There are loads of information for sure, in addition to nuclear physicists are airheaded amongst joy because the LHC has delivered a wealth of novel information nigh the construction of protons in addition to heavy ions. But the expert quondam proton has never been the media’s darling. And the fancy novel things that many particle physicists expected – the supersymmetric particles, nighttime matter, extra dimensions, dark holes, in addition to thence on – receive got shunned CERN.
It’s a PR disaster that particle physics won’t hold upwardly able to milk tremble off easily. Before the LHC’s launch inwards 2008, many theorists expressed themselves confident the collider would create novel particles likewise the Higgs boson. That hasn’t happened. And Earth isn’t remotely equally dumb equally many academics wish. They’ll recollect adjacent fourth dimension nosotros come upwardly inquire for money.
The large proclamations came almost exclusively from theoretical physicists; CERN didn’t hope anything they didn’t deliver. That is an of import distinction, but I am afraid inwards Earth perception the subtler differences won’t matter. It’s “physicists said.” And what physicists said was wrong. Like hair, trust is hard to split. And similar hair, trust is easier to lose than to grow.
What the particle physicists got incorrect was an declaration based on a mathematical criterion called “naturalness”. If the laws of nature were “natural” according to this definition, in addition to thence the LHC should receive got seen something likewise the Higgs. The information analysis isn’t yet completed, but at this indicate it seems unlikely something to a greater extent than than statistical anomalies volition demo up.
I must receive got sat through hundreds of seminars inwards which naturalness arguments were repeated. Let me just flash you lot a illustration slide from a 2007 speak past times Michelangelo L. Mangano (many times previously why the conclusions based on naturalness were non predictions, but simply pleas for the laws of nature to hold upwardly pretty. Luckily I no longer receive got to repeat these warnings, because the information handgrip that naturalness isn’t a expert argument.
The LHC hasn’t seen anything novel likewise the Higgs. This agency the laws of nature aren’t “natural” inwards the way that particle physicists would receive got wanted them to be. The final result is non only that at that spot are no novel particles at the LHC. The final result is also that nosotros receive got no argue to think at that spot volition hold upwardly novel particles at the adjacent higher energies – non until you lot locomote upwardly a sum fifteen orders of magnitude, far beyond what fifty-fifty futuristic technologies may reach.
So what now? What if at that spot are no to a greater extent than novel particles? What if we’ve caught them all in addition to that’s it, game over? What volition hand off to particle physics or, to a greater extent than to the point, to particle physicists?
In an essay some months ago, Adam Falkowski expressed it this way:
“[P]article physics is currently experiencing the most serious crisis inwards its storied history. The feeling inwards the plain is at best ane of confusion in addition to at worst depression”At present, the best argue to create some other particle collider, ane amongst energies higher upwardly the LHC’s, is to mensurate the properties of the Higgs-boson, specifically its self-interaction. But it’s hard to spin a sexy flush around such a technical detail. My estimate is that particle physicists volition effort to brand it audio of import past times arguing the measuring would probe whether our vacuum is stable. Because, depending on the exact value of a constant, the vacuum may or may non eventually decay inwards a catastrophic lawsuit that rips apart everything inwards the universe.*
Such a vacuum decay, however, wouldn’t receive got house until long after all stars receive got burned out in addition to the universe has acquire inhospitable to life anyway. And seeing that most people don’t assist what mightiness hand off to our planet inwards a hundred years, they in all probability won’t assist much what mightiness hand off to our universe inwards 10100 billion years.
Personally I don’t think nosotros demand a specific argue to create a larger particle collider. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 particle collider is essentially a large microscope. It doesn’t usage light, it uses fast particles, in addition to it doesn’t probe a target plate, it probes other particles, but the thought is the same: It lets us aspect at thing real closely. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 larger collider would allow us aspect closer than nosotros receive got thence far, in addition to that’s the most obvious way to acquire to a greater extent than nigh the construction of matter.
Compared to astrophysical processes which mightiness hit similar energies, particle colliders receive got the wages that they operate inwards a reasonably create clean in addition to well-controlled environment. Not to shout out nearby, equally opposed to some billion light-years away.
That nosotros receive got no exceptional argue to await the adjacent larger collider volition create so-far unknown particles is inwards my persuasion only tangential. If nosotros halt here, the history of particle physics volition hold upwardly that of a protagonist who left town and, after the concluding street sign, sat downward in addition to died, the end. Some protagonist.
But I receive got been told past times several people who speak to politicians to a greater extent than often than I that the “just make it” declaration doesn’t fly. To justify substantial investments, I am told, an experiment needs a clear destination in addition to at to the lowest degree a hope of breakthrough discoveries.
Knowing this, it’s non hard to extrapolate what particle physicists volition make next. We simply receive got to aspect at what they’ve done inwards the past.
The source stair is to backpedal from their before claims. This has already happened. Originally nosotros were told that if supersymmetric particles are there, nosotros would encounter them right away.
“Discovering gluinos in addition to squarks inwards the expected volume hit […] seems straightforward, since the rates are large in addition to the signals are tardily to separate from Standard Model backgrounds.” Frank Paige (1998).Now they claim no ane ever said it would hold upwardly easy. By 2012, it was “Natural SUSY is hard to encounter at LHC” in addition to “"Natural supersymmetry" may hold upwardly hard to find.”
“The Large Hadron Collider volition either brand a spectacular regain or dominion out supersymmetry entirely.” Michael Dine (2007)
Step ii is arguing that the shortly largest collider volition just barely neglect to encounter the novel particles but that the adjacent larger collider volition hold upwardly up to the task.
One of the shortly most pop proposals for the adjacent collider is the International Linear Collider (ILC), which would hold upwardly a lepton collider. Lepton colliders receive got the make goodness of doing away amongst construction functions in addition to fragmentation functions that you lot demand when you lot collide composite particles similar the proton.
In a 2016 essay for Scientific American Howard Baer, Vernon D. Barger, in addition to Jenny List kicked off the lobbying campaign:
“Recent theoretical query suggests that Higgsinos mightiness genuinely hold upwardly showing upwardly at the LHC—scientists just cannot regain them inwards the mess of particles generated past times the LHC's proton-antiproton collisions […] Theory predicts that the ILC should create abundant Higgsinos, sleptons (partners of leptons) in addition to other superpartners. If it does, the ILC would confirm supersymmetry.”The “recent theoretical research” they are referring to happens to hold upwardly that of the authors themselves, vividly demonstrating that the quality criterion of this plain is currently thence wretched that particle physicists tin come upwardly up amongst predictions for anything they want. The phrase “theory predicts” has acquire only meaningless.
The website of the ILC itself is also charming. There nosotros tin read:
“A linear collider would hold upwardly best suited for producing the lighter superpartners… Designed amongst neat accuracy in addition to precision, the ILC becomes the perfect machine to acquit the search for nighttime thing particles amongst unprecedented precision; nosotros receive got expert reasons to anticipate other exciting discoveries along the way.”They don’t tell you lot what those “good reasons” are because at that spot are none. At to the lowest degree non thence far. This brings us to stair three.
Step 3 is the fabrication of reasons why the adjacent larger collider should encounter something. The leading proposal is shortly that of Michael Douglas, who is advocating a different version of naturalness, that is naturalness inwards theory space. And the theory infinite he is referring to is, drums please, the string theory landscape.
Naturalness, of course, has e'er been a criterion inwards theory-space, which is precisely why I maintain maxim it’s nonsense: You demand a probability distribution to define it in addition to since nosotros only ever regain ane indicate inwards this theory space, nosotros receive got no way to ever acquire empirical bear witness nigh this distribution. So far, however, the theory infinite was that of quantum plain theory.
When it comes to the landscape at to the lowest degree the job of finding a probability distribution is known (called “the mensurate problem”), but it’s soundless unsolvable because nosotros never regain laws of nature other than our own. “Solving” the job comes downward to guessing a probability distribution in addition to and thence drowning your estimate inwards lots of math. Let us encounter what predictions Douglas arrives at:
 |
| Slide from Michael Douglas. PDF here. Emphasis mine. |
Supersymmetry mightiness hold upwardly just barely out of hit of the LHC, but a somewhat larger collider would regain it. Who’d receive got thought.
You encounter what is happening here. Conjecturing a multiverse of whatever type (string landscape or eternal inflation or what receive got you) is useless. It doesn’t explicate anything in addition to you lot can’t calculate anything amongst it. But in ane lawsuit you lot add together a probability distribution on that multiverse, you lot tin brand calculations. Those calculations are math you lot tin publish. And those publications you lot tin subsequently refer to inwards proposals read past times people who can’t decipher the math. Mission accomplished.
The argue this wheel of empty predictions continues is that everyone involved only stands to benefit. From the particle physicists who write the papers to those who review the papers to those who cite the papers, everyone wants to a greater extent than funding for particle physics, thence everyone plays along.
I too would similar to encounter a adjacent larger particle collider, but non if it takes lies to play tricks taxpayers into giving us money. More is at stake hither than the occupation of some yard particle physicists. If nosotros tolerate fabricated arguments inwards the scientific literature just because the conclusions conform us, nosotros demonstrate how tardily it is for scientists to cheat.
Fact is, nosotros shortly receive got no bear witness – neither experimental nor theoretical bear witness – that a adjacent larger collider would regain novel particles. The absolutely concluding thing particle physicists demand right right away is to weaken their standards fifty-fifty to a greater extent than in addition to appeal to multiversal math magic that tin explicate everything in addition to anything. But that seems to hold upwardly precisely where nosotros are headed.
* I know that’s non correct. I simply said that’s probable how the flush volition hold upwardly spun.
Like what you lot read? My upcoming volume “Lost inwards Math” is right away available for preorder. Follow me on twitter for updates.
Comments
Post a Comment