6 ms·

Quasars, pulsars, and the Cosmic Microwave Background all started as unexplainable experimental data: I know the most likely explaination is the mundane one, bu

Quasars, pulsars, and the Cosmic Microwave Background all started as unexplainable experimental data: I know the most likely explaination is the mundane one, but what if it is not?

HPsquared 6y ago
Those famous cases are the exception that proves the rule.
- margalabargala 6y ago
  In what way do they prove the rule? They fact that these exceptions exist prove the rule is no rule, but just a guideline.
  - HPsquared 6y ago
    The "rule" being that the vast majority of unexplained results are due to experimental error or noise. The existence of a few famous examples that were indeed new science, narrows the statement from "all unexplained results" to just "the vast majority".
lisper 6y ago
Yes, that's true. The problem is that the more our knowledge converges on the actual truth, the less likely new discoveries become. It has been 50 years or so since the last really new thing was discovered in particle physics despite heroic efforts. The more time goes by, the more likely it is that this is because the next breakthrough is simply beyond our reach.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Um, Higgs Boson? Now, true, it was expected rather than a surprise. But it was still a discovery.
  - at_a_remove 6y ago
    Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveri... and, since we are talking about subatomic particles, remove 1995's antihydrogen and 2011's antihelium-4. Note that the criteria listed on the page are a little generous. What's that graph look like, plotted on time? 1930s: Three subatomic particles 1940s: Two subatomic particles 1950s: Three subatomic particles 1960s: Three subatomic particles 1970s: Four subatomic particles, that's going up but then ... 1980s: only one subatomic particle 1990s: One subatomic particle 2000s: Two subatomic particles, and that is if you are being generous about including the quark-gluon fireball, which I wouldn't be 2010s: One subatomic particle There are only so many to discover, if these are fundamental, and so the timeline of discoveries per decade must trend down.
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      IMO, the situation is much worse than this. There haven't been any new particle predictions since the 1970's. The observations since then have all been confirmations of earlier predictions.
    - vl 6y ago
      But in the Standard Model each “generation” of particles is so much heavier than the previous one, and in practice there is a limit on the power of the accelerator we can build. Even then there is no reason to believe that there is infinite number of subatomic particles.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        But what happens if you add more energy? Do we know that past some point, new particles will stop appearing?
        at_a_remove 6y ago
        "Know" in the sense that we can be certain, one hundred percent, never doubt? No. In the sense that you would have to convert the Milky Way's entire mass into a particle accelerator large enough, over the course of millions of years, to get that much energy to probe even further, ain't nobody gonna do that. You could go out even more, why not convert the Local Group? At some point you must accept that we're not going to undertake a billion year engineering project to do that and so it is irrelevant. "More" will run out as a useful strategy eventually. However, there are other clues, which largely live in symmetry. How do we "know" that there are three families of leptons and quarks? Even in the 1990s, there were certain cosmological-level hints that the universe would look very different if there were five; four was just barely allowable if you squinted very hard. Don't get me wrong, you can slam together a lot of energy in one place and get funny things, but they won't be funny things that are new fundamental particles, which are governed by different symmetries, which you will see if you begin browsing the, ah, "zoo" of subatomic particles. For a particle, an anti-particle (even if it is itself), as a symmetry example. And so you would need new symmetries to explore, which brings us back to the possible axion of the article, which was suggested by a symmetry. In general, new particles are suggested either by symmetry or in some cases, simple conservation, like the humble neutrino, which was originally a placeholder particle to say, "Where is the spin in that reaction going?"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
cambalache 6y ago
All those three were clear, sharp signals whose origin was not established. This is totally the opposite, a signal who dances between noise/contamination and an actual result(between 1-2 sigma and a actual "discovery" of 5+ sigma).99% of those cases are bogus.

Quasars, pulsars, and the Cosmic Microwave Background all started as unexplainable experimental data: I know the most likely explaination is the mundane one, but what if it is not?

HPsquared 6y ago

Those famous cases are the exception that proves the rule.

margalabargala 6y ago
In what way do they prove the rule? They fact that these exceptions exist prove the rule is no rule, but just a guideline.
- HPsquared 6y ago
  The "rule" being that the vast majority of unexplained results are due to experimental error or noise. The existence of a few famous examples that were indeed new science, narrows the statement from "all unexplained results" to just "the vast majority".

lisper 6y ago

Yes, that's true. The problem is that the more our knowledge converges on the actual truth, the less likely new discoveries become. It has been 50 years or so since the last really new thing was discovered in particle physics despite heroic efforts. The more time goes by, the more likely it is that this is because the next breakthrough is simply beyond our reach.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Um, Higgs Boson? Now, true, it was expected rather than a surprise. But it was still a discovery.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  Visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_particle_discoveri... and, since we are talking about subatomic particles, remove 1995's antihydrogen and 2011's antihelium-4. Note that the criteria listed on the page are a little generous. What's that graph look like, plotted on time? 1930s: Three subatomic particles 1940s: Two subatomic particles 1950s: Three subatomic particles 1960s: Three subatomic particles 1970s: Four subatomic particles, that's going up but then ... 1980s: only one subatomic particle 1990s: One subatomic particle 2000s: Two subatomic particles, and that is if you are being generous about including the quark-gluon fireball, which I wouldn't be 2010s: One subatomic particle There are only so many to discover, if these are fundamental, and so the timeline of discoveries per decade must trend down.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    IMO, the situation is much worse than this. There haven't been any new particle predictions since the 1970's. The observations since then have all been confirmations of earlier predictions.
  - vl 6y ago
    But in the Standard Model each “generation” of particles is so much heavier than the previous one, and in practice there is a limit on the power of the accelerator we can build. Even then there is no reason to believe that there is infinite number of subatomic particles.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      But what happens if you add more energy? Do we know that past some point, new particles will stop appearing?
      - at_a_remove 6y ago
        "Know" in the sense that we can be certain, one hundred percent, never doubt? No. In the sense that you would have to convert the Milky Way's entire mass into a particle accelerator large enough, over the course of millions of years, to get that much energy to probe even further, ain't nobody gonna do that. You could go out even more, why not convert the Local Group? At some point you must accept that we're not going to undertake a billion year engineering project to do that and so it is irrelevant. "More" will run out as a useful strategy eventually. However, there are other clues, which largely live in symmetry. How do we "know" that there are three families of leptons and quarks? Even in the 1990s, there were certain cosmological-level hints that the universe would look very different if there were five; four was just barely allowable if you squinted very hard. Don't get me wrong, you can slam together a lot of energy in one place and get funny things, but they won't be funny things that are new fundamental particles, which are governed by different symmetries, which you will see if you begin browsing the, ah, "zoo" of subatomic particles. For a particle, an anti-particle (even if it is itself), as a symmetry example. And so you would need new symmetries to explore, which brings us back to the possible axion of the article, which was suggested by a symmetry. In general, new particles are suggested either by symmetry or in some cases, simple conservation, like the humble neutrino, which was originally a placeholder particle to say, "Where is the spin in that reaction going?"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

cambalache 6y ago

All those three were clear, sharp signals whose origin was not established. This is totally the opposite, a signal who dances between noise/contamination and an actual result(between 1-2 sigma and a actual "discovery" of 5+ sigma).99% of those cases are bogus.