So.. rumours of a new particle (and force)
Discussion
Science often receives claims of new discoveries that go to prove a certain line of thought(s).
New particles seem to be something that get hinted at numerous times.... but unfortunately through wider testing the evidence turns out to be 'noise' or some other mis-interpretation.
Over the past number of decades science has been on the forefront of wanting to prove and confirm the "standard model", which goes a long way to describe particles and their interactions as we've been able to view them.
Instead of tirelessly walking the same path with no real gains, recently science has wanted to rip up the "standard model", or at least add to it with the view that something is obviously missing.
The long time missing link between gravity and the other fundamental forces and the so called "Grand Unifying Theory of everything" is forcing science to approach things differently.
This leads us on to today where we have claims of a new particle and possibly a new force. The worrying thing is that it may yet be another mis-interpretation, but at least science is striving to push ahead with new approaches.
I always thought it a dangerous stance to blindly hold on to classical/fundamental principals an not give them room for improvement or even a drastic 're-shape'.
Although I am not a professional scientist I do hope to see in my lifetime a huge break through in science that produces the 'grand unified theory'.
New particles seem to be something that get hinted at numerous times.... but unfortunately through wider testing the evidence turns out to be 'noise' or some other mis-interpretation.
Over the past number of decades science has been on the forefront of wanting to prove and confirm the "standard model", which goes a long way to describe particles and their interactions as we've been able to view them.
Instead of tirelessly walking the same path with no real gains, recently science has wanted to rip up the "standard model", or at least add to it with the view that something is obviously missing.
The long time missing link between gravity and the other fundamental forces and the so called "Grand Unifying Theory of everything" is forcing science to approach things differently.
This leads us on to today where we have claims of a new particle and possibly a new force. The worrying thing is that it may yet be another mis-interpretation, but at least science is striving to push ahead with new approaches.
I always thought it a dangerous stance to blindly hold on to classical/fundamental principals an not give them room for improvement or even a drastic 're-shape'.
Although I am not a professional scientist I do hope to see in my lifetime a huge break through in science that produces the 'grand unified theory'.
From what I can tell, discovering the god particle, quarks and bosons etc has not resulted in hover boots. And they figured out how to isolate and split an atom, they blew up nagasaki and hiroshima.
I suppose you could say Nuclear power gives us cheap energy and stopped the Russians invading, but does particle physics really improve the lot of us humans?
I suppose you could say Nuclear power gives us cheap energy and stopped the Russians invading, but does particle physics really improve the lot of us humans?
Thought as such,this knowledge must be being put to good use somehow. (I guess microprocessors shrinking to the size they are means they operate at tiny particle or quantum levels now)
I am curious to know if we have any direct creations form recent discoveries or any possibilities to look forward to. I always am a bit boggled by the enormity of the experiment at Cern, which comes back with such tiny, but supposedly significant results.
I am curious to know if we have any direct creations form recent discoveries or any possibilities to look forward to. I always am a bit boggled by the enormity of the experiment at Cern, which comes back with such tiny, but supposedly significant results.
prand said:
... but does particle physics really improve the lot of us humans?
Erm... Yes it does.Science brings , well... the science.
Engineers then work out ways in which it can be used.
A quick example would be PET scanners in hospitals that look for diseases within the body.
Science is generally governed by wanting to know the unknown.
Engineers are more governed by things like morality, society, relevant needs of finance and efficiency and so on.
prand said:
Thought as such,this knowledge must be being put to good use somehow. (I guess microprocessors shrinking to the size they are means they operate at tiny particle or quantum levels now)
I am curious to know if we have any direct creations form recent discoveries or any possibilities to look forward to. I always am a bit boggled by the enormity of the experiment at Cern, which comes back with such tiny, but supposedly significant results.
Ask us in about 50 years. You will never have "direct creations from recent discoveries" - by definition the experiments at CERN are a long way in advance of any direct application. I am curious to know if we have any direct creations form recent discoveries or any possibilities to look forward to. I always am a bit boggled by the enormity of the experiment at Cern, which comes back with such tiny, but supposedly significant results.
The best comparison I can think of off-hand is to compare CERN today with Rutherford in 1909; the first "direct application" of Rutherford's new model of the atom was 1945, ish. And that only because of a massive effort as a result of war. It was another decade plus before normal people could start looking forward to transistor radios (which equally were advanced because of huge investment in technology during the war).
Without the imperative of a life-or-death struggle for the world and the associated spending, I would estimate that anything announced today is unlikely to affect you or I in our lifetime.
Flooble said:
Ask us in about 50 years. You will never have "direct creations from recent discoveries" - by definition the experiments at CERN are a long way in advance of any direct application.
The best comparison I can think of off-hand is to compare CERN today with Rutherford in 1909; the first "direct application" of Rutherford's new model of the atom was 1945, ish. And that only because of a massive effort as a result of war. It was another decade plus before normal people could start looking forward to transistor radios (which equally were advanced because of huge investment in technology during the war).
Without the imperative of a life-or-death struggle for the world and the associated spending, I would estimate that anything announced today is unlikely to affect you or I in our lifetime.
Not sure I'd agree with all that. Things have the ability to 'move along' at a much faster pace in modern times.The best comparison I can think of off-hand is to compare CERN today with Rutherford in 1909; the first "direct application" of Rutherford's new model of the atom was 1945, ish. And that only because of a massive effort as a result of war. It was another decade plus before normal people could start looking forward to transistor radios (which equally were advanced because of huge investment in technology during the war).
Without the imperative of a life-or-death struggle for the world and the associated spending, I would estimate that anything announced today is unlikely to affect you or I in our lifetime.
Quantum computing seems to be something for example that could 'take off' at a FAST pace. Cyber-security may be the modern warfare driving this along.
Also factor in that discoveries of the unknown are impossible to say how they may or may not be used and/or how fast they become relevant for use.
Historically you are correct, I'd agree. War time does focus the spending on science, in the pursuit mainly of weapon technology - which traditionally has always been at the forefront of scientific knowledge.
Atomic12C said:
...recently science has wanted to rip up the "standard model", or at least add to it with the view that something is obviously missing...
Well I can't blame them.Dark matter - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark energy - can't be detected but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark flow - can't be explained but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
neutrinos - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
I've had a suspicion for a long time that at some point we will view a lot of our current theories as either (1) a subset of a bigger theory that actually explains some of those plus a lot of other issues that we currently don't understand or (2) just plain wrong.
cymtriks said:
Well I can't blame them.
Dark matter - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark energy - can't be detected but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark flow - can't be explained but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
neutrinos - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
I've had a suspicion for a long time that at some point we will view a lot of our current theories as either (1) a subset of a bigger theory that actually explains some of those plus a lot of other issues that we currently don't understand or (2) just plain wrong.
Of course neutrinos have been observed! Even if you overlook the experiments that were conducted in the 70's, you have to credit the proof shown in 2001 as per this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ-27rdwJPsDark matter - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark energy - can't be detected but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark flow - can't be explained but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
neutrinos - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
I've had a suspicion for a long time that at some point we will view a lot of our current theories as either (1) a subset of a bigger theory that actually explains some of those plus a lot of other issues that we currently don't understand or (2) just plain wrong.
Some Gump said:
Of course neutrinos have been observed!
Actually they can't be observed. What is detected is their predicted effect, but only if they have the right energy levels.I admit is the safest of "invisible stuff with exactly the properties we need to make or sums right", it may be perfectly correct, but physics seems to be increasingly reliant on these substances.
There are serious physicists working on alternatives to dark matter for example. If dark matter turns out to be just plain wrong then what else?
cymtriks said:
Well I can't blame them.
Dark matter - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark energy - can't be detected but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark flow - can't be explained but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
neutrinos - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
I've had a suspicion for a long time that at some point we will view a lot of our current theories as either (1) a subset of a bigger theory that actually explains some of those plus a lot of other issues that we currently don't understand or (2) just plain wrong.
All scientific theories have been proved wrong. That is apart from those that will be proved wrong in a little while. For proof, look at the history of all scientific theories. That said, everything being wrong might be wrong.Dark matter - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark energy - can't be detected but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
Dark flow - can't be explained but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
neutrinos - can't be observed but it has to be there otherwise the theory is wrong
I've had a suspicion for a long time that at some point we will view a lot of our current theories as either (1) a subset of a bigger theory that actually explains some of those plus a lot of other issues that we currently don't understand or (2) just plain wrong.
On a related note....
http://3tags.org/article/physicist-finds-entanglem...
Quantum entanglement may be due to wormholes connecting the entangled particles, which also has implications on how gravity works
http://3tags.org/article/physicist-finds-entanglem...
Quantum entanglement may be due to wormholes connecting the entangled particles, which also has implications on how gravity works
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff