3 ms·

My instinct says this as well. "My equation isn't balancing, there must be something sitting on the seesaw!"

• simcop2387 8y ago
  It's more like, my equations that work for everything else don't match what we observe in a few cases. But if there's something sitting on the seesaw that I can't see then it works everywhere. And there being a particle (or particles) that doesn't interact with the EM force is a testable theory. We've used particle accelerators to continually exclude areas of energy that the particles themselves would exist in, and eventually we're going to detect everything that we've predicted with the standard model or we'll find something new in an area that we didn't predict and start to know where things are actually wrong. Either in the particle side of things, or possibly the gravitational side of things. We know there's something missing or wrong between the two of them but they appear to work correctly for every case that we've found a way to test for so far, even if they don't seem to be possible to merge together.
• roywiggins 8y ago
  That's how we discovered that neutrinos oscillate: "missing" neutrinos. Turns out there are three types of them and they swap around. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem "Early attempts to explain the discrepancy proposed that the models of the Sun were wrong, i.e. the temperature and pressure in the interior of the Sun were substantially different from what was believed" but in fact, it was the Standard Model that was wrong.