5 ms·
It will take a modern day Copernicus We might already have a modern day Copernicus. Could be string theory, could be something else. The problem is that we don
by lacker 5y ago
It will take a modern day Copernicus
We might already have a modern day Copernicus. Could be string theory, could be something else. The problem is that we don't really have any experimental data that can't be explained by the Standard Model. What we really need is a modern day Galileo that can perform some sort of observations, like finding Jupiter's moons, that don't fit in with the existing conventional physics.
- ricksunny 5y agoCould the would-be modern-day Copernicii be being stymied by modern-day academic funding structures and grant review committees?
- Qem 5y agoI also have this impression. I think the current system lacks intellectual diversity. Lots of people pursuing the same few popular lines of inquiry, because if they get away from the herd, they have a hard time joining a big research group, getting funds and getting more people to read and cite their papers.
- samus 5y agoThat problem is kind of inherent in the domain. In the past, significant research could be done with the meager stipends from generous nobles. Cutting-edge physics labs and supercomputers for astrophysical simulations are significantly more expensive.
- bricemo 5y ago27% of the universe is totally unknown (dark matter) and another 68% is totally unknown (dark energy), leaving only 5% of our universe that is explained by the standard model. Feels very epicycle-ish and ripe for a major shift.
- Iwan-Zotow 5y agothey are both called dark for a reason not very observable
- spookthesunset 5y agoTheir effects are observable by way of their gravity.
- Beldin 5y agoThat's very forgiving. We have a model and weer have observations. The two don't match, so there is a problem with at least one (model or observations). MOND posits the problem is with the model and proposes refined models. These are refutable and indeed, counterevidence is often found. Dark matter posits the problem is worth observations. Its solution is to propose a tiny particle that is basically invisible. For every situation, you then can invent an amount and a distribution of these tiny, invisible, undetectable particles to match observations and thereby substantiate your theory. It's not really surprising that so far, folks have succeeded in inventing a distribution of undetectable clouds of particles, clouds weighing in at multiples of the solar system's combined mass.
- pgalvin 5y agoOnly an undergraduate in Physics, but rest assured that there are many smart minds currently in search of this! Building bigger particle colliders is not the only solution, and there are a lot of interesting things being done with e.g. neutrino physics that may bear fruit in contradicting the standard model.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> we don't really have any experimental data that can't be explained by the Standard Model What was the evidence Copernicus saw that epicycles didn't explain? (Honest question.)
- dr_dshiv 5y agoNothing. His model actually fit the data worse than epicycles. He just thought it was a more sensible approach that matched the Pythagorean opinion. It wasn’t until Kepler that a geocentric model involving ellipses actually was more predictive. Might be worth returning to the Pythagorean interpretation (which Bohr discussed): All is number. The world is made of math, not stuff.