What experiments in fundamental physics? CERN is lost - in math and nonsense

True story: CERN is looking for input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics. They look for input from anybody, and are setting up a website to collect it.

Satire: We all know what this means: we have a multi-billion dollar project that does not know what to do. They have proven the standard model right, found no physics beyond it. And now they worry what to do. Indeed, what should they do with all that money? Please help them!

True story: Scientists already had such a situation. Once upon a time, chemists discovered the periodic table of the elements. Then they filled up the gaps. There are few open topics, but the field is now essentially closed.

True story: Now CERN is in the same situation. The tables of elementary particles are filled up, and the field is now essentially closed. The research race is a different one: calculate the parameters of the standard model.

Satire: Now imagine, you have thousands of scientists in CERN and universities who do not know what to do. Some of them have not yet noticed, some of them changed from physics to offending others, some of them are lost in math, in supersymmetry, in multiple Higgs fantasies, and some of them are lost in real nonsensensical theories - from strings to - maybe - spaghetti.

Satire: What will these scientists tell their children? They have a hard time ahead. Use the accelerator to invent new products. Use the computers to calculate. Use the left over data to stop exploring failed theories. Tell the world the truth, and and then change it to a better place.

True story: Of course, this will not happen. When have men with a lot of money ever told the truth? Men with money always want more money.

Ugly or beautiful - Sabine is right

Sabine Hossenfelder is worried about the misuse of beauty in physics. The idea of beauty led many researchers to the wrong theory. She wrote a book about the issue. So I took her seriously and had some fun the last few days searching on the internet for "standard model" and "ugly". I was astonished. There are many hits, starting with Stephen Hawking. It is also called "ugliest",  "ugly as hell", "unnatural", "unsatisfactory" and more.

If you claim that the standard model is ugly, you direct your research efforts elsewhere. And you direct young researchers elsewhere. But are you right in doing so? Sabine is skeptical, and so am I.

Is the standard model ugly or beautiful? It depends on the way you describe it. Many call the standard model ugly because it is ad hoc and has around 24 parameters that are chosen arbitrarily. But Christoph Schiller would call the standard model beautiful, because all the parameters might follow from wiggling spaghetti and thus are not arbitrary at all. Who is right?

If Sabine is right, we must hope that Christoph follows her advice and calculates better approximations for the 24 parameters. Christoph, listen to Sabine!