4 ms·
As I pointed out, eg, the high number of correction terms when trying to tune the model to actual particle accelerator data is evidence that our model is missin
by zmgsabst 1y ago
As I pointed out, eg, the high number of correction terms when trying to tune the model to actual particle accelerator data is evidence that our model is missing something. (And some things are plain missing: neutrino behavior, dark matter, dark energy, etc.)
In the same way that a high number of epicycles was evidence our theory of geocentrism was wrong — even though adding epicycles did compute increasingly accurate results.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago> As I pointed out, eg, the high number of correction terms when trying to tune the model to actual particle accelerator data is evidence that our model is missing something. (And some things are plain missing: neutrino behavior, dark matter, dark energy, etc.) This is rather a problem of the standard model. Physicists will immediately admit that something is missing there, and they are incredibly eager to find a better model. But basically every good attempt that they could come up with (e.g. supersymmetric extensions of the standard model; but I'm not a physicist) has by now (at least modtly) been falsified by accelerator experiments.
- Dylan16807 1y agoThe comment you originally replied to was about entanglement, not the entire standard model. The math there is very simple, not built on correction terms.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- evanb 1y agoThe standard model has ~20 parameters (depending on what exactly you include as 'the' SM) and it predicts hundreds of thousands of data points.