3 ms·
The author's argument is not that there are not questions that still need to be answered; but there is no reason at all to believe that a larger collider, that
by archgoon 8y ago
The author's argument is not that there are not questions that still need to be answered; but there is no reason at all to believe that a larger collider, that we are capable of building with today's technology, will answer any of them. (This point is made explicit in the comments).
If the funding for your field is predicated on building a larger collider to discover new particles; then you're in trouble. That is the sense 'Particle Physics may be done' is meant in this context.
- dwaltrip 8y agoOk, I see where the argument is coming from, thanks. I am having trouble buying the idea that without new colliders, there is nothing left to do in the field of particle physics or even with the Standard Model. But I could off base here, or perhaps my interpretation of the article is overly literal.