4 ms·

I agree, but the issue here is different I think. The linked article is also arguing for open ended research, the claim is that other open ended research is lik

• gus_massa 6y ago
  The problem is what "open ended" means. A typical experiment is to accelerate a lot protons and a lot of antiprotons (or other particle), make them collide, and see the "debris". The "debris" can be a lot of things. So you must filter some of them. For example pick only the one that produce exactly two photons and two "jets" of mixed particles that are difficult to identify. Now you calculate the energy of the photons and make a nice graph, of number of collisions versus energy of the photons. Using the standard theory you expect a smooth curve, but if there is a new particle you will see a peak somewhere. If you see something, you only see the peak. So good luck imagining what the particle can be and how it interact with the other particles. Another team peek another filter, like the experiment that produce two photons and electron and a positron. They make a nice graphic and hope to see an unexpected peak. Another team ... If the current theory predicts a peak somewhere you should find it, but if you find an unexpected peak yuo may have founded a new particle. The theoretical frameworks are useful to guess which filters may be interesting and give a chance to find a new particle. The problem is that there are just too many possible filters and you can't try all of them.