3 ms·

> I think the modern equivalent of epicycles is string theory. Find an inconstancy? No problem, add a dimension. A very common trick is to bump things to highe

> I think the modern equivalent of epicycles is string theory. Find an inconstancy? No problem, add a dimension. A very common trick is to bump things to higher energy/mass. Your expensive collider didn't find the particle I predicted? The particle's mass must be larger than I thought; probably just beyond your collider's ability. You'd better build a bigger collider! My theory of dark-matter/dark-energy/quantum-gravity/etc. doesn't fit known observations? This tweaked version only has discrepancies above a certain energy, which coincidentally is just beyond current colliders. This is arguably how we found the W, Z and Higgs bosons; the charm, top and bottom quarks; and the tau. On the other hand, supersymmetry has been playing this game for decades, claiming that each new collider was sure to find (or rule out) the plethora of particles it predicted. Each time, the mass estimates were revised upwards.

jfengel 5y ago
The physicists knew all along what the potential mass range was. They hope they can find it at the lower range, because that's what's cheaper, as well as feasible with the engineering capability. Arguably, the biggest problem with the Higgs boson is that it was found exactly where they were expecting it. They'd ruled out other ranges; anything bigger would no longer be a Higgs boson. So all it did was tell them what they already knew. Failing to find it would actually have been more interesting -- though finding something different would have been even more interesting. So they don't really say "we're sure to find it". They're hoping to find it -- and hoping not to. They'll always need a bigger collider. That's where new results will always be. They're hoping for results they can't predict, and that makes it really hard to write a justification for the expense. (I personally would just as soon spend much less on Big Science like that, but you'll find a ton of people willing to defend it. Fundamental physics has a history of producing results that are unexpected but economically immense, from lasers to the Web, as well as driving human intellectual curiosity.)
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > They'll always need a bigger collider. That's where new results will always be. Bigger colliders are a low-risk approach: we'll definitely learn something, even if it's just better constraints on our models. This was a no-brainer back when colliders took up rooms or buildings. We've gone so far down this path that colliders are now measured in kilometres (and straddle national borders!), making it harder to justify the expense. Higher-risk approaches can be much cheaper, by looking for new paths (where we haven't hit diminishing returns yet). EmDrive is an example; wakefield accelerators are another. These have a greater chance of going nowhere (again, EmDrive), but cost so little that we can fund a whole bunch for the equivalent of a bigger collider. Of course, in best approach is to strike a balance between these two extremes: don't spend everything on the biggest possible collider; but likewise don't avoid projects just for being expensive. Another good example is ITER versus the various fusion startups.

jfengel 5y ago

The physicists knew all along what the potential mass range was. They hope they can find it at the lower range, because that's what's cheaper, as well as feasible with the engineering capability. Arguably, the biggest problem with the Higgs boson is that it was found exactly where they were expecting it. They'd ruled out other ranges; anything bigger would no longer be a Higgs boson. So all it did was tell them what they already knew. Failing to find it would actually have been more interesting -- though finding something different would have been even more interesting. So they don't really say "we're sure to find it". They're hoping to find it -- and hoping not to. They'll always need a bigger collider. That's where new results will always be. They're hoping for results they can't predict, and that makes it really hard to write a justification for the expense. (I personally would just as soon spend much less on Big Science like that, but you'll find a ton of people willing to defend it. Fundamental physics has a history of producing results that are unexpected but economically immense, from lasers to the Web, as well as driving human intellectual curiosity.)

chriswarbo 5y ago
> They'll always need a bigger collider. That's where new results will always be. Bigger colliders are a low-risk approach: we'll definitely learn something, even if it's just better constraints on our models. This was a no-brainer back when colliders took up rooms or buildings. We've gone so far down this path that colliders are now measured in kilometres (and straddle national borders!), making it harder to justify the expense. Higher-risk approaches can be much cheaper, by looking for new paths (where we haven't hit diminishing returns yet). EmDrive is an example; wakefield accelerators are another. These have a greater chance of going nowhere (again, EmDrive), but cost so little that we can fund a whole bunch for the equivalent of a bigger collider. Of course, in best approach is to strike a balance between these two extremes: don't spend everything on the biggest possible collider; but likewise don't avoid projects just for being expensive. Another good example is ITER versus the various fusion startups.