3 ms·

Well, why not? As many point out it has interesting engineering challenges, and gives particle physicists something to do.. However, maybe there is nothing to d

Well, why not? As many point out it has interesting engineering challenges, and gives particle physicists something to do.. However, maybe there is nothing to do after all. One wonders if this is a last hail mary for those clinging to super symmetric particle theories or maybe for multiple higgs ideas. Or just for a job. There doesnt seem any sound reason to me to think the particle desert isnt real and wont stretch all the way to GUT energy. Though i suppose 13.4 - 100 may yield extra discoveries of some nature. I used to read this blog http://resonaances.blogspot.com http://resonaances.blogspot.com, though im not a particle physicist, it was interesting. The posts dried up and it was hard not to detect pessimism after a null result via supersymmetry. Indeed i seem to remember hearing no one would want to go into particles as a career now and many will pivot into condensed matter physics etc. So what are they gonna do for 25 years? I guess the youngsters 25 years hence will have to dust off the particle books. Meta materials, gravity waves and plasma physics are so much more intetesting now.. I seem to remember reading about plasma wave accelerators the size of a table top many years ago with giant theoretical energies. Interesting to note the ssc had 40 Tev energy which would have fairly concretely answered the ss question without the need of another machine

magv 7y ago
> So what are they gonna do for 25 years? Run 2 of the LHC ended in 2018. Currently the experimentalists are busy analyzing that data, and the theoreticians are busy improving the theoretical prediction precision to the level of the experiment. If we had no new data, it would take a decade for this work to be finished. Run 3 of the LHC is scheduled for 2021-2023. After that the High Luminosity LHC upgrade will take place, with data taking currently scheduled for 2026-2038 [1]. Overall, just with the LHC-related projects in the foreseeable future we are looking at decades worth of measurement and research. There's no reason to worry about the lack of work to do :) [1] https://project-hl-lhc-industry.web.cern.ch/content/project-schedule https://project-hl-lhc-industry.web.cern.ch/content/project-...
nxpnsv 7y ago
Contrary to popular belief, there’s lots of work going on in experimental particle physics, and there’s a lot planned. Physics didn’t stopp in 2012 with Higgs discovery, it is not likely to stop in the near future either.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  High energy experimental physics died in the 1973. It's long since been time to pull the plug on this zombie. It was obviously true in the 90s when I was picking a specialization. It's even more true today.
  - nxpnsv 7y ago
    I’ve spent 18 years in the field. But what would I know...
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      Compare the last 18 years with, say, the period from 1955 to 1973. There are still people who write poems in Latin as well. They don't cost much, nor do they channel large populations of intelligent people away from real problems.
      - nxpnsv 7y ago
        You imply there were no benefits from lhc? It’s not incredibly expensive per scientist (there are single hospitals with larger budgets than a lhc experiment), and it had a massive impact - for instance you know about it. Basic research is important, if you don’t agree, try educating yourself - i won’t do it for you.
        scottlocklin 7y ago
        >You imply there were no benefits from lhc? I have overtly stated as much, in as public a way as I had access to at the time. I don't care if it's "not incredibly expensive per scientist" -it is a wasted effort, and an awful lot of what gets published (with 1000 "authors") as being bullshit. I've also seen the lifestyle and read the "results" of both experimental high energy and the theorists: it's basically a cargo cult at this point, imitating the glory days in the 50s and 60s. Let me ask you a question: what lack of result would convince you that high energy as practiced today is a waste of time? I look at stuff like this and see sheer decadence: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-and-the-carpenter/ https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-an... The "muh basic research" argument doesn't work forever. "Which basic research" is a question we should be asking, and building yet another giant accelerator and detector set up is not necessarily the answer, just because that's been useful in the (now distant) past. Phil Anderson is probably right.

magv 7y ago

> So what are they gonna do for 25 years? Run 2 of the LHC ended in 2018. Currently the experimentalists are busy analyzing that data, and the theoreticians are busy improving the theoretical prediction precision to the level of the experiment. If we had no new data, it would take a decade for this work to be finished. Run 3 of the LHC is scheduled for 2021-2023. After that the High Luminosity LHC upgrade will take place, with data taking currently scheduled for 2026-2038 [1]. Overall, just with the LHC-related projects in the foreseeable future we are looking at decades worth of measurement and research. There's no reason to worry about the lack of work to do :) [1] https://project-hl-lhc-industry.web.cern.ch/content/project-schedule https://project-hl-lhc-industry.web.cern.ch/content/project-...

nxpnsv 7y ago

Contrary to popular belief, there’s lots of work going on in experimental particle physics, and there’s a lot planned. Physics didn’t stopp in 2012 with Higgs discovery, it is not likely to stop in the near future either.

scottlocklin 7y ago
High energy experimental physics died in the 1973. It's long since been time to pull the plug on this zombie. It was obviously true in the 90s when I was picking a specialization. It's even more true today.
- nxpnsv 7y ago
  I’ve spent 18 years in the field. But what would I know...
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    Compare the last 18 years with, say, the period from 1955 to 1973. There are still people who write poems in Latin as well. They don't cost much, nor do they channel large populations of intelligent people away from real problems.
    - nxpnsv 7y ago
      You imply there were no benefits from lhc? It’s not incredibly expensive per scientist (there are single hospitals with larger budgets than a lhc experiment), and it had a massive impact - for instance you know about it. Basic research is important, if you don’t agree, try educating yourself - i won’t do it for you.
      - scottlocklin 7y ago
        >You imply there were no benefits from lhc? I have overtly stated as much, in as public a way as I had access to at the time. I don't care if it's "not incredibly expensive per scientist" -it is a wasted effort, and an awful lot of what gets published (with 1000 "authors") as being bullshit. I've also seen the lifestyle and read the "results" of both experimental high energy and the theorists: it's basically a cargo cult at this point, imitating the glory days in the 50s and 60s. Let me ask you a question: what lack of result would convince you that high energy as practiced today is a waste of time? I look at stuff like this and see sheer decadence: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-and-the-carpenter/ https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/the-walrus-an... The "muh basic research" argument doesn't work forever. "Which basic research" is a question we should be asking, and building yet another giant accelerator and detector set up is not necessarily the answer, just because that's been useful in the (now distant) past. Phil Anderson is probably right.