alt Hacker NewsThanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think you might be inadvertently side-stepping my point. My argument was not about whether the LHC should have been built. It was about whether or not it was a valid justification put forward. I think the LHC should have been built. And while I can't say for sure, I'm pretty sure Sabine would as well. I think in that same video she calls out that it was built for the Higgs, so no discrepancy there.
But it still side steps the point - which is a false justification being provided by people who either should have or did know better - and that never being acknowledged or addressed.
Sorry but how does it constitute a false justification? The short version of the proposal to build LHC was that
" We would like to construct a machine to reach the energy scale we can't currently reach with Tevatron. This will allow us to discover Higgs boson the last building block of standard model and in the process allow us to do other things like study b physics, Quark-Glouns interactions and maybe could find some low mass particles from SUSY and or other beyond standard model theories."
Most of the goals are either achieved (with the main on being higgs Higgs) or being studied now (remember particle physics is not about unification only) but we failed to see some of things we said we could have seen.
Sorry I have hard time believing that sabine is not cherry picking and twisting facts to support her claims. I don't want to go into attacking personalities and I don't have something with sabine other than her constant stream of unfounded claims about particle physics.