How TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE would benefit humanity to advance in science in discovering new particles
In the following you will find some examples of the benefits you could receive by supporting TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE and an open, public debate on how to maximize the use of your money to advance science in the discovery of new particles and in the reduction of cancer deaths and cost.
To advance in the discovery of new particles it is necessary to “invent and build detector instrumentations that give the experimenter physicist the possibility to implement in a programmable manner at the Level-1 Trigger their desired complex algorithm capable of accurately measuring all characteristics of the desired particle in real-time at the lowest cost per good particle detected”. When thousands of signals are arriving from the detector at over 600 million events per second, the effectiveness of the level-1 Trigger unit is key to identifying new particles from the thousands of trillion events that cannot be saved to a storage device because in one day of data acquisition they would fill all the hard drives on the planet.
Anyone who disagrees with this approach that would provide highest results in discovering new particles, lowering the cost of physics experiments and in reducing cancer deaths and cost should set forth their claims and discuss them in an open public forum in a transparent way to the public. The fact is that no one (including CERN Director of Research, IEEE-NSS-MIC Chairmen, etc.) has disagreed with Crosetto that this is the right approach to maximize results in discovering new particles and in reducing cancer deaths and cost, but inexplicably they obstruct its implementation or even an open transparent public discussion. It seems they have another agenda that is hidden to the public and only TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE through a series of questions by Crosetto and other experts in the field are going to force them to admit the truth to the public. However, the truth became apparent to everyone from statements made by CERN’s Director of Research, the Chairmen of the IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences, and those who rejected funding Crosetto’s project and articles when they revealed their own proposal to build the EXPLORER, a device, using a similar approach to Crosetto’s but ten times more expensive. Here is how Crosetto was able to get these leaders to reveal what they were hiding from the public.
Why weren’t scientists asked how their project/approach/idea was increasing the possibility of discovering new particles and reducing HEP costs and how it compares to other projects before spending $50 billion and wasting 20 years of work by 10,000 scientists?
Today, the same mistake is being made because HEP leaders refuse to compare in depth the advantages in higher power and lower cost of the 3D-Flow system compared to the proposed FPGA which cannot provide an efficient OPRT.
Instead, Crosetto was prevented by Wesley Smith and Peter Sharp from presenting and discussing his inventions at the Snowmass conference, and thereafter at several other IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences in 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013, etc. Crosetto’s 3D-Flow was just one of several inventions that he made to the detector segmentation, detector assembly, the coupling between detector and electronics, Real-Time algorithms, etc., and also the easiest to explain to the general public. Had all his inventions been funded and implemented, a real revolution and powerful tool would have opened the door to experimenters to “think of clever uses not now possible” as stated in the final report of the review of Crosetto’s invention by the FERMILab review panel in 1993.
Why weren’t I. Gregor, A. Bernstein, S. Bertolucci and other leaders in High Energy Physics asked to support their claim in a public workshop that FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) is a more powerful, economical and cost-effective approach to implement Level-1 Trigger than Crosetto’s 3D-Flow or projects by other scientists before spending an additional $30 billion in the next 10 years?
Recently (2013), HEP leaders realized the need to replace their Level-1 Trigger Threshold Technique (TT) with Object Pattern Recognition Technique (OPRT). They came to this realization after it became clear 20 years and $50 billion later, that the detector instrumentations (CMS and Atlas) had missed most of the 100,000 Higgs boson-like events produced by the LHC accelerator collider (only about 100 of such events were detected) because the Threshold Technique for those experiments was inadequate and flawed. Had they decided to use TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE during the past 20 years after Crosetto presented his 3D-Flow invention using OPRT to CERN, formally recognized as a breakthrough after being subjected to a major public scientific review (TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE) requested by the Director of the Superconducting Super Collider (also the Director of FERMILab) in 1993, physicists would now have their detector instrumentation having the capability to execute OPRT satisfying all desires of experimenters and accurately measuring all characteristics of any new particle. It would not have been necessary to replace the current Level-1 Trigger, and it would have answered all expectations of many physicists who have stated that they are waiting for more detailed measurements on the new found boson before making a stronger statement on whether it is the Higgs boson. In addition, the 20 years and $50 billion of taxpayer money would not have been wasted.
Why did Government Funding Agencies decide to fund the Threshold Technique (TT) for the Level-1 Trigger during the past 22 years that did not provide detector instrumentations capable of accurately identifying and measuring new particles? By rejecting Crosetto’s 3D-Flow technique capable of efficiently implementing Object Pattern Recognition Algorithms, they wasted $50 billion and missed most of the 100,000 Higgs boson-like particles before admitting in 2013 that their technique was flawed and needed to be replaced. Implementing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE, as the Director of the Supercollider did in 1993, would have avoided this waste of taxpayer money and saved the time and effort of 10,000 scientists who did not have the appropriate tools to find and accurately measure the characteristics of new particles.
Why are Government Funding Agencies now funding the FPGA-OPRT for Level-1 Trigger which will waste an additional $30 billion over the next 10 years instead of the 3D-Flow-OPRT which offers a more powerful tool at a lower cost to identify and accurately measure all characteristics of new particles? Government Funding Agencies should request that I. Gregor, A. Bernstein and those proposing FPGA-OPRT Level-1 Trigger hold a workshop where they can have a face-to-face meeting with Crosetto and other senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students so they can compare their FPGA-OPRT proposal with Crosetto’s 3D-Flow-OPRT invention and approaches by other scientists and let TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE make the evidence emerge showing which project offers the highest performance at the lowest cost before assigning more funding.
The benefits to taxpayers and to the advancement in science by implementing TRANSPARENCY in SCIENCE will not be limited to what is listed above, but will give many other inventions a chance to be recognized and their advantages timely transferred to benefit humanity.
This post is also available in: Italian