Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Japan Science

Ask Slashdot: Should Scientists Build a New Particle Collider In Japan? 292

gbrumfiel writes "The world's most powerful particle collider ended an epic proton run yesterday morning, and researchers are already looking to the future. They want to build a 31-kilometer, multi-billion-dollar International Linear Collider (ILC) to study the recently-discovered Higgs boson in more detail and to look for new things as well. Japan has recently emerged as the front-runner to host the new collider. The Liberal Democratic Party, which won this weekend's elections, actually support the ILC in its party platform. But it's not yet clear whether real money will be forthcoming, or whether European and American physicists will back a Japanese bid. What do Slashdotters think? Does particle physics need a new collider? Should it go to Japan?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <> on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:09AM (#42324381) Homepage Journal

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

  • by BoRegardless ( 721219 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:10AM (#42324387)

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

  • Earthquake risks? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by holiggan ( 522846 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:14AM (#42324433)

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

  • by acidfast7 ( 551610 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:15AM (#42324445)
    As someone who spends a lot of time in multinational scientific facilities (e.g. the Swiss Light Source) ... I don't understand the "Should it go to Japan?" question. It's infrastructure for the greater scientific community, so it doesn't matter where it's built.
  • by ggpauly ( 263626 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:26AM (#42324533) Homepage

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:29AM (#42324555)

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

  • Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @09:43AM (#42324663)

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

  • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by boristdog ( 133725 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @10:16AM (#42324999)

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

  • Re:Noooo! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RicktheBrick ( 588466 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:01AM (#42325481)
    This is like a child who has not opened all of their Christmas presents and yet demands more. The Cern Collider is not even at maximum power yet. At least wait until a couple of years of using it at maximum power before deciding that we need a new one. How about the one that is on the international space station? I thought that there were collision from particles from super nova that were much more powerful than even the new Cern Collider. At least play with the toys you have now before asking for new ones.
  • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by s13g3 ( 110658 ) on Tuesday December 18, 2012 @11:32AM (#42325779) Journal

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

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


The other line moves faster.