|
|
|
|
|
|
by matthewdgreen
2060 days ago
|
|
|
This appears to value the negative findings of the LHC at zero. I’m no physicist, but my understanding is that some variants and parameters of the theory have been excluded as a result of LHC experiments. More to the point, what is the alternative strategy that’s more likely to produce useful data? “Don’t do experiments to validate or invalidate theory” doesn’t obviously seem like it’s going to produce better results. |
|
|
I'm no physicist either, so take my hot take with the appropriate pinch of salt. :) My understanding is that some variants and parameters should have been excluded, if you hold theorists to their ~2005 predictions, but in practice most theorists are essentially burying their heads in the sand, or ignoring their past predictions and just making new ones. Both Hossenfelder and Peter Woit (of the "Not Even Wrong" book and blog) have documented many such cases. Many theorists are still assuming supersymmetry as a basis for their work and essentially ignoring the fact that it didn't show up where expected.
More to the point, what is the alternative strategy that’s more likely to produce useful data?
I think it's "remove the focus from high-energy physics and particle colliders, bring more attention to less fashionable areas that might benefit more from huge big-budget experiments." I don't know of any specific proposals to do something completely different with the budget that might otherwise go to e.g. CERN's Future Circular Collider proposal. Hossenfelder has pointed to other big science projects that could produce more scientific bang-for-the-buck than the LHC, such as LIGO and the James Webb space telescope.