The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by philwelch on Sunday June 28, 2020 @08:38PM (#23673250)

> so far every higher energy level has resulted in more insight

There were theoretical reasons to expect new results with previous colliders. I don't know that any similar reasons have been named here.

> There is no evidence at this point in time that we know all there is to be known at the next level energetic collisions. The whole idea that we are at the end of the line for particle accelerators smacks of huge hubris: we know all there is to be known.

This is a massive strawman argument to use, especially against someone like Dr. Hossenfelder who is a working physicist.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by jacquesm on Monday June 29, 2020 @12:49AM (#23674441)

All the people back then that thought we knew what there was to be known were working physicists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The World Doesn’t Need a New Gigantic Particle Collider by philwelch on Monday June 29, 2020 @01:05AM (#23674525)

But Sabine Hossenfelder pretty explicitly does not think that (and even states the contrary viewpoint in the original article) so you’re still making an unfair strawman argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]