Should we worry about what the LHC is not finding?(newscientist.com)
newscientist.com
Should we worry about what the LHC is not finding?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20729-should-we-worry-about-what-the-lhc-is-not-finding.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
8 comments
"When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes. When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S."
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
He claims that: all modern physicists are intellectually dishonest; Einstein only conducted thought experiments and GR is therefore unsubstantiated; the author is being persecuted for harboring unpopular ideas. I am not a physicist but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which seems lacking here.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html to thread! Falls foul of - at least - points 16, 18 and 24. (Could anyone find any falsifiable predictions, for that matter?)
On a more serious note, the quality of scientific debate on Hacker News is really, really low. Part of it is this community's insistence on contrariness – which comes out in a bunch of weird ways, global warming denialism probably the most prominent – but part of it is a really unattractive arrogant streak which refuses to accept that some issues are just complex. Kind of a Dunning-Kruger effect, really.
(I have no solutions, but it's worth noting).
On a more serious note, the quality of scientific debate on Hacker News is really, really low. Part of it is this community's insistence on contrariness – which comes out in a bunch of weird ways, global warming denialism probably the most prominent – but part of it is a really unattractive arrogant streak which refuses to accept that some issues are just complex. Kind of a Dunning-Kruger effect, really.
(I have no solutions, but it's worth noting).
Yes debate quality seems to have dropped. A few years ago HN comments would put a scientific article in perspective and add important insights. Now there are tons of comments with questions at a Physics 101 or Bio 101 or Astro 101 level.
(At least that's how it appears to me.)
(At least that's how it appears to me.)
This forum is growing. The discussion quality is bound to decrease. It's mathematically mandatory.
Happened to every online community I've seen in the last decade.
Happened to every online community I've seen in the last decade.
While I mostly agree about the contrarian nature of many HN posters, there are more than a few very qualified scientists on HN from varied backgrounds, probably at a higher percentage than any other general online community that I can think of.
Flatline, read the site. Read the links. I would never spam this site with wacked out bullshit. Look past personality here and read the science of plasma and electricity explaining, repeatedly, many questions that the popular hypotheses simply don't, at least not without creating mathematically abstract "things" that "must be there, except we can't see them, or measure them, or even prove via experiment that they exist. Dark matter and energy, for example.
The plasma explainations DO address these things, and to my critical eyes, very compellingly. Just give it your time, and be objectively critical.
The dude thinks neutron stars and black holes are unfindable pseudoscience. You could legitimately claim that there are better ways to interpret the evidence for those phenomena, but claiming that there is no evidence only demonstrates how confused he is about the field.
This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it.
Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it.
Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
Oh, the dreaded Black Hole Denialist. It's not a new phenomenon.
Too bad only a few forums allow you to ignore certain members.
Too bad only a few forums allow you to ignore certain members.
People like Galileo? Einstein? Maxwell? Crick? Pasteur?
I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.
I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.
Every advance in science comes from people who challenge conventional wisdom, but the vast majority of people who challenge conventional wisdom end up being wrong.
I did read some of the page, but gave up after it was clear that he thought his "Electric Sky" hypothesis was an alternative to general relativity. It might very well be one could construct a credible argument in some areas, but look at the wikipedia page for tests of General Relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
A new theory can't just provide an alternative to one of those phenomenon or a handful. It must make the same prediction in every single case where General Relativity has been tested and proven right - and then it has to make new predictions where General Relativity will fail. That is the standard by which General Relativity replaced Newton, and by which we would test this if it had any hope of providing a replacement.
It is certainly true that cosmologists are accumulating puzzles and I expect that sooner or later we'll get a new theory that can resolve them. But this theory can't even explain the old puzzles that brought down Newton.
I did read some of the page, but gave up after it was clear that he thought his "Electric Sky" hypothesis was an alternative to general relativity. It might very well be one could construct a credible argument in some areas, but look at the wikipedia page for tests of General Relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
A new theory can't just provide an alternative to one of those phenomenon or a handful. It must make the same prediction in every single case where General Relativity has been tested and proven right - and then it has to make new predictions where General Relativity will fail. That is the standard by which General Relativity replaced Newton, and by which we would test this if it had any hope of providing a replacement.
It is certainly true that cosmologists are accumulating puzzles and I expect that sooner or later we'll get a new theory that can resolve them. But this theory can't even explain the old puzzles that brought down Newton.
Look, I've been reading the same science you have been for 25 years. I have excitedly followed every development from Hawkings discovery of black holes to Feynmans physics work to all the various string theory, dark matter, red-shift big-bang, etc...
I've been reading the same things as you have. I believed them too, as far as one can without any hard evidence. Even the people in this line of work tell you they have ideas, but few facts. When I found this, it seemed to actually answer, in a lab, no less, some things that common astrophysics can not explain. And it does it coherently, in a methodology that can be observed in a lab. I love science as much as you guys do, and I think you ought to at least acquaint yourself with the plasma sciences, as they are amazingly explanatory of observed interactions both here and in deep space.
I'm not playing zealot here. Take the info as you will. But when I see a scientific explanation that stands up to scientific-method scrutiny, I believe it deserves to be considered in relation to other hypotheses that claim to explain events in a conflicting way.
I've been reading the same things as you have. I believed them too, as far as one can without any hard evidence. Even the people in this line of work tell you they have ideas, but few facts. When I found this, it seemed to actually answer, in a lab, no less, some things that common astrophysics can not explain. And it does it coherently, in a methodology that can be observed in a lab. I love science as much as you guys do, and I think you ought to at least acquaint yourself with the plasma sciences, as they are amazingly explanatory of observed interactions both here and in deep space.
I'm not playing zealot here. Take the info as you will. But when I see a scientific explanation that stands up to scientific-method scrutiny, I believe it deserves to be considered in relation to other hypotheses that claim to explain events in a conflicting way.
You mention that you think EU stands up to scientific-method scrutiny. I was looking through the site and I wasn't able to find any examples of a place where EU makes a correct quantitative prediction about some phenomenon where conventional cosmology is unable to?
Also, how would you use EU to quantitatively predict how the orbits of planets diverge from what Kepler's laws would predict, or how the time measurements aboard GPS satellites diverge from clocks on the ground? Or was the page you linked to wrong in claiming that EU disprove's Einstein's relativity?
Also, how would you use EU to quantitatively predict how the orbits of planets diverge from what Kepler's laws would predict, or how the time measurements aboard GPS satellites diverge from clocks on the ground? Or was the page you linked to wrong in claiming that EU disprove's Einstein's relativity?
I'm writing from a phone, unable to write with any depth.
See this list of papers written on the topic
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
I see little actual science on that site. What concrete claims there are appear mostly to be conspiracy theories and attempts at "logical refutation" that are extremely similar to the kind you'll find on holocaust denial sites.
Moreover, the "electric universe" hypothesis is well-known and widely rejected by those with expertise in the subject matter. We should not simply trust extraordinary claims by some shoddy website that does little to establish its credibility.
Moreover, the "electric universe" hypothesis is well-known and widely rejected by those with expertise in the subject matter. We should not simply trust extraordinary claims by some shoddy website that does little to establish its credibility.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Bayes.pdf
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/AppendixB.pdf
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Au...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclus...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Au...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclus...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_...
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals
I clicked on one, and it was discouragingly bad. It pivots on the phrase "as the picture shows…" — which is a hallmark of crackpot claims, from Bigfoot to canals on Mars. The fact that two galaxies appear to be connected by "light" in a photograph is no more evidence that they are actually connected than a photo where the sun blows out a tree's leaves is proof that the sun is a small orb floating a few feet above the earth.
[deleted]
Data not backing up hypothesis is not cause for worry. That's just part of science, and the result is still valuable.
The fact that no gravitons have been found below 2 TeV is data from which useful conclusions can be drawn about their nature, if they do exist.
The fact that no gravitons have been found below 2 TeV is data from which useful conclusions can be drawn about their nature, if they do exist.
On the contrary, I remember a quote from some physicist before LHC went live saying something like "if the LHC finds nothing that we've been predicting that will be a more incredible find (than proving the Higgs or Graviton), because that means we're completely wrong".
The LHC not finding particles in the areas we're predicting is simply telling us that our predictions were wrong. Time will tell, the LHC is still relatively new and is producing a metric ton of data. What we find in the next few years will radically change our understanding of the cosmos, I'm sure.
The LHC not finding particles in the areas we're predicting is simply telling us that our predictions were wrong. Time will tell, the LHC is still relatively new and is producing a metric ton of data. What we find in the next few years will radically change our understanding of the cosmos, I'm sure.
>What we find in the next few years will radically change our understanding of the cosmos, I'm sure.
every time current "standard model" was incorrect for some fringe/edge cases a new theory was born that included the old "standard model" as an edge case. Lets this chain continue ( i personally feel that monstrosity of superstring theory is an indication that we've reached the breaking point :)
every time current "standard model" was incorrect for some fringe/edge cases a new theory was born that included the old "standard model" as an edge case. Lets this chain continue ( i personally feel that monstrosity of superstring theory is an indication that we've reached the breaking point :)
If the LHC finds nothing it would be interesting but I don't think it would be a good step forward for physics. Of course any step in the right direction is good, but we would have no where to specifically look, and have just blown a lot of funding with no results to show off during the next round of funding.
A much better outcome would be to find something exotic that can spark research in the right direction. At the moment we have many ideas past the standard model but no way to know which to pursue with any seriousness.
Of course, discussion of what would be good or bad doesn't matter much. It will find what it finds (or doesn't)
A much better outcome would be to find something exotic that can spark research in the right direction. At the moment we have many ideas past the standard model but no way to know which to pursue with any seriousness.
Of course, discussion of what would be good or bad doesn't matter much. It will find what it finds (or doesn't)
>>and have just blown a lot of funding with no results to show off during the next round of funding
On the contrary, now we can stop wasting man hours on incorrect theorems and start looking for the right ones. This is really interesting because it means that the universe is much different than we imagined.
On the contrary, now we can stop wasting man hours on incorrect theorems and start looking for the right ones. This is really interesting because it means that the universe is much different than we imagined.
I don't think an outcome that would lead to less funding for this kind of physics would be necessarily bad.
Gravitons are the kookiest theoretical particle I have ever heard of. I had an intuition that they were kooky and contrived when I first heard of them as a child, and now that I know more about them and gravity, I have even more disbelief in them. Why people still believe in them I will never know.
Here's the latest thing I have seen, btw: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Pop science interpretation of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html
Here's the latest thing I have seen, btw: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Pop science interpretation of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html
You know what I'll never know? Why people think they know better than the scientific community after reading a few pop science articles.
If you have a single issue with gravitons that can be expressed mathematically, show us.
If you have a single issue with gravitons that can be expressed mathematically, show us.
I didn't say I knew better than "the scientific community" (whomever they are, since there is not a huge amount of consensus around gravitons), I just said I have a lot of doubts. I could be wrong.
How are they different from photons? Or gluons?
Anyways, I saw a Freeman Dyson talk once where he explained that if you were to set up a detector with the cross-sectional area of the Earth, and point it at the sun for the age of the Earth, you would be expected to detect 4(!) gravitons, due to their weak interactions with matter. He was convinced we would run into our inability to continue to test predictions long before we hammered out a decent unification theory.
Anyways, I saw a Freeman Dyson talk once where he explained that if you were to set up a detector with the cross-sectional area of the Earth, and point it at the sun for the age of the Earth, you would be expected to detect 4(!) gravitons, due to their weak interactions with matter. He was convinced we would run into our inability to continue to test predictions long before we hammered out a decent unification theory.
Standard gravitons are already constrained to be almost massless, so i'm guessing the article is referring to Randall-Sundrum type massive gravitons in 5D.
Why does their detectability depend on the mass? My understanding is that both the standard and Randall-Sundrum gravitons can only be identified through missing energy; neither are possible to directly detect through any feasible experiment. Does the low upper bound on the mass constrain the cross-section?
I believe the main RS discovery channel is looking for a p pbar -> graviton -> e+ e- resonance, where p is a parton (i.e., quark or gluon).
Is the following reasoning correct? If the standard graviton is massless, it can't decay into r rbar for any particle r (because of momentum conservation). The standard graviton could have a tiny mass, but the low upper bounds on it means that the cross section is too tiny to be observed. RS gets around this because at LHC energies the RS graviton has a larger high-energy effective mass (because of extra dimesions) while still satisfying the low-energy experimental mass limits.
> At the same time, there is no sign yet of gravitons particles that transmit gravity and are essential...
I never understood how you can explain gravity as 1) a bending of space-time caused by mass and then 2) pretend it's a force transmited by "gravitons".
If 1) is true then it's an effect (phenomena), not a cause (force). If 2) is true than it's a cause (force), not an effect (phenomena).
I never understood how you can explain gravity as 1) a bending of space-time caused by mass and then 2) pretend it's a force transmited by "gravitons".
If 1) is true then it's an effect (phenomena), not a cause (force). If 2) is true than it's a cause (force), not an effect (phenomena).
The way physicists understand this is that the curved space-time view of gravity is an approximation that is only valid when you have a lot of gravitons. In that situation you do not see individual gravitons but only the aggregate effect of the ‘sea’ of gravitons you are in.
This is similar to e.g. fluid dynamics, which is only valid at scales much larger than the atomic scale. But if you look close enough, you will see effects that are not consistent with viewing a fluid as a continuum of matter (e.g. minute specks of dust moving randomly because they are hit by individual atoms).
This is similar to e.g. fluid dynamics, which is only valid at scales much larger than the atomic scale. But if you look close enough, you will see effects that are not consistent with viewing a fluid as a continuum of matter (e.g. minute specks of dust moving randomly because they are hit by individual atoms).
Don't worry, neither do physicists. When people talk about 'quantum gravity' they mean some theory which unites curving of space with the idea of gravity being 'quantised' in particles. Only string theory does this consistently (and here the curvature manifests itself as a background of gravitons), but string theory isn't really a serious competitor for physics beyond the standard model.
Well, it just could be another form of duality, like wave-particle duality. You'd think waves and particles are mutually exclusive too, but nature disagrees.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the two characterizations come from two different branches of physics that to date have still not been fully reconciled. (General) relativity is based on a mathematical conception of space-time where gravity can be modeled by mass bending space. Quantum mechanics models all long-distance forces between particles as local interactions with a mediator particle that represents the force. These two theories have trouble getting along together for a number of reasons (look up "quantum foam"), plus we really have no way of telling if these models are a faithful representation of reality, or are just mathematically equivalent to something totally different.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the two characterizations come from two different branches of physics that to date have still not been fully reconciled. (General) relativity is based on a mathematical conception of space-time where gravity can be modeled by mass bending space. Quantum mechanics models all long-distance forces between particles as local interactions with a mediator particle that represents the force. These two theories have trouble getting along together for a number of reasons (look up "quantum foam"), plus we really have no way of telling if these models are a faithful representation of reality, or are just mathematically equivalent to something totally different.
That's because a true theory of gravity is still missing. On one hand, we have an approximate high-scale view due to relativity, on the other hand quantum theory says there should be some particles called gravitons that are the carriers of this force.
Both these views should become approximations of the real theory of gravity, if and when it's created.
Both these views should become approximations of the real theory of gravity, if and when it's created.
That's actually good news; I mean, it reminds the Michelson-Morley experiment, right?
The picture in the article is eerily reminiscent of scenes from certain movies. (Probably because of the rule of thirds, and the left-to-right directional bias of western audiences.)
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/funstuff/tarkin/dsgun.jpg
http://www.starwars.com/img/theclonewars/guide/episode002/il...
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/funstuff/tarkin/dsgun.jpg
http://www.starwars.com/img/theclonewars/guide/episode002/il...
There are huge flaws in the art as it is practiced today. They aren't finding what they're looking for because it IS NOT THERE. Go to the following site, and understand the gap between the fantastic but invented idea-chasers that are currently en vogue, and the scientists that are taking measurements and fitting the results to known phenomena.
This will change your view of modern science forever, and I humbly assert that it should.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm