The LHC protons come from the small red hydrogen tank. / Saintfevrier (CC BY-SA 4.0)
That is, if a much bigger, better collider than the Large Hadron Collider that found the Higgs boson were built, would it find anything new? Or are the problem physicists see with the Standard Model not resolvable by smashing particles together? Japan is delaying a new collider and its decision is thought to produce a domino effect in other countries. One worry is the “nightmare scenario” in which the collider with hitherto undreamed-of energies reveals a desert, “a barren region otherwise devoid of new discoveries”:
Sir David King, the U.K.’s former chief scientific advisor, even goes as far to suggest it might be time to wrap up particle physics as we know it, not only because of what might be diminishing returns in terms of new discoveries but also due to the opportunity cost next-generation machines would bear for dealing with more pressing concerns. “I’m happy to draw a line at the FCC, congratulate all the particle physicists on the amazing work they’ve done, but suggest they move on to other extraordinarily challenging aspects of fundamental science,” he says. “I’m saying this at a time when humanity is faced with the biggest potential crisis it has ever had to face up to, which is climate change. I believe our intellectual resources should be focused on that.” Jonathan O’Callaghan, “Would New Physics Colliders Make Big Discoveries or Wander a Particle Desert?” at Scientific American
You know particle physics is in serious trouble when the idea of just putting the money into climate change instead gets serious face time.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Is science harmed by an illusion of progress? Tellingly, Hossenfelder adds, “So here is the puzzle: Why can you not find any expert, besides me, willing to publicly voice criticism on particle physics? Hint: It’s not because there is nothing to criticize.”
Note: She may not be as lonely as she thinks. Others just talk about it in a more roundabout way.
Climate change needs the $$$ so they can go back to “adjust” past records to make it seem like today is warmer than usual. It takes time and people-hours- both cost $$$.
Should Research Funding Agencies Move Resources Away From Particle Physics To Fighting Climate Change?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to move resources away from SETI and related projects first?
At least particle physics seems more serious.
Will be determined by who wins or steals the next election. Where do research funding agencies get most of their money?.
Johnnyfarmer – in Denmark most of it comes from . . . BEER!!!! Every time you drink a Carlsberg beer, some of the money goes to research.
“I’m saying this at a time when humanity is faced with the biggest potential crisis it has ever had to face up to, which is climate change.”
This is potentially the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. 😉
Andrew
I have no desire to get into a climate change debate, but is it not wise to minimize the output of man-made chemicals to the environment? It is true that CO2 is not a toxin in the classic sense, but neither is phosphorus, and we have learned a hard lesson about discharging it into our waterways.
Brother Brian,
C02 isn’t phosphorus.
It’s not a man-made chemical either.
It’s amazing(but not surprising) to see believers throw dung like this into the breeze and sincerely still expect to be taken seriously. Really, Brother Brian? We should believe in Global Warming and/or Climate Change because phosphorus is bad?
Andrew
Andrew,
Phosphorus isn’t a man made chemical either. My reference had to do with phosphorus from sewage causing algal blooms and eutrophication of lakes and rivers.
History has shown that anytime we discharge a chemical into the environment at a rate faster than it can be removed (or changed) through natural processes, there are consequences. Why do you suspect that CO2 would be any different?
“History has shown that anytime we discharge a chemical into the environment at a rate faster than it can be removed (or changed) through natural processes, there are consequences.”
BB,
You are gong to have to get specific about c02 and it’s demonstrable consequences for me to take you seriously. Trying to link it to other bad things to make it bad too doesn’t demonstrate anything.
Andrew
Andrew
No I don’t. All I was asking is why you thought that pumping a chemical into the environment faster than it can be removed by natural processes wouldn’t have consequences. If you don’t have an answer for this, that is fine.
It demonstrates that too much of something, even something necessary for life, can have negative consequences. I don’t know if CO2 falls into this category. And neither do you.
BB,
“pumping a chemical into the environment”
It already resides in “the environment”.
“I don’t know if CO2 falls into this category. And neither do you.”
That’s why I’m waiting for some specific conclusive information from you, before I start worrying about it. But we both know there isn’t any, so, oh well.
Andrew
Andrew
So does mercury, arsenic and cyanide. You are dodging the question. CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, not natural processes. Why are you so sure that there won’t be a negative consequence?
CO2 emits in 3 different wavelengths. Only two of which are in the thermal IR range. Over 92% of what the earth emits is invisible to CO2.
And all it- GHG’s- does is delay the inevitable. But an uneasy equilibrium is reached anyway. Meaning the warming is just days not cooling off as fast.
Then there is the fact that plants will fail if the CO2 dips below 150PPM. And they thrive with what we have now.
CO2 isn’t the problem. Pretty much everything else we do is. 95% of the plastic oceanic island came from 10 rivers 8 of which are in Asia.
Soot on snow can cause it to melt even if the ambient temperature is below freezing. And when you look at the glaciers the first thing you notice is how dirty they are.
But let’s focus on CO2…
A few inconvenient facts for those who want a global warming apocalypse.
We all know research money will dry up when science no longer has problems to solve.
We all know there are plenty of problems to solve. I doubt anyone is worried about running out of problems