5 ms·

It's worth remembering that the Higgs particle was also predicted by the standard model, and no one underestimates the importance of that confirmation.

by M_Grey 10y ago

cynicalkane 10y ago
Not in the same way. There was no experimental evidence for the Higgs field before the Higgs was observed. These new particles arise naturally out of parts of the Standard Model that are already experimentally tested.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You're not wrong, but you'd have been really hard-pressed to find someone of significance who didn't already believe the Higgs mechanism was there. In the sense that mass exists, there was a high degree of expectation there too. It's actually quite amazing to have so many of these recent discoveries, also be confirmations. It's been over a century of this, starting with Relativity.
whyever 10y ago
The Higgs is an elementary particle, so its discovery was much more exciting. There are a lot of particles made up of quarks, like the five mentioned in the article: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-mesons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-mesons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-baryons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-baryons.pdf
- lngnmn 10y ago
  What is at least one single scientific (replicated) evidence that these tables does not contain merely a socially constructed crap, modern day alchemy deduced from flawed models and/or instruments?
  - krastanov 10y ago
    Given that science is done with models and instruments I am confused what answer you expect. Those models and instruments are validated in thousands of different experiments, at different energy and length scales, from astronomical observations to man-made particle accelerators. Each of the experiments and observations testing slightly different part of the theory, all of them mostly in agreement. It is the rare disagreements that are actually most exciting, because they pave the way forward to pieces of the theory we do not understand yet. Here are two independent examples that agree in their results: experimental measurements at the LHC; theoretical predictions from QFT.
    - lngnmn 10y ago
      Why, there are way too many well-documented instances of socially constructed and socially accepted bullshit in the history of mankind. Actually, it is much difficult task to find instances of accurate approximations to the truth. There has been times when Hegelian "logic" has been accepted, published by Oxford University press, peer-reviewed, highly praised and successfully taught to students. I have read parts of Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. I have read it after The Principles of Mathematics and things like Haskell Prelude. I have read peer-reviewed commentaries to The Highest Yoga Tantra and such crap like commentaries to Hatha Yoga Pradipika by some Australian lady with some funny Hindu nickname. I have read even beautiful sufi texts in which they freely mix and match anthropomorphic qualities to produce a beautiful carpet of linguistic patterns which describe nothing that exist. Peer-reviewed and highly praised, of course. Socially constructed nonsense is not something rare and uncommon. To the contrary, most of publicly available information is bullshit, or at least highly inaccurate, full of meaningless generalizations, flawed logic and amounts to nothing but mere compilation of current memes. So, I am more or less familiar with how such things could emerge. My question is - what is a single falsifiable experiment which proves that this is not socially constructed, highly sophisticated sectarian set of beliefs supported by complex (but meaningless) simulations (instead of mere a book of dogma).
      - macintux 10y ago
        Skimming through your comment history it's obvious you have a bone to pick with modern physics. Is there some discrete point in history where you think we started diverging from falsifiable experiments so we can perhaps compare before and after?

It's worth remembering that the Higgs particle was also predicted by the standard model, and no one underestimates the importance of that confirmation.

by M_Grey 10y ago

It's worth remembering that the Higgs particle was also predicted by the standard model, and no one underestimates the importance of that confirmation.

cynicalkane 10y ago

Not in the same way. There was no experimental evidence for the Higgs field before the Higgs was observed. These new particles arise naturally out of parts of the Standard Model that are already experimentally tested.

M_Grey 10y ago
You're not wrong, but you'd have been really hard-pressed to find someone of significance who didn't already believe the Higgs mechanism was there. In the sense that mass exists, there was a high degree of expectation there too. It's actually quite amazing to have so many of these recent discoveries, also be confirmations. It's been over a century of this, starting with Relativity.

whyever 10y ago

The Higgs is an elementary particle, so its discovery was much more exciting. There are a lot of particles made up of quarks, like the five mentioned in the article: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-mesons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-mesons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-baryons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-baryons.pdf

lngnmn 10y ago
What is at least one single scientific (replicated) evidence that these tables does not contain merely a socially constructed crap, modern day alchemy deduced from flawed models and/or instruments?
- krastanov 10y ago
  Given that science is done with models and instruments I am confused what answer you expect. Those models and instruments are validated in thousands of different experiments, at different energy and length scales, from astronomical observations to man-made particle accelerators. Each of the experiments and observations testing slightly different part of the theory, all of them mostly in agreement. It is the rare disagreements that are actually most exciting, because they pave the way forward to pieces of the theory we do not understand yet. Here are two independent examples that agree in their results: experimental measurements at the LHC; theoretical predictions from QFT.
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    Why, there are way too many well-documented instances of socially constructed and socially accepted bullshit in the history of mankind. Actually, it is much difficult task to find instances of accurate approximations to the truth. There has been times when Hegelian "logic" has been accepted, published by Oxford University press, peer-reviewed, highly praised and successfully taught to students. I have read parts of Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. I have read it after The Principles of Mathematics and things like Haskell Prelude. I have read peer-reviewed commentaries to The Highest Yoga Tantra and such crap like commentaries to Hatha Yoga Pradipika by some Australian lady with some funny Hindu nickname. I have read even beautiful sufi texts in which they freely mix and match anthropomorphic qualities to produce a beautiful carpet of linguistic patterns which describe nothing that exist. Peer-reviewed and highly praised, of course. Socially constructed nonsense is not something rare and uncommon. To the contrary, most of publicly available information is bullshit, or at least highly inaccurate, full of meaningless generalizations, flawed logic and amounts to nothing but mere compilation of current memes. So, I am more or less familiar with how such things could emerge. My question is - what is a single falsifiable experiment which proves that this is not socially constructed, highly sophisticated sectarian set of beliefs supported by complex (but meaningless) simulations (instead of mere a book of dogma).
    - macintux 10y ago
      Skimming through your comment history it's obvious you have a bone to pick with modern physics. Is there some discrete point in history where you think we started diverging from falsifiable experiments so we can perhaps compare before and after?