What I can say is this:
Humans know ALL the fundamental forces and matter particles that influences them.
They are photons, electrons, up and down quarks, gluons, z and w bosons, higgs boson and gravity. That's it, the rest just doesn't affect humans. And we know a lot more about the fundamental laws of nature than just this.
What we don't know is how to get from the micro (quantum field theory) to the macro (the world we experience in everyday life).
To clarify, let me put this in an analogy:
This doesn't mean we know every book that can be written, but we do know the whole alphabet and all the grammar rules.
Humans know ALL the fundamental forces and matter particles that influences them.
They are photons, electrons, up and down quarks, gluons, z and w bosons, higgs boson and gravity. That's it, the rest just doesn't affect humans. And we know a lot more about the fundamental laws of nature than just this.
What we don't know is how to get from the micro (quantum field theory) to the macro (the world we experience in everyday life).
To clarify, let me put this in an analogy:
This doesn't mean we know every book that can be written, but we do know the whole alphabet and all the grammar rules.
I'm confused. Who first stated the 99.9% figure you mentioned earlier? Are the two percentages supposed to add to 100%?
Last edited:
Who said I was referencing on first post, But yes to be sure .001% referenced to Post #2294.
Last edited:
Several contributors have pointed out that scientific ideas are not fixed and immutable. The idea that the Universe's expansion is accelerating is certainly one which is not carved in stone.
Some physicists question accelerating expansion and have produced new measurements of cosmic distances based on a ten times bigger database of Type 1a supernovae (the 'cosmic candles') than was originally available.
They say the original statistical techniques used to support accelerated expansion were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't reliably be applied to the growing supernova dataset.
They claim that the original evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'. This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
(5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. In short, 5 sigma corresponds to a probability of only 1 in 3.5 million that the results are due to chance.)
Obviously there is still argument regarding the rate of expansion of the universe. The crux of the matter is that the measurements being made depend on the size of the data base, and that data base is improving as physicists work on the problem. Perhaps one day we will have sufficient data to make a final decision on the rate of expansion of the Universe - I fear that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime!
P.S. I make no claim to be an expert in astrophysics. I distil this information from articles I find on the web, as anyone here can do for themselves!
Some physicists question accelerating expansion and have produced new measurements of cosmic distances based on a ten times bigger database of Type 1a supernovae (the 'cosmic candles') than was originally available.
They say the original statistical techniques used to support accelerated expansion were too simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't reliably be applied to the growing supernova dataset.
They claim that the original evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call '3 sigma'. This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
(5 sigma is a measure of how confident scientists feel their results are. In short, 5 sigma corresponds to a probability of only 1 in 3.5 million that the results are due to chance.)
Obviously there is still argument regarding the rate of expansion of the universe. The crux of the matter is that the measurements being made depend on the size of the data base, and that data base is improving as physicists work on the problem. Perhaps one day we will have sufficient data to make a final decision on the rate of expansion of the Universe - I fear that's unlikely to happen in my lifetime!
P.S. I make no claim to be an expert in astrophysics. I distil this information from articles I find on the web, as anyone here can do for themselves!
So you were referencing the figure in the quote below.
I think we should be careful when we quote numbers - even astrophysicists can't get them right! 🙂
P.S. My mistake for not seeing that you were conversing with Bill. I will try to pay more attention in future!
Last edited:
I'd be glad to come give you an estimate for work but there would be a premium added for travel😉10 out of 10! I hope you weren't taking me for a mug!
I've never mentioned 0.001%, what are you talking about?
There's a gazillion stuff we don't know.
But, as I've said in a previous post as an analogy, we know ALL the alphabet and ALL the grammar rules that influence humans.
Bill, cormeister subtracted your 99.999% from 100% to get the missing 0.001%. An extrapolation too far?
Last edited:
The 99.99% amount of science we already know today may be less than a single % of what we know in 200 years.
Or it could go the other way, who knows?
Or it could go the other way, who knows?
Or a complete misunderstanding of my post.
In that post I was talking about a parachute that is guaranteed by science to open in 99,999% of all cases.
Never did I claim humans know 99,999% of what can be known, or anything in that realm.
Could also be a (deliberate) straw man.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.