The US$5 billion facility would be cheaper, bigger and faster to build than a similar one proposed by European scientists.
  • xenomor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    5 months ago

    I would like to understand how the size/capability of this proposed facility compares to both CERN and also the never completed Superconducting Supercollider. I will never get over the fact that, as Americans, we could have had a huge lead in this research. We started to build it, then decided to stop.

    • vinyl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      Theres a good couple videos on the construction of the Americas collider’s by YouTuber bobbybrocolli.

      Give them a watch if you haven’t.

    • Technus@lemmy.zipEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      America doesn’t do anything big unless it’s to beat either China or Russia. Maybe this collider will be the impetus we need to build a bigger one.

    • vinyl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      Indeed and with what I’ve seen with tofu-dreg projects in china I doubt that it would last.

    • terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      0·
      5 months ago

      I think (and I’m by far no particle physicists) that generally the larger the collider, the better the results can be. Also allows for more energetic collisions with potential discovery of new particles.

      • Parculis Marcilus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        0·
        5 months ago

        Particle physicists had their chance on trying prove the existence of any new particles with CERN and their newest project but ultimately they failed to discover any. First, it’s too costly. Second, their theory on bridging the major two theories (relativity and quantum physics) with the assumably new particles is simply too complicated that involves a lot of constants compared to other theory models. There are better way to advance the progress of academic physics, but building a new collider would not help.