4 ms·

I can understand the argument, but what other methods do we have to test particle physics other than building larger and more powerful colliders? Are there some

by foxes 8y ago

I can understand the argument, but what other methods do we have to test particle physics other than building larger and more powerful colliders? Are there some new designs that would make it cheaper? Otherwise I don't mind spending money just for the sake of exploration, maybe that money could be "more well spent", but that's true for a lot of things. Who knows maybe it will find something interesting. It's not even a total waste anyway as it will probably spur jobs / research / interest.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
Currently there's a good chance there's nothing to test. The real problem in physics isn't lack of data, it's lack of direction. The Standard Model has been a thing for decades now. It's good at what it does, but there are a lot of fundamental things it doesn't do. The proposed Future Circular Collider will cost at least €24bn. That would fund any number of research programs willing to take a bold look at fundamentals from different angles. Currently there's superstring theory and various attempts at quantum gravity, but none of them are moving much. A number of less mainstream possible leads have been discarded for what are really political reasons - prestige and funding - not because they're poor science. Imagine if we'd never had quantum theory or relativity. Physics would seem incredibly backward. But realistically, in today's academic climate Einstein would never be published. €5bn a year for five years on open fundamental research with fewer political and academic constraints has a better chance of generating a breakthrough than spending €24bn on a big machine that will most likely produce no breakthroughs at all. Of course it's a gamble, but in international terms €25bn is pocket money.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  > But realistically, in today's academic climate Einstein would never be published. Can you expand on this? This isn't a leading question, I actually don't immediately see what you mean.

by foxes 8y ago

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

Currently there's a good chance there's nothing to test. The real problem in physics isn't lack of data, it's lack of direction. The Standard Model has been a thing for decades now. It's good at what it does, but there are a lot of fundamental things it doesn't do. The proposed Future Circular Collider will cost at least €24bn. That would fund any number of research programs willing to take a bold look at fundamentals from different angles. Currently there's superstring theory and various attempts at quantum gravity, but none of them are moving much. A number of less mainstream possible leads have been discarded for what are really political reasons - prestige and funding - not because they're poor science. Imagine if we'd never had quantum theory or relativity. Physics would seem incredibly backward. But realistically, in today's academic climate Einstein would never be published. €5bn a year for five years on open fundamental research with fewer political and academic constraints has a better chance of generating a breakthrough than spending €24bn on a big machine that will most likely produce no breakthroughs at all. Of course it's a gamble, but in international terms €25bn is pocket money.

throwawaymath 8y ago
> But realistically, in today's academic climate Einstein would never be published. Can you expand on this? This isn't a leading question, I actually don't immediately see what you mean.