My very different impression is that this discussion has gone on for ~8 years now (see e.g. https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-future-of-supersymmetry-20121120/ … https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science-20151216/ … https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-no-new-particles-means-for-physics-20160809/ …) & some high-energy physicists are pursuing new ideas (see @QuantaMagazine) as others change subfields.https://twitter.com/JimBaggott/status/1217011515385139201 …
-
-
Replying to @nattyover @QuantaMagazine
All great articles. The problems are painfully clear to anyone paying attention, and for sure young theorists are debating their future prospects. This wasn’t my point, however. When are the *institutions* of science (academic departments, funding agencies) going to engage?
6 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @JimBaggott @QuantaMagazine
Again I have a different impression, that there have been topical shifts in departmental hires and funding over the past 8 years.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
String Theory and Supersymmetric BSM model building are still hugely dominant. Have a look at the topic list for Snowmass 2021: https://www.aps.org/units/dpf/snowmass-2021.cfm …pic.twitter.com/3AKIOdygU6
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Uh... that is a very long list that says "SUSY" in two places and "string" in two places
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nattyover @WKCosmo and
The main reason SUSY is still researched is because there we can tackle problems like confinement analytically, with hopes it can help in the real world
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
Maybe not the ‘main’ reason for some people, but that’s what they put on grant applications
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.