By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
That is the thing really - The experiments at CERN are all a waste of money, until they aren't.
Any agreed upon hypothesis is useful, until is isn't any more.
But for every failed hypothesis and experiment, we get one step closer to a solution in most cases.
Indeed. And it shouldn’t mean we don’t spend money on dealing with climate change. That’s high up there too but it’s the really wasteful spending we need to get rid of for both science and the environment.
Pronouns: He/Him
2
Large Hadron Collider on 20:06 - Oct 15 with 1954 views
CERN is a research center where many scientific minds go to research their own ideas with facilities reaching beyond their own means. The internet was created there, for example. There is more to CERN than particle physics.
I'm aware of that. But I'm talking here specifically about the "need" for another, even larger, collider, not CERN generally. It's an eye-watering amount of money, and the carbon footprint on 100km of concrete tunnels etc etc is not insignificant.
"You never know what interesting thing might be discovered, or application might be found." isn't the strongest pitch for more than $20billion, when we are facing climate crisis, the possibility of mass extinction events, including a projection that pretty much ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide. I want the greatest minds, the best facilities and the biggest possible budgets thrown at that. And you never know, in devising a means to remove plastic from the oceans there might be the knock-on effect of an even better non-stick frying pan or an upside-down writing ballpoint pen, which will really justify the cost, apparently.
1
Large Hadron Collider on 20:26 - Oct 15 with 1928 views
Large Hadron Collider on 20:23 - Oct 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
I'm aware of that. But I'm talking here specifically about the "need" for another, even larger, collider, not CERN generally. It's an eye-watering amount of money, and the carbon footprint on 100km of concrete tunnels etc etc is not insignificant.
"You never know what interesting thing might be discovered, or application might be found." isn't the strongest pitch for more than $20billion, when we are facing climate crisis, the possibility of mass extinction events, including a projection that pretty much ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide. I want the greatest minds, the best facilities and the biggest possible budgets thrown at that. And you never know, in devising a means to remove plastic from the oceans there might be the knock-on effect of an even better non-stick frying pan or an upside-down writing ballpoint pen, which will really justify the cost, apparently.
If a new type of energy is found, then you can rest assured it will likely be used to fix a multitude of problems, environmental issues being one of them.
If a new type of energy is found, then you can rest assured it will likely be used to fix a multitude of problems, environmental issues being one of them.
Solar (especially solar reflector turbines), geothermal, wind and wave can provide sufficient for humankind's needs. We just need to commit to them. And that means instead of putting solar panels on rooves in Northern Europe, installing solar reflector turbines in African countries. Lots of them.
The $23billion projected cost of the future collider would pay for 500 PS10 solar turbines. But they would generate revenue which would enable more to be built.
It's not that simple, of course, but I'm convinced that we have an urgent crisis on our hands and need to make some sacrifices immediately to make huge changes to the way energy (fuel for homes, machines and, as food, for our bodies) is both produced and consumed.
2
Large Hadron Collider on 20:49 - Oct 15 with 1905 views
Large Hadron Collider on 20:41 - Oct 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
Solar (especially solar reflector turbines), geothermal, wind and wave can provide sufficient for humankind's needs. We just need to commit to them. And that means instead of putting solar panels on rooves in Northern Europe, installing solar reflector turbines in African countries. Lots of them.
The $23billion projected cost of the future collider would pay for 500 PS10 solar turbines. But they would generate revenue which would enable more to be built.
It's not that simple, of course, but I'm convinced that we have an urgent crisis on our hands and need to make some sacrifices immediately to make huge changes to the way energy (fuel for homes, machines and, as food, for our bodies) is both produced and consumed.
Sacrifices are needed, but not in physics and science. There is also a lot of work going on into finding a solution to make way for 20 megawatt wind turbines, which will be a feat of engineering, some of those engineers utilise CERN.
What would make it even more victorious is if we could find ways of harnessing power through thorium, as an example.
Sacrifices are needed, but not in physics and science. There is also a lot of work going on into finding a solution to make way for 20 megawatt wind turbines, which will be a feat of engineering, some of those engineers utilise CERN.
What would make it even more victorious is if we could find ways of harnessing power through thorium, as an example.
It's really interesting, thanks. I'm not completely anti-nuclear, but am concerned about us leaving the clean-up problem to future generations, as we are facing now for the Carbon age.
The article above puts the sum invested by China into research of the thorium and molten salt reactor at $500million, which, while a significant sum of money, is a fraction of the projected cost of the future collider. Yet this is the technology that could provide safer clean energy.
Molten salt is also being proposed as a possible medium for the next generation of solar tower turbines.
1
Large Hadron Collider on 21:05 - Oct 15 with 1887 views
It's really interesting, thanks. I'm not completely anti-nuclear, but am concerned about us leaving the clean-up problem to future generations, as we are facing now for the Carbon age.
The article above puts the sum invested by China into research of the thorium and molten salt reactor at $500million, which, while a significant sum of money, is a fraction of the projected cost of the future collider. Yet this is the technology that could provide safer clean energy.
Molten salt is also being proposed as a possible medium for the next generation of solar tower turbines.
I remember in highschool (late 90s) we were learning a lot about the environment in school and the theories of greenhouse gasses and global warming. The real travesty in renewable energy is that only now are we seeing companies take it seriously. And we're only seeing it taken seriously as there is a potential to profit, and they're s**t scared of being redundant.
They'd all laugh at me if they knew what I was trying to do. To create a new strain of super-wine in half-an-hour with a fraction of nature's resources and a FOOL for an assistant. 'Bernard Black, he's mad,' they'd say, 'he's insane, he's dangerous.' Well I'll show them! I'll show them all!
I remember in highschool (late 90s) we were learning a lot about the environment in school and the theories of greenhouse gasses and global warming. The real travesty in renewable energy is that only now are we seeing companies take it seriously. And we're only seeing it taken seriously as there is a potential to profit, and they're s**t scared of being redundant.
It's been greenwashing till now- being seen to do enough- and keeping enough of a stake in the game in case it became profitable down the line.
I have known about all this since school, too. I didn't fly for years, but gave in about 20 years ago. I have had some amazing holidays and loved them. But I know I need to change, and the pandemic has given an enforced break from the habit of booking holidays abroad and time to reflect.
I've got to start with me.
0
Large Hadron Collider on 22:06 - Oct 15 with 1843 views
Large Hadron Collider on 20:23 - Oct 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
I'm aware of that. But I'm talking here specifically about the "need" for another, even larger, collider, not CERN generally. It's an eye-watering amount of money, and the carbon footprint on 100km of concrete tunnels etc etc is not insignificant.
"You never know what interesting thing might be discovered, or application might be found." isn't the strongest pitch for more than $20billion, when we are facing climate crisis, the possibility of mass extinction events, including a projection that pretty much ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide. I want the greatest minds, the best facilities and the biggest possible budgets thrown at that. And you never know, in devising a means to remove plastic from the oceans there might be the knock-on effect of an even better non-stick frying pan or an upside-down writing ballpoint pen, which will really justify the cost, apparently.
All marine life will be dead in less than 30 years? So I'll be talking to my grandchildren about what fish were? Seems rather extreme, who's proposing this?
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
0
Large Hadron Collider on 22:57 - Oct 15 with 1819 views
Large Hadron Collider on 20:23 - Oct 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
I'm aware of that. But I'm talking here specifically about the "need" for another, even larger, collider, not CERN generally. It's an eye-watering amount of money, and the carbon footprint on 100km of concrete tunnels etc etc is not insignificant.
"You never know what interesting thing might be discovered, or application might be found." isn't the strongest pitch for more than $20billion, when we are facing climate crisis, the possibility of mass extinction events, including a projection that pretty much ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide. I want the greatest minds, the best facilities and the biggest possible budgets thrown at that. And you never know, in devising a means to remove plastic from the oceans there might be the knock-on effect of an even better non-stick frying pan or an upside-down writing ballpoint pen, which will really justify the cost, apparently.
So, (watching SU2C reminded me of this), talking of spin off technology from work at CERN...
One of the ways the LHC is getting an improvement is the silicon sensors used to track particles. Basically making the conductive strips that are on the silicon, thinner and closer together.
This has the effect of making your particle tracking much more accurate.
Now because of this we then worked on a project that took this technology and applied it to proton beam therapy. Allowing the proton beams to be more accurate/focused which means less damage to surrounding areas etc.
All marine life will be dead in less than 30 years? So I'll be talking to my grandchildren about what fish were? Seems rather extreme, who's proposing this?
That is the thing really - The experiments at CERN are all a waste of money, until they aren't.
Any agreed upon hypothesis is useful, until is isn't any more.
But for every failed hypothesis and experiment, we get one step closer to a solution in most cases.
The thing is there are very few absolute truths in our understanding as even when once a thing is proven it only remains valid until it's superseded by future research.
One of the constants is the speed of light is the absolute maximum that anything can travel at. Aside from that, nearly all other things are just working theories.
There is a huge amount of money wasted in scientific research but CERN is not one of them. The Higgs boson finding in 2012 is a good example. It was theorised back in the 70s but not proven until the LHC discovered it. It will incredibly influence life and the direction of science going forward and most people will remain completely unaware.
Whilst that's obviously bad, he states "little or no seafood available for sustainable harvest" rather than "ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide" as Arnold attested. He rather exaggerated, which I suspected was the case.
And this is only the view of one expert.
It's still not good though, even if partially true.
Trust the process. Trust Phil.
1
Large Hadron Collider on 19:26 - Oct 17 with 1677 views
Whilst that's obviously bad, he states "little or no seafood available for sustainable harvest" rather than "ALL marine life will be effectively dead by 2050, worldwide" as Arnold attested. He rather exaggerated, which I suspected was the case.
And this is only the view of one expert.
It's still not good though, even if partially true.
There are other reports and predictions available from other scientists, they are all pretty grim.