7 ms·

>But Dror and his team, through theoretical models and calculations, figured out a way we might be able to see this phase transition. They proposed that the cha

>But Dror and his team, through theoretical models and calculations, figured out a way we might be able to see this phase transition. They proposed that the change would have created extremely long and extremely thin threads of energy called “cosmic strings” that still pervade the universe. Why does this remind me of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism If there's one thing i've noticed about history and scientific discoveries, whenever we invent things that should exist to fill models we're usually not correct.

petschge 7y ago
The obvious counter point would be the neutrino.
Zanni 7y ago
Good question. Why does it remind you of the aether and humors and not, say, the positron [1] and quarks? [2] Sometimes experiment leads theory, but sometimes theory leads experiment. It's only when theory proceeds untethered to any possible experimental confirmation or rejection that it gets in trouble. In this case, they're making actual predictions that should be testable in the near future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
205guy 7y ago
Yeah, but isn't that just a necessary step in learning? It takes knowledge off-course for a while, but then who knows at the time what the right course will be? Personally, I'm happy to see more theories and results around gravity and gravitational waves. When I read about physics in school and later, it was all about particles and interactions. They were talking about the theoretical Grand Unified Theory, but they only had 2 then 3 forces in the model. Gravity was always this big outlier, yet it makes the world go round (quite literally). This article talks about the ability to detect gravity waves from neutron stars (LIGO, which is quite recent), and that made me think they are like spark gap transmitters: huge bursts of energy across the spectrum. Think of the history of radio: at first they used spark gap transmitters for wireless telegraph, but in time, they refined the equipment and now we have 5G. There was another recent article about detecting the fainter gravity waves caused by earthquakes. Maybe we'll get there in our lifetimes.
knzhou 7y ago
Almost every successful discovery ever was an example of us "inventing things that should exist". The Higgs boson, the W boson, the Z boson, the top quark, the bottom quark, the tau, each of the three neutrinos, the light quarks, the gluons... You can never do anything without tentatively assuming something and computing the consequences. That opens the possibility that you may be wrong. That's not a condemnation of science, that's fundamental to how science works.
roywiggins 7y ago
The neutrino itself was postulated in just this way, to balance mass-energy equations of beta decay. It looked like energy was being lost, but if some was being carried away by neutrinos, problem solved. The alternative was to reformulate the conservation laws. Turns out it was neutrinos.

petschge 7y ago

The obvious counter point would be the neutrino.

Zanni 7y ago

Good question. Why does it remind you of the aether and humors and not, say, the positron [1] and quarks? [2] Sometimes experiment leads theory, but sometimes theory leads experiment. It's only when theory proceeds untethered to any possible experimental confirmation or rejection that it gets in trouble. In this case, they're making actual predictions that should be testable in the near future. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

205guy 7y ago

Yeah, but isn't that just a necessary step in learning? It takes knowledge off-course for a while, but then who knows at the time what the right course will be? Personally, I'm happy to see more theories and results around gravity and gravitational waves. When I read about physics in school and later, it was all about particles and interactions. They were talking about the theoretical Grand Unified Theory, but they only had 2 then 3 forces in the model. Gravity was always this big outlier, yet it makes the world go round (quite literally). This article talks about the ability to detect gravity waves from neutron stars (LIGO, which is quite recent), and that made me think they are like spark gap transmitters: huge bursts of energy across the spectrum. Think of the history of radio: at first they used spark gap transmitters for wireless telegraph, but in time, they refined the equipment and now we have 5G. There was another recent article about detecting the fainter gravity waves caused by earthquakes. Maybe we'll get there in our lifetimes.

knzhou 7y ago

Almost every successful discovery ever was an example of us "inventing things that should exist". The Higgs boson, the W boson, the Z boson, the top quark, the bottom quark, the tau, each of the three neutrinos, the light quarks, the gluons... You can never do anything without tentatively assuming something and computing the consequences. That opens the possibility that you may be wrong. That's not a condemnation of science, that's fundamental to how science works.

roywiggins 7y ago

The neutrino itself was postulated in just this way, to balance mass-energy equations of beta decay. It looked like energy was being lost, but if some was being carried away by neutrinos, problem solved. The alternative was to reformulate the conservation laws. Turns out it was neutrinos.