3 ms·
Most of those theories have some implications about lower energy ranges. And pushing up energies is a great way to rule out a lot of them. (And some of those t
by pas 7y ago
Most of those theories have some implications about lower energy ranges. And pushing up energies is a great way to rule out a lot of them.
(And some of those theories have some large scale cosmological implications too, so better telescopes can rule out more.)
But ... there seems to be a lack of (serious) theories that have easily testable predictions. And this is not surprising, because we also lack easily reproducable but yet unexplained data. (For example the high-energy gamma ray busts are very interesting but we have no idea where do they come from really.)
- pdonis 7y ago> Most of those theories have some implications about lower energy ranges. And pushing up energies is a great way to rule out a lot of them. Yes. The problem is that ruling out is all that's happening. Not one has had an implication about lower energy ranges that has turned out to be right.
- pas 7y agoAnd that's not necessarily a problem. After all, we can measure things with insane accuracy (LIGO, atto/femto-second laser pulses, neutrino detectors, etc), our theories about the accessible energi regimes are quite good (14+ digits for QED - quantum electro dynamics). At some point it's no wonder we need bigger microscopes to see deeper into reality. Sure, were someone just come up with an even better theory that can be tested easily, that would be great too, but since we have no recipe for that, but we have quite a few for building bigger experiments, that's what most of the particle physicists advocate.