Physics is weird in the way it attracts vocal, passionate support. People are willing to support projects for tens of billions of dollars not just with no guarantee of useful results, but with a every reason to think that the results won't be useful. The LHC is disappointing in the sense that it didn't turn up anything unexpected, but we knew that the enrgy scale required for unexpected results are much, much, much higher.
We hoped for better, and didn't get it. Billions of dollars is a lot of money to spend on hope.
We spend it because people love the hope that high-energy physics gives. Twentieth century physics had amazing benefits, both practical and intellectual. We could never have dreamed it would be so productive. We crave more.
Scientists know the limitations, but I think that people in general don't. And thats where Hossenfelder comes in, and why she always sounds so sour. She's telling people what the physicists already know and don't want to hear. She's dashing hope.
It's a hope that doesn't need to be dashed. The next LHC could produce something as important as the transistor or as philosophically edifying as the CMB. But is that "could" really worth it?
I believe that if people were really honest they'd spend the money on thousands of much smaller experiments and theoretical projects, rather than putting all of their eggs into one rather dubious basket. But people have a lot of really unjustified faith in that basket -- as jaw-dropping as "20th century physics" was, it's been the 21st century for a really long time, and we haven't gotten jaw-dropping results like that in even longer.
I feel the same way that Hossenfelder seems very sour. I, too, want her to be wrong. But she's not.
We hoped for better, and didn't get it. Billions of dollars is a lot of money to spend on hope.
We spend it because people love the hope that high-energy physics gives. Twentieth century physics had amazing benefits, both practical and intellectual. We could never have dreamed it would be so productive. We crave more.
Scientists know the limitations, but I think that people in general don't. And thats where Hossenfelder comes in, and why she always sounds so sour. She's telling people what the physicists already know and don't want to hear. She's dashing hope.
It's a hope that doesn't need to be dashed. The next LHC could produce something as important as the transistor or as philosophically edifying as the CMB. But is that "could" really worth it?
I believe that if people were really honest they'd spend the money on thousands of much smaller experiments and theoretical projects, rather than putting all of their eggs into one rather dubious basket. But people have a lot of really unjustified faith in that basket -- as jaw-dropping as "20th century physics" was, it's been the 21st century for a really long time, and we haven't gotten jaw-dropping results like that in even longer.
I feel the same way that Hossenfelder seems very sour. I, too, want her to be wrong. But she's not.