CERN reviews plans to build new particle smasher three times bigger than the Large Hadron...

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 902   +280
Staff
Forward-looking: The European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN, is an international research laboratory operating the world's largest particle accelerator. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) played a crucial role in confirming the discovery of the Higgs boson. However, CERN now aims to delve deeper into the exploration of new phenomena in physics.

CERN is in the process of conducting a midterm review for the feasibility study of the Future Circular Collider (FCC), the next-generation particle accelerator unveiled in 2020. According to CERN's announcement, the construction of the FCC is estimated to cost €20 billion ($21.5 billion), and the proposed machine would boast a 91 km circumference, enabling the collision of subatomic particles at a maximum energy of 100 teraelectronvolts (TeV).

Members of CERN are currently engaged in discussions regarding the construction plans for the FCC, a machine described by scientist Tara Shears (a member of the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider) as larger, faster, and more powerful than the LHC. If approved, CERN Director Fabiola Gianotti stated that the new particle accelerator would serve as the "most powerful microscope" ever built, facilitating the study of natural laws at the smallest scales and highest energy levels.

CERN aims to secure approval for the FCC building plans within the next five years, with the anticipation of commencing the first experiments in the 2040s, following the completion of the LHC's runs. Shears mentioned that CERN scientists are currently conducting a study to assess the feasibility of the accelerator, with the findings expected by 2025. The final decision regarding the construction phase of the FCC could be reached by 2028.

The FCC is anticipated to shed new light on the nature of dark matter, dark energy, and other mysterious phenomena, potentially leading to breakthrough scientific discoveries in particle physics research. Shears noted that the new particle accelerator could unveil previously unknown features of the Higgs boson and Higgs field, which are beyond the study capabilities of the LHC at its energy levels of 14 TeV.

However, the proposal for a larger particle collider has faced criticism from David King, the former government chief scientific adviser in the UK, who labeled the FCC as a "reckless" idea at a time when the world is already grappling with extreme environmental threats. Sabine Hossenfelder, a researcher at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy, expressed skepticism, stating that there is no evidence that the FCC would necessarily reveal new insights into particle physics and the Standard Model.

According to Hossenfelder, the 91 km machine would likely offer improved measurements of some constants already known within the Standard Model, but it might not contribute significantly to human knowledge and scientific research, contrasting with the impact of the LHC. She suggests that particle physicists need to acknowledge that their era might be concluding, with quantum physics emerging as the next major frontier in science, where the FCC may not play a pivotal role.

Permalink to story.

 
It will cost triple what anyone claims as these project always do, and yes the LHC found the Higgs and narrowed ranges for other phenomena but…

The best decision about particle collider physics the US made was canceling the SSC. Bye bye $2B sunk cost but better than another $8+B to merely compete with the LHC. I love science but these huge budget projects sap money away from dozens and hundreds of other cheaper ones who's science is just as compelling.
 
The best decision about particle collider physics the US made was canceling the SSC.
The worst, you mean. It ensured that the best high-energy physicists in the world would flock to Europe (they did) and that any breakthroughs in the field would happen outside the US.

The last breakthrough in nuclear physics gave us an energy source 100,000,000 more powerful than the chemical sources we had before. Unlocking the secret of sub-nuclear forces could easily be an even larger advance.
 
The worst, you mean. It ensured that the best high-energy physicists in the world would flock to Europe (they did) and that any breakthroughs in the field would happen outside the US.

The last breakthrough in nuclear physics gave us an energy source 100,000,000 more powerful than the chemical sources we had before. Unlocking the secret of sub-nuclear forces could easily be an even larger advance.

That's what the LHC is for. Not everything needs to be done unilaterally in the US though many people want it to work that way.
 
Sabine Hossenfelder can, and has, explained repeatedly why "bigger collider" is a bad idea. Check out her Youtube channel. And her books, especially "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".

 
That's what the LHC is for. Not everything needs to be done unilaterally in the US.
The LHC is far too small, which is why they're now planning to replace it -- the SSC would have been three times as powerful. And while the US may not "need" to perform basic science, if it wishes to be a leader in physics, it needs to ... well, lead.

Sabine Hossenfelder can, and has, explained repeatedly why "bigger collider" is a bad idea. Check out her Youtube channel. And her books, especially "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray".

Nothing in that clip says "bigger collider is bad", or even anything remotely similar. As for her book, it makes the point that physicists may be overly dependent on esthetic beauty in their theoretical models, rather than hard experimental data ... which is just the sort of problem that a larger collider would obviate, by providing enormous quantities of new data with which to actually test those theories.
 
The LHC is far too small, which is why they're now planning to replace it -- the SSC would have been three times as powerful. And while the US may not "need" to perform basic science, if it wishes to be a leader in physics, it needs to ... well, lead.


Nothing in that clip says "bigger collider is bad", or even anything remotely similar. As for her book, it makes the point that physicists may be overly dependent on esthetic beauty in their theoretical models, rather than hard experimental data ... which is just the sort of problem that a larger collider would obviate, by providing enormous quantities of new data with which to actually test those theories.
One of Hossenfelder's major theses across her books and videos is that leading edge particle physics has become a self-licking ice-cream cone, the perpetuation of which is the only real reason for a larger collider.

As an expert in the field, Hossenfelder can decode the insanely complex technical papers and proposals to show that proponents of a new machine have only breathtakingly vague arguments at the level of "we can't begin to claim what it would find, and don't have much idea what it might find, but it would be way cool (and would employ me forever)". Almost incredible.

Her book "Lost in Math" - when you actually read it - explains that attempts to improve or extend the Standard Model are fundamentally based on a hope for more "naturalness", and this is a fading chimera providing only continual employment for those locked into the field eg. string theorists. The LHC did not confirm supersymmetry, the current holy grail of naturalness, which was one of the main hopes for it. To cross the "desert" of observable effects between what the LHC has achieved and a sure find in anything further would take a collider the size of the Milky Way. That's why, as an inveterate speaker of truth, Hossenfelder left that field.

Nobody except our new breed of alt-right science deniers is against science. The question is where to put the resources and where to obviously not waste any more. Especially on the monumentally expensive construction of a gigantic white elephant which can never be used for anything else.

I felt bad when the US dropped out of super-collider development. Years later I began to understand why that was the smart move.
 
Last edited:
.... a gigantic white elephant which can never be used for anything else.
You might as well claim we shouldn't build expensive telescopes, because they can never be used for anything else but looking at distance objects. Particle accelerators we built in the 1970s are still performing basic research -- half a century later.

As an expert in the field, Hossenfelder can decode the insanely complex technical papers....
Hossenfelder is a Youtube star because she doesn't (we won't be unkind and say "can't") contribute meaningful research to the field. Her bio lists herself also as "musician and singer", and her most popular Youtube video was entitled "do humans have souls?"

..."we can't begin to claim what it would find, and don't have much idea what it might find...
This is true of all basic research. Historically, it has been the genesis of *all* massive scientific discoveries. More than a century ago, the attempt to explain a tiny mathematical flaw in electromagnetic theory that predicted hot objects should emit infinite amounts of energy -- the so-called "ultraviolet catastrophe" -- created an explosion of new knowledge responsible for everything from the modern transistor to the high-speed laser fiberoptic system which people like you use to denigrate basic science.

Nobody except our new breed of alt-right science deniers is against science.
Are you talking about those people who believe a man can change into a woman by closing his eyes and wishing hard?
 
Hossenfelder is a Youtube star because she doesn't (we won't be unkind and say "can't") contribute meaningful research to the field. Her bio lists herself also as "musician and singer", and her most popular Youtube video was entitled "do humans have souls?"
"You won't be unkind". "She doesn't contribute." What outrageous and condescending BS !! Hossenfelder eats quantum mechanics for breakfast, particle physics for lunch, and astrophysics for dinner. Neither you nor I would be more than a crumb on that floor. If I'm wrong in this assumption, do list your works in those fields.

Lacking similar credentials you can't even follow, much less evaluate, any part of any of her many peer-reviewed papers. Except one which she simplified for lesser mortals, and that's not easy even with a working knowledge of PDEs and matrix ops (I've tried).

Hossenfelder is a very, very special type of person. It's exactly her unwavering honesty and remarkable personal openness that lets her post music fantasy vids right along with her science explainers - of which I've seen 100+. Nobody with a professional axe to grind or some hidden agenda would ever do that. Nor would they - as in her books - let the vested researchers have full say, and fairly and with empathy try to decode and present where they're coming from.

Your Cap'n Obvious contention that science can't proceed without investment, and your historical examples, are irrelevant to the question of WHERE to invest now. A gigantically expensive new collider is not the place because it almost no chance - none even predictable! - of finding anything of significant value to us. That's what Hossenfelder, who clearly lives for science, has explained. The countless "theories" it might "test" and provide "enormous data" for are churned out daily from what has become a stagnant academic pool for which "self-absorbed" is a cosmic understatement.

You are simply uninformed, and need to read more non-invested expert opinion, which isn't easy to find given the complexity of the topic and its long-burnished "leading-edge science" sheen.
 
Last edited:
Hossenfelder is a very, very special type of person. It's exactly her unwavering honesty and remarkable personal openness that lets her post music fantasy vids right along with her science explainers - of which I've seen 100+...
Do you purchase her music CDs and T-Shirts also? I don't normally argue with outraged fanboys, but I will say I have a Master's in the field, and was solving for eigenvalues of wave functions before there were personal computers to assist, much less an Internet to post the results to. But you are correct on one point: while I get around fairly well in quantum electrodynamics, my contributions to QCD, QFT, and post-standard model physics are exactly zero. However I listen to those who actually do work in the field -- and 999 out of 1000 agree. Physics is in a theoretical impasse, and the only way forward is more experimental data, at higher energy levels. That comes from particle accelerators.

Hossenfelder herself admits the entire field disagree with her. She describes herself as a lone "voice in the wilderness", and says that working physicists regard her as a "You-tuber", rather than an active researcher (NPR interview: Sept 23, 2023).

As for the utterly absurd idea that we shouldn't spend time and money on these because the researchers "don't know what they expect to find", words cannot express how misguided this viewpoint is. Literally every major advance in science came from the unexpected result of an experiment. Applied research is well and good, but the truly big finds come basic research in places we least expect it.
 
"Physics is in a theoretical impasse, and the only REASONABLY CLEAR way forward is more experimental data, at GALACTICALLY higher energy levels."

Fixed it for you.

Which still begs the questions (plural!) that this branch of physics - instead of infinite other science that could be funded - should get the giant open wallet. And that being at an impasse for decades isn't a red flag for further blind investment! And that "higher energy levels" somehow connote "higher real progress".

It's irrelevant that Hossenfelder isn't an active researcher because she actively follows research, and more precisely because the particle physics field has for years been at an impasse. She spent decades in it and decided to move to science explaining. And no surprise if that "entire field" disagrees with her, because it is almost entirely invested in having another gigantic toy.

You finally jump back to your equally irrelevant straw man of the value of experiment. Nobody is denying such value as a scientific tool - the question is where to investigate! The fact that we can't progress without experiment does not mean that experiment will lead to progress! How do you even have a technical degree with such weaknesses in logic? We can't build a multi-billion dollar dartboard. And then the next one on the same reasoning!

Since you can't begin to present today's particle physics as forming any signpost for the next real advance (in fact everything argues against that), you simply make the absurd claim that "every major advance has been an unexpected experimental result". Like... Newtonian dynamics? General relativity? How about the Higgs boson? Of course there have been some important accidental discoveries but those are the exceptions that prove the rule; and famous accordingly. Infinitely more progress has been made via experiments reasonably undertaken to confirm a reasonable theory, in that they did or did not.

Which of course was your earlier claim for the new collider, signally failing to mention that the only "theories" that can be tested with any conceivable collider are arcane concoctions not seriously intended to lead anywhere. That is the key point. Because by now testing any non-pointless theoretical conjecture would require energies infinitely larger than we can ever build. Which is exactly why a smart and forthright physicist like Hossenfelder would leave the field. The less-brilliant or less-independent stay on, hoping that the rice bowl will yet again be refilled.

And even if (!) experimentation is the be-all and end-all... every dollar spent on doing that in particle physics is one less spent on doing it in other science. Including medicine, where I would like to see it. And there's probably no competing field that requires such massive and largely if not totally unrecoverable physical plant.
 
Last edited:
"Physics is in a theoretical impasse, and the only REASONABLY CLEAR way forward is more experimental data, at GALACTICALLY higher energy levels."

Fixed it for you.

Which still begs the questions (plural!) that this branch of physics - instead of infinite other science that could be funded - should get the giant open wallet.

This.

It's all relative and a lot of Astro science didn't get funded because of James Webb and it's huge cost overruns. Yes it's a fantastic instrument and delivering on its promises but that comes at a COST.

Funding money for science is not quite a zero sum game but when it comes to federal money, it is. IMO some projects, however fantastic they are, are too big and costly to steal money from hundreds of other great scientific projects.
 
Last edited:
Which still begs the questions (plural!) that this branch of physics - instead of infinite other science that could be funded
An easy question to answer. Because, just as all other sciences can be considered to be simply specialized branches of physics, the Standard Model is the primal branch from which all of physics -- all of science itself -- descends. It is *the* instruction manual for how the universe is assembled. The discovery of new physics beyond the Standard Model would lead to a scientific revolution as large or larger than the one we experienced from the 19th century to today.

And how do we study the Standard Model? With particle accelerators.

...every dollar spent on doing that in particle physics is one less spent on doing it in other science. Including medicine, where I would like to see it.
You don't appear to realize that early work in particle physics led to -- among countless other advances -- x-ray imaging, CAT scans, MRIs, PET scans, and the use of radiation therapy for cancer treatment, bone inflammation, and others.

you simply make the absurd claim that "every major advance has been an unexpected experimental result". Like... Newtonian dynamics? General relativity? How about the Higgs boson?
Yes, all those. Einstein's SR sprang from the unexpected null result of experiments to detect the aether, as well as numerous inconsistencies between the experimental data on electromagnetism (summed up by Maxwell's equations) and Newton's laws of morion -- GR was his integration of gravity into SR. And Principia Mathematica came from Newton's attempts to describe the weird and unexpected results Kepler and Brahe were seeing in the sky -- objects that moved, not in epicycles, but in ellipses! And not just that, but apparently at continually varying velocities! I'll leave as an exercise to you to determine which unexpected results led Higgs to propose his eponymous field.

testing any non-pointless theoretical conjecture would require energies infinitely larger than we can ever build.
Sorry, but this just isn't true at all. The researchers planning the FCC (which isn't planning to come online until the 2040s, btw) have already printed two volumes of theoretical findings it can prove or disprove.

I realize you're a Sabine fan. You're in the position of having listened to an accused criminal's lengthy explanation as to why they're innocent -- without hearing any of the 999 eyewitnesses who saw him in the act. One side of the story only. Why not listen -- even briefly -- to what the *real* researchers in the field have to say on the subject?
 
Last edited:
Umm... you changed your claim. You aren't explainig how "every major advance has been an unexpected experimental result", but how such advances have involved prior unexpected results. Of course people used everything they had - the earlier unexpected results and countless other facts and results - to shape a new theory, and tried to test that; sometimes winning big.

So your layers of words boil down to saying that experiments - independent of theoretical work driving them - are inherently good because there may be unexpected results and those may help the next person. Yeah, well, nobody should accept that as sufficient reason to build a new collider. That's the multi-$billion dartboard again.

But of course theories do matter, to guide the experiments and evaluate results. The collider proponents have two volumes of them! Wow. But you're still avoiding the key fact that these will either (a) turn out to not be testable at the new energies (so sorry... maybe next machine) or (b) lead nowhere if they are. By "nowhere" I mean fail to significantly advance the Standard Model or any other meaningful goal. Ruling out some range of dimensions in a sub-sub-sub-sub string theory isn't it. There are probably 20 volumes of those alone, "needing to be tested".

Hossenfelder isn't the only one discussing this. She just provides the most comprehensive explanation for the current situation. See also Smolin "The Trouble With Physics" and Woit "Not Even Wrong; The Failure of String Theory". Active researchers who have almost the same story to tell..

Nobody really believes the new collider will significantly advance the Standard Model, far less go "beyond" it. The idea that it will "confirm supersymmetry" is just a promotional hope, as it was with the existing LHC (so sorry... maybe next machine). In fact the current theoretical desert is exactly why you're pushing only the value of experiment and point only to early successes in particle physics. As in 50-80+ years ago.

We shouldn't build another collider just because "it will find something unexpected". Of course it will, but the odds of that being of measurable value to the outside world are about zero. While "advancing fundamental physics" is a fine phrase, it doesn't mean anything concrete and isn't automatically worth infinite money.

Which returns to the telling fact that your reasons for building a new collider now would, unaltered, justify building bigger ones forever, regardless of what they produce or can be expected to find. That alone shows your entire argument to be meaningless. Or irrelevant. Or in any case insufficient to justify the massive diversion of resources away from every other area of science, where we can just as easily posit "unexpected results" leading to major breakthroughs.

In fact, given the very remote prospect of a major advance in particle physics, it's probably about the last place we should invest yet more giant sums.
 
Last edited:
(...a plethora of glowing Sabine references excised...)
There's a term for the one scientist in a thousand who disagrees with all the rest. We call them "quacks". And when that scientist abandons science, to become a "singer, musician, spiritual guru, and Youtube star", there's an even more unkind term.

Still, every quack starts with a grain of truth. It is true that some theories combining quantum dynamics with gravity -- particular the breed of QG theories that Sabine espouses -- are provable only in the Planck domain. But that doesn't mean they're not distinguishable at lower energy levels. There are literally hundreds of opposing theories and sub-theories testable at the 100 TeV range. The FCC will either prove one of these, or (more likely) eliminate 100+ blind alleys that countless researchers are devoting their lives to. Not to mention all the research on the electroweak force and various GUTs, ruling out supersymmetry once and for all, etc -- all having nothing to do with gravity unification, and thus where Sabine's objections don't apply.

Worse, is that Sabine's approach would simply have the entire physics community tell the world: "Sorry, folks, we failed. Come back and see us in 50,000 AD, when you can build a cosmic-scale accelerator. Until then, we'll merely assist the engineers with higher-bandwidth lasers and growing larger zirconium telluride crystals."

See also Smolin "The Trouble With Physics"..
Oops! Smolin says no such thing. In TTwP, he notes the mathematical rabbit-hole that is the current state of string theory, but offers his (testable) LQG as an alternative. And he doesn't knock string theory for our being unable to reach the energy levels required to test it , but rather because of the near-infinite multiplicity of theories it produces means that any conceivable set of experimental data could be fit to one of the theories. Smolin has, consistently and stridently, called for more experimentation, more experimental data, as the way forward.

Umm... you changed your claim. You aren't explainig how "every major advance has been an unexpected experimental result", but how such advances have involved prior unexpected results.
My claim is unchanged: you've merely misstated it. Every major scientific advance has been the result of unexpected experimental results. I explained how the examples you chose for Newton and Einstein were. The pattern is repeated continually: an experiment returns something unexpected. Scientists alternate between ignoring it and attempting to fit it into existing theory. Ultimately -- usually a decade or three later -- that result transmogrifies into an astounding new theory, vaulting science tremendously forward.
 
Last edited:
100+ blind alleys that countless researchers are devoting their lives to. Not to mention all the research on the electroweak force and various GUTs, ruling out supersymmetry once and for all, etc
Yeah. Odd that even the LHC didn't change this dismal, decades-long picture. Let's build a bigger one.

the near-infinite multiplicity of theories it produces means that any conceivable set of experimental data could be fit to one of the theories.
Yeah. Odd that even the LHC didn't change this dismal, decades-long picture. Let's build a bigger one.

have the entire physics community tell the world: "Sorry, folks, we failed."
Yeah. That would be the honest thing. Of course you meant particle physics community. Odd omission.

vaulting science tremendously forward.
Oddly, even with huge investments, there's been no vaulting in particle physics for decades. So, even more oddly, you insist it should suck additional $Tens of Billions away from fields that are actually making progress (I.e. almost any other one).

Because... "fundamental science" - a sticker that apparently justifies a gigantic, unending public and private welfare program to keep countless researchers noodling away down countless new blind alleys. No useful results even expected, much less demanded.

when that scientist abandons science, to become a "singer, musician, spiritual guru, and Youtube star", there's an even more unkind term.
Sabine lives for science; publishing peer-reviewed works in addition to her constant stream of YT science explainers. Her most recent paper is Jan 2024 "SPARC galaxies prefer Dark Matter over MOND". Beyond odd that you'd say she has "abandoned science". A falsehood; and there's an even more unkind term.


My opinions would have aligned more with yours way back. I'm glad that some core beliefs prevented me from descending into dogmatic illiberalism on all fronts; an all-too-common path for the technically fascinated.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Odd that even the LHC didn't change this dismal, decades-long picture.
LOL, you mean except for discovering the Higgs Boson, the first experimental proof of how matter acquires mass -- the largest discovery in all physics in the last half-century? A discovery that drove a stake in the heart of dozens of competing theories? Or the LHC's finding the first experimental proof of exotic hadrons like the tetraquark? It refudiating all supersymmetry theories (more than 3/4 of them) that required the emergence of superpartners at energy levels below 10 TeV? Demolishing the "WiMP miracle" hypothesis? And (my personal favorite) the first hint of post Standard Model physics in the anomalous decay of B-mesons, by (in part) a former study partner of mine.

there's been no vaulting in particle physics for decades. So, even more oddly, you insist it should suck additional $Tens of Billions away from fields
NEWS: Jun 5, 1780 -- Luigi Galvani has discovered a mysterious "electric fluid" capable of animating the legs of frogs. "Arbie", a shoe cobbler from Venice, instantly hailed the experiment as frivolous. "Why do they waste money on this nonsense," he railed, "rather than fields we actually see progress in, like finding better sources of leeches for bloodletting, or a more effective charm for warding off the malignant spirits causing the plague?"


Yeah. That would be the honest thing. Of course you meant particle physics community. Odd omission.
One more attempt to penetrate that horny rind. ALL physics is "particle physics", because we live in a universe composed of particles, with the forces between them mediated by other particles. The phrase you actually mean is "high-energy physics".
 
Last edited:
Sabine lives for science; publishing peer-reviewed works in addition to her constant stream of YT science explainers. Her most recent paper is Jan 2024 "SPARC galaxies prefer Dark Matter over MOND"
Third junior researcher (lead researcher is a Ukrainian graduate student, temporarily in Germany due to the war) on Paper # 10,047 to state "DM beats MOND in explaining galactic rotation." Or maybe #10,048; I may have missed a few. I was a big proponent of MoND back in the '80s, and actually shed a little tear when they first began doing these sorts of galactic surveys 25+ years ago.

More apropos is that Sabine's contribution to the paper is simply re-running her radial-acceleration MoND sim code that she wrote nearly a decade ago against a new set of data. By Jove, it's Einstein's anna mirabilis all over again!

I stand by my assertion. Publish-or-perish diversions aside, Sabine's abandoned science. but o But don't take my word for it -- take hers. '"among her fellow scientists, she says "there's still this line of thought that Sabine is not doing research anymore, she's doing Youtube ... I don't care ... If I had the time, I'd do Tik-Tok as well." (NPR interview, 2023)
 
discovering the Higgs Boson, the first experimental proof of how matter acquires mass -- the largest discovery in all physics in the last half-century?
Of course... despite your wordplay, the LHC did not "discover" the Higgs boson. It confirmed by experiment something that was so strong theoretically that people would have been astonished had it been disproven. The confirmation is a fine thing; but it didn't "vault science tremendously forward". And fifty years... isn't the flex you think it is.

Oh wait... the LHC also demolished tons of theories which, otherwise, countless researchers would have chased all their lives. Like that friend of yours (we now learn). Yeah - that's the situation alright. I've agreed every time you've pointed it out.

"Diversions"... well here are a few more of Sabine's recent diversions:
¤ Taxonomy for Physics Beyond Quantum Mechanics (2023)
¤ What does it take to solve the measurement problem? (2022)
¤ Galactic Mass-to-Light Ratios With Superfluid Dark Matter (2022)
¤ Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence without violating physical statistical independence (2021)
¤ The wavefunction as a true ensemble (2021)
¤ Properties of Invariant Set Theory (2021)
¤ A Future-Input Dependent Path Integral for Quantum Mechanics (2021)

So she is not "abandoning science". Nor of course does Sabine somehow admit to such in her NPR remark about what others think! And not about science overall but about active research. You misrepresent that completely.

The fact that a scientist, after decades, leaves a field because it's going nowhere doesn't disqualify them from explaining the situation - even if one place they do so is Youtube. Of course some whose field she's critiquing will snark at that. But Sabine has the knowledge, experience, and latitude to follow the glacial developments in high-energy physics, and the integrity and drive to candidly inform the rest of us. Providing needed transparency into an opaque and hugely costly endeavor. That's a major service.

Again, Hossenfelder isn't the only experienced scientist pointing out that high-energy physics has hit not just your "impasse" but in practical terms a dead end. They've explained where we're at and how this happened. Making it clear that, just as people warned of the LHC, the next bigger collider can't reasonably be expected to get us beyond that impasse, regardless of how much data it creates. And not a Higgs boson confirmation in sight this time.

Your argument that running countless experiments on countless admittedly inbred theories will have some unexpected results, some of which may someday figure into a major advance, is little more convincing for the next collider than for the LHC. In a way that's good news: your friends can just keep experimenting with the latter, while the electric grid holds up.

Bottom line: We obviously shouldn't divert tens of billions of dollars into building that new collider. Not to mention maintaining it. And btw enticing another generation or two of intensely educated researchers to mouse-hole in a mystical mountain of techno-welfare. Science has more fruitful areas and certainly the world has more pressing needs.
 
Last edited:
despite your wordplay, the LHC did not "discover" the Higgs boson.
LOL, what? Of course it did. If you won't believe the thousands of researchers and hundreds of news headlines, then believe plain logic. Theory is how we wish the world to work; experimental data is how it actually does work.

Until the LHC discovered it, the Higgs Boson was just a bright idea, without a shred of evidence of support it. Most scientists agree there are other intelligences out there in the universe, but until a radio telescope, deep space probe, or take-me-to-your-leader moment -- they haven't been discovered. Similarly, Einstein's GR was just one man's wild idea -- albeit a compelling one on esthetic grounds -- until Eddington came along with experimental data to support it.

And here is where quacks like Sabine go off the rails They believe their theoretical ideas are already proven. The notion that QD and gravity merge at the Planck length (and thus we need "galactic-sized accelerators" to study it) is just an idea. It may happen orders of magnitude earlier. Or not at all. Or (quite likely) is that something else happens entirely -- something no one could possibly expect.

"Diversions"... well here are a few more of Sabine's recent diversions:
Diversions is certainly the right word. Some of those typo-riddled papers aren't even in science at all, but rather math, or science communications (a different field altogether) -- several aren't peer-reviewed, and she was the lead author on none. All are what we call #me-too papers, rehashing the arguments or repeating the experiments of others from decades earlier. Calling this "doing science" is a convenient fiction we use to allow colleagues to justify drawing that grant or institute stipend.

If you disagree, please list Sabine's advancements to science: new theories, hypothesis, suppositions; or experimental results, not first produced elsewhere.
 
Until the LHC discovered it, the Higgs Boson was just a bright idea,
"The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964 by Peter Higgs [and others] to explain why certain particles have mass. Scientists confirmed its existence in 2012 [at the LHC]." US Dept. Energy

The Higgs boson was such a bright idea that confirming it was one of the main expectations for the LHC. Along with confirming supersymmetry (so sorry, maybe next machine). The fact that researchers dependent on collider funding, and the headlines they generate, prefer the word "discovery" for the LHC part means nothing.

please list Sabine's advancements to science
You already limited "science" to "high-energy physics". Now one must be "advancing" that field, else they have "abandoned science". No matter how much science they still participate in, including the math framework for all the above. Then you can dismiss their observations on the field they finally left because it wasn't advancing.

Yet again - Hossenfelder isn't the only scientist making the same observations. Real e.g. Higgs-level advances in high-energy physics slowed to a stop long ago, despite massive continual funding. Worse, there is no expectation that the next collider will change that. Just hopium and handwaving.

Tellingly, it's because theory there is moribund that you so promote the idea of "unexpected results" from experiments. Another flex that isn't what you imagine it to be.

Nobody is denying the value of experiment (!) - your favorite straw man - but aiming it and paying for it need to be rationally and realistically balanced. High-energy physics GOT the big funding. It HAS the researchers. Other fields of science have their own claims on both.
 
"The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964 by Peter Higgs
Proposed, but not discovered. Time travel was first proposed in the 1800s. Have we discovered it yet? And scientists are even more assured than they were of the Higgs Boson that there are exoplanets that support life. Have we discovered any yet?

You already limited "science" to "high-energy physics".
No, you simply failed to understand my remarks. The Standard Model is the primal branch of all science: it is *the* instruction manual for how the universe is put together. In theory, we can derive all other sciences -- chemistry, geology, even the sociology of human behavior -- from its equations, coupled with an appropriately detailed set of initial conditions. We study the standard model in many ways, but the most fruitful method for advancing it is high-energy physics: what you mistakenly keep calling "particle physics".

Yet again - Hossenfelder isn't the only scientist making the same observations.
She's the only one claiming we don't need to experimentally test the standard model at higher energy levels. And we do that with particle accelerators.

More than 150 universities have signed on in support of this project, along with organizations like the Royal Society, the AAAS, and others -- all of whom represent all of science, not just high-energy physics. But you're right, and they'll all wrong, eh?

High-energy physics GOT the big funding. It HAS the researchers. Other fields of science have their own claims on both.
LOL, you have some wacky idea that, if we divert this $20B to medicine instead, thousands of physicists will suddenly decide to begin working on erectile dysfunction medicines and cures for scabies. Or -- no less amusing -- that our current crop of physics undergraduates will change fields to medicine instead.

We first began construction of the LHC in the 1980s, and it's been in operation since 2008. This successor collider won't come online until the mid-2040s. More than time enough for a new model.
 
Last edited:
Proposed, but not discovered.
The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964 and the theory strengthened for the next 50 years. Until it was - to the surprise of very few - confirmed. You left out that part. Not much like time travel.

More than 150 universities have signed on [etc]
Were they given a choice of getting the same funding for some other field? And / or which disciplines in those organizations were given the say? No medical department would choose a bigger collider over more direct research and education in medicine.

thousands of physicists [and] physics undergraduates will change fields to medicine instead.
Of course not. Those who can may change to some other area of physics that's actually advancing. New college science entrants will see fewer openings / less encouragement / less incentive to channel into a moribund field and - as you acknowledge - be trapped there.

Your friends in the field can keep running experiments on the LHC, collecting unexpected results and hoping to hit the big one.

The fact that an enormous and largely unrecoverable investment in gray matter has been made, with so little return in recent decades, is an argument against - not for - continuing the same way. Same for the physical plant I.e. collider.
 
Last edited:
The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964 and the theory strengthened for the next 50 years. You left out that part. Not much like time travel.
Exactly like both time travel and alien life, the theories of which have strengthened over the years. Neither's been discovered yet, have they?

Oh, and belief in the Higgs Mechanism "strengthened for the next 50 years" due to experimental data from particle accelerators refuting alternative theories. Funny you left out that part.

No medical department would choose a bigger collider over more direct research and education in medicine.
The irony of your posts grows, especially when one considers the fiberoptic technology enabling your posts sprang from early particle accelerator experiments, and the World Wide Web itself was created by CERN -- the very organization behind this new collider.

Thankfully, everyone but a few quacks agree we need to keep progress going, rather than devote the entirety of science to better treatments for gout and male pattern baldness. A new accelerator will be built and come online in the 2040s, and another, even larger one (probably space-based) sometime before the 22nd century dawns.
 
Last edited:
Back