4 ms·
tl;dr- They're arguing that there's little point to building a new, larger particle collider to succeed the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because, while there are
by _Nat_ 8y ago
tl;dr- They're arguing that there's little point to building a new, larger particle collider to succeed the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) because, while there are hypotheses that such a new collider could falsify, those hypotheses aren't sufficiently motivated to be worth falsifying.
- kwhitefoot 8y agoThank you. It would have been useful, at least to me, if that had been the first paragraph. I gave up reading before I got that far because it seemed to be an article attacking a straw man.
- air7 8y agoThanks. The title could use a rewrite.
- Yajirobe 8y agoSo I take it the author is well-read in high-energy particle physics to make this claim?
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoYes, the author is well-read in particle physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]