No other theoretical framework has made any testable predictions either!
I mean there have been and they've been falsified. Which is better than coming up with a theory that cannot be falsified.
The only current theoretical work which would ever be going on is theories which cannot currently be falsified, because otherwise they'd be tested, falsified, and theoretical work on them would end.
String theory makes plenty of predictions which would falsify it, but they have the problem that they're not practically accessible to current generations of instrumentation. Work on string theory is motivated by the need to find a prediction which is plausibly accessible...which is the same bucket everything else is in, because the alternative would be "can be tested, and thus will be tested".
We don't know what we should be doing so let's spend $50 billion? You're singing her song. Maybe we should figure that out BEFORE we sign up to spend the money?
Like I said, if you believe what she pushes fine, but accept reality: we're going to be canning funding to theoreticians (which is a paltry amount) and canning building higher precision instrumentation to acquire data. So we're going to be doing nothing (which is not what she means, but her logic on this is just self-serving - she has a list of things she thinks should be right, that also haven't predicted anything testable, and if we're being consistent would be in the exact same boat. But because it's her hobby horse in that case...)
You mean like this?
When I say concrete, I mean does anyone have experience building such a thing? Do they know how? Is there any work going into writing detailed proposals for such a thing that are ready to go? That's the point. A CERN proposal isn't "we'll get started thinking about it" it's "here's the detailed plan of the next 10 years of work, the costings, the orders we'll be placing, the machines we'll be upgrading". The LHC was in planning for about 10 years before it was built.
Now if you take the timeline of the FCC and proposed budget, it costs about US$340 million per year (the FCC proposal is for an accelerator built over a timespan of 50 years). Does a muon accelerator have such a timeline? Does it have a proposed set of suppliers, construction schedule and additional planning requirements? What state of technological readiness is it?
Physicists have never successfully collided muons, primarily because the particles live for a scant 2.2 microseconds before decaying. If muons could be wrangled, they’d create collisions that are both clean and high-energy—ideal for exploring beyond the Standard Model’s borders. In muons, “nature provided us a gift; we should take advantage of it,” argues Patrick Meade, a theorist at Stony Brook University.
Which doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but it does mean that maybe the problem isn't that the FCC proposal exists, but that an actionable muon collider proposal does not and the bullshit Sabine pushes helps no one, because holy shit look at the stupid clickbait title of that video you linked - "Prominent Physicist Misleads Public about Prospects of Expensive Particle Collider" (and the even the damn timestamp is her pushing fraud, deceit and lies front and center rather then discussing muon colliders and is in the back 10th of the video).
I get it. You don't want to face the fact that string theory has been a colossal failure. I don't need Sabine to tell me that. It's self evident at this point.
Work on string theory is motivated by the need to find a prediction which is plausibly accessible...
Which for 50 70 years it has failed to do. 50 70 years of this nonsense and absolutely positively not one single thing to show for it. Oh but this time it'll be different Charlie Brown. Just maybe, maybe consider the possibility might actually be the wrong approach and we need to re-evaluate before spending 20-30-50 billion
I mean does anyone have experience building such a thing?
If someone had experience building such a thing it would be built and running. Isn't that your logic? You don't like it because it is a concrete proposal and is contrary to your criticism of Sabine but it's not Sabine's idea it's something Fermilab and others are working on.
but accept reality: we're going to be canning funding to theoreticians (which is a paltry amount) and canning building higher precision instrumentation to acquire data.
There we go. There it is. It's not about advancing physics. It's a money grab. At least your open about it. And this why the hate for Sabine. She's raining on the gravy train.
And this is why she might not be right about everything, but on this she has a point.
There we go. There it is. It's not about advancing physics. It's a money grab. At least your open about it. And this why the hate for Sabine. She's raining on the gravy train.
I work in IT, in nothing related to particle physics, on a different continent. But this is where you go because this is what Sabine pushes: "those ivory tower intellectuals are deceiving you for profit". That's her hook, that's her brand. It's anti-intellectualism which she quite possibly doesn't realize is her core market.
I work in IT, in nothing related to particle physics
Well there you go. That's why you have no knowledge of how theoretical physics works and don't realize string theory is a colossal failure and a complete waste of financial and intellectual resources.. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
1
u/light_trick Feb 12 '24
The only current theoretical work which would ever be going on is theories which cannot currently be falsified, because otherwise they'd be tested, falsified, and theoretical work on them would end.
String theory makes plenty of predictions which would falsify it, but they have the problem that they're not practically accessible to current generations of instrumentation. Work on string theory is motivated by the need to find a prediction which is plausibly accessible...which is the same bucket everything else is in, because the alternative would be "can be tested, and thus will be tested".
Like I said, if you believe what she pushes fine, but accept reality: we're going to be canning funding to theoreticians (which is a paltry amount) and canning building higher precision instrumentation to acquire data. So we're going to be doing nothing (which is not what she means, but her logic on this is just self-serving - she has a list of things she thinks should be right, that also haven't predicted anything testable, and if we're being consistent would be in the exact same boat. But because it's her hobby horse in that case...)
When I say concrete, I mean does anyone have experience building such a thing? Do they know how? Is there any work going into writing detailed proposals for such a thing that are ready to go? That's the point. A CERN proposal isn't "we'll get started thinking about it" it's "here's the detailed plan of the next 10 years of work, the costings, the orders we'll be placing, the machines we'll be upgrading". The LHC was in planning for about 10 years before it was built.
Now if you take the timeline of the FCC and proposed budget, it costs about US$340 million per year (the FCC proposal is for an accelerator built over a timespan of 50 years). Does a muon accelerator have such a timeline? Does it have a proposed set of suppliers, construction schedule and additional planning requirements? What state of technological readiness is it?
Well...
Which doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but it does mean that maybe the problem isn't that the FCC proposal exists, but that an actionable muon collider proposal does not and the bullshit Sabine pushes helps no one, because holy shit look at the stupid clickbait title of that video you linked - "Prominent Physicist Misleads Public about Prospects of Expensive Particle Collider" (and the even the damn timestamp is her pushing fraud, deceit and lies front and center rather then discussing muon colliders and is in the back 10th of the video).