This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – brightrecruits.com can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today

Blog

Rebirth of the SSC?

The derelict site of the Superconducting Super Collider

Physicists entering the derelict site of the Superconducting Super Collider in 2011.

By Michael Banks

Following the closure of Fermilab’s 1 TeV Tevatron particle collider near Chicago in 2011 – and with no similar facility being planned to replace it in the US – many physicists in the country felt not surprisingly concerned that America was losing its place at the “energy frontier”. That baton had already passed to the CERN particle-physics lab near Geneva when its Large Hadron Collider (LHC) fired up in 2008, and with collisions set to restart there next year at 13 TeV, the US’s day looked certain to have passed.

Indeed, as we first reported three weeks ago, researchers meeting in Geneva last week discussed plans that would keep Europe at the energy frontier for decades to come with options for an LHC successor – a machine that would be even bigger and bolder that the 27 km-circumference LHC.

One new design tabled at the conference would involve creating a huge 80–100 km tunnel near Geneva that would house a new collider to study the Higgs boson in great detail. In the future, this tunnel could then be used to search for new particles by colliding protons at 100 TeV – much greater than the LHC’s 13 TeV.

However, a group of US physicists from Texas A&M University and Michigan State University is now proposing to wrestle back the energy frontier by constructing a huge accelerator in the US.

In a paper posted on the arXiv preprint server today, the researchers outline plans to use the partly constructed tunnel of the axed Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) just outside Dallas, Texas. Conceived in 1983, the SSC was to be the next big particle collider with a circumference of 87 km and a maximum collision energy of 40 TeV. But 10 years later the all-American project was cancelled, largely on grounds of cost, leaving a few buildings on the surface as well as tens of kilometres of tunnels deep underground.

Most of the cost of a new collider would be in excavating the tunnel, but the researchers claim that around 46% of the SSC tunnel has been already bored and some facilities built, such as the linear accelerator that feeds particles into the collider. This would then make it much cheaper than the CERN proposal.

The physicists point out that if the SSC tunnel were finished off, it could be home to a 240 GeV “Higgs factory” that would collide electrons with positrons to study the new boson in unprecedented detail.

But their plans don’t stop there. The researchers say that given its “soft consolidated cretaceous rock”, the site in Texas is an “ideal medium for large-bore tunnelling”. This same location could be home to a 270 km-circumference particle collider that could then host a 100 TeV proton–proton machine. The SSC tunnel would be used as an injector into the new 270 km tunnel. The authors add that in future the collider could even be upgraded to a 300 TeV machine.

There’s nothing like thinking big!

But if the plans do go ahead, there may be some clearing up to do first. During the 2011 March Meeting of the American Physical Society in Dallas, a group of “rogue” physicists (see image above) took a break from the gruelling conference schedule to break into the SSC’s derelict site. They found that the tunnels are well below the water table and are therefore flooded, while many unopened crates containing electronic equipment are just lying around.

Yet the authors seem serious about their plans and have submitted the document to a subpanel of Department of Energy’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, and are planning to discuss the proposal at a workshop at Fermilab in July.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

6 comments

  1. M. Asghar

    If in the end a new more powerful circular machine is chosen to replace the 14 TeV LHC, the CERN, due to its enormous technical infrastructure, will have a much better chance against the SSC-Texan site.

  2. Kurt Kohler

    Shouldn’t that be “rogue” physicists, not “rouge.” I’m not sure I want to go into what a rouge physicist might be.

  3. Dens Milne

    Indeed it is “rogue”, sorry about that. The text has now been corrected.

  4. Richard Shorter

    Go for it guys! There is nothing like competition to spur people on. I judge the economics as much cheaper tunneling costs partly offset by the cost of lining the tunnel and installing pumps. But, make you have triplicated power supplies to keep the pumps running in the event of lining failure. There will be a lot of expensive equipment down there.

    • chris in dallas

      I seem to recall an issue with fire ants. With crazy ants now making a beeline for North Texas (they make fire ants look like pets) one of their favorite things is insulation on electrical cables. Would keep exterminators busy full time.

      But I would love to see it. Would be a real shot in the arm for serious research and the jobs that go with it.

  5. Aditya Ghatak

    im all set for friendly competition..i mean,aernt we all??

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guidelines

  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="http://www.google.com">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="http://iop.org/">IOP</blockquote>
IOP
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux