Before discussions go into some generic direction about the field. This is a huge feasibility study contain different aspects done by hundreds of people. People who are mostly interested about the physics case of FCC should read/skim at least through the first volume [1], second chapter (Specificities of the FCC physics case) the first four sections. This is about 35 pages with somehow accessible language to people with some physics knowledge.

I would also be happy to answer questions.

[1] https://cds.cern.ch/record/2928193

Sabine is skeptical [0]. Is it really true that there a no theories that are proven or dicarded with this experiment, and that the Chinese have plans to do it much faster? Her video is pretty damning.

[0] https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2025/04/why-cerns-new-coll...

The utter lack of significant discoveries at the LHC after the Higgs (2012!) is a pretty telling sign. Any bigger collider is riding purely on the hope that something will make the effort worth while.

There's been plenty of significant discoveries, many, many. (hadrons, consistent standard model discrepancies are really big news, those weren't expected)

There hasn't been a significant new particle discovery, but none was expected, as far back as 2006 when I was still screwing around in graduate physics.

FWIW, the contrarian line back then was LHC was a waste of time and money because we already knew the Higgs boson must exist and we could probably just let Fermilab futz around with upgrades and better detection and find it anyway.

Sabine is something other-than a good source on how physicists actually think about things at this point, unfortunately.

It's not true at all.

I'll come back and write some up over the next 20 minutes.

I look forward to it. I listened to her a lot recently because YouTube decided ever “next video” bump while I drove should be her.