3 ms·
Not exactly. I mean, claiming that the LHC had "minimal potential" after all the "we shall see when the LHC shows the data" is quite disingenious. The "effor"
by pfortuny 12y ago
Not exactly. I mean, claiming that the LHC had "minimal potential" after all the "we shall see when the LHC shows the data" is quite disingenious.
The "effor" has nothing to do with cancer and has a lot to do with the REAL WORLD we live in. Physics either talks about REAL experiments or is otherwise void of value.
There are lots of speculative nonsensical theories which can be brought up and have no relation to the real world. As long as they are not falsifiable, they are not Physics.
- nilkn 12y ago> I mean, claiming that the LHC had "minimal potential" after all the "we shall see when the LHC shows the data" is quite disingenious. The potential for discovering supersymmetry through the LHC was indeed minimal. There is nothing disingenuous about that. The LHC is conducting a vast number of experiments on a vast array of topics. Perhaps the main goal was to uncover the Higgs boson, which unlike supersymmetry could be disproved if it wasn't found by the LHC. > The "effor" has nothing to do with cancer It's an analogy... > As long as they are not falsifiable, they are not Physics. They are theoretical physics, though. Again, I don't know what your overall point is. That we should just all give up and end theoretical physics right now for good? The bottom line is that if you think people aren't putting in the effort, you're wrong. That's my my point here.