Higgs particle can disintegrate into particles of dark matter, according to new model

a reply to: Bedlam

Gotta ask. What's your take on Dark Matter? Real as theorized? There's another process going on that they haven't figured that accounts for what they believe is dark matter? Or something else in regards to it entirely?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: johnwick

String theory is an attempt to unify orthogonal theories data under a single unified model. It doesn't matter how many dimensions or oddities string theory has, so long as it explains the data. To date, string theory is incomplete.

And this is exactly how science works. Models are built to simulate observational data, new data comes in, the model is either tweaked or superseded by a better model that explains all of the current and new data. To make it sound like some sort of fudging exercise divorced from observation is disingenuous as the reality is precisely the opposite.

Apologetics sound real good on paper. But the reality doesn't always match up to the picture they paint.

Have you seen Conan the Barbarian? The riddle of steel? What is a sword, compared to the hand that wields it. What is a model compared to the mind that wields it. Unfortunately, minds have a way of filtering taboo data before it can take its place in the model.

Knowledge monopolies, peer-review shenanigans, fraud, taboo. These are part of the reality on the ground.

👣

a reply to: BlueMule

What? I fail to see how any of this has any bearing on anything I've said. Here, have a read of this:

scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings- in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

That should get the ball rolling.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Gotta ask. What's your take on Dark Matter? Real as theorized? There's another process going on that they haven't figured that accounts for what they believe is dark matter? Or something else in regards to it entirely?

I'm no particle physicist.

However, my off the cuff guess is, as Heinlein once said, what's at 90 degrees to everything else?

John Cramer wrote a sci-fi novel about 25 years back wherein he posited that there were sets of physical universes at right angles to each other, and nothing leaked through except gravitational effects. So you had anomalous gravitational sinks that tended to be centered on astronomically large masses like galaxies, because the universes tended to have galaxies in about the same places, but not so much for smaller things like planets.

a reply to: GetHyped

More apologetics? Maybe you could go back and read my last post real slowly.

👣

a reply to: Bedlam

Interesting. I've noticed that galaxies form along strings like some giant tapestry. Like there is a underlying order to how they collect together. Maybe they are forming in relation to something else at the 90 degree angle. Something for the hamster wheel in my head to spin around pondering.

a reply to: BlueMule

I read it. All I saw was a cranky anti-science rant, most likely I'd wager from a person who's annoyed that science does not validate one of their magical sacred cow beliefs. I don't really see what it adds to the discussion, to be perfectly honest.

a reply to: lostbook

Whilst I don't share BlueMule's somewhat apparent disdain for the scientific process, I think it's fair to point out that it is the case that some 20th century physicists have at least pondered and attempted to integrate scientific knowledge with certain mystical concepts.
For example prof S. Hawking ponders the relationship between a creator/god and cosmological theory in the last chapter of a brief history of time

just sayin

a reply to: lostbook

Yup. I knew it was a fixing to happen. Science isn't all that complicated, either.

We live in a dualistically explained system. We have light? Well, that's why we have anything dark. We have good? That's why there's anything bad. If we didn't have good, to begin with, we wouldn't have to worry about evil.

Par for the course. Yawn.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Now what's on the table is, can they concoct a test that will support or deny the supersymmetry model over the standard model. Standard model works pretty well, with an exception being this dang ol' dark matter issue. While it would be nice to know just what is up with the dark matter thing, it would be a wonderful bit of serendipity to get a nice bonus of finding out the supersymmetry model is testable while you're at it.

There have been quite a number of supersymmetry models, this is another one. Scientists tend to prefer the simplest 'minimal' model compatible with observations---usually that has been a good guide in particle physics.

The first run of the LHC smashed all the lead contenders for SUSY models. They found a clean, orthodox, simple 1964 version Higgs and nothing else. I think if supersymmetry were real, it would have been obvious as soon as they turned it on. This new theory is trying to shoot a 4 point play with 11 seconds left.

Yeah, QM isn't about any mystic nonsense----claiming founders of QM were like that is entire psychological projection and narcissism----i.e. "i'm a mystic which is about weird stuff I don't understand, and I don't understand QM because it's weird stuff, so QM must be mystical!"

People do experiments, and they find that QM works the way it says, and it's damn weird, and not mystical.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Interesting. I've noticed that galaxies form along strings like some giant tapestry. Like there is a underlying order to how they collect together. Maybe they are forming in relation to something else at the 90 degree angle. Something for the hamster wheel in my head to spin around pondering.

Yes, the statistical structure of the large scale universe (including what you describe) is very important in cosmology as it's a clear observable used to constrain theories. It's used in significant quantitative detail and has been a standard part of galactic & larger astrophysics for at least 20 years.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

Gotta ask. What's your take on Dark Matter? Real as theorized? There's another process going on that they haven't figured that accounts for what they believe is dark matter? Or something else in regards to it entirely?

I'm no particle physicist.

However, my off the cuff guess is, as Heinlein once said, what's at 90 degrees to everything else?

John Cramer wrote a sci-fi novel about 25 years back wherein he posited that there were sets of physical universes at right angles to each other, and nothing leaked through except gravitational effects. So you had anomalous gravitational sinks that tended to be centered on astronomically large masses like galaxies, because the universes tended to have galaxies in about the same places, but not so much for smaller things like planets.

The space scale and distribution of dark matter halos determined gravitationally is not parallel to regular matter, so it's made out of stuff which has different mutual interaction. Oh well, no bearded Spock.

originally posted by: Bedlam

However, my off the cuff guess is, as Heinlein once said, what's at 90 degrees to everything else?

A: a crank

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Bedlam

However, my off the cuff guess is, as Heinlein once said, what's at 90 degrees to everything else?

A: a crank

They laughed at me at the Sorbonne, but you will all RUE, RUE I say! the day you laughed at me! Revenge will be mine!
MWA HA HA HA!

Dark energy is made out of vars, too, the way dark matter is made out of rotated matter. You wait and see.

a reply to: Bedlam

Whooooo!!!! OK there!!! Always operating on a whole other level oh bedlam the enchanter. I would call you .... ...Tom. But I do not wish for you to summon fire upon mine twice more nay flint or tinder.


Barf: What the hell was that!!!??

Lonestar: BEDLAM 1!!!!!!!!

Mbkennel: Has he gone mad?!?

Bassplyr: No it's worse!!

Barf: He's gone to plaid!!!!!

a reply to: korkythecat

For example prof S. Hawking ponders the relationship between a creator/god and cosmological theory in the last chapter of a brief history of time

Have you also read "The Grand Design"? There he says something along the lines of: philosophy is dead, physicists can now answer more and more of their questions, and: as physiscs evolve, the need for a God diminishes... (not actual quotes, but something like that)

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: stormcell

Science is based on a feedback cycle of generating theories, experiments, analysis of results to confirm or disprove those theories. It's known that there are whole classes of sub-atomic particles. In the vacuum of space, all these particles just float around, so anything could be out there.

It's less well known that the pioneers of QM were powerful mystics who created, not discovered, those whole classes. Consciousness is the nature of reality, and we are co-creators.

Now science is in the hands of non-mystics who scramble around certain taboo rocks that they would rather remain unturned. The result is a convoluted mess.

👣

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the construction of the universe, and a complete over glorification of consciousness and mechanisms and biological architecture it constitutes. The only mystic Im hearing about in this whole conversation is you.

originally posted by: Agnost
a reply to: korkythecat

For example prof S. Hawking ponders the relationship between a creator/god and cosmological theory in the last chapter of a brief history of time

Have you also read "The Grand Design"? There he says something along the lines of: philosophy is dead, physicists can now answer more and more of their questions, and: as physiscs evolve, the need for a God diminishes... (not actual quotes, but something like that)

Back in the old days, science was called "Natural Philosophy". Consider Aristotle---a large amount of philosophy built upon deductions from empirical observations. Natural Philosophy started getting so good that they gave it new names.

So the philosophy which is left is obviously Unnatural Philosophy.

Without empirical observation to make the decision, you're just left with the Argument Clinic. Or you could settle it on the field....

And who's that? It's Karl Marx, Karl Marx is warming up. It looks as though there's going to be a substitution in the German side. [Marx removes the track-suit, under which he is wearing a suit.]
Obviously the manager Martin Luther has decided on all- out attack, as indeed he must with only two minutes of the match to go.
And the big question is, who is he going to replace, who's going to come off. It could be Jaspers, Hegel or Schopenhauer, but it's Wittgenstein! Wittgenstein, who saw his aunty only last week, and here's Marx. [Marx begins some energetic knees-up running about.] Let's see it he can put some life into this German attack. [The referee blows his whistle; Marx stops and begins contemplating like the rest.] Evidently not. What a shame. Well now, with just over a minute left, a replay on Tuesday looks absolutely vital.
There's Archimedes, and I think he's had an idea. Archimedes (John): Eureka! [He runs towards the ball and kicks it.]
Football Commentator: Archimedes out to Socrates, Socrates back to Archimedes, Archimedes out to Heraclitus, he beats Hegel [who, like all the Germans, is still thinking]. Heraclitus a little flick, here he comes on the far post, Socrates is there, Socrates heads it in! Socrates has scored! The Greeks are going mad, the Greeks are going mad! Socrates scores, got a beautiful cross from Archimedes. The Germans are disputing it.
Hegel is arguing that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics, Kant via the categorical imperative is holding that ontologically it exists only in the imagination, and Marx is claiming it was offside.

But Confucius has answered them with the final whistle! It's all over! Germany, having trounced England's famous midfield trio of Bentham, Locke and Hobbes in the semi-final, have been beaten by the odd goal, and let's see it again. [Replay viewed from behind the goal.] There it is, Socrates, Socrates heads in and Leibnitz doesn't have a chance. And just look at those delighted Greeks. [The Greeks jog delightedly, holding a cup aloft.] There they are, "Chopper" Sophocles, Empedocles of Acragus, what a game he had. And Epicurus is there, and Socrates the captain who scored what was probably the most important goal of his career.

originally posted by: immoralist

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the construction of the universe, and a complete over glorification of consciousness and mechanisms and biological architecture it constitutes. The only mystic Im hearing about in this whole conversation is you.

yes, imagine otherwise....

the first homo sapiens caveman to look out and ponder at the hovering monolith, a little electrical pulse winds through his frontal lobe, to the pounding of Also Sprach Zarathustra, ZOG FIRST POP WAVEFUNCTION! ZOG FIRST POP WAVEFUNCTION!

a reply to: BlueMule

If you understood how important and huge a role symmetry plays, especially gauge symmetry in all of the fundamental physics discoveries, you would understand why super-symmetry is worth a shot at proving.
Nature seems to insist on symmetry so much that some physics was discovered just looking for the symmetry in a concept. Like matter/antimatter, the net charge ends up being zero. Symmetrical.

It doesn't seem like SS is going to work out because it's been around for like 40 years but who knows?