51–60 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Forgive me for the naive question, but I thought we had proper models for gravity since General Relativity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"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." 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…
Find a way to call it "The largest/most powerful/biggest ever accelerator" otherwise you won't get Trump to do it
Personal politics is a larger dynamic than scientists like to admit. When you are planning something big, something international, you have to think about access. In 2030, will this facility be accessible to the international community? Will Chinese involvement become a security issue? Will data be shared openly? Those decisions are made by the executive branch, subject to the whims of whoever is in charge at the tim…
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Forgive me for the naive question, but I thought we had proper models for gravity since General Relativity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I do not argue about science. But I would be interested in the track record of particle science in the last 50 years on improving the human condition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But OP said that the government could also pony up billions of dollars for the project. The main point seemed to be that universities are wasting their endowment with fancy buildings instead of doing science.
New fancy buildings entice more students with heavy student loans to spend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal politics is a larger dynamic than scientists like to admit. When you are planning something big, something international, you have to think about access. In 2030, will this facility be accessible to the international community? Will Chinese involvement become a security issue? Will data be shared openly? Those decisions are made by the executive branch, subject to the whims of whoever is in charge at the tim…
It's fundamental research. What security issues are you talking about?
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.
How do you propose to measure the ROI of the completely unknown? This is not just related to your comment here, but it's a very general and important part of science. In the early part of the 20th century it was felt that physics was basically 'solved' and the only changes would come in refining values to another decimal point. Of course that was before the discovery of quantum mechanics or the explosion in particle…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Forgive me for the naive question, but I thought we had proper models for gravity since General Relativity.
But even on the astronomic level GR leaves the dark matter hole, which is a non-satisfactory explanation to many. Elegant yes, but certainly not proper.