Particle physics controversy

[Amy Winehouse]

Hi, of COURSE you had to click on a thread called particle physics controversy!

But it wasn't just to get your attention, I really do have a problem with the current approach to particle physics. The big Hadron particle accelerator has been shedding light on what was named "dark matter"(the name was just to reference something, not to explain anything), but there is one missing piece to the puzzle.

Higgs boson.

The idea behind the standard model is that every particle has a "shadow" particle that counter balances it. They've discovered all of these shadow particles, except one particularly elusive one: Higgs boson. One of the lead researchers working on the Higgs project at the Hadron particle accelerator quips that physicists know "everything about Higgs boson, its function in the standard model system, its properties; everything, except whether or not it actually exists."

So they are at a stall, spending millions of dollars at thousands of engineer hours trying to discover traces of the particle "within a 1 in 3.5 million" chance that it's not a coincidence. That's their standard over there. They've gotten to 1 in 2000 in all those years.

Okay i know TLDR, heres the point: They know it exists. Of course it does. If it doesn't, then the entire standard model would collapse, as well as our idea of gravity. Am i being immature by saying that its a WASTE of resources searching for it? Why can't we just assume that it does, and move on from there instead of halting at this standstill.

Sorry i know tldr

[puer curiosus]

Originally Posted by Amy Winehouse

heres the point: They know it exists. Of course it does. If it doesn't, then the entire standard model would collapse, as well as our idea of gravity. Am i being immature by saying that its a WASTE of resources searching for it? Why can't we just assume that it does, and move on from there instead of halting at this standstill.

You can't just assume something exists because you think there's a strong logical basis behind it. Aristotle thought that women had more teeth than men because they were chattier on average(don't know for sure whether that's true in the first place) but he never bothered verifying (or debunking) it experimentally.

That's the key thing which differentiates science from pseudoscience. Scientific theories are falsifiable, testable. If you can't falsify something, it ain't science.

[Luzian]

Originally Posted by puer curiosus

You can't just assume something exists because you think there's a strong logical basis behind it.

It's a better to walk into a brick wall believing in something than to stand still believing in nothing.

[Amy Winehouse]

I just feel like they're missing the forest for the trees(or lack thereof). I guess I'm being pessimistic but I don't think the line between science and pseudoscience is that defined. Their method of discovery has to do with extremely abstract measurements already, which is why they set their standard of 1 in 3.5 million chance that the reading couldn't have come from coincidence (white noise from the machine. ) I think the standard is completely arbitrary, why don't we just walk forward, if we hit a brick wall then ouch, life goes on and it was worth it.

[crippli]

I'm with puer curiosus. It's clarifying when there are criteria to separate science from pseudoscience

[Amy Winehouse]

I don't think it's bad that they tried, but fuck, they've already tried ENOUGH, and fallen extremely short, after years and years and millions and millions. I wish they could spend all those resources on something else, the next step, I don't know; I suppose I just don't know enough about it.

[blarg]

Originally Posted by Luzian

It's a better to walk into a brick wall believing in something than to stand still believing in nothing.

I've done both, and I much prefer the latter.

Originally Posted by Amy Winehouse

I don't think it's bad that they tried, but fuck, they've already tried ENOUGH, and fallen extremely short, after years and years and millions and millions. I wish they could spend all those resources on something else, the next step, I don't know; I suppose I just don't know enough about it.

You do raise a valid point based on the fact that (AFAIK) there's no real way to invalidate the Standard Model using the LHC. In other words, if the LHC experiments fail to reveal the Higgs Boson, physicists can't just use argumentum ad ignorantiam and make any conclusions about the theory. That's why if nothing turns up the LHC would have been an epic fail. However, using your own logic, the Standard Model is mathematically airtight, and all of the other components have been verified, so there is a higher probability that the SM is empirically correct. Therefore, the likelihood of finding the Higgs Boson is reasonably high, so this money is probably a worthy investment. We just have to find out. It's like if you take a math test and think you've aced it but you'll never know for sure until you get the final score. And I'm with the folks who agree with the scientific method.

[Vrecknidj]

With any luck, this little bit of reading might help.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-universe.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/sc...ggs-boson.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/27409/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1222102947.htm

[puer curiosus]

Originally Posted by Luzian

It's a better to walk into a brick wall believing in something than to stand still believing in nothing.

In our search for truth, it's best to be skeptical about everything besides the most fundamental of assumptions. (actually, more often than not it's necessary to question even the most basic fundamentals)

And I agree with blarg that since the mathematics behind the standard model is pretty rock solid and the other particles predicted by the standard model have been discovered, there's a strong likelihood that the higgs boson would be discovered as well.

But I think there is a way to invalidate the standard model. As time goes by, if we still have no data pointing to the existence of the higgs boson, disillusioned physicists might come up with another theory which incorporates all the other discovered particle with some other explanation as to why particles have mass. And if their explanation's good enough and the predictions that theory makes are accurate, that could, in some sense "invalidate" the standard model.

However, all that's highly unlikely since there has been some data alluding to the existence of the higgs boson and the explanations given by the standard model are of a very high quality already.

Oh and vrecknidj, thanks for the links to the articles.

[puer curiosus]

Also, it's not like research has come to a standstill because we haven't quite discovered the higgs boson yet. Research in theoretical physics is still being carried out quite actively in areas such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory, quantum computation etc.

[Amy Winehouse]

Originally Posted by puer curiosus

Also, it's not like research has come to a standstill because we haven't quite discovered the higgs boson yet. Research in theoretical physics is still being carried out quite actively in areas such as string theory, loop quantum gravity, twistor theory, quantum computation etc.

You're right, I guess I was being a little dramatic with the standstill talk. And the more I think about it, any money spent on science and not war is money well spent.

And thank you for the links!

[C.J_Finn]

I'm happy with the search for the Higgs Boson and I want everything possible to be done to find it. I feel that anything that will further our understanding of the universe is needed. I actually made a thread awhile back about how the guys at CERN caught a glimpse of what they think is the Higgs, but not enough to be 100% sure. But the thing about this is that I can recall about 5 times that this has happened in the last 3 years.

[Paintzee]

If your approach of a waste of time was valid you would not be watching TV or even the computer screen which are the result of previous breakthoughs in particle physics. Research is about not knowing where your going until you get there.

If you really want to get an alternate view, google Julian Barbour, sometimes getting the answer you don't expect is better not a waste.