Should we build a bigger particle collider? - Sixty Symbols

[@19TheChaosWarrior79]

Yeah Ed Copeland back in the house

[@jon2431]

ive missed my physics daddy

[@avonord]

My fav professor in the channel

[@AliHSyed]

MC COPELAND RAISING THE ROOF! 🕺

[@frankschneider6156]

This guy is really great.

[@shmeggley]

Andy Clegg Ed makes me so happy

[@raresrazvanboldea8946]

So relaxing to hear the professor talking

[@Bacopa68]

What accent is this? Manchester? I'm from the US, so I could be totally wrong.

[@Auriflamme]

@@Bacopa68 It's more midlands, like Birmingham or Wolverhampton.

[@eggyshinton]

@@Auriflamme I'm sure he's mentioned in a video before that he's from somewhere in Yorkshire, which sounds about right. He's definitely not from the West Midlands

[@leejuicy]

It will be on your final exam.

[@Auriflamme]

@@eggyshinton Ok well I'm hearing a brummy style lilt to his voice, but of course Yorkshire has a lot of accent variations. I see that Newcastle is his alma mater, so perhaps his accent is somewhat mongrel. Thanks for the information!

[@CorwynGC]

It would be a shame to build a 100km circle, only to realize that a new theory required one 110km.

[@ElectricityTaster]

They should build them like those hula hoops you can expand.

[@Mike-px6pg]

This is exactly what I came here to say - and how do we know the same isnt true of the LHC - maybe we only need 30km to discover the truth of dark matter

[@HiAdrian]

The larger radius is just to offset the need for stronger magnets, there's no magic number involved. So if you were slightly below a threshold, you could push the magnets a bit harder.

[@frankschneider6156]

CorwynGC That's the perfect argument to never do anything, as you never know what the exact outcome is, especially not in basic research, and that's why basic research is done in the first place. If we would know the outcome for sure, we wouldn't have to do it. You never know. To know, you do experiments. That's the nature of research.

[@ElectricityTaster]

@@HiAdrian Why not make them a straight line?

[@peppybocan]

oh, we haven't seen Ed in quite a long time!

[@Yuuray]

"I'm a theorist, what do I know?" Love that

[@loge10]

That's so Ed...his humility and thoughtfulness along with his brilliance is what makes him so endearing.

[@duncanrasey5413]

I love him too.,.

[@TheVeryHungrySingularity]

Go big or go home. Wrap the equator in a particle accelerator.

[@Graeme_Lastname]

OK, you dig the tunnel. ;)

[@fbn7766]

lol

[@Sherlock245]

If the world needed it they would

[@Sherlock245]

Ten years in, the Large Hadron Collider has failed to deliver the exciting discoveries that scientists promised.

[@Sherlock245]

@authorization batman and you have not read parallel dimensions stuff. Punie stuff lhc! Alien will wipe us out.

[@Wacoal34d]

Please keep these Ed videos coming. He is the most appealing of your Nottingham faculty.

[@joshzeidner5412]

We just got you a particle collider last Christmas now you want a new one?

[@vitakyo982]

Childs get bored of their toys so fast ...

[@bunderbah]

22 billion is NASA's yearly budget. I am sure 20+ countries can afford 22 billion over a 31 years period.

[@thorp.n8998]

Sure, but those resources could also be spent on other stuff. Whether that is peoples health, tax reductions or just different science projects.

[@TheFleming98]

The money won't be spent on anything else. CERN gets a fixed budget every year based upon the GDP contributions of each country. Either way that money is budgeted to CERN. Its whether CERN invest that budget into a new collider

[@alephii]

it is easy to do things with stolen (tax) money!

[@the_infinite_lagrangian]

​@@thorp.n8998 What do you even mean, every single $ in the world can be sent in other ways than he is spent. No matter on what you spend it you will gain something and lose some other thing. You cant judge if you lose or gain more by spending on Y since you cant see in the future thus it makes no sense to talk about such thing.

[@MaterLacrymarum]

It's not a matter of whether they can afford it par se. The funding for this comes from many different sources = very political. Also, 20bn spent here isn't spent elsewhere - so it's all about perceived value. It's not just a numbers game.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

In the history of science, many great discoveries were made simply because someone accidentally saw something no one was expecting. If we hadn’t looked until we had a pre-existing theory to test, then we would have stayed in the dark forever.

[@BluewatersBlackSails]

Physics Videos by Eugene Khutoryansky love your channel

[@mike4ty4]

Yup. Which to me suggests exploring as many out-of-the-box and unorthodox experiments as possible. Spamming the possibility space, instead of just going in one direction only, over and over again.

[@-Kerstin]

Well said! Love your videos, eagerly awaiting the next one ^^

[@Bodyknock]

@Anton Zuykov A collider is the only known way to verify new theories about unanswered questions involving quantum physics. It's a tool you need to do test those unorthodox, out-of-the-box hypotheses. Also $22 billion spread out over decades is not as much money as you might think nowadays for global investments. As of 2019 there are about 2150 billionaires with combined wealth of $8.7 trillion dollars. Just a few of that small group of people could on their own easily fund the entire project with just a portion of the interest they currently earn on investments, so pulling the same amount of funding over the same time span from multiple countries is even hypothetically less of a portion of their budgets. This is money that could definitely be spent without negatively impacting other scientific funding.

[@simontay4851]

But they'll never give any of their billions to anything that doesn't benefit them because billionaires are selfish and greedy.

[@MrMartinSchou]

10 to 20 billion € is a surprisingly small amount of money. The 2012 Olympics had a total cost of about €10 billion, and that was spent to deliver about a month's worth of entertainment.

[@karenpojar2514]

The Olympics are a profitable business that recoups investments with advertising, broadcast fees, tourism and subsidized infrastructure. Additionally it solves the problem of letting countries compete without that whole "war" thing. CERN is not run to make a profit, nor is it self funded. Aside from one-off construction costs, there are perpetual maintenance and adminstration costs. Finally, there are more efficient and effective methods to generate new questions than "let's build the most expensive thing we can think of and see what happens". Examples include more research grants in particle physically to generate new questions, or enhancing the detectors of the current LHC. The FHC smells of a project that is trying to justify new investment after it has already completed it's mission: "do everything again at 0.4 light speed instead of 0.3 light speed: something might happen." I would rather that cash go to space travel, cancer research, or genetically engineered cat girls for domestic ownership.

[@adorabasilwinterpock6035]

I’d rather go to Mars or build a Moon base!

[@MrMartinSchou]

@@adorabasilwinterpock6035 Sure - but neither of those things will be done with that 10 to 20 billion. Just in terms of launch to LEO cost, the ISS would be in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. Building a Moon base is probably going to make €20 billion a blip on the budget. Not to mention that none of the CERN member states have any real space programs. For a Moon mission you'd want the US, China, India or Russia to be the stakeholders.

[@FutureChaosTV]

@@karenpojar2514 The Olympics are profitable? For the comittee maybe, all the Olympic cities/countries lose billions over it.

[@spongebobsquarepants7388]

@@karenpojar2514 I dont mean to nit pick or jump to conclusions, but I suspect you are not very well informed if you think the LHC only operates at 0.3c, in reality it operates at 0.999999991c. at least do a 2 second Google search when you're gonna use numerical values which are so easy to obtain. I dont think it is necessarily the velocity which is all they will be upgrading when moving to the FCC, but at this point my opinion is mere conjecture.

[@ashwingautam3701]

It’s been years since I’ve heard this dude. Missed his soothing voice and jovial expressions so much.

[@IanMcGarrett]

Twenty billion dollars invested over a period of thirty years is little more than a rounding error in the US military budget which weighs in currently at close to seven hundred billion per annum.

[@BlueCosmology]

Other huge amounts of money being (arguably) spent poorly is not a reason to spend huge amounts of money on something else.

[@Panthless]

US is not a member country of CERN so that is irreverent.

[@BlueCosmology]

@@Panthless It's irrelevant because money being spent poorly isn't an excuse to spend more money poorly, but otherwise the US does contribute a huge amount both financially and otherwise to the LHC despite not being a member state.

[@IanMcGarrett]

@@BlueCosmology It is folly to believe that America's huge military expenditures aren't being paid for by other nations.

[@Bodyknock]

@@BlueCosmology I think the point though is that $22 billion isn't actually as huge an amount of money as it sounds when you're talking about a global investment. As of 2019 there are about 2150 billionaires globally with combined wealth of $8.7 trillion. That's just billionaires, not countries. $22 billion spread out over a period of decades could easily be spent by a handful of just that group of people and not have any significant negative impact on their finances let alone a negative impact on funding for scientific research in other fields. Groups of countries pulling together funding over a number of years for this project is even hypothetically less intrusive. Basically $22 billion isn't as huge as it sounds nowadays.

[@shaimach]

"Should we build a bigger particle collider? " is the wrong question. We should ask "What is the best way to spend $20B on particle physics?", where the alternative to LHCv2 is to fund multiple space-based high-energy telescopes, and multiple dark matter detectors, and better gravitational wave detectors, and new accelerator technologies. Optimization is a balance between exploration and convergence to the closest local minima. LHC was about convergence - close all the gaps in the Standard Model. That's largely done. Now we should switch over to the exploration stage. And when we have a solid lead, we can build the instrument to follow that lead.

[@stupidburp]

I think "What are the areas of scientific research which have must urgent needs?" is a better question. We could put many advanced satellites in orbit or fund deep sea monitoring world wide to benefit climate research for example.

[@Rekko82]

Think all the food you could buy for hungry African people with 20 B dollars!!!

[@lordgarion514]

"that's largely done" And that's irrelevant TBH. They also thought things were almost done right before they discovered quantum mechanics........ And if Dark Matter keeps going the way it's going, and if it is a particle, it's likely not going to be part of the standard model. Oh yeah, particle accelerators are about exploration. They are quite literally exploring what happens at higher and higher energy levels.

[@w1ndache]

I like it, like how intel is spending r&d cycles optimizing existing architectures then developing new ones.

[@shaimach]

It's not irrelevant, because we have finite resources and we must make a decision as to how to invest them. The LCH++ direction is not showing huge promise, ATM. So we should divert resources to multiple other smaller projects, in the hope that one of those will give us a lead as to what comes next.

[@bloergk]

"WIMP miracle", eh? That's what they said when, despite everyone's expectations, I managed to do 5 push-ups in a row. I sure showed them.

[@m8onethousand]

that's what my ex said when I lasted more than a minute.

[@nibblrrr7124]

yeah, you showed those MACHOs

[@burnerjack01]

Now do them using your toes instead of your knees.

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@tomschmidt381]

As a non scientist I've enjoyed and learned a lot from Sabine Hossenfelder KZbin videos and book. Both as a way to understand particle physics and discussing problems with current hypnosis that for decades have yielded null results.

[@xavytex]

Build a 100km circular subway line around London or Paris and install a particle collider in it !

[@krashd]

Then it would have to have twice the diameter so that it could carry trains _and_ the collider.

[@Galbex21]

This video is brillant for people that don't know much about the whole CERN thing (like me). Thanks for an excellent video!

[@Markle2k]

I love Mike and Ed. They do a beautiful job explaining relevance.

[@limbridk]

I was just thinking yesterday how much I missed Ed Copeland and here he is. Fantastic!

[@gammon186]

It makes me very happy to see prof. Copeland back again!

[@Jesse__H]

So just bolt new experiments onto the ring? yeah well...bolt is, uh... _gently place_ well there _are_ lots of bolts on it... 😁😂 you both have a point!

[@celewign]

I love Dr C's way of speaking. He's the best.

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@afifakimih8823]

After a while I'm back to the Sixty Symbols and I'm seeing Ed Copeland..It's always a pleasure to see Ed..!!

[@ajr993]

Proving theories wrong is just as valuable as proving theories right. We're not wasting our time on super symmetry anymore and we've narrowed the possibility space. So people really underestimate ruling things out.

[@methanbreather]

it would be nice, if 'theories' with be proofed wrong. But what the theorists have come up with in the last couple of decades - and that includes the strings fan club, are not theories but hypothesis and postulates.

[@annoyboyPictures]

FUND it on your OWN DIME... this has absolutely ZERO VALUE to the Taxpayers who FUND this NONSENSE.... the money should be spent on CANCER RESEARCH or DIABETES...not some Idiotic Overpaid gaggle of OVER-EDUCATED buffoons to test pointless Whack Theories.

[@ajr993]

@@methanbreather well you sound like an expert. No need to listen to the recommendation of those idiot scientists when we have you and annoyboy talking.

[@foxman105]

@@annoyboyPictures The "useless research" was the start of many technologies you use today. Particle accelerators as an example started as research tools but now there are accelerators built for cancer treatment. They're much more precise and do less collateral damage than classic radiation treatment. Understanding of the world around us allows us to utilize it's properties.

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@jeffreysokal7264]

I really admire Prof. Copeland and his view on things. His approach is well thought out and balances the needs of all.

[@joechang8696]

perhaps: evaluate the most expensive elements of the bigger collider, then consider what new technologies could substantially reduce the cost of the colliders, and invest there. When it becomes possible, we can re-evaluate the project.

[@recklessroges]

They could start with domestic energy collection and storage.

[@tumbleddry2887]

There is alot to consider when spending this amount of money on research (medicine, infrastrcuture for society, etc).....thank you for exploring and addressing ALL sides (or as many as possible). I like the idea of a new accelaerator, but I also like the idea of funding smaller experiemnts that may have a seeable way forward. This discussion is why I really love and enjoy Sixty Symbols. Thank you.

[@Twitchi]

Missed Prof.Copeland so much..

[@philanderson5138]

Great to see you back on the channel! More please. Met you on the train to London with my daughter a few months ago - it was great to speak to you about physics. You made my day - hope I didn't bore you! It's all about fields!!

[@babathreesixty]

"..We're gonna need a bigger boat .."- Jaws

[@NorthernSeaWitch]

You're*

[@theworldoverheavan560]

@tranceone11 lol

[@geitekop507]

I misread it and thought it said Jews. Oh boy...

[@kjkoolio]

Really love learning from Dr. Copeland. I bet his lectures are awesome. So much passion for the science. He gets almost giddy when talking physics. Glad to see more vids featuring him.

[@atentat07]

Is Dr. Copeland related to Professor Seethland?

[@N0Xa880iUL]

@@atentat07 😂😂😂😂

[@omniryx1]

Anyone else in the Ed Copeland fan club?

[@Triantalex]

No, noone else.

[@TommiHimberg]

Such a beautiful and powerful defence of basic science from Prof Copeland. Thank you!

[@senhalil]

I wish people would question military expenditures as much as the science related ones.

[@recklessroges]

The military spending is done to defend the science. (Though I agree that we have far too much war for war's sake.)

[@senhalil]

@@recklessroges that is a bit of a circular mechanism. That is, "we need military to protect us (including science)" "some wars are just for war's sake (for economical/political gain) not for protection" "Such wars destabilises countries, sometimes whole regions" "the effects of a such instability travels on the face of the earth like ripples on water" "we need military to protect us from such effects" 🤔 Yes, there are bad people living on earth who are willing to hurt lots to get what they want and they need to be stopped (but unfortunately, the military and defense industry fits this definition more than the handful of extremists trying to hurt us).

[@cyruslupercal9493]

I know for a fact that military is overspending. They always spend all the money (lot of it for nothing) and more because they fear a budget cut.

[@krashd]

@Xaxa xa Many, not most. The majority of innovations and discoveries come from scientists and entrepreneurs.

[@The_Novu]

@@recklessroges The United States isn't in enough danger to justify the amount of money put towards the military. I don't care what the news says, frankly.

[@Donjone]

professor ed should have a channel

[@jessstuart7495]

Measurement drives Theory. Theory without measurement is speculation. We already have too many untestable theories these days. Build it.

[@toohdvaetihom7088]

Jess Stuart not necessarily. Einstein theorised relativity without measuring anything.

[@kallewirsch2263]

@@toohdvaetihom7088 In a sense: yes. But it was treated as a speculation until Sir Eddington could show, that his measurements supported Einsteins "Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (as Special Relativity was called in those early days). This is eg. the reason why Einstein never earned the Nobelprice for Relativity but instead for a (with respect to Relativity) much less important work in describing the nature of the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect was proven and measured, Relativity was not. But saying Einstein came up with SR out of the blue is not the whole story. In fact, Physics was in deep troubles at that time. The Michelson Morley Experiment with its totaly unexpected result showed, that something was fundamentaly wrong with classical Physics. Physicists tried to fix it by adjust the formulas for transformations and actually came up with formulas that worked and fitted the bill. There is a reason why the first important milestone in Special Relativity is called the "Lorentz transformation". Hendrik Lorentz got them already correct without having a deeper understanding of why his transformation equations were correct. This was left to Einstein to derive them from 2 basic principles with one of them - every observer measures the same value for light speed - already contained in the famous Maxwell equations which have worked well since more then half a century in describing Electromagnetism (Einstein himself always told that this fact (Maxwell equations) was much more important for his ideas then the failed Michelson Morley experiment)

[@jessstuart7495]

@@toohdvaetihom7088, Read your history. The Michelson-Morely Experiment (1887), observations of the shifting of the perihelion of Mercury (measured in the 1840's), and magnetism experiments (Maxwell's Equations) all predated Relativity (1905- Special Theory, 1915- General Theory).

[@doodelay]

Imagine having a theory so crucial and important that something as absolutely massive as the LHC was built partly just to test your theory! Must've felt absolutely amazing and brutally nerve wracking

[@smwg4187]

Yes, that is exactly what the world needs the most.

[@SL5it]

are you a bit ironic?

[@smwg4187]

Yes, that was supposed to be obvious.

[@krashd]

@@SL5it No, he was sarcastic.

[@ejk4555]

6:17 there is no purer look of joy than Ed's upon first encountering the LHC in real life 👌

[@scynx]

I can't imagine the 22 billion estimate being even remotely right in the end. It's digging underneath town structure and even a body of water and the structure itself is absolutely enormous.

[@ninjafruitchilled]

I think most of the money will just go to pay salaries of people doing R&D and building the machine.

[@Cadwaladr]

I have many friends and relatives in the medical field, and I'm sure most, if not all of them, would agree with Dr Copeland on the importance of this kind of research.

[@GeorgeMonet]

Of course they would. They are making a lot of money. What about your poorer friends and relatives?

[@Cadwaladr]

@@GeorgeMonet as one of the poorer ones myself, I also agree with Dr Copeland.

[@MilanStojanovic9]

solving differential equations with power series on the board in the back

[@tatjanagobold2810]

Thanks for getting professionals to talk about this project, quite controversial! But I always hear of Cern news that seem to come from the high energies achieved at the LHC, for example the recent photon-photon interaction at ATLAS or the charm quark CP violation at LHCb. But maybe there is a less costly way, like another upgrade or alternative ways of using the high energies, maybe new collider technologies. I hope I am not talking nonsense😅

[@Muonium1]

It is time to build the US synchrotron based 14TeV muon collider. It's a circular synchrotron which is long known and familiar technology. Muons are leptons so the collisions will be clean. Muons are massive so the Lorentz factor of the particles in the storage ring will be low and the sychrotron radiation losses will be small. The ring geometry can be augmented later with laser wakefield acceleration based boosting to potentially near ~100TeV when the technology is mature in 30 years. The muon beam could be a phenomenally bright source of neutrino radiation used to examine flavor oscillation and charge parity violation. It could be used to investigate the muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment, a long confounding irregularity that has hinted at beyond standard model supersymmetry. It would be a bright Higgs factory allowing close examination of decay branching ratios. The motivations for such a machine are clear and manifold.

[@darthknight1]

It took a while through this video before I was convinced by Prof. Copeland, but I think he finally got to the key arguments being keeping the knowledge pool and providing spinoff tech such as future revolutionary medical tech like MRI. I still think from the point-of-view of those struggling to survive on a daily basis, the argument for investing money into long-term scientific mega-projects is a difficult sell.

[@BothHands1]

Maybe we won't have any idea where to go w/ the theories unless we see some crazy anomaly in the data from a much bigger particle collision? Idk, I want there to be a new accelerator!!

[@Bodyknock]

Exactly, no matter what out of the box theory someone comes up with the only way it could be tested here on Earth is with a collider and many of the current possible theories involve particles with energies higher than can be currently detected in the LHC. You don't have to even know which theories will eventually work to know that you will need a tool capable of running the experiments to verify them so building a bigger collider seems like a no brainer.

[@BothHands1]

Doug Rosengard Yeah, definitely! Though i guess it comes down to the utility of those theories. Satisfying sheer curiosity is nice and all, but without theories indicating possible utility of their various implications, i doubt the money will be spent. At least not in a hurry. 20B£ is quite the sum. Still I'd very much like for my curiosity to be satisfied, at least lol

[@BLACKLIGHT_NL]

6:17 so nice to see someone so excited

[@arirahikkala]

Sabine Hossenfelder has been making a lot of waves from what I've heard. I think she'd make a good guest on the channel.

[@farefouse]

Fun fact. They didn't detect the Higgs Boson itself in the detectors but the signal it should give off when it decays. Or that is the theory anyway.

[@jerry3790]

In 2100: Should we build a neutron star collider?

[@staglomagnifico5711]

That's a no-brainer. Just sell it to Space Michael Bay after physicists are done with it.

[@Olodus]

The sad part is they still haven't found dark matter... Though on the positive side, it turns out that when you smash things of that size you get actual curd cheese instead of quarks.

[@vvanderer]

Yes but in a galaxy far far away

[@luisgeniole369]

@@staglomagnifico5711 Just make space mexico pay for it.

[@rikschaaf]

When I heard about these 100km collider plans a couple of years ago when visiting CERN, I was amazed and really liked the idea of another collider. I still think that it would be great if there was one, but of course the price tag is an important thing to consider, as well as the benefits it would have for science. Maybe we find out in 5-10 years that for any further scientific advancements in particle physics, we'd need a 200km ring before we can accurately detect what we need to verify. In that case it would be a waste of money to build the 100km ring now. On the other hand, we might find some new experimental results that fall outside of our current understanding, something that we weren't able to detect with the LHC, so in that case the 100km ring would spur new research and help us understand the universe more thoroughly.

[@jamieg2427]

At first I skeptical due to the cost, but then I thought about it: If every member of CERN contributed a mere $1 B divided by the ten or twenty years it'd take to get this going, we'd have more than enough, and it'd only cost each country a mere $100 or 50 M per year. That's nothing! I say let's do it.

[@lordgarion514]

Here's a better way to look at it. The EU has about 511 million people. That's just 2 Euro per person per year. If America joins in, that's another 320 million people. It really is kinda cheap.

[@NuclearCraftMod]

Just including EU countries, that comes to very roughly 0.02% of tax paid in total...

[@GeorgeMonet]

But you could also have funded thousands of smaller projects which each would have produced more valuable research data.

[@lordgarion514]

@@GeorgeMonet Not how it works.

[@acetate909]

@6:22 Seeing you guys nerd out at the LHC is awesome.

[@quahntasy]

Considering that $20 billion dollar sums are signed off like nothing when it comes to building another one aircraft carrier or a next generation stealth jet, spending it on a particle supercollider doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[@GeorgeMonet]

Incorrect. The military actually DOES have to justify the huge expenditure. And when it turns out to be a waste heads do actually roll.

[@rosomak8244]

It is silly to justify one waste of money with another one.

[@x--.]

12:35 when he makes the case for continuing the funding stream for a new larger collider is especially convincing; I still don't know enough about the details to feel want one over the other but he makes a compelling argument.

[@jasonpatterson8091]

What we absolutely do not want to have happen is to construct an accelerator that is 10% too weak to detect the effect we think we're after.

[@iordanneDiogeneslucas]

@Wemple im from the future, the equatorial collider at a cost of 100 trillion failed to find any new physic's but it did rule of a bunch of Phd speculation and set bounds on others. money well spent but we really need that solar circumventing collider if we really wanna figure this out.

[@darkiusdark5452]

Prof Ed. Is the only one that hasn’t aged yet since the start this channel.

[@darylryanchong9099]

I'm going to have an interview with Professor Copeland in a few days for entry to Nottingham's physics degree! I'm not sure if I should be nervous or excited 😂

[@jonboshears7767]

Howd it go?

[@Triantalex]

ok?

[@michaelsheffield6852]

The joy on Dr. Ed's face when saw the LHC.

[@jdawg761]

WIMP particles? Weakly interacting massive particles particles ? :p

[@hindigente]

Yes yes.

[@hupekyser]

first time i heard Ed speak, we need more Ed vids.

[@mikeburns6603]

This brings up a very important question: is there a better use for the money? Note that the larger collider is projected to cost $20B, however these large projects nearly always cost about twice (or more projected) and take much longer than the original plan. The LHC cost much more and took much longer than expected, yet found little. Maybe we should do a little more work so that we can make smarter choices.

[@raulsanchez9795]

Yes, extend the cern collider in a mind thru digital computers in a system. Simualate and update with all this hypothical theories.

[@danilooliveira6580]

its important to remember that when we talk about science, not finding anything is as important as finding what you expected.

[@robotnoir5299]

Let's try "not looking". That way we're sure to not find anything. (If possible, I'd prefer my nobel peace prize in the form of cash.)

[@Guoldisney]

Theres a difference here: they found that there are no new particles and that the standard model still applies up to those energies, this is different than not finding anything.

[@danilooliveira6580]

@@Guoldisney that is kinda of my point, they gave more strength to the standard model up to a certain energy level by not finding anything unexpected. finding some weird particle like Axions or something completely unexpected would have been huge, but not finding anything is also huge, just not news worthy. however, the problem with not finding anything is that we KNOW that our understanding of physics is incomplete, so that most likely means the LHC is no enough to solidify the current standard model.

[@luisgeniole369]

Maybe we do need a circular collider to rule out string theory once and for all: the most expensive wild goose chase in all of human history.

[@Triantalex]

false.

[@echoromeo384]

I thought Lauterbur invented the MRI machine? Great videos fellas , I wouldn't even be on youtube anymore if these videos weren't available.

[@Peizxcv]

Better build it quickly. EU/CERN might not be around/can afford to pay for it in 30 years. Europe's fortune is decreasing quickly.

[@Remo1147]

Ed Copeland is my favorite of the sixty symbols scientist

[@stephanc7192]

Get us better sun energy conversion and energy storage please

[@recklessroges]

If physics can reduce human energy costs to almost zero then the price tag for the next one would be greatly reduced.

[@ninjafruitchilled]

There is already lots of money spent on that sort of research

[@jamie8103]

That first glimpse of the LHC 6:22 is the greatest smile I've ever seen

[@WorthlessWinner]

Surely NOT finding something you expect to find, is a useful bit of data?

[@WorthlessWinner]

@Fourth-Dimensional Quasar - doesn't "not seeing something you expect to see" count as "seeing something you don't expect to see." Since you expect to see something and instead see nothing.

[@wingracer1614]

This is true but the problem is that LHC can't rule out the possibility of those things existing, it has only proven that they don't exist at the most likely and convenient energy levels. It's possible that they do exist but only at energy levels LHC can't achieve, thus the desire for an even bigger collider to either find or definitively rule out those particles.

[@rockets4kids]

Indeed. Eliminating a search area is just as useful as finding a result.

[@cyruslupercal9493]

Only if you can confirm for certain that there is nothing there.

[@rosomak8244]

No it isn't if every mathematican around already stopped to talk with you because he couldn't bear the BS you where providing. Current theoretical physics is largely worthless. It's like building pyriamids and expecting some supernatural phenomenon to happen due to some "well founded" previous delusions.

[@SillieWous]

They should build a large hardon collider next. At least then a lot of new articles would spell it right.

[@mrelosepoe4078]

Simple solution, just build a collider on the moon

[@Roxor128]

Or even better, build one using satellites in solar orbit. Your beam energy is only limited by how many satellites you have accelerating it and how much power they can generate for the job.

[@MrWildbill]

I think you are right in your logic about why not spend it on x when x is such a great problem, as in your example medicine. Not only does this research outcomes might have other uses, but even building the machine pushed us to new applied technology not even counting the discoveries, er, the discovery. What I would love to see is this kind of push in developing fusion power for man and there is plenty of theory and applied work in front of us. Not just the funding but the draw of top scientists and universities to the problem.

[@iammaxhailme]

My answer is more applied to the USA, but we could probably build five of these new colliders if we would stop making so many tanks and fighter planes that we don't even use.

[@texasdeeslinglead2401]

It would be a barrel of laughs building a collider in a global war zone. I'll take the repaired 40 year old abrams over another plumber's pipe dream.

[@krashd]

@@texasdeeslinglead2401 Global warzone? but with a smaller military the US would be incapable of shitting on any more small nations...

[@rosomak8244]

The main problem with you is the fact that you actually use them.

[@RagaarAshnod]

I'd love to hear a discussion like this for comparing a linear collider and the circular collider

[@dwnjang]

It took 13.25 (short) billion dollars to find Higgs according to Forbes, and there is 512.6 million people in EU as of 1/1/2018. That means it costed each European citizen 25.8 dollars over the course of 10 years. It is not much money.

[@mrnice4434]

Sure but to this day I did not get my Higgs in the mail... feels like a scam.

[@Matt_10203]

@@mrnice4434 unlucky man, I got my Higgs with 1 days shipping.

[@GeorgeMonet]

Ok. And those people should therefore also make me a billionaire by ending me 25.8 over the course of 10 years.

[@rosomak8244]

Give me my 25.8 dollars back. The Higgs is pretty much irrelevant by any practical means. And I don't care about any mental satisfaction of any theorist out there. He should pay for that out of his own pocket.

[@wofuerbrauchtmandas]

such a well spoken sympathetic gentleman

[@gbxmusicchannel3836]

If it comes with Half Life 3 im willing go found it on kickstarter.

[@arkatub]

I appreciate the interviewer asking the money question, when you consider the least fortunate in our society it is hard to justify these projects without seeing a solid return on the investment. But beyond that dilemma, it is also a question of equality of opportunity, by using public funds to provide for CERN scientists, they increased their chance for success at the expense of others.

[@marcriembausaperas9254]

If humanity does not want to spend 20B (which is the US military budget per WEEK) every 30 years or so to keep exploring Nature at the highest energies possible, I feel ashamed of being part of it.

[@BlueCosmology]

That huge amounts of money is (arguably) wasted on other things, is not a reason to waste money on the FCC.

[@OmegaSounds]

BlueCosmology why would it be a waste

[@BlueCosmology]

@@OmegaSounds Because there's little reason to believe it will find much worth the pricetag, and there are better options to fund instead of it.

[@GeorgeMonet]

I don't want to be part of a species that doesn't believe every budget line item needs to be equally justified. What was the value, in euros or $, of the research done by the LHC? What new resources or processes are improving the lives of the common people thanks to the LHC?

[@rosomak8244]

@@GeorgeMonet That one is easy to answer: 0. There are no actual applications of the (largely non existent anyway) results to be shown.

[@jeffreybernath6627]

I think the importance of negative results is being down-played here. Yes, the LHC was built to, in part, detect WIMPs and find evidence for supersymmetry, and the expected results did not emerge. But that's a huge finding! Ed explained that the community was almost certain that WIMPs were dark matter, and now that theory is on the back shelf to put it mildly. This is a big change in our models and it has been an advancement of our knowledge, and I don't think that this advancement should be down-played just because it is a negative result instead of a positive one.

[@googolplexbyte]

Rather building bigger, isn't there a way to build it better?

[@hesseldekraai]

Well They are upgrading the LHC every now and then. I believe they recently started the LHC back up after schedualled maintenance and upgrades. It is just that the LHC was buildt the best way they could so building even better is no easy feat

[@letMeSayThatInIrish]

Collide smarter, not harder.

[@BlueCosmology]

@@hesseldekraai The LHC was recently shutdown for maintenance/upgrades, not started back up.

[@sandman516]

Yes, stronger magnets can do the trick but building stronger magnets takes a lot longer and might reach a limit of new chemicals are not discovered.

[@ytgentry]

Is the moon round enough to build a collider around? We could save a lot on vacuum pumps.

[@AlexeyFilippenkoPlummet]

Just build the biggest possible collider, invest into the future

[@sandman516]

To understand everything in the universe, we would need to build one around our solar system (assuming using the current magnets).

[@AlexeyFilippenkoPlummet]

@@sandman516 that's what the word possible is for

[@trewq398]

nice to see him again

[@kapoioBCS]

Almost every important experiment in physics was done without a solid hypothesis behind it, you can't wait for the perfect theory in order to build an experiment because you will wait forever!

[@Luk3d411]

Jordbær Utter tosh. Maybe in the 1800’s people were winging it sometimes. If you don’t have a solid theory how would you know what and how to test something. These whole large science projects are built with very very specific experiments in mind.

[@massimookissed1023]

Faraday accidentally discovered electromagnetism with some wire and a compass; not a $20,000,000,000 tunnel under France.

[@kapoioBCS]

@@Luk3d411 there are specific theories and models we expect to see and work in these energies , like SUSY , QGP etc. Also 20 Billion sounds much but they are for science and for people that work in these field, so the money will be recycled . In contrast huge companies( like Apple 1 Trillion dollar) or military equipment or even footballers , NBA players etc just get huge amount of money without giving nothing to society. SO yeah let's criticized the LHC which gives more that enough science to the world (more than theoretical physics e.g. medical physics ) to give Billions to build a freaking wall. Common.

[@Mezmorizorz]

Yeah, that's just not true. The LHC was built with the perfect theory in mind, and we found very little outside of the one rigorous prediction. As someone who works with equipment that is only in the ~million dollar range I "wing" stuff pretty often, but that does not happen on these multi billion dollar projects with thousands of people. To be honest, even with our experiments we're never really winging things. It's often times faster to just spend a week making something and see if it does what we think it will rather than spending months on rigorous theory to be ~95% certain that making the thing will work/not work, but that's purely because the former is faster than the latter.

[@LaunchPadAstronomy]

Of course build it.

[@downswingplayer9712]

We should use the money to expand our military to fight our imaginary enemies.

[@goldilock4199]

We have to defend ourselves from the klingons

[@FlakeTillman]

Downswing Player No. We should give the money to theoretical physicists to prove their imaginary particles.

[@ElectricityTaster]

International leaked cables suggest Sealand is becoming a nukeular power. We need a new generation of fighter jets to go fight them.

[@downswingplayer9712]

@@ElectricityTaster no the strongest weapon against Scientology is the weapon of ignoring them. It strikes fear into their very souls.

[@downswingplayer9712]

@@FlakeTillman Don't get smart Flake it only cost 13.5 billion to find the Higgs Boson That's a bargain there practically giving the particles away.

[@VanceMorris]

This is the best news since they decided to rejig for LHC. Thanks!!

[@killman369547]

can we work on getting fusion reactors up and running and generating power first? our current energy reserves are on a timer and it's ticking down!

[@dankuchar6821]

There are greater known energy reserves than at any time in history. There are other reasons for changing our energy consumption, but a lack of reserves is not one of them.

[@albejaine]

@@dankuchar6821 yes, but it is finite and therefore relatively limited.

[@clayz1]

This is an ‘old’ video by now. There have been new developments at LHC, at least judging by the pop physics that get delivered to lay persons like me.

[@TheNervousnation]

Exhaust the capability of the LHC first, but be prepared for the next leap. imho

[@andrecostin1288]

That's what I was thinking. Imagine we build the 100km collider and it's more of nothing... could be devastating for high energy physics research.

[@inquaanate2393]

If we started building now, what are the chances that we have a theory by the time it’s finished, if we only build it when we have a theory then that would be 30 years of not being able to test anything. At the end of the day, we don’t know how long our civilisation will last so we’ve got to use our time efficiently to maximise our knowledge.

[@tommihommi1]

if we start building now, there's the possibility that we'll have a theory that makes it obsolete by the time it is finished

[@inquaanate2393]

And we won’t know if that theory has basis in reality without testing it and alternatives.

[@tommihommi1]

@@inquaanate2393 You need to know the theories to be able to build an adequately sized accellerator. We currently don't have any nice predictions like we had with Higgs, so it's possible that the 100km accellerator would be too small.

[@nfortin24]

Makes sense to have the experimentalists and engineers work on making the tech more efficient/affordable while the theorists find a reason to build it.

[@MelindaGreen]

Negative results are just as valuable as finding new physics because they constrain theory.

[@NGC6144]

Yang Chen-Ning relatively recently came out against China's proposed large circular collider as a waste of money. We're in a real difficult spot; Building a larger collider that just confirms we where already at the limits of this sort of research with no significant results is going to be a rather expensive "mistake" that may undermine the public's willingness to fund expensive science projects. It might make sense to delay the onset of such a project to see if technology can catch up to intended design. I'm interested if 'Plasma Wakefield Acceleration' can come to fruition. Perhaps this would make larger circular colliders obsolete.

[@NoIce33]

Doesn't the fact that nothing else than Higgs has come out at these energies count as a big discovery itself?

[@stevewyatt3339]

no, it leads nowhere, the implementation is never coming

[@ShaunDreclin]

Not a _big_ discovery, but still important. Just not exciting and not very helpful for guiding new research

[@kingkiller1451]

Depends on your viewpoint, if you were one of those who was so sure we were going to see a bunch of super-symmetry predicted particles, then yeah it's a big discovery that you were totally wrong. If you thought super-symmetry was wrong, not so much, you got told you were right.

[@rosomak8244]

@@kingkiller1451 And if you actually understood how shabby the maths behind those predictions is then you where just bored and amazed by the waste of money.

[@flimluvr]

Thanks for the update. Love the series.