Scientists reveal plan for even bigger particle collider to smash atoms
The plans for the Future Circular Collider: a nearly 57-mile loop along the French-Swiss border and even below Lake Geneva, published late on Monday put the finishing details on a project roughly a decade in the making at Cern, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research.
The study lays out features like the proposed path, environmental impact, scientific ambitions and cost of the project.
Independent experts will take a look before Cern's two-dozen member countries – all European except for Israel – decide in 2028 whether to go forward, starting in the mid-2040s at a cost of some 14 billion Swiss francs (about £12.5 billion).
Cern officials have touted the promise of scientific discoveries that could drive innovation in areas like cryogenics, superconducting magnets and vacuum technologies that could benefit humankind.
Outside experts pointed to the promise of learning more about the Higgs boson, the elusive particle that helped explain how matter formed after the Big Bang.
'This set of reports represents an important milestone in the process, but a full sense of the likelihood of it being brought to fruition will only be known through careful studies by scientists, engineers and others, including politicians who must make difficult decisions at time when uncertainty rules the day,' said Dave Toback, a professor of physics and astronomy at Texas A&M University, in an email.
The new collider 'provides and exciting opportunity for the particle physics community, and indeed all of physics, on the world stage,' said Prof Toback, who was not affiliated with the study, and who worked for years at the Fermilab Tevatron collider in the United States that was shut down in 2011.
For roughly a decade, top minds at Cern have been cooking up plans for a successor to the Large Hadron Collider, a network of magnets that accelerate particles through a 17-mile underground tunnel and slams them together at velocities approaching the speed of light.
Work at the particle collider confirmed in 2013 the existence of the Higgs boson – the central piece in a puzzle known as the standard model that helps explains some fundamental forces in the universe.
Cern scientists, engineers and partners behind the study considered at least 100 different scenarios for the new collider before coming up with the proposed circumference at an average depth of 200 metres.
The tunnel would be about five metres in diameter, Cern said.
'Ultimately what we would like to do is a collider which will come up with 10 times more energy than what we have today,' said Arnaud Marsollier, a CERN spokesman.
'When you have more energy, then you can create particles that are heavier.'
A bigger collider would also offer greater precision to help plumb particularities of the Higgs boson, which 'we have kind of a blurry image of' now, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
28 minutes ago
- Engadget
Lyft and Baidu plan to bring their robotaxis to the UK and Germany next year
Lyft and Baidu have shed more light on their plan for a worldwide fleet of autonomous vehicles . After the first rollouts — which are earmarked for Asia and the Middle East later this year — the companies have their designs set on Europe. They're aiming to deploy robotaxis in the UK and Germany in 2026, as long as they get approval from regulators. The goal is to then expand the European fleet to thousands of vehicles across the continent in the following years. Baidu is using its sixth-generation Apollo Go vehicles for this rollout. Once the robotaxis start operations in a given market, consumers will be able to book rides in them via the Lyft app. Lyft says that it will leverage its recent acquisition of taxi company Freenow to speed up deployment of autonomous vehicles, given that platform's established foothold in the UK and Germany. The partnership between Lyft and Baidu, which the pair announced last month, follows Baidu revealing its plans to start testing Apollo Go in Europe later this year.
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
SAP CEO Christian Klein on Building Bridges in the Age of AI
SAP, the 53-year-old German tech giant, builds software for virtually every business function, from supply chain and resource management to finance, sales, and human resources. Its products are used by over 440,000 customers worldwide, including 98 of the world's 100 largest companies. Taken together, its client base generates over 80% of global commerce, according to the company. At the helm sits Christian Klein, 45, who has been at SAP since 1999. 'You can say it's a big minus or a big plus when you're spending your whole career in one company,' he says. 'I started here as a student. And I still know people from back then. We have four generations here working for SAP—it's a company of 110,000 people.' Under Klein's leadership, the company has accelerated its transformation into a cloud-first enterprise, with cloud revenue accounting for over half of its total revenue in the first quarter of 2025. Meanwhile, SAP is embedding AI into its core products with the goal of becoming the "#1 enterprise application and business AI company." SAP is one of the most valuable public companies in Europe and made headlines when it took the top spot in March. Klein spoke with TIME on June 4 about his success as a leader, how AI is changing enterprises, and the difference between power and influence. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. What have you changed your mind about since becoming sole CEO in 2020? Our software helps to build bridges and facilitate global trade. We have multinationals in the U.S. and China, in Asia—everywhere—doing global business. Five years ago, when I came into this job, in my perspective of the world everyone was a winner. I saw democratic values in most parts of the world, and said "ah, that will never change." Because I'm still reasonably young and have not lived in times like this, I never thought things could change so fast—at least when it came to global trade. But here we are. I have to deal much more with all of the geopolitics than I had to, say, five years back. That definitely has changed. Why do you think you're good at your job? When you're a CEO, over the years you learn that when you believe "I have the right strategy on a nice PowerPoint—I have written it all down—the rest is just about execution," you're completely wrong. Especially when you're a European company with many stakeholders, you need to think about strategy first from the customer-perspective. Everyone says that [laughs], but you really have to make sure that you're hitting that nail. Otherwise, you could steer the company in a completely wrong direction. You need to make sure everyone—your employees, shareholders, the workers council, and so on—is excited, committed, and passionate about strategy and where you're leading the company. You have to be a bridge builder: to make sure everyone is involved and understands the strategy, and everyone is moving in the same direction. Otherwise, things can fall apart very easily. In your May CEO address, you said we can think of AI agents as 'digital coworkers.' If AI agents can robustly function as digital coworkers in the near-future, why hire humans at all? Here's an example: we just had financial earnings at SAP. Now, AI gives me certain simulations and predictions on how the year could end, given all of the trade conflicts and the uncertainty out there in the market. Would I fully trust AI to say "this is how you should put out your financial guidance for the rest of the year?" No: I still feel we need a human being at the end of the chain who can make slight adjustments, incorporating their past experience. Or think about selling software. When you are traveling the world, the cultures are so different. When I walk into a customer meeting in Japan, it's different from walking into a customer meeting in Germany or the U.S. AI can give me a beautiful sales pitch or a great demo, but at the end it's human beings who need to understand how to position it, how to emotionally talk about it, particularly across different cultures. And I don't see an AI yet that is able to do that—at least not better than a human being. You point to emotional connection and cultural understanding. AI is already highly-persuasive and can understand emotional nuance. A key limit is that current AI systems lose coherence over long time periods. If that changes—and the same system can run for months or years at a time—do you still think AI won't be able to do these parts of the job? You're right, emotional intelligence will get better and better. No doubt about that. But at the end of the day, there needs to be someone in the company you can hold accountable. I don't want to see SAP in the headlines, with a customer saying "I relied only on SAP AI agents to close my books or to run my supply chain, and they completely screwed it up. Despite AI doing 99% good work, it didn't play out as expected.' Ultimately, I'm convinced there must be some human beings still in the mix. Do I expect to need the same amount of developers, salespeople, and consultants in the future? Definitely not with the job profiles that they have today. But do I still need other jobs that are coming up—more data scientists? More people thinking about the future of the industry? Yes, absolutely. It would be an illusion to believe AI will help and drive more productivity, but the workforce will still look the same. That will be absolutely not the case. But I also can't imagine a workforce only with digital workers. Can you imagine a scenario where in five years time, 90% of your workforce is gone, so you have closer to 10,000 employees than 100,000? Oh, that is tough. In certain job profiles, I can absolutely see they can be 60% to 70% digital. In others, for example, take audit: Of course, you have policies as a company, but with every policy—for example, the E.U. Data Act, which I don't like so much—there is always a gray zone. You ask five lawyers and five large language modules about interpretation—does this contract adhere to the E.U. Data Act?—and you get different answers. It's like when you have issues with your back and you ask five doctors, and they come with five different root causes. These things will still exist. So in these jobs, I don't believe that there will be only digital workers. In other jobs, I definitely see a much higher share. It really depends on the job profile. Do you think you'll live to see an AI system do every part of your job? Part of it. I need to make a lot of decisions every day. They are sometimes pretty logical decisions, where you just look at the facts. But sometimes there are tough decisions you have to make using your emotional intelligence. There are certain market trends which may not be captured by the facts, but you talk to people, to other stakeholders, and you make a different decision. So I don't believe that a CEO can be purely digital in the future. Sometimes you're still making decisions based on your gut feeling. What are the biggest bottlenecks to enterprise adoption of AI? In the enterprise world, where we are setting up our agents, you need 100% accuracy. So for example Joule, our digital assistant, cannot mess around with compliance checks on travel and on sourcing, or on directing the flow of materials. People are betting their jobs and their companies on our software and on AI. This needs 100% accuracy: if you as a tech company don't understand the business process—if you don't have the data or you can't access all of it—that is a big issue. This is a big obstacle for many companies: understanding how to apply the technology. The good position of SAP is: we are running these business processes, we know the rules and workflows, we have the data. Others who are more on the infrastructure and hardware layer… they don't have the business context. They're missing the data. Is accuracy the biggest challenge? Or are there others? The second piece is on data. Every company you walk into has their data siloes: there have been trends with collecting data and creating data lakes, but no one has solved the problem of making all the data match. And when it doesn't fit, AI can't do magic immediately to say, "I 100% understand how this data fits together and I can correlate it to produce good results for the company." The third piece involves regulation, which often kills innovation before it gets started. Certain parts of the world need to be careful to not only see risk, risk, risk with regard to AI, but also the upside for the economy. What do you think is the appropriate regulatory framework for AI? Here's my pragmatic view. In the European Union—it's good that we have a union, I'm all in for it—we have AI regulation in many member states, and then the E.U. puts another regulation on top. The result is confusion, different interpretations, and before companies or startups can use the technology to race against others in the world, it's already game over. That is the problem. I'd say: have one framework for all of Europe, and then give some freedom within this framework, especially when you are early in the development and testing cycle—you cannot do harm in this early phase. Of course, the moment when you bring it to market and to scale, there must be regulation. But don't regulate the technology! Regulate the outcome, so AI is unfolding in the right way in the chemical industry, the automotive industry, the defense industry. But don't regulate the technology, because then you regulate technological innovation, which is never good. You need to see you are not living on an island here in Europe. All of these tech players—we are the only large tech player in Europe, but there are many startups—there is competition everywhere, and we cannot give these companies and startups a disadvantage when it comes to speed of innovation just by over-regulating. If you were 22 today, fresh out of university, what would you do? At 22, I still wanted to become a professional skier. I would try it again. It's my passion. I love to be in the mountains, I love to ski, and I'd try to turn that passion into a profession. So you wouldn't set out to become a CEO? I wasn't planning to become the CEO when I was 22 years old. That goal developed over time. I don't like it when you're too early on, saying "I need to be the CEO." I'm more on the 'first deliver' side: prove yourself, prove that you can work in and deliver great results as a team, and the rest will follow. It was only when I became the chief operating officer of SAP, and I considered our transformation into a cloud company, that I developed the goal of becoming CEO. We had a strategy, and the software was instrumental for that. But I saw it was not only a piece of technology which would make transformation work. It's also an understanding of the culture, and the tone from the top. You need to understand: where do you want to go with your company? Do you want to be a cloud-pure SaaS company, or do you want to still be a legacy? What does it take? Then you can connect software and technology and AI to it. So it was only around 2017 that I thought, 'oh, I could be the CEO of SAP. I have a vision for this company on how to move it into the next century. It probably sounds a little bit odd, but it's not the power and the responsibility that drew me to the role. It was about: 'you can influence a lot of things to create a great future for SAP.' I saw how we worked and what was needed. What do you think distinguishes power and influence? Becoming a CEO and believing that now you're making a decision, and you have the power, so everyone will just follow, is probably the biggest mistake you can make. You can put a lot of policies in place, you can put more pressure, but people will not just automatically follow. You need to over-communicate in times of change to convince people. When we did this drastic change and our share price collapsed five years back, I couldn't just say, "Oh, now we did it. The strategy is clear. I have the power now to tell you exactly what to do." You need to influence people. You need to convince them. (To receive weekly emails of conversations with the world's top CEOs and decisionmakers, click here.)
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Tesla Won't Like New Sales Figures in Challenging European Countries
Tesla registrations fell in several significant European countries during July, including France, Denmark, and Sweden, for the seventh consecutive month. The electric automaker registered 1,307 new vehicles in France during July, down 27% year-over-year. In Denmark, Tesla sold 336 cars, representing a 52% annual decline. Swedish Tesla sales during July were especially bleak at 163 vehicles, an 85.8% year-over-year drop. The company's Model Y SUV revamp was supposed to drive sales, which included the release of a long-range four-wheel drive version in March and a rear-wheel drive variant in May, but it failed to do so. In July, Denmark Model Y registrations decreased by 49%. The fallout from Elon Musk's political presence, regulatory hurdles, and tough competition from Chinese and European brands are all creating Tesla's perfect storm of adversity on the continent. Regarding regulatory hurdles, Musk said during Tesla's Q2 earnings call in late July that the company's European sales would "significantly" improve once Tesla can fully deploy its semi-autonomous Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. Musk added: "This is a very important point to convey. We have been working with the Netherlands, and I think we are close to getting [FSD] approval there," according to EV. Different legal frameworks have partly contributed to FSD approval in the European Union (EU) taking longer than Tesla would like, as the EU requires a more precise definition of who's at fault in a self-driving crash. Tesla also needs approval from each country, and different nations have varying opinions on autonomy. The EU generally limits self-driving approval to Level 2 systems, aligning with FSD. While Mercedes-Benz became the first automaker allowed to enable Level 3 autonomy in the EU, it's only approved on the highway at a lower speed than the autobahn's average pace. Mercedes-Benz's Level 3 system also uses LiDAR (light detection and ranging) technology, which is more expensive but often considered more capable than Tesla's self-driving system, relying on cameras and several neural networks or deep learning systems. In July, car sales were up 20% in Denmark and 6% in Sweden, but Tesla faces unique challenges in countries like France, where new vehicle registrations fell 8% year-over-year, according to Reuters. During June, France's car sales slid 6.7%, while Tesla's sales there dropped 10%. In Q2 as a whole, Tesla's registrations in France declined 67%. While France's downward auto sales aren't limited to Tesla, the automaker's struggles in the nation stand out. Tesla's market share in France has fallen from 1.6% in 2024 to 0.9% in 2025, outpacing the overall European market's decline of 7%. Additionally, hybrid cars represented nearly 50% of France's new car registrations in Q1, a 24.7% increase from last year. Tesla is up against France's 6.6% decline in new battery electric vehicle (BEV) purchases during Q1, where the segment held an 18.2% market share. The average age of cars in France also reached a new high of 11.3 years in 2025, according to Futura Sciences. Elon Musk's position appears to be that FSD availability across Europe will largely reverse the company's negative course in several of the continent's key markets, but regulatory hurdles aren't the only factor holding Tesla back. Tesla is also dealing with increased pressure from Chinese competitors, a lack of affordable options, and continued backlash from Musk's politics. Production of Tesla's first affordable model, a stripped-down Model Y, is set to begin next quarter, later than expected, while low-cost Chinese electric models are already flooding into Europe. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
