This is an extract from the OPIP book. Previously, (B)obby argued to (A)lice that refutations are crucial for progress in physics.
B: By the way, it’s not only about refuting specific theories, but questioning current approaches and how we go about in doing physics. Today, physics mostly clings to established thinking paradigms and follows a “more of the same” approach.
A: Can you corroborate that claim?
B: Let’s take the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the particle accelerator at CERN[1], as an example. The fact that the LHC hasn’t met expectations…
A: Hold on right there. There have been significant achievements. The experimental confirmation of the Higgs boson in 2012 was a wildly celebrated success.
B: That’s true. The question is how to interpret it. If you celebrate something with particular enthusiasm, it might indicate that you don’t have much else to celebrate.
A: It wasn’t only celebrated by physicists, but also by journalists and the media in general.
B: I envy your belief in the media. You’re talking about the media whose main goal is to sell newspapers and get traffic to their websites, right?
A: I’m not sure your sarcasm is appropriate. I think you’re lacking respect for experimental physics. It was a major achievement to prove the existence of a particle that is produced very rarely, even in high-energy environments like the LHC. This particle is very unstable and decays into other particles almost instantly.[2] As a result, huge sets of data were required to ensure that what was observed wasn’t just a statistical fluke. I’m not even talking about the advanced technology that was needed, the high level of collaboration between thousands of scientists, or the immense financial and logistical challenges.
B: There’s a misunderstanding. I don’t doubt in the slightest that it was a massive achievement to prove it. I’m only saying that it wasn’t significant for progress in physics. Almost all physicists expected those results. In fact, they were expected so much that some physicists say that not finding the Higgs boson would have been the much more exciting outcome[3], as that would have disproven the Standard Model, a theory in physics that works (almost too) well. You can assess the significance of discoveries by their practical consequences. In terms of practical consequences for proving the Higgs boson experimentally, there were not that many. The real achievement—in terms of progress in physics—was the prediction of the Higgs boson in 1964, and all the related discoveries and experiments that made the experimental proof of it a formality. Of course, even though almost everybody anticipated it, the final proof is what substantiates progress in science.
A: Okay, it sounds like you do have respect for experimental physicists.
B: Yes, of the highest order. My critique goes the other way… I’m looking at you, theoretical physicists. You’re letting your fellow experimental colleagues down, big time.
A: Okay, I like the simplicity of that. Experimental physicists are the good guys, theoretical physicists are the bad ones.
B: Hold on, it’s not that easy. Let’s take a step back: The fact that the LHC’s results were disappointing isn’t unusual. That’s just science—you try out a lot of things, and most of the time it doesn’t work. The key question is what to conclude from it. Some physicists (including many experimental physicists, naturally) think that just building a larger accelerator will save the day. The “Future Circular Collider” (FCC), which is currently in the planning phase at CERN, would be 4 times the size of the LHC. This is classic “more of the same”-type of thinking that we have to watch out for.
A: How can you be sure that it won’t give us new insights?
B: I’m not, I don’t have the knowledge to assess it myself. I do know that some physicists rule out the possibility of significant discoveries even with a larger collider. I also know that large particle accelerators are not only great at annihilating particles but also at annihilating money. It’s estimated that the FCC will cost at least $20 billion to build, with $1 billion to maintain per year. That means for the first 10 years of operation, it will cost $30 billion (the real costs, as always, will probably be much higher[4]).
A: It could be worth it if it brings us some progress.
B: The question is always what the opportunity costs are. You can do a lot with $30 billion. I’m sure there are cleverer ways to spend it in physics, for example on physics education, or on other pressing issues such as emerging viruses or climate change. As an outsider, it seems to me that humanity is trying to solve a problem by just throwing more money at it. That hardly ever works.
A: What do you mean with “hardly ever works”?
B: In many fields, not just physics, there’s evidence suggesting that excessive investment in one direction may not always yield the desired outcomes. For example, in business, excessive spending on marketing might indicate desperation. If a product isn’t selling well, the problem might lie in the product’s quality rather than market awareness. It’s wiser to go back to the drawing board and reassess the offering rather than spending more on advertising. As the saying goes, “marketing is a tax for a bad product.” A more strategic approach is the “Minimum Viable Product” (MVP) concept where an idea is tested with minimal resources before full-scale investment. For instance, a business might set up a website for a yet-to-be-developed product with a non-functional checkout page. Only when there’s significant user interest in purchasing, evidenced by interactions with the dummy checkout, would the business proceed with product development. Comparatively, while the LHC can’t be labeled an MVP (or it would surely be the most expensive MVP in history), following this logic, you’d be forced to conclude that it didn’t provide the justification to double down in the form of the FCC.
A: You won’t make all physicists happy with that statement.
B: If it’s about making physicists happy, I’d rather make a list of 10,000 hardcore FCC-proponents (I’m not even sure if there are that many), give them each 100,000 USD, making them really happy (they need it, as I’ll mention later[5]), and we’d still save 29 billion with that.
A: I see what you mean. It’s indeed a lot of money. I understand why you might be a little con-CERN-ed.
B: In government spending, there’s always a risk of losing perspective on the amount of money being spent. It reminds me of U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen’s statement “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Let’s not spend those sums, but sit down again and think a bit harder.
The book continues by elaborating how the “thinking a bit harder” could look like. To read it, get the OPIP book.
—
[1] CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research, a leading center for scientific research in fundamental physics, particularly the study of elementary particles. Founded in 1954, it is located near Geneva, Switzerland, and operates the LHC.
[2] In fact, the elusiveness of the Higgs boson gave birth to the expression “God particle,” which it is often referred to. The particle got this name from Nobel laureate physicist Leon Lederman who, however, wanted to call it the “Goddamn Particle” in his book, as it was so difficult to detect. The publishers wouldn’t let him use the term, so “God Particle” became the title of his book. The name stuck as a colloquial term, despite some disapproval from the scientific community due to its sensational nature.
[3] Greely, H.T. (2012): “Thoughts on the Discovery of the Higgs Boson and the Nature of “Major Scientific Discoveries”” (Stanford Law School Blogs).
[4] An example for this is the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), the LHC-equivalent in the United States. The project was approved by Ronald Reagan in 1987 when the originally estimated costs were $4.4bn. The project was cancelled in 1993 when estimated costs had risen to over $11bn (approx. $21bn in today’s money). The $2bn already spent left behind a vacant tunnel in the Texas earth. Source: Appell, D. (2013): “The Supercollider That Never Was” (Scientific American).
[5] Actually, they’re not as bad off as depicted later (in the book). Working at CERN can be quite lucrative. Long-term staff members can expect to earn from around 60,000 USD to upwards of 120,000 USD annually depending on the grade and experience. See Careers at CERN.
