Ask Slashdot: Should Scientists Build a New Particle Collider In Japan? 292
gbrumfiel writes "The world's most powerful particle collider ended an epic proton run yesterday morning, and researchers are already looking to the future. They want to build a 31-kilometer, multi-billion-dollar International Linear Collider (ILC) to study the recently-discovered Higgs boson in more detail and to look for new things as well. Japan has recently emerged as the front-runner to host the new collider. The Liberal Democratic Party, which won this weekend's elections, actually support the ILC in its party platform. But it's not yet clear whether real money will be forthcoming, or whether European and American physicists will back a Japanese bid. What do Slashdotters think? Does particle physics need a new collider? Should it go to Japan?"
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
World class universities and scientists, a willing government and easy access to the country for foreign nationals. What's not to like?
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Located on God's shooting range...
Re: (Score:3)
In all seriousness Japan is pretty much earthquake proof. They got hit with a magnitude 9 quake and hardly anything collapsed, hardly any was killed. I was on the 5th floor of a shop in Tokyo at the time and really the damage was minimal.
Tsunamis are a different matter but likely won't affect this thing. Plus it will be properly looked after and can't melt down or anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, buildings in Japan are highly earthquake-resistant, however that comes at a cost. Particle colliders are already ridiculously expensive to build; surely making it able to withstand a magnitude-9 quake is going to make it far, far more expensive. Why not build it someplace that doesn't ever get magnitude-9 quakes, such as Europe? When was the last time a quake of any significant magnitude hit Europe? Plus, there's world class universities and scientists there too, easy access for foreign nationals,
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
Depending on what you define as "significant", Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Italy/ [wikipedia.org]) and Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Turkey [wikipedia.org]) immediately come to mind. Both countries experience earthquakes quite regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, they have a large tract of land that is inhabitable on the surface. Easy access, no complaints from the locals!
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the most expensive place to build on the planet, other than some small nation-states or large cities.
Though Andorra may be pretty cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Only above ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they asking for my permission?
Because if you've got the money, knock yourself out. Just don't come looking for my tax dollars unless you want my strings attached.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are in the US, anyway, your strings are your vote, and that's about it. It's a democracy
An no U.S. politician in their right mind is going to throw money at a project built outside the U.S., unless there are serious strings attached about how much of the construction will go to American firms, how many Americans will be hired, etc. Money always comes with strings attached.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly can't be built in the USA. We tried that before, and it was a complete disaster. [wikipedia.org] If we tried it again, the same thing would surely happen: a new party would get elected and suddenly funding would be dropped and the project would just be left unfinished.
It needs to be built in a nation that's serious about science and about completing the projects it starts.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed! What's not to LOVE about the idea of building a multi-billion dollar piece of scientific equipment whose scale qualifies it for one of the most mammoth--yet still delicate--engineering projects in human history, which depends critically on the entire thing staying in one piece (usually built below-ground) and in perfect alignment...
in one of the most seismologically active countries on the planet.
Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the should build it on the moon. no atmosphere, already cold (in parts).
Re: Why not? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you talking about the Moon, or Finland?
Re: (Score:3)
If we had the ability to build anything of this scale on the Moon and keep it habitable, sending back 25 PB/year would be trivial in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
quakes.
they should build it in Finland. no quakes, lots of free space.
This. Not necessarily Finland, though that's not a bad idea, but someplace that is at least somewhat geologically stable.
Re: (Score:2)
No universities or scientists in or near Alberta, and it's too close to the anti-science craziness of the USA.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Funny)
They are created all the time in Geneva already to create the holes in their cheese, but a larger collider = larger black holes. The whole earth might turn into a hole-riddled-cheese! Think about the children!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you never see the movie Contact, where some religious nuts sabotaged the multi-billion dollar project because it was "against God's will"? Kansas and Amarillo are full of people exactly like that.
You don't have to worry about religious extremists in Finland or other parts of Europe.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Earthquakes...tsunamis....
Giant lizards... overgrown moths... Hello kitty... The list goes on.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a reason why to have it in Japan. Much easier to sight the LC when the beasts are in visual range.
France would be a bad idea. You don't know where you will end up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_World_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
True. A mini black hole could cause earthquakes and tsunamis, but who on earth would be better prepared for such an apacolyptic event?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it will take time to build. It probably won't be done before the LHC comes up to full swing.
Anyway, it's probably not just for research. It's probably also a 31km particle weapon for defense against N. Korea.
31km in an Earthquake Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
Does a multi-billion 31 km long particle collider that must remain aligned belong in one of the seismically most active areas of the world?
Re: (Score:2)
They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.
Re: (Score:2)
hurricanes
Re: (Score:3)
Colliders are built underground, so hurricanes would only affect support structures. NASA seems to not have a hard time operating from Cape Canaveral, right on the ocean where hurricanes hit hardest.
Re: (Score:2)
Underground you say? How about flooding, or is that something that tends not to happen to underground structures during hurricanes?
Re: (Score:3)
They should build this in Florida.
I'm not against this idea at all, but the water table is so high in most places in Florida that it would be really difficult to do. One needs to drill down less than 20 feet in most places to reach water. It's why one sees so few (substantially zero) houses with basements in Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It can't be built in the USA: we tried this before, about 20 years ago, and it was a disaster. The same thing would happen here: a new President would get elected and suddenly funding would be dropped and the project would never be finished. The USA needs to be left out of all serious science projects like this: we've proven we're simply not capable of following through with any large projects any more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only would it be in an earthquake zone, with a lot of obvious ramifications as to the stability/credibility of whatever data they generated,
but frankly Japan is one of the most densely populated areas of the world, and I would think that if they believed they had the room to build
this thing that they could make better use of the space for the indigenous population. I'm sure there are some people crammed into small urban
apartments who would prefer to live in something a little nicer.
Re: (Score:3)
The cities are crowded but there is still a lot of open land in between. There are still small towns and villages all over the place. Look at a population map of the place up close.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Japan_Population_density_map.svg [wikimedia.org]
http://www.firstpr.com.au/jncrisis/Japan-population-density-833x846.png [firstpr.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but another multi-billion dollar project that humanity already has 2 of? Isn't there something else that would benefit the scientific community in a new and different way?
Re: (Score:2)
one of the seismically most active areas of the world?
No problem, don't build it in the south. From memory Japan is Fing huge compared to what westerners think (like your average USA guy thinks Japan is smaller than Maine, but its huge, from like 20 degrees N to like 50 degrees N, making it, I believe, "taller" in N-S direction than the entire USA). Also the south is geologically active whereas the north is getting to be about as geologically stable as Wisconsin.
Its kind of like saying the American West suffers horribly from earthquakes. Well, yeah, the cit
Re: (Score:2)
From memory Japan is Fing huge compared to what westerners think (like your average USA guy thinks Japan is smaller than Maine, but its huge, from like 20 degrees N to like 50 degrees N, making it, I believe, "taller" in N-S direction than the entire USA).
Japan runs from 24 to 46 degrees N, but it's no more than 200 miles wide anywhere as far as I can tell by glancing at the map. The us runs from 65N to 125N and is 3000 miles wide, it's a whole hell of a lot bigger. 9,826,675 km2 (3rd) vs 377,944 km2 (67th.) Japan is tiny. In addition Wikipedia (which is damned slow this morning) says that over 73% of Japan is unsuitable for development. Japan is not even on the top 20 list of countries where it makes sense to build something like this. As well, how are they
Re: (Score:3)
At 377,944km2 Japan exceeds all but Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana in land mass and Japan is only about 4000km2 smaller than Montana.
Re: (Score:2)
At 377,944km2 Japan exceeds all but Alaska, Texas, California, and Montana in land mass and Japan is only about 4000km2 smaller than Montana.
So just to be clear, the US is the third largest nation, not the first or even the second, and it has four states with more land mass than Japan, and Japan isn't a small nation? Oooooookkkkkaaayyyyyyyyy. There's smaller, and the USA is massive, but that doesn't change anything I've said.
If anything, Japan's accomplishments are all the more impressive when considered in terms of its land area, especially given what percentage of it is considered usable. But it is small. Why do you think they're so damned goo
Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (Score:4, Informative)
Outline of Japan superimposed on the US...
http://mapfrappe.com/?show=7849 [mapfrappe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Outline of Japan superimposed on the US...
Superimposed on the contiguous states, yes. It proves precisely the same point I was making. It's long, skinny, and not equipped of that much land area. If 3/4 of that is unsuitable for such a project right off the top, and then you eliminate everything near a coastline, what is left? Answer: nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The US runs from 65N to 125N
Errr... on some hypersphere Earth, possibly. On the real earth, you can't get north of 90N.
Noooo! (Score:2)
(Of course they wouldn't actually be rescued, the money would go to lobby organisations, military spendings etc. instead, but since that was always the case that does not have to be questioned.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We could feed *all* starving people with only the amount of food we waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Hire them to work at the new facilities. Problem solved. Not particle physicists? Everywhere needs a janitor!
Re:Noooo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Feeding useless eaters does nothing to move mankind forward, and DOES breed more useless eaters. Send them birth control instead.
Quality of life goes with smaller families, even in the US. The idea of throwing food at people who refuse to change their culture to a less self-destructive one is silly. It may make donors feel good, but it isn't really "helping", "Helping" is teaching those people ways they can feed themselves, provide sanitation for themselves, pump and conserve water themselves, (there's a th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
This would make a perfectly reasonable news item; there's no need to solicit Slashdotters' opinions. People comment anyway.
99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed, unless you're already knowledgeable on the subject. So why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed, unless you're already knowledgeable on the subject. So why bother?
Hold... what would we get to comment on, on slow news days like this? :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
...and 87% of all statistics are made up...
Citation needed. Every time somebody quotes that, the percentage is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here you go [random.org]. That's will show you the real time present stat.
Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)
99% of comments will be ill-informed. You won't be able to identify the 1% which are well informed
Yeah, I will, they'll have +5 Informative written next to them. What... don't you trust the Slashdot moderation system? Oh... wait!
Earthquake risks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just my 2 cents, but shouldn't the ILC be built on an area with a reduced earthquake risk?
Should it go to Japan? What question is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (Score:3)
As someone who spends a lot of time in multinational scientific facilities (e.g. the Swiss Light Source) ... I don't understand the "Should it go to Japan?" question. It's infrastructure for the greater scientific community, so it doesn't matter where it's built.
Sure it does! Political, geological and socioeconomic stability are prime factors in building one of these things. Why the SSC [wikipedia.org] showed us that politics and economics will ruin your particle collider. So if Japan is better with their money than the US and has a geologically stable site and doesn't go to war with China in the near future, it's a good site.
Selecting a good site will increase your chances of it actually becoming infrastructure for the greater scientific community. Just ask Weinberg [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a moot point as science (funding) is dead in the US anyway. Most young scientists are leaving to work elsewhere, especially those with international experience.
I'm friends with a fair number of US-trained young scientists, and the only ones I know who are planning to leave the country can't stay because they aren't US citizens. A small minority (~15% or so) plan to seek or currently have temporary postdoctoral positions overseas, but I doubt that many intend to make that arrangement permanent. I might add that I personally have experience doing research in another country, and I have no inclination whatsoever to leave the US. I admit that my personal, anecdotal ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Japan has room? (Score:2)
I was under the impression that Japan is very crowded and that most rural, open space is limited when it comes to construction or is protected park land. 31km is HUGE and if they have the room, well than go for it.
Re: (Score:2)
The flat parts of Japan are crowded, the interior, where the mountains are, is empty. That's why playing golf there is insanely expensive, but skiing is practically free.
Why, did the LHC break down again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming that "liniar" is the key word.
Also am I the only one that thinks it's hillarious that they build a multi billion dollar round thing that basically told them what they really wanted was a multi billion dollar straight thing!
Re: (Score:2)
* Linear
Also like about 2/3 of the comments, I would be seriously concerned about the earthquake thing and the population thing. I mean maybe these are not as bad as everything thinks, but it seems like the two most obvious reasons "why not" wern't even addressed.
No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed (Score:5, Informative)
When will people stop publishing news articles saying "the Higgs has been confirmed to exist"? This is driving me bat-shit insane. No, the Higgs has NOT necessarily been discovered. Particles have been observed in the LHC at energy levels that match the expected characteristics of the Higgs, but we DO NOT KNOW if it is the standard model Higgs or just something else that looks like it. Goddamn.
Read more: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342408/description/Higgs_hysteria [sciencenews.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if it has the same energy level as a duck...
Congratulations, you just shot... (Score:2)
a hunter with a kazoo and decoy
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what energy is needed yet (Score:4, Informative)
If the LHC finds something new and the ILC has too low energy to produce it, it's wasted. Obviously those results would come long before the ILC is even close to finished, but it's important to keep options open until we know better. In addition there are other proposals for Higgs factories that would be cheaper to implement. Without new discoveries at the LHC the ILC may be pointless.
here we go again (Score:2)
At what point do we taxpayers say enough is enough? The LHC was crazy expensive to build and to run. They still havent definitively found a Higgs particle which is pretty much what it was built for, yet now after just 3 years its aparently already declared useless?
At the end of the day, so freaking what if they do or don't definitively find a Higgs particle. How will that knowledge improve normal people's lives in any practical way that justifies the massive cost?
Re: (Score:2)
You really don't get it, do you? You just lack any understanding of science and who it integrates into society?
People who think like you wouldn't have funded Einstein becasue you can't understand basic research doesn't have a end product goal.
Find out all you can as accurately as you can. Industry, engineers, and many other clever people will figure out a use.
Did anyone realize how solar cells would become important? lasers?
Figuring out how the fabric or reality works will have profound effects on what we k
Re: (Score:2)
Why improve the lives of normal people in a practical way when you could stumbled upon a virtually unlimited energy source that could power a massive spacecraft and also propel it close to the speed of light. The one-percenters could sell spacecraft to each other and leave the "normal people" to deal with the polluted and destroyed planet they leave behind for a new life in a new star system.
weak physics case (Score:2)
The WP article [wikipedia.org] says the physics case is the following:
"1. Measure the mass, spin, and interaction strengths of the Higgs boson
"2. If existing, measure the number, size, and shape of any TeV-scale extra dimensions
"3. Investigate the lightest supersymmetric particles, possible candidates for dark matter"
This is very weak.
#2 is pretty much dead, since the LHC's observations don't look very compatible with large extra dimensi
Would measure Higgs properties more accurately (Score:2)
For supersymmetry, I'm not sure if the ILC could see anything at all given how high the masses have been pushed by the LHC already, but upping the energy from the current 8 TeV to 13 or 14 and adding 10-100 times the data can still give the LHC a chance to find SUSY.
Large extra dimensions was a
Absolutely Not! (Score:3)
As a scientist I have to say that we are the last people who should build something this large. For starters, our efforts are better spent doing science. Many of us are also old and out of shape. I suggest that, instead, we find some contractors to build it--they probably need the work more anyway. However, if it is decided that scientists should indeed build a collider, I want to be in charge of the hollering: "Shake it madam! Capital knockers!"
I have the answer! (Score:2)
I thought about it, and I've come to a definite conclusion. . .
I don't know bupkus about linear accelerators, so I'll let the scientists and engineers who DO KNOW figure it out.
Why not reuse the LHC? (Score:2)
Is there no way to profit from the existing investment?
me too, me too! I want one! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Becasue one we had microscopes that could see germs, we didn't need to build better ones?
Once telescopes could see Pluto, should we have stopped?
These are tools that are used to literally peer into the very fabric of reality. I say that without Hyperbole.
Of course, why is this even a question? (Score:2)
Do you expect giant robots to just appear?
Combine with undersea rail tunnel for lower costs? (Score:2)
Could a linear collider share a tunnel with an undersea rail network like the Seikan Tunnel [wikipedia.org] that already exists in Japan? Or would the railway interfere with its operation? There are other long tunnels in the world too, like the Channel Tunnel [wikipedia.org], but the undersea portion of the Seikan Tunnel does looks very straight.
From looking at images of various parts of the LHC, it seems the majority of the collider's apparatus does not require that much space around it, although the actual detectors, etc, obviously will
... or (Score:2)
China might be better in many respects: Fewer earthquakes, money's definitely no problem, science shouldn't be a problem, and it will encourage even more cooperation with the West.
Re:Bernard's Law ... (Score:5, Informative)
The ILC is a completely different design, with completely different goals. Previously, about 15 years ago, we had a hadron collider (the Tevatron) and a lepton collider (the LEP). The LEP was used as a basis to build the LHC; so now we have just hadron colliders (DESY is dual, but its energy range is way below the current frontier). A lepton collider gives us a way cleaner signal for weak and electromagnetic interactions, but gives us almost no insight on strong interactions; a hadron collider gives us a totally messy result, which includes a lot of strong interactions and noise-level channels for electroweak.In fact, at the LHC's energies, you see mostly gluon-gluon collisions, not even quark-quark. So, to actually see precisely the Higgs and measure its mass, a lepton collider would be great. A lepton collider would also give a clearer picture of wether there is something beyond the standard model (up to about half its center-of-mass collision energy at least), so al of us theoretical physicists would LOVE to have one.
However, accelerating electrons and positrons in a curved path is very, very, VERY hard. They lose their energy about a million times quicker than protons; so, to get to TeV levels, the collider should be linear. Accelerating stuff in a linear collider is very, very hard (note: "only" two "very"s here) because you need to give it its energy on a shorter space (while a conventional collider would do so over lots of cycles). So, its engineering won't be easy, but we will get a lot of insights on both particle physics and electromagnetism (to accelerate the damn electrons); that electromagnetism expertise could be used, for example, for high speed trains.
We absolutely should build a lepton linear collider. Whether it's in Japan or in the US (putting the Fermilab's infrastructure to good use), it will teach us a lot that the LHC can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Modders please up the parent, most informative post ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Japan is currently planning to build a 500km/h maglev train line from Tokyo to Nagoya. At those speeds the track needs to be as straight as possible with few curves. This line will involve a lot of tunnelling as the proposed route runs down the mountainous spine of Honshu, Japan's main island.
Building the tunnel for a linear accelerator alongside a major part of the maglev line would be a nice twofer; all the tunneling gear and an experienced construction crew is to hand.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda a welfare program for high end scientists. How else could billions be spent on ``science'' and benefit thousands of contractors. The liberal scientists get something fun to play with, and a bunch of special interest groups get billions of easy money to build and operate the thing.
With that thought, perhaps U.S. should build one that's perhaps 150 miles, somewhere in mid west (nice and flat). Locate it such that it spans at least 4-5 states to get a bunch of senators for it. There are worse ways t
Re: (Score:2)
You have a complete lack of understanding of science, and economics.
Re: (Score:3)
Another poster very ably picked apart your proposal that we use the Tevatron instead.
As for observing high energy atmospheric collisions, no, that won't work either. I've seen the detector at SLAC's linear accelerator. It's as big as an office building. It is truly an awesome sight.
You not only have to have high energy events happen, you have to have a very sophisticated detector built around where the event will happen in order to learn anything from it. Then, you probably need billions and billions of
Re: (Score:2)
You reasons are exactly why these projects should be undertaken right now in the US.
Money is cheap, and the deficit is nearly as bad as the media is leading you to believe. Large projects help reduce deficit, create jobs, and build industries.
Re: (Score:3)
We did. The result of the thinking and design process was the ILC. Now we have thought for a bit and come to the conclusion that to examine our thinking we need an accelerator. The ILC has been on the drawing board for a long time now, we have known we would need it since before the LHC even began construction. Now don't get me wrong, I would love it if your idea was put into practice, I'm a theoretician. But basic research needs experiments, I cant do everything on my own and funding me to the exclusion of
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. So why should some people be sold into slavery - which is a pillar of your ideals - when they have finite time to live?
Please explain how wanting a monetary system that does not steal the wages and savings of the people via inf
Re: (Score:2)
If the populace of Japan has the foresight to back the project with their tax dollars, then they deserve it. If you want another particle collider in the US or Europe then you need to get the populations priorities in order and spend more on STEM and less on war mongering, pointless drug wars, and other pork.
They think its the porcine path to prosperity.