As someone who supports pure science research, I would be interested to understand if any of the discoveries of CERN (and related projects) in the last 50 years (say) have proved to have practical application.
(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)
It’s an interesting question. After all we were using electricity, batteries, electric motors, radios and telegraphs long before we ever discovered electrons and photons.
But discovering the electron was necessary for us to develop vacuum tubes. And developing quantum mechanics was necessary for developing transistors.
Think about the relative impact of the telegraph vs the vacuum tube.
When we do eventually find something to do with the W and Z bosons, it’s likely to look more like a transistor-level tech than an immediately practical tool like a lightbulb. But the second-order effects from whatever that new tech turns out to be, have the potential to be world-shattering.
Quantum Mechanics, protons, electrons... That's the theory of everyday matter. You don't need very special situations to see their effects. Understanding the underlying equations enabled us to do more with what we already have.
High energy stuff only exists unstably for fractions of seconds. I find the idea that any of Standard Model physics, nevermind beyond standard model physics, could lead to a technological advance like the transistor extremely unconvincing.
Technological advance and scientific advance sometimes align. But there is no law that the former by necessity follows from the former. The expectation that they do is an extrapolation from a very brief period of human history.
I don't know why you were getting down voted for this. Discovery during technological development of scientific instrumentation is one of the greatest returns on investment of funding pure science research. And like your sibling comment says, the pure science helps direct applied science, eg cutting edge materials science. Long tail, if for no other reason, because its a whole other development process that happens after the pure science.
Fundamental research is entwined with practical applications, you can’t have the later without the former. Europe is known for FR, while everyone else seems to be better at commercialising. It’s alright, progress for us is progress for everyone.
That's not an answer to the specific question asked. Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.
> Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.
It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form for 2400 years before doing anything practical with it. If all the people who prodded at it instead thought "man I can't imagine what this could be useful for" and found something else to do with their time, we'd live in a very different world.
Our civilization can afford to aim higher than incremental improvements on pixel density for screens on which to spectate people kicking a ball around. Personally I find frontier discoveries to also have much greater entertainment value than sports events and will happily fund them with a tiny fraction of my tax dollars.
> It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery.
Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted, and then we built devices to find them, eg. the Higgs was predicted in the 1960s. There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
There is better frontier research that could use those funds for much better payoffs. For instance, just sticking with particle physics, Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper than the LHC while achieving the same energies. We've also never built a muon collider, and so that's largely unexplored territory.
We just don't need another radio frequency particle collider, we've reached the limits of what they can do within a reasonable research budget.
> Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted
That's not true at all. To give just few examples.
Electron was not predicted but Thomson found it during first fundamental particle discovered came from cathode‐ray experiments, not from a prior microscopic theory of matte. Remember this was during thr 19th century.
Another one is the muon discovered in 1936 which was detected as "heavy electron" in cosmic rays. it did not fit any clear theoretical need in nuclear physics at the time, leading Rabi to quip “Who ordered that?”
Heck there are many more examples that I will bypass the comment limits if I tried to list them (resonances in particular will be very numerous).
You can of course move the goal target by narrowing what you mean by particle but this is exactly why physicists try to define what they talk about before making an argument.
> There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
Really? There is a huge volume of the feasibility study about the physics program of FCC. Are you claiming that it is false. Have you even read it?
This kind of thing always reminds me G. H. Hardy, a mathematician that famously took pride in working on pure number theory, which he described as having "no practical use" and therefore being morally superior to applied mathematics connected to war or industry.
This ended up as the theoretical bedrock upon which modern encryption algorithms are built, enabling trillions of dollars of economic activity (as well as spying and other nefarious or ethically questionable activities).
I noticed (as have others) that even the purest of pure fundamental research has this oddly persistent pattern of becoming applied to everyday problems sooner or later.
The x-ray telescope mirror design used for Chandra -- motived only by pure intellectual curiosity -- ended up being a key development stepping stone towards ASML's TWINSCAN tools that use focused x-rays for chip lithography. Arguably this is more important to the global economy now that even oil is!
Similarly, particle accelerators like CERN might be the next chip lithography beam sources. The technologies being developed for research physicists such as laser-driven "desktop" accelerators might be just the ticket to replace tin droplet x-ray light sources.
Who knows?
We certainly won't if we don't built these things for pure research first to find out!
With that kind of fundamental science I would expect no practical applications but guidance for researchers that work on practical applications.
There are many ideas on how the universe works, right? Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable.
It must be somewhere between knowing if there's alien life or not AND knowing that atoms can be split at sub particles at will.
What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the love of the game, regardless of social status and money.
If you want to live in this world, you have to trade your time and provide value to others. You shouldn't get a free pass because, just because you convinced yourself and the government that you're smarter than everyone else.
Agree this reminds me of the level my Herman Hesse “The Glass Bead Game”. Academics and researchers have a moral duty to give back to the larger society that enables their endeavors .
"Decoupling science from the state" is just bullshit from "government icky, taxation is theft" morons.
No, governments should definitely fund scientific research. When it is public it is the only guarantee that it will benefit everyone. Scientific research done by private entities is kneecapped by their financial interests (and be very sure they will bury any advance that jeopardize their financial interests).
How are radio telescopes and mars rovers in my interest? How would you know what is in my interest? I worked for my money so the person in the best position to judge what is in my interest is me. I am sorry for you if that is such a hard concept to understand.
You’re free to vote towards your goals, or move to countries which invest basically nothing in research. There’s plenty of them. I suspect you may not enjoy such great quality of life there.
In case it wasn’t a rhetorical question, they’re in your interest because through the process of building them we improve our understanding of the world, develop new technologies which the industrial system wouldn’t have backed, educate the next generation of engineers and scientists, and inspire the kids that will form the second next generation.
Private research already exists and works well in some fields, mine included. But public research is just as important since it can afford higher risk and longer scope. You can’t begin to count the startups that were created as spin-offs of university research groups.
Frankly, your particular interest is completely irrelevant.
Scientific research is of societal interest, even if your particular interest differ. The best you can do is vote for parties that promise to shut down scientific research, or find another group of likeminded morons and form such a party with them.
If you disagree with the concept of taxes, well, sucks to be you. May your desires never come to fruition, because life would be hell.
It would be great if we had line-item vetoes on our tax forms. However, we don't. You have to fund some things you don't like or agree with, and so do I, and so do the rest of the taxpayers.
That's just how taxes work. Like capitalism and democracy, taxes suck, but nobody has come up with adequate substitutes that check all the necessary boxes.
Why wouldn't I veto everything except the give me back my money tax? Now, I'm not actually ridiculously selfish asshole that doesn't think of others or the long term consequences of my choices, but it's a prisoners dilemma, with everybody else in your country, and defecting gives you money back. Cynically I don't think that'll work.
It wouldn't be a "Give money to anyone you like" kind of choice, but "Allocate money to these departments." Funding that you assign to one category would have to come out of another. Think basic research is a waste? Allocate less to NSF and more to foreign aid, or to something else that you prefer. Don't want to fund welfare? Move the money to defense, and so forth.
Obviously still open to gaming and abuse, but it's not as if the current system isn't.
> Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable.
Sorry, no. That's solid state physics on inter-atomic scales: tenths of nanometers, a handful of electronvolts. The LHC probes physics at the electroweak scale: hundreds of billions of electronvolts, billionths of nanometers. It has zero relevance to anything of practical use.
In a few cases and in a simplistic sense, yes. But the point of the comment you’re replying to still stands completely. Quantum tunneling is nothing exotic and we have plenty of devices exploiting the principle (e.g. tunnel diodes). It was basically fully understood the moment the Schrödinger equation appeared.
These accelerators are as large as they are to try and find mismatches between theory and experiment. And even then, we can explain virtually every experiment that the LHC has conducted. If we did find something unexpected with one of these colliders, it would only really apply to experiments made in the collider. Particle physics is irrelevant for everyday stuff since we already fully understand everything involved.
This is such a weasel question because you can keep saying whatever was new was "just technology" not pure discoveries.
No, there hasn't been any big "new physics" since the standard model in the 70s, everything has been refinement and specifics. You can't go to Walmart and buy something that couldn't exist unless we knew the precise mass of the top quark or the Higgs boson.
There have been a tremendous amount of developments and technologies that have come out of CERN with varying degrees of closeness to particle physics, but depending on who you're talking to, most of them don't count.
>(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)
Ok, but Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN when he created HTTP, HTML, etc.
The Internet through web browsers as you know it was created at CERN in order to enable scientific communication and collaboration.
I was hoping that someone would be able to point me to some practical technical advance enabled by discoveries or measurements at CERN (or similar establishments).
It seems plausible to me that better understanding of the properties the subatomic particles might enable some previously unexploited technology (e.g. in quantum computing or sensing).
As a non physicist I like the idea of a moun collider more - more compact (thus should be cheaper) as well as something which haven't done in similar energy scales and therefore more likely to need new technology in building it and finding something new.
I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all!
But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space.
I've heard it said that research into this stuff will inevitably benefit all manners of other sciences, but hoping for a byproduct isn't the same as direct investment.
I'm just asking in earnest if priorities are aligned properly. I'm sure many of these experiments and projects would be more useful if they were actually built in space! Even for space agencies, it's all sorely disappointing. Their focus is on research and experimentation, which wouldn't be a problem if there were plans that were getting executed with some vision or goal of actual progress in capabilities. Their planning is also too long-term.
Why did artemis take 3 years? is it just to boast about being able to go back to the moon? By now this should have taken 3 months after over half a century. My point is not to be dismissive of the complexities, but to say that the state of things is being accepted as-is from what I'm seeing. Is there any actual solid plan to reduce at least launch times that factor?
It would be amazing if humans launched enough infrastructure into space, that there were would be foundries and factories entirely in space, reducing the dependence on transporting heavy things from earth into space.Spacecraft and space station components could largely be manufactured by mining raw materials and manufacturing with them without depending on earth's resources directly. That's probably not realistic, but what I'm decrying is not so much lack of action, but lack of vision (outside of scifi), planning, and focus.
That said, I'm just hijacking this to bring up that point of discuss. This is private cash, and I'm glad someone is donating to CERN for this research. I wish all the stuff I said could be funded with tax dollars. lay people need to see a vision, a plan, even if it can't be achieved in our lifetime, political will comes afterwards.
I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible!
In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more.
It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?
This is science for science sake. To advance knowledge. You argue for direct investment for building space faring capabilities, rather than for advancing knowledge, but then you should state why you want these space faring capabilities.
Because they are cool? I think that's essentially the reasoning behind putting people on the Moon. If you believe there are valifld economic reasons for space, why do we need tax dollars? And also: I don't see it. Space is so hostile an environment to humans, that it's hard to understand why we should invest in capability to be there personally. People aren't even investing to harvest Greenland's resources, and they are infinitely more accessible.
For starts for science itself. If transporting things to space wasn't so costly, so much more experimentation would better be done in space.
Yes it's cool, but that isn't why. It's because of resources and human progress.
I want mirrors in space that direct/magnify sun light to destinations on earth for example.
So many of human problems today have to do with resource scarcity. The "old" world had this, and the discovery of the "new" world in the west solved lots of problems.
Every tech we have to day, every advancement in medicine, industry,etc.. from steam engines to the internet and AI is a result of the discovery of the americas. the center of trade and commerce shifted to western europe, and western europeans used lots of means including conquest of the americas by force , enslaving africans,etc.. to get gold and riches from the americas back to europe. The improvement in the quality of life for western europeans meant they could focus less on subsistence and survival, and focus on science, industry and reformations.
Space is extremely hostile to humans. You're not wrong about that, but it isn't beyond humans' capability to conquer it. Solving the obstacles in the way of space expansion requires solving things that have the ability to improve humans' lives greatly. It means we could also conquer the polar zones and tundras much more easily, and be more resilient to climate change. Like how western europe benefited from the Americas, and how they pillaged gold from the americans, so is there gold and riches in space to be pillaged and improve the lives of the world on earth. Back in the 1800s, the west was a hostile (no comparison to space of course) place people with no options went to, space could be that for a while.
Humanity can't survive in a stagnant way. We will always need more space and more energy.
Said the grumpy grandpa, shaking his hand at the cloudy sky.
I dont know what value that comment contributed, funding research is always a long shot. And often times it fails, but that is kinda its purpose, we dont know what we dont know.
It's largely fans of Sabine Hossenfelder youtube channel, where some years ago sadly she shifted into just being a grifter selling conspiracy theories about the funding of particle physics.
The audience here tends to vastly overweight contrarian near conspiracy theory style stuff, so this sort of comment shows up on literally every damn post about physics research.
Dont be too harsh on the first comment, I'm Sure he's a good guy.
Interesting to see that hossenfelder thing, I was'nt aware of it.
Her videos got recommended to me but title+thumb always felt like an over the top commentary with more drama than actual problem to be aware of.
So I never clicked and at some point youtube stopped.
You could use the same argument to justify spending $1B on searching for the Loch Ness Monster. The problem is, you can only spend money once. If you're spending $1B on the FCC you aren't spending that same $1B on all kinds of other research.
With the LHC there was a very clear goal: verify the Standard Model and prove (or disprove) the existence of the Higgs boson - and hopefully discover some unexpected stuff along the way. On the other hand, the FCC is mainly a shot in the dark: they aren't validating a widely-accepted theory, they are just hoping that if you spend enough money on a bigger collider something interesting will fall out.
Most research gives you at least some insight. With the FCC there is a very real possibility that the insight will be "our $20B collider found absolutely nothing, now give us $1T to build an even bigger one". Sure, funding research is a long shot, but at a certain point you're just setting money on fire.
I see your point, but thats a really bad comparison. We are pretty certain that there is no giant dinosaur in a lake, but in terms of fundamental research there is a lot we cannot really explain a great many things. We dont even know if we are "looking" correctly, with the right concept in mind.
I agree that money spending must be carefully considered, but for this research there really is no replacement. You can shuffle public spending around, but an Experiment not dont will explain no part of the Universe. If the countries and Supranationals that are able to dont fund them we will be stuck with what we know now until they do.
It is a lot of money, but it is also the only way. Does that meaningfully stop the EU and all others from doing their thing? I would argue no. We can still afford it and so we should.
What changeable vectors are there except to scale up the energy levels? Can particles be altered prior to collission with the existing system to observe interesting effects?
Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and higher energy than radio frequency colliders like the FCC. If it has to go to particle physics, this money would be better spent on that research.
How is it they can’t either go to Wikipedia or one of the LLMs (despite hallucinations, tend to get simple things right) and get some corroborating evidence before making such basic mistakes on an article?
Man I can’t even trust simple things these days from LLM’s. Hardly scientific but I just decided to do my own little test one time when I was on discord talking to some friends about The Game Awards back in December or so. ChatGPT would simply omit winners and/or categories - got it wrong (twice the same way, one unique way) 3 times. We tried Gemini, it gave 1 wrong answer and omitted 2 categories. It was impressive how much worse than a basic search they were at a simple “what were the results of the 2025 Game Awards?”
What a waste. So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC, and we're not even expecting any significant new insights from it.
1. That's not an argument unless the evidence for these payoffs is so huge as to dwarf the payoffs of 1000 smaller experiments. There is no evidence of this.
2. There is no world in which this applies to particle physics at this point, especially using radio frequency particle collider tech. This is known physics and there are no mysteries in the regime the FCC would reach.
Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.
Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]?
CERN and large construction projects like the FCC employ tens of thousands of physicists and engineers across decades. It's hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it.
CERN shouldn't get that funding if they're going to push for the FCC. Funding is often contingent. Even sticking only to particle physics, there's lots of other research that could use that funding better, like wakefield accelerators and muon colliders.
A thousand gpus running a thousand LLMs will one day soon give us the next shakespeare. It will all be worth it in the end. Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain.
“ Perhaps my old age and fearfulness deceive me, but I suspect that the human species - the unique species - is about to be extinguished, but the Library will endure: illuminated, solitary, infinite, perfectly motionless, equipped with precious volumes, useless, incorruptible, secret.”
Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found.
From the 1970s to 2010s, physicists believed in a theory called supersymmetry, which predicted supersymmetric partner particles for the known elementary particles. But these should have been already found in the energies used in LHC.
For the first time, there is no mainstream theory that would predict any new findings. Maybe the next bigger particle collider will find no new particles at all?
A collider produces far more than new particles or explanations. They produce papers and phds. In effect, thier primary goal is to produce stem careers. The new particles are just the public announcements. The collider doesnt even need to be functional. Much/most of the work occures before first light, before anyone turns it on. The design of the ring and its innumerable detectors and subsystems takes decades. So a great many people want the next collider to be funded regardless of its potential for scientific discovery.
The same discussion can happen re the ISS. Its primary purpose was not science. It existed to give shuttle a parking spot, to keep the US manned space program ticking along and to keep a thousand russian rocket people from going to work for rando countries. The ISS will soon end. Are we going to put up a new one? A place to park starliner and dragon? Or are we going to shut down low earth orbit spaceflight? The decision will not turn on the potential for new science, rather it will be about supporting and maintaining a flagship industry.
>The same discussion can happen re the ISS. Its primary purpose was not science.
But it's worth noting that many experiments took place on ISS covering few domains, examples being AMS (cosmology), CAL (quantum physics), SAFFIRE (combustion), and Veggie (botany/sustainability).
And the LHC did science too. But, in both cases, the amount of science generated was not worth the money and/or the same could have been acomplished at far lower cost via other means.
> thousand russian rocket people from going to work for bad people.
Just like for the Germans before!
I agree with you that it is an educational tool, but if that's all it is, there are cheaper ways to educate that might also have a higher likelihood for scientific discoveries. To build a new collider, we should have some things we're trying to do/find.
> Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found.
Before LHC Large Hardron Collider (CERN), there were other experiments with lower raw and final recorded data rates: SppS (CERN; MB/s; 1-10 Hz), SLC (SLAC (Stanford); 50 MB/s; 2 Hz), LEP (CERN; 100 MB/s; 1-5 Hz), Tevatron (Fermilab (Chicago); 250 GB/s, 100-400 Hz), HERA (DESY; 500 MB/s; 5-20 Hz), LHC CMS/ATLAS (CERN; 40 TB/s; 1000 Hz).
HL-LHC (CERN; 10X LHC;)
FCC-ee (CERN), FCC-hh (CERN)
Non-confirmed non-elementary particles of or not of the Standard Model?
What about Superfluids and Supersolids (like spin-nematic liquid crystals)? Are those just phases? Is the phase chart for all particles complete?
How can they alter humanity? What's the difference for humanity since CERN found Higgs particle? In what ways could the potential dark matter particle detection alter humanity?
It’s a place where extremely skilled people work highly motivated on humanities hardest problems at scale.
CERN pushed distributed computing and storage before anyone else hat problems on that scale.
CERN pushed edge computing for massive data analysis before anyone else even generated data at that rate.
CERN is currently pushing the physical boundaries of device synchronisation ( Check „ White Rabbit“ ), same for data transmission.
CERNS accelerator cooling tech paves the way for industrial super cooling, magnet coils push super conduction…
Companies are always late in the game, they come once there is money to be had:
No one founded a fusion startup until we were close enough to the relevant tripple product.
Sure, but if experimental physics don't matter, wouldn't it be a far better idea to develop all those kinds of technology without actually building the expensive collider itself?
You are perfectly right, this has been similar to the "space industry" (which includes 'ballistic nukes' knowhow maintainance). The thing with a bigger collider is it seems there are, not that honnest, scientists retro-fitting models in order to reach 'appropriate for this new collider' energy ranges where 'new physics' could be found.
What does that even mean? The FCC is essentially the next plausible energy range we can probe with a collider.
Going larger would cost more, and add risk.
So like, yes? The obvious thing to do is to analyze our models and come up with experiments to do within energy ranges which are plausibly accessible with near future technology.
This is where there is a questionable issue: some network of dishonest scientists may have retro-fitted the models in order to get realitic energy ranges for this new collider.
In what way would studying black body radiation alter humanity? Oh just the basis for quantum mechanics and thus transistors, lasers, MRIs, photovoltaics, and more.
The point is, you don't know in advance. I admit it's a bit more far fetched with these experiments that are so far removed from everyday life, but they're still worthwhile.
I understand how linacs and even small compact syncrotrons can have practical medical and industrial applications, and I understand that in the past CERN has developed technology and produced research which is relevant to hardon therapy.
What I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify, is how the very largest gargantuan accelerators can ever have practical relevance. How can effects and products which can only be studied with accelerators that are many miles large ever have application in hospitals unless those hospitals are also many miles large? Not going to lie, I get "NASA invented Tang" vibes whenever this subject comes up; like the medical applications of small accelerators are obvious and parsable to the public, so they are used to sell the public on accelerators the size of small countries.
Because of the engineering effort required to build such systems, that no one has built before, means there is a gigantic amount of R&D discoveries that can be eventually applied in other fields outside particle physics.
Hence why CERN eventually created an industry collaboration office, responsible for finding business partners that would like to make a business out of such discoveries.
The internet existed, hypertext existed, it was just happenstance that it was put together there. It would have happened somewhere, maybe not exactly the same protocol but the same end result.
I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes.
This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.
> Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.
> Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.
There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.
What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?
It can deliver radiations to the brain that will peak at the exact position of the cancer, and reduce irradiation in sane tissues.
The 'better' is 'less irradiation to sane tissues' that in turn reduces the risk for new cancers.
Note: I'm not expert on the matter, but I had technical visits to IBA and know several PhDs that work there
> What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?
I mean exactly that, clinical trials demonstrating that proton therapy is superior to radiation therapy. This is not a question about the physics but about how patients respond (and whether the expense of delivering proton therapy outweighs the expected marginal benefits).
But on the subject of discoveries and practical uses, the IBA cyclotrons are also used for other purposes than proton therapy: cleaning exotic fruits from dangerous substances and personalized medicine.
This may be one of the good cases, then. I'm not an expert in cancer but I am a biologist and physician. The head and neck cancer (here) and various pediatric indications get the most attention but it has felt that proton therapy has been seeking an indication for almost 40 years now.
The study was designed to show non-inferiority, which doesn't preclude their ability to show an improvement. It would be helpful to see other studies before determining that proton therapy is better (or even non-inferior) to radiation therapy. It's certainly much more expensive, which shows up in the study as many subjects being denied insurance coverage.
Edit: This is now in the weeds, but the per-protocol participants didn't fare better than the intention-to-treat participants, which one might expect since insurance approval lead to dozens of subjects changing treatment arms.
In Europe at least, many insurances cover it if you have the right criterias.
From my visits, they mostly focus on children that have some very nasty cancers, the IBA hospitals are all designed with children in mind (to avoid stressing them), and from my memory, a unique hospital is often enough to treat a whole country for the kind of cancer they target.
Now, if it is on par with classical radiotherapy BUT it gives less subsequent problems, it might be worth the cost as subsequent problems can be as expensive or even more than the original treatment. It becomes an actuarial issue to know where is the tradeoff.
I think we agree in general, I don't disagree that maybe Proton therapy is not better than radiotherapy, it might but we lack some evidence.
I only argue that if they are equal in quality of treatment and the 'total cost' is the evaluation parameter, it is way more complex than the treatment itself, and it could be justified to use proton therapy, even if more expensive.
As someone who supports pure science research, I would be interested to understand if any of the discoveries of CERN (and related projects) in the last 50 years (say) have proved to have practical application.
(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)
Before your edit:
The world wide web: https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web
certain medical imaging: https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/medipix-partic...
grid computing advances: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00104...
PIMMS: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/
Medicis: https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/cern-accelerates-me...
FLASH radiotherapy: https://home.cern/news/news/knowledge-sharing/cern-chuv-and-...
---
After your edit:
No, not yet, but those are long tail efforts. The technologies are the short term yield.
It’s an interesting question. After all we were using electricity, batteries, electric motors, radios and telegraphs long before we ever discovered electrons and photons.
But discovering the electron was necessary for us to develop vacuum tubes. And developing quantum mechanics was necessary for developing transistors.
Think about the relative impact of the telegraph vs the vacuum tube.
When we do eventually find something to do with the W and Z bosons, it’s likely to look more like a transistor-level tech than an immediately practical tool like a lightbulb. But the second-order effects from whatever that new tech turns out to be, have the potential to be world-shattering.
Quantum Mechanics, protons, electrons... That's the theory of everyday matter. You don't need very special situations to see their effects. Understanding the underlying equations enabled us to do more with what we already have.
High energy stuff only exists unstably for fractions of seconds. I find the idea that any of Standard Model physics, nevermind beyond standard model physics, could lead to a technological advance like the transistor extremely unconvincing.
Technological advance and scientific advance sometimes align. But there is no law that the former by necessity follows from the former. The expectation that they do is an extrapolation from a very brief period of human history.
I don't know why you were getting down voted for this. Discovery during technological development of scientific instrumentation is one of the greatest returns on investment of funding pure science research. And like your sibling comment says, the pure science helps direct applied science, eg cutting edge materials science. Long tail, if for no other reason, because its a whole other development process that happens after the pure science.
Fundamental research is entwined with practical applications, you can’t have the later without the former. Europe is known for FR, while everyone else seems to be better at commercialising. It’s alright, progress for us is progress for everyone.
That's not an answer to the specific question asked. Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.
> Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.
It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery. Historically it has sometimes been decades before manufacturing and practical applications caught up to frontier research. For an extreme example, mankind knew of electricity in some form for 2400 years before doing anything practical with it. If all the people who prodded at it instead thought "man I can't imagine what this could be useful for" and found something else to do with their time, we'd live in a very different world.
Our civilization can afford to aim higher than incremental improvements on pixel density for screens on which to spectate people kicking a ball around. Personally I find frontier discoveries to also have much greater entertainment value than sports events and will happily fund them with a tiny fraction of my tax dollars.
> It is hard to gauge this is in advance though. If you were sure what you were gonna find, it wouldn't be much of a discovery.
Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted, and then we built devices to find them, eg. the Higgs was predicted in the 1960s. There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
There is better frontier research that could use those funds for much better payoffs. For instance, just sticking with particle physics, Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper than the LHC while achieving the same energies. We've also never built a muon collider, and so that's largely unexplored territory.
We just don't need another radio frequency particle collider, we've reached the limits of what they can do within a reasonable research budget.
> Virtually all previous particle discoveries were predicted
That's not true at all. To give just few examples.
Electron was not predicted but Thomson found it during first fundamental particle discovered came from cathode‐ray experiments, not from a prior microscopic theory of matte. Remember this was during thr 19th century.
Another one is the muon discovered in 1936 which was detected as "heavy electron" in cosmic rays. it did not fit any clear theoretical need in nuclear physics at the time, leading Rabi to quip “Who ordered that?”
Heck there are many more examples that I will bypass the comment limits if I tried to list them (resonances in particular will be very numerous).
You can of course move the goal target by narrowing what you mean by particle but this is exactly why physicists try to define what they talk about before making an argument.
> There is no such motivation here. There is no theoretical or significant practical benefit for the FCC, it's basically a jobs program.
Really? There is a huge volume of the feasibility study about the physics program of FCC. Are you claiming that it is false. Have you even read it?
Why do you not count the technology developments needed to do the research?
This kind of thing always reminds me G. H. Hardy, a mathematician that famously took pride in working on pure number theory, which he described as having "no practical use" and therefore being morally superior to applied mathematics connected to war or industry.
This ended up as the theoretical bedrock upon which modern encryption algorithms are built, enabling trillions of dollars of economic activity (as well as spying and other nefarious or ethically questionable activities).
I noticed (as have others) that even the purest of pure fundamental research has this oddly persistent pattern of becoming applied to everyday problems sooner or later.
The x-ray telescope mirror design used for Chandra -- motived only by pure intellectual curiosity -- ended up being a key development stepping stone towards ASML's TWINSCAN tools that use focused x-rays for chip lithography. Arguably this is more important to the global economy now that even oil is!
Similarly, particle accelerators like CERN might be the next chip lithography beam sources. The technologies being developed for research physicists such as laser-driven "desktop" accelerators might be just the ticket to replace tin droplet x-ray light sources.
Who knows?
We certainly won't if we don't built these things for pure research first to find out!
With that kind of fundamental science I would expect no practical applications but guidance for researchers that work on practical applications.
There are many ideas on how the universe works, right? Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable.
It must be somewhere between knowing if there's alien life or not AND knowing that atoms can be split at sub particles at will.
What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the love of the game, regardless of social status and money.
If you want to live in this world, you have to trade your time and provide value to others. You shouldn't get a free pass because, just because you convinced yourself and the government that you're smarter than everyone else.
Agree this reminds me of the level my Herman Hesse “The Glass Bead Game”. Academics and researchers have a moral duty to give back to the larger society that enables their endeavors .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Glass_Bead_Game
This makes no sense.
"Decoupling science from the state" is just bullshit from "government icky, taxation is theft" morons.
No, governments should definitely fund scientific research. When it is public it is the only guarantee that it will benefit everyone. Scientific research done by private entities is kneecapped by their financial interests (and be very sure they will bury any advance that jeopardize their financial interests).
How are radio telescopes and mars rovers in my interest? How would you know what is in my interest? I worked for my money so the person in the best position to judge what is in my interest is me. I am sorry for you if that is such a hard concept to understand.
You’re free to vote towards your goals, or move to countries which invest basically nothing in research. There’s plenty of them. I suspect you may not enjoy such great quality of life there.
In case it wasn’t a rhetorical question, they’re in your interest because through the process of building them we improve our understanding of the world, develop new technologies which the industrial system wouldn’t have backed, educate the next generation of engineers and scientists, and inspire the kids that will form the second next generation.
Private research already exists and works well in some fields, mine included. But public research is just as important since it can afford higher risk and longer scope. You can’t begin to count the startups that were created as spin-offs of university research groups.
So you think we shouldn't try to understand the world around us?
Frankly, your particular interest is completely irrelevant.
Scientific research is of societal interest, even if your particular interest differ. The best you can do is vote for parties that promise to shut down scientific research, or find another group of likeminded morons and form such a party with them.
If you disagree with the concept of taxes, well, sucks to be you. May your desires never come to fruition, because life would be hell.
It would be great if we had line-item vetoes on our tax forms. However, we don't. You have to fund some things you don't like or agree with, and so do I, and so do the rest of the taxpayers.
That's just how taxes work. Like capitalism and democracy, taxes suck, but nobody has come up with adequate substitutes that check all the necessary boxes.
Why wouldn't I veto everything except the give me back my money tax? Now, I'm not actually ridiculously selfish asshole that doesn't think of others or the long term consequences of my choices, but it's a prisoners dilemma, with everybody else in your country, and defecting gives you money back. Cynically I don't think that'll work.
It wouldn't be a "Give money to anyone you like" kind of choice, but "Allocate money to these departments." Funding that you assign to one category would have to come out of another. Think basic research is a waste? Allocate less to NSF and more to foreign aid, or to something else that you prefer. Don't want to fund welfare? Move the money to defense, and so forth.
Obviously still open to gaming and abuse, but it's not as if the current system isn't.
> Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable.
Sorry, no. That's solid state physics on inter-atomic scales: tenths of nanometers, a handful of electronvolts. The LHC probes physics at the electroweak scale: hundreds of billions of electronvolts, billionths of nanometers. It has zero relevance to anything of practical use.
Isn’t one of the limitations to transistor density quantum tunneling?
In a few cases and in a simplistic sense, yes. But the point of the comment you’re replying to still stands completely. Quantum tunneling is nothing exotic and we have plenty of devices exploiting the principle (e.g. tunnel diodes). It was basically fully understood the moment the Schrödinger equation appeared.
These accelerators are as large as they are to try and find mismatches between theory and experiment. And even then, we can explain virtually every experiment that the LHC has conducted. If we did find something unexpected with one of these colliders, it would only really apply to experiments made in the collider. Particle physics is irrelevant for everyday stuff since we already fully understand everything involved.
No. It is purely a model tester.
This is such a weasel question because you can keep saying whatever was new was "just technology" not pure discoveries.
No, there hasn't been any big "new physics" since the standard model in the 70s, everything has been refinement and specifics. You can't go to Walmart and buy something that couldn't exist unless we knew the precise mass of the top quark or the Higgs boson.
There have been a tremendous amount of developments and technologies that have come out of CERN with varying degrees of closeness to particle physics, but depending on who you're talking to, most of them don't count.
>(Specifically, "discoveries", not technology developed in support of the research)
Ok, but Tim Berners-Lee was working at CERN when he created HTTP, HTML, etc.
The Internet through web browsers as you know it was created at CERN in order to enable scientific communication and collaboration.
I was hoping that someone would be able to point me to some practical technical advance enabled by discoveries or measurements at CERN (or similar establishments).
It seems plausible to me that better understanding of the properties the subatomic particles might enable some previously unexploited technology (e.g. in quantum computing or sensing).
As a non physicist I like the idea of a moun collider more - more compact (thus should be cheaper) as well as something which haven't done in similar energy scales and therefore more likely to need new technology in building it and finding something new.
Typo?
I like the idea of a noun collider. Then we could smash apples and oranges.
I try to keep up with this stuff, but I wish to a layperson like me, the benefits of this was communicated more clearly. Even something like the JWT, I'm still not seeing the benefit. It's really awesome, don't deny that at all!
But I'd rather see more investment put into developing space-faring capabilities. Being able to transport lots of goods and people into space, and start manufacturing in space.
I've heard it said that research into this stuff will inevitably benefit all manners of other sciences, but hoping for a byproduct isn't the same as direct investment.
I'm just asking in earnest if priorities are aligned properly. I'm sure many of these experiments and projects would be more useful if they were actually built in space! Even for space agencies, it's all sorely disappointing. Their focus is on research and experimentation, which wouldn't be a problem if there were plans that were getting executed with some vision or goal of actual progress in capabilities. Their planning is also too long-term.
Why did artemis take 3 years? is it just to boast about being able to go back to the moon? By now this should have taken 3 months after over half a century. My point is not to be dismissive of the complexities, but to say that the state of things is being accepted as-is from what I'm seeing. Is there any actual solid plan to reduce at least launch times that factor?
It would be amazing if humans launched enough infrastructure into space, that there were would be foundries and factories entirely in space, reducing the dependence on transporting heavy things from earth into space.Spacecraft and space station components could largely be manufactured by mining raw materials and manufacturing with them without depending on earth's resources directly. That's probably not realistic, but what I'm decrying is not so much lack of action, but lack of vision (outside of scifi), planning, and focus.
That said, I'm just hijacking this to bring up that point of discuss. This is private cash, and I'm glad someone is donating to CERN for this research. I wish all the stuff I said could be funded with tax dollars. lay people need to see a vision, a plan, even if it can't be achieved in our lifetime, political will comes afterwards.
I suppose the question of how to prioritize scientific funding is itself a scientific problem, so we would first need to decide how much to allocate to the scientific funding sub-discipline so that all of scientific funding is as efficient as possible!
In all seriousness, I don't know how science policy works but I expect it is more goal-oriented than objective-oriented. Science rarely starts with, "What are the biggest problems faced by humanity", and then tries to take them up. Rather what it's saying is, "I know this and this about something. Given this, I think I can figure out what is that", and then tries to figure out "that". There is no greater objective to figuring out "that", other than it is there to be found. You could perhaps say the ultimate objective of science is simply to know, and so you take whatever steps are in front of you that will help you know more.
It might seem kinda wasteful on the outset, but 400 years back nobody would have dreamed that studying why these dots in the night sky move will help understand tides on earth, which in turn leads to understanding tidal currents, which in turn leads to understanding climate at a given place. 200 years back no one would have imagined that the key to health and diseases lie in finding invisible things moving around in the air. A mere 100 years back it would've been impossible to conceive studying why tiny flecks of dust jiggle about when floating on a drop of water, would lead to unlocking immense reserves of energy for civilization. Everything we are today, everything we can do, all the scientific and technological progress we have achieved is a result of this very process. It happened simply because many thousands of curious minds tried to take the next step in front of them. If some of them didn't because they were told it wasn't a worthwhile investment of resources, where would we be today?
This is science for science sake. To advance knowledge. You argue for direct investment for building space faring capabilities, rather than for advancing knowledge, but then you should state why you want these space faring capabilities.
Because they are cool? I think that's essentially the reasoning behind putting people on the Moon. If you believe there are valifld economic reasons for space, why do we need tax dollars? And also: I don't see it. Space is so hostile an environment to humans, that it's hard to understand why we should invest in capability to be there personally. People aren't even investing to harvest Greenland's resources, and they are infinitely more accessible.
For starts for science itself. If transporting things to space wasn't so costly, so much more experimentation would better be done in space.
Yes it's cool, but that isn't why. It's because of resources and human progress.
I want mirrors in space that direct/magnify sun light to destinations on earth for example.
So many of human problems today have to do with resource scarcity. The "old" world had this, and the discovery of the "new" world in the west solved lots of problems.
Every tech we have to day, every advancement in medicine, industry,etc.. from steam engines to the internet and AI is a result of the discovery of the americas. the center of trade and commerce shifted to western europe, and western europeans used lots of means including conquest of the americas by force , enslaving africans,etc.. to get gold and riches from the americas back to europe. The improvement in the quality of life for western europeans meant they could focus less on subsistence and survival, and focus on science, industry and reformations.
Space is extremely hostile to humans. You're not wrong about that, but it isn't beyond humans' capability to conquer it. Solving the obstacles in the way of space expansion requires solving things that have the ability to improve humans' lives greatly. It means we could also conquer the polar zones and tundras much more easily, and be more resilient to climate change. Like how western europe benefited from the Americas, and how they pillaged gold from the americans, so is there gold and riches in space to be pillaged and improve the lives of the world on earth. Back in the 1800s, the west was a hostile (no comparison to space of course) place people with no options went to, space could be that for a while.
Humanity can't survive in a stagnant way. We will always need more space and more energy.
Maybe this one will finally make a black hole that ends it all
https://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
https://hasthelargehadroncollidercreatedablackholeyet.com/ (Yep, of money)
Or maybe just undo this weird timeline the last one put us in.
source code has us at 89%
it's already a black hole for funding
Said the grumpy grandpa, shaking his hand at the cloudy sky. I dont know what value that comment contributed, funding research is always a long shot. And often times it fails, but that is kinda its purpose, we dont know what we dont know.
It's largely fans of Sabine Hossenfelder youtube channel, where some years ago sadly she shifted into just being a grifter selling conspiracy theories about the funding of particle physics.
The audience here tends to vastly overweight contrarian near conspiracy theory style stuff, so this sort of comment shows up on literally every damn post about physics research.
Dont be too harsh on the first comment, I'm Sure he's a good guy. Interesting to see that hossenfelder thing, I was'nt aware of it. Her videos got recommended to me but title+thumb always felt like an over the top commentary with more drama than actual problem to be aware of.
So I never clicked and at some point youtube stopped.
Yeah, it's sad she went that direction, because her educational videos that aren't agitpop are very good.
It's just another example of how the incentives on modern social media pull people towards ragebait and other forms of grift.
You could use the same argument to justify spending $1B on searching for the Loch Ness Monster. The problem is, you can only spend money once. If you're spending $1B on the FCC you aren't spending that same $1B on all kinds of other research.
With the LHC there was a very clear goal: verify the Standard Model and prove (or disprove) the existence of the Higgs boson - and hopefully discover some unexpected stuff along the way. On the other hand, the FCC is mainly a shot in the dark: they aren't validating a widely-accepted theory, they are just hoping that if you spend enough money on a bigger collider something interesting will fall out.
Most research gives you at least some insight. With the FCC there is a very real possibility that the insight will be "our $20B collider found absolutely nothing, now give us $1T to build an even bigger one". Sure, funding research is a long shot, but at a certain point you're just setting money on fire.
I see your point, but thats a really bad comparison. We are pretty certain that there is no giant dinosaur in a lake, but in terms of fundamental research there is a lot we cannot really explain a great many things. We dont even know if we are "looking" correctly, with the right concept in mind.
I agree that money spending must be carefully considered, but for this research there really is no replacement. You can shuffle public spending around, but an Experiment not dont will explain no part of the Universe. If the countries and Supranationals that are able to dont fund them we will be stuck with what we know now until they do.
It is a lot of money, but it is also the only way. Does that meaningfully stop the EU and all others from doing their thing? I would argue no. We can still afford it and so we should.
That's not true. There are a huge number of theories that would be falsified by a more precise measurement of the Higgs mass.
your comment made me smile like a grandpa :)
Also lighten up! oh... damn black hole...
Haha nice :) Yeah those black holes are everywhere these days when you dont look...
There’s an abandoned one around Dallas, the SSC. Lots of sunken cost in that one.
What changeable vectors are there except to scale up the energy levels? Can particles be altered prior to collission with the existing system to observe interesting effects?
Wakefield accelerators would be orders of magnitude smaller and higher energy than radio frequency colliders like the FCC. If it has to go to particle physics, this money would be better spent on that research.
“Eric Schmidt, who founded Google” no he didn’t
I can understand the confusion since he was CEO for the companies most critical years.
That kind of reporting is awful.
How is it they can’t either go to Wikipedia or one of the LLMs (despite hallucinations, tend to get simple things right) and get some corroborating evidence before making such basic mistakes on an article?
You are right. ChatGPT doesn’t catch this, instead catches things like CERN having 25 member states instead of 24.
I would have expected it to catch it but it did not. I’m sure pro version would have though.
Man I can’t even trust simple things these days from LLM’s. Hardly scientific but I just decided to do my own little test one time when I was on discord talking to some friends about The Game Awards back in December or so. ChatGPT would simply omit winners and/or categories - got it wrong (twice the same way, one unique way) 3 times. We tried Gemini, it gave 1 wrong answer and omitted 2 categories. It was impressive how much worse than a basic search they were at a simple “what were the results of the 2025 Game Awards?”
What a waste. So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC, and we're not even expecting any significant new insights from it.
Sometimes you get huge value from things you didn't expect ;-)
1. That's not an argument unless the evidence for these payoffs is so huge as to dwarf the payoffs of 1000 smaller experiments. There is no evidence of this.
2. There is no world in which this applies to particle physics at this point, especially using radio frequency particle collider tech. This is known physics and there are no mysteries in the regime the FCC would reach.
Do you have evidence that "1000 smaller experiments" would give payoffs?
And how do you measure payoffs? With how much money you get in return? Should scientific research expect this?
Payoffs have many forms, the most important for pure research being "advancement of knowledge". We have nearly zero expectation of knowledge advancement from yet another radio frequency collider.
Then the mystery is how the CERN "raised" those $1B. Maybe they have an amazing PR department? Or maybe the project is going to be such a huge success that they are acting from the future [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steins;Gate_(TV_series)
CERN and large construction projects like the FCC employ tens of thousands of physicists and engineers across decades. It's hard to convince someone of something when their livelihood depends on them not believing it.
amen
> So many more science experiments with better expected ROI could be funded for the money needed for the FCC
Ok, like what? Let the scientists at CERN decide what to spend their funding on.
CERN shouldn't get that funding if they're going to push for the FCC. Funding is often contingent. Even sticking only to particle physics, there's lots of other research that could use that funding better, like wakefield accelerators and muon colliders.
This should have a $1T budget not a B. We waste so much money on low efficiency computing infrastructure and energy that should be going to this.
I have low expectations that physics can dig itself out of the hole it dug by building an even larger collider. It's not worth €1T to find out.
Maybe we can just have the AI hardware make the discoveries for us!
A thousand gpus running a thousand LLMs will one day soon give us the next shakespeare. It will all be worth it in the end. Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain.
“ Perhaps my old age and fearfulness deceive me, but I suspect that the human species - the unique species - is about to be extinguished, but the Library will endure: illuminated, solitary, infinite, perfectly motionless, equipped with precious volumes, useless, incorruptible, secret.”
> Maybe we can try putting in on a blockchain.
Anything less would be a wasted opportunity!
FCC is "physics" equivalent of easter island statues. Useless resource sink with no perspective productive outcome whatsoever.
These projects are extremely expensive and the findings can alter humanity itself. That's why private donors sounds a bit sketchy
> findings can alter humanity itself
Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found.
From the 1970s to 2010s, physicists believed in a theory called supersymmetry, which predicted supersymmetric partner particles for the known elementary particles. But these should have been already found in the energies used in LHC.
For the first time, there is no mainstream theory that would predict any new findings. Maybe the next bigger particle collider will find no new particles at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlixMNBlQos
A collider produces far more than new particles or explanations. They produce papers and phds. In effect, thier primary goal is to produce stem careers. The new particles are just the public announcements. The collider doesnt even need to be functional. Much/most of the work occures before first light, before anyone turns it on. The design of the ring and its innumerable detectors and subsystems takes decades. So a great many people want the next collider to be funded regardless of its potential for scientific discovery.
The same discussion can happen re the ISS. Its primary purpose was not science. It existed to give shuttle a parking spot, to keep the US manned space program ticking along and to keep a thousand russian rocket people from going to work for rando countries. The ISS will soon end. Are we going to put up a new one? A place to park starliner and dragon? Or are we going to shut down low earth orbit spaceflight? The decision will not turn on the potential for new science, rather it will be about supporting and maintaining a flagship industry.
>The same discussion can happen re the ISS. Its primary purpose was not science.
But it's worth noting that many experiments took place on ISS covering few domains, examples being AMS (cosmology), CAL (quantum physics), SAFFIRE (combustion), and Veggie (botany/sustainability).
And the LHC did science too. But, in both cases, the amount of science generated was not worth the money and/or the same could have been acomplished at far lower cost via other means.
> thousand russian rocket people from going to work for bad people.
Just like for the Germans before!
I agree with you that it is an educational tool, but if that's all it is, there are cheaper ways to educate that might also have a higher likelihood for scientific discoveries. To build a new collider, we should have some things we're trying to do/find.
> Higgs boson was predicted in theory in 1964, and found in LHC in CERN in 2012-2013. With this, all elementary particles in the standard model of particle physics have been found.
Before LHC Large Hardron Collider (CERN), there were other experiments with lower raw and final recorded data rates: SppS (CERN; MB/s; 1-10 Hz), SLC (SLAC (Stanford); 50 MB/s; 2 Hz), LEP (CERN; 100 MB/s; 1-5 Hz), Tevatron (Fermilab (Chicago); 250 GB/s, 100-400 Hz), HERA (DESY; 500 MB/s; 5-20 Hz), LHC CMS/ATLAS (CERN; 40 TB/s; 1000 Hz).
HL-LHC (CERN; 10X LHC;)
FCC-ee (CERN), FCC-hh (CERN)
Non-confirmed non-elementary particles of or not of the Standard Model?
What about Superfluids and Supersolids (like spin-nematic liquid crystals)? Are those just phases? Is the phase chart for all particles complete?
How can they alter humanity? What's the difference for humanity since CERN found Higgs particle? In what ways could the potential dark matter particle detection alter humanity?
It’s a place where extremely skilled people work highly motivated on humanities hardest problems at scale.
CERN pushed distributed computing and storage before anyone else hat problems on that scale.
CERN pushed edge computing for massive data analysis before anyone else even generated data at that rate.
CERN is currently pushing the physical boundaries of device synchronisation ( Check „ White Rabbit“ ), same for data transmission. CERNS accelerator cooling tech paves the way for industrial super cooling, magnet coils push super conduction…
Companies are always late in the game, they come once there is money to be had: No one founded a fusion startup until we were close enough to the relevant tripple product.
Seems these are all positive things and it’s good that private donors are adding some money.
Sure, but if experimental physics don't matter, wouldn't it be a far better idea to develop all those kinds of technology without actually building the expensive collider itself?
that's like building an API with no customers -- rarely a good idea
You are perfectly right, this has been similar to the "space industry" (which includes 'ballistic nukes' knowhow maintainance). The thing with a bigger collider is it seems there are, not that honnest, scientists retro-fitting models in order to reach 'appropriate for this new collider' energy ranges where 'new physics' could be found.
What does that even mean? The FCC is essentially the next plausible energy range we can probe with a collider.
Going larger would cost more, and add risk.
So like, yes? The obvious thing to do is to analyze our models and come up with experiments to do within energy ranges which are plausibly accessible with near future technology.
This is where there is a questionable issue: some network of dishonest scientists may have retro-fitted the models in order to get realitic energy ranges for this new collider.
I misread the first bit as the hardest problem in the Humanities.
I’m not sure I have any idea what the hardest problem in the humanities is.
In what way would studying black body radiation alter humanity? Oh just the basis for quantum mechanics and thus transistors, lasers, MRIs, photovoltaics, and more.
The point is, you don't know in advance. I admit it's a bit more far fetched with these experiments that are so far removed from everyday life, but they're still worthwhile.
Cancer treatment goes back to particle physics research at CERN, the Web was born there, cloud was previously known as Grid Computing at CERN,
Three examples of how humanity would not be as we know it today without CERN.
As Alumni, there are many other changes that trace back to CERN.
We don't sit only on the H1 beer garden and go skiing.
I understand how linacs and even small compact syncrotrons can have practical medical and industrial applications, and I understand that in the past CERN has developed technology and produced research which is relevant to hardon therapy.
What I don't understand, and maybe you can clarify, is how the very largest gargantuan accelerators can ever have practical relevance. How can effects and products which can only be studied with accelerators that are many miles large ever have application in hospitals unless those hospitals are also many miles large? Not going to lie, I get "NASA invented Tang" vibes whenever this subject comes up; like the medical applications of small accelerators are obvious and parsable to the public, so they are used to sell the public on accelerators the size of small countries.
Because of the engineering effort required to build such systems, that no one has built before, means there is a gigantic amount of R&D discoveries that can be eventually applied in other fields outside particle physics.
Mechanical, electronic, informatics, chemistry, physics,...
Hence why CERN eventually created an industry collaboration office, responsible for finding business partners that would like to make a business out of such discoveries.
https://knowledgetransfer.web.cern.ch/activities-services/co...
> the Web was born there
The internet existed, hypertext existed, it was just happenstance that it was put together there. It would have happened somewhere, maybe not exactly the same protocol but the same end result.
Indeed and we are all still waiting for Xanadu.
> Cancer treatment goes back to particle physics
Are you speaking about proton therapy? I don’t think there’s any evidence that works better than alternatives
What matters is that exists, and is another possibility for treatments.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4724719/
I disagree that any new possibility for treatments should be lauded. The theoretical side of things is fine, but many new treatments are far more expensive than existing options without offering improved outcomes.
This is orthogonal to your point about CERN being useful.
Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.
Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.
> Some people also believe praying beats vaccination programs.
> Unfortunately I have got to know people that are only still around me thanks to this technology that you find needless.
There is no way to know whether these people would have been served better by receiving radiation therapy. Your statement is tantamount to believing in prayer.
I know they are better than not having received anything at all.
What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?
It can deliver radiations to the brain that will peak at the exact position of the cancer, and reduce irradiation in sane tissues. The 'better' is 'less irradiation to sane tissues' that in turn reduces the risk for new cancers.
Note: I'm not expert on the matter, but I had technical visits to IBA and know several PhDs that work there
> What do you mean by 'any evidence that works better Than alternatives'?
I mean exactly that, clinical trials demonstrating that proton therapy is superior to radiation therapy. This is not a question about the physics but about how patients respond (and whether the expense of delivering proton therapy outweighs the expected marginal benefits).
As a non expert, I can't pronounce myself on the subject, I found this recent study:
https://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/research-newsroom/proton...
But on the subject of discoveries and practical uses, the IBA cyclotrons are also used for other purposes than proton therapy: cleaning exotic fruits from dangerous substances and personalized medicine.
This may be one of the good cases, then. I'm not an expert in cancer but I am a biologist and physician. The head and neck cancer (here) and various pediatric indications get the most attention but it has felt that proton therapy has been seeking an indication for almost 40 years now.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
The study was designed to show non-inferiority, which doesn't preclude their ability to show an improvement. It would be helpful to see other studies before determining that proton therapy is better (or even non-inferior) to radiation therapy. It's certainly much more expensive, which shows up in the study as many subjects being denied insurance coverage.
Edit: This is now in the weeds, but the per-protocol participants didn't fare better than the intention-to-treat participants, which one might expect since insurance approval lead to dozens of subjects changing treatment arms.
In Europe at least, many insurances cover it if you have the right criterias.
From my visits, they mostly focus on children that have some very nasty cancers, the IBA hospitals are all designed with children in mind (to avoid stressing them), and from my memory, a unique hospital is often enough to treat a whole country for the kind of cancer they target.
Now, if it is on par with classical radiotherapy BUT it gives less subsequent problems, it might be worth the cost as subsequent problems can be as expensive or even more than the original treatment. It becomes an actuarial issue to know where is the tradeoff.
Yes, all of your points are presented as arguments to pay for this (children, comorbodities, specialization, specific cancers)
I think we agree in general, I don't disagree that maybe Proton therapy is not better than radiotherapy, it might but we lack some evidence.
I only argue that if they are equal in quality of treatment and the 'total cost' is the evaluation parameter, it is way more complex than the treatment itself, and it could be justified to use proton therapy, even if more expensive.
Nice talk anyways :)
Less that and more "we built a really complex machine and we can apply those skills elsewhere".
> can alter humanity
or at least keep some of it warm:
https://home.cern/news/news/cern/heating-homes-worlds-larges...
So complain to your government about their spending. Probably at least 30% of government spend is used on completely worthless or fraudulent things.
It's good that someone is funding this stuff.