In light of direction LHC is experiencing there is always the questions of Oversight in terms of the direction science needs to take. I have listed one aspect of the question of directions that may be of interest here? I have seen this procedure used over and over again. This is how I know to focus in on the experiments as they are listed and work backwards to gain full insight in these experimental procedures.
This focus with regard to be “lead by science is part of the mantra” I hold and features part of my respect toward the science process that I have come to build in respect of where we are going and what is happening. In this spirit there has always been help by scientists who want to help the lay public with information to help exceed current levels of understanding with regard to where we are right now in that science.
The challenge is not to be lost in the confrontations of opposing view points in science but to focus more on what is being offered in terms of advancing that science knowledge. One has to put aside these character attacks in order to focus on the science process itself and information. Character attacks on theoretical definitions.
Following scientists you get to know who is respecting this foundational approach in order to push forward public knowledge. The vitriolic statements about character are like sandpaper or a screeching board, to respect for individuals in their pursuits
Over the years as a researcher of sorts digging deeply for the directions science projects are initiated are always with the idea that advisory boards put forward proposals for money toward experimental procedures.
So in order to justified this money I have to believe the best approach to advancing that money is to consider it as a method to falsify on scientific grounds.
I know people have their own theories but in order to advance falsifiable methods these have to be considered at the time the phenomenology of experimentation is proposed as part of the development of that method to do so.
So the OP introduction toward a news article is hardly sufficient to think about the advancement of any theory on the grounds that it could encapsulate the entire process of advancing science as nothing more then news fodder. To be able to raise the question for those who believe that it is a opportunity to advance their own theories or to ask the question in the spirit of the OP?
Liquid Xenon both scintillates and becomes ionized when hit by particles (i.e. photons, neutrons and potentially dark matter). The ratio of scintillation over ionization energy caused by the collision provides a way of identifying the interacting particle. The leading theoretical dark matter candidate, the Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP), could be identified in this way. LUX Dark Matter