4 ms·

First here is the original letter to Nature about new colliders: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01054-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0

First here is the original letter to Nature about new colliders: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01054-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-01054-6 I am certainly a supporter of new colliders, although there are other avenues of constraining particle physics models such as astrophysics, cosmic rays, direct detection experiments that need to be funded. But the authors of that letter to Nature and physicists in general need to be careful about promises, otherwise nobody is going to believe us in the future. And there is a tendency of promising a lot in order to get funding. And for the authors of the article to claim that "A good example of a guaranteed result is dark matter." is just blatant lie. I wish there was an experiment that would for sure tell us what dark matter is. (I'm an astrophysicist myself)

SiempreViernes 6y ago
Sure, if you really think that the next bit where they specify what sort of Dark matter they will provide results on is irrelevant context. I find it a bit rich that Hossenfelder can criticise particle physics for only ruling out some dark matter with words such as "a type nobody has seen". There are no direct detection of dark matter at all, so why does she insist that the models particle physics speak of are any worse than the others? At the core of the controversy around Hossenfelder is that from the fact there's not been any really _unexpected_ experimental results for four decades concludes that there's no point in doing particle physics. There is not really much more to the argument than that, the rest is just quoting the optimistic physicists over the pessimistic ones and pretend they don't agree on the need for more experiments.