Sean Carroll

And they did.

And they won Nobel Prizes, etc.,

I still think, by the way, that a Nobel Prize should be given out somehow to people who either built the LHC or did the experiments.

And I know it's very difficult because they have a self-imposed rule.

Only three people can do it.

But somehow you've got to figure out a way to do that, I think, because that was a tremendous accomplishment.

But anyway, given that they did build the LHC, it would not be a big enough improvement for

versus the cost it would require to build the SSC today, which is why, well, that's one of the reasons why that's not really an ongoing concern, building a new SSC.

If you want to build a new particle accelerator, which I highly recommend doing, you might as well build an even bigger one than the SSC was supposed to be.

It's been a long time.

And it's going to take decades to build it.

So you might as well think big.

And I think that's what people are trying to do.

Of course, the other reason that the SSC is not a major component of our thinking is that no one thinks that the United States is going to do it.

The United States has more or less abandoned the idea of being a leader in particle physics.

The choices now are between China and Europe.

And maybe some other places might surprise us and step in.

But those are the leading candidates right now.

OK, the last question of this AMA is a relatively long question, but I think it's worth it.

Let's see if you agree.