Has the field of particle physics as a whole fallen apart due to the efforts of a former physicist who is now speaking out? You might be inclined to believe this if you've read the most recent headlines.

According to an article by astronomer and YouTuber Sabine Hossenfelder that appeared in the Guardian's opinion section on September 26, particle physicists have been hiding a dark secret: They 'don't consider the particles they're paid to hunt for exist,' the author stated.

In a nutshell, Hossenfelder claims that a number of the abnormal results discovered by physicists in particle colliders and high-energy physics experiments are explained by theoretical particles created out of thin air. She claims that a full 'zoo' of novel particles, including 'wimps,' 'axions,' and 'sterile neutrinos,' has been created.

She mentions in her post that although experiments meant to find for the 'zoo's' occupants have not turned up anything, particle physicists have been searching for them. Therefore, she claims, scientists are wasting their time looking for manufactured materials beyond the Commonplace Mannequin, which she thinks 'functions just fine the way it is.' Many particle physicists reject that idea, pointing out in particular that it does not account for dark matter.

Nevertheless, Hossenfelder seems to suggest that researchers are only benefiting themselves by 'creating' additional particles that go beyond the Commonplace Mannequin: They have the ability to produce highly theoretical scientific publications, increasing their publication totals and accruing citations, both of which are highly valuable when applying for additional funding.

Unsettlingly, this claim prompted several media to jump into the debate. One piece suggested particle physicists had a 'soiled secret' and screamed, 'FORMER PARTICLE PHYSICIST ABSOLUTELY ANNIHILATES THE FIELD OF PARTICLE PHYSICS.'

However, the truth is much less concerning (and requires far much less Caps Lock.)

It is evident from conversations I've had with particle physicists over the past week that Hossenfelder's remarks offended the community. Thomas Van Riet, a physicist at KU Leuven in Belgium, informed me via email that 'It truly bothers me.'

Many people think Hossenfelder's piece was unfairly framed. Some people think it just accepts lies and misleading information. The biggest issue, according to what I've heard, is the way Hossenfelder portrays particle physicists who work 'in non-public' as if they were acting in a suspicious manner and hiding the truth about their work from the public. The assertions of what is spoken behind closed doors are what irritate me the most, tweeted theoretical physicist Djuna Croon in response to the article.

She was a particle physicist, Hossenfelder explains, and she has since 'left the sphere.' She claims that because of this separation, she is 'ready and keen to critique the status of circumstances.'

However, it can leave readers with the impression that basically every active particle scientist is dishonest in some way.

It's similar to a chef eating somewhere other than the kitchen where they usually produce meals. They might order a tasteless, boring soup at the restaurant that is far too expensive. However, the chef continues, 'This entire neighbourhood of dining establishments is terrible and so they charge an unreasonable price for soup,' despite the fact that there is an entire avenue of eating establishments selling inexpensive, delectable soup just over the block. In other words, it is unjustified and does not capture the reality of the situation to paint a whole region with a single brush.

We must be careful not to restrict inquiry, though. Theoretical physics tests the limits of all we now understand at the absolute edge of our technological prowess. That is bizarre. In truth, there are times when scientists will make mistakes.

After all, there are times when their theories about new particles or predictions do not turn out as they had hoped. In actuality, I would say that is the norm. Unfavorable consequences are still consequences, nevertheless. It does shift the focus forward, making us reevaluate our search for a greater reality.

Is a brand-new, pricey, massive particle collider required for the world to search for that reality? How much does the search for dark matter merit? Will we be interested in learning the fundamental physics underlying our reality?

These are discussions and questions that are worthwhile. However, in order to advance particle physics into a brand-new and exciting domain, we should always stimulate inquiry, ignite new ideas, create new particles when it makes sense to do so, and support new methods when it doesn't.