The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is planning a massive new experiment that could revolutionize physics. The Future Circular Collider (FCC) would be a 91-kilometer ring buried under the Swiss-French border, designed to collide particles at nearly the speed of light. Scientists hope it will help unlock some of the biggest mysteries of the universe, like dark matter and the Higgs boson. However, not everyone is on board with this ambitious project, and there is growing concern about its cost, control, and long-term impact on the scientific community.

A Costly Investment with High Stakes

The FCC comes with a hefty price tag of $30 billion, which has sparked debates about its potential benefits versus its cost. The collider would be the largest and most powerful particle accelerator ever built, far surpassing CERN’s current Large Hadron Collider (LHC). While the LHC has already provided groundbreaking discoveries, such as the confirmation of the Higgs boson in 2012, the FCC aims to push the boundaries even further.

Set to launch in 2040, the FCC promises to uncover answers to fundamental questions about the universe. It could shed light on dark matter, a mysterious substance that makes up most of the mass in the universe but remains invisible to traditional telescopes. It could also provide a deeper understanding of the Higgs boson, the particle responsible for giving mass to other particles. If successful, the FCC could provide the keys to understanding the very fabric of reality.

However, many are questioning whether the enormous investment is worth it. The $30 billion price tag is staggering, and some fear that the FCC will monopolize funding for decades, leaving little room for other important scientific research. Critics argue that this could stifle innovation in other areas of physics and science in general.

Divided Opinions Within the Scientific Community

The plan for the FCC has caused a rift within the scientific community. Some scientists are excited by the potential discoveries that the collider could lead to, while others are deeply concerned about its impact. Halina Abramowicz, a physicist at Tel Aviv University, has voiced her concerns, stating that decisions about the FCC are being made without adequate input from the wider scientific community.

“This isn’t how decisions should be made,” said Abramowicz, reflecting the frustration of many in the field. Others agree that the project is being rushed forward without fully addressing the risks involved.

Ruben Saakyan, a physicist at the University of Vienna, added that the dispute over the FCC has caused a major divide in the physics community. “We have never been this divided,” Saakyan said. The disagreements highlight concerns over whether the FCC’s vast resources could be better used for other research or if the project is being pushed forward at the expense of other scientific priorities.

Risks and Alternatives to the FCC

While the potential benefits of the FCC are significant, there are also substantial risks associated with the project. The FCC relies on cutting-edge technology that has not yet been fully developed, which raises concerns about whether it will meet its ambitious goals. The collider’s technology will need to undergo substantial advancements before it can become operational, and there is no guarantee that these developments will come to fruition on time.

Some physicists believe that the FCC’s approach is too risky and may not deliver the promised breakthroughs. Jenny List, a physicist from the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), has been vocal in promoting alternatives to the FCC. List suggests that linear accelerators, which are smaller and more cost-effective than circular colliders, could be a more flexible and affordable option for advancing particle physics.

Another promising alternative is plasma wave technology. This emerging technology could provide a compact solution for accelerating particles and may be available within the next 20 years. Some believe that exploring these alternatives could lead to breakthroughs in particle physics without the immense cost and risk of building the FCC.

Shaping the Future of Science

The debate over the FCC is not just about the future of particle physics—it’s about the future of scientific research as a whole. Opponents of the FCC argue that investing $30 billion in one massive project could lock science into a particular path for the rest of the century. They fear that other promising areas of research could be neglected or abandoned entirely.

“We must ask,” said Jenny List, “who are we to decide what future generations should research—or abandon?” These concerns are at the heart of the debate over the FCC. While the project has the potential to make groundbreaking discoveries, it also represents a significant shift in how scientific resources are allocated and how decisions about the future of science are made.

For many scientists, the issue is not whether the FCC could lead to important discoveries, but whether its enormous cost will prevent other areas of research from receiving the attention and funding they deserve. Some argue that funding should be distributed more evenly across different fields of science, rather than being concentrated on one massive project.

Will the FCC Ever Be Built?

As the debate continues, the future of the FCC remains uncertain. The project has the backing of some of the world’s leading physicists, but its critics argue that the risks and costs associated with it are too high. Whether the FCC will become a reality in the coming decades depends on how these issues are addressed and whether the scientific community can come to a consensus on how to move forward.

One thing is certain: the FCC, if built, will be a defining project for the future of physics. It will reshape the field in ways that are difficult to predict. But for now, the physics community remains divided on whether this $30 billion gamble is worth the risk.