Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

At Nature: Bold push for a supercollider. But has the age for this sort of thing passed?

Spread the love

From sponsors: “We don’t have an equivalent, rock-solid prediction now — and that makes knowing where and how to look for answers more challenging and higher risk.”

At Nature: Bold push for a supercollider. But has the age for this sort of thing passed?

It’s at least worth asking:

The costly plan has detractors — even in the physics community. Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany, has emerged as a critic of pursuing ever higher energies when the scientific payback — apart from measuring the properties of known particles — is far from guaranteed. “I still think it’s not a good idea,” Hossenfelder says. “We’re talking about tens of billions. I just think there is not enough scientific potential in doing that kind of study right now.”

The new collider will be in uncharted territory, says Tara Shears, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, UK. While the LHC had a clear target to look for the Higgs boson as well as theorists’ well-motivated reasons to believe that there could be new particles in the range of masses it could explore, the situation now is different. “We don’t have an equivalent, rock-solid prediction now — and that makes knowing where and how to look for answers more challenging and higher risk.”

Davide Castelvecchi & Elizabeth Gibney, “CERN makes bold push to build €21-billion super-collider” at Nature

They write as though the age has passed but don’t know how to put it into words. No?

One Reply to “At Nature: Bold push for a supercollider. But has the age for this sort of thing passed?

  1. 1
    tjguy says:

    “We don’t have an equivalent, rock-solid prediction now – and that makes knowing where and how to look for answers more challenging and higher risk.”

    I see. And you did have this before? And how’d that work out?

    What difference did it make?

    If you are trying to prove the wrong paradigm, a “rock-solid” prediction will not do much good.

    I agree with the critics. It’s not worth the money!

Leave a Reply