3 ms·
>The most likely outcome will be that particle physicists will swap their current theories for new theories according to which the supposed particles are heavie
by thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
>The most likely outcome will be that particle physicists will swap their current theories for new theories according to which the supposed particles are heavier than expected.
i.e. exactly what happened for the top quark, without proof of which we wouldn't have a working standard model. Why wasn't that the example?
- zamalek 6y agoTheory fitting also happened with epicycles. We got nothing from that. Everything looked progressively more correct until all of it was suddenly incorrect.
- thrwyoilarticle 6y agoWell our most up-to-date understanding of the solar system's orbits is based on general relativity. That's how we explain Mercury's precession. Is that your failure case?
- zamalek 6y agoEpicycles have nothing to do with orbits. They were state of the art science when Earth was at the center of the universe.
- thrwyoilarticle 6y agoThen we built new technology that conclusively disproved them. As a result we have sat-nav and space travel. If that's the disaster that came from building bigger telescopes, keep it coming. 'We don't believe it because it's hard to test' is not science.
- zamalek 6y agoI can't argue with that, as you are correct. I was contending your example, as the standard model is ridden with theory fitting and is a really good example of science done badly.