Over the past 10 years, the LHC has found more than 50 new hadrons
home.cern
home.cern
This is more akin to finding new molecules (hadrons), given known kinds of atoms (quarks).
I think the modern equivalent of epicycles is string theory. Find an inconstancy? No problem, add a dimension.
The important question is what is the geometry of the extra dimensions, if they exist. You need a large amount of energy to probe the extra dimensions, so it would appear just like some extra particles in the theory to a low energy observer. (Of course, the observer has to have enough energy to find even those particles).
The standard model also has seemingly arbitrary particle content and interactions without much to constrain it. A majority of the particle content was put in the theory by hand after seeing a failure of the theory. In strings, this choice has been moved from the theory to the initial data (choice of geometry of the extra dimensions).
But I'm not an expert and I was mostly being hyperbolic with my original reply. Corrections are always welcome.
A very common trick is to bump things to higher energy/mass. Your expensive collider didn't find the particle I predicted? The particle's mass must be larger than I thought; probably just beyond your collider's ability. You'd better build a bigger collider!
My theory of dark-matter/dark-energy/quantum-gravity/etc. doesn't fit known observations? This tweaked version only has discrepancies above a certain energy, which coincidentally is just beyond current colliders.
This is arguably how we found the W, Z and Higgs bosons; the charm, top and bottom quarks; and the tau. On the other hand, supersymmetry has been playing this game for decades, claiming that each new collider was sure to find (or rule out) the plethora of particles it predicted. Each time, the mass estimates were revised upwards.
Arguably, the biggest problem with the Higgs boson is that it was found exactly where they were expecting it. They'd ruled out other ranges; anything bigger would no longer be a Higgs boson. So all it did was tell them what they already knew. Failing to find it would actually have been more interesting -- though finding something different would have been even more interesting.
So they don't really say "we're sure to find it". They're hoping to find it -- and hoping not to.
They'll always need a bigger collider. That's where new results will always be. They're hoping for results they can't predict, and that makes it really hard to write a justification for the expense.
(I personally would just as soon spend much less on Big Science like that, but you'll find a ton of people willing to defend it. Fundamental physics has a history of producing results that are unexpected but economically immense, from lasers to the Web, as well as driving human intellectual curiosity.)
Bigger colliders are a low-risk approach: we'll definitely learn something, even if it's just better constraints on our models. This was a no-brainer back when colliders took up rooms or buildings. We've gone so far down this path that colliders are now measured in kilometres (and straddle national borders!), making it harder to justify the expense.
Higher-risk approaches can be much cheaper, by looking for new paths (where we haven't hit diminishing returns yet). EmDrive is an example; wakefield accelerators are another. These have a greater chance of going nowhere (again, EmDrive), but cost so little that we can fund a whole bunch for the equivalent of a bigger collider.
Of course, in best approach is to strike a balance between these two extremes: don't spend everything on the biggest possible collider; but likewise don't avoid projects just for being expensive.
Another good example is ITER versus the various fusion startups.
I think it's fair to say that physicists are well aware of the fact that this could be like finding more and more epicycles. In the sense that they're hoping they one day find a much simpler model to explain all this stuff than a big list of particles without a simpler theory behind all of it.
<3
I imagine you're wondering about newer things and actual discoveries. I just couldn't resist the setup.
Like here is a voltmetere someone built using designs from CERN. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D28uSzCs7-k
However you asked for discoveries, so I imagine you were thinking of the stuff the LHC has been searching for.
And I think in that regard it's safe to say no. And from what I understand, there's not a huge expectation for that to happen. The reason being that the LHC is a high-energy particle physics search, while almost everything we make or use is made of condensed matter[1] and low-energy particles, an area where we know pretty good how individual particles behave.
In the condensed matter field though, where many-body particle interactions dominate, there's a lot of interesting work that might have applications. As an example, a relatively recent discovery is superconductivity in twisted graphene layers[2].
I still think LHC and similar should be built. After all, a lot of good comes out of the technology required to build and operate them, and there is a chance we'll learn something with significant impact.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensed_matter_physics
[2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-twisted-graphene-became-t...
These collisions can be detected, and properties measured[2].
The main difference is that with accelerators like the LHC you control exactly where and when collisions happen, making precise measurements of a vast number of events possible. If I did my math right the Higgs required over 10^15 collisions before detection was claimed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_shower_%28physics%29
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#Detection_methods
They can't do as they please on hiring, subcontracting, suppliers because that money has oversight from treasury and congress. It's taxpayer money. Its like working with one hand tied behind your back. Not to mention that if a political mandate comes through, and it says stop all work on the space shuttle, no matter what progress you've made or what new materials are coming out or whether computer simulations are an order of magnitude better - you have to stop.
SpaceX is merely a launch alternative. The shuttle program has already paid its dues and paved the road.
[0](https://www.nasa.gov/emd/policy-regulations-and-guidance)
LHC - Large Hadron Collider - Geneva, Switzerland - Most likely CHF/EUR. Not sure why you would care how much is being spent on it.
It's easiest way to see how "big" something is
e.g quant computer
But to answer your question, I absolutely care about the budgets for the military or the police, or any entity really, as long as it belongs to my country.
What the US spends it's money on I couldn't care less, although it sucks the government there is so reluctant to actually pay for services to the humans living there and instead spend the money on military. But in the end, not my business so I don't really care either way.
My pet theory is that democracy is a subproduct of soap advertisement.