4 ms·

Whatever you think of Sabine, it's not accurate to dismiss this as spinning lies for clicks. Very similar core points are also made here: https://www.nature.co

Whatever you think of Sabine, it's not accurate to dismiss this as spinning lies for clicks. Very similar core points are also made here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x It seems accurate that this is an expensive proposed experiment with less expensive alternatives, with very real debate about costs and benefits. I'm in the "spend more money on theory first" camp. You keep saying that theorists should guide experimenters, but you seem to mean that in the limited sense of poking a little harder at the Standard Model and hoping it breaks. Meanwhile there are all kinds of open questions where fundamental theory around and parallel to the Standard Model is underdeveloped. It might well be better to spend a few billion on doing something about that first, then designing experiments to test whatever falls out.

anoncareer0212 2y ago
Be careful when rushing. Your viewpoint as expressed is perfectly rational. However, you know that both of these claims asked about are blatantly false, and were distracted by the idea that saying those claims is false also implies all alternatives proposed are based on lies. To wit, the ask was "Is it really true that there a no theories that are proven or discarded with this experiment, and that the Chinese have plans to do it much faster? Her video is pretty damning." Both of those things are clearly false. The Chinese part is blatantly false, to the point it can be worked out by a laymen who knows years ascend. The Standard Model itself is in question, modulo semantics about proven/disproven and the philosophy of certainty, by any reasonable definition, theory is at stake.