Cari Cesarotti

Right. Yeah. And I mean, it is... I think in particle physics, certainly if you look back at the history, there's been a bit more of a give and take between theory and experiment. And so we were functioning for a long time before the Large Hadron Collider came on. We had the Tevatron at Fermilab, which really did make important discoveries too.

Right. Yeah. And I mean, it is... I think in particle physics, certainly if you look back at the history, there's been a bit more of a give and take between theory and experiment. And so we were functioning for a long time before the Large Hadron Collider came on. We had the Tevatron at Fermilab, which really did make important discoveries too.

But really going up to that sort of energy frontier that we could have... with the LHC was so important for the field. And we were really driven by theory for a long time. And we had this beautiful promise that there was going to be something at 100 GEV. We had many predictions that were just fundamentally breaking down that told us there had to be something up there.

But really going up to that sort of energy frontier that we could have... with the LHC was so important for the field. And we were really driven by theory for a long time. And we had this beautiful promise that there was going to be something at 100 GEV. We had many predictions that were just fundamentally breaking down that told us there had to be something up there.

And we hoped it was the Higgs, but it could have been other things too. But we knew that there was something up there. And now we just don't have that theoretical promise, right? Is that we just know things are broken and we haven't yet been able to debug the standard model.

And we hoped it was the Higgs, but it could have been other things too. But we knew that there was something up there. And now we just don't have that theoretical promise, right? Is that we just know things are broken and we haven't yet been able to debug the standard model.

So, yeah, to me, it kind of feels like now it's the time to let experiment drive a little bit and see what see what's up there. And maybe as theorists, we can look at data and get inspired again for what might be a good solution.

So, yeah, to me, it kind of feels like now it's the time to let experiment drive a little bit and see what see what's up there. And maybe as theorists, we can look at data and get inspired again for what might be a good solution.

I am of the opinion that yes, the Large Hadron Collider is definitely still a machine that has some discovery potential. I think we have this kind of picture. Certainly, people who know a little and not a lot about collider physics have an idea that you know, the Large Hadron Collider just turns on and then it's like this Boolean output, like new physics, no new physics.

I am of the opinion that yes, the Large Hadron Collider is definitely still a machine that has some discovery potential. I think we have this kind of picture. Certainly, people who know a little and not a lot about collider physics have an idea that you know, the Large Hadron Collider just turns on and then it's like this Boolean output, like new physics, no new physics.

And there's just so many subtleties that occur between colliding the particles and a physicist understanding what's going on, right? So the way that we choose what events to look at, the way that we analyze the events, the way that we... interpret the events.

And there's just so many subtleties that occur between colliding the particles and a physicist understanding what's going on, right? So the way that we choose what events to look at, the way that we analyze the events, the way that we... interpret the events.

Like there's so many things in which you could introduce a bias that would skew you away from understanding fundamentally what physics could be going on. I don't think that it's probable that we'll discover something new at the LHC, but is the question, could there be hints of something new? Absolutely.

Like there's so many things in which you could introduce a bias that would skew you away from understanding fundamentally what physics could be going on. I don't think that it's probable that we'll discover something new at the LHC, but is the question, could there be hints of something new? Absolutely.

Yeah, and this is kind of what I did my PhD on, in fact, is the idea of how we can sort of robustly look for new physics effects. Because again, we're likely not going to get... At this point with the LHC, we're not just going to see some beautiful new resonance just falling out at a perfect sharp peak at like 2 TeV. It's possible, but it's probably pretty unlikely.

Yeah, and this is kind of what I did my PhD on, in fact, is the idea of how we can sort of robustly look for new physics effects. Because again, we're likely not going to get... At this point with the LHC, we're not just going to see some beautiful new resonance just falling out at a perfect sharp peak at like 2 TeV. It's possible, but it's probably pretty unlikely.

So you kind of have to use more fundamental theoretical tools to say, you know... where are inconsistencies possible to show up versus let me just wait for the most beautiful evidence of new physics to fall into my lap.

So you kind of have to use more fundamental theoretical tools to say, you know... where are inconsistencies possible to show up versus let me just wait for the most beautiful evidence of new physics to fall into my lap.

That's what I hope.

That's what I hope.