3 ms·

I've recently heard a rather interesting and optimistic take on this. Since we have had so many brilliant minds looking in so many places for new physics and st

by jjk166 5y ago

I've recently heard a rather interesting and optimistic take on this. Since we have had so many brilliant minds looking in so many places for new physics and still have not seen evidence of it, that suggests whenever we do find new physics, it will have to be so bafflingly strange that all these brilliant people could never imagine it. It may very well be a bigger paradigm shift than the jump from classical to modern physics.

snowwrestler 5y ago
It seems crazy to say that we have not seen evidence for new physics when the size estimates of dark matter and dark energy account for about 95% of known energy in the observable universe. How is that not evidence for new physics? If our physical theories cover only about ~5% of what we observe… that seems like a bit of an issue, no matter how accurately they model that 5%.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Neither dark matter nor dark energy are new physics. We don't know exactly what particle or combination of particles is responsible for dark matter, but there's not yet evidence that dark matter actually is composed of something outside the standard model. Dark energy is, despite the name, well explained by general relativity. When people talk about new physics, they're referring to things that change our understanding of how the universe works on a fundamental level. By comparison to biology, these are like newly discovered species - of course they're interesting but our understanding of nature is unchallenged.
streamofdigits 5y ago
Yep, that makes sense. It doesn't give us a timescale for when such a "jump" might happen but suggests that it could be "big" in the context of our heretofore discoveries My best guess at timescale (following up on the cosmology theme) has to do with our rate of utilizing the inner solar system as a clean and quiet laboratory for ultra sensitive observations and experiments (whether LISA) or extremely sensitive telescopes or any other probes. So be patient for a few more decades :-)

by jjk166 5y ago

snowwrestler 5y ago

It seems crazy to say that we have not seen evidence for new physics when the size estimates of dark matter and dark energy account for about 95% of known energy in the observable universe. How is that not evidence for new physics? If our physical theories cover only about ~5% of what we observe… that seems like a bit of an issue, no matter how accurately they model that 5%.

jjk166 5y ago
Neither dark matter nor dark energy are new physics. We don't know exactly what particle or combination of particles is responsible for dark matter, but there's not yet evidence that dark matter actually is composed of something outside the standard model. Dark energy is, despite the name, well explained by general relativity. When people talk about new physics, they're referring to things that change our understanding of how the universe works on a fundamental level. By comparison to biology, these are like newly discovered species - of course they're interesting but our understanding of nature is unchallenged.

streamofdigits 5y ago

Yep, that makes sense. It doesn't give us a timescale for when such a "jump" might happen but suggests that it could be "big" in the context of our heretofore discoveries My best guess at timescale (following up on the cosmology theme) has to do with our rate of utilizing the inner solar system as a clean and quiet laboratory for ultra sensitive observations and experiments (whether LISA) or extremely sensitive telescopes or any other probes. So be patient for a few more decades :-)