4 ms·

I don't care about Sabine and I'm not defending her. There are lots of other people who think this is a bad idea, and Nature has quoted "dozens" of them. The e

I don't care about Sabine and I'm not defending her. There are lots of other people who think this is a bad idea, and Nature has quoted "dozens" of them. The error they saw isn't interesting unless it leads to something. There aren't even good theories about what it might lead to, other than some extra significant figures on some constants that nobody uses. Surely you can see there is a problem with doing science this way. Theory precedes experiment. It always has, and you can't call what you're doing "science" unless that is true.

77pt77 2y ago
> Theory precedes experiment. It always has This is laughably false, even in fundamental physics. No one saw neutrinos coming for example.
- Ygg2 2y ago
  > No one saw neutrinos coming for example. Other than Pauli, you mean? It was hypothesized around 1930. Discovered in 1934. The basis of scientific method is following: 1. You notice something. 2. You ask a question. 3. Form a hypothesis. 4. Experiment. 5. Analyze. 6. Draw conclusions.
  - 77pt77 2y ago
    > Other than Pauli, you mean? After linear momentum was missing in collisions! Pauli speculated that neutrinos would exist after an experimental anomaly. No one really saw it coming. No one saw 3 generations coming either, for example. In fact, people were baffled.
    - Ygg2 2y ago
      > In fact, people were baffled. Yes, but what is FCC supposed to look for? If it's just Dark Matter, and Matter/Anti-matter asymmetry, what theoretical framework is it going to explain it? Will it explain it, or will it just do "Your asymmetric partners are in another Order of Magnitude collider"? Or maybe there are actually 34 dimensions and not like four.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]