back to article Texas Higgs hunters mourn the particle that got away

Now that the elusive Higgs boson has, for all intents and purposes, been goosed into existence, the scientific world is popping champagne corks, lifting pints, and otherwise celebrating CERN's apparent success. Well, almost all of the scientific world. Deep in the heart of Texas, a small group of dispirited particle physicists …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Good lord...

    The cancelling of the SSC is a sad story, but the fact that "they" rather than "we" discovered something is not the reason.

    The important fact is that a theory fundamental to our understanding of the universe we live in has been confirmed. Nobody has ownership over that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good lord...

      I take it that you have never wished you had accomplished something that someone else ended up doing because circumstances forced you from your job?

      That's remarkably gracious of you. I salute your truly mechanical subjugation of filthy human emotion. With any lluck, you may soon be able to feel absolutely no joy or sadness in anything at all. Would that I could temper my own disappointment in your self-righteous attitude.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good lord...

        "That's remarkably gracious of you. I salute your truly mechanical subjugation of filthy human emotion. With any lluck, you may soon be able to feel absolutely no joy or sadness in anything at all. Would that I could temper my own disappointment in your self-righteous attitude."

        Not everyone is as petty minded as you, it seems. Celebrating a shared goal is not a lack of emotion, nor is jealousy the pinnacle of human greatness.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Good lord...

          "Not everyone is as petty minded as you, it seems. Celebrating a shared goal is not a lack of emotion, nor is jealousy the pinnacle of human greatness."

          You misunderstand me.

          Nowhere did I suggest that a shared goal shouldn't be celebrated. Nowhere did I suggest that jealousy is "the pinnacle of human greatness" - nor, indeed, anything at all, because I didn't mention jealousy at all.

          First, being upset that you didn't have the opportunity to do something is not the same as begrudging it being done by someone else. Relying on baseless assumptions to conclude that I hold a negative belief, and then condemning me for having it, is unfair, to put it mildly. From your readers' perspective, you're clearly right - the belief is indeed terrible. It's just that I don't actually *have* that belief. This is similar to the logic which causes people to become angry when a defendant is acquitted.

          Second, characterizing my support of someone being upset at being unable to complete a task as jealousy at all just flat out doesn't make sense. Again, you're whipping yourself into a fury over an opinion I don't hold. Continuing by jacking things up until I not only excuse jealousy but celebrate seems to have purpose only if your goal is to become as angry as possible; it's obviously untrue, and your wording has no suggestion of facetiousness.

          **********************

          And, most importantly:

          Third, I would think it's fairly obvious that above all, the statement was politically tuned to bite at the bible-thumping, America-exceptionalizing, right wing, Fox-gobbling cock chompers who shut the thing down in the first place. If you want to trick a bunch of jingoists into supporting science, you do NOT do it by saying, "Oh well, the better men won, and it's really all about the science anyway!" This is what's known colloquially as being fucking stupid.

          No. If you want to get the military-industrial types to throw money at you, tie it to the big, fat steak of American Exceptionalism. Make sure they can't oppose it without opposing America's God-given greatness, and hot damn, stopper the sink 'cos the cash faucets are gonna open up.

          Read the statement for what it is. Yeah, I get it, it's an opportunity to hate on the United States. We done some bad shit. Oil, war, Fox news, terrorism, etc etc. Fine. I get it. But don't rag on some poor bastard who's trying to do his job, who values it, and who's playing the game as best he can to try to keep doing it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @David W.: Re: Good lord...

            Your original post was a good one and got right to the heart of the matter.

    2. Turtle

      "Nightmare Scenario": Re: Good lord...

      "The important fact is that a theory fundamental to our understanding of the universe we live in has been confirmed."

      This is not necessarily the case. The problem is exactly as you state: "a theory fundamental to our understand of the universe has been confirmed". But that is the problem: this discovery might turn into what I have seen called a "nightmare scenario": a new particle is discovered but because it is exactly what the Standard Model predicted, it leads to no new physics. As far as I can tell, no one seems to have any idea what to do now...

      From Peter Woit's blog "Not Even Wrong ( http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4837 )

      "While this announcement is a great triumph for physics, unfortunately it significantly increases the probability of what has become known as the “Nighmare Scenario”: a SM Higgs discovery and nothing else at LHC energies. Before the LHC results started to come in, this scenario and its consequences was easy to ignore, but we may be getting closer to the point where it needs to be taken very seriously."

      "The problem with the 'nightmare scenario' is that it suggests that if you do build a higher energy machine, you’ll see nothing new, i.e. no new phenomena will appear unless you go to some astronomically high energy scale like the Planck scale, and that is way beyond any conceivable technology."

      (The first quote is from the blog posting proper, the second is from the comments section.)

    3. LarsG

      But.

      Now that it has been found, what do we do with it?

      Maybe it will feel agrieved, am by it did not want to be found?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But.

        "Maybe it will feel agrieved, am by it did not want to be found?"

        It should have deleted it's facebook page.

        the funny side is that no one thought you could get smaller than an atom at one time, maybe the next stage is the matter / antimatter moment of creation from nothing?

        I still dont get the cost / benefit ratio of such a discovery and how it will help cure diseases, feed the starving or any other advancement that is not just to please a few Stephen Hawkin types

        1. Alfred

          Re: But.

          Understanding how the universe actually works allows us to change it from how it is to how we want it. The more we know how it works, the better we can manipulate it in our favour.

          I point you towards Newton's laws, thermodynamics, lasers, electricity, x-rays, MRIs, CAT and PET scans and everything else about which someone has wondered how it will make life better.

        2. Mephistro

          Re: But. (@ AC Posted Friday 6th July 2012 10:32 GMT )

          "I still dont get the cost / benefit ratio of such a discovery and how it will help cure diseases, feed the starving or any other advancement that is not just to please a few Stephen Hawkin types"

          Take a look at most of the technologies that nowadays 'help cure diseases, feed the starving' and the discoveries that that brought them, e.g. chemistry, genetics, neurology...

          1. TheRealWelshCJ
            Childcatcher

            Re: But. (@ AC Posted Friday 6th July 2012 10:32 GMT )

            I've got to agree with Mephistro!

            Just because you can't immediately take a new discovery and impart that knowledge onto a new device or technology to help someone does not make the attempt to discover it futile!

            So much knowledge has come from experiments like these that haven't held any day to day meaning for generations. Charles Babbage designed the original 'computer' nearly a hundred years before it was viable, short-sighted people surely would have said the same to him - "Why bother?!" , "What use is this!?". Or the likes of Tesla whom demonstrated Wireless communications and power over 100 hundred years ago that now 'Wow' people at tech shows or through wireless charging pads for phones and vehicles.

            Pioneering into the depth of science is what keeps innovation going, and no one can say that this will or will not have a benefit to the human race in 10, 15, 100, 1000 years time! - Just because we may not live to see that benefit does not mean the benefit should not be sought!

            Who is to say that now we have proven the Higgs Boson / Field that (in the distant future) that knowledge can't be used to negate mass (?), allowing pollution to drop as haulage companies, air travel, and space travel could greatly reduce their mass - and hence weight on earth? - I realise that this may sound far-fetched but the point is you never know what research may yield - and I think it is massively short-sighted of people to criticise the funding that some scientific pursuits get.

            As with any research there is only so much money that you can spend - diverting all the LHC funds to (for example) cancer research does not necessarily mean that cancer will be cured more quickly. By funding these projects who knows what world problems can be fixed in the future.

            *Rant Over* ...I think.

            C.

        3. Triggerfish

          Re: But.

          Says the man using http protocols to post his comment.

          Lets not even mention the uses of mri scanners etc all offshoots of the hunt for the boson.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Cancelled

      Just like the NASA projects cancelled by the Obama administration.

      1. Beachrider

        Obama / NASA?

        How do you hijack THIS discussion to go THERE?

        Haters gonna hate...

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Nobody has ownership over that."

      Anyone thought to check with the US Patent folk to make sure there's not a mention of 'method and apparatus for imparting mass' in there somewhere? Or perhaps a device to facilitate the collision of charged particles by means of intersecting particle beams accelerated using electrical or magnetic means?

      There's still a chance to come out on top!

      1. HP Cynic

        Re: "Nobody has ownership over that."

        iBoson

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "Nobody has ownership over that."

          "iBoson"

          well, why else is the new Apple building the same shape as the LHC and SSC ... think that's just coincidence?

          1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
            Trollface

            Re: "Nobody has ownership over that."

            iBoson

            Does it have rounded corners?

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

    6. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Boffin

      What Mr. Myslewski failed to mention...

      What Mr. Myslewski failed to mention, probably because he does not know any physicists of the time, was that the overwhelming majority of members of the American Physical Society, the American professional physicist organization, opposed the SSC being built and were very vocal about expressing their opposition.

  2. Charles Norrie

    Well that points to the decline of the US mre than nything. And the country that got to the Moon and ain't getting back there fast.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You may be overstating your case somewhat. We do indeed seem to have sliced off our own balls in regard to science and engineering, I think that we do still exercise at least some smal influence in the world - the internet, facebook, apple, microsoft, obnoxious pop music, fast food, military tech, creepy-ass robots that stumble like dogs, video game production, ubiquitous movies good and terrible...

      Good or ill, (and I'd like to thing on balance good if for nothing but the interwebs) we're not about to fade away just yet.

      1. Crazy Operations Guy

        Creepy robots

        No, Japan and South Korea have cornered the market on creepy as hell robots leaving the US as a distant third in in that field, but ahead in the sector of robots that actually do useful stuff.

        1. Allan George Dyer
          Terminator

          Re: Creepy robots

          Not sure about that... anthropomorphic robots that mimic human gestures and emotions might be mildly creepy, but flying robots that kill people really freak me out.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Devil

        Obnoxious pop music?

        Last time I checked Justin Bieber and Celine Dion were Canadian.

    2. Turtle

      @Charles Norrie

      "Well that points to the decline of the US more than anything. And the country that got to the Moon and ain't getting back there fast."

      Just in case you don't know: there were civil rights activists protesting the amount of money spent on the space program while it was under way (and you can find pictures of protesters at mission launches if you want). And that was half a century ago: since that time, the financial claims on the government have increased enormously.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: @Charles Norrie @Turtle

        "... the financial claims on the government have increased enormously.". Hmmmm, well, yes. How many SSCs would the continuous military activity against people with funny-coloured skin and/or strange languages have paid for since the 1960s? That is one claim on the finances the USA could probably let go without anyone except the military-industrial complex shedding any tears.*

        *If anyone has the balls to take on the military-industrial complex - something that I don't see happening. Look how quickly they got Obama into the fold.

    3. g e
      Holmes

      Change of direction

      It's all about military industrial for now. They're still world leaders in varieties of methods of spying on people and killing them.

      And really, how far would Texas have got without reading any LHC papers to narrow their search, anyway?

  3. heyrick Silver badge

    "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

    Could have been. Yes.

    Should have been. Why? Your costs spiralled, your politicians gave up. Now somebody else got the job done. Oh well...

    1. Pooua

      Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

      Should have been, because we had the means and ability to do it, we had a good start on doing it, and we used to be the world leader in science and engineering.

      1. Turtle

        Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        "Re: 'This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America.' Should have been, because we had the means and ability to do it, we had a good start on doing it, and we used to be the world leader in science and engineering."

        If this discovery leads to the "nightmare scenario" of discovery of the Higgs as confirmation of the Standard Model and no new physics beyond it, then it is not at all clear that this discovery is worth what it would have cost to build the Superconducting Supercollider. It is not impossible that we might *never* get beyond where we are now.

        (And if anyone wants to say that negative results are still results, please, just... don't.)

        1. ratfox
          Facepalm

          Hang on…

          Are you seriously claiming it would be better not to make important new discoveries, out of fear from running out of things to discover?! How does that even make sense??

          …Anyway, we are not even close to running out.

          1. Filippo Silver badge

            Re: Hang on…

            No, no. I think he's saying that there's a very good chance that a machine three times as powerful (and twice as costly) as the LHC would not be any more useful than the LHC, because a 3x increase in energy is nowhere nearly powerful enough to find anything beyond the Higgs boson. That's what the "nightmare scenario" is - not that we run out of things to discover, but that the next thing to discover just takes too much energy to be seen in any collider we can build. In this sense, it was better to build the LHC and drop the SSC, because they would obtain the same results anyway.

            1. Turtle

              @Filippo: Re: Hang on…

              Thank you for the help, but insofar as Ratfox's reading comprehension was not sufficient to enable to understand my post, it is not all that likely that his reading comprehension has sufficiently improved as to enable him to understand your post.

              But thank you for attempting to help him, all the same!

        2. No, I will not fix your computer
          Boffin

          Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

          It's not just the confirmation of the existence of the particle (which is important in itself) it's finding the exact energy values, identifying what Higgs decays into (and that has thrown up some unexpected results) etc. finding Higgs doesn't mean that we run out of new questions, it means we know what those next questions are, the next big thing is supersymmetry, it could lead into refining or even redefining the standard model, in the same way that Higgs allows the standard model to have mass, and complete's "a picture" we can now validly start looking to see how that picure is made up (maybe even start proposing ways to test [super]string theory, which would be a massive step forward as string theory currently is an untestable theory on unproven assumptions - we're starting to prove the assumptions).

          So, when you say "It is not impossible that we might *never* get beyond where we are now." the grammar nazi in me wants you to say the slightly more honest "It is possible that we may *never* get beyond where we are now", but that will only be true if we forget how to ask new questions - and we're not there yet, not by a long chalk.

      2. sniperpaddy

        Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        Could have been? Yes if America hadn't lost its way in underproducing and overspending.

        Should have been? No. Not any more. You're just living in the past. The rest of the world has passed you out.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

          Out of curiosity, are you familiar with any of the current financial problems in the EU?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        It doesn't matter. It's not secret, the papers are available; it's a world-accomplishment. So it really does not matter at all who discovered in.

        But you'll be glad to here that as far as super-secret unshared technology for spying on people and killing them goes, you guys are still #1. You rock.

        Does that help condole you?

      4. JayB

        Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        "Should have been, because we had the means and ability to do it, we had a good start on doing it, and we used to be the world leader in science and engineering."

        Without wishing to belittle Americans but "at one time" is the cry of every Nation on the wane. At one time the UK was the world leader in science and engineering, at one time the UK pretty much ruled the whole world (whether or not it wanted to be ruled, was legitimately ruled or gave a toss about what the British thought is for the purposes of this analogy irrelevant), at one time Rome was a badass place full of the most advanced military the world have ever seen.

        Kingdoms and Empires rise and fall, they over reach, become “decadent” and then they cock it all up. Sad fact of life/history. It should not however belittle the stunning achievements of other groups. Besides, of the Physics boffins I know yes, they’d care personally if they were or were not involved, but the whole jingoistic “This Country (tm) discovered it” more or less passes them by.

        You may have had the ability (or at least enough boffins) but you did not have the means, eg cash and commitment.

    2. keithpeter Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

      Robert Caro wrote a book called The Power Broker about the man who built a fair chunk of New York. It is a loooooong book but I learned an awful lot about how power works in the USA. Mad decisions and waste. Not that different from the UK, but with some differences in the way Federal funds could be controlled by unelected people.

      As an ex-physicist it appears obvious to me that we need to reach higher energies to find new resonances up the top end. The project that was cancelled would have given us a higher reach.

      1. Turtle

        @keithpeter:Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        As noted above, it is not impossible that we might *never* have the technology to get to energy levels needed to go beyond current physics - because those physics might be at the Planck scale. A "higher reach" won't do it UNLESS IT IS HIGH ENOUGH - and it might *never* be high enough. The SCC would NOT have done it.

        While the Superconducting Supercollider would have made the same discoveries as the LHC, it would not have discovered more than the LHC - and it would have cost several times the price.

    3. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Boffin

      Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

      Weinberg recalls a debate he had with a US Congressman on the Larry King show back in the day. "And he said he wasn't against science, he just thought we ought to set priorities," Weinberg reminisces. "And I said 'well that's fine, I agree with that. The super collider would help us learn the laws of nature. Doesn't that deserve a high priority?' And he said 'no'."

      I tried searching to see who the congressman was but to no avail.

      Perhaps the congressman thought that they didn't need a super collider to learn the laws of nature as they are already written down in the bible <insert name of religious book>

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "This is a discovery that could have been and should have been made in America."

        "Perhaps the congressman thought that they didn't need a super collider to learn the laws of nature as they are already written down in the bible <insert name of religious book>"

        Another stupid atheist!

        Maybe he just didn't think that the project was more important than other programs competing for funding. And since the same the SCC would have made the same discoveries as the LHC but for a much higher price, the disadvantages of not having built the SCC are not really apparent.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Says it all about American attitudes...

    ...that they somehow feel they have the right to claim these kind of discoveries for themselves. They didn't want to pay for it. If that's the case someone else steps up to the mark. Too bad.

    Why am I reminded of the cries of anguish that came when Pluto lost its planetary status? That came from America and nowhere else? The chief reason for all that particular fuss when you stripped everything away was "It means the US hasn't discovered a planet anymore." Nothing to do with the actual science at all.

    1. Muckminded

      Re: Says it all about American attitudes...

      The weeping over Pluto sprang more from children thinking a Disney character had been killed off.

      Semi-seriously though, this enters the realm where politicians are too dim to contemplate any tangible benefits. Same as now, except now it is several orders of stagnitude worse. Can't touch that sweet cash for national offense defense, though. That shit is sacrosanct.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ... Pluto

      Speaking as an ordinary bloke, I think the cries of anguish across the world were more about the seemingly arbitrary decision of a bunch of scientists to unnecessarily piss on the efforts of teachers over the decades to try to get children interested in space and Science in general.

      One of the first things they learn is that there are planets and that there are nine of them and they get comfortable in their understanding of things. Then some idiots decide to get picky over definitions and suddenly there are only 8 planets.

      If basic knowledge is subject to the whim of a committee, then don't be surprised if people turn away from science, and fail to mourn the loss of cool but expensive projects.

      1. Paw Bokenfohr
        Stop

        Re: ... Pluto

        @ JustaKOS

        No, I don't think that follows. This *is* science. Science constantly updates and changes our understanding of the universe - both in the big universe of planets and galaxies etc and in the small universe of Higgs-Bosons etc.

        I can't see how *anyone* who is remotely interested in science who was taught at school that there were 9 planets would suddenly no longer have any interest in science because Pluto was reclassified and now there are 8 planets. That's a ridiculous argument. Why on earth would someone be disenchanted by that of all things? I was taught that there were 9 planets at school. I'm not crying in my beer and turning to creationism.

        And from a scientific point of view, what should they have done? Left Pluto as a planet? What about Eris? It's bigger than Pluto and has a heliocentric orbit too, so if Pluto's a planet, so is Eris. So now we have 10 planets. Why wouldn't that shake the foundations of your imagined children and turn them from science?

        And why are you making this a personal attack, describing the scientists tasked with this as "idiots"? I am sure that they could not accurately be described as such.

      2. John H Woods Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: ... Pluto

        Basic knowledge is not subject to the whim of a committee; our understanding of the solar system changes. In this case it was not some discovery about Pluto (OMG it isn't a planet after all) but a discovery that there were quite a few objects out there with just as strong (or weak) claim to be called planets.

        So there were three choices

        1) regard "planet" as meaning "things we used to call planets"

        2) keep the existing notion of planet and accept that we have many more planets in our solar system

        3) formalise the definition of planet causing there to be (one) fewer planets our solar system

        Imagine if we'd found not just the Higgs but a brand new unexpected boson. Would it be sensible to change the definition of boson to "bosons we had discovered (or anticipated) up till 2012"?

      3. No, I will not fix your computer
        Boffin

        Re: ... Pluto

        >>Then some idiots decide to get picky over definitions and suddenly there are only 8 planets

        As you're speaking as an "ordinary bloke" you can be forgiven for not understanding the reasons, namely Pluto was a planet because we were vague on the defintion of what a planet was, once other objects were found which could fit with this vagueness (google the Xena/Eris debacle) a decision had to be made how to be more scientific on what was or was not a planet, the new defintion was clear and easy to apply, but Pluto doesn't meet this criteria, therefore not a planet. You might call them picky idiots, but now we know the difference between planets, Kuiper belt objects (of which there are thousands) and dwarf planets (of which Pluto is one), as new objects are discovered, we know what to call them.

        It might be disturbing [for some] to "lose a planet" but if we didn't define things clearly we would be in the equally disturbing position of having new planets appear daily (or not as people argue over what is or is not a planet).

        Don't sit back and complain that scientists redefine your childhood, look forward and realise that you're living in an amazing period of discovery.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ... Pluto

          @ Paw Bokenfohr

          I agree that the reclassification of Pluto shouldn't deter someone who is remotely interested in science. I was more concerned with the younger ones who are in the verge of getting hooked. Pluto's demise seems to me to be unhelpful in that context.

          I would have been quite happy to see Eris as a 10th planet - that wouldn't shake anyone's foundations. On the contrary, it would have sparked even more interest in the minds of the unattached.

          And OK, I withdraw the 'Idiots' remark. I thought the decision was idiotic, but of course that doesn't mean those who took it are idiots.

          @ John H Woods

          "...it was not some discovery about Pluto (OMG it isn't a planet after all)..." is the key thing to me. If it had been discovered that Pluto was actually something else entirely, such that our whole concept of 'planet' was under threat, then reclassification would have been a very necessary thing.

          As it is I feel that the reasoning was more about the problems of having to allow more such objects into the club. I would have been happy to see them go for your option (2) - that would have been exciting.

          @ No, I will not fix your computer

          "Don't sit back and complain that scientists redefine your childhood, look forward and realise that you're living in an amazing period of discovery."

          Ok, I concede - that was a good slap in the face.

          I comment on the Register in order to give a view or to be enlightened. I now understand better why it was done and accept that it was probably a sensible move from the scientific perspective.

          I still hold, though, to the view that the change to Pluto's status was not good PR, but I guess I'll get over it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Says it all about American attitudes...

      "Why am I reminded of the cries of anguish that came when Pluto lost its planetary status? That came from America and nowhere else? The chief reason for all that particular fuss when you stripped everything away was "It means the US hasn't discovered a planet anymore." Nothing to do with the actual science at all."

      Have you got some citations for this, because it looks like bullshit to me.

  5. Marty
    Trollface

    just wondering when apple are going to submit a patnt application for the higgs boson particle for its use electronic devices, and then suing the ass off everyone for patnt violations banning the import of everything to the USA

  6. donnybay
    Unhappy

    Politics led to cost overruns

    The SSC could have been built as an extension to the FermiLab accelerator, which would have drastically reduced the cost. It was the political pork barreling of Pres. Bush the First and Sen. Phil Gram (head of the Senate budget committee) which moved the project to oil and cattle country. Then Clinton was elected and the Democratic Congress killed the SSC entirely. When the Republican Congress took over two years later, it was led by budget hawks who saw no need to revive the project. Often scientists who play politics end up shooting themselves in the foot - Steven "First Three Minutes" Weinberg, who was chairman of the UT Austin Physics department at the time, lobbied hard to have the SSC built next door and not in Illinois. As a result he and American high energy physics community ended up with nada.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The super collider would help us learn the laws of nature. Doesn't that deserve a high priority?' And he said 'no'."

    Down vote me all you like, but I have to agree. $12 Billion+ is alot of money and it was worth even more 20 years ago. You can pay for a lot of other Science with that amount of money.

    1. Pooua

      Like an International Space Station? Oh, wait--that actually cost us more than $50 billion!

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Like an Internation Space Station

        No. Not like that. The AC said "science".

        However, it *is* still true that the SSC and the LHC could have been built on the sort of budgets that are regularly pissed away not in defence projects but in changes of mind on said defence projects.

        It is never about the money. What counts is the politics. Specifically, when money gets tight, is it you or some other sucker who has to tighten their belt first? As far as I can see, the very first items to go in any austerity program are pure science and the arts. As far as politicians are concerned, both are things we do "because we are human", and therefore both are optional.

  8. beep54
    Unhappy

    You know what adds to the entire suckiness of this? It had been proposed at some point that this huge whole in the ground that wasn't going anywhere could possibly be used as a mushroom farm. That didn't fly either....

  9. Pooua

    American Babel

    I was extremely saddened when I heard that SSC had been cancelled. ISS was about to fall under the axe, too, but a public outcry saved it. I think it is obvious that SSC would have accomplished more than ISS ever will, but it is difficult to fight a mass public outcry. That's why NASA flies so many purple pigeons, instead of doing the best science.

    One of my first goals after I began exploring Texas was visiting the SSC site. With the help of locals, I eventually found it. The door to the main control building was open, so I went inside, where I found it had been converted into a make-shift warehouse. It appeared that its main use at the time was storing styrofoam food containers. I found no one in the building. Outside, all the tunnels were filled in with rocks before I arrived. I walked out to a mound behind the building and shot photos of white rocks sticking out of the Texas prairie. After I drove around the site, I continued on my way. As I went to the next town, I heard on the radio that police had caught someone trespassing at the site and detained him. I sure was glad they didn't catch me!

    I deeply regret that my nation has forfeited its leadership in science. They don't even know what they have done to themselves.

    1. Turtle

      Re: American Babel

      "I think it is obvious that SSC would have accomplished more than ISS ever will,..."

      Could you explain *why* it is so "obvious" because it certainly isn't obvious to me.

      1. Pooua

        Re: American Babel

        Certainly!

        SSC had a specific scientific objective from the start. ISS never has.

  10. Noble Dog

    Texas SSC

    I worked directly with the SSC purchasing group when the project was being constructed. Sadly, it was never finished for a couple of reasons, concern over cost over runs and the fact that DOE and Congress were never 100% committed as they subjected the financing to only an annual basis.

    Couple of events that stand out of poor executive management of the project.

    Engineers and QC personnel wanted to visit one of our manufacturing facilities for purposes of a quality audit. We determine a date some 5-6 weeks in advance and I proceed to book my airplane flight to get the least expensive rate. Week before the trip I am at the SSC Lab and asked the question when they would be arriving and perhaps we could have dinner together. I was told that they had not made reservations as plans so often changed and their travel agent did not like to book over a day or two in advance! Of course the airfare would then be outrageous and teh travel agent would make more as they got a % of the ticket as commission. Sounds small and it is small money compared to teh billions spent but string together any number of wastes like this and it really adds up. The culture seemed to promote this mentality.

    The other event was we were approved and documented all of the required certifications, etc. We started getting orders along with about 20 pages of duplicate paperwork. Told them we had already filled out that out and was told, you have to do that on each and every order, regardless of size.

    All said and done, we determined that we would have to hire one additional person just to complete, maintain and track the myriad of reports they required.

    We asked to be excused as a supplier for that simple reason, the cost of doing business was not worth the potential profit of the project.

  11. J 3
    Mushroom

    Priorities?

    Too expensive, the SSC? Well, nothing that a few days of military budget wouldn't cover...

    1. Pooua

      Re: Priorities?

      Ironically, at the time, that big outcry was to cut the military, because the Soviet Union had just fallen. This was called the Peace Dividend.

    2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
  12. Winkypop Silver badge
    Devil

    The fundies control the funding

    Science is definitely not on their agenda.

    1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

      Re: The fundies control the funding

      It depends on how you define Science, for some 'merkins this is science http://creationmuseum.org/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The fundies control the funding

        Its the God Particle,, you would think they would all want to worship it

  13. David Hicks
    Happy

    So I said super-collider...

    ... I just met her! And then they built the super collider.

    Anecdote accepted. Snappy comeback not found.

    1. David Hicks

      Two downvotes?

      For a semi-relevant futurama quote?

      You people have no soul...

  14. Purlieu

    "we do still exercise at least some smal influence in the world - the internet, facebook"

    Oh yes, I remember, Arpanet but didn't allow use by non-military people, yeah that was progress. Let me think where the web was invented, oh yes, CERN again, and by a Brit. And facebook .... hahaha yeah that's a real breakthrough

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "we do still exercise at least some smal influence in the world - the internet, facebook"

      Mocking my post for issues already referenced or qualified within it seems pointless. This response does, too, actually, but it's 2:30am (obvioisly another failing of the US as it's already morning in Britain) and I'm too tired to lnow better.

    2. Alex Rose
      FAIL

      Re: "we do still exercise at least some smal influence in the world - the internet, facebook"

      @Purlieu

      Stop reading the Reg, go away and don't come back until you've learnt the difference between the Internet and the Web.

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: "we do still exercise at least some smal influence in the world - the internet, facebook"

        ...and you anonymous down-voters can flick right off, too.

  15. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Holmes

    You can only survive multibillion bloat of you are military or a white elephant in orbit!

    It was pretty amazing that Congress was talking about balancing the budget back then while now they have all but given up.

    Why the SSC Was Terminated : http://www.aip.org/fyi/1993/fyi93.142.txt

    The Decline and Fall of the SSC : http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw84.html

    In the latter we read:

    "It is common wisdom in Washington, D.C., that it is dangerous for a large project to span more than one Administration. Bush was defeated by Clinton in 1992, and the SSC project came to violate this rule and suffer the consequences. In 1993 the incoming Clinton Administration made a budget-tightening decision to stretch out the SSC project, moving its date of completion from 1999 to 2003, increasing the overall cost of the project while reducing its yearly cost. The SSC cost rose to over $10 billion, a 16% cost increase. The budget-conscious freshman Congressmen swept in with with Clinton in November of 1992 felt no responsibility for the decisions of their predecessors, and the SSC project became a tempting target of opportunity.

    Clinton's new Science Advisor John Gibbons did not give active support to the SSC project, as had his predecessor, Alan Bromley, and Clinton's new Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, now famous for her million dollar travel excursions, proclaimed during her confirmation hearings that she was "not passionate" about the SSC. In September, 1993 when her passions were finally aroused, she took the counter-productive steps of re-shuffling major SSC contractors and increasing the already bloated oversight team to 140 bureaucrats in the Dallas DOE Office. Before the two critical votes in June and October, neither Clinton nor Gore was willing to make personal appeals to House Members on behalf of the SSC, as Bush had in 1992.

    The final blow to the SSC came late in 1993 when the DOE's Baseline Validation Report was released. The validation group surveyed the sorry history of SSC cost escalations and concluded that extreme conservatism was needed. Their report advocated much larger safety and contingency margins and moved the completion date back to 2004, increasing the project cost to $11.5 billion or another 15% increase.

    With this, rank-and-file members of Congress had had enough. They were fed up with the ever-rising SSC price tag, the evidence of poor management and DOE indecisiveness, and the heavy-handed attempts by Congressional Leadership to save the project. On October 27, 1993, by a vote of 283 to 143 the House rejected the Conference Committee report that would have continued SSC funding. The project was officially dead."

    1. TheOtherHobbes

      Re: You can only survive multibillion bloat of you are military or a white elephant in orbit!

      With management like that, it's possible it would never have worked properly anyway.

      CERN had issues getting the LHC running, and it's a much smaller and less complicated beast.

      The issues were solved, but CERN has always had the advantage of being an international project with mostly sane management and minimal political interference. The relative cost to each member is small, and it slips through the cracks politically.

      The fail with the SSC was demanding a giant hand-out from a single national government in return for a rather fuzzy prospect of national prestige.

      SSC could easily have been an international collaboration. But Texas wanted it all, so ultimately Texas got nothing.

  16. phr0g
    Angel

    Shouldn't have called it the "God" particle

    You know how sniffy the Darwinian evolution-denying right get.

    1. g e
      Joke

      Re: Shouldn't have called it the "God" particle

      In an election year, if SSC *had* found it they'd have called it the GOP particle...

  17. lumpaywk

    Is it just me

    Am i the only one that thinks this is a giant waste of time and money! I mean how much could the cost of these things helped in the current climat???? Billions of ££ to emply a few over rated scientists and for what?

    Dont get me wrong its all very interesting and its a great discovary but, does it actually change anything at all about anything???? So we have confirmed what some people thought great now tell me why this makes anyones lives better bar the scientists who will now rake in the cash for a discoavary that cost the rest of us a fortune for them to find.

    Dont get me wrong I love science and we need bigger budgets but if we leave it to them to decide this is what happens. How about we spend that cash finding alternative fuels or resurch into mechanical limbs etc. I know thay all have cash but really would they not benefit from this cash pot more and to a much greater aid to humanity???

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Is it just me

      Welcome to tax and spend action. You may not like some of it. Libertarian yet?

      > spend that cash finding alternative fuels or resurch into mechanical limbs etc.

      This is ongoing too, dontcha worry. Though the chance to "find alternative fuels" is slim indeed. Also better left to the private sector, really.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Is it just me

      The original research into lasers and transistors would certainly justify a similar response. They certainly had no remotely perceptible influence on anything 'real' like medicine or improving crop yields or helping the poor.

      And yet here we are - in a world which I am confident in saying has been markedly improved by optics and computers.

      No, we don't have any idea what might come of high energy physics research. That is precisely the reason we need to keep doing it.

      1. TheOtherHobbes

        Re: Is it just me

        Transistors had fairly obvious applications almost immediately. Lasers were less obvious, because it took quite a while to create constant-wave semiconductor lasers that worked at room temperatures. The original ruby pulsed wave design isn't used much.

        But compared to the LHC, lasers and transistors are practical engineering. At the moment there's no realistic prospect of being able to manipulate the Higgs field. At all.

        Something useful may fall out of quantum gravity, as and when. But that's decades away, at least.

        The problem is the Standard Model is kludged together from a big pile of Swiss Army maths. It's descriptive by analogy and partly by lucky guesswork, not so much from clean first principles. So I wouldn't expect any useful technology from it until that changes.

        1. g e

          Re: Is it just me

          I remember lasers bein gdubbed 'a solution looking for a problem' - for a period of time it seemed you could apply a frikkin' laser to almost anything.

          Downstairs where I'm currently working they have a big frikkin' laser behind a door marked 'Femto-second laboratory'. I think that's where they bottle really really small amounts of time for busy people who want to get things done very quickly... or something.

        2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: transistors

          "Transistors had fairly obvious applications almost immediately."

          That depends on when you start the clock. The transistor was designed on paper in the late 30s starting from basic quantum theory as applied to crystalline structures. The basic quantum theory in question dates from the mid-20s. The underlying problem that the basic quantum theory solved was first apparent at the end of the 19th century. But if you go back *that* far, you just have a bunch of boffins fretting about an ultra-violet catastrophe that ought to prevent the universe from existing. What should *their* budget be?

    3. Martin 47

      Re: Is it just me

      Hopefully it is just you, but unfortunately I doubt it

    4. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Is it just me

      You can never know what you're going to discover until you do these experiments, so it's impossible to say whether they were worthwhile or not until afterwards.

      What if the result of some huge, expensive, scientific experiment is the accidental discovery of a cure for Alzheimer's disease? Or a new source of clean energy? We must, always, continue to do this sort of science, just so that we can keep learning. That is never wasted.

    5. A J Stiles

      Re: Is it just me

      It's just you. Well, you and a small bunch of assorted whingers and naysayers, moving in circles so small it's a wonder you don't get giddy.

      Had you and your attitude been around in the Stone Age, we probably would never have bothered with fire.

    6. Chicken Marengo
      FAIL

      Re: Is it just me

      Spoken like a true bean counter.

      Fortunately primitive man didn't apply the same thought processes as you, otherwise we'd still be living in caves and freezing, after all what possible benefit could there be in researching this new fangled 'fire' thing?

  18. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

    Sad, but...

    Since the start of the project, the estimate of the final cost had risen by a factor of 4.

    The people holding the purse strings had a tough decision to make: Continue funding the project, with no confidence that the latest budget cost was the final one, or pull the plug.

    We may all hate it when our pet project is cancelled, but the money men have a finite resource to look after.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The stupid decision to build it in Texas just because Bush was Texan...

    Projects of such a large scale cannot be used to get more political gains. Why building it in Texas when everything had to be built from scratch, increasing costs? Just because the then president was a Texan? The as the new president is from another state the whole project gets killed because money has to go to the new president state? That's silly politics not good government.

    CERN reused a lot of its facilities to build the new LHC. They didn't rebuild everything at another site. Maybe if they had reused what was reausable at the FermiLab some costs could have been avoided.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: The stupid decision to build it in Texas just because Bush was Texan...

      NOPE!

      Texas was in discussion under the Reagan administration and AFAIK the decision for Texas was made before 1988.

      http://mist.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw25.html (March 1988)

      --> Where will the SSC be built?

      A: That remains an open question. Originally the SSC site proposals were to be submitted by August 3, 1987, with final site selection in January of 1989. Congress, sensing the great "slice of pork" implicit in placing a $4.4 billion facility with an annual $370 million operating budget in just one lucky state, voted to extend the deadline a month to September 2, 1987, giving slow starters a better chance to compete. It is expected that a large number of states will submit site proposals. In the 1960's when what became FermiLab was being considered there were 135 site proposals. There will probably be less for the SSC, but more than 25 are expected. Some of the leading contenders for the SSC site are Illinois (the FermiLab Tevatron could serve as an injector), New York (congressional clout, close to many East Coast universities and labs), Colorado (good site near Denver airport), Texas (congressional clout, much effort on proposal), Washington (good site near Spokane airport, cheap electric power), Arizona (good desert site, room for expansion), and Tennessee (big state commitment, TVA power).

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: The stupid decision to build it in Texas just because Bush was Texan...

      The Bushes just pretend to be Texan - they're actually East Coast "elite" - Bush 41 was born in Taxachusetts, and Bush 43 in Connecticut.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sour grapes

    "The Higgs boson was supposed to be theirs, but congressional budget hawks snatched it away"

    Or... "congratulations Europe" to approach it from a more civil angle.

    The next article will be by a lemon-chewing Lewis Page, decrying Apollo 11 mission whilst dwelling on the British Empire's 1930s plans to develop a lunar module with matching space suits*. The human race could have been on the moon in 1933, and it would have been a British moon made from British cheese, heavily populated today by the descendents of every convicted British criminal over the last 80 years, some of whom would regularly fly back every year to beat us at cricket.

    Apart from the rubbish dark side of the moon, which would have been left to the French to develop into a cold and less developed bilingual colony with a love-hate relationship with the Royal Family.

    * This actually happened.

    1. g e
      Joke

      Aha! The Friday Portal reference!

      Sour Grapes

      Incendiary Lemons!

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Aha! The Friday Portal reference!

        Sir, Mr Higgs Johnson is on the interphone!

  21. Mike Judge
    Stop

    So precisely do we benefit from discovering higgs?

    As all I can see is billions poured into a "we were right all along" project. It's not like it's going to lead to a cure for cancer or anything....

    Perhaps I am missing something...

    1. g e

      Re: So precisely do we benefit from discovering higgs?

      Yes, you are

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: So precisely do we benefit from discovering higgs?

        To be fair to the OP, it was only a few months ago that the BBC website was carrying articles stating that one of the benefits of finding the Higgs would be faster mobile phones.

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: So precisely do we benefit from discovering higgs?

      You are missing that it's not a "we were right all along" project.

      Once you get that, come back.

    3. Nigel 11
      Flame

      Re: So precisely do we benefit from discovering higgs?

      I'm sure that there were cavemen asking the same question about discovering fire (or rather how it could be moved from one place to another and kept going).

  22. Magnus_Pym

    Politicians may have been right!

    Building the LHC wasn't just a case of having the money, it was also a very complex high end science project. The US version was going to be much larger and, therefore more complex. While I'm sure in the end it would have worked it may have taken far longer and needed far more money to get it up and running than CERN did. It may be that the politicians where right to axe it, what they should have done however is to put the money into other big science projects instead of pissing it up the wall on military/industrial pipe dreams and support for dead industries.

  23. HP Cynic
    Meh

    I'm a bit put out by the "Could'a / Should'a been American" comment: during the announcements and conferences I saw constant references to "Global Collaboration" with no sense that this was some kind of European "win".

    Funding an expertise came from America as well as all corners of the globe and one of the commenters was right to call it a leap forward for mankind an so on.

    Not a shred of gloating or Europosturing just a shared sense of achievment for physics/engineering/computing/theorizing etc.

    I'd like to think that had the SSC been completed and found the particle they would have made a similar presentation but it now sounds suspiciously like it would have been another " 'merica, Fuck Yeah!" moment. Hopefully just the bittersweet response of a handful, one should be gracious in defeat and magnanimous in victory.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good job too

    Now no "country" can do the dispiriting, patriotic, nationalist nonsense (especially the USA; where much of its vaunted prowess rests on immigrants who grew up and were educated elsewhere).

    Now it was managed, remarkably well, by scientists, technicians, managers and offîce support staff from all over the world, a truely international effort trumping that "last refuge of scoundrels", patriotism.

    The politicians probably burned the money on supporting the IRA, armed incursions into other countries and so on, when they could have build a decent health service and improved their public infrastructures to late 20th century levels.

  25. Silverburn
    Boffin

    Enough bickering you lot...

    ...time to put those minds to work...

    We've got 15 miles of a 54 mile loop built which we could no doubt pick up for peanuts. If we built the remaining 39 miles, could we actually use it for something profitable? Or fun?

    1. Paw Bokenfohr

      Re: Enough bickering you lot...

      The world longest lazy river.

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: Enough bickering you lot...

      Theme park? Film set? Brand new kind of sport? You might be on to something.

      1. JayB
        Happy

        Re: Enough bickering you lot...

        Maglev Rocket Toboggans!!!

    3. despicable me
      Devil

      Re: Enough bickering you lot...

      Two suggestions for the disused tunel:

      1) Use it to store software patents etc.

      2) Use it to store software patent trolls.

      The first option would require a ventilation system...

    4. FlatSpot

      Re: Enough bickering you lot...

      Rifle range.. them yanks like shooting stuff... with a few magnets it might be possible to shoot yourself in the back of the head, Darwin theory

  26. Silverburn
    Thumb Down

    I think I'll nominate it as a permanent running track for the guy who downvoted my last nine historical posts in under 3 minutes.

    A running track with no lights, spikes on the walls and hunger pitbulls for running partners.

  27. Andy Fletcher

    Disappointing

    But I seem to remember Stephen Hawking saying that to get to the grand unification energy we're going to need an accelerator the size of the solar system. I'm sure eventually we'll have the funds and the will to really invest money in science, just not in my lifetime.

    1. asdf

      Re: Disappointing

      I think he also said it would need the energy of a trillion barrels of oil a second. Should be no problem as we should be collecting most of the energy of all the stars in the galaxy by then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Disappointing

        How much does our Sol produce. If it's more than 1 trillion barrels of oil per second, it might stir some thoughts into incorporating the ulta collider into part of a dyson sphere.

  28. Michael 28
    Black Helicopters

    so, now what?

    What possible use can we put to a multi billion pound cyclotron -particle beam producing structure?

    1. LoPath
      Facepalm

      Re: so, now what?

      I still want a tractor beam!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: so, now what?

        So, tape a flash light to your John Deere and call it a day.

  29. samlebon23

    Instead funding a particle collider, congress prefered to collide with the arab world.

    1. asdf
      FAIL

      yep

      Because killing people with nothing to lose and plenty of RPGs stashed away is a recipe for success!

  30. Dave 13
    Facepalm

    Better yet..

    ..what's in store for the LHC? In 5 years might it look much like the old SSC site? As several posters mentioned, where do we go from here? No obvious next step for the LHC..

  31. asdf
    FAIL

    wait a minute

    Yes the US's funding decisions in general are beyond absurd but as LP so often points out the UK's governments aren't a whole lot better. Misery loves company.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Does anyone else...

    ...actually, forget I asked, nobody does. But does anybody else find it ironic that a large proportion of the posts here start by decrying nationalism, political polarization, and the artificial drawing of boundaries between countries, and then launch into reply after reply after reply of virulently hateful anti-American tirades?

    I mean, first we have people attacking Americans for being about politics and country rather than about science - but probably 80% of the posts here consist entirely of scathing, vicious flames on the US and Americans in general (and often every single American specifically)?

    Which is it, then? Are you upset at irrational nationalism, or outraged at how terrible *their* country is compared to *your* country? It's not both. Is there something I'm missing here?

    And please, if you're going to downvote me for this, at least say why - even if it's just, "He said something that could be construed as not hating the United States". And also, "He said something snarky about how people will downvote him because he doesn't hate the United States, which means he's a fucking AMERICAN and probably will come here and shoot me and spit in the dirt next to my grieving widow and my Citroen."

    And now, "He's hating on Citroen, oh, bitch, it's gonna get street now!"

    I'm genuinely curious.

This topic is closed for new posts.