CERN eyes new giant particle collider

Feb 06, 2014 by Nina Larson

Europe's physics lab CERN said Thursday it was eyeing plans for a circular particle collider that would be seven times more powerful than the facility which discovered the famous "God particle."

"The time has come to look even further ahead," the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) announced.

In 2012, CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC)—a giant lab housed in a 27-kilometre (17-mile) tunnel straddling the French-Swiss border—identified what is believed to be the Higgs boson, the long-sought maker of mass theorised in the 1960s.

The facility flushed out the so-called God particle by crashing proton beams at velocities near the speed of light. It went offline a year ago for an 18-month overhaul.

The LHC, completed in 2008, has "at least 20 more years" of life in it, the agency said.

However, the long time needed to build its successor—the LHC took a quarter of a century—means that planning should start now.

It will launch a feasibility study next week for a so-called Future Circular Collider (FCC) with a circumference of 80 to 100 kilometres (50 to 60 miles).

The FCC would probably be located in the same area and may incorporate the LHC tunnel in its infrastructure, CERN said in a statement.

The LHC after its overhaul will see collision energies reach 14 teraelectron volts (TeV) but the FCC should be capable of reaching unprecedented smashups of around 100 TeV, CERN said.

The FCC study will run in parallel with an ongoing probe into an alternative design—an 80-kilometre (50-mile) straight collider dubbed the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC).

The two studies will examine the feasibility and costs and produce conceptual designs by 2018/2019, when the European-wide strategy on particle physics research is set to be updated.

The winner will be "a worthy successor to the LHC," CERN said.

A worker walks past the Compact Muon Solenoid, a general-purpose detector at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) Large Hadron Collider, in Meyrin, near Geneva on July 19, 2013

"Such an accelerator would allow particle physics to push back the boundaries of knowledge even further," it claimed.

Targets could include supersymmetry, the notion that there are novel which mirror each known particle.

It could also help shed light on dark matter, which comprises most of the cosmos and whose existence is inferred from their impact on ordinary matter.

Some 300 scientists will meet at the University of Geneva from February 12-15 to kick off the five-year feasibility study for the FCC.

There is no way of knowing how much building the FCC would cost at this stage, CERN spokesman Arnaud Marsollier told AFP.

Conceived in the 1980s and approved in the 1990s, the LHC cost 5.0 billion Swiss francs ($5.6 billion, 4.1 billion euros) to build.

CERN aims to have enough information by the end of the decade to—along with its global partners—be able to decide which way to go, he said. He acknowledged that any new project is certainly decades from completion.

Explore further: CERN prepares its long-term future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

CERN prepares its long-term future

Feb 06, 2014

Particle physics takes the long-term view. Originally conceived in the 1980s, the LHC took another 25 years to come into being. This accelerator, which is unlike any other, is just at the start of a programme ...

CERN scientists brainstorm future role

Sep 12, 2012

Scientists who searched for the famous Higgs Boson concluded a three-day brainstorming session on Wednesday for mapping a long-term global strategy for particle physics.

'God Particle' Nobel ticks boson box for CERN

Oct 08, 2013

The reflected glory of a Nobel prize for the minds behind the "God particle" sent champagne corks popping at Europe's top physics lab CERN Tuesday, vindicating its landmark discovery a year ago.

Physics group looks ahead past LHC to LEP3

Aug 08, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A group of physicists is looking beyond the usefulness of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to a new collider that would sit in the tunnel still occupied by the LHC, to an updated version of what ...

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

23 hours ago

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

Jul 30, 2014

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2014
As a physicist I'm happy to see bigger and more powerful colliders, but really this is just absurd. Like they said, the LHC was a real stretch at 25 years building time. There are many physicists who have spent their entire careers, even a majority of their life working on this thing. Who would be willing to spend 30, 40, 50 years working on this "Future Circular Collider"? Moreover - and I hate to say this - is it even worth it at that point?

My feeling is that future "super colliders" probably ought to be shelved until we find better ways to do this stuff. Perhaps we can build some sort of linear collider in space in a few decades after asteroid mining takes off. Or perhaps build a network of telescopes to observe high energy physics around black holes. Or design better plasma wave accelerators.

Again, as a physicist it pains me to say this, but the super collider age is ending. And it should. There's a point at which the costs get too large to ignore, and we're there now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2014
This would put potential antimatter production that much closer to the facility which may be able to store it in bulk, that being ITER directly south of CERN and west of Nice.

You know its interesting though probably nothing... this is all occurring in the ancient kingdom of burgundia.
http://en.wikiped...2_EN.png

-which is roughly the area which himmler had designated as the postwar SS State of Burgundy

"It was supposed to encompass French Switzerland (Romandy), Picardy with Amiens, the Champagne district with Reims and Troyes, the Franche Comté with Dijon, Chalons, and Nevers, Hainaut and Luxembourg (Belgium). It was also to have a connection to both the Mediterranean Sea as well as the English Channel."
http://en.wikiped...Burgundy

-The potential to generate all that power in this particular location, so steeped in mystical lore... Im sure its just a bizarre coincidence. Never mind. A
chaps
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2014
@ axemaster

As an engineer, I'm also happy to see complex BIG machines of any kind. Heck, even a huge garbage compactor is cool. But I second your opinion. In fact, this "feasibility" study is basically a meeting to figure out how to convince investors to secure future employment for these scientists and engineers. This is worse than the pork our politicians here in the US are always trying to fetch. Just the build time alone for the LHC took 10 years; it has been in operation for less than 4 years and these guys are already talking about refurbishing it into a bigger collider and also build a linear one, CLIC. This is like someone building a house to specs. just to reconfigure it's layout in 4 years! I'm sorry, but I'm neither impressed nor excited. I wished all these efforts were used in more productive things, such as securing sustainable, nuclear power for the masses.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
In fact, this "feasibility" study is basically a meeting to figure out how to convince investors to secure future employment for these scientists and engineers
There is plenty of things for future scientists and engineers to be working on. We have to speculate on what else a facility of this size could be used for which might be of immeasurable benefit to civilization.

And we arrive at antimatter production. Which they are already making at CERN.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2014
This is like someone building a house to specs. just to reconfigure it's layout in 4 years!


Eh, more like building a factory and then starting to plan where your next factory will be built and with what kind of machinery while the first one is just getting up and running. These sorts of things take long periods of time to design, and are, generally driven by what needs we face in physics at the time they're commissioned.

RHIC was built to make quark gluon plasma. Now it does great work at polarized nuclear studies and lower-energy measures of the QGP. The LHC was built to be a Higgs-finder. Now it will go on to supersymmetry and other problems. We likely need a Higgs factory, but that's best done as a lepton collider, so likely a linear electron collider, though a muon collider could be even better (but more technically challenging). So a Higgs factory collider is likely our next challenge.
shavera
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 06, 2014
What we find in the next couple of years re: supersymmetry, dark matter, etc. at the LHC, or what we don't find, is likely to set our needs for the next super huge collider. If it ends up being this proposed circular 10km collider, then that's what science will push for. If the collider doesn't justify its costs, certainly other scientists competing for scarce dollars will try to get the money to go towards projects that do justify the cost.

that being said, Otto, none of these things actually are "useful" to society beyond science. The few collider driven pieces of technology we need have long ago been adapted into smaller, specialized machines not designed to do precision science, but to manufacture isotopes and the like.
grondilu
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2014
Wasn't there lately an article about a method to accelerate particles with a microscopic glass lattice or something?

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

I mean, do scientists really need to build larger and larger accelerators, these days?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2014
What can I add...not a lot. I agree that the large collider days are numbered and the current trend is smaller not bigger in structure. They have done a great job but for reasons already posted it's time to put them in the history books. Even on pys.org articles Lasers are becoming the machines to watch let alone other experiments that are presently classified.
However, I think the main hurdle is persuading those who invest to support this so that scientists can experiment 'in their own back yard' as it were. I'm sure those like axemaster know how difficult that is going to be. It will take a lot of courage and sacrifice (that is some scientist may have become a 'political arm') to achieve but I feel confident it will come.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
As the project has been presented in December 2013, the news here is that they are initiating an exploratory study. The goal is to reach energies in the region of 100TeV. It is good news, since they are investing in technologies that are presently under development and it brings the realisation of another giant collider closer to reality. A step in the right direction as far as HEP is concerned. Someday soon hopefully, we will put the sad story of the SSC behind.
http://indico.ihe...fId=3813
PhotonX
5 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2014
While it may well be that we are approaching the point of diminishing returns, I don't see any harm in at least considering the feasibility. The way I look at the LHC, Europe decided to build a scientific instrument rather than building a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier like the U.S. does. The new collider might be the equivalent of a Ford-class carrier with it's air wing and support ships. The difference is that the developmental funds will go to science and technology firms and not to weapons makers, and while both the carrier and the collider will eventually become obsolete, only one of them passes on knowledge of first-principle science on to future generations.
.
While a space-based instrument sounds sexy, at the rate we're going now, we won't be to that point of space-based industrial development for centuries.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
Bring it on! CERN have brought us so much insight, knowledge and understanding of the world around us. After all the Fyra's, JSF's and EU lobbymisery, at least I know this tax-euro will be well spent.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
There's a point at which the costs get too large to ignore, and we're there now.


Do you really believe that yourself? Sure these things cost a lot and take a lot of resources (even then, the money is mostly invested in providing jobs and in itself creating a small economy in the area), but what's any amount of money worth vs a contribution to humanity - forever -?
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2014
Who would be willing to spend 30, 40, 50 years working on this "Future Circular Collider"?

Who wouldn't? The time may have come when research endeavours have become so big that they span multiple generations. If that's the (only) way to gain more fundamental insights then I say: go go go.

is it even worth it at that point

We need to know what types of things make up the universe - as I'm sure we'll find good uses for it (where would we be if we had never looked e.g. for antimatter? No PET scans for one thing). Knowing about the Higgs was a start which may give us one day control over momentum/inertia (think about what kind of awesome stardrives you could construct with such knowledge. We could actually GO somewhere else - and not just interplanetary with chemical/atomic rockets)

While I agree that we should look at alternatives, too, I don't think we should shelve the concept just yet.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
On top of that: If the feasibility study turns out positive then this will have to be a truly omni-national project. Not like the LHC or other colliders where it's just some nations (or one nation). We shouldn't forget the political impact this may have - and we desparately need something that the world, as a whole, works together on. The olympcs don't cut it anymore.

As for the use: Remember that stuff like lasers were seen as "quaint curiosities without practical applications" at first. The current bunch of people (especially non-scientists) aren't the type to have the kind of imagination it needs to transfrom this knowledge into applications. That will come when people think about these new things for a few years - never fear.
alfie_null
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2014
How much did CERN cost? How much did Sochi? If they could somehow make particle collision into an Olympic event, nobody would notice the cost.
Requiem
5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2014
How much did CERN cost? How much did Sochi? If they could somehow make particle collision into an Olympic event, nobody would notice the cost.


Heh, I was already planning on making a comment about this when I got down here and read yours.

Sochi cost Russia alone an estimated $50 BILLION. That's how much. Absolutely fucking disgusting. Meanwhile we've got NASA crying that if they just had another $3-5B distributed over the next 10 years we could do a Mars return mission. I could go on about just how deeply disgusting that is when put in perspective with ongoing space/science budgets or even entire flagship space missions, but I don't think I really need to.
john_goverts
5 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2014
First paragraph:
"Europe's physics lab CERN said Thursday it was eyeing plans for a circular particle collider that would be seven times more powerful than the facility which discovered the famous "God particle."

Stop. Calling. It. The. God. Particle !!!
TechnoCreed
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
Stop. Calling. It. The. God. Particle !!!

I totally agree! But since the article is not about the Higgs boson, your comment is just digression.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2014
On top of that: If the feasibility study turns out positive then this will have to be a truly omni-national project. Not like the LHC or other colliders where it's just some nations (or one nation). .


Actually CERN consists of 21 full member countries, 4 associate member countries(those 4 are exempt from financial contribution), Co-operation agreements with 43 other countries, looking forward to welcome India, Brazil and the US as new members and knowledge is shared with the whole planet.

it's quite an international effort already.

Should anyone ever have the chance of visiting CERN, do it, I guarantee you will be amazed!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2014
that being said, Otto, none of these things actually are "useful" to society beyond science
We need to consider the 'omni-national' execution of such projects as useful to civilization. Cooperating in design and engineering, site selection, fabrication of components in remote locations for assembly, funding from many sources, are extremely valuable skills and essential for the future. The ISS is a valuable project for the same reasons.

One can imagine future such megaprojects like space elevators, colonies, orbital power stations, terraforming, climate modification, impact avoidance etc which will require the same degree of commitment and cooperation. The only way to develop this ability is to do projects like this.

Plus, future gens will thank us for having the foresight to build an antimatter factory in this specific location. Not to mention the 8000 tons of fissiles we now possess.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2014
We shouldn't forget the political impact this may have - and we desparately need something that the world, as a whole, works together on. The olympcs don't cut it anymore.
AA thinks that social cohesion is the most important product of such projects. I say the skills we develop to do such projects, is their most important product.

In the US, no single state could build the interstate highway system. But the system was essential and inevitable. The states had to learn how to cooperate in order to produce it. Laws and standards had to be written, economics and politics adjusted, modes of communication developed as a result.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Feb 07, 2014
Here is a link to Lubos Motl's page. He is always interresting when the subject is HEP. For those who do not know him I should warn you that his extremely conservative point of views are,sometime very disturbing.

The funny thing is that he published a short article on the subject 7 hours ago; one hour after my own comment here. And just like me he brought back the SSC story.
http://motls.blog...ssc.html
bg1
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
Development of 'Star Trek' technology requires scientific discoveries enabled by these colliders.
baudrunner
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
What I fear the most is that some double-Y psychopath (read mad scientist) manages to find the spot on the top of the CERN engineering hierarchy in order to work his evil scheme to fulfill his ultimate ambition: http://cdn.physor...saan.jpg
sirchick
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
I hope im alive when this is completed and operational!!

The hunt for the higgs boson was fun and exciting & brought science to the media a lot more than ever before, for good or bad! (the bad being the idiots who thought we would all die! ) !

It's gone a bit quiet at moment though.

Side question: how much bigger or smaller does this proposed collider compare to the one that was cancelled in USA a long time ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 08, 2014
Side question: how much bigger or smaller does this proposed collider compare to the one that was cancelled in USA a long time ?
This is the internet. Why don't you look it up and get back to us rather than asking someone here to look it up for you? Let me help - google 'USA collider cancelled'. Then click on the wiki link and learn something.
Thanx
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Feb 08, 2014
Side question: how much bigger or smaller does this proposed collider compare to the one that was cancelled in USA a long time ?

Go to the link I provided above as it is one of the topics.
TechnoCreed
not rated yet Feb 08, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923

:-) !!!

(For those who do not understand, we responded exactly at the same time, with the same quote)
Nestle
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
In my opinion, the further increase of energy of collision will not bring any new physics for us - it will just increase the noise-signal ratio, because our Universe appears like the landscape under the fog: the stronger light we will use for its observation, the more we will get blinded with it. Most of interesting effects, which the physicists looked for (extradimensions, microblack holes, supersymmetry effects) were already missed and ignored - just because they do belong into familiarly known effects (like the formation of atom nuclei during collisions, which IMO correspond the formation of microblack holes, stabilized with extradimensions). This is the consequence of the fact, that the modern theories work at the qualitative level only, they're heavily broken with extradimensions (which they're trying to reveal at the same moment) - so that they're missing the forest for the trees.
Nestle
2 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2014
the LHC cost 5.0 billion Swiss francs ($5.6 billion, 4.1 billion euros) to build
This cost is much higher - by Wikipedia source it was $9bn or £6.19bn as of Jun 2010. In addition, each additional year of LHC operation is worth of 1.2 billion euros. With such an investments into cold fusion research we all would already have cold fusion generators in ever home. The attitude of mainstream physics community gets increasingly masochistic.
Horus
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
It seems an obvious obstacle is the advancement of exotic materials to make it possible, on a much smaller scale, to capture the attentions of particle physicists undiscovered territories.

Think smart, not harder.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Feb 09, 2014
In my opinion, the further increase of energy of collision will not bring any new physics for us - it will just increase the noise-signal ratio

@zephir
I disagree. I believe that you need to have high energy collisions to replicate conditions speculated about during the BB in order to:
A: prove or disprove the models used in early universe
B: generate the necessary energy collisions to replicate current speculative models
increasing the energy for basic science will always be a win in the long run, for new technology, new physics and new information, IMHO
Most of interesting effects, which the physicists looked for (extradimensions, microblack holes, supersymmetry effects) were already missed and ignored

personal conjecture
This is the consequence of ... - so that they're missing the forest for the trees

personal conjecture
we all would already have cold fusion generators in ever home

personal conjecture
fmfbrestel
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2014
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2014
AA thinks that social cohesion is the most important product of such projects.

No. As usual you misunderstand what I write (which is really showing up a trend: dumb people shouldn't try to interpret what more intelligent people write - they always get it wrong. Notice that I said "on top of that...". If you have a hard time reading/understanding even something that blatant then don't bother )

I say the international effort could be a good SIDE BENEFIT. If I thought the science one could do with this wouldn't be worth it I wouldn't condone it.
Osteta
Feb 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Osteta
Feb 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sirchick
5 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2014
Side question: how much bigger or smaller does this proposed collider compare to the one that was cancelled in USA a long time ?
This is the internet. Why don't you look it up and get back to us rather than asking someone here to look it up for you? Let me help - google 'USA collider cancelled'. Then click on the wiki link and learn something.
Thanx


I asked in the live chat room got the answer much faster, thanks for nothing any way :) Time it took you write that could've just answered it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
You cannot prove the cosmology by looking at the particle collider. The history of Universe can be proven only with astronomical observations of distant objects

@osteta/zephir
quit being an idiot
the particle accelerators mimic the power of the early universe in an attempt to discern the fundamental structure of the universe
you CAN determine certain things about the universe based upon the EXPERIMENTAL DATA from particle accelerators
From CERN website
At CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, physicists and engineers are probing the fundamental structure of the universe. They use the world's largest and most complex scientific instruments to study the basic constituents of matter – the fundamental particles. The particles are made to collide together at close to the speed of light. The process gives the physicists clues about how the particles interact, and provides insights into the fundamental laws of nature.
[sic]
IOW- you are WRONG
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2014
For the price of one Iraq War we could have the Super-Collider, the James Webb Space Telescope, a semi-permanent lunar base/observatory, AND a good start on a manned mission to Mars.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2014
For the price of one Iraq War we could have the Super-Collider, the James Webb Space Telescope, a semi-permanent lunar base/observatory, AND a good start on a manned mission to Mars.
But then there would still be a war to fight and it would cost even more. We dont have unlimited funds you know.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2014
But then there would still be a war to fight and it would cost even more. We dont have unlimited funds you know.

Why would we still have to fight that war? It seems like Saddam as bad as he was was keeping "his" people in line. Those people are not culturally sophisticated enough to play by our rules, they need a Saddam to manage them. Look at Egypt when they went for democracy,,,,, they elected an Islamist who turned right around attempted to set up a caliphate. The military had to move to return the state to a pre-democracy status quo.

The best cap on Iran's nuclear ambitions was a strong Saddam, now Iran has an ally that we created. The 100's & 100's of billions of dollars & lost lives achieved nothing but create an ally for Iran and the 12ers. And all those people in Iraq? They all still hate us, all sides, but still accept our dollars/arms/aid.

I say if they want to kill each other off in their holy wars, let them have at. They're not ready for the 21st cent.
TechnoCreed
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
@ Q-Star
Otto Dix is quirky (aren't we all!) but still interesting; some kind of sci-fi inspiration for me. You should be careful not to wage ideological war here. Phys.org is about science not ideology after all. As for the middle-east people, let Malala speak for them. She is just one exemple of goodwill, but I am sure that there is more people like her, in this region, than one might think.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
@ Q-Star
Otto Dix is quirky (aren't we all!) but still interesting; some kind of sci-fi inspiration for me. You should be careful not to wage ideological war here. Phys.org is about science not ideology after all. As for the middle-east people, let Malala speak for them. She is just one exemple of goodwill, but I am sure that there is more people like her, in this region, than one might think.


I don't know Malala, so she can speak for them all she wants. I'll be seeing what I see. I've known Otto here for a long time. There is no "ideological" war between us. Everyone is right sometimes, and wrong sometimes, He has a pretty good track record of being pretty insightful and thoughtful, it's his "way of speaking" that most people have trouble with. I don't have that trouble though, Otto is what he is and brings a lot to the table.

As for being careful here? So you've been here a month, and I've been here for years, thanks for your concern and advice , but I'm a big boy.
Requiem
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
For the price of one Iraq War we could have the Super-Collider, the James Webb Space Telescope, a semi-permanent lunar base/observatory, AND a good start on a manned mission to Mars.


We could have FAR more than that. You've tallied up less than $100B conservatively and less than $200B no matter what so far. Keep going, you have another $3800B-$5800B left.

http://articles.l...20130318
Requiem
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
Agreed with Q-Star about Otto, he likes his tinfoil a bit too much(I thought this for over a year before our china thing Otto so you don't need to get all puffy), but aside from that he usually at least makes me laugh, and most of the time with him. Pretty decent forum warrior.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
Why would we still have to fight that war? It seems like Saddam as bad as he was was keeping "his" people in line. Those people are not culturally sophisticated enough to play by our rules, they need a Saddam to manage them. Look at Egypt etc
You are ignoring the only important factor. Religion-fueled population growth makes war inevitable. You can discuss the political details of one regime or the other, but if you step back a few paces you can see that the whole region has erupted BECAUSE overpopulation is causing people to suffer.

The west invaded iraq and afghanistan in order to compartmentalize the ME. This prevented a regional revolution which would have formed an islamist empire from syria to pakistan. It enabled conflict to be confined within existing borders.

These revolutions can happen extremely fast - consider how communism swept eurasia and eliminated borders in only a decade or 2. A nuclear-armed, pan-arab islamist caliphate would be far far more dangerous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
Agreed with Q-Star about Otto, he likes his tinfoil a bit too much
Nothing weird about the russian and chinese revolutions is there? Nothing extraterrestrial about the speed with which islam spread from the arabian peninsula to conquer north africa, spain, the eastern roman empire, and a great deal of india, in only a few generations now IS there? The only thing that stopped THAT caliphate was ottoman turkish oppression and a few brave franks. And a couple million mongols.

You think that revolutions are so last century? Growth rates are even steeper now, and global warming is making even more people suffer.

Al qaeda and the taliban are not losing despite the large numbers being killed by pakistani and coilition forces. They are NOT going away, because they have virtually unlimited feedstock.

And so let me repeat: war is INEVITABLE until the obsolete religionist cultures which DEMAND it, cease to exist. And postponing it only makes it WORSE.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
For the price of one Iraq War we could have the Super-Collider, the James Webb Space Telescope, a semi-permanent lunar base/observatory, AND a good start on a manned mission to Mars.


We could have FAR more than that. You've tallied up less than $100B conservatively and less than $200B no matter what so far. Keep going, you have another $3800B-$5800B left.

http://articles.l...20130318


I'm sure you are probably correct, I was just trying to make the point that big science is not so costly as other endeavors that the average person just takes as "routine business as usual". Big science gives a much better return for the money and costs a lot less than "optional" warfare.
Requiem
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
Nothing weird about the russian and chinese revolutions is there? Nothing extraterrestrial about the speed with which islam spread from the arabian peninsula to conquer north africa, spain, the eastern roman empire, and a great deal of india, in only a few generations now IS there? The only thing that stopped THAT caliphate was ottoman turkish oppression and a few brave franks. And a couple million mongols.

You think that revolutions are so last century? Growth rates are even steeper now, and global warming is making even more people suffer.

Al qaeda and the taliban are not losing despite the large numbers being killed by pakistani and coilition forces. They are NOT going away, because they have virtually unlimited feedstock.

And so let me repeat: war is INEVITABLE until the obsolete religionist cultures which DEMAND it, cease to exist. And postponing it only makes it WORSE.


Hah whoa there, I didn't read any of this tangent on this thread so I wasn't commenting on it.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
@ Otto, I understand what you are saying. It's a good point. But I just don't agree about replacing a secular tyrant (Saddam) who the Iranian Mullahs & 12ers hate, with a co-religionist regime who are ideological brothers to Iran's form of religion.

I just can't see how that money was well spent. It did not create an ally or sympathetic power in the area, quite the opposite. For a small fraction of the costs, the U.S. could have bribed Saddam into changing his ways, and had a potential surrogate to annoy the Iranians with. Secular tyrants are cheap to buy off,,, a la Mubarak in Egypt.
Nestle
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
I'm not a friend of giant collider business in any way, but for example the latest Russian Olympic games did cost ten-times more than the whole LHC, just for comparison. The cost of one month of Iraq war is comparable. The actual danger of spending for collider research is in fact, it diverts the effort of the best brains on the planet from the research of findings, which do represent the actual contribution for the human civilization, like the cold fusion. Whereas the oil wars are by two orders more expensive, than the colliders, the ignorance of cold fusion comes with even much higher price, than that.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
I'm not a friend of giant collider business in any way, but for example the latest Russian Olympic games did cost ten-times more than the whole LHC, just for comparison. The cost of one month of Iraq war http://en.wikiped...raq_War, than that.


Yes Zephyr, I agree that just a part of the cost of the Iraq war could have returned enormous results in fusion research. Would we have been able to solve all the problems? Who knows. But we would have learned and be learning some good solid useful science.
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
But we would have learned and be learning some good solid useful science
This is just a religion. Good useful science is the cold fusion research, not the collider research, which is the remnant of cold war era. But as the proponents/opponents of sectarian societies know quite well, it's not all just about money. The scientists don't ignore the reality and don't damage the progress of civilization for money. These people are willing to keep the rest of civilization in poverty, if only they could find their own meaning of life in collider experiments in the underground.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
Good useful science is the cold fusion research, not the collider research, which is the remnant of cold war era

@Nestle/zephir
FUSION research I can agree with.
As for your "collider research"... the research done at CERN and other places is fundamental science. Without it we are just speculating. The Higgs was just an idea before we experimentally verified it at CERN...
These people are willing to keep the rest of civilization in poverty, if only they could find their own meaning of life in collider experiments in the underground

WTF?
What does that even mean?
do you think all those CERN scientists are ignoring everything around them in order to bash the living h*ll out of some particles?
they do FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE!
the stuff everything else is based on... the stuff that weaves out the crackpot ideas!
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2014
they do FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE!


I totally agree, but with the colliders it actually is a matter of "let's build a ring to speed up particles to as fast as possible ...and then bash the h#ll out of them particles to see what happens"

It's what puts the fun in fundamental science, probably the mental too.
Osteta
Feb 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2014
I'd rather follow the utilitarian priorities

@zephir
without fundamental sciences your utilitarian priorities are just guesses... therefore fundamental science research underpins EVERYTHING
cold fusion research is underfunded, despite it could utilize many insghts of nuclear physics of the past

personal conjecture without evidence
Higgs boson is overfunded, despite it has no practical applications

personal conjecture
and again, it is FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE
it applies to everything as it is a part of a known working model that is the most successful in history

also: the data from the Higgs tests are still giving us information that is not about the Higgs
and CERN does/did more than just Higgs research