The first test of the Large Hadron Collider will take place on Sept. 10. (Martial Trezzini/Keystone/AP/FILE)
As a massive atom smasher powers up, ‘Big Science’ moves away from the US
The first trial of the Large Hadron Collider on Wednesday signals a shift to Europe of high-energy physics.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ September 9, 2008 edition
Reporter Peter N. Spotts discusses what scientists will be looking for when they first start up the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland on Wednesday.
Reporter Peter N. Spotts
Physicists worldwide are expected to celebrate Wednesday’s start-up of the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, the 17-mile-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which straddles the French-Swiss border.
For many scientists, including a large contingent from the United States, the project represents a success story for international cooperation on “big science.” But it also serves as evidence that the center of gravity for high-energy physics has shifted away from its post-World War II home in the United States.
The shift coincides with a broader US debate over whether the nation is in danger of losing its edge in science, technology, and innovation, notes David Goldston, a visiting lecturer at Harvard University who specializes in science policy.
In some ways, this could serve as a high-profile test of the notion that the emergence of cutting-edge labs outside the United States necessarily comes at the US’s expense, he suggests. “The US has had the lead in facilities for a long time; now it won’t,” he says.
But, Mr. Goldston adds, US scientific and engineering contributions to the LHC have been significant. And several university-based researchers in the US note that even though the big show has shifted overseas, they are still seeing an increase in the number of students walking through their doors who want to help explore the frontier the LHC is expected to open.
Why should US taxpayers fund such projects? The arguments for spending on big science are similar to those of funding space missions: The effort to do cutting-edge physics research produces unexpected technological breakthroughs with everyday applications. For example, the World Wide Web was spawned by high-energy scientists at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) trying to find a way to send graphics and other data to their colleagues elsewhere who used different computer systems. Accelerator technology has been adapted to make computer microchips. And there are now medical diagnostic and therapeutic tools, such as proton-beam therapy, that have emerged from this research.
In fields such as cosmology and high-energy physics, researchers are tackling profound questions about the origins and nature of the universe from the smallest to the largest scales. But they acknowledge that the experiments needed to address cutting-edge questions are getting too big and too expensive for any one nation to afford.
Over the years, a network of different but complementary world-class physics labs have emerged in different regions.
Europe built the LHC’s predecessor, the Large Electron-Positron Collider. Japan built its so-called “B Factory” for indirectly probing particle interactions at energy levels higher than the accelerator itself could attain. And the US had important experiments running at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. Fermilab’s “Tevatron” is currently the world’s most powerful accelerator.
For the US, this meant that physicists wouldn’t have to ask Congress to help bankroll directly a big-science project built and operated overseas – a proposition many would see as dead on arrival. Instead, researchers say, the US in effect received access to those facilities – and a seat at the planning table for new ones – because along with its high-caliber scientists, it had world-class labs open to overseas researchers.
“There was some balance across the regions,” says Pier Oddone, who heads Fermilab. But, he adds, budget cuts closed high-energy accelerators at Stanford University and Cornell University earlier this year. Fermilab’s Tevatron, currently the most powerful accelerator operating, is slated to shut down in two years with no replacement in sight.
“This system is becoming unstable,” he says. “In terms of bringing the world to the US, enabling the world to work with us to explore this physics, we certainly have taken a step back.” The danger, he and others say, is that a paucity of world-class labs in the US would make it more difficult to sit at the leadership table and threatens to leave the US with little to offer others as a way to ensure US access to key laboratories abroad.
Moreover, researchers overseas point to a lack of stable funding in the US that is turning the country from widely courted partner to an “Ugly Betty” for some big-science projects.
Referring to budget cuts last December that all but eliminated US funding for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), what happened “has severely damaged the credibility of the US as a partner,” says Albrecht Wagner, chairman of the board at DESY, Germany’s high-energy physics lab in Hamburg. In an e-mail, he explains that “seen from abroad, the cuts were caused by a fight between the Congress and the White House. They had nothing to do with science strategy” and sent “very destructive signals to funding agencies and governments around the world.”
He adds that while European governments also have annual budget cycles, those governments still honor Europe-wide commitments, such as those needed for the LHC or ITER, even when governments change hands.
In grappling with growing scientific clout among countries overseas as well as with home-grown problems, the US high-energy physics community is having to redefine US leadership in light of the growing scientific competition from abroad, as well as in light of the nature of the questions the field is trying to solve.
Among other aspects, the US cedes the high-energy frontier to the LHC, at least for now, and urges strong US support for future upgrades to the accelerator. At the same time, the US science community puts emphasis for ensuring world-class programs in two related fields – the particle-astrophysics frontier and what it terms the “intensity” frontier, where very intense particle beams are used to tackle some of the fundamental questions about the universe while building a research and development base for a new generation of smaller but more powerful accelerators.
The recommendations are contained in a blueprint for the coming decade that the physics community issued in May.
For more LHC coverage, check out:
Europe’s Large Hadron Collider tests the bounds of physics – and budgets
Could the Large Hadron Collider destroy Earth?
( More stories )
Comments
2. William Maynes | 09.09.08
I personally find this article hilarious. Instead of focusing on the breakthrough for physics that we are about to accomplish, it is focused entirely on who the powerhouse of science breakthroughs is. The fact is, when it comes to science, most people don’t care where the innovations are, just as long as they are being made and that we as the human race benefit from them, and that is how scientists should view it. This article isn’t about the accelerator itself, it is about politics and who has the right to brag about their facilities. The article fails to mention even the most basic knowledge of the accelerator itself, for example, when it is being turned online and used for the first time outside of a date, a time that we can point to on a clock would be nice. It also fails to mention that in addition to being used for research about the history of the universe, mainly delving deeper into the big bang theory, there are several possible ‘byproducts’, one of which is the possible forming of a Black Hole, a Nuclear Reaction occurring, or man kind happening to stumble across Nuclear Fission which would only supply the world with unlimited free energy, not like that is important (viable source needed for all three). My last remark is, if you are going to write an article about a state of the art scientific facility, try to keep it their and away from the politics, or if that is too hard for you, cover at least the basics of it.
3. Jaron | 09.09.08
So, we worry about not being a “super-power” in the physics world? I would be more worried of other “dangers” that this might give birth too, rather than the crying shame of the US not getting a ton of credit. This is new, uncharted ground that we are embarking on, and nobody can really say they know exactly what is going to happen, because if they really did know we wouldn’t have to do an experiment to find out. Particles are not meant to be smashed, collided together, etc. The smashing of a particle could cause major damage, because it has never been done before. It is impossible to predict what is going to happen next. Forget about global warming for today and tomorrow, we might be facing grave danger with this…
4. jay Gee | 09.09.08
in noting the half-assed acknowledgement that the Swiss have had the edge on such technology for years,I realise the reason for such chagrin. Being best at absolutely everything is part of the myth fed to Americans for decades, on the basis that if you don’t admit to what others are doing you can keep such myths alive even though U.S.missile and Space technology came with Braun’s team from Germany at the end of WW2. (which is why they were brought here despite their record) and Russia had a working Space-Station in orbit for 13 years prior to the International model.Even ferrying astronauts and supplies to this johnny-come lately was only possible through Russian technology after your own sadly-dreadful space accident occurred. Unfortunately, giving credit where credit is due has never been an American trait,though the world would honour them for it.
5. Ben | 09.09.08
The three of you above missed the point. I am no fan of the US always having to be best for bragging rights either. That does not mean our country should not have a strategic policy in place to be competitive in science and technology. There is global competition out there. Our country depend on technology to stay ahead. The CERN lab is an example of us falling behind on technology. This has nothing to do with bragging. We spend money on war and space shuttle that have big PR appeal, but no science and technological value. America is definitely falling behind in technology. Look at the rate of graduation from college per capita. Is rated something like 30th behind several Latin America countries. Part of the problem is few people know what a particle is. That is why we cancelled our collider and went with the Shuttle.
6. Isaac Marousopoulos | 09.09.08
SP, and William Maynes, I believe the article is titled “As a massive atom smasher powers up, ‘Big Science’ moves away from the US”. Big science moves away from the US. The title idicates a pollitical issue and credibility, NOT indicating what will happen when the LHC powers up.
I understand where you are comming from though William, and you are right. We should be focusing on the benefits and dangers of the LHC and not argue about who should get credit, but this article was intended to shed light on the pollitical side of the LHC not the scientific side.
7. Bernhard Meck | 09.09.08
Are new insights for controlling fusion energy on the horizon, some of us non-scientists may wonder. Or is it mostly just about quarks and unknown particles, and what will they tell us? Well anyway, in this article it comes down to the politics of science again, the most effective US-motivator when funding becomes scarce. While Europe collectively may be pushing the scientific envelope right now, in the future America may find it even harder to ‘compete’ (as if that was the objective). Meanwhile, break-through scientific clues, technologies, gadgets and principles may be hatched out by the brilliant minds still to enter the schools of China, India or even Iran. Some of the strangest places are brooding geniuses while in America some voices want to give the scientific ’short bus’, ‘creationism’ equal time in public schools. While the world probes for the deeper meanings, the ‘divine particles’, the US scientific community may find itself stifled by dogmatic ‘ersatz science’.
8. kailash | 09.09.08
what happen if the experiment not success wha thappen in the earth everyone said the earth will destroy is it true
9. Gabriel | 09.10.08
Tipical “NORTH-Americans”!… I agree with some of the opinios above. It’s not about the credits, its about the discovering!
But for those who think the the U.S. are not having enough credits for the experiment, think about the bright side: If everything goes wrong, and a black-hole is formed, ending in the consumption of the planet, at least the U.S. won’t be blamed!
10. tw | 09.10.08
why are we playing with nature. do we have to know how everything works. what benefit if any is it going to play. certainly yet another waste of tax payers money , when we have people starving and no homes to live in, drought and many other important elements at the moment. but no lets try and figure out something that could impact on the earth, and just hope that it doesn’t go wrong and once more we have a human element destroying the earth. so eventually it will be un live able . well done. what a perfect waste of time and tax payers money. i doubt whether you can guarantee 100% that something wont go wrong so if thats the case don’t tempt fate. common sense should tell you that.
11. CBowen | 09.10.08
No its not true. If you have read that anywhere you are misinformed. Do some more research!
12. Ron Sharpley | 09.10.08
There is no breakthrough in Physics only a new tool for experiments with the LHC. It is extremely important to look at how this science will effect the economy of the U.S. in the future taking into account the financial problems it is facing. Which brings into mind the politics of funding. The U.S. must not miss any opportunities for future economic advancement if it wants to have a successful future. This is how I see the importance of the LHC or any collider or reactor. It is how it can benefit the world and solve some of it’s problems..
13. Vitaly | 09.10.08
I agree that this article is sad. That there is still some kind of cold war mentality with the rest of the civilized world. I also understand that US economy is dominated by technological development. Though, do not fear we spend something around 500 billion dollars per year on development of new things, they are just disguised as “defense” spending.
The bottom line is that this particular project is more theoretical in nature and is a harder sell than defense against “terrorists,” to the uneducated poor excuse for a Congress.
14. Mr Zee | 09.10.08
This project has been in the making for years… and the US and other countries in the world (even Iran) was contributing financially and scientifically to this project. We don’t have to be the first in everything as long as we contribute to humanity
15. SteveG | 09.10.08
Oh my God…it’s science!
Thanks to the neo cons and evangelicals and the Republican party the U.S. can begin to take a backseat to the rest of the world when it comes to scientific breakthroughs. These people have been a disaster for the U.S. and the U.S. economy!! Go Obama!!
16. Joe B. | 09.10.08
“Particles are not meant to be smashed, collided together, etc”
And ships are not to sail the seas as they will fall off of the flat earth.
17. francis | 09.10.08
i very much thik the thought of this ‘atom’ is quite spectacular since nothing like this in this century had ever happened so its very interseting to see what happens!
18. Christopher | 09.10.08
I have a question:
(know that I haven’t watched the news recently)
did they ask their government?
Did they ask the rest of the world?(if it could destroy the earth wouldn’t you think we would want a say in it?)
What can happen if something goes wrong?
19. angela | 09.11.08
hi
so are we all goining ton die? is that true?
and how long it takes for them to finish it
20. C T Augustine | 09.11.08
What is the gain? Cooperative effort to build a tower of Babel in the name of Science? Science is but tentative facts and partial scientific truths, not the whole truth
21. Eric Butler | 09.13.08
My comment is about others’ comments about this article missing the mark. Though possible, the article does hit the mark with pointing-out our (US) leading/cutting-edge losing ground. We have been for many years. Politics? Yes. Politics, weather around the water cooler at work, or around the world, plays a role, like it or not. I’m not going to badger, but facts are facts. Leading in science leads in all arenas. One person voiced concern that “other “dangers” that this might give birth too” should be considered; yes, true. But, it’s all part-and-parcel, and the crux of the article, I think, is to make (?) readers aware of the incredible fall-out of losing ground in the scientific world. Nuclear anything, be it reactors or bombs, develop scientifically. We ought to be very worried.
22. rafee arain | 09.16.08
Well done CERN. One day scientists may find the origin of matter itself
not that just of the UNIVERSE
23. auwalu haruna | 09.19.08
waste of time, waste of money. till now the scientist does not mention atleast 10 importance of this project
24. Lucy | 09.27.08
What is the point of it, people in africa are dying so the scientists decide to make a really exspensive machine that isnt that important to anyone but themselves. There selfish and need to think about everyone else in the world.
25. Judy | 09.28.08
I understand that people are worried that we humans are spending money on this when there are people starving, etc., etc. But maybe in some way, this will help us to advance as a people, maybe even give us a solution to world hunger. It’s like when you finish using something, you should keep the parts in case you can use them for something else. As in recycling. In other words, we never know what might be used later on with what we learn now. Knowledge is never a bad thing. It’s what is done with knowledge that is either good or bad.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Business,Coupons,Science,Uncategorized | Deep below the Alps, physicists seek to fill in the blanks of time … — Recycle Email | 09.10.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. sp | 09.09.08
please give detail of Large Hadron Collider