Re:Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
by jessriedel on Sunday May 10, 2020 @09:18PM
(#23137954)
Quasiparticles aren't changes to the theoretical foundations. They can be derived from the existing foundations.
You might as well argue that new classes of molecules synthesized by chemists are new physics.
Re:Finding new physics will require a new particle collider
by ncmncm on Monday May 11, 2020 @03:06AM
(#23139590)
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
by jessriedel on Monday May 11, 2020 @11:35AM
(#23143249)
Neutrino experiments are a good example! A mistake on my part. I think you're right that the CKM parameters have been bounded more tightly with non-accelerator based neutrino experiments. (Of course, that's still HEP, and it still gets plenty of funding, so it doesn't detract from my point.)
On the other hand, superconductivity is not a good example. It's a still-confusing phenomenon, but the vast majority of physicists believe to follows directly from the known laws of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
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.