undefined | Better HN

0 pointsm4636y ago0 comments

Not sure myself, but I wonder how much of the progress breaks down into theoretical vs experimental physics, and what types of experimental physics have paid off.

Also, are there other forms of experimental physics that don't have much coverage and could shine the light in other directions?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

jessriedel6y ago· 2 in thread

The rate at which new experimental input to fundamental physics is generated has slowed almost to a halt. How much you can trust theory in the absence of experimental confirmation is debated.

ncmncm6y ago

Not true. The LHC kills theories at the same rate as ever. What has fallen off is hypotheses that survive testing.

jessriedel6y ago

The only sensible way to define experimental guidance is by plausibility of the theories being falsified. (Otherwise, I rule out lots of theories every day on my walk to work because I don't witness the heretofore laws of physics melting down.) Post-Higgs and post-natural-SUSY, there are no theories that have much a priori credence. And just getting to Higgs and no-natural-SUSY, compared to the previous accelerator, took multiple decades.

This slow rate is to be compared to vastly faster rate at which new experimental input was rolling in in the '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse