Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

America's Discarded Superconducting Supercollider

Article #166 • Written by Anthony Kendall

Deep beneath the plains of central Texas lies a catacomb of tunnels once meant to house the most expensive physics experiment ever devised. That experiment, the Superconducting Supercollider, would have revolutionized our understanding of the physical world by giving us our first glimpse of the "God Particle." And, proposed during the Cold War, it would have been a monument to the technological and scientific prowess of the Western world.

But in 1993 after investing over $2 billion dollars into the project, President Clinton and Congress cancelled it entirely. Highly sophisticated machinery and laboratories were simply sold to the highest bidder, and thousands of acres of empty land were parceled off and sold as well. All that now remains are 200,000 square feet of still-vacant factories and labs, and over 30 km of carved-rock tunnels slowly filling with water.

One of the most persistent mysteries of the Universe is why matter has mass at all. Physicists think they know the answer; a particle called the Higgs Boson, also called the "God Particle", is thought to exist that gives all other particles mass. Around this theoretical particle they constructed the glittering edifice of late-20th century physics known rather plainly as the Standard Model.

Despite its tremendous importance, the Higgs has never been observed in experiments. According to calculations, it exists in detectable form only at astoundingly high temperatures and pressures - similar to those of the first few seconds after the Big Bang. Particle accelerators smash sub-atomic scraps together to regularly recreate such conditions, but none exists powerful enough to actually see the Higgs.

Frustrated by this problem, physicists petitioned the Department of Energy in the early 1980s to create the most powerful particle accelerator in the world. As its name suggests, the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) was to be enormous in every single way. It would slam particles together with more than 20 times the energy of any other existing or planned device. The beam of protons and anti-protons it would produce would be 100 times 'brighter' than even today's most powerful accelerators. In order to control such tremendous energies, cutting-edge superconducting magnets would bend the beam around an oval-shaped beam tunnel more than 80 km in circumference.

Choosing the site for such an enormous facility was a country-wide effort involving geological and economic studies in 43 states. Though the process was a drawn-out political affair, the final choice seems a natural one; after all, everything's bigger in Texas! The main accelerator ring would be bored through the bedrock 200 feet beneath Waxahachie, Texas. Sleepy Waxahachie would have been completely transformed by the SSC. Labs and factories were to be built nearby to produce the superconducting magnets and provide the above-ground facilities for the SSC's considerable staff. Literally thousands of researchers, graduate students, and technicians would have been involved in running the machine and many would have been housed there.

Construction began in 1991, and by 1993 workers had dug over 30 km of tunnels. In order to bore through the sandstone and limestone beneath Waxahachie, a 15 foot diameter tunneling machine was created that literally chewed through the bedrock. Most of the ring tunnel would be a smooth-sided tube, but the giant particle detectors required cavernous galleries that had to be blasted out of the rock.

As work progressed on both the construction of the facilities and the design of the experiments themselves, expenses and projected costs rose precipitously. By 1993 the finished cost estimate was $8.25 billion; about the same as the projected cost of the International Space Station. Facing a bloating price tag on a program associated with his predecessor, President Clinton was never fond of the SSC. Without a presidential champion the deficit-weary Congress cut funding for the SSC entirely and chose to abandon the $2 billion that had already been spent.

Today the failure of the SSC project continues to cast a long shadow on the physics community. Had it been fully funded, it would have begun experiments by the late 1990s and produced results around the turn of the millennium. The capabilities it would have afforded scientists are still unmatched, even by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland which will not be fully operational for another few years.

Some say that the days of big particle accelerators may be gone for good. Though there are still a number of accelerators in operation, and others in construction and planning, none will push forward the boundaries of physics research as the SSC would have. Meanwhile, the needs of high energy physicists have only grown. The latest theories, including string theory, require accelerator energies greater than even the SSC could have produced in order to test their predictions.

The one piece of the SSC program that could not be sold or auctioned may prove to be the silver lining in this tale. After all, the Earth changes slowly - far more slowly than the whims of government-funded science. Should Congress and the President ever decide to revive the SSC, the tunnels beneath Waxahachie will be waiting.

Article written by Anthony Kendall, published on 18 April 2006. Anthony is a contributing editor for DamnInteresting.com.

Article design and artwork by Alan Bellows. Edited by Alan Bellows.
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


104 Comments
Carcer
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:01 pm

Let me get this straight...they wanted to build a machine that recreate engergies equal to or near those that theorized to be present just after the Big Bang? The Big Bang? The event that supposedly created the Universe, and they wanted the whole thing contained in a podunk town in Texas? Yeah...scientists are crazy. That is all.


rp2
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:16 pm

if you aske me, I blame Canada


aladfar
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:38 pm

Carcer: They'd be recreating a fraction of those energies on a tiny, tiny sub-microscopic scale. The goal is to observe and measure a single, infinitesimally small particle - the Higgs boson. Because if we can start to understand it, heck if we can just prove its existence, it will aid tremendously in understanding the universe.

I'm hardly a physicist (just an armchair layperson who's read the popular work of Hawking and Greene) but this is fascinating. Sad that we as a nation are unwilling to fund scientific inquiry, but are perfectly happy to finance military spending that dwarfs the cost of the SSC.


Carcer
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:46 pm

The Big Bang....EXPLAINED!

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Scientists are crazy. At least the military spending brings kids back home. Don't pretend they wouldn't send them out with out it, either. You know they would.


Carcer
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:47 pm

And no rp2. Do not bring Canada into this. I do not want Petey Williams on my arse.


aardvarkious
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:58 pm

If governments were not willing to do experiments science would not progress. If experiments hadn't been government funded 80 years ago, quantum theory would never have been refined. If quantum theory had never been refined, we wouldn't have technology like CAT scans, MRIs, Computers, and lasers (no CDs or DVDs). And wouldn't that be a shame?


LL
Posted 18 April 2006 at 01:17 pm

We could have had more than 10 of these colliders for the cost of the Iraq war. Seems like the priorities of the current, and past, administration are completely screwed up.


tza
Posted 18 April 2006 at 01:41 pm

aladfar said: "I'm hardly a physicist (just an armchair layperson who's read the popular work of Hawking and Greene) but this is fascinating. Sad that we as a nation are unwilling to fund scientific inquiry, but are perfectly happy to finance military spending that dwarfs the cost of the SSC."

No kidding, right? I had recently read an article as to how much $$ they are going to spend in the next 10 years on new aircrafts, ships and subs. The figures are monsterous.. they could build two of these AND afford sweet outfits for the workers.


joelion
Posted 18 April 2006 at 02:00 pm

Carcer said: "
In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded. "

ummm, no. That's what Fundies and other non-science folk would have you believe physists think, in order to make the Big Bang sound more impossible than it already sounds.

The truth is, in the beginning, there was EVERYTHING. It just existed in a singularity, and mostly consisted of energy. At the Big Bang, the everything that was already there was dispersed and transformed to matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed - it can just change state, to energy and back. The Big Bang still conforms to this rule.


another viewpoint
Posted 18 April 2006 at 03:50 pm

aardvarkious said: "If governments were not willing to do experiments science would not progress. If experiments hadn't been government funded 80 years ago, quantum theory would never have been refined. If quantum theory had never been refined, we wouldn't have technology like CAT scans, MRIs, Computers, and lasers (no CDs or DVDs). And wouldn't that be a shame?"

Life without CD's and DVD's? Let's see...first there were 78's, then there were LP's and 45's after that. Then we progressed to 8 tracks and from there to cassettes. We've been through 8" floppies, to 5.25" floppies and now as small as 3.5" floppies. So what you're saying...as long as the government keeps investing in science, it will continue to obsolete the computer and entertainment devices that we purchase to enjoy a little life. Where does this madness end? Can't we standardize on something for at least one (1) human life time?

Regarding the SSC, it can be said the Texas now has it's own deep tunnel project. They'll need it the next time a hurricane blows ashore and floods the state. Wouldn't be the worse thing. The state that has to have the largest everything can get it's state sized egos washed away too.

And if government didn't waste money, you might be able to live your life with some degree of financial security!


another viewpoint
Posted 18 April 2006 at 03:54 pm

Besides, this now makes the previous Damn Interesting article regarding the apartment made laboratory to prove the Hutchison Theory seem economically feasible. Where there's a way...there's a will!

Once again, technology derives humor (and sarcasm) and it all comes at the rate of enjoyment. Thanx DI!


white_matter
Posted 18 April 2006 at 04:17 pm

rp2 said: "if you aske me, I blame Canada"

Agreed. Most global, economical and social problems can be traced back to Canada. Kind of the"6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" of countries.

LL said: "We could have had more than 10 of these colliders for the cost of the Iraq war. Seems like the priorities of the current, and past, administration are completely screwed up."

Particle accelorators don't win votes. Not that a war nessessarily does but it shows apathetic people that their tax money is being used. People would rather hear about the conquering of a country than advances in quantum physics. The current and past administrations' priorities are exactly where everyone elses priorties are: self preservation and job security.


Graham
Posted 18 April 2006 at 06:14 pm

white_matter said: "Agreed. Most global, economical and social problems can be traced back to Canada. Kind of the"6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" of countries.

Particle accelorators don't win votes. Not that a war nessessarily does but it shows apathetic people that their tax money is being used. People would rather hear about the conquering of a country than advances in quantum physics. The current and past administrations' priorities are exactly where everyone elses priorties are: self preservation and job security."

Job security? Tell that to the thousands of workers put out of jobs because of the SSC shutting down. Not to mention the hit the economy took in that area. A good friend of the family was an engineer on that project, and his family was out of a job, and couldn't sell his house for a without lossing money.


bryon
Posted 18 April 2006 at 06:23 pm

..you know, they COULD use that boring machine to tunnel into Canada to invade us. Maybe even tunnel into the bottom of a lake to take our fresh water. Just sayin'.


Crispy
Posted 18 April 2006 at 06:27 pm

white_matter said: "Agreed. Most global, economical and social problems can be traced back to Canada. Kind of the"6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" of countries."

You are a complete and utter troll, sir.

Nobody bother responding to this guy, he's just trying to provoke you.


white_matter
Posted 18 April 2006 at 07:02 pm

Graham said: "Job security? Tell that to the thousands of workers put out of jobs because of the SSC shutting down."

I was refering to the job security of the president and his administration and definently not that of the electorite.

Crispy said: "You are a complete and utter troll, sir.

Nobody bother responding to this guy, he's just trying to provoke you."

Thank you, I certainly try.


pairanoyd
Posted 18 April 2006 at 07:09 pm

Carcer said: "The Big Bang….EXPLAINED!

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded.

Scientists are crazy. At least the military spending brings kids back home. Don't pretend they wouldn't send them out with out it, either. You know they would."

Yeah, brings them home alright. DEAD and in aluminum boxes.


pairanoyd
Posted 18 April 2006 at 07:10 pm

Carcer said: "Let me get this straight…they wanted to build a machine that recreate engergies equal to or near those that theorized to be present just after the Big Bang? The Big Bang? The event that supposedly created the Universe, and they wanted the whole thing contained in a podunk town in Texas? Yeah…scientists are crazy. That is all."

Please return to your beer and football. Nothing for you to see here, move along..


mrclean
Posted 18 April 2006 at 07:51 pm

Joelion said:
"The truth is, in the beginning, there was EVERYTHING."

hmm...and where did "everything" come from? There is plenty of science that proves a young earth, just the way the bible declares.

http://www.icr.org


bomber991
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:23 pm

Hey, I ate at a subway in Waxahachie before.


Joe Farrow
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:29 pm

Back to the Canadians, weren't they going to invade with number ot Pustans and Sihks?

Look at our logistics tail. All of the 7-11's and gas stations have been taken over by Sihks and Pshtans. Canada is now ready to strikea death blow. Our troops won't be able to muster without gasoline and rations will be unavailable.
Be afraid!


white_matter
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:35 pm

I know! How do you know what a Canadian spy looks like? They could be everywhere.

Sneaky Cannuks!


myname
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:21 pm

mrclean said: "Joelion said:

"The truth is, in the beginning, there was EVERYTHING."

hmm…and where did "everything" come from? There is plenty of science that proves a young earth, just the way the bible declares.

http://www.icr.org"

psuedo-science.


myname
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:25 pm

So...I read a bit more at the irc site and im downgrading my opinion of it to trash.

I apologize for the blunt and unessacarily harsh statement, but really....I gagged.


dJCL
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:25 pm

"blah blah... http://www.icr.org"

/me jumps around with my hand in the air!

"Can I feed the troll? Please?"

Anyway, you should all know the truth, the FSM created all these "scientific" things to confuse us, he just created the look that the earth is billions of years old, and the universe is the way it is because he could.(Please note that the use of he is in the non-gender specific way, as I do not personally know the gender of the FSM, of if he really has one...)

JC


myname
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:27 pm

dJCL said: ""blah blah… http://www.icr.org"


/me jumps around with my hand in the air!

"Can I feed the troll? Please?"

Anyway, you should all know the truth, the FSM created all these "scientific" things to confuse us, he just created the look that the earth is billions of years old, and the universe is the way it is because he could.(Please note that the use of he is in the non-gender specific way, as I do not personally know the gender of the FSM, of if he really has one…)

JC"

RAMEN!


scottmcl
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:53 pm

myname said: "hmm…and where did "everything" come from? There is plenty of science that proves a young earth, just the way the bible declares.

http://www.icr.org""

Do you need a life preserver? You seem to be drowning in your own ignorance.


karphi
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:35 am

If they exist, the little buggers will be around long enough for us to wait.

I love the natural world. Love it! I think we should pursue its mysteries. But, we are an arrogant species who thinks they need all the answers "now". Let's take care of a few, um, I dunno, a few million starving babies and so forth before we worry about theoretical specks that exist--and may only exist--in the rambling's sprawled on a prize-hungry physicist's chalkboard. And no, finding a subatomic particle isn't going to project us into some trekky utopia where our social problems are just a memory. Or maybe it would. But the gamble isn't worth it at this stage in humanity. Thank you Mr. Clinton.


Byrden
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:49 am

While I'm as curious as the next guy to see a Higgs, I think we should look for a cheaper, smaller way to get these high energies. Just because we haven't thought of one yet, doesn't mean we have to blow 8 billion dollars doing things the old way.

And as for the International Space Station, that's a total waste of money, and I defy anyone to argue otherwise.

And as for "young -earth creationism", there's plenty of evidence to prove the Bible is a fake, only about 50 years old. Let's hear it for "Young-Bible Forgerism"!


wh44
Posted 19 April 2006 at 01:57 am

I thought the crowd here had a scientific bent, but then I read all these supporters of creationism.

Here is a website for you: Project Steve


SparkyTWP
Posted 19 April 2006 at 07:14 am

karphi said: "If they exist, the little buggers will be around long enough for us to wait.

I love the natural world. Love it! I think we should pursue its mysteries. But, we are an arrogant species who thinks they need all the answers "now". Let's take care of a few, um, I dunno, a few million starving babies and so forth before we worry about theoretical specks that exist–and may only exist–in the rambling's sprawled on a prize-hungry physicist's chalkboard. And no, finding a subatomic particle isn't going to project us into some trekky utopia where our social problems are just a memory. Or maybe it would. But the gamble isn't worth it at this stage in humanity. Thank you Mr. Clinton."

The problem with this is two-fold.

First, it's impossible to predict how this research will affect us later on. I'm sure people 250 years ago thought that the research into electricity was useless. After all, what good for humanity could come from something that sets buildings on fire (Lightning) and shocks people (Static). The same goes for quantum mechanics or relativity. Without one, you wouldn't have the computer you're typing on, without the other you wouldn't have atomic energy, and both probably seemed useless at first. Basically, any research seems useless before any practical applications are found. Sure, it may be centuries before it's applied, or it could be months, no one knows, but it's important that the knowledge is gained.

Second, there will always be social problems such as crime, and poverty. If you waited for all these problems to be solved before you did any research, we'd still be using water mills for power. Unless you find a way to change eliminate free choice, they will always be around.

Anyway, what I'd trying to say is that all research is important. Picking and choosing just on what you think is practical later on will hurt us in the long run.


myname
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:09 am

scottmcl said: "Do you need a life preserver? You seem to be drowning in your own ignorance."

WOAH! I didnt say that! The exact opposite infact, Ive been grossly misquoted.


Carcer
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:22 am

The arrogance on this board is astounding. I never said that the Big Bang did or did not happen. I said that scientists are crazy. Crazy like test pilots, without whom we would all still be riding the rails to and from the coast. Crazy like explorers without whom we would be living the united states of wherever the hell our ancestors come from. Yes, I like science. Yes, I am a Christian. No they are not mutually exclusive. I am interested in the study of how God made it all work. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in science will ever be able to disprove God, even though some on this board may seem to think so. Even if you show me proof, an impossibility in true honest science, of a billions year old earth or the theory of evolution it wouldn't shake my faith. I'd just say fine, that's how God did it. You don't have to be closed-minded to be a Christian. In fact, that's how wars get started.

And by the way, "In the beginning, there was nothing. Then it exploded." Look at my name, find where it's from and read a book.

IDIOTS..gaaawd!


karphi
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:53 am

SparkyTWP said: "The problem with this is two-fold.

First, it's impossible to predict how this research will affect us later on. I'm sure people 250 years ago thought that the research into electricity was useless. After all, what good for humanity could come from something that sets buildings on fire (Lightning) and shocks people (Static). The same goes for quantum mechanics or relativity. Without one, you wouldn't have the computer you're typing on, without the other you wouldn't have atomic energy, and both probably seemed useless at first. Basically, any research seems useless before any practical applications are found. Sure, it may be centuries before it's applied, or it could be months, no one knows, but it's important that the knowledge is gained.

Second, there will always be social problems such as crime, and poverty. If you waited for all these problems to be solved before you did any research, we'd still be using water mills for power. Unless you find a way to change eliminate free choice, they will always be around.

Anyway, what I'd trying to say is that all research is important. Picking and choosing just on what you think is practical later on will hurt us in the long run."

The problem with that is one fold. :)
if we used that logic, we could justify spending 8 billion dollars studying the static effects of belly lint. And we could have teleportation superpowers with belly lint research. You never know...

I'm not against research, at all. I'm a huge supporter of it. But should congress spend an amount of money higher than the GDP of most African nations on a theoretical particle while people got to practicaly beg for cancer research grants? Or think how many students that amount of money could put through school--and think of the vast knoledge gained by that alone. I think you misunderstood my intention.


sierra_club_sux
Posted 19 April 2006 at 09:18 am

Clinton cut the program. Because of military spending? Clinton? Yeah, that Clinton was a real war monger...


Carcer
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:03 am

sierra_club_sux said: "Clinton cut the program. Because of military spending? Clinton? Yeah, that Clinton was a real war monger…"

Damn....I can't believe I didn't write that. CRAP!


Sandra Thurston
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:13 am

I've decided that is way more fun to read the comments before the articles. You people are killing me!!! Can't stop laughing! Thanks, for making my day a little brighter! Go Cannada!:)

http://spaces.msn.com/sandragenteboa/


Sandra Thurston
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:17 am

Sandra Thurston said: "I've decided that is way more fun to read the comments before the articles. You people are killing me!!! Can't stop laughing! Thanks, for making my day a little brighter! Go Canada!:)


http://spaces.msn.com/sandragenteboa/"

I meant: Go Canada!:)


SparkyTWP
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:40 am

karphi said: "The problem with that is one fold. :)

if we used that logic, we could justify spending 8 billion dollars studying the static effects of belly lint. And we could have teleportation superpowers with belly lint research. You never know…"

It wouldn't take 8 billion to research something like that. If it did, you should get your phd revoked. And besides, someone already researched it, and at a considerably less cost. Yes, spending all our national budget on research is irresponsible, there needs to be some money spent in trying to improve everyone's lives. But you can't dismiss some specific research because there's some social problem, because you can use the same reasoning to eliminate anything.

I'm not against research, at all. I'm a huge supporter of it. But should congress spend an amount of money higher than the GDP of most African nations on a theoretical particle while people got to practicaly beg for cancer research grants? Or think how many students that amount of money could put through school–and think of the vast knoledge gained by that alone. I think you misunderstood my intention."

Should karphi spend an amount of money higher than the paycheck of hundreds of africans combined on some DVD/videogame/TV/etc when there's.... You get the idea. Again, you can use this to eliminate just about anything. Beg for cancer research grants? Congress has given more money to the NCI than they have requested. The reason some individual labs get lower than expected funding is just because there's so many of them, and you can't responsibly fund them all. Yes, getting people through college is great, I would agree that it's a good idea. But rather than cutting some physics research to fund it, which amounts to very little of the budget, how about looking into cutting the hundreds of billions of useless government subsidies and waste.

Sorry if I come off as some hyper-defensive science nut, it's just that I hear these kind of arguments a lot and it's difficult for most people to understand why we're spending money on something that doesn't get immediate results.


Floj
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:55 am

I love how every article gets way off subject.

That and pie.


Bryan Lowder
Posted 19 April 2006 at 01:02 pm

Mmmmmmm.... pie.

I want to cry every time I think about the SSC. When they requested $60 million to put the project on life support, the gov'mint gave them $60 million to kill it quiescently.

When NASA was asked whether the money it spent would be better spent on social programs, they responded that their budget was about 1% that of the social programs in the US. If that money went to social programs, it would have little extra impact on the programs-- but it would have an enormous impact on space exploration and research.

Amen to SparkyTWP. Any field of inquiry, no matter how esoteric, may eventually affect our lives immesurably (paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke). Some speculated that Maxwell's equations could create Hertzian waves for communication. Telegraphers roared at the suggestion that money be spent on this pie-in-the-sky speculation when instant communications already existed. (Mmmm.... pie.) When the spark telegraph was invented, which could talk to ships at sea, guess which side became the "practical" ones?

Don't you compare the ultimate nature of matter and energy to belly button lint in importance! Science IS social work. It keeps our minds and societies expanding and creating. Other countries are beefing up their particle accelerator programs while we vie for time on their machines.

BTW, I think the article has some misprints. If by "God Particle" the author means the Cosmonon, I don't think the SSC would even get close. As I understand it, to get back to "Big Bang" conditions (to unify electric, weak, strong, and gravitational forces) would require a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way.

Also BTW-- I am a "Creationist" in that I believe God made everything. I also think the Bible isn't long enough to contain a lot of details about it. Genesis reads about like this: "In the beginning, God made a sphere, then the water came out of it and rock formed, then in Phase Three the sun and moon became visible, then in Phase Four He made plants, then animals, then human beings." In broad details, scientists would agree.


Anthony Kendall
Posted 19 April 2006 at 01:18 pm

Bryan, by "God Particle" I mean the Higgs Boson. If there is another particle that is referred to by that over-dramatic phrase I'd not be surprised. However, searching for God Particle on Wikipedia yields a page about the Higgs Boson, so I feel its use is justified.

Also, I did not intend to suggest that the SSC would unify the four forces at its energy level (20 TeV). Nor did I mean that it would recreate "Big Bang" conditions. I merely intended to say that the last time the Higgs Boson existed 'naturally' as a particle was very near the Big Bang in time, and that the SSC would recreate those conditions, some fraction of a second later.


Carcer
Posted 19 April 2006 at 01:20 pm

Bryan Lowder said: "Mmmmmmm…. pie.


Also BTW– I am a "Creationist" in that I believe God made everything. I also think the Bible isn't long enough to contain a lot of details about it. Genesis reads about like this: "In the beginning, God made a sphere, then the water came out of it and rock formed, then in Phase Three the sun and moon became visible, then in Phase Four He made plants, then animals, then human beings." In broad details, scientists would agree."

I agree. I also think it's arrogant when people talk about scientific "proof". What I remember about my first lesson in science back in grade school was that science is how we DISprove possibilities. This allows us to get to a narrowed selection of possible theories. There's no way to eliminate every other possibility in any instance, so...science can't prove shit.


Anthony Kendall
Posted 19 April 2006 at 01:42 pm

Carcer,
Excellent point. Science is incapable of truly proving something (mathematics, however, is quite capable of prooving theorems and the like). It can, as you said, rule out successive possiblities, but it's left to the realm of philosophy to speculate about truth. Science speaks only to what is most likely.

Now, on the other hand, you know something is not scientific if it cannot be disproven. There is quite a bit of psuedoscience masquerading as science that can be exposed by that simple axiom.


Carcer
Posted 19 April 2006 at 02:48 pm

Anthony Kendall said: "Carcer,

Excellent point. Science is incapable of truly proving something (mathematics, however, is quite capable of prooving theorems and the like). It can, as you said, rule out successive possiblities, but it's left to the realm of philosophy to speculate about truth. Science speaks only to what is most likely.

Now, on the other hand, you know something is not scientific if it cannot be disproven. There is quite a bit of psuedoscience masquerading as science that can be exposed by that simple axiom."

I think you mean that something is not scientific if it can't be TESTED. If the other were the case, then accurate statements would qualify as "not scientific".

That being said, I agree with the waring about the dangers of psuedoscience. Especially to those who are trying to "prove" God exists. It's called "Faith" for a reason. It really has no need of secular scientific proof. Just because we WANT everything to be explained, doesn't mean it can be.


interesting
Posted 19 April 2006 at 03:46 pm

@joelion

"Fundies" eh? Amazing how "Athies" always resort to name calling (bit of hypocricy to make a point).
Another thing that is extremely fascinating, is how people make huge statements such as "in the beginning there was EVERYTHING", without actually being witness to what they claim.

At least, people with faith ... only claim that they have faith, and that is all.


karphi
Posted 19 April 2006 at 04:02 pm

Carcer said: Just because we WANT everything to be explained, doesn't mean it can be.

Or should be.


Should karphi spend an amount of money higher than the paycheck of hundreds of africans combined on some DVD/videogame/TV/etc when there's…. You get the idea.

SparkyTWP, I wouldn't say you're hyper-defensive. In fact, the lint link might have made my day.:)
And I hear everything you're saying.
But, have you ever asked "karphi" if he's actually spent all his life savings to personally build shelters in a hostile, famine-stricken country because no government could, only to return to the US to be crapped on by the his own government? And the crapping on hasn't stopped since, I can tell you.
Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. (If it is, it could explain my severe uneasiness with stupid amounts of money thrown at something like the big hole in question). Assumptions are pretty easy to make. Good thang I gots me some DVD's an' dis here computer to distract me.

Oh, and God forbid American scientists have to wait in line to use foreign gizmotrons. We can't have those evil Swiss or whoever counting kaons before Americans do! That'd be an outrage! Nationalism and quantum mechanics are bedfellows that must never part!

Anyway. Somebody mentioned desert.


SparkyTWP
Posted 19 April 2006 at 07:05 pm

karphi said: "But, have you ever asked "karphi" if he's actually spent all his life savings to personally build shelters in a hostile, famine-stricken country because no government could, only to return to the US to be crapped on by the his own government? And the crapping on hasn't stopped since, I can tell you. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. (If it is, it could explain my severe uneasiness with stupid amounts of money thrown at something like the big hole in question). Assumptions are pretty easy to make. Good thang I gots me some DVD's an' dis here computer to distract me."

Make no mistake, I am not a fan of my government. I find it pretty embarassing to know how much it's capable of with its resources, and seeing how little it actually accomplishes.

I wasn't trying to say anything with the items I listed, they just happened to be the ones nearest to me at the time.


myname
Posted 19 April 2006 at 07:48 pm

interesting said: "@joelion


"Fundies" eh? Amazing how "Athies" always resort to name calling (bit of hypocricy to make a point).
Another thing that is extremely fascinating, is how people make huge statements such as "in the beginning there was EVERYTHING", without actually being witness to what they claim.

At least, people with faith … only claim that they have faith, and that is all."

At least science bases it's outlandish claims on some sort of observable data and not the shit I pull out of my ass.


Oax
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:34 pm

Carcer said: "I agree. I also think it's arrogant when people talk about scientific "proof". so…science can't prove shit."

So I'm guessing that you don't know how to avoid malaria. And I got the ouija board out and Galileo wants to talk to you...


Floj
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:01 pm

Carcer said: "Now, on the other hand, you know something is not scientific if it cannot be disproven. There is quite a bit of psuedoscience masquerading as science that can be exposed by that simple axiom."


I think you mean that something is not scientific if it can't be TESTED. If the other were the case, then accurate statements would qualify as "not scientific".

That being said, I agree with the waring about the dangers of psuedoscience. Especially to those who are trying to "prove" God exists. It's called "Faith" for a reason. It really has no need of secular scientific proof. Just because we WANT everything to be explained, doesn't mean it can be."

Is it wrong to attempt to prove his existence? I don't need proof that he exist but I'm still very curious about the workings of the universe. Perhaps, proving that God exist scientificaly would be achieving ultimate knnowledge. I'm not sure in the least but it would be cool.

I also saw interesting's comment after that (although I suppose that's a redundant statement) and found it interesting that he was so quick to lash out against the everything theory. Is it wrong to have an opinion? If you think about it; if the universe didn't start out with everything in some form, then where did we come from? (yes, I believe in God, and that he created the universe)

On another note; since when does faith have anything to do with a superconducting supercollider?! I personaly wish that the Heim-Droocher theory would get some more developement and testing. That stuff is awesome! Even though it doesn't taste as good as pie.


Jeremy
Posted 19 April 2006 at 10:14 pm

LL said: "We could have had more than 10 of these colliders for the cost of the Iraq war. Seems like the priorities of the current, and past, administration are completely screwed up."

Actually, we could have had 33 of them. And that's just at the war's current estimated cost; it's not over by quite a long shot.

I recall reading somewhere that roughly 50% of the world's scientists are working on military research. Does make you wonder what the world would be like if all that time, effort and money were being put towards less destructive efforts.


Edinburgh Girl
Posted 20 April 2006 at 04:41 am

What about the Big Bang itself! Some scientists are saying that it would have been impossible for the whole universe to have gone Bang all at once. They speak about big bangs happening all over the place.

The universe does what it does, and scientists are trying to work out exactly what it does. Alas, some of the information we were told in science to be fact, is only speculation......


another viewpoint
Posted 20 April 2006 at 05:04 am

Does it really matter whether we could have had 3 or 33 SSC's? Problem is, until the gov'ment can start thinking like "a business", it will continue to waste our hard earned dollars. When the US already had a collider, albeit a smaller one, why go off to a far away land to build a whole new ring...INCLUDING all the infrastructure needed to support it...when an infrastructure already exists that has been paid for?

I believe Fermi Lab in Illinois was also a candidate for the SSC. Fermi Lab had been around for years and I believe it's still in operation. So, instead of expanding an existing facility by adding another ring and saving other costs, it was decided to start a whole new "pet" project, costing billions of dollars, in some politicians back yard (probably in return for special favors). And what was the result of that special favor...in the end it was nothing more than...unemployment and a rather large hole in the ground. Thank you Uncle Sam.

I don't object to paying taxes...I object to seeing those monies wasted...whether it be for a bridge in Alaska that only couple hundred individuals use, or to study the sexual habits of primates, wars under false pretenses or greenfield SSC sites. Remember Sen. Proxmire from Wisconsin with his Golden Fleece Award? He had the right idea! Stop wasting money. You don't do it at home because you can't afford it. Why should your government be any different?


karphi
Posted 20 April 2006 at 07:30 am

This should probably be catagorized next to the recent article about the hotel in North Korea. At the end of the day, the two stuctures do, and represent, pretty much the same thing for their countries.


Jeremy
Posted 20 April 2006 at 07:49 am

myname said: "At least, people with faith … only claim that they have faith, and that is all.""

Um, don't Intelligent Design and Creation Science try to "prove" the existence of God and the truth of the Biblical creation account? That sure doesn't sound like faith to me.


Jeremy
Posted 20 April 2006 at 07:52 am

another viewpoint said: "Does it really matter whether we could have had 3 or 33 SSC's? Problem is, until the gov'ment can start thinking like "a business", it will continue to waste our hard earned dollars. "

The US government think like a business? Hmmm...

"Attention all US Citizens...your services are no longer required. We're giving your citizenship to India."


Carcer
Posted 20 April 2006 at 11:07 am

Oax said: "So I'm guessing that you don't know how to avoid malaria. And I got the ouija board out and Galileo wants to talk to you…"

Right....please re-read the post that you quoted that from. The WHOLE post, not just the sound bytes you took. Galileo is on my side of this.


Barry Kooda
Posted 20 April 2006 at 06:59 pm

HI,

I, along with other Texas explorers are having a bit of a debate on the accuracy of this article's account of 30km total tunnel completed distance and Wikopedia's stated distance of of 22km.... Aww...Screw all that!
Does anybody know how the heck to get INTO the actual tunnel? Both of the outer openings are sealed and burried but there must be some sort of maintenance entrance from one of the buildings or somewhere. If you know anyone who worked at SSC and might know the answer, please find out and pass it on.
Thanks!

Have raft / Will paddle


rad1025
Posted 20 April 2006 at 07:38 pm

LL says: Seems like the priorities of the current, and past, administration are completely screwed up.

It kills me that the Bush gets blamed because the Clinton admin withdrew it's support and the project was canceled.
Even though it was canceled before he was elected, it is Bush's fault some how?


Oax
Posted 20 April 2006 at 08:15 pm

Carcer said: "I agree. I also think it's arrogant when people talk about scientific "proof". What I remember about my first lesson in science back in grade school was that science is how we DISprove possibilities. This allows us to get to a narrowed selection of possible theories. There's no way to eliminate every other possibility in any instance, so…science can't prove shit."

I did read it. I don't understand this 'DISproving' thing like some kind of trial and error refinement. If possible, a proper experiment is actually two. one to prove it and one to disprove it, as in a control group. In science, something that is not proven is an idea or a hypothesis or a theory. No one is a tougher critic of a scientist than other scientists.
As far as arrogance, what is more arrogant than people creating a god in their own image? For example, four of the commandments deal with giving god his due. A god that could create everything would not be vain. Vanity is a human trait. And some animals, but at a different level.


Anthony Kendall
Posted 21 April 2006 at 08:12 am

Barry,
The total of slightly more than 30 km comes from the fact that 23 km of the main ring were dug, along with 4.6 km of the primary injector rings and varius lengths of service tunnels and the like (for a total of 30 km). The entire layout included a staged set of 4 "synchnotron" accelerators. The first was a 600 meter circumference ring called the Low Energy Booster. The second, the Medium Energy Booster was 4 km in diameter. The first two rings were mostly complete at the time of cancellation. The Third ring before entering the final accelerator was called the High Energy Booster, and would have about the energy of the Fermi Lab's Tevatron accelerator. That would then inject the rings into the primary 80km ring. The High Energy Booster ring was in the planning stages at the time of cancellation. Wikipedia, while a source of much good knowledge, is not necessarily the best source of knowledge. Check the HEP.net page for a more detailed account.

another viewpoint,
Fermi Lab's Tevatron ring, unfortunately, is far too small to house the SSC's primary accelerator. If the ring is too small, the radius of curvature of the ring is thus smaller. The amount of energy required to alter the flight path of a really quickly moving proton or antiproton increases as the radius of curvature of the ring decreases. In order to create the magnetic fields required for the SSC's incredible energies, the field of superconducting magnetics was already stretched to its limits. Also, bending very high energy charged particles in a smooth path requires near-perfect magnetic fields. The higher the energies of the fields, the more noticeable the various humps and bumps become. Not too mention that Fermi Lab's Tevatron is still operating and there is, therefore, no room on the premesis! Even CERN's Large Hadron Collider required a new tunnel to be constructed as well, even though a smaller and still very powerful accelerator exists on site already. While it would seem that there could be some administrative savings and so forth from setting up shop near an existing facility, these relatively minor savings were not enough to counter the election-year politics of the site-selection process!


Carcer
Posted 21 April 2006 at 08:19 am

Oax said: "I did read it. I don't understand this 'DISproving' thing like some kind of trial and error refinement. If possible, a proper experiment is actually two. one to prove it and one to disprove it, as in a control group. In science, something that is not proven is an idea or a hypothesis or a theory. No one is a tougher critic of a scientist than other scientists.

As far as arrogance, what is more arrogant than people creating a god in their own image? For example, four of the commandments deal with giving god his due. A god that could create everything would not be vain. Vanity is a human trait. And some animals, but at a different level."

Science is 100% trial and error. Any scientist worth his degree will tell you that.

Oh, and I didn't create my God, he created me. It's not my fault if he looks as good as I do. I guess he knows a good thing when he sees it ;)


myname
Posted 21 April 2006 at 08:43 am

Jeremy said: "Um, don't Intelligent Design and Creation Science try to "prove" the existence of God and the truth of the Biblical creation account? That sure doesn't sound like faith to me."

THATS WASNT ME! what with the misquotes???


Floj
Posted 21 April 2006 at 11:06 am

Now I know that God created me, but I can bake a mean pie.

And Anthony, this is an awesome article. You should share some pie with Alan and Cynthia for sure. I'll definitely send a virtual double scoop of whip cream for all of y'all.


http://www.gospodinx.com
Posted 21 April 2006 at 01:08 pm

I agree.


JustAnotherName
Posted 22 April 2006 at 06:16 am

another viewpoint said: "Life without CD's and DVD's? Let's see…first there were 78's, then there were LP's and 45's after that. Then we progressed to 8 tracks and from there to cassettes. We've been through 8" floppies, to 5.25" floppies and now as small as 3.5" floppies. So what you're saying…as long as the government keeps investing in science, it will continue to obsolete the computer and entertainment devices that we purchase to enjoy a little life. Where does this madness end? Can't we standardize on something for at least one (1) human life time?

I did my part. I never even owned a Walkman and certainly will not bother with an Ipod. As a matter of fact, if it were not for my having my own business a few years ago, I would have NEVER bothered with a computer at home. (As I am sure most of you wish I never had.) I always had access to a PC at work. Even when I did purchase this "thing", I logged onto the internet for the first time to look up something about Star Trek.


CharlesWT
Posted 22 April 2006 at 11:31 am

To bad the SSC was canceled before the tunnels were finished. Otherwise, Texas could have had the world's largest indoor velodrome. :)


Barry Kooda
Posted 22 April 2006 at 11:58 am

Hi Anthony,

I've already perused all the HEP documents including the tedius process of downloading the .ps extensions as .eps so I could open them but have found no information on possible tunnel access locations. I'm hoping that, by now, bats have claimed eminent domain and moved in but would sure like to take a trip through Texas' biggest tunnel of Love.
I was able to find some email addresses and contact information of some of the SSC's previous employees but haven't really pursued that route. The HEP site has some amazing photos that make the exploration of the tunnels even more enticing.
There's got to be a farmer out there somewhere with an enterance through his old woodshed or something.
Thanks, Anthony,
The search continues...


mercyonme
Posted 22 April 2006 at 11:51 pm

Charles Whelan in his book "Naked Economics" tells an anecdote about this. There were two sites considered for the project: Illinois and Texas. Illinois had similar projects that would have benefited from having this here particle accelerator nearby, as well as experts on this field at assorted university. Texas had George Bush (Sr.). You know who won.


Lati_V
Posted 23 April 2006 at 06:19 pm

It's a shame that the government cares more about defense and war than it does about scientific endeavors (not to mention the average U.S citizen). I guess NASA could use some private funding by rich people and private companies, (since the government won't do it) like the Ansari X Prize thing.


Anthony Kendall
Posted 23 April 2006 at 06:40 pm

Barry,
Sorry I've never had the pleasure to see the tunnels or the abandoned laboratory facilities. I'm sure they'd be an exciting place to explore, but could be quite dangerous. Becuase they are so deep underground, there may not be a natural means of access that doesn't require electricity. Thus, it may not be possible to descend into the tunnels without some type of assistance.

If you're still interested, check the map link in the article. Unfortunately, Google Earth only has a really low-res satellite image, so it's of no help. Good luck!


Byrden
Posted 24 April 2006 at 07:26 am

>> "Oh, and I didn't create my God, he created me."

Your mother might not agree.


Carcer
Posted 24 April 2006 at 10:01 am

Byrden said: ">> "Oh, and I didn't create my God, he created me."


Your mother might not agree."

Who do you think taught me about God?


oldhogger
Posted 25 April 2006 at 07:08 am

Carcer said: "Who do you think taught me about God?"

You just proved ignorance is bliss....

“I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood.” George Carlin. The only in tune faith was "Blind Faith" and they broke up. Say "hi" to Buddha when you are passing through.

The SSC would have helped and enlightened the entire world, but then again ignorance is bliss. Pie on the other hand is food for thought, eh!


Carcer
Posted 25 April 2006 at 10:43 am

Let me get this straight, am I ignorant because I have parents, or because I listen to them? I just want to know what the rules are here.

Fun fact: George Carlin and I share the same birthday, May 12th. He's brilliant. Then again, so am I.


oldhogger
Posted 25 April 2006 at 01:59 pm

Everyone is entitled to their religous views...congrats on sharing the birthday. but then again George Carlin is in rehab.

The original subject was the loss of the SSC. The world can always use new technology and it would seem to be money well spent. The SSC would have employed brillant people had it been completed.


sierra_club_sux
Posted 25 April 2006 at 06:48 pm

oldhogger said: "You just proved ignorance is bliss….

The SSC would have helped and enlightened the entire world, but then again ignorance is bliss. Pie on the other hand is food for thought, eh!"

Ohh the irony... ...SSC would have helped and enlightened the entire world... ...ignorance is bliss


Carcer
Posted 26 April 2006 at 12:23 pm

I agree that science has suffered recently. I, for one, want to know where the hell my apartment on the moon is. Wasn't "The Jetsons" supposed to be set in the 1990's?


Lati_V
Posted 26 April 2006 at 05:44 pm

Can we pleeeeeaaaaaaasssseeee stop arguing with athiests and get back on topic! I've learned that there is really nothing you can say to an athiest to get him or her to believe if they don't really want to believe (seeing that they will try to find fault in anything you say anyway). If they don't want to believe, then LEAVE THEM ALONE. Let's save that crap for some other website and get back to talking about the tragedy of the SSC. OK?


Carcer
Posted 27 April 2006 at 08:33 am

I thought we did.


mrdarklight
Posted 27 April 2006 at 03:26 pm

myname said: "hmm…and where did "everything" come from? There is plenty of science that proves a young earth, just the way the bible declares.


http://www.icr.org"

psuedo-science."

It is a stretch to call it pseudo-science. It's hardly even pseudo-religion.


EllaBrooklyn
Posted 01 May 2006 at 01:45 am

aardvarkious said: "If governments were not willing to do experiments science would not progress. If experiments hadn't been government funded 80 years ago, quantum theory would never have been refined. If quantum theory had never been refined, we wouldn't have technology like CAT scans, MRIs, Computers, and lasers (no CDs or DVDs). And wouldn't that be a shame?"

No obesity, nothing! That'd be a huge shame.


paalexan
Posted 02 May 2006 at 07:55 pm

"One of the most persistent mysteries of the Universe is why matter has mass at all. Physicists think they know the answer; a particle called the Higgs Boson, also called the "God Particle", is thought to exist that gives all other particles mass."

"How does X occur?" "By means of a means." All you have to do is give the means a name and, hey presto, you've solved it! Kant would be proud.


sassybrat
Posted 07 May 2006 at 12:45 pm

joelion said: "ummm, no. That's what Fundies and other non-science folk would have you believe physists think, in order to make the Big Bang sound more impossible than it already sounds.

The truth is, in the beginning, there was EVERYTHING. It just existed in a singularity, and mostly consisted of energy. At the Big Bang, the everything that was already there was dispersed and transformed to matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed - it can just change state, to energy and back. The Big Bang still conforms to this rule."

(with a texas accent...) you are lyin' to yourself!!!


boyhowdy
Posted 15 May 2006 at 02:08 pm

Byrden said: ">> "Oh, and I didn't create my God, he created me."


Your mother might not agree."

I'm glad you have your own god. Me, too. He's the one who wrote, "These six things doth the LORD hate ... A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Wow. [sigh] I'm truly intrigued as to why you would even be reading this (except that you may be looking for Rush to give you some sign that your simplistic Creationism is Right)1.
Wouldn't it be great if you had to expand your mind?
-J
(PS -- No, I didn't leave my whole name, only a "-J," becuase I care not enough about you. I was just curious about the SSC and, to my unfortunality, read what your feeble mind typed.)


Hayley
Posted 12 June 2006 at 11:36 am

Oh man...it so makes me want to go explore those underground tunnels. I bet they're phenomenal. They'd be cooler if they were working though....


tigoldbitty
Posted 11 July 2006 at 09:04 pm

joelion said: "ummm, no. That's what Fundies and other non-science folk would have you believe physists think, in order to make the Big Bang sound more impossible than it already sounds.

The truth is, in the beginning, there was EVERYTHING. It just existed in a singularity, and mostly consisted of energy. At the Big Bang, the everything that was already there was dispersed and transformed to matter. Matter can neither be created or destroyed - it can just change state, to energy and back. The Big Bang still conforms to this rule."

I don't love you anymore! You are smelly. Eat your spinach. But seriously folks, singularity? That's a cop-out. Anything lacking explanation can be called a singularity, thus making the explanation "singularity". The "universe" (oh my gosh, this is such garbage that it makes me sick) need not be 1; now we have singularities. Anything can happen at any given time with a given (unknown) probability, so lets have universes that cluster like fish eggs. Maybe that emperically constructed model will suite the explanation as to why everything is the way it is. No, lets invent something better. How about strings? Come on!

Any theorist knows that his ability to make accurate observations, measurements and enough of each determines the testability of his theory and therefore its validity (probability). What we are now saying is that anything that could work might as well work, based upon the small picture we can see anyway. Who cares? Lets do something useful guys! Lets eat some spinach. Its good for us. Plus it's one of the cruciferus vegetables. My mom told me that. She's into that kind of crap. She cares about me and junk.

I'm for the most useful theory whose true advocates claims to be ultimately true - Creationism. Well, actually Christianity. Ok, lookin for a fight among "scientists". Who's up for a fight? I can bang with you if you want, or you can give up now.

Oh yeah, this project was a waste of money.


tigoldbitty
Posted 14 July 2006 at 06:01 pm

This sucks.


Zamemee
Posted 26 October 2006 at 08:34 pm

You know what all these comments prove? People sure do know how to bitch.


Didoka
Posted 14 November 2006 at 06:20 pm

ardna
Posted 03 February 2007 at 02:16 pm

Ah, Waxahachie. There is a renaissance festival there. When I first heard of the abandoned supercollider, my first though was "Oh fun! Now it can be a tourist trap!" I live 2 counties to the West of Waxahachie.

Waxahachie Downtown

Scarborough Fair


a1c
Posted 09 August 2008 at 03:34 pm

I'd buy up the tunnels and use them as warehouse space for wine, data, etc.


rowdiebryan
Posted 20 August 2008 at 01:56 pm

So, has anyone found a good map or an entrance down to the tunnels? I actually live in Waxahachie and have been out to the site, but I have not ventured beyond the gate. I would lvoe to know more. I actually ship TBM's for contractors all over the US. I have seen them up close, they are awsome, but I would lvoe to venture into the tunnels. If anyone has any info please email me at rowdieone@yahoo.com If there is a group who goes down I would love to go at least once.


blackzeroflame
Posted 19 October 2008 at 07:52 pm

The entire reason I live in Texas is actuall the direct cause of the Supercollider. My dad was the head of the magnetics department and we moved to Hachie when I was about 3 years old (my dad was living there shortly after I was born.) It's pretty amazing to see an article about a project that impacted my life so strongly. I've actually been in the tunnels, and have been around much of the complex. My older brothers even learned how to drive out at the old abandoned lots. We used to launch model rockets out there and fly radio-controlled airplanes. My dad's even got one of the magnets from the project, it is incased in plastic, and we use it as a paper weight.

As for entrances to the tunnels, as far as I know, they've all be sealed. I belive the tunnels have been filled with cement, but I could be wrong. I think they've started to convert the old buildings into office space or something.


Albpoolshark
Posted 21 December 2010 at 09:01 pm

wow i came here looking for intelligent comments that would further help me research supercolliders... and all i found was crap, although it's well spoken

what's the phrase? you can polish a turd...

oh and don't bother arguing with each other (creationists and evolutionists) because i really doubt anyone here will actually "convert" someone else... let alone over the internet where people's thoughts are unfiltered (mine too) and harsher than what would be said if two people were face to face


Dr.Scholz
Posted 19 November 2011 at 01:44 pm

I grew up in Waxahachie Tx and we knew all the entrances to the under ground tunnels. we would throw huge parties and play paintball under ground. one of my friends actually broke into the building. he said the building was filled with old police records.


sparkyfour4
Posted 03 June 2012 at 04:54 pm

Damn! Can't you all understand? Building this thing would leave the rest of the world in the dust. It could lead to antigravity and traveling interstellar just on it's basic premises. W are so far behind now that I am ashamed of our country for not having a leader with a backbone. We could be traveling to other stars and planets within this century if we would get off our asses...improve our education especially related to science and technology and get the job done!
Everyone keeps heralding the graces of the CERN and it LHC. ITS A JOKE COMPARED TO WHAT WE COULD DO! Ours would be able to reach 3 to four times the power of the Large Hadron Collider. I am so ashamed. We will never see interstellar space in our lifetimes at this rate!

Spark


bbobb
Posted 07 July 2012 at 12:47 pm

And now, the very big news about very small particles-- July 4th 2012, it was announced that the Higgs boson has been discovered at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Although most people don't understand it, it is HUGE news in the field of physics. They did have the advantage of "upgrading" an existing collider tunnel to reduce expense, and it cost about $110 billion over 2 years.


Caud
Posted 09 April 2013 at 12:39 pm

Damn shame lots of minors that came from all over the country to work this project, got lay off slips with short notice.I know, I was one of them. I can name most of the minors in these pictures. We all invested lots of money to move our families to Waxahachie, bought homes. Then with a whim the goverment shut it down. We was ahead of schedule and below budget. We needed about 6 months more to give them all the tunnel work. Then they would of had a usable product, now they just got useless huge holes in the ground.


David
Posted 19 April 2014 at 03:55 pm

I really think the whole thing was smoke and mirrors..to throw people off the track on what they were really doing in Waco! Dump all that money into a hole in the ground and then deside to close it down and do nothing with it? Our government and Military had other plans for it from the start. Have you tryed to go there? Did the Armed Guards let you in? Wake Up!


abc
Posted 10 May 2014 at 06:46 am

Have you ever considered the difference between energy and energy density?
Obviously not...


Reid Glanzer
Posted 19 August 2014 at 09:04 pm

Carcer said: "Let me get this straight...they wanted to build a machine that recreate engergies equal to or near those that theorized to be present just after the Big Bang? The Big Bang? The event that supposedly created the Universe, and they wanted the whole thing contained in a podunk town in Texas? Yeah...scientists are crazy. That is all."

Scientists aren't evil they crash protons together to see their internal parts when they crash together at nearly the speed of light and it is a marvel of human intellect that they can even pull this off you ass. Be at least intelligent enough instead of an ass. please beleive to understand that America gave up on this dream so they could cut spending after investing 15 million dollars on a project they abandoned so we couldn't achieve this same goal and forget scientific progress after landing on the moon and splitting the atom. STUPID FUCKING POLITICIANS.


Reid Glanzer
Posted 19 August 2014 at 10:09 pm

I correct not protons but photons. light ain't a positive charged atom, only has the potential to be one (e=mc2) secret of the stars.


END OF COMMENTS
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.