Does it make sense to build a Future Cyclic Collider?


There is indeed a plan to replace the Large Hadron Collider with a new particle accelerator. The new accelerator will be 10 times larger and has received the working name of the Future Cyclic Collider (FCC).

I am very skeptical about these plans.

Any large scientific project, and indeed any large project, must have a clear and understandable field of application. Something like:

For the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), this XXX was

Now the guys designing the MCC want to spend $ 23 billion to build a new collider 10 times larger than the previous one. Okay, but what will XXX be in this case?

This is the main problem with the BCC. They say that with the help of the new collider it will be possible to observe the effects

The fact is that 23 billion is a huge amount of money. This money can fund an incredible amount of equally important research, which is almost guaranteed to give incredible practical results.

In an ideal world, where the budgets allocated for science are not limited by anything, the idea of such a collider would sound great. Yes, of course, let’s build. And I am sure that with his help we would have learned a lot.

However, in our imperfect world, I find it much more rational to spend funds on projects that have well-defined goals and have a good scientific basis, and clear approaches to obtaining results, than to throw away funds in pursuit of evidence of rather dubious theories. Moreover, when it comes to such amounts.