5 ms·

> It's particle physics that seems to be stuck in a rut. You could look at the discovery of tetraquarks and pentaquarks, and high precision tests of the standa

> It's particle physics that seems to be stuck in a rut. You could look at the discovery of tetraquarks and pentaquarks, and high precision tests of the standard model though as a lot of progress. What it hasn't done though is create some sexy upending of our current models of physics, we keep asking questions and mostly the responses coming back are in line with theories that we knew 40 years ago. But that's still a lot of experimental progress. There just isn't any useful theoretical physics progress. All the beyond-standard-model theories that might have been useful have been falsified, and the ones that remain can be made to predict anything and aren't useful. But we wouldn't know that if there hadn't been a lot of experimental progress. The LHC was an exceptionally useful experiment. It destroyed more dreams of physics theories than any single experiment ever before. Someone should go back and mark up all the published articles and preprints that were falsified by the LHC.

chii 2y ago
> What it hasn't done though is create some sexy upending of our current models of physics which is fine imho. It's only been around 100 years since that happened last time! Far too short to have another one.
zepolen 2y ago
I think this guy has hit the nail on the head: https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ Take a look at how stupidly complex the standard model is compared to the other: https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ Everything in the universe on that site is eloquently and simply explained, including gravity as a shading effect (think an eclipse/water waves acting on an obstacle: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=150945 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid...) ie. When a large mass causing the shading effect (eg earth) absorbs energy waves acting on us it causing less energy to reach you from the earth's direction and that means energy from above us pushes us down to Earth. All the math checks out too. Yes, the entire theory is based on the fact that aether exists, which has supposedly been disproved, but what if that's incorrect and launched an entire wild goose chase of alternative physics (string theory, standard model) all based on a flawed assumption. I think this reddit comment describes the situation beautifully: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_does_an_idea_of_aether_persist_into_the/jqcz7lx/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_doe...
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Anyone claiming that string theory is part of "the standard model", when proposing their alternative theory, is probably a crank. Anyone deriving "E=mc²", and claiming that as evidence of their theory, is almost certainly a crank.
  - Risord 2y ago
    Sometimes I am wondering what if there is theory which have been on right track but it's (false?) falsified and already forgotten. Sure theory could be incomplete or incorrect on some ways but would that right part be noticed? For example I think it's too easy to imagine world where relativity or quantum theory would be socially falsified and/or left without any attention. Simple example experience I had when I was beginning of my physic studies (which I never finished) was when discussed with elder/smarter student about wheel friction. I was explaining that I had figured out that wheel spin actually matters when there is also side slip. [Total slip direction is dependent from spin speed.] But because he -knew- that wheel spin does not matter and he -knew- that he was better/smarter/etc. he was so focused to correct my mistake I was unable to convince him. How much this happens on higher stakes? So if situation is that there has not been much progress for a long time I think it could be valuable also understand these failed theories and of course very importantly why they are falsified. When I am working with hard problem I usually go this order: 1. Describe the problem. 2. Describe bunch of naive solutions. 3. Describe problems in those naive solutions. 4. "Describe problems in those problems": Why some of those problems do not hold water. Those can be workarounded, fixed or they actually are not really problem in this case or maybe some combination of naive solution properties gives working solution.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      Did you run the experiment? I don't think wheel spin does matter when there's side slip. It matters when there would otherwise be static friction (e.g. if you're in a car with an ABS system), but I don't think it matters when it's just kinetic friction. (Of course, there are other kinds of friction, which might behave differently. I'm no friction expert. I imagine things get weird when water's involved, though.)
jerf 2y ago
There hasn't been a total lack of progress by any means. Unfortunately, "confirming the standard model again in some new way", while good science, also does nothing to get particle physics out of its rut. I originally wrote "useful" science when I first wrote that sentence, but... it's debatable how useful it is, actually. People have been taught that measuring the utility of science is heresy, but I find that insane. It is completely possible to have science that isn't that useful, even to other science, let alone to any other purpose. Confirming the standard model yet harder isn't really useful. Of course, you have to run the experiments to confirm the standard model, in the hopes that maybe it won't, I'm saying the result of confirming the standard model is of debatable utility.

chii 2y ago

> What it hasn't done though is create some sexy upending of our current models of physics which is fine imho. It's only been around 100 years since that happened last time! Far too short to have another one.

zepolen 2y ago

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head: https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ https://energywavetheory.com/subatomic-particles/ Take a look at how stupidly complex the standard model is compared to the other: https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ https://energywavetheory.com/equations/theory-comparison/ Everything in the universe on that site is eloquently and simply explained, including gravity as a shading effect (think an eclipse/water waves acting on an obstacle: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=150945 https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid...) ie. When a large mass causing the shading effect (eg earth) absorbs energy waves acting on us it causing less energy to reach you from the earth's direction and that means energy from above us pushes us down to Earth. All the math checks out too. Yes, the entire theory is based on the fact that aether exists, which has supposedly been disproved, but what if that's incorrect and launched an entire wild goose chase of alternative physics (string theory, standard model) all based on a flawed assumption. I think this reddit comment describes the situation beautifully: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_does_an_idea_of_aether_persist_into_the/jqcz7lx/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/14o41lc/why_doe...

wizzwizz4 2y ago
Anyone claiming that string theory is part of "the standard model", when proposing their alternative theory, is probably a crank. Anyone deriving "E=mc²", and claiming that as evidence of their theory, is almost certainly a crank.
- Risord 2y ago
  Sometimes I am wondering what if there is theory which have been on right track but it's (false?) falsified and already forgotten. Sure theory could be incomplete or incorrect on some ways but would that right part be noticed? For example I think it's too easy to imagine world where relativity or quantum theory would be socially falsified and/or left without any attention. Simple example experience I had when I was beginning of my physic studies (which I never finished) was when discussed with elder/smarter student about wheel friction. I was explaining that I had figured out that wheel spin actually matters when there is also side slip. [Total slip direction is dependent from spin speed.] But because he -knew- that wheel spin does not matter and he -knew- that he was better/smarter/etc. he was so focused to correct my mistake I was unable to convince him. How much this happens on higher stakes? So if situation is that there has not been much progress for a long time I think it could be valuable also understand these failed theories and of course very importantly why they are falsified. When I am working with hard problem I usually go this order: 1. Describe the problem. 2. Describe bunch of naive solutions. 3. Describe problems in those naive solutions. 4. "Describe problems in those problems": Why some of those problems do not hold water. Those can be workarounded, fixed or they actually are not really problem in this case or maybe some combination of naive solution properties gives working solution.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Did you run the experiment? I don't think wheel spin does matter when there's side slip. It matters when there would otherwise be static friction (e.g. if you're in a car with an ABS system), but I don't think it matters when it's just kinetic friction. (Of course, there are other kinds of friction, which might behave differently. I'm no friction expert. I imagine things get weird when water's involved, though.)

jerf 2y ago

There hasn't been a total lack of progress by any means. Unfortunately, "confirming the standard model again in some new way", while good science, also does nothing to get particle physics out of its rut. I originally wrote "useful" science when I first wrote that sentence, but... it's debatable how useful it is, actually. People have been taught that measuring the utility of science is heresy, but I find that insane. It is completely possible to have science that isn't that useful, even to other science, let alone to any other purpose. Confirming the standard model yet harder isn't really useful. Of course, you have to run the experiments to confirm the standard model, in the hopes that maybe it won't, I'm saying the result of confirming the standard model is of debatable utility.