https://bigthink.com/hard-science/large-hadron-collider-economics/ Skip to content Video * The Big Think Interview * Your Brain on Money * Playlists * Explore the Library Big Questions * Will true AI turn against us? * Do we have free will? * Why are there conspiracy theories? * Is religion helping or hurting us? * Are we alone in the universe? * Should we trust science? Big Thinkers * Michio Kaku * Neil deGrasse Tyson * Michelle Thaller * Zena Hitz * Steven Pinker * Paul Bloom * Ray Kurzweil * Cornel West * Helen Fisher Sections * Neuropsych * Thinking * Leadership * Smart Skills * High Culture * The Past * The Present * The Future * Life * Health * Hard Science Columns * Starts With A Bang * The Well * 13.8 * Strange Maps Get Big Think for Your Business. Enable transformation and drive culture at your company with lessons from the biggest thinkers in the world. Learn More - Follow Us View our Youtube channel View our Facebook page View our Instagram feed View our Twitter feed View our LinkedIn account Search for: [ ] Open the Main Navigation Search Return to homepage Subscribe Hard Science -- June 6, 2022 Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider A next-generation LHC++ could cost $100 billion. Here's why such a machine could end up being a massive waste of money. [AdobeStock_290251112-Cropped] Credit: francescodemarco / Adobe Stock Key Takeaways * A next-generation LHC++ could cost $100 billion. * The hypothetical machine could not truly test string theory. What it could discover is entirely speculative. * Pursuing scientific curiosity is rewarding, but there are smarter and more productive ways to spend all that money. Tom Hartsfield Copy a link to the article entitled http:// Please,%20don't%20build%20another%20Large%20Hadron%20Collider Share Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider on Facebook Share Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider on Twitter Share Please, don't build another Large Hadron Collider on LinkedIn Here's some inside baseball about physics research. High energy theory was a field with vast accomplishments across the 20th century and its success was propelled by a series of physics geniuses who won support and funding for a seven-decade succession of particle colliders. These colliders smashed matter together and discovered particle after particle streaming out of the explosions. The geniuses built the Standard Model to explain the particles. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), located in Switzerland, was the capstone of their era, finding the last required particle -- the Higgs boson -- to complete the model. Today, those geniuses are nearly all gone and their successors are bogged down in various forms of mathematical supersymmetry. You've heard of some of its ideas: string theory, M-theory, D-branes, and so forth. It's all fun to read about. But the problem is that it doesn't explain anything. High energy theory has become highly academic and mathematical. Einstein postulated four-dimensional spacetime because he needed four dimensions to make sense of the world as we see it. String theory requires 11 dimensions -- or maybe 10, or 12, or 26. Maybe some are curled up. Why? Because neat things happen in abstract math, apparently. Smarter faster: the Big Think newsletter Subscribe for counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday Notice: JavaScript is required for this content. Supersymmetry is not a tight and efficient theory, welded together to explain observations. It's a convoluted mess of mathematical models that could potentially explain anything, or nothing at all. Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist who has worked in the field, gives an excellent review of the situation. She doesn't pull punches. A giant particle collider cannot truly test supersymmetry, which can evolve to fit nearly anything. This brings us to the LHC, and its hypothetical successor, call it LHC++. The LHC found the Higgs. However, it has had nothing to say about supersymmetry or string theory. Sabine points out that no LHC result could ever rule out supersymmetry. What's worse, the LHC++ could not rule it out either. The only hope for an enormous new collider would be to happen upon a new and unexpected particle. [AdobeStock_105313488] (Credit: vchalup / Adobe Stock) It's not a terrible idea, in a vacuum. Science occasionally progresses when scientists stumble across some entirely new and unexpected phenomena. Ethan Siegel makes the case for building LHC++ for this reason. He believes that arguments against it are disingenuous, or made in bad faith. However, he's wrong on this one. Economic and scientific sense argue for a different approach. A significantly more powerful LHC++ will cost tens of billions of dollars. It's entirely possible that the price could swell to $100 billion. Spending that much money on a machine to take shots in the dark is a mistake. When you don't have much to go on, and limited resources, it's better to aim at problems that you know are out there. Those things will lead you to new discoveries. The revolutionary success of 20th-century physics was kicked off in just this way. Many leading scientists of the late 1800s speculated that physics was nearly finished. There remained only a few mysteries. Two of these known mysteries were the nature of blackbody radiation and the constant speed of light. Both phenomena were studied and measured, but could not be explained. Einstein and others focused on finding solutions to these outstanding problems. The answers lead directly to the development of quantum mechanics and relativity: two of the cornerstone theories of modern physics. There are many known problems in physics right now. $100 billion could fund (quite literally) 100,000 smaller physics experiments. There may not be enough physics labs on Earth to carry out that many experiments! Ethan points out that we push frontiers such as trillionths-of-a-degree temperatures in new experiments. That's a great pursuit: It can be done by a handful of researchers, using just a tiny fraction of the funding freed up by not building LHC++. Some of the 100,000 experiments could look for possible physics beyond the Standard Model in clever ways that don't require the annual GDP of a small nation. Conversely, that $100 billion could be lumped together and spent on one giant project to solve a known real-world problem. Perhaps we should send the money and associated technical talent to solve fusion energy. ITER, the world's most promising fusion machine, is a colossal (and over-budget) experiment. And still, $100 billion could fund somewhere between one and five more ITERs. Or, it could power hundreds of alternative efforts to create practical fusion energy. The money and brainpower that would go into a bigger LHC could be much better used to chase one, a few, or many known scientific and practical problems in the world. Along the way, new and unknown physics would certainly turn up, as it always does when you attack previously unsolvable problems. The only good argument for the LHC++ might be employment for smart people. And for string theorists. It just doesn't add up. Tags Economics & Workparticle physics In this article Economics & Workparticle physics --------------------------------------------------------------------- Related [yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7] Hard Science Large hadron collider disproves the existence of ghosts, British professor claims There are many scientific explanations for ghost sightings. This is the first ever to involve CERN. Starts With A Bang Ask Ethan: Why Can't The Large Hadron Collider Put More Energy Into Its Particles? Accelerating particles in circles, bending them with magnets and colliding them with either additional high-energy particles or antiparticles, is one of the most powerful ways to probe for new physics [...] [yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7] Starts With A Bang Can the new-and-improved Large Hadron Collider save particle physics? The Standard Model may or may not be in trouble, but particle physics definitely needs saving. Here's what the new LHC can do. Starts With A Bang Has The Large Hadron Collider Accidentally Thrown Away The Evidence For New Physics? The ATLAS particle detector of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Nuclear Research Center (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland. Built inside an underground tunnel of 27km (17miles) in circumference, [...] Starts With A Bang The 3 Reasons Why CERN's Large Hadron Collider Can't Make Particles Go Faster An aerial view of CERN, with the Large Hadron Collider's circumference (27 kilometers in all) outlined. The same tunnel was used to house an electron-positron collider, LEP, previously. The particles [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Up Next [AdobeStock_66474559-Cropped] Hard Science There is no replication crisis in science. It's the base rate fallacy. The base rate fallacy may help to explain low reproducibility in various fields of science. Footer Subscribe Get counterintuitive, surprising, and impactful stories delivered to your inbox every Thursday. Notice: JavaScript is required for this content. Follow Us View our Youtube channel View our Facebook page View our Instagram feed View our Twitter feed View our LinkedIn account Sections * Neuropsych * Thinking * Leadership * Smart Skills * High Culture * The Past * The Present * The Future * Life * Health * Hard Science Big Questions * Will true AI turn against us? * Do we have free will? * Why are there conspiracy theories? * Is religion helping or hurting us? * Are we alone in the universe? * Should we trust science? Video * The Big Think Interview * Your Brain on Money * Playlists * Explore the Library About * Our Mission * Work With Us * Contact * Privacy Policy * Terms of Use * Accessibility Get Big Think for Your Business. Enable transformation and drive culture at your company with lessons from the biggest thinkers in the world. Learn More - (c) Copyright 2007-2022 & BIG THINK, BIG THINK PLUS, SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by Freethink Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Close Advertisement