41–50 of 63 posts
Is there any important theory yet to be proved ? Is fusion reactor/any such advance tech required this ? i.e. do we have a vague idea of end goal here ? Is current theory predicts successful fusion reactor ? Can this help uncover any ?
I thought particle physics were coming to an end? After CERN found the Higgs boson then nothing. The ROI of a more powerful accelerator is abysmal. It is impossible to know how large a new collider needs to be and if anything interesting will be found. Use the money on a moon-base instead and then mars.
There's still a lot to learn about QCD even if new physics seems to be in a rut.
why not finish the one in Texas? yes the facility probably needs repairs but a lot of initial work is done I would think?
I thought particle physics were coming to an end? After CERN found the Higgs boson then nothing. The ROI of a more powerful accelerator is abysmal. It is impossible to know how large a new collider needs to be and if anything interesting will be found. Use the money on a moon-base instead and then mars.
I'd also prioritize manned exploration above particle physics, but I think they should continue and grow in tandem as I see no way of knowing exactly what the future of these endeavors holds, other than that there is a reasonable argument to be made that either could produce discoveries of tremendous value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish that would happen, the SSC design is even more powerful than LHC. But not sure Texas is culturally the optimal place for such high science these days. Part of the opposition to SSC back in the day was religious. CA or NV might be better.
They might give physicists a hard time, yeah. http://rmitz.org/freebsd.daemon.html It seems like the SSC was located there as more of a congressional boondogle than serious science?
Required reading "Lost in Math" about the possibility that those scientists search for something that doesn't exist.
While Hossenfelder is well within her wheelhouse criticising the search as wrongheaded, members of the public reading and forming an opinion on the proper course of physical research is less than useless. It's exactly the same thinking that leads people to conclude that global warming isn't a problem, because they found a climate scientist who also disagrees. Unless we all, en masse, want to go get physics degrees to…
No it isn't.
You've read the book?
The point is, particle scientiests have shown no fundamental progress in the last decades, and claimed several times there will be progress for sure with the next billion EUR. But this has not materialized.
Hossenfelder argues that the "for sure" part comes from the perception of beauty by the scientists, and they have no other basis for being convinced there is possible progress than that the current theories are not beautiful (e.g. no quantum gravity, no unified theory, no super symmetry).
Climate scientists have shown massive progress over the last decades.
"[...] because they found a climate scientist who also disagrees."
It's not that "one" scientist says there is no progress, all scientists agree there is no progress in particle science (except showing a particle exists that everyone was sure existed already and waves that everyone also was sure exist, no new insights). So listen to the scientists about their progress, when billions of EURs and broken promises have not brought any progress and decide if they should get more, or the billions are better spend on scientists that make progress (climate, health, AI, ...).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the public pays billions and billions of EUR, it should form an opinion. "trust majority opinion" Trust those who get those billions of EUR, you mean.
Given that science has a pretty good (but not perfect) track record of improving the human condition, yes, trust them or spend the effort to become a recognized expert.
But I would be interested in the track record of particle science in the last 50 years on improving the human condition.
Required reading "Lost in Math" about the possibility that those scientists search for something that doesn't exist.
I thought particle physics were coming to an end? After CERN found the Higgs boson then nothing. The ROI of a more powerful accelerator is abysmal. It is impossible to know how large a new collider needs to be and if anything interesting will be found. Use the money on a moon-base instead and then mars.
They still cannot explained gravity, and the standard model is unsatisfactory. They know exactly what they are searching for, read the paper. Esp. in QCD there's a lot still missing. Sea quarks, gluons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They might give physicists a hard time, yeah. http://rmitz.org/freebsd.daemon.html It seems like the SSC was located there as more of a congressional boondogle than serious science?
It's impossible to copy and paste that link on mobile Safari fwiw, fixed width scroll area.