this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
136 points (97.9% liked)
science
14883 readers
41 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it's worthwhile science communication for them to be clearer about what is planned for testing. Some handwaves about "it will help us maybe find dark matter" is much less compelling to me than something concrete like "we have models which predict dark matter particles emerge at X TeV, this will test them."
Not that I'm opposed to open discovery either. Maybe when you collide electrons at the higher energy, they turn into pure gravitons and we'll find the GUT? But I like to think there's some deliberation and intent behind a project that's roadmapped to 2070, beyond just long term job security for some particle physicists.
This runs at the problem that no, we don't have any model that puts anything attainable as "it's probable we'll find something here, or else we will learn that all we know is wrong". The extra energy is all of the "we don't expect anything new here, but we expect something new somewhere" kind.
But if you start talking about luminance, this changes quickly.
Im sure theres technical papers out there on the proposed merits.