TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

103 pointsby seagullzabout 5 years ago

25 comments

hpcjoeabout 5 years ago
As a (non-practicing) physicist, I&#x27;ve always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says. They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics.<p>It&#x27;s not.<p>When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment. I&#x27;ve seen&#x2F;experienced much of this during my time in research.<p>New physics not requiring an accelerator would include quantum computing; the real stuff of entangled qubits, and the pseudo-quantum stuff of adiabatically cooled circuits. More generally quantum mechanics interpretation and meaning. There are some unsettling things within QM, such as non-locality, and how to understand them.<p>There are many other examples, just listing 1 for brevity.<p>Basically, any text that begins with &quot;the set of all physics is HEP physics&quot; such as this article implies, is, pretty much by definition, incorrect.<p>I recall while the SSC was being built in Texas, that when the NSF asked for more money for researchers not involved in SSC, they were told that physics folks were getting enough. I remember my thesis advisor&#x27;s grant that I was funded on, getting cut to help fund other things.<p>Equating the new physics with new HEP physics is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, not even wrong. We don&#x27;t need accelerators for most new physics.
评论 #23137347 未加载
评论 #23133531 未加载
评论 #23137123 未加载
评论 #23134254 未加载
评论 #23134471 未加载
评论 #23135113 未加载
评论 #23136053 未加载
评论 #23136154 未加载
评论 #23134341 未加载
djaqueabout 5 years ago
My personal opinion (and I might be biased since I&#x27;m not a collider guy) is that it&#x27;s time to take a break from the energy frontier and put our efforts into other kinds of physics. There&#x27;s a whole world out there besides &quot;fixing&quot; the standard model.<p>I&#x27;m having a hard time finding it, but there&#x27;s a quote from a famous physicist along the lines of &quot;we already have a theory of everything we encounter in daily life, it&#x27;s just that we can&#x27;t apply it to practically anything&quot;. For instance, we still have no idea how unconventional superconductors work. Of course, they&#x27;re completely described by plain old quantum mechanics without even using field theory. However, that still doesn&#x27;t mean we understand them because the theory is too complex.<p>I&#x27;m personally interested in the rising complexity frontier of physics where increased computing power and new methods of approaching problems will help uncover emergent phenomena. Plus, there&#x27;s other accelerators besides colliders that are essential to this field (x-ray light sources for instance).<p>We should come back to the energy problem experimentally when we can affordably make a revolutionary accelerator (like x100, not a factor of 2 or 3). That will come when we have mastered advanced acceleration techniques like plasma and wakefield.
评论 #23133055 未加载
评论 #23134670 未加载
评论 #23133886 未加载
评论 #23133106 未加载
评论 #23133221 未加载
评论 #23139557 未加载
评论 #23134889 未加载
评论 #23133893 未加载
评论 #23132983 未加载
_fizz_buzz_about 5 years ago
A counter point by Sabine Hossenfelder: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;01&#x2F;23&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2019&#x2F;01&#x2F;23&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;particle-physics-...</a>
评论 #23132635 未加载
评论 #23132420 未加载
评论 #23132439 未加载
评论 #23131802 未加载
评论 #23133360 未加载
knzhouabout 5 years ago
Nima-Arkani Hamed likes to point out that particle colliders <i>aren&#x27;t</i> getting more expensive at all, in relative terms. The price tags are going up for just the same reason that you can&#x27;t buy a loaf of bread for a nickel anymore, but as a fraction of GDP, the next big collider has always been about 0.01%.<p>In fact, if there&#x27;s any identifiable trend at all, it&#x27;s that this fraction has been <i>falling</i>. The LHC, for instance, was slapped together after the last would-be supercollider was defunded, and reuses the LEP tunnel (built in the <i>1980s</i>). If you&#x27;re wondering why we took so long to find the Higgs boson, it&#x27;s because the field has already been shrinking under the pressure of declining funding for 40 years.
jarielabout 5 years ago
People have failed to mention the fact that the LHC has turned out to be kind of a failure, at least it hasn&#x27;t given the populist soundbites needed to support its&#x27; success. Nothing really &#x27;new&#x27; came out of it and it was very expensive.<p>People seem to be ignorant that everything has a populist aspect, and very expensive things always do.<p>The politicians who foot the bill are thinking &quot;We just spent bazillions and what did we get? Now we have to convince the proles to spend billions more?&quot;<p>If LHS gave us some really fundamental new insights, the Round B would be easy. But right now it&#x27;s like a startup with no &#x27;product market fit&#x27; it&#x27;s going to be hard.
评论 #23134460 未加载
orbifoldabout 5 years ago
More likely than not the next collider will be build in China, quite a few particle physicist luminaries have already made their case there. I for one am glad that I stayed clear of the siren call to join the 3000+ grad student workforce at CERN. Sifting through the heap of data that was assigned to you is about as fun as it sounds I think. You get to look for the J&#x2F;Psi, Pomeron, Dark Matter how exciting! In reality most of the detectors are barely functional, Alice for example doesn’t produce useful data for most of the runs.
评论 #23131893 未加载
评论 #23132453 未加载
评论 #23133452 未加载
评论 #23131951 未加载
评论 #23131942 未加载
neonateabout 5 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;tCzip" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;tCzip</a>
graycatabout 5 years ago
Here is some reasoning for funding -- i.e., US Congress funding -- high energy physics (HEP), e.g., the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), I didn&#x27;t see mentioned here:<p>(1) The Russians, EU, China, Japan might pursue HEP so the US does not want to appear to <i>fall behind</i>. So in part, the funding is &quot;a matter of national pride&quot;.<p>(2) The funding has a <i>constituency</i> and keeps it and the university physics departments going. The US does want healthy university physics departments if only to teach physics for all the roles all of physics can play in national security, NASA, the economy, other sciences, e.g., medicine, engineering, e.g., computing, etc.<p>For the power of <i>constituencies</i>, notice that a lot of physics laboratories were started during WWII and are still operating. One way and another, somehow they keep getting funding.<p>(3) In the Manhattan Project the world, the <i>power elite</i>, all of civilization were surprised, shocked, felt blind-sided, afraid. The lesson they took was: It&#x27;s a big, complicated universe out there; a good guess is that not nearly all of it is well understood (true or not); so we must pursue physics, at least <i>keep up</i> as <i>insurance</i> against another shocking discovery.<p>(4) The US likes to claim to have the best country, economy, culture, human rights, standard of living, roads, bridges, public health, Internet, ..., cars, hamburgers, milk, pizza, etc., basketball, Olympic athletes, pop music, etc., nearly the best of everything, in particular the best universities. So, can&#x27;t have a great university without at least a good physics department, and very much want a great physics department.<p>Short version: The US wants to be the best, e.g., be the first to put a human with a flag on Mars, the Stars and Stripes.
评论 #23138850 未加载
xvilkaabout 5 years ago
The interplanetary space is probably the best place to build a particle collider - you won&#x27;t need compensation fields and giant tube[s].
评论 #23134084 未加载
评论 #23134105 未加载
scottlocklinabout 5 years ago
At some point, elementary particle physics will actually die as a field and the people who persist in building particle accelerators as if there is some new electroweak theory right around the corner will have to find something else to do. Of course, they&#x27;ll probably continue with their pyramid building for decades after the subject has actually died.
jcimsabout 5 years ago
Complete physics moron here, is there no way to use particle&#x2F;anti-particle annihilation to drive collision energy up?<p>Also, i think if we invested the money for a new collider into an effort to develop what we&#x27;ve learned so far into a useful technology that inspires the general public, the funding for the next collider would take care of itself.
评论 #23135837 未加载
评论 #23136379 未加载
评论 #23135316 未加载
评论 #23135274 未加载
QuesnayJrabout 5 years ago
I was surprised by the possibility (raised by the article) that the Higgs could turn out to not actually be the Higgs, but just another particle with the right mass. Is that a real possibility?
评论 #23131900 未加载
K0SM0Sabout 5 years ago
Finding new physics will require removing a lot of dust on the politics of that field, and a vast re-evaluation of why and how people get funded. How important the is science versus everything else in the matter.<p>It&#x27;s not going to happen overnight, but it&#x27;s good that people are opening their eyes. Let&#x27;s reevaluate in 2040 and see if we&#x27;ve moved the needle in fundamental physics even just a little compared to what was achieved in the first half of the 20th century.
mD5pPxMcS6fVWKEabout 5 years ago
Wait, so fusion, solar panels, semiconductors, and anything practically important is not considered physics anymore? Well, people in HEP will necessarily use the definition &quot;Physics=HEP&quot; to get more funding. You can&#x27;t have a meaningfull argument if your well being depends on its outcome.
DrBazzaabout 5 years ago
Time to resurrect the SSC? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Superconducting_Super_Collider" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Superconducting_Super_Collider</a>
评论 #23132007 未加载
评论 #23132190 未加载
ajflores1604about 5 years ago
Article is paywalled for me so I don&#x27;t know if it&#x27;s mentioned, but it&#x27;s a shame the one in Texas was never finished. Was supposed to be 3x more powerful than the LHC.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Superconducting_Super_Collider" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Superconducting_Super_Collider</a>
mensetmanusmanabout 5 years ago
Quantum computers, fusion, free electron lasers, or particle accelerators, where would you put $100 000 000 000?
thysultanabout 5 years ago
Sounds like the particle collider people are having tunnel vision.<p>&quot;1 after the new particle collider&quot;: Guess what? we need an even bigger particle collider.<p>What we really need is to build one on the moon.
评论 #23133006 未加载
评论 #23132809 未加载
ngcc_hkabout 5 years ago
Finding some physics
quchenabout 5 years ago
Is there a non-paywalled link?
评论 #23131744 未加载
blargmaster33about 5 years ago
Let&#x27;s step back an perfect the physics we know. Perfect fission and fusion first! The short and long term benefits of that is more important the verifying for example the next Higgs boson.<p>While verifying the Higgs is nice there are no practical applications for the knowledge.
评论 #23132760 未加载
mylonsabout 5 years ago
i’m skeptical because that was the promise of the LHC.
评论 #23137099 未加载
thrower123about 5 years ago
Of course it does. They finished the LHC, it&#x27;s time for another white elephant to keep the gravy train rolling.
traesabout 5 years ago
&gt; A minifigure, 3 blocks high, is repesentative of an average American adult, at 1.753 meters tall<p>Shouldn&#x27;t it be the height of an average adult from Denmark? At 1.672m (edit: closer to 1.8) it&#x27;s a big enough difference to matter. The inaccuracies in this article are disgusting! This is a serious matter that has numerous implications, and is definitely not a joke.<p>Edit: I meant to post this somewhere else. Sorry.
评论 #23133244 未加载
ytersabout 5 years ago
Used to be breakthroughs could be made by a lens maker accidentally discovering micro biology or the president of the treasury thinking through the mathematics behind his observations and discovering the law of gravity or a patent clerk resolving contradictions between data and theory in his spare time to discover relativity or a barely employed artist describing in detail inventing concepts that would not be created until centuries after his death.<p>Now we need billions of dollars and all the best minds to even hypothetically make progress.<p>Maybe something is wrong in the state of scientific research.
评论 #23132655 未加载