CERN's New Collider Design Is Four Times Larger Than the LHC (vice.com) 145
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.
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.
Diablo (Score:2, Flamebait)
Future Circular Collider will be 10 times more powerful
FUCC!
Re:Diablo (Score:5, Funny)
The current one failed to create a black hole so they need to try again.
Re: (Score:2)
FuCC Up could be ... (Score:2)
Two questions. (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?
Re:Two questions. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.
For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier, 40% more than the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
Re: (Score:1)
For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier
So... really cheap?
Re:Two questions. (Score:5, Funny)
According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.
17 Gillion Dollars??
Re: (Score:1)
Gigabux.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well since China and Japan combined bought more than 2 trillion dollars of US debt, technically THEY are the ones paying for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
According to the article, the current cost estimate is 17 G$.
For comparison: That is 30% more than a Ford-class aircraft carrier, 40% more than the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
A heck of a lot less than a wall though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Trump but the walls cost is much less than an aircraft carrier. The main complaint is that it is a waste of money compared to using it for other border enforcement, and that it results in a physical monument to Trump's ego.
Re: (Score:2)
That does sound much closer than I thought.
I am assuming only a few hundred miles of "wall" need to be built to satisfy Trump's ego, but if that article is correct even this costs the same as an aircraft carrier when my guess was about 1/10. And if he really insists on a wall or fence everywhere that is not the Rio Grande it seems it would cost more. If an actual solid wall along the north shore of the Rio Grande is needed then it is going to cost a significant fraction. As pointed out the California high s
Re: (Score:2)
>A border wall will make it take longer to cross the border, and make the trespasser more vulnerable to detection by border patrol.
And so harm the economy by inhibiting the free movement of goods and labor.
Re: (Score:1)
Si unit prefix not us colocial for thosand see alks GB (Giga Byte)
Re: (Score:2)
17 G$
Zimbabwean?
Re: (Score:1)
Mexico?
Re:Two questions. (Score:5, 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... [web.cern.ch]
Re:Two questions. (Score:4, Informative)
I'd assume that it will be paid mostly by CERN member states. Top contributors to CERN's 2019 budget:
See https://fap-dep.web.cern.ch/rp... [web.cern.ch] for details.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [uci.edu]:
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 bil
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
the tunnel
The US has helped dig enough trenches in Europe.
Do it up big! (Score:2)
Scienctists have a dream... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scienctists have a dream... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
What better use? (Score:3)
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...
Re:Scienctists have a dream... (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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, eve
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (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:
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 mon
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Won't happen (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
"civilized"
If it's civilized to sound and act like you then by all means you can keep it.
Re:Won't happen (Score:4, 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. :-)
Agree...but for different reasons (Score:3)
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
At least Fermi is happy (Score:2)
At last: a solution to the Fermi paradox.
FCC! That's big. (Score:2)
Higgs boson, not Huge bosom discovered @ Cern (Score:2)
Cost from TFA -- $17 billion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It might be more useful to invest in, for example, carbon sequestration tech in the short term instead
Trees have already been invented.
Build a fembot for Bezos (Score:1)
Benefits? (Score:3)
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?
no new physics (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Goal (Score:3)
Future CC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a risky gamble (Score:2)
Why on earth put it there? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:DANGER Will Robinson (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Gordon Freeman is going to need the giant anime sword of crowbars for this one!