3 ms·

Is there an actual theoretical question that will be answered by an even bigger collider, or is it just, “let’s see what happens?” It’s not a question of whethe

Is there an actual theoretical question that will be answered by an even bigger collider, or is it just, “let’s see what happens?” It’s not a question of whether basic research is fundamentally valuable but rather whether building larger and larger particle colliders will deliver diminishing returns in exchange for increasing costs.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It's just "Let's see what happens" - and that's why it's a bad idea. LHC was justified as a search for the Higgs. The Higgs was found. Everyone was happy. Fine. LHC 2.0++ is just banging rocks together for the sake of it. Something interest might fall out, or it might not. But considering that we still don't understand quantum origins, have no clue how to make a theory of quantum gravity, and have no idea what Dark Energy is, or even if it exists at all, it might be better to spend the money on pursuing creative theoretical leads in those other directions and coming back to country-sized experimental hardware when there are some new theories to test.
- henearkr 6y ago
  Today the axion is the new hypothetical fundamental particle that coincides with the status that had the Higgs boson two decades ago. It may very well be the next milestone.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    What's the particle energy range needed to make an observation about axions?
    - henearkr 6y ago
      Pretty tiny: 10−5 to 10−3 eV/c2 Though the utility of a big collider would be in diversifying the types of decays observed?
- seamyb88 6y ago
  Banging rocks together has been a very fruitful method which is always limited by the technology. Many physicists believe that the rock banging should be an ongoing exercise which itself guides the theoretical directions. They also believe that there is an almost guaranteed chance of finding something, if their advances to higher energy are achieved. All we need is one anomaly in the vast data processing. There are many things which are expected to be seen at higher energies. If they are not seen, it still says a great deal and will guide theoretical discussion.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

It's just "Let's see what happens" - and that's why it's a bad idea. LHC was justified as a search for the Higgs. The Higgs was found. Everyone was happy. Fine. LHC 2.0++ is just banging rocks together for the sake of it. Something interest might fall out, or it might not. But considering that we still don't understand quantum origins, have no clue how to make a theory of quantum gravity, and have no idea what Dark Energy is, or even if it exists at all, it might be better to spend the money on pursuing creative theoretical leads in those other directions and coming back to country-sized experimental hardware when there are some new theories to test.

henearkr 6y ago
Today the axion is the new hypothetical fundamental particle that coincides with the status that had the Higgs boson two decades ago. It may very well be the next milestone.
- dnautics 6y ago
  What's the particle energy range needed to make an observation about axions?
  - henearkr 6y ago
    Pretty tiny: 10−5 to 10−3 eV/c2 Though the utility of a big collider would be in diversifying the types of decays observed?
seamyb88 6y ago
Banging rocks together has been a very fruitful method which is always limited by the technology. Many physicists believe that the rock banging should be an ongoing exercise which itself guides the theoretical directions. They also believe that there is an almost guaranteed chance of finding something, if their advances to higher energy are achieved. All we need is one anomaly in the vast data processing. There are many things which are expected to be seen at higher energies. If they are not seen, it still says a great deal and will guide theoretical discussion.