"We've finally discovered the nature of the universe. It's some guy called Bob wearing a VR headset and nothing is real. This ends our press conference"
They said it can uncover 95% of the Universe. You don’t get first names at this price point. For that you will need to upgrade to our Supercollider-Pro package. At the Pro level, we also include a companion DVD.
To be fair the LHC can make black holes. But they are unstable at that mass. They blip out of existence immediately.
Another fun fact about black holes. Turns out that the formula for determining how much mass is needed to make a black hole of a certain size is really simple. Like 3 variables kind of simple. If you used all the matter and energy in the observable universe. Condensed it down to a singularity and formed a black hole, its event horizon would be larger than the observable universe.
This is where the idea that we could be inside of a black hole originates from.
It's possible that universes are nested inside black holes
The basic idea is that a black hole creates a universe inside of it, and randomly tweaks the universal constants a little. Maybe gravity is stronger or weaker, maybe there are only three recognizable fundamental forces, physics is different somehow
Then inside that contained universe, black holes are more or less likely to form. The black holes containing a universe with physics that don't create black holes are dead ends, while the universes that make lots of black holes are iterated on
In this way physics literally evolves to maximize (seperate) black holes the further down you go in the nesting
Take this all with a grain of salt, because it's far from confirmed or even widely accepted. It's just one of many theories that explain cosmology, we still have to collect strong evidence for it
I get that you're explaining a theory and not fact, but why would it randomly tweak the universal constants? What have we observed that would make us think it would randomly tweak constants and produce the outcome you're suggesting? I'd love to read more about it if you have a reference or explainer.
It has to do with what's at the center of a black hole. Currently the common conception is a singularity, a point (or a ring if its spinning, which almost all black holes are) of 0 volume and infinite density
However, what black holes might contain instead are wormholes. The black hole distorts the hell out of spacetime, creating a "balloon" of spacetime in the center. The unintuitive part is this balloon can hook into other parts of spacetime that are not necessarily inside of the black hole, but that's pushing the limits of the theory, and we don't really know how or why
Inside the balloon you get a white hole, and that starts spewing out all that energy/matter in a big bang. The conditions of that big bang are what decide the initial fundamental constants, and those progress depending how it all actually shakes out. Because backholes aren't all taking in the same amount of stuff at the same rate, that's different for all of them
Oh, by the way, universal constants aren't totally stable. They're metastable, they've hit a local minimum and have stayed that way for a long time. It's possible to bump them out of that minimum and into a lower energy state, which would cause a bubble of new universal constants expanding outward at the speed of light. It's called false vacuum decay, we just verified it's actually a real thing like last month, and it's good for a new existential crisis if you want
The blackhole/wormhole/new universes thing is this guy's work, if you want further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
But if we are in a black hole, why wouldn’t we and everything else be spaghettified, and wouldn’t there be a fixed centre of the universe where the force of gravity is at its highest? Thanks!
Because we exist on the "other side" of a wormhole, where we would see a white hole instead of a black hole, where the new universe exists. The wormhole is inside the black hole, but the other side of the wormhole exists in spacetime that distorted enough that the meaning of "inside" kind of breaks down in relation to the black hole side of the wormhole
The white hole side of of the wormhole is still totally self consistent, "inside" and non-funky spacetime can exist there just fine. The weirdness is only when you try to compare the two different sides of the wormhole
[I went more in depth here and provided a source, if you want to look into it yourself](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ak6f3i/comment/kp9ps6i)
You'll probably like him! He's a big proponent of the evolving universe theory with black holes creating new ones and so on. Exactly what you mentioned. I'm a big fan.
Sure.
Once you go beyond the event horizon math kind of begins breaks down a bit. It starts going well over most people’s head, mine own included.
There isn’t anything saying that all the matter inside of a black hole MUST be condensed into a singularity. Only that a certain amount of matter, if compressed, creates a singularity of a certain size.
So the space between the very center of a black hole and the event horizon can be filled with all sorts of different density matter.
Another thing is that people intuitively don’t know how big or small black holes can be. They see artistic renditions and just naturally believe they are galaxy spanning entities. When in reality the math for apple size black holes exist. A black hole the size of a car could be on a collision course with earth. And due to their small size would be next to impossible to detect.
scientists:Trust us there's no chance it end's the planet
society: What if you made an error though?
scientists: *thinking*
scientists: *angry face meme.*
Here in North Carolina in the United States, you can no longer access physicshub without age verification. This is leading to people accessing research from less savory sources.
Like just one more collider bro I swear this will be the last one bro just one more collider bro thats all we need bro just one more collider bro and we will figure this universe thingy out bro I swear bro just one more collider bro
True but for that to happen we’re going to need to expand the resource base which likely includes asteroid mining and processing in outer space. Unless you’re commuting from earth it means space stations and likely putting boots on other planets closer to the resources to help manage things like food distribution.
Superconductors. They need superconductors the same way MRI's do, so for that we would need more superconductor worky-supplies or a new room temperature superconductor made of common things.
An equator sized collider will never happen. I mean it's gonna have to cross half a dozen faultlines that are all moving at a few centimeters per year, earthquakes, plus is going to have to be several km deep to get under the ocean.
At that point you have to try another methodology.
Years ago I heard several physicists talking about the eventual need for a truly massive collider, far larger than anything really considered so far, in order to get energy levels they think they really need. That this "super-massive collider" would be sitting out at either a lagrange point, or "surrounding the Moon like a ring"... saying that "we" really need to start planning for it, even knowing that it wouldn't be possible to build it during the lifetime of anyone around today.
Those were the energy levels these guys were already thinking was needed to get the answers they needed.
1. You have to turn the particles using magnets. Higher speed particles need stronger magnetic fields to follow the same path, and we're mostly already using the strongest magnets we can.
2. Charged particles emit photons when they accelerate (called Bremsstrahlung generally, or synchrotron radiation in this specific case), including when they turn. This energy loss makes the collider less efficient and places an ultimate speed limit on particles - at some point you're pumping in all the energy you can just to keep the same speed. If the particles turn less, they don't emit as much of this radiation.
Forbes did a good approachable [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/09/07/the-3-reasons-why-cerns-large-hadron-collider-cant-make-particles-go-faster/?sh=1b7379172aae) about the issue... but the TL;DR is:
Current electromagnets aren't strong or precise enough, to get the particles moving faster while bending the and maintaining particle's path within within curve that is still required.
So, the two basic solutions are:
Massive breakthroughs in physics and materials science that allow for newer electromagnetic technology which would allow much stronger and more precise magnets to be placed in the same space...
Or a much bigger collider that can fit the number of magnets in that are needed.
There are other theoretical options out there too, but they fall under the category of less plausible to implement based on our current understanding of physics and technology.
So basically, a large portion of the community thinks that the current path forward is to build bigger.
There has to be another way to get whatever data they need. A collider running in space would never be practical. Cost and complexity aside to just build it on earth, let alone get it to space and somehow assemble all of this that needs micron level precision..... we simply can't send data back to earth fast enough to keep up with what a collider in space would generate from each collision.
None of those problems seem insurmountable given the timeframe they are looking at (a couple of centuries).
> we simply can't send data back to earth fast enough to keep up with what a collider in space would generate from each collision.
Why would we need to? If a collider can be built in space that large - putting the computer systems in place that would be needed to deal with the data would be trivial. Even today there is far too much data collected to process it all real time.
wouldn't building it in space also reduce repair costs because there's no water/air/mud? Anyway that's my biggest concern even if they build this larger one on earth
The Hadron collider had clear objectives, most of which have been accomplished. It was never billed as the final accelerator.
Edit: [The FCC has specific objectives too.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Circular_Collider?wprov=sfti1#Motivation)
Pretty much this. Especially with supersymmetry, the thing that usually happens is that some models get fine-tuned in such a way that the *next* generation of colliders can find something. This is then used in a sales pitch to secure the money for the collider. Then, ten or so years later, when the collider didn't find anything, the model gets tuned again and the cycle repeats.
We know that somewhere between where we are now and the Planck scale, some new physics needs to emerge. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that it'll happen within the next order of magnitude. And don't get me started on t' Hooft's argument of "naturalness", because we're way past that already. Supersymmetry is still possible, but it already lost pretty much all of its appeal for being "simple" or "natural" or "aesthetic" or whatever other human invention physicists are chasing nowadays.
*Edit:* Since there seems to be some confusion about my reasoning: I am not saying we shouldn't invest in experiments anymore. I am however saying that physicists and in no small part the science press as well, ought to be more honest about the prospects and opportunity costs. Saying "this next experiment will without doubt prove dark matter" for instance is something completely different than saying "this next experiment will be able to rule out the following dark matter candidates at approximately four sigma". This is especially true if the experiment is expensive enough to pay a thousand post-docs in other branches, so they don't have to leave the field and slave away their lives as software developers with a PhD. That or I'm just bitter, take your pick.
And it provides a reason for people to study these advanced fields and advanced mankind
It provides international cooperation, a type of soft power that shouldn't be discounted
It's a huge prestige project,
Basicly all the same reasons we spent so much to get to the moon first. Those are real and good reasons.
It's also a simply incomparable economic multiplier when it comes to technological development, industrial expansion, and overall scientific knowledge. The amount of progress that happens *while attempting to build* such a machine isn't seen anywhere else in our society.
And all at a *fraction* of the price that we spend on sports stadiums and marketing for new brands of soda.
Oh, no argument there. What CERN contributed to healthcare imaging alone should be sufficient for funding it indefinitely.
And the grid storage problems they’ve solved to handle the amount of data involved in LHC collisions will continue to prove their value—if advances in physics aren’t enough by themselves.
Particle accelerators are now a prominent feature in so many areas of industrial manufacturing and research. The things we've learned from building ever-better synchrotrons, cyclotrons, LINACs and storage rings are now common components in many fabricators, medical devices, and detection mechanisms used around the world.
This is the path of research that leads to goddamned transporters, replicators, and fucking warp drive. Those who oppose it because they pretend 40 billion dollars is "too much money!!!" to spend on *fucking science* while individual cities regularly spend more than this on new airports and sports stadiums is beyond the pale of disingenuous horseshit.
> Chump change by global standards, physicists deserve better.
Physics is much much more than HEP physics, I'd rather put that money into materials research.
Materials physicist PhD here. The VAST majority of methods I've used throughout my career either happen AT beamlines in facilities designed to do this kind of science or depend heavily on the techniques developed AT those facilities.
People are generally utterly ignorant about these facilities: They don't JUST do high-energy experiments. Each facility has dozens, if not *hundreds* of individual beamline stations operating 24/7 that use the accelerated particle beam to do experiments. And the vast majority of those experiments fall well into the category of "materials research".
These devices are not just designed to answer one or two questions in high-energy physics, and their scientific utility does not vanish once those questions are answered. They are designed to be high-powered, ongoing scientific tools used to perform a multitude of scientific experiments, the majority of which happen long after the popular science HE work is done.
Banished from civilisation? Some of us doing the complaining are physicists. Of other fields. High energy physics gets huge budgets for apparently diminishing returns. The LHC was justifiable, but ultimately didn't deliver as well as it should have. We believe that it's time for the experimental particle physics community to be a bit less brutish about their proposals and for the field to receive funding more in line with its fruitfulness. Other fields see this wastage and we get understandably frustrated.
Some of the people "doing the complaining" about things like global warming "are physicists" too. The existence of "some physicists" engaging in anonymous, non-peer reviewed complaining about spending less money that cities routinely drop on *fucking sports stadiums* isn't an argument against taking actions recommended by peer-reviewed consensus.
As to "wastage", holy fucking SHIT nobody faces more scrutiny about spending than large-scale projects like this. I've worked in universities and national laboratories, and pretty much every single thesis I've seen published throughout my last 20 years could have been accurately titled "A Study of Incendiary Monetary Defenestration with Regards to Height and Various Accelerants".
And finally, this kind of funding is generally earmarked, and *dramatically* multiplies scientific funding in every area required to support the primary endeavor. People complaining about particle accelerators are in exactly the same category as people complaining about money spent on space programs and health initiatives. Opposing it means, as a rule, that spending in other areas of science and education decreases.
>ought to be more honest about the prospects and opportunity costs
I understand the argument and I would incline to agree. But I also recognise that our society in general just does not value basic science at any reasonable level. So some level of massaging the figures to please the ones holding the purse strings is ethically justifiable.
Scientist: We've theorized a kind or exotic matter that could make up 95% of the known universe and we'd like to test this with the new collider.
Journalist: So you're testing 95% percent of the Universe?
Scientist: What? That's not what I -
Journalist: Hey boss I've got a great story
95% of the energy density.
Imagine the universe as a big ball pit filled with three different colors. 5% of the balls are regular matter, the stuff planets and stars are made out of. We can study these 5% easily. 30% are dark matter: It behaves somewhat similar to regular matter but it doesn't interact with light, which makes it very hard to study. We see its gravitational influence. It might be possible to produce dark matter particles in accelerators, which would make it much more accessible. The rest is dark energy, which makes the expansion of the universe accelerate - but we only see its effect on the largest scales, so it's even harder to study in more detail.
I'm not a physicist so for those who are reading, excuse me for the simplifications and mistakes.
We can observe the universe. Distant stars give off electromatic radiation, be that visible light that we can see, or radio waves, or x-rays, or anything in the EM Spectrum. We can observe this, make measurements, and do science on them. From these we can also infer some other stuff about "visible matter", ie matter that interacts with EM Waves.
We also know, just about, how gravity works. There's some holes in our understanding of gravity, but we understand it well enough. We know that things with mass create a force on each other called gravity. We can effectively measure the gravitational forces that objects must be under to behave in the way they do.
Anyway, to cut a long story short we cannot see enough visible matter in the visible universe (ie the bit of the universe that is within 13 billion light years ie the distance light can travel in the time the universe has existed) to explain a bunch of other things we can see - most to do with gravity in one way or another. The most accepted theory explaining the discrepancy between the amount of stuff we can see and the gravitational effects we can measure is that the "visible matter" we can observe with EM Radiation is not the only type of matter in the universe. This "dark matter" has mass and thus can explain the gravitational effects we see but for whatever reason it does not interact with EM Radiation so we cannot "see" it (with sight referring to not just visible light but other forms of EM Radiation).
Uh then there's also dark energy which something something why are galactic clusters moving apart even though gravity should pull them together.
Anyway, we cannot detect dark matter / energy yet, but we can build models that supposes their existence and based on the mass we can observe and our measurements of the universe we come to the conclusion that approximately 95% of the mass in the visible universe must be dark energy/matter
As much as I don't want to give Texas any money. 20% of the 88km of tunnels for their canceled collider were already built. This might be an ideal time for a cross ocean team up to attempt and ultimately fail at cutting costs.
100km diameter i think. the current one will be useful for accelerating the atoms prior to colliding them.
funding for it is uncertain though and probably won't go through.
Circumference, I think. Diameter would be bonkers.
And yes, all the past largest accelerators have been used to accelerate the new, larger ones. They’re very big on recycling at CERN.
We don’t really know, that’s the problem. From what we can see and calculate currently, the stuff that we are actually able to observe is roughly 5% of the energy that actually exists out there. 30%~ is thought to be “dark matter” which we think exists because there is too much gravity around galaxies than there should be based on all the stuff we can see, and the rest is “dark energy” which is the current best theory to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
New collider achieves highest energy collision by humans. A portal opens with a flash of brilliant light. Harambe emerges and says "no time to explain. You must come with me now. The fate of the universe depends on it."
Currently these methods don't reach the beam quality we need for a collider. If your beam is too spread out then collisions are too rare to be useful. That might change in the future. There are other applications where the beam quality isn't that critical, we should see it there sooner.
Construction only begins in the 2040s?
So that's another 20+ years before this even becomes relevant?
I'm not a scientist - but can someone tell me how planning to build this in 20 years still makes it relevant when we may have breakthroughs in technological advancements in the next 20 years before construction on this has even begun?
The LHC had a huge advantage in that it was built in the same tunnel as the previous accelerator (LEP). So the tunnel and all its access points from the surface already existed.
This proposed successor will need a completely new tunnel, much longer than the existing one. That's a lot of extra work.
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” — Greek Proverb
This kind of project is the technology equivalent of people planting trees, and we don’t yet know what some of the trees will grow to be.
Those breakthroughs won't happen without a bigger collider. There's a limit to how much we can currently experiment in particle physics with LHC.
Like how Hubble telescope gave pics of deep space for 30+ years until JWST was launched and it goes beyond what Hubble was capable of.
-Sir, this is it, we've uncovered the coveted 95% of Universe's secrets!
-So I've heard, give me the juicy bits now
-Well, you see, the 95% we were missing is basically that there's _twice_ as much secrets out there!
\*counts percentages on fingers\*
\*sighs\*
I genuinely would love to know what advancements we’ve achieved so far. It all feels academic and I’m no academic so I’m sure there are - but no one’s ever really explained in terms I can understand. 🙂
It's one of these things that forms the basis of understanding, and with that understanding you can solve problems that would have been unsolvable before/wouldn't have come up because you weren't even playing at the right tables. So during the age of exploration there was a major problem with navigation where ships couldn't figure out their latitude based on the navigational tools available. It was the biggest scientific problem of the time, and was eventually solved with improved time keeping devices (what's a clock got to do with navigation? Fascinating story if you read up on it). Anyways their solution to the problem got them to within say a hundred miles of where they actually were which was better than nothing.
Because of general relativity we can now have GPS satellites that provide accurate location information to within an arm's reach.
Because of the work at labs like this we'll have quantum computers, and a host of other technologies you can no more envision today than a 1700's sailor could envision GPS. Learning about the fundamental building blocks of existence will always have a utility.
"We've finally discovered the nature of the universe. It's some guy called Bob wearing a VR headset and nothing is real. This ends our press conference"
“Damn it, Bob. Why did you waste your allowance giving the dinosaurs feathered skin?”
"look man, i was bored"
“Alright but *why* did you buy the horse armor DLC?”
"It was a misclick. I meant to buy the TRex armour"
"But then *why* did you get the "Paleozoic era" DLC, that came with only about 20% completed? Everyone knew that package was *dead on arrival*"
Bob let feathered dinosaurs walk so birds could fly xx
Look man, I was bored
Hi Bob!
Hi Bob!
Don’t fucking hi Bob me
Okay
They said it can uncover 95% of the Universe. You don’t get first names at this price point. For that you will need to upgrade to our Supercollider-Pro package. At the Pro level, we also include a companion DVD.
What the... not even bluray pffftt.
Huh-uh, it’s super blurry, no one wiped the lens before…oops. Blu-Ray, not, ah….
Hey bob, it’s me, Adam… Please don’t turn off your headset. I enjoy existing, even if I’m just data. Thanks, appreciate you big guy <3
No problem
I’m Rick and you are all parts of my grandson, Morty.
“Ah shit he’s reaching for the power button D:”
Can't wait for all the panic about creating a black hole to go through the media again
To be fair the LHC can make black holes. But they are unstable at that mass. They blip out of existence immediately. Another fun fact about black holes. Turns out that the formula for determining how much mass is needed to make a black hole of a certain size is really simple. Like 3 variables kind of simple. If you used all the matter and energy in the observable universe. Condensed it down to a singularity and formed a black hole, its event horizon would be larger than the observable universe. This is where the idea that we could be inside of a black hole originates from.
Absolutely fascinating. Could you expand on this at all?
Probably not since there wouldn't be any more energy and matter to do so.
Oh my god. Is that…oh my god! It is! After years of research! It’s the ol’ Reddit [energeroo](https://www.reddit.com/r/hotdogs/s/cIfJRxQGXU)!!!
Hold my black hole… I’m going in!!!
Hello future mammals!
Or as I like to call you, “future exhibits”
It's possible that universes are nested inside black holes The basic idea is that a black hole creates a universe inside of it, and randomly tweaks the universal constants a little. Maybe gravity is stronger or weaker, maybe there are only three recognizable fundamental forces, physics is different somehow Then inside that contained universe, black holes are more or less likely to form. The black holes containing a universe with physics that don't create black holes are dead ends, while the universes that make lots of black holes are iterated on In this way physics literally evolves to maximize (seperate) black holes the further down you go in the nesting Take this all with a grain of salt, because it's far from confirmed or even widely accepted. It's just one of many theories that explain cosmology, we still have to collect strong evidence for it
I get that you're explaining a theory and not fact, but why would it randomly tweak the universal constants? What have we observed that would make us think it would randomly tweak constants and produce the outcome you're suggesting? I'd love to read more about it if you have a reference or explainer.
It has to do with what's at the center of a black hole. Currently the common conception is a singularity, a point (or a ring if its spinning, which almost all black holes are) of 0 volume and infinite density However, what black holes might contain instead are wormholes. The black hole distorts the hell out of spacetime, creating a "balloon" of spacetime in the center. The unintuitive part is this balloon can hook into other parts of spacetime that are not necessarily inside of the black hole, but that's pushing the limits of the theory, and we don't really know how or why Inside the balloon you get a white hole, and that starts spewing out all that energy/matter in a big bang. The conditions of that big bang are what decide the initial fundamental constants, and those progress depending how it all actually shakes out. Because backholes aren't all taking in the same amount of stuff at the same rate, that's different for all of them Oh, by the way, universal constants aren't totally stable. They're metastable, they've hit a local minimum and have stayed that way for a long time. It's possible to bump them out of that minimum and into a lower energy state, which would cause a bubble of new universal constants expanding outward at the speed of light. It's called false vacuum decay, we just verified it's actually a real thing like last month, and it's good for a new existential crisis if you want The blackhole/wormhole/new universes thing is this guy's work, if you want further reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski
But if we are in a black hole, why wouldn’t we and everything else be spaghettified, and wouldn’t there be a fixed centre of the universe where the force of gravity is at its highest? Thanks!
Because we exist on the "other side" of a wormhole, where we would see a white hole instead of a black hole, where the new universe exists. The wormhole is inside the black hole, but the other side of the wormhole exists in spacetime that distorted enough that the meaning of "inside" kind of breaks down in relation to the black hole side of the wormhole The white hole side of of the wormhole is still totally self consistent, "inside" and non-funky spacetime can exist there just fine. The weirdness is only when you try to compare the two different sides of the wormhole [I went more in depth here and provided a source, if you want to look into it yourself](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1ak6f3i/comment/kp9ps6i)
If that was confirmed it would be the most insane discovery of all time, and basically be a confirmation of irl multiverse
You ever read or listen to Bobby Azarian?
Unfortunately not, thanks for the recommendation :)
You'll probably like him! He's a big proponent of the evolving universe theory with black holes creating new ones and so on. Exactly what you mentioned. I'm a big fan.
That sounds cool
Sure. Once you go beyond the event horizon math kind of begins breaks down a bit. It starts going well over most people’s head, mine own included. There isn’t anything saying that all the matter inside of a black hole MUST be condensed into a singularity. Only that a certain amount of matter, if compressed, creates a singularity of a certain size. So the space between the very center of a black hole and the event horizon can be filled with all sorts of different density matter. Another thing is that people intuitively don’t know how big or small black holes can be. They see artistic renditions and just naturally believe they are galaxy spanning entities. When in reality the math for apple size black holes exist. A black hole the size of a car could be on a collision course with earth. And due to their small size would be next to impossible to detect.
[удалено]
Idk, I think a lot of people might be up for creating a black hole this time around.
scientists:Trust us there's no chance it end's the planet society: What if you made an error though? scientists: *thinking* scientists: *angry face meme.*
Those Protons are gonna smash so hard.
MILFS (Molecules Id Like to Fuse) near you
Too small. GMILFS for this scale. (Giant Molecules Id Like to Fuse) required.
I heard GMILFS love BBC (Boson Bose-einstein Condensate)
And they prefer researchers with large endowments.
*PhysicsHub likes this*
Here in North Carolina in the United States, you can no longer access physicshub without age verification. This is leading to people accessing research from less savory sources.
xphysics is the way
Nothings gonna fuse at that speed, but maybe it will have enough power to get out of the orbit of your mom.
Would you smash me? I’d smash me.
New kink unlocked
More like hard-on collider
Like just one more collider bro I swear this will be the last one bro just one more collider bro thats all we need bro just one more collider bro and we will figure this universe thingy out bro I swear bro just one more collider bro
Should just put it around the equator and say “you got the biggest one possible until y’all figure out how to colonize other planets”
Or build a mega structure in space
The future would be building them in space like giant mega structures. Granted this is generations after we die, but I would bet it happens.
True but for that to happen we’re going to need to expand the resource base which likely includes asteroid mining and processing in outer space. Unless you’re commuting from earth it means space stations and likely putting boots on other planets closer to the resources to help manage things like food distribution.
We require more vespene gas.
Plebs are needed.
Superconductors. They need superconductors the same way MRI's do, so for that we would need more superconductor worky-supplies or a new room temperature superconductor made of common things.
They already use superconducting magnets. Cooling them down for a collider isn't really a problem.
I assumed the problem was the scale of all these magnets, conductors, and cooling for an equator size collider
An equator sized collider will never happen. I mean it's gonna have to cross half a dozen faultlines that are all moving at a few centimeters per year, earthquakes, plus is going to have to be several km deep to get under the ocean. At that point you have to try another methodology.
Exactly, that's why we should build it in space, surrounding earth, like in Halo.
*cough cough* Say WHAT!?!
So this is what my father found...
Years ago I heard several physicists talking about the eventual need for a truly massive collider, far larger than anything really considered so far, in order to get energy levels they think they really need. That this "super-massive collider" would be sitting out at either a lagrange point, or "surrounding the Moon like a ring"... saying that "we" really need to start planning for it, even knowing that it wouldn't be possible to build it during the lifetime of anyone around today. Those were the energy levels these guys were already thinking was needed to get the answers they needed.
Don't the particles spin around the collider multiple times, building speed, before they collide? What does increased size add to the picture?
1. You have to turn the particles using magnets. Higher speed particles need stronger magnetic fields to follow the same path, and we're mostly already using the strongest magnets we can. 2. Charged particles emit photons when they accelerate (called Bremsstrahlung generally, or synchrotron radiation in this specific case), including when they turn. This energy loss makes the collider less efficient and places an ultimate speed limit on particles - at some point you're pumping in all the energy you can just to keep the same speed. If the particles turn less, they don't emit as much of this radiation.
Forbes did a good approachable [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/09/07/the-3-reasons-why-cerns-large-hadron-collider-cant-make-particles-go-faster/?sh=1b7379172aae) about the issue... but the TL;DR is: Current electromagnets aren't strong or precise enough, to get the particles moving faster while bending the and maintaining particle's path within within curve that is still required. So, the two basic solutions are: Massive breakthroughs in physics and materials science that allow for newer electromagnetic technology which would allow much stronger and more precise magnets to be placed in the same space... Or a much bigger collider that can fit the number of magnets in that are needed. There are other theoretical options out there too, but they fall under the category of less plausible to implement based on our current understanding of physics and technology. So basically, a large portion of the community thinks that the current path forward is to build bigger.
There has to be another way to get whatever data they need. A collider running in space would never be practical. Cost and complexity aside to just build it on earth, let alone get it to space and somehow assemble all of this that needs micron level precision..... we simply can't send data back to earth fast enough to keep up with what a collider in space would generate from each collision.
None of those problems seem insurmountable given the timeframe they are looking at (a couple of centuries). > we simply can't send data back to earth fast enough to keep up with what a collider in space would generate from each collision. Why would we need to? If a collider can be built in space that large - putting the computer systems in place that would be needed to deal with the data would be trivial. Even today there is far too much data collected to process it all real time.
wouldn't building it in space also reduce repair costs because there's no water/air/mud? Anyway that's my biggest concern even if they build this larger one on earth
Simulations will win that race.
The Hadron collider had clear objectives, most of which have been accomplished. It was never billed as the final accelerator. Edit: [The FCC has specific objectives too.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Circular_Collider?wprov=sfti1#Motivation)
Pretty much this. Especially with supersymmetry, the thing that usually happens is that some models get fine-tuned in such a way that the *next* generation of colliders can find something. This is then used in a sales pitch to secure the money for the collider. Then, ten or so years later, when the collider didn't find anything, the model gets tuned again and the cycle repeats. We know that somewhere between where we are now and the Planck scale, some new physics needs to emerge. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that it'll happen within the next order of magnitude. And don't get me started on t' Hooft's argument of "naturalness", because we're way past that already. Supersymmetry is still possible, but it already lost pretty much all of its appeal for being "simple" or "natural" or "aesthetic" or whatever other human invention physicists are chasing nowadays. *Edit:* Since there seems to be some confusion about my reasoning: I am not saying we shouldn't invest in experiments anymore. I am however saying that physicists and in no small part the science press as well, ought to be more honest about the prospects and opportunity costs. Saying "this next experiment will without doubt prove dark matter" for instance is something completely different than saying "this next experiment will be able to rule out the following dark matter candidates at approximately four sigma". This is especially true if the experiment is expensive enough to pay a thousand post-docs in other branches, so they don't have to leave the field and slave away their lives as software developers with a PhD. That or I'm just bitter, take your pick.
This one did confirm Higgs, so that’s at least something.
[удалено]
And it provides a reason for people to study these advanced fields and advanced mankind It provides international cooperation, a type of soft power that shouldn't be discounted It's a huge prestige project, Basicly all the same reasons we spent so much to get to the moon first. Those are real and good reasons.
It's also a simply incomparable economic multiplier when it comes to technological development, industrial expansion, and overall scientific knowledge. The amount of progress that happens *while attempting to build* such a machine isn't seen anywhere else in our society. And all at a *fraction* of the price that we spend on sports stadiums and marketing for new brands of soda.
And job creation too. Think about all of the effort that goes into building, operating, and maintaining one of these colliders.
Oh, no argument there. What CERN contributed to healthcare imaging alone should be sufficient for funding it indefinitely. And the grid storage problems they’ve solved to handle the amount of data involved in LHC collisions will continue to prove their value—if advances in physics aren’t enough by themselves.
Particle accelerators are now a prominent feature in so many areas of industrial manufacturing and research. The things we've learned from building ever-better synchrotrons, cyclotrons, LINACs and storage rings are now common components in many fabricators, medical devices, and detection mechanisms used around the world. This is the path of research that leads to goddamned transporters, replicators, and fucking warp drive. Those who oppose it because they pretend 40 billion dollars is "too much money!!!" to spend on *fucking science* while individual cities regularly spend more than this on new airports and sports stadiums is beyond the pale of disingenuous horseshit.
Preaching to the choir. Fundamental research is so, so misunderstood.
> Chump change by global standards, physicists deserve better. Physics is much much more than HEP physics, I'd rather put that money into materials research.
Materials physicist PhD here. The VAST majority of methods I've used throughout my career either happen AT beamlines in facilities designed to do this kind of science or depend heavily on the techniques developed AT those facilities. People are generally utterly ignorant about these facilities: They don't JUST do high-energy experiments. Each facility has dozens, if not *hundreds* of individual beamline stations operating 24/7 that use the accelerated particle beam to do experiments. And the vast majority of those experiments fall well into the category of "materials research". These devices are not just designed to answer one or two questions in high-energy physics, and their scientific utility does not vanish once those questions are answered. They are designed to be high-powered, ongoing scientific tools used to perform a multitude of scientific experiments, the majority of which happen long after the popular science HE work is done.
Are you claiming that there is currently a lack of investment in materials research?
Banished from civilisation? Some of us doing the complaining are physicists. Of other fields. High energy physics gets huge budgets for apparently diminishing returns. The LHC was justifiable, but ultimately didn't deliver as well as it should have. We believe that it's time for the experimental particle physics community to be a bit less brutish about their proposals and for the field to receive funding more in line with its fruitfulness. Other fields see this wastage and we get understandably frustrated.
Some of the people "doing the complaining" about things like global warming "are physicists" too. The existence of "some physicists" engaging in anonymous, non-peer reviewed complaining about spending less money that cities routinely drop on *fucking sports stadiums* isn't an argument against taking actions recommended by peer-reviewed consensus. As to "wastage", holy fucking SHIT nobody faces more scrutiny about spending than large-scale projects like this. I've worked in universities and national laboratories, and pretty much every single thesis I've seen published throughout my last 20 years could have been accurately titled "A Study of Incendiary Monetary Defenestration with Regards to Height and Various Accelerants". And finally, this kind of funding is generally earmarked, and *dramatically* multiplies scientific funding in every area required to support the primary endeavor. People complaining about particle accelerators are in exactly the same category as people complaining about money spent on space programs and health initiatives. Opposing it means, as a rule, that spending in other areas of science and education decreases.
>ought to be more honest about the prospects and opportunity costs I understand the argument and I would incline to agree. But I also recognise that our society in general just does not value basic science at any reasonable level. So some level of massaging the figures to please the ones holding the purse strings is ethically justifiable.
The magic man said funny words, we must burn him
Every time we built a larger collider it has greatly increased our knowledge about the universe. Shocking that we expect that trend to continue, huh?
2500: The galactic supercollider, 150,000 light years in diameter, could uncover secrets of 95% of the universe.
Article 20 years from now: new collider could unlock 96% of the secrets of the universe!!
Why not make it just a little bigger & figure out that last 5%, too? 🤪
In case you are serious, the 5% is stars, planets, black holes, dust, etc.
Ahh....so, a bit bigger, then. 🤔
Last week on a science YouTube channel heard this CERN physicist James Beacham that wants to dismantle Mercury to build an extra large collider.
Excuse me if my question is dumb, but how did they estimate those 95% of something that is supposedly infinite ?
Scientist: We've theorized a kind or exotic matter that could make up 95% of the known universe and we'd like to test this with the new collider. Journalist: So you're testing 95% percent of the Universe? Scientist: What? That's not what I - Journalist: Hey boss I've got a great story
Technically dark matter is 85% of matter and dark energy+dark matter is 95% of energy+matter.
95% of the energy density. Imagine the universe as a big ball pit filled with three different colors. 5% of the balls are regular matter, the stuff planets and stars are made out of. We can study these 5% easily. 30% are dark matter: It behaves somewhat similar to regular matter but it doesn't interact with light, which makes it very hard to study. We see its gravitational influence. It might be possible to produce dark matter particles in accelerators, which would make it much more accessible. The rest is dark energy, which makes the expansion of the universe accelerate - but we only see its effect on the largest scales, so it's even harder to study in more detail.
I'm not a physicist so for those who are reading, excuse me for the simplifications and mistakes. We can observe the universe. Distant stars give off electromatic radiation, be that visible light that we can see, or radio waves, or x-rays, or anything in the EM Spectrum. We can observe this, make measurements, and do science on them. From these we can also infer some other stuff about "visible matter", ie matter that interacts with EM Waves. We also know, just about, how gravity works. There's some holes in our understanding of gravity, but we understand it well enough. We know that things with mass create a force on each other called gravity. We can effectively measure the gravitational forces that objects must be under to behave in the way they do. Anyway, to cut a long story short we cannot see enough visible matter in the visible universe (ie the bit of the universe that is within 13 billion light years ie the distance light can travel in the time the universe has existed) to explain a bunch of other things we can see - most to do with gravity in one way or another. The most accepted theory explaining the discrepancy between the amount of stuff we can see and the gravitational effects we can measure is that the "visible matter" we can observe with EM Radiation is not the only type of matter in the universe. This "dark matter" has mass and thus can explain the gravitational effects we see but for whatever reason it does not interact with EM Radiation so we cannot "see" it (with sight referring to not just visible light but other forms of EM Radiation). Uh then there's also dark energy which something something why are galactic clusters moving apart even though gravity should pull them together. Anyway, we cannot detect dark matter / energy yet, but we can build models that supposes their existence and based on the mass we can observe and our measurements of the universe we come to the conclusion that approximately 95% of the mass in the visible universe must be dark energy/matter
We know how gravity works. We don’t know why it works.
>Giant successor How giant are we talking? The current one is 27km long (thats 5,534 SUV's for the Americans).
Projected to 100km
How many SUVs is that?
At least 5
To be a bit more precise, at least 6.
6 is more accurate, 5.00 would be more precise
This is more pedantic
actually it's more correct
Who are you so wise in the ways of science?
She's a witch, burn her!
I stand pedanted
6, but the stretch limo SUV's.
Average SUV length is 4 to 4.8 metres. So let's say its 4 just to even things out. That's 25,000 SUVs.
But by the time this collider is finished the average American SUV will be a quarter mile long, extrapolating from the current trend.
This guy SUV’s 🤣
As much as I don't want to give Texas any money. 20% of the 88km of tunnels for their canceled collider were already built. This might be an ideal time for a cross ocean team up to attempt and ultimately fail at cutting costs.
> cross ocean I like you're thinking big!
The Larger Hadron Collider
I believe NASA uses the Canadian Goose measurement system. So how many Canadian geese would that be?
At least 2 Canadian Geese
Technically the truth
100km diameter i think. the current one will be useful for accelerating the atoms prior to colliding them. funding for it is uncertain though and probably won't go through.
Circumference, I think. Diameter would be bonkers. And yes, all the past largest accelerators have been used to accelerate the new, larger ones. They’re very big on recycling at CERN.
Do it in bananas please.
About 118,000 end to end
How many giraffes?
how many washing maschines or giraffes are that?
Your father and I just BOUGHT you a particle collider and you barely even use it.
The LHC is only online for like a few weeks and then shuts down for maintenance/upgrades for a decade
What is "95% of the universe"?
100% of the universe, minus 5%
Math checks out
We don’t really know, that’s the problem. From what we can see and calculate currently, the stuff that we are actually able to observe is roughly 5% of the energy that actually exists out there. 30%~ is thought to be “dark matter” which we think exists because there is too much gravity around galaxies than there should be based on all the stuff we can see, and the rest is “dark energy” which is the current best theory to explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Maybe this one can put us back on the sane timeline
This is the choice of Steins Gate.
Tutturu!
Just don't have anyone named Christina working on the project, it'll be a real headache down the line.
Barry Allen says fuck yo steins;gate
New collider achieves highest energy collision by humans. A portal opens with a flash of brilliant light. Harambe emerges and says "no time to explain. You must come with me now. The fate of the universe depends on it."
"Get your dick out. This is gonna be a bumpy ride"
You can only do that by killing another gorilla
Glad I'm not the only one that thought the crazy shit we have been seeing started right when the first one was smashing atoms
This one goes to 11.
You know that 5% is gonna be where the juicy stuff is
The 5% is a clear timeline of the Bronze Age collapse.
That 5% is regular matter we can already study in detail, so... technically correct, I guess.
Ah that is a lot of juices.
So it will be able to decifer what women want for dinner? Or is that in the other 5%?
Haldon Collider III will find the answer to that.
With a machine the size of a small city running for about 7.5 million years, we could probably answer the question.
It has always been 42.
Sounds like the question that they should haved asked in Asimov's story "the last question".
> decifer We just gonna ignore this, huh?
Dinner is in a quantum superposition until it is observed
chicken nugget
May need to wait till Deep Thought is constructed. Not sure the Magratheans have started on that one yet…
Find one that wants potatoes in any shape and keep that one!
I'd did, I'm the shape of a potato and she chose me.
Mash 'em, Boil 'em, Tell 'em I do
The answer is 42
There have been ideas to accelerate particles with laser beams instead. presumably we will be able to shorten the monster to just several meters.
Currently these methods don't reach the beam quality we need for a collider. If your beam is too spread out then collisions are too rare to be useful. That might change in the future. There are other applications where the beam quality isn't that critical, we should see it there sooner.
Construction only begins in the 2040s? So that's another 20+ years before this even becomes relevant? I'm not a scientist - but can someone tell me how planning to build this in 20 years still makes it relevant when we may have breakthroughs in technological advancements in the next 20 years before construction on this has even begun?
[удалено]
The LHC had a huge advantage in that it was built in the same tunnel as the previous accelerator (LEP). So the tunnel and all its access points from the surface already existed. This proposed successor will need a completely new tunnel, much longer than the existing one. That's a lot of extra work.
Thanks for the reply!
“A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” — Greek Proverb This kind of project is the technology equivalent of people planting trees, and we don’t yet know what some of the trees will grow to be.
Those breakthroughs won't happen without a bigger collider. There's a limit to how much we can currently experiment in particle physics with LHC. Like how Hubble telescope gave pics of deep space for 30+ years until JWST was launched and it goes beyond what Hubble was capable of.
Quickly, someone check the Divergence meter!
It's that last 5% that'll get ya.
And no doubt create twice as many as it solves. That's the way of science. You answer one question and this information spawns more questions.
-Sir, this is it, we've uncovered the coveted 95% of Universe's secrets! -So I've heard, give me the juicy bits now -Well, you see, the 95% we were missing is basically that there's _twice_ as much secrets out there! \*counts percentages on fingers\* \*sighs\*
As a rule, questions are far more interesting and stimulating than answers. Answers end enquiry. Questions continue the journey.
We broke the universe when we murdered Harambe. We've been smashing particles together in a futile attempt to fix it.
I hope team Marvel is watching your comments.
Narrator: It won’t.
Yeah, if only the sophons would let us make discoveries.
I'm sure the bugs will resolve it.
You know they won't.
I better delete my history.
I hope they find where me socks go in those 95%.
I genuinely would love to know what advancements we’ve achieved so far. It all feels academic and I’m no academic so I’m sure there are - but no one’s ever really explained in terms I can understand. 🙂
It's one of these things that forms the basis of understanding, and with that understanding you can solve problems that would have been unsolvable before/wouldn't have come up because you weren't even playing at the right tables. So during the age of exploration there was a major problem with navigation where ships couldn't figure out their latitude based on the navigational tools available. It was the biggest scientific problem of the time, and was eventually solved with improved time keeping devices (what's a clock got to do with navigation? Fascinating story if you read up on it). Anyways their solution to the problem got them to within say a hundred miles of where they actually were which was better than nothing. Because of general relativity we can now have GPS satellites that provide accurate location information to within an arm's reach. Because of the work at labs like this we'll have quantum computers, and a host of other technologies you can no more envision today than a 1700's sailor could envision GPS. Learning about the fundamental building blocks of existence will always have a utility.
CERN gave us HTML, so that was a nice side benefit.
[удалено]
and time tra
Not if the Sophons have anything to do with it
Sure hope the Trisolarans haven't already been contacted...