New atom smasher would be world's biggest by far

New atom smasher would be world's biggest by far The proposed particle collider would be four times bigger and 10 times more powerful than the biggest particle collider now in existence.

Seven years after experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)-
the world's largest atom smasher - confirmed the existance of a
mysterious subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson, physicists
have drawn up plans to build an even bigger collider.

The Future Circular Collider (FCC) would be four times bigger and
up to 10 times more powerful than the LHC, the European Organization
for Nuclear Research (better known by its French acronymn, CERN)
announced in a report on Tuesday.

They are hoping that the FCC succeeds where the LHC failed, and there
are a few Scientists who are speculating whether or not it's going to make
that much of a difference. I know it takes a huge amount of power to
run this thing, watching what happens from here to see how this will
pan out long term.


www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: TheHenchman

They are hoping that the FCC succeeds where the LHC failed

Are they hoping to actually make a black hole this time or are they hoping to make better changes in the timeline than just logos and quotes in movies.

Sometimes I think instead of an atom smasher we should focus on developing a quantum microscope.

a reply to: InTheLight

Sounds cool, what could we see with that?

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: InTheLight

Sounds cool, what could we see with that?

Atoms and their lesser parts in their natural state or spooky state.

Where did the LHC fail ?
Just an excuse for money for better bragging rights

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: TheHenchman

They are hoping that the FCC succeeds where the LHC failed

Are they hoping to actually make a black hole this time or are they hoping to make better changes in the timeline than just logos and quotes in movies.

Allow me to introduce a whole new level of superstitious fear...
Theoretically , any time a collision occurs a black hole is created.
Just wait until mankind can produce the amount of energy the sun will from the start to the end
Then , you will see a real black hole

originally posted by: FlyingFox

Just throwing this out there, but that pic reminded me a bit of crop circles.... 🤔

I must be a prophet or something like that

Years ago I thought that what the LHC was most likely to find is that they need a larger one

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: TheHenchman

They are hoping that the FCC succeeds where the LHC failed

Are they hoping to actually make a black hole this time or are they hoping to make better changes in the timeline than just logos and quotes in movies.

Allow me to introduce a whole new level of superstitious fear...
Theoretically , any time a collision occurs a black hole is created.
Just wait until mankind can produce the amount of energy the sun will from the start to the end
Then , you will see a real black hole

That does not make sense because the amount of energy of our sun does not create a black hole.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: TheHenchman

They are hoping that the FCC succeeds where the LHC failed

Are they hoping to actually make a black hole this time or are they hoping to make better changes in the timeline than just logos and quotes in movies.

Allow me to introduce a whole new level of superstitious fear...
Theoretically , any time a collision occurs a black hole is created.
Just wait until mankind can produce the amount of energy the sun will from the start to the end
Then , you will see a real black hole

That does not make sense because the amount of energy of our sun does not create a black hole.

It could if it had more heavy metal content
But , if you can imagine the amount of energy that has and will be created from day 1 till the sun blinks out , then you will have a basic understanding of how much energy it would take to create a black hole (plus , you would need an amazing amount of mass.)

Better ?
Read up

a reply to: Gothmog

Many people need to read up... theoretically every time there is a collision you can make a black hole... only if you believe certain string theory stipulations... which BTW there is no evidence or observables for.

Coupled with the fact that particles hit our atmosphere every second of every day at energy many orders of magnitude in excess of what we do with the LHC and other accelerators around the world... SO... no... it looks like the whole blackhole thing is very actually nothing more than hype that needs to stop being perpetuated.

The whole particle collider and blackholes thing dates way back when a biologist who took to reading papers way outside his area of expertise read a string theory paper... the only take away he got was the black hole thing and he such approached the people at the Tevatron, they told him no worries and why... and he wasn't happy with that so he went to the media... and now... here we are some 20 or so years later still talking about it, when there is zero evidence for it.

Heck, even the gravitational waves measurements made of merging neutron stars seems to rule out production of micro black holes. One merger was observed along with optical -xray and radio... there is a gap between the point of the merge and the apparent creation of the black hole... it seems to suggest that even when the object is super critical, due to frame dragging effects, the object doesn't instantly blink into a black hole. The reason why this is relevant is that, at such high energy densities that occur inside a collider, it could easily be stipulated that you can skirt around that being a stable state at all and so even though you create an energy density, you don't create a matter density of the same critical state.

I also question whether a larger particle collidor would make any difference at all. I did some searches looking for how fast matter travels in the LHC and found this:

link

99.9999991% the speed of light.

Building a bigger collidor just adds more 9's to the end of the decimal.

Is a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% more speed going to reveal something new when they smash together?

We haven't seen anything practical come from the LHC yet. We know about the higgs boson now. What are we making with that knowledge? As of yet, nothing. We have no return on this endeavor and we want to double-down and build an even bigger contraption to do the same thing? That's called "insanity".

a reply to: peskyhumans

Clearly you have no idea what other science is being done as a result of the work on the LHC... There have been many benefits...

Enjoying that cloud computing? Say thanks to the Grid people on the LHC experiments who basically built the architecture and demonstrated that cloud storage and computing was possible and worth doing...

Large scale industry was supported in order to develop the super conducting magnets used in the accelerator... where is that useful? Super conducting power distribution... which has been implemented in some locations,

Development of more efficient, sensitive and higher resolution sensing equipment allows for better medical imaging, the fall off from the LHC's detector systems have making it into medicine

CERN in general has a rich history of developing frontier technologies which typically make it into day to day use... to flat out say "There has been no benefit" is to be completely ignorant of reality. SO... yes you are welcome for the technology you are using around you from the various waste of money and time projects that helped create them

I'm not sure that it's really worth it, there is a lot of science we can gain from this but many other fields of research need this kind of investment and attention, like better propulsion technology or planetary defense.
I read somewhere that certain groups feel that the money is better spent on tackling global warming but tackling global warming is a problem that can be solved without funding.

I can imagine that after this 100km collider is built they will run a test and then say they needed a more powerful one.
If it doesn't halt any other technological research go ahead and build it.

a reply to: ErosA433

The conditions have been OBSERVED.
Go back to sleep

a reply to: ErosA433

Enjoying that cloud computing? Say thanks to the Grid people on the LHC experiments who basically built the architecture and demonstrated that cloud storage and computing was possible and worth doing...

What ? Clo0ud computing is no more than what we used to call server farms back in the day

Super conductors were around before the LHC. If they were not , it would not exist.

Development of more efficient, sensitive and higher resolution sensing equipment allows for better medical imaging

Absolutely minimal to the LHC

Do some folks get their science from the bottom of a cracker jack box ?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: peskyhumans

Clearly you have no idea what other science is being done as a result of the work on the LHC... There have been many benefits...

Enjoying that cloud computing? Say thanks to the Grid people on the LHC experiments who basically built the architecture and demonstrated that cloud storage and computing was possible and worth doing...

Large scale industry was supported in order to develop the super conducting magnets used in the accelerator... where is that useful? Super conducting power distribution... which has been implemented in some locations,

Development of more efficient, sensitive and higher resolution sensing equipment allows for better medical imaging, the fall off from the LHC's detector systems have making it into medicine

CERN in general has a rich history of developing frontier technologies which typically make it into day to day use... to flat out say "There has been no benefit" is to be completely ignorant of reality. SO... yes you are welcome for the technology you are using around you from the various waste of money and time projects that helped create them

Can you cite some of this please?

a reply to: Gothmog

Wow really? lol its pretty funny, i see you quoting the black hole thing all the time, I did a PhD in Particle physics, I know quite a bit about the conditions within a interaction point, Cracker jack box? come up with better insults please.

There has been, to date, zero citable observation of the production of a micro blackhole at the LHC or anywhere else for that matter... Soo yeah? Go back to sleep? maybe the rebuttal here should be... wake up maybe? because its clear you are dreaming about what people write in popular science books and magazines?


Development of particle detectors, minimal to the LHC? again? you appear to be dreaming. The Trackers in the ATLAS detector required the development and production of N on P substrate silicon strips, this was something done only at labs and not in any form of mass production. This requirement for ATLAS drove the development of photosensors and in particular highly UV sensitive single photon counting devices... These have gone into medical imaging... To say it is minimal, is to be so short sited you can barely see past your nose.

The funding of the LHC was also not THAT high, from development to completion it was roughly $20 billion over 15 years, paid for by many countries... i believe over 50, so this money and this construction is almost free. Not only that but the money goes back into the economy. it doesn't go into the back pockets of some money hungry CEOs looking for a quick buck. It goes to pay for Research and development, THAT alone is worth it.

Yes server farms and clusters existed, what didn't fully exist is a truly open platform and set of tools which allowed it to be done so seemlessly, once again, it is easy to mount a remote network drive, no one is arguing that. Cloud storage is somewhat different in that the data isn't actually in only one place, but located distributed. GRID was required for the LHC to step up the game since the data requirement was in the petabytes, and the general network infrastructure in the day simply did''t exist to throw that kind of data around in order to make data available to all the scientists around the world that want to perform analysis. Thus via GRID, the farm out of jobs and tasks does act very much like a HPC cluster for example, but its not identical in all ways.

What I am talking about is indirect benefit, the fall out of benefits because there being a need to solve a problem. This is something that people are always so short sighted about.

Right now, the development of UV sensitive photosensors is driven by two drives... the search for dark matter and the push to achieve time of flight PET... which requires close to Pico-second resolution devices.... oh which... guess what... ATLAS was a large step in the drive to develop such a technology due to the availability of funding and the need to push technology forward.