. Yes, you can accelerate either leptons or hadrons, and since leptons (electrons) are light and more easily lose energy via synchrotron radiation, they're pretty much always accelerated with linacs of whatever technology. The above mixes up the tech with what it's used on. Plasma wave accelerators use a laser accelerating a cloud of electrons to then drag hadrons along with, via Coulomb attraction. The electrons (leptons) get stuck in the plasma pretty much so this isn't a good plan for them, actually. Any linac can accelerate either type of particle (author of above doesn't know an electron is also a "particle"?), but to get to the really high energies and short DeBroglie wavelengths, you generally want the good old synchrotron, which is the one with a circular path (via bending magnets) so you get more than one shot at boosting particle velocity to nearer C. The real reason plasma wave isn't used outside exploring how to build one yet, is we don't know how to build them well enough yet. The dispersion of energy (speeds) is too great for a lot of uses, and focus (to get luminance) is still not very good...and that laser you need, they aren't on street corners compared to the old RF cavity and magnet designs.

    19. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't some of these experiments be done for a lot less money in the vacuum of space?

    20. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you could buy a lot of hamburgers for that much money. Good ones too, not McCrappy burgers.

    21. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False dichotomy. We should be funding much more research. Not fighting about what area of research to fund. Stop wasting money on sports and entertainment, then come talk about medical research vs physics. This costs pennies per person (in the EU). How much do you spend for football tickets? Taylor Swift concerts? NetFlix subscription? Video games? That is where our societies true wealth is squandered.

    22. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do as we demand, or we shall turn the planet into... Swiss cheese!

    23. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for whether you need a larger collider, yes, basic high-school physics can show that only a larger diameter will let you further increase the energy at the interaction point (assuming a circular hadron collider).

      Actually, high-school physics will tell you that there is a relation between the energy of the particle, the radius of its motion, its charge, the speed of light, and the strength of the magnetic field causing its motion to curve.

      To reach higher particle energies, we therefore have four possibilities. First, we can increase the radius of the accelerator - which, as discussed, is expensive. Second, we can use more highly-charged particles - which is actually possible (e.g. lead nuclei rather than protons), but doesn't actually help you probe higher-energy physics (since the energy per quark is actually lower). Third, we can change the speed of light - which isn't practical. Fourth, we can use a stronger magnetic field.

      This last option is possible, to an extent. The LHC uses all sorts of tricks to generate some of the strongest magnetic fields physicists have ever achieved, but they're always thinking up new tricks, and the design for the proposed successor probably incorporates a bunch of them. So it could achieve higher energies both by being bigger and by having a stronger magnetic field - both of which, of course, are expensive.

      A side note: the development of tricks for producing stronger magnetic fields is a good reason to support this sort of research. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), for example, depends on this technology.

    24. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by orient · · Score: 1

      Before microbiology and chemistry, we need to understand the basics of the universe - the math and the physics.
      Spending money researching ways to put atoms together without understanding how and why do they stick together or don't, is as stupid as trying to run before being able to walk.

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
    25. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Before microbiology and chemistry, we need to understand the basics of the universe - the math and the physics. Spending money researching ways to put atoms together without understanding how and why do they stick together or don't, is as stupid as trying to run before being able to walk.

      It's like "the song that never ends" pouring money down the subatomic physics rat hole you know, it may never really end. Rarely does anything happen in the biological world that requires the huge energies of even a small collider.

      So if you where arguing chemistry needs some help with their modeling of molecules and this would help, I'd be OK with your assertion. But we are not even close to such energies in the "natural biological world" so I simply think you are not understanding what you talk about, even at the elementary level.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    26. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by orient · · Score: 1

      Rarely does anything happen in the biological world that requires the huge energies of even a small collider.

      [...] But we are not even close to such energies in the "natural biological world" so I simply think you are not understanding what you talk about, even at the elementary level.

      First, I never said that biology happens at the levels of energy involved in a particle accelerator. Never crossed my mind, whatever you may say.

      Second, you seem to consider that the energy used in the process of analyzing something must be equal to the energy used in that something's functioning. Again, it's just your assumption.

      Whatever, you can consider yourself the voice of reason. Good thing CERN doesn't care about you.

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
    27. Re: Scienctists have a dream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those experiments? Not that anyone's proposed. You have any ideas?

    28. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      CERN doesn't care about my opinion? How would you know that?

      For all you know I'll be responsible for influencing the decision. CERN *should* care about me and the millions like me who are asking for reasonable justification before we commit to billions in equipment for more research. IF they tick off enough folks like me though dismissive folks like you, it might be a long time before they get funding for their new toy.

      I just want to do what's best here and despite your claims otherwise, advancements in areas like chemistry and biology could pay off more directly in huge ways. Stuff that a new bigger collider just won't help us with. Once you get one level below the three base subatomic particles, there isn't much to be gained that applies to chemistry... We've been past that point for decades...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    29. Re:Scienctists have a dream... by orient · · Score: 1

      CERN doesn't care about my opinion? How would you know that?

      Well, what CERN does is not what you argue for - what better proof that you don't matter to them?

      For all you know I'll be responsible for influencing the decision.

      Your opinion about yourself doesn't match the reality.

      CERN *should* care about me and the millions like me who are asking for reasonable justification before we commit to billions in equipment for more research.

      Well, CERN doesn't manage the budgets of the participating countries, so they are only committing their own money, money received from your governments. They are free to use their money as they see fit, or you think they need your blessing?

      IF they tick off enough folks like me though dismissive folks like you, it might be a long time before they get funding for their new toy.

      Let me repeat myself: you don't matter. Also, your government will ignore you and pay up. They will, actually, insist on paying into the new toy, to be able to receive the goodies they new toy will discover.

      I just want to do what's best here

      No, you want to feel important.

      advancements in areas like chemistry and biology could pay off more directly in huge ways

      Faster ROI - are you an MBA, by any chance?

      Once you get one level below the three base subatomic particles, there isn't much to be gained that applies to chemistry...

      How do you know? See the future? Completed that research ahead of CERN?

      --
      Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
  7. Won't happen by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    This won't ever be built. The era of big physics is over.

    1. Re:Won't happen by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1, Troll

      It isn't in civilized areas like the EU.

    2. Re:Won't happen by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      This won't ever be built. The era of big physics is over.

      Ya, but, contrary to their name, Large Hadrons are actually really, really tiny. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "civilized"

      If it's civilized to sound and act like you then by all means you can keep it.

    4. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science is collapsing in America with the rise of the know-nothings, but Europe is still civilized.

    5. Re:Won't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large Hadrons are actually really, really tiny.

      My junk email folder is full of adverts promising ways of solving that problem.

      Maybe I could forward some of them to you? I'm sure your significant other would be appreciative.

  8. At least Fermi is happy by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    At last: a solution to the Fermi paradox.

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  9. It may not happen, but not for that reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The era of big physics is over." - Not nearly. 4x may not be big ENOUGH to achieve the MeV's they're shooting for to explore new physics, and it MAY never be built for various reasons, but there's still a need for higher energy experimentation.

    Until we have a unified, verified theory of everything, there always will be that need to push the limits and explore boundaries beyond what we could ever observe otherwise in a million lifetimes.

  10. What better use? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Well, for the cost of this monstrosity, what else could we do?

    Although you alternate ideas are good, I think the very fact we don't know what we can get from this makes it a good idea. It's a good idea to invest in at least a few projects that are wild gambles that could lead to truly something new. And I say that as someone who thinks we seriously need to get humans on Mars...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  11. Re:DANGER Will Robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll or just don't know much science, eh?

  12. FCC! That's big. by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    This might be just about the only real job that Musk's Boring Company ever gets to do.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. Higgs boson, not Huge bosom discovered @ Cern by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Misread that. Where the hell does my mind go anyway?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Higgs boson, not Huge bosom discovered @ Cern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to think this was discovered by the Large Hard-On Collider.

      Thanks, The Guardian, for that...

  14. 10 times wasted energy, 10 times expensive, not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Higgs boson" is always the failed theory and must be wiped from the physics history.

    Scientists should re-create new theories from the observation, not from the invented and conjured theories as the failed "Higgs boson".

  15. Cost from TFA -- $17 billion by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    And not operational until 2050. For that price, there's an awful lot of other science that could be done. It might be more useful to invest in, for example, carbon sequestration tech in the short term instead. Those tiny tiny particles will still be there after we've solved climate change. ;-)

    1. Re:Cost from TFA -- $17 billion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building this isn't going to prevent that "other science" from being done also.

    2. Re:Cost from TFA -- $17 billion by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It might be more useful to invest in, for example, carbon sequestration tech in the short term instead

      Trees have already been invented.

  16. Agree...but for different reasons by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    The era of big physics is most definitely not over but I find it hard to believe that there is sufficient justification for this kind of expenditure. We don't have any good sense of the scale of the physics required to explain Dark Matter or why the Higgs boson is so light (something called the fine-tuning or hierarchy problem).

    Without knowing the energy scale we need to reach to discover new physics building the machine is dangerous because, if it doesn't find anything, then it will be almost impossible to get the even bigger machine we need to make those discoveries. We need the ILC first to do precision physics on the Higgs and use that to guide the design of the FCC. I know that's slower and more boring but I woudl rather we make any discoveries later than not at all.

  17. 4 Times Bigger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4 Times Mo' Money...10 billion -> 40 billion dollars.

  18. Build a fembot for Bezos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Build a fembot for Bezos which is programmed to divorce him. There's about 30 G$ right there.

  19. Re:Will the build bigger crowbars as well? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Gordon Freeman is going to need the giant anime sword of crowbars for this one!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  20. Re:DANGER Will Robinson by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The National Ignition facility is also dangerous as it means they will likely lose containment

    Uh.....they ran it at full power starting in 2012. We're still here, and there were no containment failures nor underground ignition.

    Ya might wanna cut back on the physics theories from video games.

  21. Benefits? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    I remember a lot of articles around the time they confirmed the Higgs Boson that the practical limits for physics by smashing things had been achieved, that future discoveries required so many orders of magnitude more energy that building a collider that is 10x or even 100x the size of the LHC wouldn't produce any new meaningful results. That same article (which I can't find now) said that explore the next stage of particle physics would effectively need a collider spanning around the equator and would never be buildable.

    Can someone with more knowledge on this say what they intend to actually use this thing for?

    1. Re:Benefits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      building a collider that is 10x or even 100x the size of the LHC wouldn't produce any new meaningful results

      Short answer: maybe.

      Long answer: when the LHC was conceived, we were pretty sure the Higgs existed, and what energy would be required to detect it. This is moderately unusual in particle physics: most discoveries in the past ~60 years were unexpected.

      The next place we know there'll definitely be some interesting new physics is at the Planck scale, which is way, way beyond our current capabilities. (Think solar-system-sized accelerators.) But there might be any number of unexpected particles at lower energies. And there are lots of theoreticians with ideas as to what they might be.

      So building an accelerator like this *might* detect something new and exciting, or it might not. If it doesn't, it'll still allow us to study known particles (including the Higgs) with much better precision, and the spin-off benefits (improved superconducting magnets, etc.) will still apply, but a lot of theoreticians will be very disappointed.

    2. Re:Benefits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds very much like it is assuming to know the results of experiments that haven't been done yet, always a dubious practice. We won't know what we'll find until we check.

  22. Only 100 km? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will wait for the 40 Mm version.

  23. no new physics by epine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Human Genome Project was an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.

    It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.

    The $3-billion project was formally founded in 1990 by the US Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health, and was expected to take 15 years. ... Taking into account inflation, the project roughly cost $5 billion.

    I strongly suspect you could presently invest $50 billion into biology (with perhaps a side order of machine learning) before your incremental ROI declined anywhere close to this $17 b facility.

    Which is not to say that this facility is worthless, but that the time is ripe for investment elsewhere.

    The two main arguments for this facility are: 1) keeping the existing expertise alive; and 2) feeding the beast of existing appropriations directed to this technology sector.

    I read Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex (2015) within the last year and I know that the achievements in this line of research have historically been immense, and I still don't think we should continue with yet another colossal expenditure, because the point of diminishing returns is exactly the facility we just built: worth it to confirm the Higgs, but no new physics.

    People were dying inside when the LHC discovered no new physics for precisely this reason.

    Furthermore, even if you discover new physics at this energy scale, it surely won't trickle into practical applications—not outside of cosmological theory, in any case.

    The only way this gets built is on the velocity of established funding tributaries.

    Meanwhile proteomics / machine learning are poised to deliver to the 21st century what particle physics delivered to the 20th century, if we're smart enough to look forwards, rather than perseverate on former glories.

    1. Re:no new physics by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...the velocity of established funding tributaries

      ...perseverate on former glories

      The sheer marketing-douchebaggery above has shifted the Metaverse out of balance and the only thing that'll set it right is a hard knock to your head.

    2. Re:no new physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex (2015) within the last year and I know that the achievements in this line of research have historically been immense, and I still don't think we should continue with yet another colossal expenditure, because the point of diminishing returns is exactly the facility we just built: worth it to confirm the Higgs, but no new physics.

      People were dying inside when the LHC discovered no new physics for precisely this reason.

      Furthermore, even if you discover new physics at this energy scale, it surely won't trickle into practical applications—not outside of cosmological theory, in any case.

      The current cost estimates for the FCC is EUR 9B, which is about USD 10B. One Ford-class aircraft carrier is costing USD 13B, and there will be about a dozen of them all told.

      I think the world can afford one accelerator, amortized over thirty years--even with opportunity costs of perhaps not doing other things.

      The era of "cheap" science may be drawing to a close, given we're plucking all the low-hanging fruit, but we're spending so much money on less 'important' things as well (how big is the cosmetics industry?), splurging on one of these isn't unreasonable IMHO.

    3. Re:no new physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Meanwhile proteomics / machine learning are poised to deliver to the 21st century what particle physics delivered to the 20th century,"

      You had me for a while, and then this total nonsense.

      Captcha: palming !

    4. Re:no new physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford-class aircraft carrier costs about $6.5mil/day to operate. Or about $120bil over its lifetime. The $8bil to build and $5bil to research is a drop in the bucket over actually using it.

  24. Goal by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    What new particle are the looking to observe with a 10-time larger collider?

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

      Dunno. We'll see. That's the point.

  25. Future CC by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    How will they call the next one?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Future CC by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      And will they continue to call it the "Future" CC after it is built? Unless they are really building a time machine and will call the next one the "Past Collider" after they go back to 1965 and build it.

  26. It's a risky gamble by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    This can reasonably be justified if evidence can be presented that new physics will be found by such an accelerator. LHC found the Higgs, and that alone already justifies its existence. However, it has found no evidence whatsoever of supersymmetric particles, or anything, at that. It might be the case that one needs to go to even higher energies - but the truth is that supersymmetry theories lose much of their appeal with every new TeV that is explored, without finding anything. If this accelerator is built, and it finds nothing, that would be the death knell for experimental high-energy particle physics.

  27. Always want something bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build one around the equator.

  28. China got pwned, again !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China plans to build a new collider 5 times more powerful than the LHC - https://www.popularmechanics.c...

    If CERN's new 10-time-more-powerful it will definitely shitfuck the Chinese to the end of the universe !

  29. FuCC Up could be ... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    the next particle's name ....

  30. Concrete lasts over a century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Concrete structures can last a long time. The Pentagon is over 70 years old, Hoover Dam is over 80 years old, the Edison Concrete Houses are over 100 years old. A border wall will make it take longer to cross the border, and make the trespasser more vulnerable to detection by border patrol.

    Besides, labor in the USA is expensive. Expect to pay ~$150,000/year per ICE agent. There are over >10 million illegal aliens in the USA. I'd hire a few hundred thousand ICE agents. That's about $40 billion a year. Congress probably knows this, and is doing a half ass effort of deportations.

    1. Re:Concrete lasts over a century by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >A border wall will make it take longer to cross the border, and make the trespasser more vulnerable to detection by border patrol.

      And so harm the economy by inhibiting the free movement of goods and labor.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  31. Why on earth put it there? by AntisocialNetworker · · Score: 1

    It's in a mountainous region. Surely it would be so much easier to build in in a desert. Shovelling sand vs. Blasting tunnels.
    Can't help seeing this as a European vanity project.

    1. Re:Why on earth put it there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooling. I don't know the details as I'm sort of dumb on that stuff, but the magnets that serve as beam guides on these accelerators have to be cooled to some crazy low temperature to function, and even in temperate climates the tunnels housing the accelerators get uncomfortably hot.

    2. Re:Why on earth put it there? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to keep equipment like this working when it's not moving around on sand, travel times are reduced massively, and they have lots of access to fresh, cold water.

  32. Bigger is not always better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a blog post from an actual physicist arguing against the new collider:

    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/01/particle-physicists-want-money-for.html

  33. Another outrageous fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of this will help humanity in any way, just like the last fraud at CERN. They'll make up 'particles' and claim to have 'found' them. There will be no practical value to any of their 'research'. Unless you count making a small handful of 'scientists' rich and on a lifelong gravy train as 'value'...