4 ms·

Given that all of these exotic particles that are apparently discovered are extremely short-lived (at the limits of human technology to even register them) is i

Given that all of these exotic particles that are apparently discovered are extremely short-lived (at the limits of human technology to even register them) is it possible that scientists are radically misinterpreting the meaning of these experiments and finding particles where there's some other force or phenomena being observed? I'm very skeptical that it's apparently just smaller and smaller particles all of the way down, and every time they get bigger and badder technology to collide atoms, they tell us that they coincidentally discover new particles. What if everything here about reality is being misinterpreted? Here's an analogy that might not make sense to everybody, but to me, this feels a bit like the famous memes from the Chernobyl movie. "3.6 Roentgen. Not great, Not terrible." where the real answer about the radiation exposure was radically different. Some the people tasked with coming up with that 3.6 answer might not have had a bad intent, but they were at the limits of their technology to provide an answer and radically misinterpreted what they were seeing partially because of that.

lisper 4y ago
These aren't really "discoveries". These particles were already known to exist (or, to be precise, whose existence was predicted by the Standard Model, just like the Higgs boson). This is just the first time they have actually been observed. The headline is misleading, but the first sentence in the article gets it right: "The international LHCb collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has observed three never-before-seen particles."
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  I think I would be very happy to be the first person to observe a new particle, its discovery enough for me :) It does not need to appent all of known physics or be unexpected for us to call it a discovery
  - lisper 4y ago
    I get what you're saying, but it's not like someone looked through a microscope and actually saw one of these things for the first time. It's computers crunching trillions of data points and spitting out a result. So it's not clear who "the first person to observe this" actually was.
- HansHamster 4y ago
  > These aren't really "discoveries". These particles were already known to exist (or, to be precise, whose existence was predicted by the Standard Model, just like the Higgs boson). This is just the first time they have actually been observed. But doesn't that make it a discovery? Sure, a discovery of something already predicted by the Standard Model, but unless it has been observed, we just don't know for sure if it actually exists. The Standard Model just has been very successful at predicting stuff :)
  - deelowe 4y ago
    Isn't that a bit like saying the atom was not truly discovered until scanning microscopes were put to use?
  - lisper 4y ago
    To my way of thinking one of the defining characteristics of a discovery is that it is unexpected, so a confirmation of a theoretical prediction doesn't count.
k__ 4y ago
I think the process is: Scientists make a theory. The theory predicts a bunch of particles. Scientists build LHC to check if the theory is right. LHC finds the predicted particles. The theory was right.
- nxpnsv 4y ago
  Except it is not a single theory, but whole families of theories.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jeremyjh 4y ago
Your analogy is poor because the “3.6 Roentgen” was a story the politicians were telling each other; where the actual scientist knew they were measuring the limit of their equipment. Perhaps it’s uncharitable but I feel like I could restate your question as: “I know nothing about particle physics - is it possible the entire field is just cranks deluding themselves?”
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  >is it possible the entire field is just cranks deluding themselves? That's a question better saved for psychiatry and sociology.
- jfjrkkskdik 4y ago
  Would not be the first time humans deluded themselves with big ideas the masses could not falsify. It’s as likely as anything else given how common it is for even STEM educated humans to be religious and read into their tea leaves. There is no center of the universe or higher power; why should a handful of physicists be unequivocally “correct”. Deference to their figurative identity is all the untrained can conjure. Doesn’t mean we need to shower them in praise and empower their agency at the expense of one’s own. Even if the science is right they’re still just one of seven billion.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Should that question be asked of the string theorists instead?
tooltower 4y ago
The new particles in this case aren't "smaller" than the ones we already know about. They are short-lived because they are heavier. They quickly decay into something simpler. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. This article doesn't really describe anything that unexpected. It's not that hard to believe.
killerstorm 4y ago
Currently the best known theory of physics at small scales is a quantum field theory known as the Standard Model. "Particles" are phenomena which appear when fields are quantized. They aren't really balls of stuff. E.g. photon is a quantum of a wave in electromagnetic field. These exotic particles are simply a confirmation of predictions made by the Standard Model, they are not surprising, it's just the first time there was enough data to test this particular prediction of the theory. > I'm very skeptical that it's apparently just smaller and smaller particles all of the way down The Standard Model was formulated in 1970s, no principally new phenomena were discovered since. So it's been strong for ~50 years. It's known to be incomplete as it does not explain gravity, and physicists hope that better theories will be found in future. But so far nobody was able to formulate a theory which would make better predictions than the SM. > What if everything here about reality is being misinterpreted? The topic of physics is to build models which predict observed phenomena. Knowing what reality _is_ is a topic of philosophy and religion.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
Question from a non-physicist: In this context, what does it mean for something to be a "particle"? I.e., if I see some feature in the LHS data, what makes me call it a "particle" vs. some other concept / object / phenomenon?
1-more 4y ago
> it's apparently just smaller and smaller particles all of the way down Of note: these newly discovered particles are not smaller than previously known things. In fact they are bigger.

lisper 4y ago

These aren't really "discoveries". These particles were already known to exist (or, to be precise, whose existence was predicted by the Standard Model, just like the Higgs boson). This is just the first time they have actually been observed. The headline is misleading, but the first sentence in the article gets it right: "The international LHCb collaboration at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has observed three never-before-seen particles."

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
I think I would be very happy to be the first person to observe a new particle, its discovery enough for me :) It does not need to appent all of known physics or be unexpected for us to call it a discovery
- lisper 4y ago
  I get what you're saying, but it's not like someone looked through a microscope and actually saw one of these things for the first time. It's computers crunching trillions of data points and spitting out a result. So it's not clear who "the first person to observe this" actually was.
HansHamster 4y ago
> These aren't really "discoveries". These particles were already known to exist (or, to be precise, whose existence was predicted by the Standard Model, just like the Higgs boson). This is just the first time they have actually been observed. But doesn't that make it a discovery? Sure, a discovery of something already predicted by the Standard Model, but unless it has been observed, we just don't know for sure if it actually exists. The Standard Model just has been very successful at predicting stuff :)
- deelowe 4y ago
  Isn't that a bit like saying the atom was not truly discovered until scanning microscopes were put to use?
- lisper 4y ago
  To my way of thinking one of the defining characteristics of a discovery is that it is unexpected, so a confirmation of a theoretical prediction doesn't count.

k__ 4y ago

I think the process is: Scientists make a theory. The theory predicts a bunch of particles. Scientists build LHC to check if the theory is right. LHC finds the predicted particles. The theory was right.

nxpnsv 4y ago
Except it is not a single theory, but whole families of theories.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jeremyjh 4y ago

Your analogy is poor because the “3.6 Roentgen” was a story the politicians were telling each other; where the actual scientist knew they were measuring the limit of their equipment. Perhaps it’s uncharitable but I feel like I could restate your question as: “I know nothing about particle physics - is it possible the entire field is just cranks deluding themselves?”

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>is it possible the entire field is just cranks deluding themselves? That's a question better saved for psychiatry and sociology.
jfjrkkskdik 4y ago
Would not be the first time humans deluded themselves with big ideas the masses could not falsify. It’s as likely as anything else given how common it is for even STEM educated humans to be religious and read into their tea leaves. There is no center of the universe or higher power; why should a handful of physicists be unequivocally “correct”. Deference to their figurative identity is all the untrained can conjure. Doesn’t mean we need to shower them in praise and empower their agency at the expense of one’s own. Even if the science is right they’re still just one of seven billion.
jacobr1 4y ago
Should that question be asked of the string theorists instead?

tooltower 4y ago

The new particles in this case aren't "smaller" than the ones we already know about. They are short-lived because they are heavier. They quickly decay into something simpler. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. This article doesn't really describe anything that unexpected. It's not that hard to believe.

killerstorm 4y ago

Currently the best known theory of physics at small scales is a quantum field theory known as the Standard Model. "Particles" are phenomena which appear when fields are quantized. They aren't really balls of stuff. E.g. photon is a quantum of a wave in electromagnetic field. These exotic particles are simply a confirmation of predictions made by the Standard Model, they are not surprising, it's just the first time there was enough data to test this particular prediction of the theory. > I'm very skeptical that it's apparently just smaller and smaller particles all of the way down The Standard Model was formulated in 1970s, no principally new phenomena were discovered since. So it's been strong for ~50 years. It's known to be incomplete as it does not explain gravity, and physicists hope that better theories will be found in future. But so far nobody was able to formulate a theory which would make better predictions than the SM. > What if everything here about reality is being misinterpreted? The topic of physics is to build models which predict observed phenomena. Knowing what reality _is_ is a topic of philosophy and religion.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

Question from a non-physicist: In this context, what does it mean for something to be a "particle"? I.e., if I see some feature in the LHS data, what makes me call it a "particle" vs. some other concept / object / phenomenon?

1-more 4y ago

> it's apparently just smaller and smaller particles all of the way down Of note: these newly discovered particles are not smaller than previously known things. In fact they are bigger.