4 ms·

> The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC

> The Standard Model still has some loose ends, but experimentally testing those would require energies at least ten billion times higher than what even the FCC could test. When I see things like that I often remember a quote I came across years ago when tracking down the origin of the Lord Kelvin "end of science" quote (that never actually happened) > While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals. - Albert Michelson - 1894 It seems like every generation someone claims we've reached the end somehow and while they are giving that speech some young experimental scientist is in the background going "hmmm, that's funny" to prove them wrong. Ironically she repeats the Kelvin myth here in point 16 - http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-for-building-bigger.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/03/nonsense-arguments-...

raverbashing 6y ago
Well but it is a different think to saying "there's nothing to discover" and "the cost/benefit of discovering those would be too high" (at least for now)
Certhas 6y ago
This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with: “We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.” Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. [1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.
- btilly 6y ago
  Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. NOT true. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino behavior. See https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutrinos-the-standard-model-misfits https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutr... for a some examples of that. Unfortunately a large particle accelerator is not designed to tell us much about neutrinos...
  - kelsolaar 6y ago
    XENON1T is relevant here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-experiment-finds-unexplained-signal-20200617/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-experiment-finds-...
    - btilly 6y ago
      That result is cool, but experimental error is still in the list of plausible explanations. It is too early to say definitely that something outside of the Standard Model is going on.
      - madengr 6y ago
        Wasn’t dark matter recently found as intergalactic hydrogen?
  - Certhas 6y ago
    How does the fact that we need a small modification to the Standard Model to account for Neutrino masses contradict what I said?
    - btilly 6y ago
      You claimed a complete understanding of the fundamental properties of every kind of matter we have done terrestrial physics on. But we still don't have a complete understanding of the properties of neutrinos, nor a definitive understanding of how to properly tweak the Standard Model to include them. They are the only area of particle physics where experimental evidence did not fit the Standard Model, and therefore evidence of that discrepancy should be no more ignored than the failure of attempts to measure ether dragging should have been in Rutherford's day.

raverbashing 6y ago

Well but it is a different think to saying "there's nothing to discover" and "the cost/benefit of discovering those would be too high" (at least for now)

Certhas 6y ago

This gets rolled out all the time. Except that that is not Hossenfelders argument. In the very article she is quoted with: “We do know that the only way to find answers is by experiment and the only place to find them is where we haven’t been able to look yet.” Further, it's an utterly superficial analogy. Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. [1] It's important to understand this in a strict reductionist way. Of course knowing the axioms is completely different from understanding their implications. And when studying their implication you are bound to encounter many novel principles not anticipated in the axioms. Thus even in the absence of what is by particle physicists "new physics" there is much to discover.

btilly 6y ago
Physics 2020 is completely different than Physics 1894. We don't just have a complete understanding of the fundamental principles [1] underlying all terrestrial observations/experiments ever performed, but also a complete inventory of the involved matter. And we have had for decades. NOT true. The Standard Model does not explain neutrino behavior. See https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutrinos-the-standard-model-misfits https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/neutr... for a some examples of that. Unfortunately a large particle accelerator is not designed to tell us much about neutrinos...
- kelsolaar 6y ago
  XENON1T is relevant here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-experiment-finds-unexplained-signal-20200617/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-matter-experiment-finds-...
  - btilly 6y ago
    That result is cool, but experimental error is still in the list of plausible explanations. It is too early to say definitely that something outside of the Standard Model is going on.
    - madengr 6y ago
      Wasn’t dark matter recently found as intergalactic hydrogen?
- Certhas 6y ago
  How does the fact that we need a small modification to the Standard Model to account for Neutrino masses contradict what I said?
  - btilly 6y ago
    You claimed a complete understanding of the fundamental properties of every kind of matter we have done terrestrial physics on. But we still don't have a complete understanding of the properties of neutrinos, nor a definitive understanding of how to properly tweak the Standard Model to include them. They are the only area of particle physics where experimental evidence did not fit the Standard Model, and therefore evidence of that discrepancy should be no more ignored than the failure of attempts to measure ether dragging should have been in Rutherford's day.