The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has unveiled plans for its most ambitious project yet: the Future Circular Collider (FCC). This massive particle accelerator, with an estimated cost of $30 billion, is designed to push the boundaries of physics. If built, it would stretch 91 kilometers beneath the Swiss-French border, making it nearly four times larger than the existing Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
CERN aims to use the FCC to smash particles at near-light speeds, hoping to unlock deeper insights into the universe’s fundamental structure. The project, however, has triggered strong opposition from many physicists who argue that its high costs and unproven technology could hinder scientific progress for decades.
Physicists Raise Concerns Over Long-Term Costs
One of the biggest concerns surrounding the FCC is its long-term financial burden. Critics worry that the massive investment required could divert funding from other vital areas of physics and scientific research. Some argue that committing to such an expensive project will limit resources for smaller, innovative experiments that could lead to significant discoveries.
“This isn’t how science should work,” said Halina Abramowicz, a physicist who has been vocal in criticizing the project. According to a report in Nature, the debate has caused a rare division in the physics community. “The community was never this split,” said Professor Ruben Saakyan, emphasizing how controversial the project has become.
The financial aspect is not just about the initial $30 billion price tag. Maintenance, operational costs, and future upgrades could require billions more, stretching budgets for decades. Many scientists fear that other crucial research areas—such as astrophysics, quantum computing, and medical applications of particle physics—could suffer from a lack of funding if the FCC moves forward.
Unproven Technology Raises Doubts
Another major concern is that the FCC relies on technology that does not yet exist. The project is planned in two phases: the first starting around 2040 and the second by 2070. However, key components required for these phases, such as ultra-powerful superconducting magnets and advanced cooling systems, are still in the early stages of development.
Critics argue that assuming these technologies will be ready in time is a risky bet. “In 20 years, alternative technologies like linear accelerators or plasma-based systems could be more effective and cost-efficient,” said physicist Jenny List. Many in the scientific community believe that instead of committing to an expensive project based on uncertain technology, CERN should wait for breakthroughs that could lead to more practical solutions.
Historically, technological predictions in physics have not always gone as planned. For example, the LHC took much longer to become fully operational than initially expected, and its discovery of the Higgs boson—while groundbreaking—did not lead to the immediate scientific revolutions some had hoped for. Critics worry that the FCC could follow a similar path, consuming vast amounts of resources while failing to deliver game-changing discoveries.
A Debate on the Future of Physics
Beyond the financial and technical concerns, the FCC debate also touches on a deeper question: What direction should physics take in the coming decades?
Some physicists believe that the FCC represents a visionary step forward. They argue that studying high-energy collisions at an unprecedented scale could reveal new particles, help solve the mystery of dark matter, and deepen our understanding of fundamental forces. For supporters, the potential scientific rewards justify the high cost and long timeline.
On the other hand, critics worry that committing to a single mega-project could limit the flexibility of future researchers. “Should we decide now what our grandchildren can or can’t study?” asked Jenny List. Many believe that locking physics research into one direction for the rest of the century could prevent new, unexpected discoveries from emerging.
A History of Controversial Mega-Projects
The FCC is not the first large-scale physics project to spark controversy. In the early 1990s, the United States planned to build the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas. The project was expected to be even more powerful than the LHC. However, after billions had already been spent, the U.S. government canceled it in 1993 due to high costs and political opposition.
Some fear that the FCC could face a similar fate. With economic uncertainties and shifting political priorities, securing long-term funding for such a massive project could become increasingly difficult. If the FCC is canceled midway, it could result in billions of dollars wasted without any scientific return.
For now, the debate over the FCC is far from over. CERN remains committed to pushing the project forward, arguing that the collider could lead to groundbreaking discoveries. Supporters believe that if scientists never take risks, progress in fundamental physics could slow down significantly.
However, the opposition remains strong. Many physicists are calling for more discussions, broader consultation, and alternative research strategies before committing to such an expensive, long-term project. The decision on whether to proceed with the FCC could shape the future of physics for the rest of the century.
As discussions continue, the world will be watching closely to see whether CERN can overcome the growing concerns and turn the Future Circular Collider into reality—or if it will become another abandoned dream, like the SSC.