Langehund,

I feel if they know that this 100km collider can uncover 95% of the secrets of physics then it’s barely an inconvenience to build the 105km collider instead and discover the remaining 5%.

wahming,

Pareto principle, this is only 20% of what’s needed. So we need another 400km

Wanderer,

Could is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

The LHC was expected to do the same.

nicetriangle,
nicetriangle avatar

Yeah I’m just not sure how much I believe this thing is worth the investment at all and the fact that it’s 100km just proves these guys were like “uhhh, let’s make it BIG NUMBER KM LONG.”

I think there’s likely quite a lot of other worthier expenditures in science research than this indulgent toy.

Nurgle,
flyboy_146,

I think Sabine would like this.

alternative_factor,
alternative_factor avatar

At this rate we will have colliders that encircle the entire planet like a super advanced ancient civilization from a videogame.

And009,

Yes it taking too long

Gork,

The Future Circular Collider is such a boring, uninspired name.

I think we should take a hint from the astronomers and name it like how they name bigger telescopes.

Very Large Hadron Collider

A_A,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

The UK’s former chief scientific adviser, Prof Sir David King, told the BBC: “When the world is faced with threats from the climate emergency, would it not be wiser to channel these research funds into the endeavours to create a manageable future?

Yes I would say. Anyway, we receive cosmic ray at 10^21^ electronVolts from outer space. So, nature phenomenas should be studied otherwise.

andy_wijaya_med,
@andy_wijaya_med@lemmy.world avatar

You know where people/ government shouldn’t put money into? Weapons. So much money wanted on weapon developments where they can be used for sciebe, education, health.

Rooskie91,

Yeah but like… Isn’t 5% of the universe still a lot? /S

Rentlar,

95% of the universe? Why not 96%?

  • Overbearing parents everywhere
Sabata11792,
Sabata11792 avatar

You can unlock the extra 1% of the universe with an additional 10 billion in funding.

Gork,
i_have_no_enemies,

Construction only begins in the 2040s

why are science projects so slow? can we do anything to speed them up? maybe increase investments?

ralphio,

And who is complaining about 17bn? For what the LHC accomplished and the potential of a new collider. This is about understanding the fundamental nature of the universe and reality. The implications for future tech are limitless.

nicetriangle,
nicetriangle avatar

Not a gotcha question, but what things did the LHC discover that have real practical applications right now other than validating some hypothesis? Because I’ve looked into it before and turned up nothing so I’m wondering what I’m missing.

spartanatreyu,
@spartanatreyu@programming.dev avatar

Your question:

what things did the LHC discover that have real practical applications right now other than validating some hypothesis

Is really multiple questions:

  1. Is doing fundamental research with no application in mind useful?
  2. Has the LHC led to practical applications usable today

The answer to question 1 is yes.

There’s different types of research programs made to target different goals. Some aim for short or medium term applications, and others are just pure fundamental research.

Just because pure research doesn’t have an application in mind, doesn’t mean it’s not useful. The application isn’t the goal, the expansion of our knowledge base is. Everyone who ever thought up of an application for something did so based on their own knowledge base. If the knowledge base never expands, then we run out of applications to think up. This is why pure research is useful.

And all of history supports this:

  • The discovers of rays shooting off cathode-ray-tubes in the 1800s were just doing pure research and had no idea it would lead to TVs
  • particle accelerator research lead to invention of cat scans
  • chemists trying to research heavier elements leading to the discovery of nuclear fission, leading to nuclear power
  • electrolysis research lead to the invention of lead (and rechargeable) batteries
  • etc…

The answer to question 2 is also yes:

The obvious ones are:

  • improved manufacturing processes
  • improved supercooled superconductors
  • improved large scale vacuum chambers
  • Improved data processing
  • Trained a new cohort of experienced scientists/engineers/workers/etc (who can now work on new projects outside of the LHC)
themeatbridge,

Planning. You have to write down every detail, and it takes time and costs money. Someone has to figure out how to manufacture ever part, estimate how many labor hours it will take, select paint colors and door handles and a billion other small things. It will require teams of people coordinating efforts around the globe and getting feedback from every stakeholder imaginable.

DrunkDragon,

Blue. I choose blue. We are now one step closer to a new collider. You’re welcome.

i_have_no_enemies,

the parts are just more sciency pipes

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • world@lemmy.world
  • cisconetworking
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ngwrru68w68
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • JUstTest
  • cubers
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • Durango
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • modclub
  • tacticalgear
  • megavids
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines