<story><title>Finding new physics will require a new particle collider</title><url>https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/01/02/finding-new-physics-will-require-a-new-particle-collider</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hpcjoe</author><text>As a (non-practicing) physicist, I&amp;#x27;ve always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says.  They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not.&lt;p&gt;When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment.  I&amp;#x27;ve seen&amp;#x2F;experienced much of this during my time in research.&lt;p&gt;New physics not requiring an accelerator would include quantum computing;  the real stuff of entangled qubits, and the pseudo-quantum stuff of adiabatically cooled circuits.  More generally quantum mechanics interpretation and meaning.  There are some unsettling things within QM, such as non-locality, and how to understand them.&lt;p&gt;There are many other examples, just listing 1 for brevity.&lt;p&gt;Basically, any text that begins with &amp;quot;the set of all physics is HEP physics&amp;quot; such as this article implies, is, pretty much by definition, incorrect.&lt;p&gt;I recall while the SSC was being built in Texas, that when the NSF asked for more money for researchers not involved in SSC, they were told that physics folks were getting enough.  I remember my thesis advisor&amp;#x27;s grant that I was funded on, getting cut to help fund other things.&lt;p&gt;Equating the new physics with new HEP physics is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, not even wrong.  We don&amp;#x27;t need accelerators for most new physics.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jessriedel</author><text>As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say&lt;p&gt;(1) &amp;quot;New physics&amp;quot; is jargon understood by experts to mean new &lt;i&gt;fundamental&lt;/i&gt; physics, i.e., new laws&amp;#x2F;forces&amp;#x2F;particles at the base of our theoretical edifice.  This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;More is different&amp;quot; [ &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;science.sciencemag.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;177&amp;#x2F;4047&amp;#x2F;393&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;science.sciencemag.org&amp;#x2F;content&amp;#x2F;177&amp;#x2F;4047&amp;#x2F;393&lt;/a&gt; ] -- but the distinction is real and meaningful.  The use of this phrase does &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; equate physics with HEP physics.  The reason you might make that mistake is because...&lt;p&gt;(2) To my knowledge, &lt;i&gt;every single&lt;/i&gt; discovery of new physics in the past half century years has been made with a particle accelerator. I am confident that a new particle accelerator is a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; more likely to discover new physics than building a quantum computer or any other experimental work in quantum information.  This, I&amp;#x27;m sure, is the consensus view, even among people who put a low credence on the chance that new physics will be found at the next accelerator, or that such an investment is worthwhile.&lt;p&gt;(3) In my opinion, the strongest argument for pursuing quantum information experiments over HEP is that a departure from quantum mechanics would be &lt;i&gt;more revolutionary&lt;/i&gt; than merely finding another set of particles and forces with largely unexplained parameters.  In that sense, you need to make &lt;i&gt;the reverse&lt;/i&gt; argument to the one you are trying to make, i.e., that quantum information is &lt;i&gt;more fundamental&lt;/i&gt; than HEP.  But for the very same reason, discrepancies with quantum mechanics are just very, very unlikely to be found.</text></comment>
<story><title>Finding new physics will require a new particle collider</title><url>https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/01/02/finding-new-physics-will-require-a-new-particle-collider</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hpcjoe</author><text>As a (non-practicing) physicist, I&amp;#x27;ve always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says.  They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not.&lt;p&gt;When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment.  I&amp;#x27;ve seen&amp;#x2F;experienced much of this during my time in research.&lt;p&gt;New physics not requiring an accelerator would include quantum computing;  the real stuff of entangled qubits, and the pseudo-quantum stuff of adiabatically cooled circuits.  More generally quantum mechanics interpretation and meaning.  There are some unsettling things within QM, such as non-locality, and how to understand them.&lt;p&gt;There are many other examples, just listing 1 for brevity.&lt;p&gt;Basically, any text that begins with &amp;quot;the set of all physics is HEP physics&amp;quot; such as this article implies, is, pretty much by definition, incorrect.&lt;p&gt;I recall while the SSC was being built in Texas, that when the NSF asked for more money for researchers not involved in SSC, they were told that physics folks were getting enough.  I remember my thesis advisor&amp;#x27;s grant that I was funded on, getting cut to help fund other things.&lt;p&gt;Equating the new physics with new HEP physics is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, not even wrong.  We don&amp;#x27;t need accelerators for most new physics.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>djaque</author><text>Well said.  Whenever I bring up that point on physics subreddits I also get tons of passive aggressive comments.  It&amp;#x27;s super toxic.&lt;p&gt;The HEP people in my own department also seem to believe that anything other than beyond the standard model physics isn&amp;#x27;t fundamental or isn&amp;#x27;t pure enough to care about.</text></comment>