I'm just a layman who loves physics, but this article does make a point. The LHC was built to definitively prove or disapprove existing theoretical models, lik

I'm just a layman who loves physics, but this article does make a point. The LHC was built to definitively prove or disapprove existing theoretical models, like the Higgs boson. If the exponential increasing of cost of the LHC++ can't even promise new proofs or discoveries, then isn't that money better spent on other scientific experiments that will advance science? I'd have no problem with Europe spending that money on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), or many other projects.