4 ms·

In my opinion the problem with her messaging is that while she says that we should not fund the next collider, I think the argument should be, what's the best a

In my opinion the problem with her messaging is that while she says that we should not fund the next collider, I think the argument should be, what's the best allocation of money in physics? And there are legitimate reasons to have the next collider even if we have no guarantee that it will deliver GUT or whatever. We have to venture into the unknown. We just should not lie that it will prove supersymmetry or is guaranteed to find dark matter because it sounds better.

Invictus0 6y ago
Let's not pretend that we can't find some other way to allocate billions of collider dollars. I don't see it as a problem with her argument that she doesn't promote an alternative, because I'm sure then the critics would say that the alternative isn't promising enough. Yes we need to go into the unknown, but the point is that at some point, it's not cost effective to do that, and we live in a world with constrained resources where we can do more good by investing elsewhere.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  How can you seriously make an argument about efficient allocation without discussing the alternatives you choose between? Is it even logically possible to define efficiency without comparing alternatives?
  - auggierose 6y ago
    Have you defined the word "seriously" before making that comment? Ridiculous.
SiempreViernes 6y ago
Yeah, it does get tiring that all the novelty in her writing shows up in the sections describing the well known history of the standard model resisting all attempts at being made into a theory. But apparently the only point worth making is progress in particle physics has been slow. Well, to be fair the point Hossenfelder tries to make is that there's been no progress, and since that's not actually true convincing people of it regardless takes more work.
tsimionescu 6y ago
She has specific proposals - climate science (the most pressing concern of our times, if organized human society is to survive the next century or so), and astronomical research. I would also mention that things like the Voyager missions are still providing novel data ~50 years after their launch. Will the same be true of the LHC, or any other particle collider?
- orbifold 6y ago
  I have bad news for you: Most high energy physicists I know go on to finance or "data science" before they would work on climate science. It is just not that interesting and doesn't pay well. HEP carriers prestige and is actually something aspiring physicists want to do.
  - criddell 6y ago
    That's not really bad news, is it? It doesn't seem unreasonable to redirect all the money being spent on HEP projects into climate science. That high energy physicists have great employment options is a good thing. It makes it much easier to close down those projects. The HEP problems aren't going anywhere. Lets deal with more pressing concerns now and come back to HEP problems later.
    - orbifold 6y ago
      It is really hard to organise 6000+ people to do anything. HEP won’t come back if you do. There isn’t much to figure out on climate change on a fundamental level anyways. It is a political and technological problem, not something you need a ton of scientists working on.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Organizations and cultures are kind of like living beings in this regard. The relationships and unspoken understandings between those 6000+ people are not things that could be replaced easily. This is e.g. why the current rocket companies had to do a lot of reinvention and research instead of just switching the Saturn V production line back on.
dnautics 6y ago
and I don't think she's even saying we shouldn't ever fund the next collider. I think she's suggesting that maybe we should wait until at least: - many interesting falsifiable theories emerge that are resolvable at the accessible energy scale. - technology catches up to make the engineering of such a thing cheaper. It's not a terrible idea to wait. An important part of why the LHC was more effective than the hole in texas is that chemists using NMRs and doctors using MRIs drove technical and production improvements that brought down the cost of superconducting magnets. There is this narrative that theoretical physics drives investments in technical innovation that improves other scientists, but I'm not sure that narrative is entirely true. It's often the other way.

Invictus0 6y ago

Let's not pretend that we can't find some other way to allocate billions of collider dollars. I don't see it as a problem with her argument that she doesn't promote an alternative, because I'm sure then the critics would say that the alternative isn't promising enough. Yes we need to go into the unknown, but the point is that at some point, it's not cost effective to do that, and we live in a world with constrained resources where we can do more good by investing elsewhere.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
How can you seriously make an argument about efficient allocation without discussing the alternatives you choose between? Is it even logically possible to define efficiency without comparing alternatives?
- auggierose 6y ago
  Have you defined the word "seriously" before making that comment? Ridiculous.

SiempreViernes 6y ago

Yeah, it does get tiring that all the novelty in her writing shows up in the sections describing the well known history of the standard model resisting all attempts at being made into a theory. But apparently the only point worth making is progress in particle physics has been slow. Well, to be fair the point Hossenfelder tries to make is that there's been no progress, and since that's not actually true convincing people of it regardless takes more work.

tsimionescu 6y ago

She has specific proposals - climate science (the most pressing concern of our times, if organized human society is to survive the next century or so), and astronomical research. I would also mention that things like the Voyager missions are still providing novel data ~50 years after their launch. Will the same be true of the LHC, or any other particle collider?

orbifold 6y ago
I have bad news for you: Most high energy physicists I know go on to finance or "data science" before they would work on climate science. It is just not that interesting and doesn't pay well. HEP carriers prestige and is actually something aspiring physicists want to do.
- criddell 6y ago
  That's not really bad news, is it? It doesn't seem unreasonable to redirect all the money being spent on HEP projects into climate science. That high energy physicists have great employment options is a good thing. It makes it much easier to close down those projects. The HEP problems aren't going anywhere. Lets deal with more pressing concerns now and come back to HEP problems later.
  - orbifold 6y ago
    It is really hard to organise 6000+ people to do anything. HEP won’t come back if you do. There isn’t much to figure out on climate change on a fundamental level anyways. It is a political and technological problem, not something you need a ton of scientists working on.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Organizations and cultures are kind of like living beings in this regard. The relationships and unspoken understandings between those 6000+ people are not things that could be replaced easily. This is e.g. why the current rocket companies had to do a lot of reinvention and research instead of just switching the Saturn V production line back on.

dnautics 6y ago

and I don't think she's even saying we shouldn't ever fund the next collider. I think she's suggesting that maybe we should wait until at least: - many interesting falsifiable theories emerge that are resolvable at the accessible energy scale. - technology catches up to make the engineering of such a thing cheaper. It's not a terrible idea to wait. An important part of why the LHC was more effective than the hole in texas is that chemists using NMRs and doctors using MRIs drove technical and production improvements that brought down the cost of superconducting magnets. There is this narrative that theoretical physics drives investments in technical innovation that improves other scientists, but I'm not sure that narrative is entirely true. It's often the other way.