So, she is basically saying that theoretical physics experiments aren’t going to live up to the hype of fundamentally understanding the universe immediately…but they are still advancing our understanding of the most fundamental of fundamental science. Ok, so improved measurements of the gluon are not going to lead to a product on the shelf for me. So what? The whole point of the OP article is that fundamental research yesterday, leads to applied research today, leads to the technology of tomorrow.
> So, she is basically saying that theoretical physics experiments aren’t going to live up to the hype of fundamentally understanding the universe immediately…
No, she said, that:
A) It's not going to solve the issue that it's supposed to solve. Matter/anti-matter imbalance. The effect would be too minor to fully explain the imbalance.
B) The thing expensive particle colliders are good for is keeping particle physicists employed.
And she has a point. You will not be discovering some groundbreaking application using DUNE or LHC. The energies involved are too big to be scaled effectively into usable inventions.
And to really test the current theories, you'll need the LHC the size of the Solar system.
Fool me once (Anti-symmetry pairs) shame on you. Fool me again and again, and again, and you get the public funding for particle accelerators.
