What is more likely to revolutionise physics - spending $20bn on an incremental increase in collider energies, on spending $20bn funding a new generation of PhDs and postdocs exploring quantum gravity fundamentals?
At this point practical HEP shows every signs of being a boondoggle. There are plenty of hard theoretical questions that haven't been answered, but with a few exceptions they're outside of the mainstream. Research into them has been actively discouraged, except at a few locations.
Physics doesn't need more hardware, it needs more ideas - more intellectual diversity, and more creativity.
I'm not sure just increasing funding to thep would generate new ideas, why would they not just funnel it into the same "safe" programmes as they have done the last 25 years? There are some small "fringe science" programmes here and there, but we probably shouldn't pour all money into those either..
What is more likely to revolutionise physics - spending $20bn on an incremental increase in collider energies, on spending $20bn funding a new generation of PhDs and postdocs exploring quantum gravity fundamentals?
At this point practical HEP shows every signs of being a boondoggle. There are plenty of hard theoretical questions that haven't been answered, but with a few exceptions they're outside of the mainstream. Research into them has been actively discouraged, except at a few locations.
Physics doesn't need more hardware, it needs more ideas - more intellectual diversity, and more creativity.