1

China Super Collider, part two

Copyright © April 15, 2017 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

Note: Chinese translation is available at bottom

In our last article (China-Super-Collider-part-one, 中国“超级对撞机工程”争论的

意见 1; http://www.pptv1.com/?p=990 ), we have pointed out two points.

One, no new physics of any kind (discovering new particles or new physics laws)

sits below (within) 100 Tev according to all the data (LHC, Lux, IceCube, LHCb,

EDM, Fermi-satellite, etc.) released in March 2017.

Two, why America is DEFINITELY not building a 100 Tev p-p collider, while a tunnel

for it is 100% ready?

Thus far, no one addressed these two issues above while the proponent of the 超

级对撞机工程 has showed that 3 Nobel Laureates of physics (Steven Weinberg,

David Gross, and Sheldon Lee Glashow) are supporting this Chinese project. There

are two very, very simply issues here.

First, if this 100 Tev project is so great, why are they not pushing USA on the

project as there is already a perfect tunnel ready (that is, 70% of the cost is

already paid for). “Mistake is the mother of success” is a phrase shared both in

China and in the West. If the cancellation of the SSC was a great mistake in terms

of LHC great success, why is not a great time for American to right that grave-

mistake now?

Second, do all these three Nobel Laureates truly believing that a 100 Tev pp

collider can discover any new physics? The answer is NO for all three of them.

They just hope that Chinese can be an idiot to take up this stupid job. Thus, I will

2

analyze their article in detail to show this point (the links of their articles are

attached).

They all three talked about three points.

One, there are still a lot of mysteries in physics, and we need a new tool to

investigate them.

Two, there are many spin-offs from the basic-science research (although it itself

might not provide any direct economic benefit immediately).

Three, this could be a great chance for China becoming the leader in the particle

physics field.

I will quote their precise words on these issues.

Do they (three) convinced that 100 Tev pp collider is a right tool for answering the

mysteries? Do they give any calculation (what % chance) for this machine to

discover any new physics?

First, Steven Weinberg: for the entire article, see https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/28/interview-with-nobel-laureate-steven-weinberg-discussing-

high-energy-colliders/

{But, although there are several other phenomena of great importance that might

be discovered at the LHC, including dark matter particles and superpartners of

known particles, we have no strong reason to suppose, even if they exist, that

they would be within the reach of the LHC. We will just have to wait and see.}

{The LHC has been a great success, with the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Whatever the LHC’s chances for further important discoveries, it is clear that the

much greater energy of the SSC would have provided a better chance for the

future.}

3

No, Weinberg did not say a single word about a 100 Tev pp collider will definitely

discover anything new.

Second, Sheldon Lee Glashow: for the entire article, see

https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/23/interview-nobel-laureate-sheldon-

glashow-discussing-future-high-energy-colliders/

{We need a Higgs factory to verify that the properties of the particle found at LHC

are just those expected in a one-Higgs standard model.}

{We [America] have no plan to construct a new forefront particle accelerator at

any time in the foreseeable future.}

{All in all, Chinese particle physics has experienced a remarkable growth spurt, as

is both befitting and essential if China is to host the Great Collider.}

{China can easily afford to build and operate the proposed facilities.}

{CEPC and SPPC will make China the world hub of particle physics.}

Did Glashow push a 100 Tev pp collider with any science (physics) argument? A

big NO.

Third, David Gross: for the entire article, see

https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/19/why-china-should-build-the-great-

collider-a-response-to-c-n-yang/

Being a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science, Gross gave a much

more detailed argument on this issue, as follows:

{I am very excited by the scientific potential of the Chinese collider project, and as

a friend of Chinese science and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of

Science I am very excited about the many benefits that this project will produce

for China.}

{Some of the deepest of these mysteries revolve around the Higgs boson, a

particle unlike any we have discovered before. The answer to a very basic

4

question about the Higgs — is it point-like, or does it have substructure? —

will force fundamental physics down radically different paths in the coming

decades. The LHC will not answer this question; a new particle accelerator is

needed to decisively settle the issue. This is precisely what the Chinese

collider project will do.}

{The machine currently being proposed by Chinese physicists is the “CEPC”, a

large electron-positron collider, between 50 -100 km in circumference. The CEPC

will function as a “Higgs factory” and settle outstanding questions about this

deeply mysterious particle.}

{The central physics case for both the CEPC and the SPPC have little to do with

speculations about supersymmetry and much to do with deeply understanding

the mysteries of a particle we know exists — the Higgs.}

{The CEPC has a rich and detailed experimental program that will either reveal

substructure for the Higgs, or allow us to conclusively decide that the Higgs is an

elementary particle on the same footing as quarks and leptons. The guaranteed

physics of the SPPC is similarly centered on the Higgs: it will determine whether

the Higgs looks point-like to itself.}

{Of course, the prospect of the SPPC following the CEPC adds significantly to the

excitement and scientific potential of the CEPC project, but any concrete decisions

about proceeding to the SPPC cannot be responsibly made till over a decade from

now.}

{As we have already stressed, beyond this [CEPC] it is not possible to make

responsible estimates for the cost of the SPPC, which depend on the development

of various new technologies in the coming 10-20 years.}

Did Gross say a single word above that 100 Tev pp collider has any chance (any %

of chance) to discover new physics? No, not a single word.

By all means, Gross has a new heart after his SUSY-bet loss, as he said: {it’s a good

time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them:

‘Don’t follow your elders. … Go out and look for something new and crazy and

5

powerful and different. Different, especially.’ That’s definitely a good lesson. But

I’m too old for that.} So, he repeatedly emphasized that this new Chinese project

is not a SUSY machine but is a Higgs factory only (as CEPC), and the SPPC is an

issue which he does not want to talk about, being at least 20 years away.

But, this is truly misleading. No, the original goal of the Chinese project is not as a

Higgs factory, and SPPC will definitely not be a good tool for investigating the

“Composite Model (CM)”.

It is very good for seeing Gross now finally giving up on the SUSY and trying to

embrace the CM. But, the difference between SUSY and CM is bigger than the

difference between Heaven and Hell.

It is consensus that SM (Standard Model) is incomplete, with many illnesses. And,

they are two possible ways to fix the problems.

One, horizontally, there is a SUSY world existing horizontally with this matter

world and keep it in balance. That is, SUSY stays above the space-time fiber.

Two, vertically, there is a substructure underneath the quark/lepton level; that is,

quark/lepton are composited. And, this additional level accounts for all the

mysteries. This substructure sits below the space-time fiber.

Thus, the ways of investigating the two are completely different, requiring

different tools.

SUSY like particles can be produced with sledge hammer-type tool, and pp-

collider is a great particle sledge hammer.

6

On the other hand, any below the space-time substructure can be best

investigated with mattock (pulaski)-like tool to penetrate and to tear up the

space-time fiber.

And, the muon-collider (MC) will be a great mattock (pulaski)-like tool. While USA

is pushing the muon-collider with full-speed, why Gross is not pushing MC as a

Chinese program? Obviously, Gross is still hoping for the miracle on SUSY. He

wrote: {Of course the SPPC will also explore much higher energies, and will have

the power to produce new particles [as SUSY] that are nearly ten times heavier

than can be produced at the LHC. It will certainly continue the search for

supersymmetry (amongst other things), precisely because supersymmetry is

currently a hypothesis.}

Roughly, we can divide human constructions into four categories.

7

One, tool: with definite utility mission, such as, house, high way, vehicle, etc.

Two, toy: for unlearned to learn.

Three, art: to express the human spirituality, above the utility.

Four, tomb: to house the dead.

Beijing Electron-Positron Collider (BEPC) was a toy by design. So, it has produced

absolute nothing (a big zero), and it is expected and excused. But, the 100 Tev pp

collider can never be claimed as a toy while all the data and evidences already

guarantee that it will produce absolute nothing (a bigger zero); as SPPC is

definitely a SUSY machine while SUSY is definitely dead below 100 Tev.

So, SPPC cannot be a tool for new physics. It will be a joke as a toy. It is simply a

tomb which house the dead dream of a wrong physics (SUSY).

They three also emphasized one ‘non-science’ argument: {this could be a great

chance for China becoming the leader in the particle physics field.}

The future of the particle physics is on the muon-collider, not pp-collider. The best

physicists will not waste their live with a dying project. Only the third and fourth

level people will use this kind of dying project as their welfare check department.

They three also used ‘Spin-offs’ in their argument, with the most famous example

of {CERN invented WWW}. We will discuss this issue in a future article.

8

中国“超级对撞机工程”争论, PART 2

龚天任 李小坚

Translated on April 16, 2017

在我们的上一篇博文中，“关于 中国 “超级对撞机工程”争论的意

见 2” ; http://www.pptv1.com/?p=990 , 我们已经指出了以下两点。

（一）2017 年三月新发布的所有数据（LHC，Lux，IceCube，LHCb、EDM、

费米卫星等）表明了, 在 100 TeV 范围内, 没有任何新的物理 粒子或新的物理

定律 。

（二）甚至，在地下隧道都已经 100%准备好了的情况下，为什么美国绝对

不建一个 100 TeV 的 P-P 质子对撞机？

一、国际大咖的观点

到目前为止，没有人对上述两个问题进行详细解读。同时，超级对撞机工程

的支持者表明，有 3 位诺贝尔物理奖获得者 (温伯格，戴维·格罗斯，和谢尔

登·格拉肖)，都支持中国的这一大项目。

但是, 这里有两个非常非常简单的问题：

第一， 如果这 100 TeV 的项目是如此意义重大，他们为什么不让美国来

建设这个项目。而且，美国已经俱备了一个完好的地下隧道（即

70%的成本已经支付）。

9

“错误是成功之母”在欧美地区流行。 它与中国的“失败乃成功之母”,

是一个人类通用的共同观点。如果美国在 1993 年取消了 SSC 项目是

一个巨大的错误，而 LHC 被认为是一个巨大成功，为什么今天美国

不纠正自己犯下的严重错误？

其次，所有这三位诺贝尔奖获得者, 是否真的相信 100 TeV 的质子对撞机能够

发现任何新的物理？答案是否定的！或许他们只是希望中国人去做这个愚蠢

的工作。因此，我将详细分析他们的文章来说明这一点。

今天我们来看看国际物理大咖的观点：

温伯格，戴维·格罗斯，和谢尔登·格拉肖，他们三人谈论了三点：

1，物理学中还有很多未解之谜，我们需要一个新的工具来研究它们。

2，基础科学研究尽管它本身并不能立即提供任何直接的经济效益，但有可

能发现出许多衍生副产品。

3，这是中国面临的难得的机会，可使中国成为粒子物理领域的伟大领导

者。

我们将链接他们的文章看看，温伯格，戴维·格罗斯，和谢尔登·格拉肖，他

们三人是否真的相信，100TeV 质子对撞机是能够发现物理奥秘的正确工具

吗？他们有没有计算出这台机器可以发现任何新的物理机制的概率或机会？

在这些问题上，我们将引用他们说过的话来表明他们确切的意见：

首先，温伯格：整篇文章，请参见

10

https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/28/interview-with-nobel-laureate-steven-

weinberg-discussing-high-energy-colliders/

{But, although there are several other phenomena of great importance that might

be discovered at the LHC, including dark matter particles and superpartners of

known particles, we have no strong reason to suppose, even if they exist, that

they would be within the reach of the LHC. We will just have to wait and see.

虽然，LHC 大型强子对撞机有可能发现一些很重要的现象，包括暗物质粒子

和已知粒子的超对称粒子。但是，我们没有很强的理由対此抱着太大的希望

(即使它们 (SUSY) 是 存存 在的) 。我们只能等着看。}

{The LHC has been a great success, with the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Whatever the LHC’s chances for further important discoveries, it is clear that the

much greater energy of the SSC would have provided a better chance for the

future. 随着希格斯玻色子的发现，LHC 取得了巨大的成功。不知 LHC 是否

有机会获得进一步的重要发现? 很显然，更大能量的超级对撞机 SSC 铁定可

以提供更好的机会。} 註: 可惜 SSC 早被取消。

温伯格并没有说 100 TeV 对撞机, 肯定会发现什么新东西。关于发现新物质粒

子的事, 一个字也没有说！

再看谢尔登·格拉肖的整个文章，看：

https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/23/interview-nobel-laureate-sheldon-

glashow-discussing-future-high-energy-colliders/

{We need a Higgs factory to verify that the properties of the particle found at LHC

are just those expected in a one-Higgs standard model. 我们需要一个希格斯工

厂来验证 LHC 上发现的粒子的属性，确实是一个希格斯标准模型中所期望的

那些特性。}

11

{We [America] have no plan to construct a new forefront particle accelerator at

any time in the foreseeable future. 我们 [美国]没有计划在可预见的将来, 來建

造一个新的前沿粒子加速器。}

{All in all, Chinese particle physics has experienced a remarkable growth spurt, as

is both befitting and essential if China is to host the Great Collider. 总之，中国粒

子物理经历了显著的增长，如果由中国來主建大对撞机, 是适合和必要的。}

{China can easily afford to build and operate the proposed facilities. 中国可以轻

松的建造和运营这些设施。}

{CEPC and SPPC will make China the world hub of particle physics. 中国的 CEPC

与质子对撞机将使中国成为粒子物理的世界中心。}

谢尔登·格拉肖对 100 Tev 大对撞机, 是否会撞出什么? 说出了 任何物理学的或

科学意义的论点吗？绝对没有！

第三、戴维·格罗斯：对于整篇文章，请看

https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/19/why-china-should-build-the-great-

collider-a-response-to-c-n-yang/

作为中国科学院的外籍院士，戴维·格罗斯在这个问题上作了更详细的论证与

说明，如下：

{I am very excited by the scientific potential of the Chinese collider project, and as

a friend of Chinese science and a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of

Science I am very excited about the many benefits that this project will produce

for China. 我对中国对撞机项目的科学潜力非常兴奋。作为中国科学的一个

12

朋友和一个中国科学院外国成员，这个项目对中国将产生的许多好处，对此

我很兴奋。}

{Some of the deepest of these mysteries revolve around the Higgs boson, a

particle unlike any we have discovered before. The answer to a very basic

question about the Higgs — is it point-like, or does it have substructure? — will

force fundamental physics down radically different paths in the coming decades.

The LHC will not answer this question; a new particle accelerator is needed to

decisively settle the issue. This is precisely what the Chinese collider project will

do. 这些奥秘中最深的部分, 围绕着希格斯玻色子。它是不同于我们之前发

现过的粒子。关于希格斯的一个非常基本的问题是: 希格斯粒子是一个点粒

子，还是它有子结构？这問題, 将使基础物理学在未来的几十年里，彻底改

变完全不同的路子。LHC 不会回答这个问题，需要一个新的粒子加速器来解

决这个问题。这正是中国对撞机项目所要做的。}

{The machine currently being proposed by Chinese physicists is the “CEPC”, a

large electron-positron collider, between 50 -100 km in circumference. The CEPC

will function as a “Higgs factory” and settle outstanding questions about this

deeply mysterious particle. 目前由中国物理学家提出了 “CEPC” ，一个大型正

负电子对撞机，周长在 50 - 100 公里之间。它将作为一个“Higgs 工厂”, 并解

决神秘粒子有关的悬而未决的问题。}

{The central physics case for both the CEPC and the SPPC have little to do with

speculations about supersymmetry and much to do with deeply understanding

the mysteries of a particle we know exists — the Higgs. 在 CEPC 和 SPPC 物理的

中心論証 (使命), 与研究 “超对称性粒子猜测” 不太相关 。主要是, 对神秘的

希格斯粒子做更深入的了解。}

{The CEPC has a rich and detailed experimental program that will either reveal

substructure for the Higgs, or allow us to conclusively decide that the Higgs is an

elementary particle on the same footing as quarks and leptons. The guaranteed

13

physics of the SPPC is similarly centered on the Higgs: it will determine whether

the Higgs looks point-like to itself. CEPC 具有丰富和详细的实验計劃，将揭

示希格斯的结构，或让我们最终决定希格斯的地位，是否与夸克和轻子是同

一种基本粒子。SPPC 物理的使命, 同样集中在希格斯：它将决定希格斯, 是否

是点状的 (還是有内部結構)。}

{Of course, the prospect of the SPPC following the CEPC adds significantly to the

excitement and scientific potential of the CEPC project, but any concrete decisions

about proceeding to the SPPC cannot be responsibly made till over a decade from

now. 当然，有了 CEPC 之后, SPPC 铁定有更加了令人兴奋的前景。但 (我) 不

能対 SPPC 做出任何 负责任且具体的判断。畢竟, 它是十多年后的事情。}

{As we have already stressed, beyond this [CEPC] it is not possible to make

responsible estimates for the cost of the SPPC, which depend on the development

of various new technologies in the coming 10-20 years. 我们已经强调，除 CEPC

之外, 不可能対 SPPC 作出负责任的成本估计，这取决于在未来 10-20 年各种

新技术的发展。}

以上戴维·格罗斯的观点，没有一个字说明 100 TeV 的大对撞机, 有任何机会

发现新的物理粒子？真的没有，一个字也没有！

二、真实情况

总之，戴维·格罗斯在他的 SUSY 粒子赌局输了后，他转换了他的态度。他

说：这可是一个教育年轻人的好時刻。告诉他们：“不要跟你的长辈走。要出

去寻找新的、疯狂的、强大的、不同的东西。特别是与现在完全不同的理

论，这绝对是一个好教训。但是我太老了。”

14

因此，他现在反复强调，中国这个新的项目, 不是一个 “发现超对称粒子”的

对撞机，而是希格斯工厂（如 CEPC）。而 SPPC 是一个他不想谈论的问题，

因为，那是至少 20 年以后的事了。

但是，这确实是误导。中国的这个项目的初衷, 并不是只是作为一个希格斯

工厂，而 SPPC 肯定不会是探索“复合模型（CM）”的工具。

我们非常高兴地看到戴维·格罗斯的这个转变！看到戴维·格罗斯现在终于放

弃对 SUSY 的期待, 而试图拥抱“复合模型（CM）”。但是，SUSY 和 CM 之间

的差异, 大于天堂与地狱的区别。

标准模型（SM）是不完整的，还有许多毛病, 这是共识。但是，解决這些问

题, 有两种可能的方法。

1，水平，以一个超对称世界 SUSY) 与现有这个物质世界, 使其保持平衡。那

是，SUSY 与物质世界, 同處於时空纤维之上。

2，垂直，夸克/轻子粒子下面有子结构；即夸克、轻子是复合粒子。在时空

纤维之下, 還有結構。

而且，这个额外向下的层面, 正是所有物理世界的奥秘所在的地方。这个下

面的结构位于时空纤维之下。因此，探索这两个层面的物理世界，有完全不

同的两种方法！并且，需要完全不同的工具。

形象地表明, 超对称粒子可以用大锤型的工具的产生，质子对撞机是一种

大 大的大锤。

15

另一方面，任何更下一层面的时空结构, 必须以 锄头类工具翻挖渗透和深入

挖开坚硬土地 ---- 时空纤维。

而且，μ 子对撞机（MC）是一个巨大的鸭嘴锄（普拉斯基）一样的工具。現

在, 美国正在全速推动 μ 对撞机的研究。为什么格罗斯不推荐 MC 作为一个

中国的大对撞机计划？

16

显然，他还总希望有超对称的奇迹。他写道：{当然，SPPC 俱有更高的能量

探索，有能力产生比 LHC 高近十倍新粒子 [ SUSY ] 的机会。}

雖然 p-p 对撞机 己被美国抛弃, 少数有私心的, 盼望着中国來做 ‘寃大頭’.

三、结论

粗略地说，我们可以把人类建造之物分为四类。

1，工具：具有一定效用，可以用之完成一定的任务，如：房屋、高速公

路、车辆等。

2，玩具：对于不了解的事物的一个学习机会。

3，艺术：表达人类的灵性，高于功利。

4，坟墓：死路一条，最终的归宿。

北京正负电子对撞机（BEPC）的初始设计, 就是一个玩具，没有設定的研究

‘目标’。用于学习探索高能粒子的物理实驗。因此，它绝对没有产生什么重

要的结果（几乎为零）。但是，这是预计到了的, 并可以原谅的。但是，100

TeV 的质子对撞机, 决不可能被作为一个玩具！它必须要有非常、非常明確的

‘科学目标’。

而现在所有数据和证据, 已经保证这样的超大对撞机不会产生新的结果！绝

对是一个更大的零蛋；因为，现在的一切证据表明, 100 TeV 以下绝对没有

SUSY (或任何 BSM) 粒子。而 p-p 超大对撞机的设计, 完全是一个探索 SUSY 粒

子的机器。其结果肯定是必死无疑。

17

因此，SPPC 不可能成为發現 “新物理” 的工具，只能作为一个玩具。这将不

仅是一个极大的笑话, 而且，这是建造一个 坟墓，做為一个彻底错误的物理

（SUSY） 的陪葬。

粒子物理学的未来是在 μ 子对撞机上，而不是 PP 质子对撞机。最好的物理

学家不会浪费他们的生命于没有希望和前景的项目。只有不明事理的人会使

用这种垂死的项目作为他们获得利益的工具。

温伯格，戴维·格罗斯，和谢尔登·格拉肖他们三人也只能强调非科学的论

点：{这是一个伟大的机会，中国成为粒子物理领域的领导者}。建造最強大

的 μ 子对撞机, 中国必定引领世界！

另外，还有人使用了基础科学, 可以产生意想不到的副产品的论点。最有名

的例子, 就是 CERN 发明了 WWW。我们将在未来的文章中讨论这个问题。