The premise of the criticisms I take issue with is that “new physics” can only mean “new particles,” and can only be discovered by bigger linear accelerators. The certainty with which Sabine’s critics believe that there is only one way forward in physics is the problem.
I agree that @skdh has made an important, and lucid point that needs to be addressed.
That said, your chauvinistic rant seems to indicate you don’t actually understand her argument.
-
-
-
But saying theoretical physicists have made a terrible life choice is not only wrong, but it’s philosophically naive, as if QM, EM, and GR etc weren’t once “pure theory”. We follow our nose, and it’s the best we can do..
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Really not interested in a back and forth over who understands what. I was responding to a flood of dismissals I’ve seen that couldn’t possibly have been less “chauvinistic,” and the assertion that not immediately building a bigger collider is “giving up on basic science.”
-
It’s a difficult and subtle philosophical (and political)line to walk to decide which physical theories are “ready to be experimentally tested”, as opposed to other ones.. in this vein I think
@skdh makes an important point - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.