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.
-
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
-
-
See that’s where you’re back at the assumption that “fundamental” only has one meaning and that it’s impossible for anything to be “deep” unless it’s a new excitation.
-
The ingredients are more fundamental than the cake.. the cake tastes good, but it’s not a fundamental quanta of cake..
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
quantum computers might actually shed new light on the halting problem. That would be deeper than any new particle. There are questions that could be addressed at low energy that are as fundamental as any bsm particles, but high-energy tunnel vision ignores these possibilities
-
That’s why I didn’t exclude those in my previous comment...
End of conversation
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.