3 ms·

Show we were she actually advocates for building any accelerator and you'd have a case. She violently opposes the FCC despite one of it's explicit goals being

Show we were she actually advocates for building any accelerator and you'd have a case. She violently opposes the FCC despite one of it's explicit goals being precisions measurements of the Higgs. In fact in the very post you link to she dismisses the idea of high precision measurements: "Yeah, except that I am the one saying we could do better things with $20 billion than measuring the next digits of some constants"

tsimionescu 6y ago
Accelerators aren't the be-all, end-all of particle physics. She explicitly advocates for investigating particle physics in new ways, such as astronomical interaction observations.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  Those aren't new ways, it's already being done by astroparticle physicists. You can look at Ice Cube, HESS and Pierre Auger Observatory for examples. Dropping accelerators simply leaves a hole, and those experiments all rely on cross sections from CERN for their predictions by the way.
mb7733 6y ago
>Show we were she actually advocates for building any accelerator and you'd have a case. In point 18 of this article: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-..., her first suggestion for an alternative avenue of research is > (a) Astrophysical and cosmological observations attributed to dark matter. These are discrepancies between theory and data which should be studied closer, until we have pinned down the theory. Some people have mistakenly claimed I am advocating more direct detection experiments for certain types of dark matter particles. This is not so. I am saying we need better observations of the already known discrepancies. Better sky coverage, better resolution, better stats. If we have a good idea what dark matter is, we can think of building a collider to test it, if that turns out to be useful

tsimionescu 6y ago

Accelerators aren't the be-all, end-all of particle physics. She explicitly advocates for investigating particle physics in new ways, such as astronomical interaction observations.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
Those aren't new ways, it's already being done by astroparticle physicists. You can look at Ice Cube, HESS and Pierre Auger Observatory for examples. Dropping accelerators simply leaves a hole, and those experiments all rely on cross sections from CERN for their predictions by the way.

mb7733 6y ago

>Show we were she actually advocates for building any accelerator and you'd have a case. In point 18 of this article: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-..., her first suggestion for an alternative avenue of research is > (a) Astrophysical and cosmological observations attributed to dark matter. These are discrepancies between theory and data which should be studied closer, until we have pinned down the theory. Some people have mistakenly claimed I am advocating more direct detection experiments for certain types of dark matter particles. This is not so. I am saying we need better observations of the already known discrepancies. Better sky coverage, better resolution, better stats. If we have a good idea what dark matter is, we can think of building a collider to test it, if that turns out to be useful