Upgrading the Particle Physics Toolkit: The Future Circular Collider – Harry Cliff, John Womersley

Upgrading the Particle Physics Toolkit: The Future Circular Collider – Harry Cliff, John Womersley


[SOUND EFFECT] [APPLAUSE] Thanks so much for that
introduction, Helen. So, someone asked me today
is the LHC clapped out? Is it finished? Is that why you’re
planning the next one? I say, no. Because my job for the next 15
years, at least, depends on it. The LHC is deafening
not clapped out. But what we are here to talk
about tonight is what will– what, hopefully, might come
after this amazing machine. So, just in case you haven’t
met the Large Hadron Collider, here it is. This is an aerial shot taken
from this direction the Jura Mountains, looking
north towards the Alps. And you can see
Lake Geneva there. That grey smudge in the
distance is the city of Geneva. That big, high
mountain is Mont Blanc. And there, marked in
yellow on the countryside, is the root of the biggest
scientific instrument that’s ever been built by human beings,
the Large Hadron Collider. So, this is where I work. And this machine– in
a way, particle physics is the simplest
most brutal thing you can think about
doing scientifically. We want to know what things
are made of, so what do we do? Well, we take projectiles,
and we whizz them around very, very fast. We smash them into each other,
and we see what happens. And that’s what
this machine does. So, at some point
over here, at CERN, there is a bottle of
ordinary hydrogen gas. The hydrogen is ionised
to produce protons. The protons are whizzed around
a series of accelerators, which were, at one point,
the biggest at CERN back in the 70s called the
Super Proton Synchrotron. Which used to be
the biggest particle accelerator in the world, and
the powerful one in the 1980s. And then it goes into the LHC. They go around and
around in a circle. They’re accelerated
to 99.9999991% of the speed of light. And then they collide into each
other in four detectors, which are spaced around the ring. And when that happens,
this is what you get. So, particle colliders. What they really do is,
they probe the structure of the universe, the
structure of reality, at the shortest
distance possible. This is, in a way, acting
like a gigantic microscope. And, when you have this much
energy loaded onto these protons, when they collide,
that kinetic energy– the energy of their motion– is converted into new particles. So what you’re seeing here are
not the innards of the proton, necessarily– although they
are mixed up in this picture– but, actually, particles
being created out of energy that didn’t exist before. And then people like me scan
through trillions and trillions of these sorts of
collisions in search of signs of new particles
like the Higgs boson. So that’s what the LHC does. And that’s what all
particle accelerators do. So, and as I said, this machine
has quite a long life still ahead of it. And we’re hoping
that the LHC will deliver some exciting
discoveries, still, in the coming years. But the reason we’re
already thinking about what comes after
is, the actual first sort of conversations about building
the Large Hadron Collider took place in the late 1970s. The LHC didn’t start
colliding until 2009. So that gives you a
sense of the timescales involved in these projects. So, if you want to have
a machine ready for when the LHC switches off, we need
to start planning it now. So the big news, as Helen
mentioned in her intro, that’s come out of the LHC so
far, is the discovery of a particle that
was first predicted in the mid 1960s, which is
known as the Higgs boson. And I’ll talk about it a bit
more later on in the talk. But, very briefly,
what this discovery tells us is that there is
an invisible energy field everywhere in the universe. It’s in this room right now. It’s called the Higgs field. And it’s this field
that gives mass to the elementary particles
that make up the universe. And that’s the great
triumph of the LHC so far. And it’s also sort of, in a
way– this discovery finished the 20th century model
of particle physics known as the Standard Model. So this is our current
best description of what the universe
is made out of and the forces that bind the
different elementary particles together. So, I’ll very quickly
just introduce you to some of the
particles in this table. Just so you know when
I use words like quark, you know I’m talking about. So, there are– first of
all, we have the electron, which is the particle that goes
around the outside of atoms. It’s negatively charged. And then we have two
quarks, called the up quark and the down quark. And these make up
the nuclei of atoms. So these are the three
basic ingredients of all the ordinary
matter in the universe. That’s all we are. We’re just made of electrons
and these two quarks arranged in a variety of different ways. And then there is a
bunch of other particles. There’s one called neutrino. And these are sort of
like ghostly things that are going through us. There are trillions
of them, actually, going through your
body right now. But you’re not aware of them
because they very, very rarely interact with ordinary matter. And then, for some reason,
which we don’t understand, nature provides us
with additional copies of these particles. So these are two extra
columns in this table, which have more or less the same
properties as the electron and the quarks, but they’re
heavier and they’re unstable. So you can make these
exotic particles in collider experiments, for
example, but they don’t hang around very long. They quickly decay
down into what we call the first
generation in this table. Then, there are a
bunch of particles which are associated with the
different forces of nature. So there are three
forces in the Standard Model of particle physics. One– which is missing– which is gravity. But the three
quantum forces, which are the electromagnetic
force, and there’s a particle called a photon
which transmits that, and then there’s the
strong nuclear force, which binds the quarks together
inside the nucleus of an atom. And that has a force
carrier called the gluon. Because it’s glue-y. It sticks these quarks together. And then there are
some weird particles called the Z and the
W boson, which are– these are the particles
that transmit a force called the weak nuclear force. Which is associated
with radioactive decay, and when one type of particle
transforms into another. So that’s more or less
all of particle physics in about a minute or so. And then this was the
picture of our understanding of the universe on
the 3rd of July 2012. Then on the 4th of July,
Higgsdependence Day, CERN announced the discovery of
the final piece of this puzzle, the Higgs boson. So, the discovery of
the Higgs was really the end of the story of the
Standard Model, in some sense. The last missing
piece of this theory. Now, that’s not to say,
though, that the Standard Model is the end of the story. We know that there
are many problems in fundamental physics. Some really deep and mysterious
problems that the Standard Model just cannot address. And one of them is
to do with a mirror image of the ordinary
particles– the ordinary matter particles. Something you may have
heard of called antimatter. So, every particle–
every matter particle– in the Standard Model–
the quarks, the electrons, and the neutrinos– have a mirror image. Which has exactly
the same properties, but the opposite
electric charge. And we call these antiparticles. And we’ve known about
antiparticle since the 1930s, and they are routinely
created and experiments. And their properties are
understood very well. But one of the problems with
this, the Standard Model, is that it tells us that,
whenever we create a particle, we also create an
antiparticle at the same time. And if we use this sort
of logic to understand the beginnings of
the universe, what happened at a very early
time, a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang– you had huge amounts of
energy being converted into matter and antimatter. And these two forms
of matter would have been created and
annihilated repeatedly. And as the universe
expanded and cooled, the matter and the
antimatter met up and annihilated each other. Now, because the Standard
Model says whenever you make a particle, you
have to make an antiparticle, and whenever you
annihilate a particle, you have to annihilate
an antiparticle, what should have happened is that
these two equal quantities of matter and antimatter
should have totally annihilated each other, and left us with an
empty, dark, lifeless universe. But that’s not the universe
we find ourselves living in, fortunately. So, the universe has
got lots of stuff in it. And so we don’t understand
how this happened. How is it that enough matter got
left over, after the Big Bang, to create all the stuff
that we see around us. This is a really big problem
for the standard model. So we know there must
be some new physics to explain what happened
very early on in the history of the universe that allowed
this little imbalance to occur. Another big problem
is actually– so, there’s a clue to
it in this image. This is a shot of a cluster
of galaxies called the Abell cluster. It’s a big collection of
galaxies hanging about together in deep space. And if you look very
closely at this image, you, hopefully, see that there
is a sort of circular smearing pattern. This is the cluster
in the middle. You see these bright– all these bright blobs,
which are galaxies. And then there’s this
circular smearing that you can kind of see,
almost like a kind of a lens in between us and
those galaxies. And this is actually an effect
known as gravitational lensing. Which is where the mass of these
galaxies are bending spacetime and they cause
light, as it travels the universe, to be bent. Just like an ordinary lens. You literally get a sort of
lens appearing in the sky. Now, the amount of bending
of the light that you get depends on how much mass
there is in this image. So you can do two things. First of all, you could look at
how much visible material there is– how many galaxies,
how much dust– and you can figure out
how much mass there is. And then you could
look at the lensing and figure out how much
mass that says there is. And these two numbers don’t
agree with each other. And they don’t agree with each
other by a very large amount. The amount of
lensing that we see requires, more or less, five
times the amount of visible matter that we can
see in this picture. In other words, there’s
some invisible matter, which we can’t see, which
is creating extra gravity, extra bending of spacetime. And this is what we
call dark matter. You can even use this to
actually map dark matter. So this is a in purple. Purple, for some reason, is
the colour of dark matter. And it’s overlaid on this image. And this shows you that there’s
a lot more stuff than we can see with our telescopes. Again, the Standard Model has
no explanation for dark matter. There is no particle
in that table that I just showed you
which can account for this. We know some things
about dark matter. We know that it can’t interact
through the electromagnetic force, because we’d see it. It would give off light. And it can’t interact
with a strong force. But it might interact
with a weak force. But that’s, more or less,
what we know about it. And that the Standard
Model can’t explain it. This is a sort of
picture of what we think the universe is made from. So, here, we have
atoms– so that’s us. So all the stuff that we’ve
been studying in all of physics since we started doing
this is only actually 5% of the universe. We’ve only really
scratched the surface in terms of our understanding
of what the universe is made out of. 27% is dark matter, which is
this mysterious substance. We think it’s a particle,
but we’re not too sure. And then there’s something
even more mysterious called dark energy, which is
some kind of repulsive force that’s causing the
universe to expand at an ever-accelerating rate. Basically, what this
picture tells you, is that whenever you hear
the word dark in physics, it’s a sign that we don’t
know what we’re talking about. [LAUGHTER] So, as I said, the Standard
Model– and the Standard Model itself, actually, has
some mysteries about it. So, this table may
sort of slightly remind you of the periodic table
of the chemical elements, where you have these
repeating patterns. We don’t understand why
there are three columns here. We don’t know why they exist. They just are there. We just kind of say,
we observe them. We put them into the theory. And we don’t really
know why we have the particular forces we do. Nature could have chosen a
different set of particles and a different set of forces. So we’d also like to
be able to understand where this picture comes from. And the Higgs, itself, is
also a mystery in some ways. There’s lots we don’t understand
about the Higgs boson. Although the Higgs was
discovered almost seven years ago now, we’ve managed to
measure some of its properties at the Large Hadron Collider. But only quite imprecisely. So it looks very much
like the Higgs boson that Peter Higgs
and his colleagues predicted in the ’60s,
but there’s still a strong possibility that
it’s not the standard Higgs boson– that it’s
something more exotic. And we have to study
this thing more precisely to really figure out
if that’s true or not. So, as I said, the LHC has got
a programme that’s going to take it through until 2035. And we’re still
very hopeful that it may discover new
physics that could help tackle some of these problems. But whether it does or
not, it’s very unlikely to be able to solve everything. We’re still going to
have unsolved questions at the end of this process. Although, what the LHC
does discover in that time will, to some extent,
dictate what comes after it. Because we’ll probably
build a machine that helps us probe the things that we’ve
got the most evidence for. So, this is the proposal. So this is the map
of what could become the successor to the LHC– the Future Circular Collider. So, it’s a proposal for 100
km circumference tunnel. You can see, here’s
the LHC up here. And the LHC would now be
acting as a sort of a feeder– sort of motorway slipway– which would inject particles
into this much, much larger ring. And the reason we
want to go bigger is, the bigger the collider,
the more powerful– the higher the energy you
can get the particles to. And that means that you can
make more massive particles. So it could be, for
example, the particle that accounts for dark matter is
too heavy for the LHC to make. So, in which case, we
will need a bigger machine to be able to
produce these things. This is sort of a
nice visualisation of what you might see if you
went down into the tunnel. I assume it’s not going
to be covered in chrome, but it looks– [LAUGHTER] It looks really futuristic
and space-age-y. Anyway, so that’s
your accelerator. That’s the tube that
carries the particles. And then, just like
at the LHC, there will be caverns around this
ring, where the particles are brought together and
they will collide inside gigantic particle
detectors that may or may not look a bit like this. And these are sort
of, essentially, huge three-dimensional digital
cameras that record what happens in the collisions. So, very similar to the
LHC, but on a bigger scale. So, I’m going to briefly
say a bit about the more– specifically, what these two– what this machine may
end up being like. There’s actually– what’s
called the Future Circular Collider is really proposal
for two different machines. And which one gets
built in which order will depend, in
some part, on what happens at the LHC in
the next few years. But the first sort of
phase of this project is for an
electron-positron collider. So, this is an accelerator
that collides electrons with their antimatter
versions called positrons, or antielectrons. Now, these machines are
really great for doing precision measurements. Because you have these
two fundamental particles. You know exactly
what their energy is. And when they collide,
they annihilate perfectly. And then convert
into Higgs bosons or whatever it is that you’re
interested in looking for. And that means you have– they’re very, very good. For example, if
you want to measure the properties of the Higgs
boson at high precision– oh, dear. Things falling over over there. If you measure the Higgs
boson at high precision, this kind of machine is
great for doing that. The problem with
electron-positron colliders is that, when you make
an electron accelerate in a circle, it gives off x-ray
radiation called synchrotron radiation. And the more you
accelerate them, the faster they radiate
their energy away. So this is actually
used at facilities, like Diamond, where they
use the x-rays that come off accelerating beams
of electrons to study the structures of materials. But for a particle
accelerator, where we want to collide things,
this is a real problem. Because it becomes very
difficult to get the electrons to very high energies. So electron-positron
colliders tend to have lower
collision energies, but they’re very good for
doing precision measurements. Then you have
proton-proton colliders, like the Large Hadron Collider. Now, the advantage of
proton-proton colliders is that protons are much
heavier than electrons, and that means that
they radiate these– they give off these x-rays– at a much lower rate than
electron-positron colliders. And, consequently, you
can get these protons to much, much higher energies. They’re very good if
you want to reach out into sort of the
high energy world and create very heavy particles. The disadvantage is that
protons are sort of– they’re not fundamental particles. They’re messy bags
of quarks and gluons. When you smash them
into each other, you get a whole lot of mess
just all over the place. So, this is a typical image
from the ATLAS experiment at CERN– at the LHC. And you can see the
number of tracks that are being created
in this collision. It is a total– trying to find a Higgs
boson in this, for example– it’s sort of like trying to
find a needle in an exploding haystack. It’s really a nightmare. So there’s much
higher background, so they’re very–
they’re good in terms of getting some high energy. But there are big challenges
in terms of analysing the data. You have to use very clever
techniques to sift out the stuff you’re interested in. Another problem, in a sense–
this is a photo of the LHC. Because these
protons are massive and they’re going
at very high speeds, you need incredibly
strong magnets to bend these particles
around the ring. And those magnets are
also very expensive, so these colliders tend
to be slightly more pricey than
electron-positron colliders. So there’s two
proposals that I said. I’m going to show– just take you, very
briefly, through the history of some accelerators
at CERN, so you understand the
interplay of these two different types of machine. So back in the 1980s, the most
powerful accelerator at CERN was the Super
Proton Synchrotron. It was seven kilometres
in circumference. It got particles up
to an energy of what’s called 400 gigaelectron volts. So that is the– that energy
is equivalent to the amount of energy carried by an
electron if you accelerate it through 400 billion volts. That’s the kind of typical unit
we use in particle physics. To give you a sense,
the mass of a proton is one gigaelectron volts. So this accelerates,
from principle, could make something 400
times heavier than a proton. So, what happened to the
Super Proton Synchrotron is that this is a
hadron collider. It’s a proton-proton
collider, which is very good for
discovering new things. And, indeed, it did make some
really exciting discoveries. It discovered what was known as
the W and the Z bosons, which are the force particles
of the weak force. They’d been predicted
by theory in the 1970s. This was a really exciting time. This was in the mid 1980s. Then after the Super
Proton Synchrotron, CERN built a machine called
the Large Electron-Positron Collider, which was a
27-kilometre particle accelerator. It’s actually– the
tunnel that the LHC is in was built for this machine. And what the Large
Electron-Positron Collider did– because it was colliding
these elementary particles with each other– is it could
measure the properties of the W and the Z particles
are very precisely. So the SPS discovered
them, but then the Large
Electron-Positron Collider could really pin down their
properties in a lot of detail and tell us lots of
interesting things about the nature
of the weak force and also about the
Standard Model. And then, after the Large
Electron-Positron Collider switched off in the year
2000, work on the Large Hadron Collider began. And it was eventually brought
on line, successfully, in 2009 in the same tunnel. But you can see the
difference in energy. So, you go from 400
gigaelectron volts to 209 for the Large
Electron-Positron Collider. And that’s because
of this problem with electrons radiating
all their energy away. And then you get to
much higher energies with a Large Hadron Collider– 13 teraelectron volts. So, trillion electron volts. And then this machine,
as a discovery machine, discovered a new particle,
which is the Higgs boson. So this is the
general pattern that’s been established at CERN, at
least in the last few decades. The plan for the Future
Circular Collider– I guess the standard
view would be– the first phase would
be to build a 100 km tunnel in which you would put
an electron-positron machine. And the objective
of this machine would be to study the Higgs
at very high precision. And then, after
that, you would have a much more powerful
hadron collider going up to about 100 teraelectron volts. And that would be the
machine that could really give you the best
chance of discovering brand new particles. So, right. In the next five minutes or
so– six, seven minutes– I’m going to have
to try and explain the actual physics
of these things. So what would we’d want to do? Well, the electron-positron
collider– what this machine
would allow us to do is to study the properties
of the Higgs boson at really, really
high precision. And this is interesting,
because the Higgs is actually a really unique particle
in the Standard Model. It’s the only particle
in the Standard Model which has no spin. So all the other
particles behave as if they’re spinning around. The Higgs is spineless. And this gives it a
unique set of properties. And a unique set of theoretical
problems associated with it. To give you an example of what
these kind of measurements could do, there is a possibility
that the Higgs boson could act as a sort of gateway
between the ordinary matter in the Standard Model
and, what we call, the dark sector, or
the hidden sector. So this is the world
of dark matter. So, if you can imagine, you have
the Standard Model over here, and then– separated, because
it doesn’t interact with any of the forces
in the Standard Model– you have dark matter. This kind of parallel
universe, effectively, of stuff that we can’t touch or see. Well, there’s a possibility
that the Higgs boson acts as a kind of gateway. So it interacts with the
Standard Model particles, but also with this
hidden sector. And so, by measuring its
properties very precisely, you can detect evidence
of it interacting with these dark
matter particles. So it would be a way
of indirectly finding evidence of the
existence of dark matter. Another possibility–
so, again, at the electron-positron collider. The way that Higgs bosons
will be made sort of goes something like this. You have your electron. You accelerate it
to very high energy, and you bang it into a positron. They annihilate, and
you produce together a Z boson and a Higgs boson. Now, again, if the Higgs
interacts with dark matter particles, sometimes, when
you make a Higgs boson, instead of decaying
into ordinary particles in the Standard
Model, it will decay into dark matter particles. So, you end up with the
Higgs decaying into, say, two dark matter particles. Now, the problem with
dark matter particles is, you can’t see them. So they will just fly
out of your detector, leaving no trace. But because you have this Z
boson here, which you do see, you’re able to figure out
there is some missing energy. Because something invisible
has gone shooting off in this direction, and
we’ve got something that we can see over here. And that would allow us,
again, to indirectly detect evidence of dark matter. Another– so one of the really
exciting prospects– and this is something for
the big machine– this is for the
hadron-hadron collider– the proton-proton collider–
is to do with something called the Higgs field, itself. So, this is– in
particle physics, we don’t actually
think of particles as little billiard
balls or LEGO bricks. The actual building blocks
of the universe are fields. So, for example, the
electromagnetic field, which is filling this room. Now, a photon,
which is a particle of the electromagnetic
field is thought of as a little vibration,
a little ripple, moving about in this field– in the same way the Higgs
boson is a little ripple moving about in this Higgs field
that fills the entire universe. Now, the Higgs field is
unique among all the fields in the Standard Model in that,
if you take a bit of space, and you get rid of
all the particles– so you remove all the
atoms, all the electrons, all the protons and neutrons–
then the values of all the other fields– like
the electromagnetic fields, the electron field– they have values that are
very, very close to zero, except for some little
quantum fluctuations. But the Higgs field has a fixed
value everywhere in space. It has a non-zero value. And it’s this
non-zero value that causes this property, which
we call mass, to exist. Now, the Higgs
field, effectively, switched on at a very early
point in the universe. There was a phase transition
where the Higgs field went from having no
value to acquiring the value it now does. And at that moment,
about a trillionth of a second after the Big
Bang, all the particles in the Standard Model
suddenly acquired mass as the Higgs field switched on. So, I said it’s a
phase transition. You can think of it a little
bit like water droplets forming. So, in this very early phase
in the universe’s history– you can almost think of,
pre- this phase transition, the Higgs field is
a bit like a gas. And then it condenses
into a liquid, effectively, in different
places in the universe. And there are some ideas that
the asymmetry between matter and antimatter that
we see in the universe happened when the
Higgs field switched on in the very early universe. So, if we can study this phase
transition when the Higgs field acquired the
value that it now does, we may be able to explain the
matter-antimatter asymmetry that we see. In other words, we’ll be
able to answer the question, why is there stuff
in the universe? And the thing that’s
really exciting about the proton-proton collider
is, because it will be able to reach these
incredible energies– 100 trillion electron volts– it will recreate the
energy conditions that existed at this very early
time just after the Big Bang. And if the Higgs field is
implicated in why there is stuff in the universe, then
we will hopefully be able to measure its behaviour and
see whether we can explain the difference between matter
and antimatter that we see in the universe through
the Higgs field. One other thing– sorry–
another possibility at the proton-proton collider. So, is, again, to
do with dark matter. So, the measurements I mentioned
at the electron-positron collider were mostly indirect. So they were kind of– you see sort of
evidence of something through the properties
of the Higgs boson. Now, this is a picture
which represents the distribution of dark
matter in a typical galaxy. So, galaxies– like the
Milky Way, for example, is a spiral galaxy, which is a
relatively thin circular disc. And from looking at the way that
stars and galaxies move around, astronomers estimate that
each galaxy is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. And the most popular
explanation for what dark matter is over
the last few years has been something
called a WIMP. Which stands for weakly
interacting massive particle. So what that basically means
is, it’s some kind of particle– which is often given the
symbol chi for some reason– which has no electric
charge, but interacts through the weak force. So these things are floating
about in a diffused cloud surrounding the
galaxy, and this is the most popular, the most
studied, form of dark matter. And the thing that’s really
exciting– another thing that’s very exciting about the
proton-proton collider is that, because it can
reach such high energy, it will be able to more or
less explore the entire energy regime where we think these
kind of WIMPs ought to exist. In other words, it will be able
either to discover dark matter particles– these
WIMP particles, or rule out their existence. In which case, we’ll
know that dark matter needs to be something else. Some other type of particle
that isn’t a WIMP, effectively. Another– I’ll just very
quickly plug something. So, this is my experiment at
the Large Hadron Collider. Or, at least the
experiment I’m a part of. There are about 1,000
people working on it. It’s called LHCb. And in the last
few years, LHCb has seen a number of
interesting deviations from the Standard Model. None of them yet big enough
to really conclusively say that we’ve seen new physics. But when our results are
finally updated with more data, hopefully what we’ll find– if these results are
confirmed– there will be indirect evidence of
some high-energy particles coming in and
interfering with the way that the Standard
Model particles behave. And it’s very likely that, if
these effects are confirmed– and I don’t know whether
they will be or not– that the particles responsible
for these deviations will only be accessible
by a machine more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider. So this is another
sort of reason why we would need to go out
and build this bigger machine. I’ll just finish off, finally,
by saying there’s also– possibly the most sort
of tantalising prospect– is that we discover
something totally unexpected. Whenever we’ve built a
new particle accelerator, we found something new. And quite often the
biggest breakthroughs in our understanding
of nature come when we get a result that
we really didn’t see coming. So there’s a very good
chance, because these machines will explore this unexplored
region of the subatomic world, that we’ll find something
totally unexpected. And, in which case, that have
a really revolutionary effect on our understanding of
the structure of reality. And, just to reemphasize a
point I made at the beginning, we’re only, actually,
with a Standard Model, have been studying
5% of the universe. We’ve only really
scratched the surface. We’re at the beginning,
really, of a journey towards, hopefully, a fuller
understanding of the universe. And this– the Future
Circular Collider is one of the best
tools that we could have to continue that
journey of exploration. Thank you, very much. [APPLAUSE] Yes. Thank you, very much. So, minds blown slightly. [LAUGHTER] I think– I hope if it was up to
a vote of people in this room, you would probably
say, yeah, this sounds like an interesting thing. Let’s figure out how to do it. Can we just see a
vote of hands as– good. Because you’ve paid money to
come here and hear about it. You’re obviously a
biassed audience. But not everybody
would agree with you. Certainly not at the beginning. And so, we need
to think about how to make the case for a
very large investment in scientific research,
like the next big collider. And we need to do it in a way
that a sceptical audience, not just an audience of
enthusiastic, smiling faces. So, there is a sort of
checklist that one can refer to for big science projects. And I’ll take us through that
as we get ready for takeoff with a big project like this. So, your pilot is
in the cockpit. And in building any big
science mega project, the pilot’s checklist has
to go through a number of key requirements. Harry has outlined the
science case– the reason why you would do such a thing. But there’s a number
of reasons how, or things that need to
be in place for the how. And it’s part of the
success of big science– in particle physics, in
astronomy, in space research, in the Human Genome Project– all of these very ambitious
things to be able to marry a visionary goal driven by
science with the resources, and the organisation, and
the engineering, and the R&D, and the technical capability
to actually deliver on it. Not just an aspiration, like
hoping one day we will cure cancer– though, I very
much hope we will– but a practical goal, like
putting a person on the moon by the end of the 1960s. So that’s what we’re
trying to do here. Technical case, cost estimates,
project management plan, funding, governance, stakeholder
engagement, and something called a business case–
which is, basically, what you would tell the treasury
if you had 30 seconds of pitch with the chancellor
of the Exchequer to say this is a good
investment for the public purse, for the taxpayer. So, this is my current project,
which is dramatically smaller. It’s only one kilometre long. It is, however, a
particle accelerator, and will be more
powerful than anything at CERN when it
starts operating. This is a machine for
material science research. This is a spin off
from particle physics. And I’m responsible for
the construction of this. It’s a roughly 2
billion pound project under construction in Sweden. Of which, the UK
is a proud member. A European collaboration to
build a new science facility. Before being
responsible for this, I was the chief
executive of the Science and Technology Facilities
Council, which is the funding agency– the Research
Council in the United Kingdom that’s responsible for basic
research in areas like particle physics, and nuclear
physics, and space. So I do have some experience
with sceptical audiences in the treasury and elsewhere. And I hope that that experience
can be useful to the FCC. I’m a member of the
International Steering Committee for this project, and
I would love to see it succeed. So, Harry’s talked
about the science. But if you have to condense
that to one slide– people in America talk
about an elevator pitch. Imagine you’re going to
lift with a decision-maker, and you have 30
seconds between getting on the floor you’ve got
on that and getting off the floor you both get off at. How would you
condense your story into a very, very short
number of bullet points? So, here, I’ve attempted to
condense Harry’s presentation into one slide. We found the Higgs boson. It was the last piece of the
20th century jigsaw puzzle. But nature has put
more pieces out there. Dark matter was never predicted
in the Standard Model, but the observations in big
telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope prove that it’s there. We don’t know what
underlies that. There are two approaches
to discovery then. High precision, which the
electron-positron collider in the FCC tunnel would
be able to deliver. Measure what you know
about very precisely. And the brute force approach
of a very much higher energy collider to try to directly ask
nature, what are you made of? Can we make new
things like we were able to make the
Higgs boson at the LHC that we didn’t
know about so far. Now, CERN has stewardship of a
strategy for particle physics, which attempts to organise all
of the European laboratories that are active in
this area of research and the scientists in
the various universities every five years to
update the investment plan and the research
plan for Europe. And, clearly,
since the last time this process was
carried out, we’ve learned a lot more
about the Higgs. We’ve continued to do
experiments at the LHC. And it’s time they
need to do an update. So February last year, there
was a call for scientific input. And the conceptual design of the
FCC, which we’re talking about, is one of the inputs into
this strategy process. We hope that the
strategy symposium and then the five-year
sort of master plan– which is not a
very dense document. It’s a few pages,
but it lays out the priorities for investment. We hope that that will
endorse, continuing to take the FCC project forward
as one of the priorities, because, as Harry has said, the
investment timelines are long, the R&D may take a decade
to do, and if things don’t get started
now, particle physics could be left in the 2020s
without a clear plan for what to do next. There are, however, some
other competing options. And we can talk about that
in the Q&A, if you like. So science cases is there. The technical case,
and the R&D needed, and the cost estimation– well, let’s just put the
cost numbers up there, because they are large. And nobody would deny that
these are expensive investments. So, for the first phase, the
electron-positron machine. The estimate, with engineering
consultancy and serious study, is something like 12
billion Swiss francs. We costed it in Swiss francs,
because the assumption is that the bulk of the
money would be spent at CERN. And the dominant cost is
the cost of the tunnel. 100 kilometres of tunnel– 62 miles of tunnel–
is an expensive thing. So that drives the cost. And that tells you
what you are not likely to be able
to spend less than. To go– then to upgrade
to the second phase will cost you an additional
17 billion Swiss francs, of which 11 is for
superconducting magnets, as Harry said. Keeping the rings of the
protons circulating in even this very large
tunnel requires a very high magnetic field. And the whole programme, which
might be spent over 35 years or more, is then 29 billion
Swiss francs, or 24 billion, if you skip the first course
and just go straight to the main course. So the two major technologies
that we need to think about are the tunnel and these
high field magnets. This is an overlay,
again, of the tunnel on the Swiss-French
border just to show the sheer scale of the thing. 100 kilometres, 62
miles in circumference. That means 20 miles across. Stretches from here to
roughly Heathrow Airport. This is a very big engineering
challenge in itself. The land is not
hugely mountainous. This is the end of Lake Geneva
where the Rhone River starts. So it’s not a hugely
deep tunnel excavation. And that means you can
think about 16 shafts around the circumference
of the tunnel, which makes it quicker and easier to build. But tunnels are not simple. Here’s another– that
picture, that visualisation. I think this is way too
“Star Trek” for real life. It will be a concrete tunnel. A point I just wanted to
make here is, the size of it is not huge. But it has to be roughly
twice the width of the magnets that you want to put in there,
so that you can transport them in and instal them, and so that
one can access for repairs. A good example of 100 kilometres
of tunnel in Switzerland has been excavated in
the last few years. The Gotthard Base Tunnel,
which is a railway tunnel. Two 57-kilometre bores under the
Alps linking Zurich with Milan. That cost 12.2
billion Swiss francs. Tunnelling is a
mature technology. It’s understood. It’s not simple. The geology makes
things complicated. It can be dangerous. But it’s predictable. And it’s unlikely
that there will be any dramatic breakthroughs
in Tunnelling that would reduce the cost or
time taken to do that. So, the cost of digging
a 100-kilometre tunnel, and the time taken to do
it, is understandable. And we need to be
sensible about it. The other technology,
however, needs much more R&D. And that’s one reason why
the second phase of the FCC may well come as
the second phase. It requires magnets. Superconducting
magnets, so that means they’re cool to a few
degrees above absolute zero. So there’s no electrical
resistance in the wires. You have to use
special materials to have that property of
being superconducting. And we want to run this machine
with collision energies that are something like 7 to 10
times higher than the LHC. And that means having
a higher magnetic field to bend the particle
beams and keep them circulating in the tunnel. We’re looking for
16 Tesla magnets compared with
roughly one Tesla for typical everyday applications. And that means new materials. We will have to use an alloy
of niobium and tin, which is a very difficult
material to work with. It requires a lot
of heat treatment. And maybe high-temperature
superconductors, which are even more difficult to
work with– ceramic materials, more exotic materials– not used because of operating
at a higher temperature, but because they can
withstand high magnetic fields and still remain
superconducting. Expensive, costly and an
engineering challenge. We need to reduce the cost
by a factor of three to five compared with existing
technology used at the LHC. Now, a project management plan
for a 20 to 30 billion franc project is not optional. It is mandatory. And there are good examples of
engineering project management to be found everywhere in
the world of big projects. For example, the American
department of Energy has a very well-respected
project management approach based on that used at NASA. It’s DOE order 413.3B. And those of us who’ve
worked in American labs know exactly the steps needed. But the key points in
managing any big project are to have a proper
schedule with tasks. At the ESS, my project,
we have 24,000 tasks linked in a project management
tool called Primavera. So we know when every job
finishes what other jobs are depending on it to start. We know how many people
should be working on it, and we can track the
progress exactly through. And ESS is now 58% complete
according to that measure. We need sufficient contingency–
money kept back for things that you haven’t predicted,
because your initial estimates are never fully accurate. And you need to deal with them. And you need an engineering
change control process to keep track of
what you’re doing. Credible funding
and governance plan. So, if you go and talk–
if you had that elevator ride with the chancellor
of the Exchequer, or the science minister of
Germany, or any of the people we would need to
invest in this, you want not just to
reassure them that you know how to do the project–
you need to tell them how you’re going to pay
for it, and how much they would have to pay. And these get to be
tricky negotiations. And they’re very political. So, let me emphasise at
this point that what I say is not official CERN policy. And it’s not necessarily
even official FCC policy. It’s my advice, as
a private citizen on how you might be able to
build something of this size and complexity by
involving all of the people that you need to involve. So, the first thing is to look
at existing examples of what we’re trying to do. And the closest
thing I could find is the international
fusion project, ITER, which is under construction
in the south of France. This is a– deserves an RI
presentation of its own– to build a very, very
large magnetic confinement system in which you can
replicate the nuclear reactions that are taking place
that power the sun, and try to capture that as
an energy source on earth. This is a 20 to 30– to
much more– billion project. The actual cost is a
little bit obscure. It is an international
organisation, but it involves many agencies
from projects from countries all around the world. And there are huge challenges
in building something of this size with this
scale of collaboration, which have led to some
lessons that ITER, itself, has learned about what not to do. So any project, like FCC,
should learn what not to do and copy what does work. Sorry– I keep
pressing that too much. So, this is the
key question, then, that you’d have to satisfy the
chancellor of the Exchequer or the German science minister. Could you actually afford
28 billion Swiss francs? A Swiss franc is about 85
pence or something like that. It’s not so different from
the cost of HS2 or something like that. It is a big investment. Well, the best way to do that
is to spread it over many years and to share it
between many partners. And that’s exactly what we
would propose to do here. The existing CERN budget, to
which the UK contributes about 130 million pounds per year,
could pay for roughly half of the cost of this FCC
programme over the 30 years that it would take to realise. Without asking for
any more money. So you’d simply have to convince
the chancellor of the Exchequer that CERN was continuing to be
a good investment for the UK taxpayer over that period. And I hope that’s a more
straightforward thing to do. And I don’t want to have
to appeal to this lady here, the magic money fairy,
to say that we will find money from a Silicon
Valley billionaire or something like that. I think it’s fair to ask the
two hosts countries, Switzerland and France, to
contribute a bit extra, because a lot of the
money of that Tunnelling will be spent in their
countries, on their companies, in their economy. And then, the third
thing, what we need to do is get contributions
from outside of Europe in the same
way that ITER has done– a substantial investment from
the United States, and Russia, and China, and Japan,
and wherever else. And that means most
of that work would need to be done in those
places, because the Russians, the Chinese, the
Indians, the Americans, are unlikely to
just write a check to CERN, and say, spend
the money in Switzerland as you wish. They’re going to want
to do the work at home, because, as has long been
noted, politics is local. People get elected by
local constituencies. And they want to be able
to demonstrate a return on that investment locally. So that’s what we are having
to do in my project at ESS, as well. Significant technical
work packages procured or constructed
in the partner countries, and then brought to the
project to be integrated. It’s a project
management challenge, but it’s a political necessity. And I think FCC is going
to need to handle this. This is an example of an
in-kind deliverable at ESS. You probably don’t know who
either of these gentlemen on the right are. Does anybody wish to guess? No. They’re obscure. It’s the president of
Italy, and I can forgive you for not knowing who he is. And the King of Sweden, and I
can forgive you for not knowing who he is, either. But they’re shaking hands
because the King of Sweden is ceremonially accepting
this component that has been built in Italy for ESS. And this means that
the Italians can spend money in their own
national laboratories, promoting their own science
and engineering investments, but contribute to a European
project, which is taking place in another country. Stakeholder engagement. You are stakeholders
in this project. The general public
are a key part of it. But there are many
other stakeholders. And earlier in my life,
I had the privilege of working on this project–
the Superconducting Super Collider, which
was about one-third finished in a place
called Waxahachie, Texas. And, yes, that is a real place. And it is exactly like you
would think it would be. Pickup trucks and big hair– well, it was the
1980s– and 10 gallon hats, and, you aren’t from
round here, boy, are you? But a, basically,
larger and more powerful version of the Large Hadron
Collider got about one-third complete. And you can see– big tunnels
dug and real money spent. And it was then cancelled by
the American Congress in 1993. And that had to do with
changing political priorities. But it was evidence
that there wasn’t a strong and deep
base of support for this big investment. And it was a political baby
of one political party, and even very big
projects can get killed. So I don’t want to
repeat this experience. And I don’t think
science should. We’ve done some
studies in Europe on large research
infrastructures in a forum that I’ve chaired. And we found that stakeholder
engagement in the funding plan are often the reason why
things don’t get built. Not the lack of science
case or the technical R&D. So stakeholders include
you, the general public, but they also include
decision-makers– the people who shape opinion. They include scientists
in other research fields. They include university bosses,
civil servants, and economists. And you might think that the
toughest and most sceptical audience here would
be the civil service economists in the Exchequer. And they’re pretty tough. But, actually, the most
sceptical and hardest to convince are often scientists
in other research fields who are worried about whether
this investment may draw money out of theirs. And those are people
we need to work on. And if you’ve been
following FCC in the media and on Twitter, you will have
seen that there are people from other science
areas who say, this is a very expensive
thing, and we’re not sure what it will do. So we need to
convince all of these. And, in fact, if we have
many partner countries, there needs to be an effort
to convince the people in each of those partner countries. Because they have
different media. They have different
political parties. They have different
decision making priorities. And, finally, business case. Business case is what the
treasury– down the road in Whitehall– talk
about when they want to make an investment. It doesn’t mean it has to have
anything to do with business. But it just means
they have to be able to justify a return on the
investment of taxpayer money. And continued
investment in CERN, even if it is still at
the level that we’ve been making for 20 years,
requires a business case. Because every time there’s
a big new commitment, people realise that’s sort of
locking in your participation for many decades to come. So they will want to see
such a business case, and we can provide it. And let me outline. So don’t be frightened
by the word business. It just means an
investment case. You’re investing tax money. Any international project is
going to need to tailor it, because the reasons why the
Indian government might invest in a project like FCC, as
a developing country trying to build up a technology base,
would be very different from the reasons why the Swiss
might invest in it– it’s in their country– they’re
going to get a big return– or why the UK
might invest in it. And it needs to be tailored,
and we need to accept that. We’ve also seen a
shift in priorities for science investment since
the end of the Cold War. And the end of the Cold
War is a great thing, and I’m not decrying
that at all. But science used to
be sellable in terms of cultural value,
international collaboration in a time of tension, showing
that a democratic system can make progress. And all of those things have
been superseded, or certainly eclipsed in the minds of
those treasury bureaucrats, much more by, what
does it do for jobs? What does it do for
national competitiveness in a globalising economy? And those may seem a bit banal. Those may seem a bit
short-term, compared with understanding the
cultural value of understanding our place in the universe. But if those are the
decision making criteria that the people with the
chequebooks want to use, we can certainly
explain in language they will understand what
a project like the FCC will indeed do. So, here’s a scientist
doing science. And you will notice
she is a girl. And I will talk
about that later. And she is understanding the
universe in the way that Harry has described– by building
big machines and colliding particles together, and using
elaborate computer programmes to find the new
things that are made. Unfortunately, that requires
public scale investments. Universities by themselves don’t
have big enough budgets to be able to build things like CERN. CERN is a treaty organisation,
which member-state governments contribute to. And that means government
investment decisions are made. Now, much as we may
wish it were otherwise, our governments are
not philosopher kings in the platonic ideal. They don’t particularly value
knowledge for its own sake. They value the technology,
and the innovation, and the skills that come out– as, perhaps, a side
effect, or, perhaps, integral to the realisation
of the projects– but they’re not looking at the value
of the Higgs boson. They’re looking at the
value of those magnets. And the training. And the inspiration. So let’s talk about the
technology, and the innovation, and the skills that come
out of basic research. This may be a little bit
like not selling the stake and selling the sizzle–
that’s an old 1950s advertising slogan. Sell the experience. Tailor your message to what
the audience wants to hear. Scientists don’t
always like doing this. It feels a bit
like salesmanship. It is salesmanship, after all. But we are selling
something that is of value. We’re using the language that
the audience understands. So the biggest economic
challenges of today– if you were in that
lift with the chancellor of the Exchequer–
globalisation, together with automation
leading to fewer good jobs, leading to very unhappy
people, leading to Donald Trump in the White House and
Brexit and all manner of other things– gilets
jaunes protesters in Paris. There are big other problems
that we cannot ignore, like climate change–
and we must not ignore. But for political
actors thinking about their next election,
they’re focused on this stuff right now. And projects like the FCC
may seem a million miles away from low growth and
stagnant wages in steelworks in Scunthorpe closing. But the reality
is that investment in science and technology– scientific and technological
innovation, and, specifically, STEM skills– scientific,
technology, engineering, and mathematics skills– economies that have
an educated workforce are going to be able to
withstand these kind of shocks much, much better. So what can the FCC, or
what can basic research do to help this
sort of situation? They can develop
transformative technologies, and they can attract
young people into science and train them for
the 21st century. In fact, the
Institute of Physics did a study a few years
ago, that something like 90% of physics
undergraduates in UK universities had
originally decided to study physics because of an
interest in particle physics or astronomy. The reason your
role here tonight. To understand the fundamental
structure of the universe. This kind of science
is an entry drug into a career, or an
interest, or a motivation to understand science and
technology and engineering. And those are skills that
the UK economy needs. Something like 50,000
more scientific and technologically-trained
people per year based on the requirements
of manufacturing industry. So there is a need
for more people, and this is a way
to encourage more into those very productive
and useful careers. Now, you all know about
the world wide web. Technology, innovation, and
information sharing that was invented at CERN as a way to
communicate in the construction of the Large Hadron Collider. You may not be so familiar
that Wi-Fi is also a spin off from basic research. The algorithms– the
computer algorithms used to decode the Wi-Fi signal in
a very radio-noisy environment were invented for radio
astronomy in Australia, it so happens, by a
team of scientists who were trying to test one
of the predictions of Stephen Hawking about black holes. So, the proof of this is that
the Wi-Fi chipset in your phone pays royalties to the
Commonwealth Science and Industry
Research Organisation in Australia for the
use of those algorithms. So it’s not just a vague link. It’s a real monetary benefit
to Australian astronomy that this happened. So I can’t promise that
the FCC will deliver you a replacement for the world
wide web, or a replacement for Wi-Fi. There’s a good track record
of these kinds of spin offs. But what I can
promise is that it will generate new higher
magnetic field magnets. And the original superconducting
magnet technology is, itself, a spin off
of particle physics. Back in the late
’70s and early ’80s, the Tevatron accelerator at
Fermilab in the United States was looking to build
the first large scale installation of superconducting
magnets anywhere. And they placed
orders with companies to deliberately stimulate
the creation of an industry. To take steps to
create companies able to build these things
that didn’t exist up til now. And that led, then,
to the emergence of a multi-billion dollar market
for superconducting magnets, driven by medical
imaging machines. And so, the commercial value
of the medical imaging industry is several billion per
year, and the value to all of us from having MRI
scanners in every hospital is many times that, in terms of
improved lifestyles and health care. So, if we think about
a project like FCC, we should try and maximise
those sort of impacts. And that means involving
industry in key R&D packages, and setting up places where
that innovation can happen. And a really good example is
just down the road from here, at the Harwell Campus, the
European Space Agency runs a business incubation
centre here. next to the Diamond Light
source, which provides help to commercialise
technologies that have been invented and
devised from the European Space Agency. To make sure they actually
get out into the market and make things happen. Zoopla, for example, uses
a location technology– a location mapping technology– that was part of the European
Space Agency’s innovation programme, originally. So, something like this is a
good example of how to maximise your economic impact. Small companies. We also need to think
about how to attract young people into science. Well, you’ve already been
attracted, because you’re here. And the Higgs discovery
was a really good example of how one can do that. It was front page news, even
in the “Financial Times”. And when I was at
STFC, and I, in fact, worked– the first time I met
Harry was in putting together an exhibition at
the science museum, which celebrated the
Large Hadron Collider and what had been discovered. And we made sure
to invite people like George Osborne, who, at
the time, was influential and– [LAUGHTER] –introduced him to Stephen
Hawking and Peter Higgs. And made sure that this got out
to the general public, but also key decision-makers, like
the people in the ministry. So we put a vinyl– we– STFC, at that time–
put a vinyl wrapping on the front entrance
to the ministry that is responsible for
science funding in the UK. So all the 2000 civil servants
that were working there would walk past a big picture of
the LHC on their way into work, and, I hope, feel a
little bit of pride at having supported that. And this was then picked up
as part of the UK knowledge promotion in embassies overseas. And has had a real
tangible impact. So, people have talked
about something that’s called the Brian Cox effect– an increase in the study of
physics in British universities after the Higgs, and following
the wonders of the universe, and all of that. And it shows that you really
can change the choices that young people make. And I don’t want to
sound patronising, but I hope that the youthful
faces smiling in the audience here are already
interested in science. We need to reach out
to the people who aren’t in this audience yet. The public engagement programme
around the Higgs discovery reached more than half of the
population of the UK in one way or another– through TV, through
newspapers, through magazines, through all of the
materials that we put out. So, I would like to set
a big goal for something like the FCC. If we set aside as little as 1%
of the budget, in the UK alone, we could spend 12 million
pounds on promoting science. Which is much more than was
ever spent on the LHC Higgs discovery outreach programme. And so, a good goal might be
to double the number of girls taking A-level physics,
which, as you can see from these charts, remains
very low in comparison to the number of boys. The numbers taking– both
genders taking the subject have increased– which is good– but this gender imbalance
has not shifted. Or doubling the number of
engineering apprentices. And something like
this in every one of the partner countries of FCC
would, I think, be a good goal. So, there, we have a checklist. And I very quickly,
and breathlessly, tried to go through all of these
reasons why investment in FCC is a good thing,
and how you might convince sceptical audiences
that it is a good thing. Not just because the
science is fascinating, but because it has tangible
short-term benefits, as well. And because it’s affordable. And because you could imagine
putting together a credible R&D plan to deliver it. So we know what we have to do. No one said it would be easy. But we don’t do
these hard things because they’re easy, right? This is a many-decade
project to build, what will be by many orders of
magnitude, the largest science experiment that the
world has ever seen. If it is successfully realised. And so, we should not expect
it to be straightforward. But we have to present a
plausible route to success. And I think that’s
what we can do. And so, finally, I’d
just like to close with a quote from
Daniel Burnham– who you may not have
heard of, but he’s a city planner and
architect who is responsible for a master plan
of Chicago over 100 years ago. And he, famously, said,
make no little plans. They have no magic
to stir men’s hearts. So what we’re trying
to do with the FCC is certainly not make
any little plans. Thanks, very much. [APPLAUSE]

79 thoughts to “Upgrading the Particle Physics Toolkit: The Future Circular Collider – Harry Cliff, John Womersley”

  1. The higher the energy density of the thing you are, the faster you move with time. The slower you move in relation to "t" the less universe there is and vice versa. It's paradoxical that "c" never changes, even as you approach "c" but that is to do with frames of reference.

  2. Lol, funny slip, "…cure science…" I think we're already on that in the U.S. Tests came back negative for science, I think…what do I look like, a scientist?!

  3. Hang on, this lecture has already been posted on this channel hasn't it? I'm sure I've already seen this on the RI YouTube channel

  4. Hi everyone, lots of you have asked us over the years for an update of what's going at the LHC, Cern and particle physics in general these days, so we invited Helen Czerski, Harry Cliff and John Womersley to talk about the new proposed circular collider. We actually even live streamed the talk as it was happening so if you're experiencing déjà vu, that's probably why! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSDE9E_J4-w

  5. The purpose of physics is to bootstrap life….. from there, imagination shapes the physics. If you need to prove it, please do it away from Earth

  6. https://youtu.be/rEuM_e4MvgE?t=1501 What if there is no Dark Matter? What is the reason we see the effects we call Dark Matter are just more dense Higgs field areas that were more heavily saturated with antimatter during the Big Bang? Which might explain why there is the matter-antimatter imbalance and why we see things like gravitational lensing. It might also explain some of the Voyager readings NASA claims to have seen in the outer solar system.

  7. Evolutionists believe the big bang started the universe..so let's recreate that in a big magnetic bottle just near some pretty mountains.

  8. I've been studying Tesla Physics since my 7th grade science fair…40 years ago… CERN has intrigued me beyond what their collision half story is all about… I'm curious of the faster than light speed experiments with the Toroid field bubbles effect on the Magnetosphere and Moon… How far does the Z pinch extend beyond the atmosphere ? How are the particles in the Toroid field affected in example, clouds, heavy metals, space weather interaction at the Magnetosphere, sprites, etc., etc… ? I have a few more wordy questions I'd love to ask the electrical engineers … Dream physics is fun, only Mr. Tesla made the Ether a fun place to play.while awake… Has anyone discussed what the Pineal Gland actually connects to..?
    P.S. can you do a show on DWAVE Quantum computing software and hardware tech… If I told you my Pineal Gland has "connected" to the Ether..
    How can this be tested..?!? Cheers Mates and thank you for what you do…how is the Earth's core plasma affected ???
    P.P.S. oh…how are the Birkeland Current connections with the Sun Affected ???

  9. I rather like that he spoke directly and quick paced, i prefer my information a b c styled without sugar coating or drawn out bullshit to annoy and distract me. I found this to be succinct and informative. The speakers both to be competent and the last to be succinct as he push out a ton of info.

  10. The LHC was built for the purpose of finding something that's existence had been predicted and theorized many years ago. The issue that will cause building a larger and more powerful particle collider difficult is that unlike the LHC there isn't another specifically predicted particle that is being hunted. There may be particles waiting to be discovered but we would just kinda be fondling about in the dark hoping to find something.

  11. I understand that China is also thinking about moving un this direction. I there any collaboration here or would this be a competitive situation?

  12. In my own way, I also worked on the Superconducting Super Collider – Houses were removed from over the top of the track of the SSC; some of them were bulldozed, but some were picked up and moved to another place – I helped repair them so they could be inhabited again.

    I also knew an engineer who worked on it – he concurred that it was quite a mess.

  13. Money should go for the "humanity living as one" idea. Until we can live in balance with our earth and each other, clean up the radioactive mess that science has made, all founding should be redirected. Starvation and wars will continue until we change this capitalist culture idea. Education, shelter and just basic food would go a very long way & understanding that we all need to live simple so that we can all simply live on our planet now, today. Our world is way out of balance and mankind needs to wake-up or we will destroy our selves and our planet. Our mindset had best change or true realities will do it for us sooner or later. I can't believe scientists aren't smarter than a rock, is the God practical been right in front of them and they don't even know it? Yes, they should go within first or we will all be going without. I think that what's looking is what they are truly looking for… so until then, keep up the good work and please change the agenda in your efforts to help all mankind simply live.

  14. P.W. Anderson said “More is different” it means particle physics gets us no where about real world and understanding nature. It is far from understanding nature and using it as technologies that serve human living better. It is condensed matter physics shows a right way to understanding nature and using it as technology and also collective and many-particle behavior of nature. Unfortunately, public don't think it is very interesting because high energy mysterious world feeds them with missing puzzle of their life which is existing a superpower

  15. The aerial view is looking south towards the Alps, but obviously this guy has it backwards. It is unfortunate that he derailed my concentration so early in the presentation . Such is life…

  16. Sir, I say you are a witch. Only a witch would have your ability to B.S. at that level. I shad think thy hide should be made smite upon the briars and thimbles. Tally-ho!!!!!

  17. For people discussing how fast the speaker is this is something they have started doing on YouTube and that is they are physically speeding up the speech in the films. Sometimes to fit in a whole lecture in a smaller amount of time but it can be difficult to hear at the rate of speed the lectures are then given to us. I think it’s terrible they speed them up so fast. However, I do not think they speeded this up nor removed pauses. This seems normal to me.

    I just wanted to say that again I wish that YouTube would not put up any film without a date in the heading. It’s crazy that we have to try to find when a film was released to the public. Since they already go to the trouble of putting the title for that lecture, and sometimes the main speakers, how much harder would it be to date these films?

  18. Were done with buying the same old story line for circular ring colliders. were gonna see what was created just before the big band lol. We believe you should only build linear accelerators from now on. stop losing energy via synchrotron radiation. maybe you wouldnt be influencing pole flips using rings too

  19. Disappointed! Please, circumscribe it around the moon. I was wondering if we build the tube around the moon on pillars and then remove the pillars, would it float above the moon surface or it breaks the ring and crashes. I will try to calculate the pressure on the tube, due to the moon's gravity.

  20. Why didn't equal quantities of matter and antimatter totally annihilate each other at the Big Bang? Because there was no Big Bang. Here's why –

    Compare the universe to an expanding balloon, with dots drawn on it representing galaxies. Though all the galaxies recede from each other as the balloon expands, there is no centre to the expansion (at least, not in the space-time we know). Just as air exists inside and outside the balloon, there is space-time internal and external to the known universe (this can be thought of as other large-scale dimensions or other parts of the multiverse). But what if a Theory of Everything is achieved in the future? If that theory goes beyond pure mathematics to affect everything physically, then the space-times inside and outside our universe would only seem to be internal and external – they'd actually be unified with our universe. There’d be just one universe which would extend infinitely in space-time (it’d be infinite and eternal).

    An eternally infinite universe could not be expanding from a Big Bang. “Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time, and have recently found shocking evidence that it affects the wider, ‘macroscopic’ world that we inhabit.” (0) The quantum-mechanical entanglement of microwave photons with all of space-time means the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation fills the entire sky and is not produced by the Big Bang as most scientists believe. Laniakea is said to be a true supercluster because anything within its boundaries^ (including us) will move gravitationally toward its centre, while whatever lies beyond those boundaries will move away. (1) It’s also said that we're headed towards the mammoth Shapley Supercluster outside Laniakea (2). One explanation is that Laniakea’s centre lies in exactly the same direction as Shapley. If their directions aren’t precisely aligned, this motion away from and towards Shapley could mean something else. Namely; that the universe's sea of space-time consists of gravitational waves and currents whose directions vary over billions of years (General Relativity says gravity is a push caused by the curvature of space-time). At this point in cosmic history, the currents’ motions could determine the Hubble^^ flow and so-called universal expansion.

    ^ This includes our Milky Way galaxy, the Local Group of more than 50 galaxies which includes the Milky Way and Andromeda, the Virgo Cluster of 1500 galaxies of which our Local Group is a member – and what, prior to identification of our true local supercluster Laniakea in September 2014, was known as the 110-million-light-year-long Virgo Supercluster (Laniakea stretches 520 million light-years).

    ^^ Edwin Hubble (1889-1953), the astronomer credited with discovering cosmic expansion, remained doubtful about the expansion interpretation for his entire life. He believed “expanding models are a forced interpretation of the observational results.” (3)

    REFERENCES

    (0) 'The Weirdest Link' (New Scientist, vol. 181, issue 2440 – 27 March 2004, 32, http://www.biophysica.com/QUANTUM.HTM

    (1) "All about our local supercluster" by Liz Kruesi – Astronomy, March 2019, p. 35

    (2) "A Universe of Galaxies" by David J. Eicher – Astronomy, March 2019, p. 27

    (3) “Effects of Red Shifts on the Distribution of Nebulae” by E. Hubble, Ap. J., 84, 517, 1936

  21. This stuff is so exciting. Like everyone, I have my ups and downs but learning about the secrets of the universe in itself makes life worth living.

  22. Ok, let me get this straight, or go around and around in a circle that we need another circle, a really expensive one at that. So we can find another what's it particle to make sure you all have jobs for the forseable future. I know it's damm important to have you all paid to do something but lets go one step further here, one step is all we ask, to have you folks make a better Pizza or a better tennis shoe…. Because we still don't have a working hyperspace motor and there is that galaxy still far far away that has one so what the heck are we paying you for and spending ungodly amounts of money to build circles for??

    So, the next time we see crop circles, and we all know now just who is behind those, we will jump down and make our government spend trillions of bucks or dollars or even Pounds to build you all the next big circle so we can have the best Pizza ever… I'm sold…

  23. Oh yeah, forgot one little thing… This Higgs thing. old news, there was a guy way back in the 1930's that wrote if you take this wave form, add a little twist to it that no one thought of, you can remove mass from space ships and go off though the galaxy at 90pc/hr and battle space pirates from another galaxy… Now you just sit back and tell us your still not ripping around in the galaxy fighting space pirates and I have to wonder what the heck is going on here. Where is the bad guys and why don't we all wear Len's and all that stuff. Seems like we are missing something here. You just NOW figured out there is some magical field that tells matter to have mass NOW???? Hmm, well I'm not impressed that's for sure… I want to fight space pirates and I wanna fight them NOW…. Heheheh…. So I took those Lenman books a little seriously as maybe they could be in our future but I guess I'll stop reading them so much … Ok? Maybe?… Darn, still have mass…..

  24. The world is dying and you want more phd welfare. Why dont you save the world first and then we will give you another look. No? You guys dont like that because saving the world is just an engineering project, right? If we dont accept reality and get the world fixed, we wont have a civilization and then what good us the particle physics? Or are you gonna give us clean fusion, sure.

  25. The problem is that we have no expectation of new physics from that next hadron collider. 1) Theorists are losing confidence in WIMPs as dark matter candidates. 2) There are serious arguments against DM being required to explain galactic rotation curves–which is why it was originally proposed. So it may not exist at all! That graphic of the DM halo around a spiral galaxy? All standard DM stuff, and quite possibly wrong. See astrophysicist and cosmologist Stacy McGaugh on the topic at https://tritonstation.wordpress.com/category/dark-matter/

    I've nothing against high-precision studies of Higgs properties, and it may be that the largest portion of the cost of a next-gen CERN hadron collider would be the tunnel required for that electron-positron collider precursor. In which case it might be a reasonable idea. But other proposals (non-CERN) have been bandied about for precision studies, such as a linear accelerator, which wouldn't have the synchrotron radiation problem.

    I have little confidence in new physics from a hadron collider we can actually build. We have no compelling theoretical reason to expect new physics until Plank energies are reached. Which is 15 orders of magnitude higher than the LHC! Going from 13 TeV to 100 TeV is unimpressive if what's needed is an increase of one million billion.

    If you want new physics/cosmology, spend those Euro on a second 40 meter class telescope for the European Southern Observatory — or try to go even larger. The Extremely Large Telescope will by far be the largest in the world, and much cheaper than another hadron collider.

  26. Is there a Ri-presentation where somebody tells us more about this 'core fusion'-project that gentleman is talking about? (@41:00)

  27. When I first saw this I thought this was strange but now after watching it again and not getting to worked up about spooky action entanglement mechanics it’s really brilliant and insightful. It seems to be saying basically that we expect to much by thinking everything is classical and can easily give granularity detail. Kind of like a classic mode. But quantum mechanics is showing randomness which may require more and more inquiries which are hidden in wave like entrapment. Which require more questions to see the history of the particle as it was, but never predict any small particle as it will be. So this is more of a detective kind of process. To find out who did it or where they went. But not tell where they will go. As if the universe programs in wave like randomness or encoded secret cryptography. Splitting up things randomly and you can’t tell the key and meaning until you read all the different views, the different encoded messages and go through the orcesss to decode the message. It’s like a mystical actual quantum encode process is built into the nature of the universe. And we will never understand these things like little particles. Because the mixed wave nature and uncertainty are just a part of the universe encoding this to keep it hidden from us until we finally query what was put in it. As many outcomes are available from super positions. It seems to me that super positions are a kind of encode of quantum tricks which nature is playing on us. To put randomness and unpredictability into the universe. That randomness baffles those who want a simple Newtonian cause and effect. Simple classical physics seems to say well you can know and calculate and predict ahead of time. But quorum universe entanglement and uncertainty gives a sense of randomness which makes it appear that classical approaches will never work alone here. That’s just the nature of the universe. So a built in uncertainty of anything but the statistical randomness of the various outcomes can be predicted. Things like wave variations are not simple wave functions but complex and baffling. The hope for physics to explain all, outcomes sigh determinism meats it’s match and cannot win. Because random entanglement an games of chance are written into the way the quantum universe works. This means the quantum label is a kind of misnomer in my opinion. Because we think more bits and more deeper understanding of simp,e bits can predict where one but will take one path. But wave entanglement is a random encode which defeats this. The way I look at this is an entangled quantum encryption is happening by the universe in a sense. Like the universe performing an encryption game which classical goals will never crack. You can only read from many parts the results, but never predict the message. The encode is almost spooky and alive in a sense. And it’s random enough that you can’t predict it. Anyway this is what I got out of this. But maybe I wrote this to quickly to make this clearly described.

    The spookiness is it appears that comp,Edith of encryption is decided faster than the speed of light. And it’s not really known if a quit was encoded or a second decide unless you are at both reliever sites. So it doesn’t break the speed of light it merely keeps the information of the complexity hidden by constraints of a complex decode process which can’t be done from one remote location,

  28. I wrote to Secretary of State Jonathan Slater 2 month ago. What I did not tell him with each wrong answer I get next batch of science from my 1975 Bremen summerhouse notes will is released discreetly to selected scientist in China, Russia and India.
    You are using R I which was once center for sharing real knowledge as a soup box to sell your scam.
    1st speaker, you are lying when you say particle colliders create new particles. This means you have no idea how or where matter is created. Colliders smash proton together. your primitive detectors record the detectable fragment’s interaction with matter. You interpret the result with your limited knowledge of matter into a fairy tails just like old ladies interpret tea leave’s pattern and call it standard model. This is not science. It is science fiction part of great scam called LHC.
    2nd speaker, you are playing a con artist to sell this great scam to ignorant governments of other nation.
    If I was told this is a great scheme to create job artificially to keep large number of ignorant PHD off the street, or create a great opportunity to access lots of top scientist from other country to get information from them or employ them as spy. I would understand and say good luck. Instead I see your desperate attempt to sell a greater scam than LHC. Legalized stealing of public money under guise of science. MG1

  29. It is interesting, when particle physicists will already suggest a source of clean nuclear or particle energy? So far we have observed only the use of electric power generated at chemical reactions for the questionable studies and predictions in particle physics… Where are answers to such simple questions as: What is mass? What is Charge? Regarding the lecturers: it seems they do not understand physics… The idea of The Future Circular Collider requires a criminal investigation.

  30. Man.. I love these lectures. Thank you #The_Royal_Institution for such amazing content. I wish to attend one in future. Love from India.

  31. To be honest, this is one of the best talks I've heared yet. This also inspired me to do a presentation in class and it insprired me to learn more about elementary particles! THX for providing this!

  32. John Womersley —> Your biggest economics challenge of today: You leading this effort. We couldn't get care less about your political opinions and comments about Brexit
    and Trump in the White House, etc. Stick to science, you're not helping your case. If this ever gets approved, it'll be somebody else than you presenting it and leading it. Big gaffe here.

  33. These guys spent $14B to see the Higgs boson in their tunnel while it was proven in theory. That's a lot of money to generate nice charts.
    This is like nuclear underground testing, it's now simulated and done in supercomputers, not underground.

  34. I disagree that the costs of tunneling are stable. Elon Musk's "The Boring Company" has been working on ways to greatly reduce the cost of tunneling. They should be consulted for their knowledge and ability to reduce the cost. Because reducing the costs of tunneling will be essential to lowering the overall cost and the resistance to funding it…

  35. I thought he was doing great until he thought it best to inject the typical leftist, liberal superiority assumption by comparing Trump to social awareness. We are plenty aware you cuckolded mfker, aware that you cant do a single fkn day of the work it takes to construct your magical theories. But "breathlessly" keep elevating our mass enlightenment over your atomic race tracks.

  36. Hello, my name is Andrew and here it is.
    (unifying theory + key to darm matter adn fater the light communcation)

    i want to share with you, something i wasted my time on. The “First rule” of this universe.
    Eh…. it sound strange, but stay with me for a second. It deep, it really deep.
    This rule is – when energy exchange between two relative points occur, it happens along the path of least resistance. Everywhere, every time.
    The depth here – everywhere, every time. Even in black holes, the guide for evolution, for human behavior, every energy exchange, every time.
    Understanding this depth allow me to predict tomorrow much more precisely.
    Just think about it, how you move through your life, how the brain works. the behavior of animals and insects, any science. This rule in the core of absolute all.
    No one else can show it to you now.
    I want to shout about it from the highest bell tower! It will help people to move forward!

    a key to dark matter or no time for energy exchange
    short version
    Energy exchange limit or limit for two point to interact.
    it is a bit hard to write down this thought for me.
    if two points have relative speed more then speed of light, they not able to interact.
    but they can interact through the third point. (exactly like dark matter)

    1)You know how space can expand faster then light? And it also can curve?
    soo, it most likely can curve true it selfe. and this how it not interacting with it selfe.
    (in black holes space curveture length is extremely small)

    2) How many time need for Sun to exchange energy with you? soo every energy exchange take some "time".
    There for if two point have speed difference more then C, they will have no "time" to exchange energyx, have no "time" for exchange to occure.
    Even if they will share same place.
    also you may see it as, FLT parts in more then one place at a "time" compare to us. For FLT part we in less then one place at "time". (why mass go up)

    it more about interaction limin then about speed of light.
    can be tested, if we will represent a third point.

    long version
    -dark matter in our galaxy, (most likely particles emitted by central black hole)
    is particles that moving faster than light. (most likely you do not "belive" in this)
    if i assume it is correct, then big amount of hydrogen on edge of galaxy, is where this "dark matter particles" decay after losing speed. (decay like new particles from hadron collider)

    -parts of dark matter alredy found, but we do not about it. (perseption(particles from hadron collider))
    -particles found with hadron collider behave like a dark matter after loosing speed.
    -most likely there is a energy exchange speed limit in betwen two points (not sound speed),
    most likely it is a speed of light. (that about why we do not see dark matter, but see it interction with other(slower for it/faster for us) particles)
    -particles from hadron collider will be stable if placed in faster then light speed.

    whant to tell more, I hope this is enough to contact me.
    the key is a energy exchange speed limit
    (i want my Nobel for showing you dark matter)

    Best regards Dynin A.I.

  37. If they knew how to resonate a proton they wouldn't have to collidepolice them. That's the real trick imo, to create a state of animated suspension.

  38. Inspiring and important project that needs to be done. However, this shouldn't be our priority at the present moment. This money should be spent on research that focuses on eliminating plastic and fossil fuels and developing more sustainable ways of living on this planet.

  39. Harry Cliff is a fantastic teacher and an excellent public speaker. I really hope Ri will make a complete series of lectures by him on classical and modern physics. Please, please, please!

  40. 20:04 I guess coincidence that it has the same letters "YHWH" (God and creator)……and also called "The God Particle"……

  41. Saddens me that people say it's a waste of money. They don't care about finding the truth about reality nor the implications that might have. They only care about their selfish little lives, luckily these aren't the people who are carrying humanity on their shoulders like scientists… These are just people consuming resources and achieving nothing.

  42. May be particle colliding is not the way to go 😉 .. Who knows you need a collider as big as the earth's circumference to detect the particles predicted by supersymetry or m-theory ..? ? How do you know the bigger collider will give you better results. It might just get ridiculous after a while. Either your theory is incorrect or you do not know what to look for / where to look for / how to look for particles escaping into hidden dimensions (if they exist).

  43. They'l use high energy sound, something akin to microwave energy to manipulate the particles at point of collision and this will reveal another dimension or dark matter/energy. They will then be able to observe it for the first time without being able to interact with it directly for now. That will come later. We, as a species are on the precipice of transformational discoveries. It will push our understanding forward in way's beyond our current imagination with implication for Earth and space exploration. We'll come to learn that other dimensions exist within the same physical space….what we've historically held as the Heavens, we will learn are right here around and within us and everything we currently see.

  44. Why not build it in Mongolia? It's big, flat (mostly) and nobody cares much what happens there. Then there would be no need for tunneling, if it's built on poles above ground. Just make shure that cattle can pass below and that the nomads accept it. What would the mongolian presidend say if CERN asked if it was ok to build the worlds most advanced instrument in his country and move 100,000 of the worlds sharpest minds to his nation? He would scream with joy and do the Happy Dance.Lack of infrastructure and corruption might be a problem, but it's worth a thought.

  45. Democracy very very; committed to it and YEAH AM SO COMMITTED TO IT , TO WIN FOR sure .
    Please understand from óur own considered Lines

  46. Not trying to be funny but you must need perfect aim to crash 2 particles that are so small into each other! How does this work?

  47. We are on the cusp of major practical discoveries AI, super conductors, quantum computers, carbon nano tubes, the list goes on and on….. and on these things will change the entire world in thousands of ways maybe we should give this 50 billion to those projects so that the next collider we build could benefit from all those amazing (useful) technologies.

  48. Couldn't we have used all that LHC money to help disadvantaged people? Nah, I'm just kidding, science is more important.

  49. New finding from CERN LHC. –
    Particles remain neutral on the Swiss side of the accelerator and slow down and surrender on the French side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *