6mo ago

We need a larger one. Yes, for the last time. Pleeeeeeeeeease!

76 comments

Just get it over with and start building an equatorial particle collider already.
- Unironical support
  
  Can we get a collider between moon an earth? I know, a lot of particles out there, but if we isolate it?
  
  Put one of them magnet floating trains on top please.
  The equator express.
- ... around the sun.
  
  Free power as well. I see no downside to this.
- A gaggle of particle physicists standing in a circle chanting "RING! WORLD! RING! WORLD!"
  
  Surely the collective noun for a group of particle physicists has to be A Theory.
- Orbital particle collider or bust
  
  That's what the asteroid belt is for!
  
  The GEO Particle Collider.
- Just put it in orbit! Let's commit and put a ring on this planet!
- Honest question could this be feasible with a few dozen satellites positioned above the Van Allen Belts to accelerate particles, and just letting the particles raw dog the solar wind and ride around Earth's gravity well between each acceleration satellite? Cause that would be badass
  
  No, to orbit the earth at an height of let's say 1000 km you would need a speed of around 7km/s. If you go faster, you don't follow an circular orbit. Wirh around 11km/s you would be so fast to leave the gravity well of earth. The particles in those colliders are almost moving at the speed of light. To be exact, they move only 3.1m/s slower than the speed of light, so almost 300000km/s. They would fly almost straight and would be barely influenced by the gravity well.
- Skip that. Put it in orbit and make it double as a solar collector array and beam the extra energy back down.

- Fr no solid theoretical basis, just trust me bro

Saturn is one step ahead of us
- Perfect! A bunch of raw materials are already there! We just need to refine them and assemble them into a particle collider.
- They'll be gone in another 15 million to 400 million years.

The two first are the same?
- Ops, I meant the Proton Syncrotron.

It'll still be called the Future Circular Collider when it's shut down after forty years of service. You gotta commit to a scale in the proposal, like the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.
- Relevant xkcd
- Chucky McParticleface
  
  Lead engineer, Dr. Slab Bulkhead.

Decades of colliding hardons and what do we have to show for it
- Just the Higgs boson, which is exactly what the LHC was originally built for. But other than the intended results, it’s been basically useless!
  
  But other than the intended results, it’s been basically useless!
  Tbf, there are quite a few big experiments that have been done and will be done with the LHC, not just the Higgs boson search.
- The hardons haven't been colliding fast enough. Sorry boys, I don't make the rules
- Confirmation of the principles they built the thing to demonstrate.
  Every time so far.
  This isn't far off from some dipshit saying the place program was a waste of resources.
  
  I think they were making a hardon joke more than questioning scientific research
- it was about the hardons we collided along the way

Orbital collider when?
- Maybe that's the real Kardashev scale...

Just one more collider bro I swear just this one and we'll fix the standard model bro just one more I swear

The last time? aaaahahahaa... no. There are several phenomenon that require energy levels that only stellar objects can throw off. They'll be asking for bigger colliders even when they're dedicated space stations firing what would be equivalent to weapons of mass destruction at each other.
Unless scientists can figure everything out just by observing space, there will always be a demand for a bigger collider. Since scientists like to control variables and don't like waiting for random events that they then almost have to reverse-engineer to explain (without most all of the sensitive detectors built in to these colliders), there will always be a demand.
- I said 10y, but yes it will need a lot more colliders.
- “We just want to smash two little planets together at 99% speed of light!”
  
  I’m inclined to let them. I wanna see that,

Larger Hadron Collider

Is we even sure Geneva hasn’t already been overrun by the Combine?
- No, that would be Bulgaria

Why does a larger loop mean better results?
- More size = more speed and more particles colliding = more bang = more data = for example possibility for dark matter and/or heavier particles to be found.

So I says, "Super collider? I just met her." Then they built the super collider.

I like how it went from second to third picture. Borders? Who needs borders?

What's the new one for?

When I see massive and highly technical projects like this I wonder where they find enough skilled labor to build it. Just look at the immense complexity of this and they have to build miles and miles of it underground. I'm imagining that all of the construction workers have PhDs in physics or some shit. Or am I overestimating the demands here?
- Overestimating it a little, the construction workers just need to be good. But there are indeed literally thousands of PhDs working on it for decades, from all over the world.

Of course they need a bigger one. They haven’t spontaneously created a world-ending black hole yet.
(Actually? They should build one looping around the meridians. Maybe build a turret at each pole. You know. In case aliens show up. )
- My understanding based on watching too many science communicators videos on YouTube is that such tiny black holes would evaporate quickly before causing harm that humans could appreciate. However, this would provide experimental evidence of Hawkings theory.
- Unironically, getting to watch short-lived black holes explode could be really, really useful.
  But no, the larger one on the picture isn't anything near big enough for that.
  
  Didn’t stop some fearmongering from the last one that went operational.
  “The new supercollider could cause BlAcK hOLeS; ExPeRtS SaY!!!1!1!1!1!2!?3!!4!!!”
  Honestly, I would love a slow-mo guys style video of a bunch of ~~nerds~~very professional researchers smashing microsingularities into random ~~fruit~~ targets.
  I assume it would be fairly boring without some massive magnification… but ya know….

I can probably look this up but how does size effect the result in these things?
- The limiting factor is the bend. The subatomic particles want to go in a straight line. A magnetic field is used to bend the beam around into a circle. The faster the particles are moving however, the more energy is needed to bend them. A larger circle has less bend. This lets you get your particles faster.
  Since E^{2 = M}2 C^{4 + P}2 C^{2 (the full form is E=MC}2 ). If you can force the particle to stop rapidly, then you can force the energy from momentum into mass. This is done by hitting 2 beams into each other. The faster the beams, the more energy is available to convert to mass.
  Most of the time, this creates a lot of mundane particles. However, ever so often it creates something interesting. They rapidly decay into mundane particles, but the shower they create tells us a lot about them. The catch is that all the energy needs to be present at once. You can't use more particles, you need to make them move faster.
  As for why. The more particles we have to study, the more we can figure out about the underlying rules. We have a number of theories. They all agree at lower energy levels, but disagree at higher energy levels. By knowing which is correct, we can pry deeper into the workings of reality.
  
  Thanks!
  
  Thanks! I'm personally in favor of doing things for knowledge's sake. That said, what is the stated practical benefit when some government body is writing a check?
- More size = more speed and more particles colliding = more bang = more data = for example possibility for dark matter and/or heavier particles to be found.

Just wait until the day somebody makes one that's a full 1 AU in radius.

Honest question: why is a larger collider even needed? Just make the particles run more loops around your track.

10 years? Hahahahahaha, sure

76 comments