3 ms·
But.. but... she can't have it both ways. The current unexplained data is not much, and the best explanations involve a lot of hard to test things. Why? Becau
by pas 7y ago
But.. but... she can't have it both ways.
The current unexplained data is not much, and the best explanations involve a lot of hard to test things.
Why? Because there's not enough unexplained data. The easy to test theories have been already thrown out.
Yes, sure, what she is saying is nice, let's try to explain stuff the simplest way possible. Occam's razor. But theorists already do this.
- Ma8ee 7y agoOf course she can have it both ways. Don’t be stupid. There’s plenty to do in physics without building an even bigger collider which likely won’t teach us more than the current one.
- pas 7y agoplenty to do, such as? also, she can't wish away the fact that without data any new theories are worthless, even if someone conveniently comes up with one. also, saying that the LHC haven't taught us anything ignores the reality of all the data that it has generated. is it shiny "new" physics? no, but it's a crucial prerequisite for that. particle physics needs new data for new physics eventually.