3 ms·
Eh I disagree. I've never understood "new physics" to mean new fundamental physics. Anderson localization was "new physics." I mean, is discovering new Hadrons
by gaze 6y ago
Eh I disagree. I've never understood "new physics" to mean new fundamental physics. Anderson localization was "new physics." I mean, is discovering new Hadrons "new physics?" They're "just" new combinations of quarks. In that sense it's "just" quark chemistry! I think it's especially absurd since condmat systems can be interesting toy models for high energy systems.
But you know, whatever. The fact is that we as physicists are fighting over crumbs. We should instead be political outside our circle rather than fighting internally. The fact that our budget is orders of magnitude smaller than the defense budget is insane.
Also-also, there's plenty of tabletop fundamental experiments. Superconducting cavity based axion searches for instance.
- jessriedel 6y agoHappy to agree that terminology may vary; for the purposes of my argument, I only need that a large fraction of physicists do use the term this way, and that that sense is meaningful and important. > Also-also, there's plenty of tabletop fundamental experiments. Superconducting cavity based axion searches for instance. Yes, sure, such experiments could find new fundamental physics. (And it should be funded!) But the Bayesian credence the overall field places on this happening is quite low, and certainly much lower than a next generation accelerator. No table-top experiments have found new fundamental physics in many decades. (Of course, the accelerator is arguably a much worse deal given its extraordinary price.)