[deleted]
Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
231–240 of 254 posts
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#232As a (non-practicing) physicist, I've always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says. They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics. It's not. When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment. I've seen/experienced much of this during my time in research. New physics not requiring…
As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say (1) "New physics" is jargon understood by experts to mean new fundamental physics, i.e., new laws/forces/particles at the base of our theoretical edifice. This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson's "More is different" [ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 ] --…
Not sure myself, but I wonder how much of the progress breaks down into theoretical vs experimental physics, and what types of experimental physics have paid off.
Also, are there other forms of experimental physics that don't have much coverage and could shine the light in other directions?
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#233Quantum computers, fusion, free electron lasers, or particle accelerators, where would you put $100 000 000 000?
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#234Here is some reasoning for funding -- i.e., US Congress funding -- high energy physics (HEP), e.g., the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), I didn't see mentioned here: (1) The Russians, EU, China, Japan might pursue HEP so the US does not want to appear to fall behind . So in part, the funding is "a matter of national pride". (2) The funding has a constituency and keeps it and the university physics departments going. The…
These arguments were indeed used 30 years ago, but shortly after the USSR fell apart, the American Superconducting Supercollider was defunded midway through construction. The US was satisfied to become 2nd to Europe in this field then, I don't see why the US wouldn't be equally satisfied to be 4th to Europe, Japan, and China a little while later.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say (1) "New physics" is jargon understood by experts to mean new fundamental physics, i.e., new laws/forces/particles at the base of our theoretical edifice. This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson's "More is different" [ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 ] --…
Not sure myself, but I wonder how much of the progress breaks down into theoretical vs experimental physics, and what types of experimental physics have paid off. Also, are there other forms of experimental physics that don't have much coverage and could shine the light in other directions?
The rate at which new experimental input to fundamental physics is generated has slowed almost to a halt. How much you can trust theory in the absence of experimental confirmation is debated.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#236My personal opinion (and I might be biased since I'm not a collider guy) is that it's time to take a break from the energy frontier and put our efforts into other kinds of physics. There's a whole world out there besides "fixing" the standard model. I'm having a hard time finding it, but there's a quote from a famous physicist along the lines of "we already have a theory of everything we encounter in daily life, it's…
People are doing exactly that. Comparatively, only a few physicists work on the particle collider stuff.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure myself, but I wonder how much of the progress breaks down into theoretical vs experimental physics, and what types of experimental physics have paid off. Also, are there other forms of experimental physics that don't have much coverage and could shine the light in other directions?
The rate at which new experimental input to fundamental physics is generated has slowed almost to a halt. How much you can trust theory in the absence of experimental confirmation is debated.
Not true. The LHC kills theories at the same rate as ever. What has fallen off is hypotheses that survive testing.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say (1) "New physics" is jargon understood by experts to mean new fundamental physics, i.e., new laws/forces/particles at the base of our theoretical edifice. This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson's "More is different" [ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 ] --…
The Majorana fermion was just observed and reported this past year. Fundamental physics. Foundational physics. No accelerators needed. Bose-Einstein condensates have been observed and used in a variety of situations. No accelerators needed. And I could go on. The point is though, fundamental foundational physics is available and accessible in all the various sub-fields.
Recent results have often depended on observations of light flashes in large bodies of water or ice. These have sometimes involved an accelerator, but present accelerators suffice.
Many people think gravitational wave observations matter.
It would not be surprising if completely new, unanticipated plasma fluid phenomena turn up, when someone looks.
People are still trying to understand superconductivity, and have not needed accelerators thus far.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rate at which new experimental input to fundamental physics is generated has slowed almost to a halt. How much you can trust theory in the absence of experimental confirmation is debated.
Not true. The LHC kills theories at the same rate as ever. What has fallen off is hypotheses that survive testing.
The only sensible way to define experimental guidance is by plausibility of the theories being falsified. (Otherwise, I rule out lots of theories every day on my walk to work because I don't witness the heretofore laws of physics melting down.) Post-Higgs and post-natural-SUSY, there are no theories that have much a priori credence. And just getting to Higgs and no-natural-SUSY, compared to the previous accelerator, took multiple decades.
This slow rate is to be compared to vastly faster rate at which new experimental input was rolling in in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.
Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those scientists to research areas is an incredibly hard task, but it’s a necessary one. That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to.
> That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to. You have no idea how management and funding of large-scale research projects works.
At the level of picking a field, people absolutely work on what they are interested in (and have expertise in). You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there (and they wouldn't be trained in it anyway).