Is it particle physics or a fairytale? PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder, Gavin Salam, Bjørn Ekeberg

Sabine is talking about the proper use of financial resources. I’m not a scientist, but she is concerned (rightfully so) about the important use of funding.

there is a dangerous possibility of ppl misunderstanding: its not about doing or not doing science, or thinking "we are done". its about a limited pool of resources and how to use it efficiently. building bigger colliders betting on pure chance to find more particles...is inefficient. theory first, experiment later. thats the point. and...opportunity cost. if you build the next gen collider...something else doesn't get build.

I studied physics at University and on my own as well. I really like what Sabine Hossenfelder brings to the table. It's refreshing to hear her talking on her channel about how researchers can be biased sometimes. She seem very relatable, honest and down to earth.

If Gavin Salam agrees with Sabine, he will be out of a job.

I agree with Sabine that a new particle collider would be an inefficient use of resources, and none seems to be planned. I would therefore have liked to have heard whether Gavin could achieve his goals with the current collider.

I felt as if Gavin wasn't getting Sabine's point when he kept drawing the issue back to "well there could be more and we dont know." That was never the point Sabine was making, and it's unfortunate she had to clarify that several times throughout the discussion and it kept getting missed each time.

Whether you agree with Sabine or not, she always manages to put a goo d case to her argument. That is what fascinates me.

I think the inner working of particles are more important than finding new particles.

One of the issues that unfortunately hasn't come up in this discussion is the negative result of "table-top" experiments of relatively low cost, like ACME-II or that of the Boulder (Colorado) collaboration, which have measured a possible electric dipole moment of the electron (eEDM) to an extremely high precision. The zero outcome of those measurements, pushing the experimental bounds further and further, have ruled out huge classes of models beyond the Standard Model and the particles predicted by such models, in the context of CP violation and usually supersymmetry, up to energies unattainable at the LHC and possibly even at the planned next circular accelerator of CERN, with a circumference of about 91 km and a projected cost of about €20 billion.

Lol, the moderator lady threw Dr. Hosenfelder a generous opportunity at the end to get to the real point of the actual debate. I do not envy Hosenfelder in such situations. Can she be as direct as she wants to be to some highly decorated member of the physicist elite or should she bite her tongue? Basically accusing someone of wasting good research money that others could put to better use isn’t the kind of thing you want to open with. This is what this whole thing is about: Money. There is not enough of it. Especially not in relatively meager research funds.  And physics, despite the popular conception, isn’t all about those particles. Not even close. Despite this particle physicist get all the big moola money. Which in turn means they can pay PHDs and other staff. Which in turn makes particle physics more attractive to be in for young students considering their career, while other departments suffer.

Finally, after dancing around the real issue for 20 minutes, the moderator gave Sabine a chance to address it: what is the most effective use of limited resources, i.e., money.

Surprisingly good panel talk. The different perspectives of theoretical physics at play becomes very clear. Bjorns contribution is also very valid because he keeps the historical context of ideas affecting research alive and kicking. Together they may achieve a multidimensional flip of the standard model.

Sabine's caution is warranted. We still have a lot to do with the tools at the size we have. Time, is an aspect that isn't pondered here, the splitting of time. The Higgs Boson only exists for a brief little split in time, and we need to be studying in smaller time slices before we just pump more money into the "bigger is better" thing. I think the money that would go into a bigger build would serve better to be paying physicists to continue to play with the toys they have, as it's hard to even book time for all the ideas that should get a chance of getting tested as is. Smaller time slices, and more dollars per hour for working physicists to think and do. I hate the phrase, but, "time is money". Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

That was proof. Bjom started out arguing that particles are an illusion, a trick or fantasy then stopped have way through, realizing that is where his funding is. Apologized, looked at his notes and changed his whole arguement in favour of particles. It is a case of the emperor's new clothes.

I find the discussion about “should we search for more particles” is framed in a somewhat narrow minded view. There is no doubt that there is more to find and a new particle accelerator would yield new physics but the question really should be inclusive of an economical frame: out of the finite resources (money) available, where can it be invested that would yield the greatest benefit to humankind? Is the answer a new particle accelerator or are there other areas of physics that would offer more benefit in the near future? Posing the questions to each expert as almost “is there even a point to continuing research” seems to side step the rationale behind the argument that maybe particle physics isn’t where money should be going.

Sometimes, I fast forward such discussion to the next Sabine statement but this time Bjørn had some interesting opinions even as he is no physicist.

Two physicists walking in a garden at night, looking up at the stars. "Ah," says one, pointing up. "The Murray-Gell Mann memorial nebula." The other sighs, and says, "We'll never get funding like that again."

My takeaway: 1) desire for engineering contracts and weapons development not scientific curiosity drives demand for colliders. 2) we probably can't do physical experiments in dimensions we can't measure. 3) we could possibly find many better uses of collective wealth.

Love how Sabin says what she really thinks and it makes sense

Sometimes it's not a matter of giving up, it's a question of doing something else for awhile. You may find that you come back to this problem with some new ideas. It could be a better use of resources and, as I say, it night help us to find new approaches.