[vihren]

Particle physicist here (relatively new to the field). I mostly do not understand the problem of Dr. Hossenfelder and others like her.

One thing I often see and it seems reiterated here is 'Why do we need more and bigger expensive colliders?'. In general, in the particle physics community right now there isn't much of a push for 'bigger colliders'. Scientists seem to have agreed that the low-energy precision physics frontier might be more fruitful for a fraction of the cost. Even the Mecca of collider physics acknowledges that and have lunched the 'Physics Beyond Colliders' study group https://pbc.web.cern.ch/ Also, there are numerous experiments done at the LHC which are not 'search for new particles'. Yes, the main goal of the LHC was to discover the Higgs boson and the great hopes were that supersymmetry (SUSY) particles will start falling from the sky. Now we know that SUSY is most probably not the way the world works and the efforts are mostly abandoned. Especially by younger physicists in the field.

The other problem that people seem to have is with the current directions in physics which in this blogpost are referred to as 'pseudo-problems' such as: "the baryon asymmetry or the smallness of the cosmological constant". These might not be problems on the same scale as "What the hell is this dark matter??" or "How do we reconcile general relativity with the Standard Model?", but in my opinion it would be a bigger waste of resources to focus all of physics in only the few big questions and leave everything else unexplored. Yes, from a certain point of view you could say that there is no reason that matter and antimatter should be equal in the universe so the baryon asymmetry is not a real problem, but still, there is no explanation yet why everything we see is matter and antimatter is next to non-existent in the Universe.

tl;dr: The money that go to collider physics are not 100% of the money that go into particle physics and generally there are no plans in the community for larger colliders at least in the next 25 years. (the Future Circular Collider has quite a long way to go before its even considered for building)

[beezle]

And yet plans do continue for FCC as well as ILC/NLC, though of the two the latter seem to be the better "investment".

As to SUSY, while it is good if young post docs are avoiding it, that does not mean it has gone away (not if PRD table of contents is any indicator). It will take a long time for that paper mill to end, likely with the retirement/death of current researchers or sooner if funding agencies finally come to their senses.

I don't think she is suggesting there should be no efforts in some of the other areas you have mentioned, just that there needs to be a reassessment of how much effort and money should continued to be funneled in those directions.

[ephimetheus]

Plans continue because if they didn’t, starting from scratch and ramping up again would take decades. This is simply because expertise would be lost in the meantime. Just because the plans are being made does not mean it’s inevitably going to happen.

Also: what makes you say a linear collider would be a better investment?