Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" is invaluable reading by the way.

Comment:"The largest particle accelerator in the world is the CERN LEP - it’s circonference is 27 km, not 5 miles."

Original Text: "They’re called particle accelerators, and the largest one is a mere 5 miles in diameter."

5 miles (US Landmile)= 5*1604m = 8020 m
27000 m (circ)/ 3.1415 (Pi) = 8407.2961 m = 5.241... miles (diam)

And anyhow it is better located in neutral Swizzerland and partially under France with 20 countries owning it under supervision of the EU plus 5 other countries (incl. US) with permission to use it than it would have been in USA. Hey guys, you already own space ,there is so much room for other experiments and you can shoot anyone who disturbs You

The SSC is right in this list representing nearly every project there public money is spent.

The next leap in knowledge will occur in biology (and nanotechnology, which will overlap significantly with molecular biology), and perhaps in quantum computing. None of which will benefit from the SSC. Money would be better spent on these "smaller" projects than the massive collider.

In physics, theories are years ahead of experiments. There are many theories that propound to explain how the universe works. None have practical applications, at least not for decades if not longer (or ever).

Lastly, we overlook the dangers of the SSC: Scientists are Trying to Create Baby Bangs.

Which advances are these exactly? Hint: most particle physicists do not claim their research has any slightest impact on technological advances. So it is surprising you obviously found such advances. Maybe you can give an example? And why exactly should the SCC fiasco be not included in this list?

It doesn't work that way. Smaller projects - no matter how numerous - simply cannot achieve the same energy levels as a large supercollider and therefore can never duplicate the sorts of experiments that the supercollider was intended for. By their very nature, small experiments can never garner us the same knowledge as the supercollider would have. And as for the "cost-benefit" analysis... How can we meaningfully assign dollar amounts to knowledge? Our increasing understanding of how the Universe works on its most fundamental levels is one of the primary causitive factors in many of the most important technological advances of the last century, and the benefits we could gain from a true supercollider are incalculable! Knowledge is not part of a free-market, producer-consumer relationship, you can't dismiss it as nothing more than an economic factor!

You should have added the first attempted building of the Panama Canal to the list, btw.

The thing is that if we hadn't bailed on the SSC, it would be *done* *now*, and the testability of the Higgs Boson wouldn't be still waiting on CERN's 14 TeV collider, the LHC. When the LHC is finished, a lot of high-energy physics will probably move to Switzerland. And don't spout the crap about 'it's only about national pride'; basic science eventually pays off, usually in spades, and the US has been resting comfortably on a fast-eroding store of advances in same because it's expensive and doesn't show up on the bottom line.

This being said, maybe the tunnels that they dug would be a good place to live...

Big Dig wasn't on the original mental_floss article, Zig Zag.

The merit of the knowledge to be gained from having a giant collider has to be balanced with the cost. The money would've been better spent doing other (smaller and more numerous) science projects.

The SSC just wasn't worth it, guys. Not at $12 billion.

Collin, maybe we just have to wait for the CERN Large Hadron Collider to come online, estimated to be in 2007.

Regarding the SSC, the cost overruns are just horrendous (rule no.1 in public works: anything that requires digging will cost *multiples* of the original estimate. Case in point, the CERN Large Hadron Collider).

Do you guys remember one of the reason for having the International Space Station was so that scientists can grow protein crystals in microgravity, solve the structure, design drugs or inhibitors and cure AIDS/cancer/whatever? Curing disease was and still is a reliable way to get grant money.