Is it fair to argue that though? What's the metric for that? $ per Nobel prize? If you look at $ per scientist, LHC is actually quite cheap. $ per "theory tested", LHCb has disproved so many theory papers it's not even funny.

If you compare how much money is spend on fundamental research (or research in general), the pool of funds for a given direction is not limited because of other research. It's limited by all the other things we spend money on. If society wants to fund more DM, astro, whatever research, it would be much easier to find that money for example in the military spending. A minimal haircut there and you could double the research funding.

> LHC have absorbed a disproportionate share of these scare resources

As opposed to? This sentiment was bandied around a lot before the LHC went online, but no one ever had a proposition of what the alternative was is the goal was to advance fundamental particle physics. You've got exactly 2 ways to probe subatomic interactions: (1) particle accelerator measurement and (2) incidental measurements of high-energy spaceborne collisions.

We're doing both. Theoreticians being unable to conclusively find a new measurement is a problem independent of the fact the LHC exists to do those sorts of measurements that they'd need.

Maybe the physicists are looking for their car keys under the streetlight. Unable to find, them the only solution they can conceive of is a bigger streetlight.

Which might be the right approach in a world without torches?

As opposed to open season on new theory - or even new kinds of theory.

The Standard Model is a bit of a franken-theory of a thing, a kit of parts bolted together in awkward ways. It looks a lot like the pre-quantum ad-hoc theories that attempted to describe quantum effects before QM was invented.

It's hard to believe that physics can't do better. But easy to believe that physics won't do better while most of the money and all of the mental space is owned by concepts that are more than a hundred years old now.

That sounds like you are complaining about the amount of investment in experimental physics in general, rather than the LHC in particular. It is true that fundamental physics could use a major breakthrough from the theorists. However, the theorists we do have are desperate for more experimental evidence to help them.

Add to that that experimental physics is simply far more expensive then theoretical physics, and it should come as no surprise that we spend more money on experiments then pure theory.

The complaint about LHC is more about questioning weather spending $5 billion to smash protons together is the most effective way of getting more empirical evidence to the physicists.

> spending $5 billion to smash protons together

About the same as a the price of a large modern sports club in a top league[0]

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/apr/29/chelsea-sir...

Proton decay experiments? Magnetic monopole searches?

Providing better bounds on the (non-)existence of phenomena predicted by existing non-Standard Model particle physics theories sounds like a worthwhile endeavor rather than praying that particle accelerators will maybe uncover a particle if you give it just a little bit more juice.

What's the difference to new particles predicted by BSM theories you might uncover if you give it just a little bit more juice? Especially if you measure a ton of other things at the same time?

> no one ever had a proposition of what the alternative was is the goal was to advance fundamental particle physics. You've got exactly 2 ways to probe subatomic interactions: (1) particle accelerator measurement and (2) incidental measurements of high-energy spaceborne collisions.

Sabine has recommended funding more telescopes to learn more about dark matter.

As opposed to funding things that are not particle physics at all. As far as I can tell, knowing that bosons exist has had approximately zero impact on our ability to engineer new stuff. Personally, I'm tired of footing the bill for a field that requires the one of the largest, most expensive experimental systems ever conceived yet seems unable to produce more than useless factoids.

This is just demanding to know where research will lead us, as though it's the tech tree in a 4X game.

You'd be equally opposed to Sabine's alternative since what use is knowing anything about dark matter? For that matter who cares where the universe came from. What have telescopes helped us with lately?

"Not a whole lot to show" from the LHC? We got the Higgs Boson, and piles of data providing more accurate measurements of fundamental constants in the Standard Model, along with a ton of progress in various "applied" areas related to developing the materials/tools for constructing the thing.

The possibility of Higgs appearing at LHC, but not any supersymetry partners, has a name among physicists: the nightmare scenario. The Higgs discovery (measuring its mass) wasn't unexpected, there were known symmetries and energy bounds that made it pretty much have to be there. Everything new LHC was supposed to discover has not appeared. That's not to say there's not good science happening there -- but many people (physicists) consider it disappointing. The purpose of building a collider that big and expensive is to find new particles.

> The purpose of building a collider that big and expensive is to find new particles.

This is not true! There's much more to particle physics than simply hunting for new particles. Our knowledge of even the particles we know to exist is massively incomplete. Several next-gen collider proposals are for "Higgs factories" to study the Higgs boson better, for example.