At this point physics seems to be in the business of adding epicycles to a model that does some very good modelling, in an epicyclic way, but cannot possibly be complete as a paradigm.
OP's point is that new paradigms are desperately needed, and it's looking unlikely that we'll get them by building a $20bn thing that bangs the same old rocks together a bit harder.
It doesn't help that people who are smart enough to make a difference don't stay in physics long enough to do what they could do. There's more money and less pressure elsewhere.
Collectively, this is not a good situation to be in. Nothing has more potential to change the future than new physics, and CERN-style HEP seems much less likely to get to Quantum Gravity than a new academic and financial paradigm in fundamental research.
At this point physics seems to be in the business of adding epicycles to a model that does some very good modelling, in an epicyclic way, but cannot possibly be complete as a paradigm.
OP's point is that new paradigms are desperately needed, and it's looking unlikely that we'll get them by building a $20bn thing that bangs the same old rocks together a bit harder.
It doesn't help that people who are smart enough to make a difference don't stay in physics long enough to do what they could do. There's more money and less pressure elsewhere.
Collectively, this is not a good situation to be in. Nothing has more potential to change the future than new physics, and CERN-style HEP seems much less likely to get to Quantum Gravity than a new academic and financial paradigm in fundamental research.