I think GP's disappointment isn't that there's another video complaining about particle physics.

I think they're complaining about Sabine making another video where she repeats the same unsubstantiated complaints. And they were disappointed because they are interested in novel critique of particle physics, and were let down.

Can't be any novel critiques of particle physics if the physicists themselves never do anything novel to be criticized for.

> I think they're complaining about Sabine making another video where she repeats the same unsubstantiated complaints.

What a weird comment. They're not substantiated at all, the whole video is literally substantiating her position, and does it quite well IMO.

> unsubstantiated complaints

In what way? Her line of reasoning was easy to follow and she gave some specific examples. Given the length and medium I felt it was substantial, certainly enough for a rebuttal. What's missing?

Novelty for one, she's been doing the "you should have been correct by now, for shame" routine for at least four years http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/12/how-lhc-may-spell-e....

In yhe video she makes it clear the real problem isn't that papers/models are wrong in their predictions, but that they aren't being selected to address an inconsistency or observation.

Exactly. They want to build ever larger accelerators just for the hell of it at this point. How is it not apparent that we've passed a point of diminishing returns? The LHC was justified to find the Higgs, perfectly reasonable. We found it roughly where we expected it, great! What justification is there now for a larger accelerator?

That funding could go towards thousands of research proposals that aren't suffering from diminishing returns.

> They want to build ever larger accelerators just for the hell of it at this point.

This is simply not true, as a quick perusal of any proposal for a future collider will show: they all start with motivational statements, not with "it is a truth universally acknowledged we need another" as you claim.

What you are thinking of is ballistic missile defence, now that's a self-serving boondoggle.

> This is simply not true, as a quick perusal of any proposal for a future collider will show: they all start with motivational statements

They are pseudo motivations "justified" by appeals to pseudo problems. They are pseudo problems for exactly the reasons Hossenfelder discusses in this video and in her book.

says >"The LHC was justified to find the Higgs, perfectly reasonable. We found it roughly where we expected it, great! What justification is there now for a larger accelerator?"<

Glad you asked. The Higgs boson was just the thing I needed for my new Tesla and, thanks to LHC, I now always carry a spare in the trunk. But in all honesty it's slightly off-center and I am hoping that a new larger accelerator will provide a particle that precisely fills the bill.

I concur with your last point.

Please give a timestamp or direct quote of for that claim, because I don't think Hossenfelder is so far gone she'd just straight up lie like that.