The Decline of Particle Physics: A Physicist's Perspective

The Unexpected Role of Particle Physics Critic

For the past several years, I have found myself in an unanticipated position as a vocal critic of particle physics. As this chapter of my career draws to a close, I feel compelled to explain the events that led to this point and offer my perspective on how we can make meaningful progress in the foundations of physics. Contrary to what some may believe, I do not advocate for the construction of larger particle colliders.

Many first became aware of my stance when I publicly criticized plans for a new, larger collider in publications like the New York Times. The response from the particle physics community was swift and often harsh:

• "This person does not need this kind of soapbox"
• "I find your comments disrespectful"
• "It would be a good idea for you to leave basic research"
• "You do not have the spirit needed"

These reactions highlight a significant problem within the physics community - a resistance to criticism and self-reflection. However, my position did not arise from a desire to disparage my colleagues. Rather, it stemmed from years of careful consideration regarding the state of physics research.

The Stagnation of Progress in Physics

For 15 years prior to speaking out, I had been grappling with a troubling realization: progress in the foundations of physics had essentially halted in the 1980s. Physics, as one of the oldest scientific disciplines, has reached a level of maturity that presents unique challenges:

1. New observations that don't fit existing theories are increasingly rare
2. Experiments have become more complex, larger, and far more expensive
3. Serendipitous discoveries are now extremely unlikely

The era of accidental breakthroughs, like stumbling upon a Higgs boson, is behind us. It took decades and billions of dollars to build a machine capable of such a discovery. This natural slowing of progress is not inherently concerning. What truly worries me is the seemingly endless stream of incorrect predictions put forth by physicists.

The Problem of Misguided Predictions

With finite resources available, we must be extremely judicious in deciding which experiments to pursue. Unfortunately, physicists have been remarkably careless in this regard, pouring billions into experiments that have yielded little to no progress. This misallocation of resources is largely responsible for the 50-year stagnation in the field.

Physicists have repeatedly built new experiments to test fashionable but ultimately flawed theories:

• Grand unified theories predicting proton decay
• Supersymmetry theories predicting numerous new particles
• Extra dimension theories predicting black holes at the Large Hadron Collider

None of these predictions have been borne out by experimental evidence. The fundamental issue is that these ideas represent mathematical fiction rather than proper science. The field is inundated with tens of thousands of such predictions for phenomena that are essentially fabricated.

This trend continues today, with physicists now discussing entire "dark sectors" of undetectable particles and a proliferation of modified gravity theories. The arXiv preprint server is overflowing with these speculative ideas.

The Historical Basis for Successful Theories

Looking back at the history of physics, we can see that successful new theories have typically arisen to solve specific problems with existing models. While the physicists of the time may not have explicitly framed their work this way, hindsight reveals a clear pattern. New theories in physics tend to address one of two types of issues:

1. Internal inconsistencies within existing theories (e.g., Einstein's work, the Higgs boson)
2. Conflicts between theory and experimental observations (e.g., quantum physics)

The current crop of popular ideas in theoretical physics - axions, supersymmetry, grand unification, extra dimensions, dark matter particles, and exotic fields - do not follow this pattern. They do not solve any real problems with our current understanding. Instead, they address "problems" that physicists have essentially invented, often based on aesthetic preferences or a desire for mathematical elegance.

Based on historical precedent, theories that do not address genuine issues are highly unlikely to be correct. This realization led me to conclude that neither the Large Hadron Collider nor existing dark matter experiments were likely to yield significant new discoveries. It's also why I believe a larger particle collider would be an unwise investment.

A Personal Journey and Professional Consequences

My conviction in this analysis led me to make some difficult career decisions. In 2005, before the LHC even began operations, I chose to stop working on LHC physics. The following year, I turned down a prestigious and well-funded grant from the German Research Foundation because it would have required me to continue work on "beyond the standard model" physics at the LHC - an area I had concluded was fundamentally misguided.

This decision was met with disbelief from my university and concern from friends who thought I was making a grave mistake. Only my mother expressed confidence in my judgment. At the time, I was in my late 20s, and the weight of disagreeing with thousands of brilliant colleagues was not lost on me. I grappled with self-doubt, exacerbated by my own mental health struggles at the time.

Ultimately, I chose to trust my analysis and accepted a position at the Perimeter Institute to pursue other avenues of research. While that particular move did not pan out as I had hoped, I remained convinced of my assessment of particle physics.

The LHC Era and Continued Misdirection

As the LHC began operations, it confirmed my expectations. The Higgs boson - the last major prediction from the pre-speculation era - was discovered. However, all the pseudo-predictions I had criticized were systematically ruled out. Rather than reassess their approach, many particle physicists simply moved the goalposts. They began claiming that these discoveries would just take more time, perhaps after upgrades or with an even larger collider.

This pattern of unfounded optimism and refusal to confront the underlying issues prompted me to write my book "Lost in Math" in 2015. In it, I explained why these predictions were almost certain to be proven wrong and argued that physicists needed to fundamentally reconsider their methods.

The response to my book and subsequent critiques was largely hostile. Instead of engaging with my arguments, many resorted to personal attacks:

• Claiming I just wanted to sell books
• Suggesting I was bitter about not having tenure
• Accusing me of seeking attention

None of these addressed the substance of my critique. In reality, I simply wanted to draw attention to what I saw as a critical problem in the field - one that threatens the future of physics and, by extension, science as a whole.

The Case Against a Bigger Collider

My opposition to building an even larger particle collider stems from a deep concern for the future of physics. I believe such a project would be disastrous for several reasons:

1. It would likely stall progress for another 50 years
2. It would consume vast amounts of funding that could be better used elsewhere
3. It would encourage the continued production of speculative, unfounded theories
4. It would provide minimal benefit to society at large
5. The probability of finding anything truly novel or interesting is extremely low

Instead of pursuing this path, I argue that we should focus our efforts and resources on experiments in areas where we have genuine inconsistencies to resolve:

• Quantum gravity, where we have internal theoretical conflicts
• Astrophysics, where we have discrepancies between data and theory

For example, why isn't there a billion-dollar research program dedicated to experimentally testing quantum gravity? By any reasonable measure, this would be a far more promising investment.

I'm also deeply concerned about the lack of research into the foundations of quantum physics. With the rapid advancements in quantum technology, it's entirely possible that we're overlooking crucial physics breakthroughs hidden in existing data simply because we lack the theoretical framework to recognize them.

Common Arguments and Counterpoints

Particle physicists often present a set of standard arguments in favor of building larger colliders. I've compiled and addressed many of these over the years. One particularly frustrating argument, which I call the "money is wasted elsewhere too" argument, was put forth by physicist Lisa Randall in response to my New York Times op-ed. She compared the cost of colliders to government shutdowns, inadvertently admitting that particle physics research could be seen as a waste of money.

It's worth noting that Randall herself gained tenure for proposing extra dimensions - a concept for which no evidence has ever been found. This illustrates the broader problem of a research culture that rewards speculative ideas over solid scientific progress.

Many arguments in favor of large colliders could apply to any big science project. Proponents cite potential spin-off technologies, educational benefits, and general scientific advancement. While these are valid considerations, they don't justify the specific choice of a particle collider. If education is the goal, direct investment in educational programs would be far more efficient than coupling it with an enormous, speculative physics experiment.

A Cautious Hope for the Future

Recent developments suggest that CERN's plans for a new large collider may be less likely to succeed, partly due to the economic challenges facing Europe. However, the particle physics community has significant political influence, so I'm not ready to completely rule out the possibility.

What gives me hope is that many people outside the particle physics community are beginning to recognize the problems with unfounded speculation in fundamental physics research. This growing awareness may finally create the conditions for real progress in the field.

If this discussion has inspired you to tackle some of the big open questions in physics, I encourage you to seek out rigorous educational resources. Platforms like Brilliant offer interactive courses on a wide range of scientific topics, from quantum mechanics to data science. Developing a strong foundation in these areas is crucial for anyone hoping to contribute to the advancement of physics.

Conclusion

The current state of particle physics research represents a critical juncture for the scientific community. The pursuit of ever-larger colliders and increasingly speculative theories threatens to divert precious resources away from more promising avenues of inquiry. By refocusing our efforts on addressing genuine inconsistencies in our theories and experimental observations, we have the potential to unlock new realms of understanding in physics.

It's crucial that we foster an environment where constructive criticism and self-reflection are valued, rather than met with hostility. Only by honestly confronting the limitations of our current approaches can we hope to overcome the stagnation that has gripped the foundations of physics for decades.

The future of physics - and indeed, the future of science and our civilization - depends on our ability to adapt our methods and priorities in the face of changing circumstances. It's my sincere hope that by sparking this difficult but necessary conversation, we can pave the way for a new era of discovery and understanding in the fundamental workings of our universe.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqoyTSAF5g0