beecee Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 How about the re-establishment of the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) in the US which was cancelled, (budget concerns??) This was proposed to be much larger then the current LHC. How far were they into it before construction was stopped? Is there any chance/hope of re-commencing construction? What was the actual size? How much more insight into the early moments of the universe would it have achieved in relation to the LHC and the Higgs?
Outrider Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 SSC The Desertron! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Quote Its planned ring circumference was 87.1 kilometers (54.1 mi) with an energy of 20 TeVper proton and was set to be the world's largest and most energetic. It would have greatly surpassed the current record held by the Large Hadron Collider which has ring circumference 27 km (17 mi) and energy of 6.5 TeV per proton. Chemical company Magnablend bought the property and facilities in 2012, against some opposition from the local community.
bimbo36 Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 If you setup some sort if chemical lab near LIGO like experiments , would you be able to detect the "type of particles" in a gravitational wave ?
Moontanman Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 I would conduct Miller–Urey experiment type experiment using chemicals other than the main ones used by Miller-Urey, Maybe Boron instead of carbon, ammonia instead of water, or methane replacing water...
Airbrush Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) I would take 2 large, diverse groups of people. Have one group eat a strict, healthy diet and get regular exercise, and the other group encouraged to eat all the junk foods they want and no exercise required. After 20 years compare the difference in overall health and the expense for their health care. Edited September 12, 2017 by Airbrush
CharonY Posted September 12, 2017 Posted September 12, 2017 Investigate whether switching the granting system (funding high-scorers based on reviews and panel evaluation) to a more simplified, partially randomized system would actually impact research output and quality.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now