3 ms·
They are not that random. They typically are motivated by some observation of something, for example discrepancies from Standard Model predictions, or obvious h
by davrosthedalek 4y ago
They are not that random. They typically are motivated by some observation of something, for example discrepancies from Standard Model predictions, or obvious holes in the SM (like the Higgs). Yes, there a many, and people jump on many things which turn out to be noise. But "new particle" as the solution has a rather impressive track record: Atoms, Nuclei, Nucleons, Quarks, Neutrinos, Higgs. The list is not complete.
- hackandthink 4y agoOK. She detailed her point with the Higgs boson. There was an internal inconsistency and the Standard Model needed the Higgs boson. There may be different point of views: your particle is random but mine is a great idea and cleans up the theory. But I actually thought when listening to her talk: isn't it fine thinking about and looking for particles in the next energy range. (we spend money for so many stupid things, 50 * 10^9 Euros (next accelerator) is not so much money related to 500 million people)
- davrosthedalek 4y agoI absolutely agree. The amount of money for a LHC upgrade isn't that crazy at all. I do not buy into the argument that we could fund other things instead. We could fund these other things anyway, if we want to, and not funding one project does not mean that something else is funded. Mainly in means the money will go into a different (non-science) pot.