Is it particle physics or a fairytale? PART 1 | Sabine Hossenfelder, Gavin Salam, Bjørn Ekeberg

Sabine Hossenfelder, Gavin Salam, and Bjørn Ekeberg discuss whether particle physics is dead or whether it is worth to continue exploring.

Is there a future for particle exploration?

Part 2 coming on this channel soon.

At the heart of physics is the search for ultimate particles. The Standard Model sets out the current framework. But many argue that all is not well in the particle physics zoo. A central prediction was the existence of supersymmetry particles, but none have been found. At the same time, huge experiments have failed to find the particles that account for dark matter and dark energy, which make up 95% of the universe. Moreover, it is not even clear what a particle is, since some have no dimension and others no mass. Yet physics is rife with proposals for new 'particles'.

While there are positive spin-offs from the technology created to carry out particle experiments, has the theory itself run out of road? Would we be better describing reality as the product of quantum fields, information, or mathematics, rather than particles? Or does the Standard Model not actually describe the ultimate nature of reality at all, and do its particles just represent a useful fiction?

#physics #particles #quantumphysics

Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist, author, musician, and science communicator who researches quantum gravity. Gavin Salam is an Oxford-based theoretical physicist celebrated for his groundbreaking work in quantum chromodynamics, the theory describing the strong nuclear force. He was formerly a Senior Research Scientist at CERN and the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Bjørn Ekeberg is a philosopher of science whose main interests lie in the limits of scientific knowledge. He argues that our current understanding of the universe, the Big Bang, and nearly all of Big Bang cosmology is based on faith rather than experimental evidence.

00:00 Introduction
02:24 Sabine: let's move on from particles
04:18 Gavin: we must keep exploring particles
06:49 Bjørn: particles are not so relevant
08:42 Do we know what particles actually are?
13:11 Should we continue the search for ultimate particles or are we done?

[TNM]

there is a dangerous possibility of ppl misunderstanding:

its not about doing or not doing science, or thinking "we are done".
its about a limited pool of resources and how to use it efficiently.
building bigger colliders betting on pure chance to find more particles...is inefficient.

theory first, experiment later. thats the point.
and...opportunity cost. if you build the next gen collider...something else doesn't get build.

[Platypus_Warrior]

I studied physics at University and on my own as well. I really like what Sabine Hossenfelder brings to the table.
It's refreshing to hear her talking on her channel about how researchers can be biased sometimes. She seem very relatable, honest and down to earth.

[mavelous]

Sabine is talking about the proper use of financial resources.
I’m not a scientist, but she is concerned (rightfully so) about the important use of funding.

[Gallahaut]

I felt as if Gavin wasn't getting Sabine's point when he kept drawing the issue back to "well there could be more and we dont know." That was never the point Sabine was making, and it's unfortunate she had to clarify that several times throughout the discussion and it kept getting missed each time.

[markdearlove]

I agree with Sabine that a new particle collider would be an inefficient use of resources, and none seems to be planned. I would therefore have liked to have heard whether Gavin could achieve his goals with the current collider.

[IlyaButenko]

Sabrine is right: there are better areas to research. All the discussions about "we don't know what we don't know, therefore we shouldn't stop and need to continue building more colliders" are down to the main question in the particle physics, which is money: if the Standard Model is complete, then there won't be more funds.

[ownyourgov]

My takeaway: 1) desire for engineering contracts and weapons development not scientific curiosity drives demand for colliders. 2) we probably can't do physical experiments in dimensions we can't measure. 3) we could possibly find many better uses of collective wealth.

[tomholroyd]

Two physicists walking in a garden at night, looking up at the stars.
"Ah, " says one, pointing up. "The Murray-Gell Mann memorial nebula."
The other sighs, and says, "We'll never get funding like that again."

[paulclifford]

Finally, after dancing around the real issue for 20 minutes, the moderator gave Sabine a chance to address it: what is the most effective use of limited resources, i.e., money.

[ParameterGrenze]

Lol, the moderator lady threw Dr. Hosenfelder a generous opportunity at the end to get to the real point of the actual debate. I do not envy Hosenfelder in such situations. Can she be as direct as she wants to be to some highly decorated member of the physicist elite or should she bite her tongue? Basically accusing someone of wasting good research money that others could put to better use isn’t the kind of thing you want to open with.

This is what this whole thing is about: Money. There is not enough of it. Especially not in relatively meager research funds. 

And physics, despite the popular conception, isn’t all about those particles. Not even close.

Despite this particle physicist get all the big moola money. Which in turn means they can pay PHDs and other staff. Which in turn makes particle physics more attractive to be in for young students considering their career, while other departments suffer.

[edchzve]

Surprisingly good panel talk. The different perspectives of theoretical physics at play becomes very clear. Bjorns contribution is also very valid because he keeps the historical context of ideas affecting research alive and kicking. Together they may achieve a multidimensional flip of the standard model.

[ALong-foso]

If Gavin Salam agrees with Sabine, he will be out of a job.

[katalysis]

Sabine is totally right, but Salam can't agree cuz he is a particle physicist and needs to champion and prioritize his own career over physics as a whole.

[GeorgeRupp]

One of the issues that unfortunately hasn't come up in this discussion is the negative result of "table-top" experiments of relatively low cost, like ACME-II or that of the Boulder (Colorado) collaboration, which have measured a possible electric dipole moment of the electron (eEDM) to an extremely high precision. The zero outcome of those measurements, pushing the experimental bounds further and further, have ruled out huge classes of models beyond the Standard Model and the particles predicted by such models, in the context of CP violation and usually supersymmetry, up to energies unattainable at the LHC and possibly even at the planned next circular accelerator of CERN, with a circumference of about 91 km and a projected cost of about €20 billion.

[bigbirdweekend]

Love how Sabin says what she really thinks and it makes sense

[mrmadmaxalot]

Whether you agree with Sabine or not, she always manages to put a goo d case to her argument. That is what fascinates me.

[BrianFedirko]

Sabine's caution is warranted. We still have a lot to do with the tools at the size we have. Time, is an aspect that isn't pondered here, the splitting of time. The Higgs Boson only exists for a brief little split in time, and we need to be studying in smaller time slices before we just pump more money into the "bigger is better" thing. I think the money that would go into a bigger build would serve better to be paying physicists to continue to play with the toys they have, as it's hard to even book time for all the ideas that should get a chance of getting tested as is. Smaller time slices, and more dollars per hour for working physicists to think and do. I hate the phrase, but, "time is money". Gr8! Peace ☮💜Love

[Killer_Kovacs]

I think the inner working of particles are more important than finding new particles.

[SteveRowe]

During the introduction, Sabine just chilling and biting her tongue.

[arctic_haze]

Sometimes, I fast forward such discussion to the next Sabine statement but this time Bjørn had some interesting opinions even as he is no physicist.