I thought we had established that when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility. It's always subject to revision.
Here's what Einstein himself had to say:
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.
Many physicists think that the above is an important approach to understanding nature, but it is a completely unproven conjecture.
I asked Ethan!: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
Here's what Einstein himself had to say:
The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.
Many physicists think that the above is an important approach to understanding nature, but it is a completely unproven conjecture.
I asked Ethan!: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
TBH, Galu. even Ethan loses me sometimes!
I have no idea what is going on here. I am just a simple soul. 🙂
I have no idea what is going on here. I am just a simple soul. 🙂
Yes you do, Steve, I've explained it to you before!
It's a mathematical description of the Standard Model of particle physics written in Lagrangian form.
Section 1 is specific to gluons, Section 2 is dedicated to the interactions between bosons, Section 3 involves the weak force plus interactions with the Higgs field, and Sections 4 & 5 clear up some mathematical redundancies by referring to virtual particles called ghosts.
Simples! 🤓
Attachments
Aw, Mercy! We are going down a deep rabbit-hole here!
I enjoyed your analysis of the current state of Physics.
Personally I infer it all as Magic!
Hope that makes sense. Well, of course, it makes no sense at all. But it works for me. As an autistic person.
I enjoyed your analysis of the current state of Physics.
Personally I infer it all as Magic!
Hope that makes sense. Well, of course, it makes no sense at all. But it works for me. As an autistic person.
I've all of a sudden remembered yet another SF novel from my college days (a while back, but still decades after it was first published), "Mission Of Gravity." Hmm, it looks like I have more reading to do: "Clement published three sequels to Mission of Gravity ..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_of_Gravity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_of_Gravity
I have kept Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity up in the loft, along with Close to Critical. I must go up and revisit my collection!
Nobody can accuse benb of being off-topic!
I have been trying to make sense of the Universe for years:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
It's a difficult problem. Especially as an autistic. But I feel I am on the right track.
I have been trying to make sense of the Universe for years:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/
It's a difficult problem. Especially as an autistic. But I feel I am on the right track.
Things the Standard Model of particle physics doesn't explain:
- Gravity - The hypothetical boson called the graviton has never been experimentally observed so can't be included in the particle zoo.
- Dark Matter - Which isn't made up of baryons like protons and neutrons and accounts for around 85% of the mass in the known Universe.
- Matter/Antimatter - The question of why matter dominates the Universe rather than antimatter.
I never claimed the Standard Model has no weaknesses,
but the Matter/Antimatter question is reasonably resolved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
A "Strange" broken CP Meson symmetry in our Universe. How it is. Things in the mirror are not the same.
but the Matter/Antimatter question is reasonably resolved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
A "Strange" broken CP Meson symmetry in our Universe. How it is. Things in the mirror are not the same.
Some explanation may be in order:
It is thought that, during the hot Big Bang, matter and antimatter were created in equal quantities. However, in the early stages of the formation of the universe, matter and antimatter almost completely cancelled each other out.
Due to asymmetry in that cancellation, a tiny residue of matter was left over, and it is that residue that makes up stars, planets and people!
The big question is: Why does matter dominate the Universe rather than antimatter?
The answer lies in whether the laws of nature are the same for matter as they are for antimatter.
The theoretical symmetry between matter and antimatter is known as CP. If nature treated matter and antimatter alike, then nature would be CP-symmetric. If not, CP is violated.
Experiments have shown that the decays of a neutral kaon (or K meson) occur differently from those of its antiparticle partner, thus violating CP symmetry.
CP violation in kaons is thought to be a good place to look for new physics beyond the standard model.
It's a question I looked into some time ago! 🤓
The attached Feynman diagram shows a typical matter/antimatter annihilation process where the initial mass of an electron and antielectron is completely converted into energy, in this case two photons.
Today, we see the tiny residue left over after this grand annihilation of mass that took place early in the Universe's history.
Astronomers reckon that for every 100 billion matter particles made during the hot big bang, only one survived!
Rather than the matter/antimatter question being "resolved", we are still not sure why anything was left at all!
The pioneering work in aiming to answer this question was carried out by Russian dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Andrei Sakharov.
It was he who suggested that CP violation is necessary to explain the observed imbalance of matter and antimatter abundance in the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry
"Despite the allowance for CP violation in the Standard Model, it is insufficient to account for the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe given the limits on baryon number violation, meaning that beyond-Standard Model sources are needed."
Today, we see the tiny residue left over after this grand annihilation of mass that took place early in the Universe's history.
Astronomers reckon that for every 100 billion matter particles made during the hot big bang, only one survived!
Rather than the matter/antimatter question being "resolved", we are still not sure why anything was left at all!
The pioneering work in aiming to answer this question was carried out by Russian dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Andrei Sakharov.
It was he who suggested that CP violation is necessary to explain the observed imbalance of matter and antimatter abundance in the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry
"Despite the allowance for CP violation in the Standard Model, it is insufficient to account for the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe given the limits on baryon number violation, meaning that beyond-Standard Model sources are needed."
Attachments
Last edited:
It seems that around here some may be more interested in science fiction than science fact!
Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity is considered to be one of the first hard science fiction stories.
In hard sci-fi (unlike in soft sci-fi like Star Wars), writers incorporate technologies that exist on the fringes of possibility according to current scientific knowledge.
A recent example is The Martian by Andy Weir. Earlier examples include Niven's Ringworld and Clarke's Rendevous with Rama.
A particular favourite of mine is Tau Zero by Poul Anderson, published in 1970.
Because of its damaged Bussard ram scoops, the starship Leonora Christine is fated to accelerate ever closer and closer to the speed of light.
For the occupants on board subjective time slows down, but the Universe outside ages rapidly and the crew members ultimately witness its collapse in a big crunch and its rebirth in a new big bang!
Maybe not entirely in accord with modern thinking on the evolution of the Universe, but darned good reading nonetheless! 😎
Hal Clement's Mission of Gravity is considered to be one of the first hard science fiction stories.
In hard sci-fi (unlike in soft sci-fi like Star Wars), writers incorporate technologies that exist on the fringes of possibility according to current scientific knowledge.
A recent example is The Martian by Andy Weir. Earlier examples include Niven's Ringworld and Clarke's Rendevous with Rama.
A particular favourite of mine is Tau Zero by Poul Anderson, published in 1970.
Because of its damaged Bussard ram scoops, the starship Leonora Christine is fated to accelerate ever closer and closer to the speed of light.
For the occupants on board subjective time slows down, but the Universe outside ages rapidly and the crew members ultimately witness its collapse in a big crunch and its rebirth in a new big bang!
Maybe not entirely in accord with modern thinking on the evolution of the Universe, but darned good reading nonetheless! 😎
Attachments
I did read every science fiction book in our local library. And all the science books.
dave
In my local library, Dave, that wouldn't take long!
Steve has a large central library in Portsmouth and appears spoiled for choice!
Steve has a large central library in Portsmouth and appears spoiled for choice!
😉 It's interesting that gravity came in early. It must be fundamental. Many moons ago people could roam where ever they liked on the web and original comments could be seen. So the big bang always makes me think of bird poo. Pigeons usually.
It seems the microwave background has a red shift of 1100.
I was reading about superatoms etc recently 😉 can't imagine why. Might relate to stuff where a teaspoon full is supposed to weigh a tonne etc.
Superatoms? Now that sounds like science fiction! 😉
However, Superatoms are science fact!
Superatom is the name given to a cluster of atoms that seem to exhibit properties similar to that of the atoms of elements in the periodic table.
https://owlcation.com/stem/What-Is-A-Superatom
I have had my mind warped so much over the years by Weird Science Stories, that I am wary of the whole genre. 🙁
A Weird Science object discovered in Space by JWST!
https://www.earth.com/news/jwst-spots-a-mysterious-question-mark-in-deep-space/
Is this some sort of joke by the Aliens? What are they telling us? Should we send a Space Probe to investigate? 😀
A Weird Science object discovered in Space by JWST!
https://www.earth.com/news/jwst-spots-a-mysterious-question-mark-in-deep-space/
Is this some sort of joke by the Aliens? What are they telling us? Should we send a Space Probe to investigate? 😀
Talking about strange formations, has Hubble discovered the Gateway to Heaven at the centre of the Whirlpool galaxy?
According to NASA, the "X" is due to absorption by dust and marks the exact position of a supermassive black hole.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/med...ust ring which is 100 light-years in diameter.
According to NASA, the "X" is due to absorption by dust and marks the exact position of a supermassive black hole.
https://hubblesite.org/contents/med...ust ring which is 100 light-years in diameter.