Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: Should Scientists Build a New Particle Collider In Japan?

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the cue-godzilla-jokes dept.

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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why not? (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#42324381)

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? (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42324489)

Located on God's shooting range...

Re:Why not? (0)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42324503)

quakes.

they should build it in Finland. no quakes, lots of free space.

Re:Why not? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324663)

the should build it on the moon. no atmosphere, already cold (in parts).

Re:Why not? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 years ago | (#42324943)

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:Why not? (3, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#42325059)

Quakes are the least of your problems... Think about the *mini-black holes*!!!
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:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324507)

Seismic activity

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324517)

Earthquakes...tsunamis....

Re:Why not? (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#42324731)

Earthquakes...tsunamis....

Giant lizards... overgrown moths... Hello kitty... The list goes on.

Re:Why not? (1)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#42325313)

True. A mini black hole could cause earthquakes and tsunamis, but who on earth would be better prepared for such an apacolyptic event?

Re:Why not? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42324537)

What's not to like?

When you get on the train in Japan, the announcements that sound like a 12 year old girl on helium get tedious in a real hurry.

Re:Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324817)

Take the bus. Enjoy the breathy hashimarimaaaaaasu

Re:Why not? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#42324951)

Plus, they have a large tract of land that is inhabitable on the surface. Easy access, no complaints from the locals!

Re:Why not? (4, Insightful)

boristdog (133725) | about 2 years ago | (#42324999)

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:Why not? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42325191)

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.

31km in an Earthquake Zone (4, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#42324387)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

Pyrotech7 (1825500) | about 2 years ago | (#42324455)

Good point! But it will fit nicely with the nuclear reactors.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#42324519)

They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324535)

They should build this in Florida. Lots of space, seismically stable, and we could use the boost to our state economy.

Too many floridians. Sorry, pick another state and no Texas won't do.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324591)

Sorry, pick another state and no Texas won't do.

Why not? There's a massive leap forward in colliders that's already been in Texas, in an area with little seismic activity. [wikipedia.org]

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 2 years ago | (#42324865)

hurricanes

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (2)

dtmos (447842) | about 2 years ago | (#42325081)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | about 2 years ago | (#42325207)

They would have to build it waterproof. These are usually build underground. You do not have to dig to far down to hit water in most Florida.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324555)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (2)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#42324719)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324613)

How much extra will it cost to construct and maintain an earthquake proof collider? I'm sure it'll cost a lot extra, and think of the extra maintenance everytime they have an earthquake to make sure everything is still in alignment!

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

stms (1132653) | about 2 years ago | (#42324661)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325001)

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?

If I have to move and my bed won't fit in any of my cars... Do you see where I am going with this?

The idea was to build a larger collider since the two available aren't large enough to study Higgs boson in detail.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42324665)

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 city of San Francisco, sure. But not so bad in Montana as far as I know.

You can google up a map of seismic activity if you'd like. I'm about 99% certain the south is shaking it up and the far north is pretty much inert.

Finally this would not exactly be the worlds first earthquake resistant building. I think they can figure something out that'll work.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42324737)

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 planning to power it? Fire those nukes back up?

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (2)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#42324823)

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:31km in an Earthquake Zone (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42325305)

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 good at miniaturization? They have every motive.

Re:31km in an Earthquake Zone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324729)

The really good linear accelerator, transformed into a linear collider, is at Stanford. Next to the San Andreas fault

Noooo! (1)

q.kontinuum (676242) | about 2 years ago | (#42324391)

Just imagine, how many starving people could be fed with all the money!!!111!1eleven1

(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:Noooo! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324511)

We could feed *all* starving people with only the amount of food we waste.

Re:Noooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324567)

Imagine how badly all of those millions going to feed people is going to destroy the economy in the countries it will be contributed to, making it impossible for those that will not starve to buy locally grown food. You would need to keep those donations to keep coming because now the only food anyone can get comes from other countries.

You don't work out problems by mindlessly giving people new stuff, but you will feel a lot better for sure. You help by strengthening the economy.

Re:Noooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324703)

On the other hand if no one needs to worry about starving anymore they can dedicate more effort to education and construction of infrastructure.

The problem really is that we do it half-assed. We don't give out enough food to eradicate famine. We give out enough to encourage warlords to hoard it all for their armies and let everyone else starve.

Re:Noooo! (2)

noshellswill (598066) | about 2 years ago | (#42324579)

Just imagine how many starving reproducing fools could be sterilized with that money. A comfortable, self-sustaining earth population is about 750,000 million. We have 10x that now; the particle collider is a tekboi extravagance.

Re:Noooo! (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42324691)

Sure, you would volunteer right? Heck, we should make it mandatory for you cause I dont like your ideas. [/Sarcasm]

Re:Noooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324603)

You've got this wrong. Money doesn't go from the government to lobby organizations, it's the other way around. Too many people are all too willing to ignore who really profits from the likes of lobby groups and such. We whine on about big industry when it's big government that nearly always gets the lion's share of everything. And they still can't get anything right with nearly unlimited resources.

Re:Noooo! (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 2 years ago | (#42324895)

Hire them to work at the new facilities. Problem solved. Not particle physicists? Everywhere needs a janitor!

Stability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324399)

These devices require a pretty solid footing to provide accurate measurements, after all you're mashing together *really small* particles, some of which are subatomic. An earthquake nudging something half a millimeter out of alignment could prove a setback much more expensive than the liquid helium leak they had at LHC earlier....

Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (4, Interesting)

slim (1652) | about 2 years ago | (#42324401)

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:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42324451)

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:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (2)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#42324505)

...and 87% of all statistics are made up...

/. postings include plenty of random things so this fits in just fine.

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#42324771)

...and 87% of all statistics are made up...

Citation needed. Every time somebody quotes that, the percentage is different.

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324963)

Because it is made up 87% of the time. Of course this was made up too.

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (1)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 years ago | (#42325185)

It's different because it's made up...

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (2)

u38cg (607297) | about 2 years ago | (#42325189)

Note sure if whoosh....

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324779)

Actually, it's more like 97%, I read that somewhere.

Re:Why is this an Ask Slashdot? (4, Informative)

telchine (719345) | about 2 years ago | (#42324515)

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!

Bernard's Law ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324407)

Queue Bernard's law. No, and No. There's a lot more data to be gathered at CERN for a decade, and it just doesn't matter where it's built. However, when we've run the existing coliders to the extent of their ability to generate data, then it may be time to build a new collider and why not Japan.

Re:Bernard's Law ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324607)

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:Bernard's Law ... (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about 2 years ago | (#42324789)

Modders please up the parent, most informative post ever.

Re:Bernard's Law ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325279)

Modders please down the parent, least informative post ever.

Also down this one two. Mainly because I kicked three puppies going to work today. And I slashed the tires of a minivan. And I posted a troll post on /. And I farted in the elevator. And I hate your favourite TV show. And your musical tastes suck.

Re:Bernard's Law ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324649)

Queue Bernard's law. No, and No. There's a lot more data to be gathered at CERN for a decade, and it just doesn't matter where it's built. However, when we've run the existing coliders to the extent of their ability to generate data, then it may be time to build a new collider and why not Japan.

Who is Bernard? I believe you must mean Betteridge's law of headlines [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Bernard's Law ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324709)

These things have a certain amount of lead time, you know. If you wait until you've exhausted the potential of current equipment, you'll end up with a decade-long gap.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324411)

Because if there is a disaster it is sure to happen in Japan.

NO !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324427)

NO !!

Earthquake risks? (3, Insightful)

holiggan (522846) | about 2 years ago | (#42324433)

Just my 2 cents, but shouldn't the ILC be built on an area with a reduced earthquake risk?

Re:Earthquake risks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324655)

The Japanese are also experts on building earthquake-proof facilities, and there are areas of relative stability in the country. Finally, Switzerland itself is seismically active (that's where the mountains come from), so obviously it's doable.

Re:Earthquake risks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324667)

Earthquakes affect less underground. The higher you go the more the shaking will be.

Should it go to Japan? What question is this? (2, Insightful)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#42324445)

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.

Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42324545)

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:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#42324595)

That's because the SSC was a US-only project, compared to the LHC or the SLS. The "I" in ILC stands for International, indicating that more than one country will pay for it. The SSC was cancelled because Congress didn't want to cover the rapidly expanding costs, this won't happen with the ILC. Also, Japan has "agreed" to cover roughly half of the total cost because it would be the "host" nation.

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324619)

That's because the SSC was a US-only project, compared to the LHC or the SLS. The "I" in ILC stands for International, indicating that more than one country will pay for it. The SSC was cancelled because Congress didn't want to cover the rapidly expanding costs, this won't happen with the ILC. Also, Japan has "agreed" to cover roughly half of the total cost because it would be the "host" nation.

Even if the US had agreed to cover only half the cost of SSC, they would have canceled.

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (2)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#42324681)

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.

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324695)

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.

So you're agreeing that the site matters greatly!

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#42324721)

No, I'm stating that it would be ridiculous to build it within the US. Just about anywhere else (first-world) would be similar in risk.

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (1)

Rostin (691447) | about 2 years ago | (#42325153)

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 evidence isn't proof against a larger trend, but it does make me suspicious. What makes you believe that "most" young scientists are departing the US?

Re:Actually It Does Matter Where It's Built (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324755)

LHC is an EU-Only project where other nations are welcome to participate. In particular the ones that have texan jackasses as presidents

Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 2 years ago | (#42324549)

That's because the question is not "should it go to Japan?", but "will the equipment be safe if it's built in Japan?".

Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about 2 years ago | (#42324633)

Japan has the best earth conditions. You guys are overestimating the effects of earthquakes. Personally, based on my location, I'd like to see it built at DESY, but it's unlikely with the local soil conditions :(

Re:Should it go to Japan? What question is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324577)

I think people are worrying about the earthquakes.

No, think instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324465)

If the money for building the new collider would be invested in researchers and scientists to think for a cheaper and better way to examine the very same things they do in colliders, I guess we would start having results in some time. After figuring out how the next generation colliders would be, go and put the money building that to a new project to think about a yet better solution.

I think this should be applied to the current space exploration too. Give money to scientists and have them thinking 8 hours a day, nothing more.

Re:No, think instead (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about 2 years ago | (#42324541)

The 'cheaper' bit will come in time, as these experiments tend to push the state-of-the-art in so many areas.

BUT, the ILC will be expensive, and that's unavoidable. In high-energy physics, higher and higher energies, and better, more sensitive detectors, are required to explore new physics. The accelerator and detectors required to do this are custom built, need to be basically developed from scratch -- and do not come cheap.

Re:No, think instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324675)

All very true. To me it would sound more beneficial to have smart people thinking of better alternatives than constantly building new colliders. Of course that is done all the time, but I guess the people doing the thinking do not receive the same kind of financial backup that the building of the actual units have. For example, Bell Labs was in its time very successful in all kinds of things. These kinds of organizations would really need to be put together rather than building expensive stuff that lead to findings that haven't been very practical, mostly.

First rule of government contracting (1)

JBL2 (994604) | about 2 years ago | (#42324475)

Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?

Re:First rule of government contracting (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 2 years ago | (#42324565)

You only say 'twice the price' because the change orders haven't come down.
Take that coefficient and scootch it up a tad to the exponent area.
Yeaaaah, baby. Tha's'um talkin' about.

It's about funding (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#42324523)

As I said a number of [slashdot.org] times [slashdot.org] after that catastrophe hit Japan, they need to stop printing money and let their currency appreciate. They'll be doing themselves a huge service, allowing the zombie banks and companies to fail while allowing their natural rate of deflation to work its way through the economy, force people to deleverage and allow the prices to drop.

Japanese have all that production but purchasing power gains from it, because they are on the path to self-destruction with money printing just like the rest of the world. Of-course those who can borrow (like USA) from countries that produce (China, Japan, Germany, even Mexico, etc.), they are getting the better part of the deal. USA prints the money and uses the fake money to 'buy' real goods (it's not actually to buy, it's to take, nobody will get anything back for those dollars).

But the Japanese just elected a government that will print more money and so the cost of all the imports (energy, raw materials) will keep rising for them, which is the exact opposite of what they need. Japan needs to work on its NUCLEAR program more, they need to evaluate their reactors and build new ones and decommission the old ones, now that would be a USEFUL way to spend money (and it shouldn't be done on gov't level anyway, it should private, all parts of it).

They will end up printing more money to buy US dollars so that what? Who is going to be better off in this case? Well, some people will get a subsidy to build this collider, good for them. What are the average Japanese going to get from this? More inflation, more taxes, higher prices. If they are going to go that road, maybe they should be investing in new types of nuclear reactors instead.

Some will say: do both. Well yeah, in the world of limitless resources you can do whatever it is you want, if you live forever you can do every single thing that can be done eventually. People do not live forever.

Why did we need LHC? (1, Insightful)

ggpauly (263626) | about 2 years ago | (#42324533)

Wouldn't the Tevatron have found the Higgs particle had it been run a few months longer? Actually didn't it, and then the LHC confirmed it with higher confidence?

Let the intelligent physicists figure out how to extend their science without so many billions of dollars. (hint: look up, there are collisions in the atmosphere at much higher energy than the LHC is capable of). Let the physicists outsmart Nature rather than funding agencies. Maybe they could concentrate better if they weren't so worried about construction, budgets, reports, etc.

Re:Why did we need LHC? (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | about 2 years ago | (#42324733)

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 to prop up the economy... and this make work project might actually do something cool.

Re:Why did we need LHC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324879)

Wouldn't the Tevatron have found the Higgs particle had it been run a few months longer? Actually didn't it, and then the LHC confirmed it with higher confidence?

Let the intelligent physicists figure out how to extend their science without so many billions of dollars. (hint: look up, there are collisions in the atmosphere at much higher energy than the LHC is capable of). Let the physicists outsmart Nature rather than funding agencies. Maybe they could concentrate better if they weren't so worried about construction, budgets, reports, etc.

sure!! may I know where did you read this BS ??
Tevatron observed some 2.5 sigma combining the two experiments (cherry picking the channels with largest excess it goes to 2.9 sigma), both numbers being in large excess of the expectation (likely due to very possible statistical fluctuation on the lucky side).
Now if you want to extrapolate how many more "months" of Tevatron you would need to get to anything near a 5-sigma per-experiment discovery ... you can start from the 2.5 sigma (even if one should use the expected significance rather than the observed) and scale it with sqrt(luminosity).
So in order to double it, you would need 4 time more lumi. If you want 5-sigma per experiment, you need another factor sqrt(2).

How many months is this?
The last two years of Tevatron running had record luminosity for that machine with ~5fb-1 in 2 years. The current available integrated luminosity is 10-12fb-1.. meaning to make 4 (or 5.6 ) times as much you would need about 12 to 15 years ...

Should be built in China instead (1)

prasadsurve (665770) | about 2 years ago | (#42324559)

With Austerity in Europe, Huge Deficits in US and Recession in Japan, China seems to be the economically viable place to build the particle collider.

Quality Control issues will have to looked at carefully though.

Japan has room? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 2 years ago | (#42324593)

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.

Why, did the LHC break down again? (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 2 years ago | (#42324635)

I'm curious about the scientific justification of another particle collider. The data from the LHC, ATLAS, and so forth has been amazing and it's possible to collide almost any subatomic particle in them so why do we need another? I'm not making a point, I'm asking a question.

Re:Why, did the LHC break down again? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42324713)

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:Why, did the LHC break down again? (1)

Anrego (830717) | about 2 years ago | (#42324735)

* 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 (4, Informative)

Isarian (929683) | about 2 years ago | (#42324641)

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:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324899)

It looks like a Higgs, it quacks like a Higgs, but we've been unable to confirm whether it walks like a Higgs. So, even if we do find that it doesn't walk like a Higgs; does that make the particle not-Higgs, or does it just mean Peter Higgs incorrectly predicted how the Higgs behaves?

Re:No, The Higgs Has NOT Been Confirmed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324985)

since your "Higgs Hysteria" has been published, even more Higgs evidence found......things are looking good for what is called "the boring version of the standard model". It probably is the Higgs boson.

Don't know what energy is needed yet (3, Informative)

grimJester (890090) | about 2 years ago | (#42324657)

The ILC would be able to measure properties of the Higgs more accurately than the LHC, but before the LHC has ran at 13 or 14 TeV for a while we don't know if there's other interesting stuff to see.

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.

Yes it should (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324671)

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.

Electricity, earthquakes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324685)

Have they restored electricity to normal levels yet in Japan?
Last I heard industry in Japan was suffering from electricity shortage in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.

Also i think a large scientific installation might be better off in a more seismicly stable region as
they would just would cost a lot more if factoring in earthquake damage risks.

Shelf Life (1)

wesleyjconnor (1955870) | about 2 years ago | (#42324741)

Why do particle accelerators seem to have such a short shelf life?
Is this it for the LHC? Im surprised that they are already looking for something larger, to study something that the LHC was aiming at doing.
I am not a scientist, but I do find this stuff incredibly cool.

Derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324819)

As a computer scientist my opinion is irrelevant and thus, shall be withheld.

What a dumb question (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about 2 years ago | (#42324927)

A question of "do you want beer or not" is not meaningful. This is why you get reasonable but useless responses like the first one here which had a subject line of "why not?"

For the article to have some legitimacy here, it should post the question in terms of altenatives:

- should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should the money go towards a new orbiting telescope?
- should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should a new accelerator be built in india?

and so forth.

while some such questions are a bit forced (I mean, we'd all like to have BOTH the accelerator and the telescope) if the question is framed in terms of decision making given scarcity, then we can discuss the merits and tradeoffs in a realistic way rather than the fantastic way that the headline suggests we should

Re:What a dumb question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42325119)

- should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should the money go towards a new orbiting telescope?
- should a new accelerator be built in japan OR should a new accelerator be built in india?

ah! binary questions, you got to love them, my take on this is
) yes
) no

thank you....

Seismic activity makes it unsuitable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42324945)

Japan would be a poor location, as particle accelerators are EXTREMELY sensitive to seismic activity. I took a tour of Fermilab (the site of the Tevatron before it was shut down) recently and one of the operators there mentioned that Japan's big earthquake last year disrupted the beam (the Tevatron was still operational at the time). And Fermilab is in Illinois, about as far away as you can get from Japan. So putting it IN Japan seems like a very bad idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?