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.
-
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.
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..
-
-
If you look at my whole rant, I mention quantum information, condensed matter, and non-eq thermo just off the top of my head as things that physicists in “our generation” (I’m 36) might have found more interesting/fruitful than searching for beyond SM-physics via new particles
-
The problem is that those are investigating different things.. none of those (except for QIS) are “fundamental” Physics .. they’re neat, sure but they don’t tell us anything deep
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Right, but that’s not what I meant. There are tons of interesting problems in theoretical physics in our generation. Theories that predict new particles at energy scales accessible to any feasible collider we can build in the next few decades just aren’t part of them.
-
Yes that’s why FASER just got approved at CERN...
- 1 more reply
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.