Do you all know about the Gamma Forest? In 1961 the supergeniuses at Broohaven National Labs decided it would be a good thing to drag a 9500 Curie Cesium-137 source into the middle of a forest just to see what would happen.
What happened, of course, is that it killed everything. It sterilized the microbes in the soil to the extent that 65 years later it is still mostly a kill zone, nothing larger than small surface weeds can grow. It is clearly visible in Google Maps. The site’s surface water drains to the Peconic river. Used to canoe in there, yay!
BNL, of course, sits right on top of Long Island’s drinking water aquifer, and the aquifer layer that supplies drinking water is not even from below the allegedly impermeable clay layer.
I grew up on Long Island and I expect that it will eventually kill me. My elementary school, middle school, high school, and childhood home are all located within a Superfund site that was/is/will continue to be contaminated with cadmium and hexavalent chromium. The entire island is littered with WW2 and Cold War defense industry detritus.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
davrosthedalek 3 hours ago [-]
This is in preparation for starting construction work on the Electron-Ion-Collider (EIC) which will use the same tunnel and experiment locations.
gnufx 1 hours ago [-]
As I recall, RHIC itself replaced some cancelled project. I remember the tunnel being at least partly there in the mid-80s, with a plan to trundle ions from the tandem lab through a crazy long beamline across the site and stop nuclear structure research there as a result.
syntaxing 7 minutes ago [-]
I worked at BNL during college days through the SULI program! Some of my peers from college is working there full time now too. I got to work on some really cool stuff but unfortunately a lot of the tenured researcher I knew have seem to left. I heard a lot of researchers left during Trump’s first term.
tahoeskibum 50 minutes ago [-]
How time passes! I remember touring the RHIC tunnels back in 1999 when it was being made.
webdevver 2 hours ago [-]
as a layperson, it seems the whole collider stuff has not been a very fruitful scientific direction so far (has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?)
maybe we are trying to 'jump' the tech tree too much - perhaps the first step was to create a much smarter entity than ourselves, and then letting it have a look at the collider data.
magicalhippo 4 minutes ago [-]
> has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?
Accelerators and colliders have had a profound impact on medical sciences. Nuclear isotopes used for nuclear medicine[1] is often produced by cyclotrons[2], the accelerator component of circular colliders. The detectors[3] used in things like PET scanners are based on detectors used in collision experiments[4]. Using protons to treat cancer was an idea that came directly from work on cyclotrons[5]. Using the tools developed to simulate how the collision fallout interact with the detectors at LHC[6] has been incorporated into radiotherapy to more accurately compute required doses[7][8].
> perhaps the first step was to create a much smarter entity than ourselves, and then letting it have a look at the collider data
We are actually data starved, we have lots of good ideas but no way to test them.
> has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?
Yes. SLAC has an excellent public-lecture series that touches on industrial uses of particle colliders [1].
If you want a concrete example, "four basic technologies have been developed to generate EUV light sources:" (1) synchrotron radiation, (2) discharge-produced plasma, (3) free-elecron lasers (FELs) and (4) laser-produced plasma [2]. Synchrotrons are circular colliders. FELs came out of linear colliders [3]. (China has them too [4].)
We have modern semiconductors because we built colliders.
I think there's a strong argument that the most useful product from collider science is the synchrotron light source. Researchers using collider rings realized that the x-ray synchrotron light these rings emit (an inconvenience to collider physics people) was a fantastic tool for structural biology and materials science. Eventually, they built dedicated electron storage rings that don't do collisions at all - the main goal is producing bright X-ray beams.
Synchrotron light sources have had wide-ranging, concrete impacts on "industrial products" that you probably use every day via studies in:
- Drug discovery (Tamiflu and Paxlovid are good examples)
- Battery technology (X-ray studies of how/why batteries degrade over time has lead to better designs)
- EUV photolithography techniques
- Giant Magetoresistance (Important for high capacity spinning-disk hard drives)
GreyZephyr 1 hours ago [-]
The web would be one of the more well known technologies to come out of running collider experiments. More directly a whole lot of medical imaging including PET is only possible because of either isotopes manufactured through colliders or sensors developed in colliders.
juanjmanfredi 34 minutes ago [-]
Particle physicists working on collider experiments were among the first people that needed to deal with large quantities of digitally stored data. As a result, advances in the particle and nuclear physics have fed advances in computing, and vice versa [0]. The World Wide Web was invented at CERN, the largest particle physics and accelerator laboratory in the world [1]. Another example more relevant to this post is when a few physicists developed a CouchDB-based solution to handle the large amounts of data generated by their RHIC and CERN experiments. They spun that out into Cloudant, which was one of the pioneers for DBaaS [2].
Since when were industrial products the purpose? Why do you think my colleagues can't analyse LHC data and discover the Higgs particle? The article says RHIC was a considerable scientific success.
54 minutes ago [-]
Keyframe 1 hours ago [-]
this particular collider or particle accelerators in general? Cyclotrons are rather useful, for example.
atoav 1 hours ago [-]
Yeah, one of them is used by you right now. The Internet.
AIorNot 1 hours ago [-]
I hate to be harsh but this mentality is part of the decline of this country
(that is so evident with loss of manufacturing, open and free science and tech robber barons oligarchs that have taken over our national discourse)
Brookhaven was instrumental to Nobel winning discoveries and Stony Brook was a great science minded university
I’m not opposed to investing in AI but its not a zero sum game and we are not a country of data centers alone
Insanity 1 hours ago [-]
Nit: saying “this country” without context on where the parent poster is from or where you are from is kinda useless.
From context, you probably mean USA. And I’d agree, however the US was always more technology minded than scientifically minded, and the parent poster lines up with that centuries old ideology. So I don’t think this is per se a new thing.
pfdietz 1 hours ago [-]
At some point physics entitlement has to end -- why not here? We can't just keep scaling up the size and cost of fundamental physics experiments. Eventually the cost becomes so large that platitudinous arguments for them don't work.
Izikiel43 12 minutes ago [-]
It's not a question of "can", it's a question of "should".
No one knows what discoveries can happen and what the spillover from them could be in the future.
In essence, it's a bet, a moonshot.
micromacrofoot 49 minutes ago [-]
We absolutely can, and I reckon we will... this is like a fraction of a percent of science funding which is a fraction of a percent of GDP, we spend more on maintaining warheads we can't use
10% of the US military budget for one year could build a 100km collider, RHIC is 4km
pfdietz 43 minutes ago [-]
What a nonsense argument. Spending like this has to be justified on its own merits, not because there is some other bad spending. The argument you are trying to make would justify spending on almost anything.
13 minutes ago [-]
micromacrofoot 42 minutes ago [-]
The point is that there's so much bad spending that by comparison this is practically nothing to shake a stick at, and it produces actual science.
pfdietz 40 minutes ago [-]
Repeating a bad argument doesn't transmute it into a good argument. I already explained why your argument is invalid. Please reconsider your dogmatic and irrational support for this kind of spending.
pfdietz 1 hours ago [-]
Look at it this way: they are investigating phenomena that require a collider-sized object to see. So unless your application involves a collider sized object, it won't use any effect they discover.
The problem is that fundamental physics has moved too far beyond the scales where we operate.
Rendered at 22:29:30 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
What happened, of course, is that it killed everything. It sterilized the microbes in the soil to the extent that 65 years later it is still mostly a kill zone, nothing larger than small surface weeds can grow. It is clearly visible in Google Maps. The site’s surface water drains to the Peconic river. Used to canoe in there, yay!
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fhjeJF4Todp5FWAa7?g_st=ic
https://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/bulletin/files/1962/1962011...
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/brookhaven-gamma-forest
BNL, of course, sits right on top of Long Island’s drinking water aquifer, and the aquifer layer that supplies drinking water is not even from below the allegedly impermeable clay layer.
https://www.nswcawater.org/water_facts/our-long-island-aquif...
I grew up on Long Island and I expect that it will eventually kill me. My elementary school, middle school, high school, and childhood home are all located within a Superfund site that was/is/will continue to be contaminated with cadmium and hexavalent chromium. The entire island is littered with WW2 and Cold War defense industry detritus.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
maybe we are trying to 'jump' the tech tree too much - perhaps the first step was to create a much smarter entity than ourselves, and then letting it have a look at the collider data.
Accelerators and colliders have had a profound impact on medical sciences. Nuclear isotopes used for nuclear medicine[1] is often produced by cyclotrons[2], the accelerator component of circular colliders. The detectors[3] used in things like PET scanners are based on detectors used in collision experiments[4]. Using protons to treat cancer was an idea that came directly from work on cyclotrons[5]. Using the tools developed to simulate how the collision fallout interact with the detectors at LHC[6] has been incorporated into radiotherapy to more accurately compute required doses[7][8].
> perhaps the first step was to create a much smarter entity than ourselves, and then letting it have a look at the collider data
We are actually data starved, we have lots of good ideas but no way to test them.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine#Sources_of_ra...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_camera
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintigraphy#Process
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy#History
[6]: https://kt.cern/technologies/geant4
[7]: https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17678
[8]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240542832...
Yes. SLAC has an excellent public-lecture series that touches on industrial uses of particle colliders [1].
If you want a concrete example, "four basic technologies have been developed to generate EUV light sources:" (1) synchrotron radiation, (2) discharge-produced plasma, (3) free-elecron lasers (FELs) and (4) laser-produced plasma [2]. Synchrotrons are circular colliders. FELs came out of linear colliders [3]. (China has them too [4].)
We have modern semiconductors because we built colliders.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M6sjEYCE2I&list=PLFDBBAE492...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S270947232...
[3] https://lcls.slac.stanford.edu
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Synchrotron_Radiation...
Synchrotron light sources have had wide-ranging, concrete impacts on "industrial products" that you probably use every day via studies in: - Drug discovery (Tamiflu and Paxlovid are good examples) - Battery technology (X-ray studies of how/why batteries degrade over time has lead to better designs) - EUV photolithography techniques - Giant Magetoresistance (Important for high capacity spinning-disk hard drives)
[0] https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-coevolution-of-...
[1] https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web/short-history-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudant
(that is so evident with loss of manufacturing, open and free science and tech robber barons oligarchs that have taken over our national discourse)
Brookhaven was instrumental to Nobel winning discoveries and Stony Brook was a great science minded university
I’m not opposed to investing in AI but its not a zero sum game and we are not a country of data centers alone
From context, you probably mean USA. And I’d agree, however the US was always more technology minded than scientifically minded, and the parent poster lines up with that centuries old ideology. So I don’t think this is per se a new thing.
10% of the US military budget for one year could build a 100km collider, RHIC is 4km
The problem is that fundamental physics has moved too far beyond the scales where we operate.