On a foggy November morning outside Beijing the bus heading to the science campus carries only a handful of passengers. A few young physicists sit quietly with backpacks resting on their laps while they check their phones. This bus route was meant to serve as the main connection to what China hoped would become its next major achievement: a 100-kilometer particle accelerator built underground in the rural areas that would surpass the capabilities of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider in Europe.
Now the plans are being quietly put aside.
On the noticeboard at the Institute of High Energy Physics, the grand posters are still there. Gleaming tunnels, super‑magnets, a proud slogan about “leading the world in fundamental science.” No one has had the heart to take them down yet.
Everyone can feel it though. The tension hangs in the air like humidity before a storm. People notice the shift even when nobody talks about it directly. The atmosphere changes in subtle ways that register somewhere deep in our awareness. Workers exchange glances across the office. Friends pause mid-conversation. Family members pick up on the unspoken signals during dinner. The feeling spreads without announcement or explanation. Something has changed and everyone picks up on it instinctively. The usual rhythms feel different now. Conversations carry an undercurrent that wasn’t there before. Laughter sounds slightly forced. Silences stretch a bit longer than comfortable. Nobody needs to say it out loud because the evidence shows up everywhere. In the way people hold themselves. In the careful choice of words. In the topics everyone suddenly avoids. The shift registers in a thousand small ways that add up to one unmistakable conclusion. The awareness sits there between people like an uninvited guest. It colors interactions and influences decisions. It changes how people relate to each other even when they pretend everything remains normal. Some try to ignore it and carry on as if nothing has happened. Others acknowledge it with a knowing look or a slight nod. A few might even mention it in passing before quickly moving on to safer subjects. But whether people address it directly or dance around it carefully the reality remains the same. Everyone senses it. The feeling persists regardless of how much anyone tries to dismiss it or wish it away. The collective awareness grows stronger with each passing day. What started as a vague impression solidifies into certainty. The thing that nobody wants to name becomes the thing that everybody knows.
The race with Europe has hit a wall made of money and politics.
China’s collider dream hits a brutal reality check
For more than a decade, Chinese researchers talked about the Circular Electron Positron Collider, the CEPC, with almost electric excitement. Imagine: a ring three times larger than CERN’s, circling under fields and villages, designed to crack open the mysteries of the Higgs boson and whatever hides beyond. It wasn’t just a machine. It was a declaration.
The message was clear: China would no longer just manufacture smartphones and solar panels. It would redefine the frontiers of physics.
Then someone did the full, painful math.
Estimates started landing on officials’ desks in Beijing. The CEPC’s construction alone was expected to cost tens of billions of dollars, with operating costs stretching over decades. One internal projection, leaked to Chinese social media and then swiftly censored, compared the budget to building “several aircraft carriers and a small city” rolled into one.
Engineers in Beijing described trips to rural sites where the collider might be built. Farmers asked if their houses would be moved. Local officials dreamt of hotels, data centers, international conferences. Everybody saw a future of prosperity and prestige anchored by that underground ring.
# People Who Snack Constantly Often Confuse Boredom With Hunger
Many people find themselves reaching for snacks throughout the day without really thinking about why. The truth is that constant snacking often has little to do with actual hunger. Instead it stems from boredom or habit. When you feel the urge to eat between meals it helps to pause and ask yourself a simple question. Are you truly hungry or are you just looking for something to do? This distinction matters because eating when you are not hungry can lead to unwanted weight gain & an unhealthy relationship with food. Boredom eating happens when your mind seeks stimulation. Food provides a quick and easy distraction from monotony. You might be sitting at your desk working on a tedious task or scrolling through your phone with nothing particular to do. Suddenly a snack seems appealing not because your body needs fuel but because your brain wants entertainment. The problem with this pattern is that it becomes automatic over time. Your brain starts associating certain situations with eating. Every time you watch television you grab chips. Whenever you feel restless you open the pantry. These habits form without conscious thought and before long you are consuming extra calories your body does not need. Real hunger develops gradually & comes with physical signs. Your stomach might growl or feel empty. You may notice a slight decrease in energy or find it harder to concentrate. True hunger also tends to be satisfied by nutritious foods like vegetables or protein rather than just sweets and salty snacks. Boredom hunger on the other hand appears suddenly and focuses on specific cravings. You do not just want food in general. You want chocolate or potato chips or ice cream. This type of hunger exists primarily in your mind rather than your body. Learning to recognize the difference takes practice but it can transform your eating habits. Next time you want a snack try waiting ten minutes. Drink a glass of water or take a short walk. If the urge disappears then you were probably not hungry at all. If you still want to eat after this break then your body likely needs nourishment. Finding alternative activities for boredom also helps break the snacking cycle. Keep your hands busy with a hobby like drawing or knitting. Call a friend for a conversation. Step outside for fresh air. These simple actions can satisfy your need for stimulation without involving food. Being mindful about why you eat makes a significant difference in your overall health. Snacking because of genuine hunger provides your body with needed energy. Snacking out of boredom just adds empty calories and reinforces unhelpful patterns. By paying attention to your true needs you can develop a healthier and more balanced approach to eating.
➡️ Psychology explains why we often feel far closer to people who share their vulnerability than to those who only share their success
# Psychology suggests that people who sleep in the same bed as their pets often share these 10 quiet emotional and personality strengths
Research in psychology indicates that individuals who choose to share their sleeping space with their pets tend to display certain emotional and personality characteristics that set them apart. These traits often go unnoticed in daily life but reveal deeper aspects of their character. People who welcome their pets into bed typically demonstrate a heightened capacity for empathy and emotional connection. They feel comfortable forming close bonds and don’t maintain rigid boundaries when it comes to relationships they value. This openness extends beyond their pets to how they interact with people in their lives. These individuals often possess a strong sense of security in themselves. They don’t worry excessively about what others think of their choices and feel confident making decisions that align with their personal values rather than social expectations. This self-assurance allows them to prioritize comfort & connection over convention. A notable characteristic is their ability to find comfort in simple pleasures. They appreciate the warmth and companionship that comes from having a living being nearby during vulnerable sleeping hours. This reflects a broader tendency to value emotional fulfillment over material concerns or superficial standards. Pet co-sleepers frequently show reduced anxiety levels in their daily lives. The presence of an animal companion during sleep provides a calming effect that carries over into waking hours. This translates into better stress management and a more balanced approach to life’s challenges. These people tend to be less rigid in their thinking and more adaptable to changing circumstances. They can adjust their routines & expectations to accommodate the needs of another being. This flexibility serves them well in various aspects of life beyond pet ownership. Another common trait is a strong nurturing instinct. They derive satisfaction from caring for others and feel fulfilled when providing comfort and security. This caretaking nature often manifests in their relationships with family members and friends as well. Individuals who sleep with their pets usually have a well-developed sense of trust. They feel safe enough to be completely vulnerable during sleep with another creature present. This fundamental trust in their environment and relationships indicates emotional health and stability. They often display a practical approach to life that prioritizes what actually matters over arbitrary rules. They recognize that societal conventions about pet sleeping arrangements don’t necessarily align with what brings them happiness & wellbeing. This pragmatism helps them make choices that genuinely improve their quality of life. These individuals typically maintain strong connections to the present moment. The physical presence of a pet during sleep keeps them grounded and aware of immediate sensory experiences rather than lost in abstract worries. This mindfulness contributes to better mental health overall. Finally people who share their beds with pets often possess a healthy disregard for perfectionism. They accept that pet hair on sheets and occasional disrupted sleep are reasonable tradeoffs for the emotional benefits they receive. This balanced perspective helps them avoid the stress that comes from trying to maintain unrealistic standards in all areas of life.
➡️ Swap oil or butter for this simple alternative to cook perfectly fried eggs that are lighter, easier to digest, and just as flavorful
➡️ Quote of the day by Albert Einstein: A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe
This profession provides one of the most favorable balances between income and workplace pressure. The career path delivers strong financial compensation while maintaining manageable stress levels compared to other fields. Workers in this occupation typically earn competitive salaries without facing the intense demands that characterize many high-paying jobs. This combination makes it an attractive option for professionals seeking financial stability alongside a reasonable work-life balance. The role allows individuals to build a comfortable lifestyle without sacrificing their mental health or personal time. Many people find this profession appealing because it offers solid earning potential while avoiding the burnout commonly associated with other lucrative careers. The stress levels remain moderate even as workers advance in their positions & take on additional responsibilities. This favorable ratio between pay & pressure contributes to higher job satisfaction and longer career longevity. Professionals in this field often report feeling fulfilled without experiencing the exhaustion that plagues workers in more demanding industries. The occupation stands out as a practical choice for those who value both financial security and personal wellbeing. It demonstrates that high earnings do not necessarily require accepting overwhelming stress as part of the package.
➡️ Psychology says people who let others go first in line when they seem rushed display these 6 situational awareness traits that most people are too self-focused to develop
➡️ In Mongolia, automatic cameras film “the world’s rarest bear” beside her cub
Then came a different future: slowing growth, a real‑estate crisis, and a government suddenly obsessed with “practical” technologies.
Economists inside state think tanks began to question the project’s timing. China is already juggling huge bills: high‑speed rail maintenance, aging infrastructure, an older population, massive spending on chips and AI. A collider that might take 20 years to deliver unpredictable scientific returns suddenly looked like a luxury.
There was also a strategic question. Why pour money into a machine that, yes, might discover new particles, when the same billions could boost quantum computing, military technology, or industrial robots that pay off faster?
Behind closed doors, that quiet budget debate turned into a verdict. The CEPC would not move to full construction. Not now. Maybe not ever.
When “too expensive for China” actually means something else
The phrase that leaked out of Beijing corridors sounded almost surreal: “too expensive even for China.” This from the country that built the world’s largest high‑speed train network in a decade, threw up entire cities from scratch, and poured concrete like no one else on Earth. Yet this time, the state wallet stayed shut.
Part of the answer lies in political optics. Big science doesn’t photograph as easily as bridges and airports. A 100‑kilometer tunnel is invisible. There’s no ribbon‑cutting moment that screams success to the public, just lab corridors and datasets only a handful of specialists can interpret.
In a year when people worry about jobs and mortgages, that’s a hard sell.
Talk to young Chinese physicists and a pattern emerges. Many already float resumes toward Europe and the United States, eyeing CERN or Fermilab instead of the giant national dream they grew up hearing about. One doctoral student from Shanghai described the decision with a bittersweet half‑smile: “I wanted to help China build something no one else had. Now, if I want to work on the next big collider, I pretty much have to leave.”
We’ve all been there, that moment when the story you were told about the future silently changes.
Her professor is more pragmatic. He points out that research budgets are shifting toward projects with quicker industrial spinoffs: particle therapy for cancer, compact accelerators for materials science, detectors that might feed into defense systems. The romance of pure discovery is losing ground.
On the surface, the “too expensive” line sounds like simple accounting. Look closer, and you see a shift in how rising powers think about scientific glory. The space race of the 1960s gave us Moon landings because superpowers were willing to burn money just to be first. Today’s race is colder and more calculative.
When a collider fails to produce obvious economic benefits or military advantages the politicians who support it quickly stop defending it.
Nobody actually reads those lengthy cost-benefit reports from start to finish. However the narrative they present about risk & prestige and what qualifies as progress is silently reshaping the future of fundamental physics. These documents matter more than most people realize. They determine which experiments get funded and which theoretical questions get explored. The language used in these reports influences how scientists think about their own work & how policymakers understand scientific priorities. The traditional approach to evaluating big physics projects focused mainly on technical feasibility and scientific merit. Researchers would propose an experiment & explain what mysteries it might solve. The decision came down to whether the science was sound and whether the technology existed to build it. That framework has shifted dramatically over the past few decades. Modern evaluation processes incorporate economic impact assessments and workforce development metrics & public engagement strategies. A particle accelerator proposal now needs to demonstrate how it will boost local economies & train the next generation of engineers & capture public imagination. This evolution reflects genuine concerns about accountability and public investment. Taxpayers fund these massive projects & deserve to see broader benefits beyond abstract knowledge. The problem emerges when these additional criteria start to overshadow the fundamental scientific questions. Some of the most important discoveries in physics came from experiments that would struggle under current evaluation frameworks. The scientists who first detected gravitational waves or discovered the Higgs boson were chasing theoretical predictions without guaranteed practical applications. Their work succeeded because the scientific case was compelling enough on its own terms. The emphasis on measurable outcomes creates pressure to favor safe incremental projects over ambitious speculative ones. Researchers learn to frame their proposals in terms of predictable deliverables rather than transformative possibilities. The language of innovation gets applied to projects that extend existing knowledge rather than challenge fundamental assumptions. This trend affects which questions physicists choose to pursue. Young researchers see which proposals get funded and adjust their interests accordingly. The field gradually orients itself toward problems that fit neatly into evaluation criteria rather than problems that might revolutionize our understanding of nature. The irony is that fundamental physics has always delivered unexpected practical benefits. Quantum mechanics led to semiconductors & medical imaging. Particle physics research produced the World Wide Web. These applications emerged as byproducts of curiosity-driven investigation rather than targeted development programs. Current evaluation methods struggle to account for this pattern of serendipitous discovery. They ask researchers to predict impacts that by definition cannot be predicted. The result is a system that rewards plausible-sounding projections over honest uncertainty about where basic research might lead. The solution is not to abandon accountability or ignore practical considerations. Large physics projects do require careful planning and realistic assessment of costs and benefits. The challenge is maintaining space for the kind of open-ended inquiry that has historically driven the field forward. This means accepting that some of the most valuable research cannot justify itself through conventional metrics. It means recognizing that prestige and progress in physics sometimes come from asking questions without obvious applications. It means trusting that deep investigation of fundamental mysteries will continue to yield unexpected benefits even when we cannot specify them in advance. The reports will keep getting written & the evaluation frameworks will keep evolving. What matters is whether the physics community can preserve room for the kind of ambitious curiosity that those frameworks were never designed to measure.
Europe’s gamble, China’s pause, and what it means for the rest of us
While Beijing taps the brakes, Europe is still pressing the accelerator. At CERN, just outside Geneva, teams are sketching out the Future Circular Collider (FCC), a monster machine up to 100 kilometers around, like the CEPC but even more ambitious. The price tag? Early rough estimates reach 20–25 billion euros, maybe more once real‑world politics and inflation kick in.
Europe’s scientists argue this is exactly the moment to double down. With China stepping back, the field opens for the continent to become the undisputed capital of high‑energy physics for the rest of the century. A scientific moonshot, right under the Alps.
But talk softly to European finance ministers and you’ll hear familiar hesitations. Energy prices are high, social budgets are tight, green transitions are costly. Voters want cheaper bills and safer jobs, not neutral‑current interactions and new bosons. There’s already grumbling that the FCC could become a “cathedral of physics” in an era that feels more like a scramble for survival.
Scientists, for their part, are trying a different kind of persuasion. They talk about medical imaging, electronics, data processing breakthroughs that came from previous colliders. They highlight CERN’s history of creating the World Wide Web, advancing MRI technology, training engineers who later power entire industries. It’s science diplomacy in everyday clothes.
One European researcher explained to me that large machines of this kind represent how humanity seeks to ask the universe better questions. The real tragedy would occur if everyone concluded that those questions cost too much to pursue.
- Past colliders changed daily life — from the Web to better cancer treatments, their side effects shaped the modern world.
- China’s pause creates a vacuum — a rare opening for Europe or a global coalition to lead basic physics for decades.
- Budgets signal values — what we fund at this scale quietly defines what we consider progress worth paying for.
- Ordinary taxpayers are the real gatekeepers — if the story doesn’t reach them, the project rarely survives.
- The next collider will be a planetary decision — any path forward almost certainly needs shared cost, shared credit, and shared risk.
A future written in tunnels we may never dig
Somewhere on a hard drive in Beijing sits a complete vision of the CEPC: rings, shafts, magnets, control rooms, even cafeteria layouts. The dream exists, just not in the soil. That gap between what we can imagine and what we collectively choose to pay for is where the future of science is quietly being negotiated.
China’s decision to halt its race with Europe isn’t only about a budget line. It’s a test of what kind of civilization we’re becoming when we turn away from some of the most expensive questions we can ask.
The story continues beyond whether Beijing or Brussels says yes or no. Perhaps a decade from now a group of countries will revisit those plans and decide to work together on the project. Perhaps smaller and more advanced accelerators built in regional laboratories using newer technologies will tackle the same scientific questions at much lower costs.
Or maybe we look back on this decade as the moment humanity quietly decided that understanding the universe was a luxury, not a necessity.
That uncomfortable idea lurks behind the phrase “too expensive even for China.” This issue extends beyond China alone. It concerns all of us. The statement reveals something deeper about our current situation. When we say something costs too much for China to pursue, we acknowledge a shift in global economics. China has built its reputation on manufacturing efficiency and cost reduction. If a project exceeds their financial comfort zone, it signals genuine economic concern. This reality affects everyone. The phrase suggests that certain technologies or infrastructure projects have become so costly that even nations with massive resources hesitate. It points to broader problems with how we approach development and innovation. The implications reach far beyond one country. When the world’s manufacturing powerhouse finds something too expensive other nations face the same challenge. Developing countries have even fewer options. Wealthy nations must reconsider their strategies. This situation forces us to examine our priorities. We need to ask whether current approaches to building & creating remain sustainable. The answer affects global progress and development for decades ahead. The phrase serves as a warning. It tells us that some paths forward may not work anymore. We must find new ways to achieve our goals without excessive costs. Innovation needs to focus on affordability alongside capability. Everyone shares this challenge. No single nation can solve it alone. The solution requires international cooperation and fresh thinking about how we develop technology and infrastructure. We must adapt our methods to match economic realities.
| Key point | Detail | Value for the reader |
|---|---|---|
| China paused its mega‑collider plan | The CEPC’s multibillion‑dollar cost collided with economic slowdown and shifting priorities | Helps you understand why even powerful countries redraw their scientific ambitions |
| Europe still courts the Future Circular Collider | CERN’s FCC could cost over €20 billion and dominate physics for decades | Shows where the next big discoveries — and political fights — are likely to surface |
| Big science mirrors our values | Choices between colliders, AI, defense, and social spending reveal what we call “progress” | Invites you to reflect on what kind of future you’d personally rather fund |
FAQ:
- Question 1What exactly was China planning to build with the CEPC?
- Answer 1The CEPC was designed as a 100‑kilometer circular collider that would smash electrons and positrons together to study the Higgs boson with extreme precision, and later potentially host a proton collider even more powerful than CERN’s LHC.
- Question 2Has China officially cancelled the project forever?
- Answer 2No, the project has been effectively frozen at the design and R&D stage, with no political green light or funding for full construction. In practice, that pause can last years or quietly turn into a permanent halt.
- Question 3Why are these colliders so incredibly expensive?
- Answer 3They require enormous underground tunnels, ultra‑precise magnets, cryogenic systems close to absolute zero, and thousands of specialized staff over decades. All of that runs into tens of billions before the first discovery is made.
- Question 4Do ordinary people gain anything from this kind of fundamental research?
- Answer 4Yes, although the benefits are indirect and delayed. Past colliders helped drive advances in medical imaging, cancer treatments, electronics, data science, and even the birth of the Web, which began at CERN.
- Question 5Could a future collider be built as a truly global project?
- Answer 5Many scientists argue that’s the most realistic path: shared costs, shared technology, and shared access. The big question is whether rival powers can trust each other enough to dig such a giant tunnel together.
