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 intere

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.