5 ms·

Sabine Hossenfelder recently wrote a Scientific American article arguing against this push, which might be an interesting read. https://www.scientificamerican.c

Sabine Hossenfelder recently wrote a Scientific American article arguing against this push, which might be an interesting read. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-doesnt-need-a-new-gigantic-particle-collider/# https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-doesnt-.... > "When physicists started building colliders in the 1940s, they did not have a complete inventory of elementary particles, and they knew it... [] The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test." > "... particle physicists should focus on developing new technologies that could bring colliders back in a reasonable price range and hold off digging more tunnels." > "It’s because too much science funding is handed out on the basis of inertia. In the past century, particle physics has grown into a large, very influential and well-connected community. They will keep on building bigger particle colliders as long as they can, simply because that’s what particle physicists do, whether that makes sense or not."

dekhn 6y ago
she is also the person who accused the people running LIGO of major scientific misconduct. After reading a bunch of what she's written I really don't think her opinions in these areas contribute a lot to the long-term scientific discussion.
- brutt 6y ago
  Her arguments looks valid for me. Can you explain your concern?
- sdwa 6y ago
  She does seem to have made something of a side hustle out of arguing against large scientific experiments. From my point of view, just build it. Sure money could be better spent elsewhere in principle, but it could also be spent reasonably well on the FCC. And I never understood her degree of concern, the sums at play here aren't that big. She'd be better off just campaigning against tax avoidance if she's so concerned about the state coffers rather than arguing for cutting research spending which may or may not actually be redirected towards other research.
leephillips 6y ago
She argued wittily against it almost a year ago: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-... I tend to mainly agree with her stance overall (and I happen to be a theoretical physicist.)
noir_lord 6y ago
> The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test. When I see things like that I often remember a quote I came across years ago when tracking down the origin of the Lord Kelvin "end of science" quote (that never actually happened) > While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. - Albert Michelson - 1894 It seems like every generation someone claims we've reached the end somehow and while they are giving that speech some young experimental scientist is in the background going "hmmm, that's funny" to prove them wrong. Ironically she repeats the Kelvin myth here in point 16 - http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Well but it is a different think to saying "there's nothing to discover" and "the cost/benefit of discovering those would be too high" (at least for now)
- Certhas 6y ago
  This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with: “We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.” Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. [1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.
geraltofrivia 6y ago
I just wanted to acknowledge the comments, the back-and-forth in this thread. It is a very interesting discussion, and following its references has been insightful. Personally I know nothing of the field, and thus have no say in the matter either way.

dekhn 6y ago

she is also the person who accused the people running LIGO of major scientific misconduct. After reading a bunch of what she's written I really don't think her opinions in these areas contribute a lot to the long-term scientific discussion.

brutt 6y ago
Her arguments looks valid for me. Can you explain your concern?
sdwa 6y ago
She does seem to have made something of a side hustle out of arguing against large scientific experiments. From my point of view, just build it. Sure money could be better spent elsewhere in principle, but it could also be spent reasonably well on the FCC. And I never understood her degree of concern, the sums at play here aren't that big. She'd be better off just campaigning against tax avoidance if she's so concerned about the state coffers rather than arguing for cutting research spending which may or may not actually be redirected towards other research.

leephillips 6y ago

She argued wittily against it almost a year ago: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-... I tend to mainly agree with her stance overall (and I happen to be a theoretical physicist.)

noir_lord 6y ago

> The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test. When I see things like that I often remember a quote I came across years ago when tracking down the origin of the Lord Kelvin "end of science" quote (that never actually happened) > While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. - Albert Michelson - 1894 It seems like every generation someone claims we've reached the end somehow and while they are giving that speech some young experimental scientist is in the background going "hmmm, that's funny" to prove them wrong. Ironically she repeats the Kelvin myth here in point 16 - http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...

raverbashing 6y ago
Well but it is a different think to saying "there's nothing to discover" and "the cost/benefit of discovering those would be too high" (at least for now)
Certhas 6y ago
This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with: “We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.” Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. [1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.

geraltofrivia 6y ago

I just wanted to acknowledge the comments, the back-and-forth in this thread. It is a very interesting discussion, and following its references has been insightful. Personally I know nothing of the field, and thus have no say in the matter either way.