4 ms·

> "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven un

• defrost 2y ago
  The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.
  • _akhe 2y ago
    I was referring to the observational proof when I said that - the entire Higgs craze was about the proof - not about math as both of you guys are saying. The math part was thought of in the 60s, 2012 was about the actual discovery - did you think LHC was a math lab? The point was they said they could observe it in 2012. What that guy above said about E=mc^2 was random nonsense that has nothing to do with this story, like a lot of people on this site he's in Jordan Peterson fashion just randomly asserting like a know-it-all with no thought behind the statements or proof to back them up. Despite his high score here you can safely ignore what he said about completing the Standard Model (billiard ball hypothesis) it doesn't, Standard Model is still incomplete, and there's no proof that subatomic structures even exist as particles - let alone all the subsequent theories predicated on that. > Clearly this isn't always true In what case can you say there is proof something exists without having any observable evidence for it - even if the math "checks out"? What - dark matter? Ghosts?