Next-Gen Smasher To Cost 6.6 Billion Dollars 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Chris

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

20th February 2006

0 Uploads

5,663 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago
WiredPhysicists have unveiled designs for an ambitious $6.65 billion particle-smasher that would let scientists peer into the moments following the big bang -- and maybe restore flagging U.S. scientific prestige. A report released in Beijing early on Thursday morning provides the first detailed design and cost estimates for the proposed International Linear Collider, which is viewed by physicists as a critical next step in their field. But its high price and complicated design means that so far, everyone's rigorously avoiding discussion of where the project would actually be located. The U.S. government has contributed tens of millions of dollars to the ILC's research efforts, but has stopped short of saying it would seek to host the project.

Source.

Yes, it's a technological advance to just be so much as thinking of doing a project like this, but considering just how much the US is spending on this when it could be spending it on transport or education or - dare I say it with Bush as president - the environment.




deathwarder

Part of the EPA's swat team

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

2,088 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

I dont think you realize our war costs, less than a week in the war is enough to pay for that(see national debt clock)




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#3 11 years ago

Spending on science is one of the best things your country can do, it will keep western societies as wealthy as they are now until others, like Chinese, catch up. Spending on environment sounds noble, but that money often ends up in non-sense projects (just look at the latest plans against CO2-emissions in Europe). Subventions for science, on the other hand, are likely to create more efficient technologies which are better for environment.

I wonder what the chances of this collider creating a black hole are like.




Delta Force

Revenge was here.

50 XP

23rd June 2005

0 Uploads

1,622 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Almost 100%, less powerfull particle accelerators have already done that. Good thing they last for a microsecond so nothing that bad happens.

Would be an intresting and unexpected way to die. One second you are sitting their minding your own business, the next you are crushed into a singularity. Or you might even go to another dimision. Either way would be cool.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago
MrFancypantsSpending on environment sounds noble, but that money often ends up in non-sense projects (just look at the latest plans against CO2-emissions in Europe)

Could you provide some examples? If you mean nuclear power: it's not the best choice to cut down CO2-emissions but definately better than continuing with coal or oil power.

"International Linear Collider" sounds very good and 6,6 billion dollars compared to its positive potential. Besides, the expenses can be shared.




y0umebednow

Hi, im bored

50 XP

19th July 2006

0 Uploads

944 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

i agree with you on one side but then i also disagree. yes we need money for education and public use. of course, this is what we pay taxes for. but i think exploring the universe is also a necessity, what if we uncover a wonder that could better our life?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#7 11 years ago

Relander;3527411Could you provide some examples? If you mean nuclear power: it's not the best choice to cut down CO2-emissions but definately better than continuing with coal or oil power.

"International Linear Collider" sounds very good and 6,6 billion dollars compared to its positive potential. Besides, the expenses can be shared.

I meant the latest attempts to force the car-industry in Germany to reduce C02 emissions by law or things like subsidies for solar technology. Cars produce only only a very small percentage of the overall production of CO2 (less than half a percent), especially if you take only those that drive in Germany. Besides, you can't just turn a car into a zero-emission vehicle in a day, right now the technology which reduces emissions is an a stage where it costs so much that people would just buy cars from a foreign company.

It is similar with solar technology-subsidies: it may look good at first glance, but if you consider the energy that you have to invest to create solar panels right now you will soon find out that there are other projects which would be more effective and should therefore receive subsidies instead (for example geothermal-energy).

Instead of creating laws which dish out penalties for those companies that refuse to do what some politicians think is good it would be better to create incentives based on scientific evaluation of technologies.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#8 11 years ago
Afterburner;3527540I once read something that thousands of black holes are created in the atmosphere every day but they are so tiny they blink out of existence almost immediately.

Small black holes disappear because they radiate according to Hawking, but there are some people who think that maybe Hawking was wrong and they don't just disappear in every case. Let's hope he is right :)




deathwarder

Part of the EPA's swat team

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

2,088 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

nope, the colliders are able to produce electron sized holes, but they are the smallest possible. There are equations that prove it.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 11 years ago
MrFancypants;3526915 I wonder what the chances of this collider creating a black hole are like.

I once read something that thousands of black holes are created in the atmosphere every day but they are so tiny they blink out of existence almost immediately.




  • 1
  • 2