/sci/ - Science & Math

also link for the non believers...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20357-mystery-signal-at-fermilab-hints-at-technicolour-force.h
tml?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

>>2848699
http://news.discovery.com/space/what-has-the-tevatron-really-discovered-110407.html
>Although the excitement surrounding this "unknown" particle finding is tangible, Butterworth is keen to emphasize that this "bump" might not be real. "It could certainly still be an anomaly. It's on the edge," he said. "Statistically the significance isn't great, and there are substantial systematics (such as the backgrounds) which could undermine the significance further. I think they've done a decent job, and it is interesting but rather far from compelling."
tl;dr: Don't hold your breath.

>>2848699

could you explain to someone who doesn´t know much about this stuff, what it is and how it affects the modern standart physics model ?

>>2848712
New scientists article

>three sigma's

meaning 1 in 1000 chance that the bump was a fluke.

It could be but I would say the chances don't look to bad that every physics book ever will need to be re-written.

"Intriguing as it sounds, there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the bump is simply a statistical fluke. Those odds make it a so-called three-sigma result, falling short of the gold standard for a discovery – five sigma, or a 1 in a million chance of error. "I've seen three-sigma effects come and go," says Kenneth Lane of Boston University in Massachusetts. Still, physicists are 99.9 per cent sure it is not a fluke, so they are understandably anxious to pin down the particle's identity."

new scientist...

I've been refreshing /sci/ all day waiting for this to appear. I was going to make it myself but lazyness happened.

What I'm hoping for is that American news stations take this and run with it, do all that patriotic nonsense and get all "americuh fuck yer" and stimulate a nation's thirst for science, who seem to be on the road of demonising it.

>>2848715
>>2848715

standard model has 4 forces.

1. weak
2. strong
3. gravity
4. electromagnetic

if a 5th force is added it would pretty much invalidate standard theory or atleast warrant recalculation of pretty much everything we deduced from the standard model

if this proves to be true, the implications are FUCKING HUGE. Nobel prizes will go out for this huge, I mean like when they discovered the earth spins around the sun huge.

that is the scale of discovery we are talking about.

>>2848744
wait, how can the earth revolve around the sun if the sun rises and sets around the earth?
also, according to gravity, wouldn't the earth have to be flat then?

>>2848748
>>2848748
=7!=
/capslock

>>2848744

ah, okay.
thanks for the answer

I don't care if the standard model is wrong. I don't care about any implications about anything from this discovery.

We have, as it stands now, top, bottom, up, down, strange, and charm quarks. Those labels are the quarks flavor.

And now there may be another theory which is technicolor? When did scientists stop naming things normally?

>>2848761
>>2848761
lol the 5th force is actually love!
or god whichever trolls more.

>>2848761
Right about the time LSD was synthesized.

>>2848761

What the hell are you on about?

>>2848704

lol newscientiest

Fermilab is well known for pulling shit like this especially as they are GETTING SHUT DOWN. It's fucking childish of them to say 'Oh a bump? New force new force! We'll call it the fermiforce PLEEEASE CONGRES PLEEEEEASE'

ITT: bumps don't mean shit about forces. It's just some new mixing or a higgs field

i'm not sure what this all means but thankfully it did before i started taking my physics classes.

didn't hold my breath for the alien life claim
Not holding my breath on this one.

The standard model fails and they have to invent unfalsifiable, unverifiable, imaginary (gravitons LMAO) shit to make it actually work, you should have known it was a matter of time before Standard Model would get raped just like all models before it.

"Herp derp I live in the age where we'll really know!"

Yeah that's what people thought 10 generations ago too lmao. We don't know shit bro, but I hope we're getting closer.

>>2848822
7/10

I was raging until I figured out it was a troll.

>>2848890

I'll give you 5/10. You got me to reply.

>>2848904
ditto

>>2848908

I don't know what's going on now.

>>2848890

If you honestly believe that what he's saying is wrong then you need to take a history lesson.

>>2848927
>The standard model fails and they have to invent unfalsifiable, unverifiable, imaginary (gravitons LMAO) shit to make it actually work

The standard model doesn't do that. In fact, it has produced the most accurate predictions of any scientific theory ever. And it says nothing about gravity - the claim of gravitons in the SM is bullshit.

If you honestly believe that what he's saying then you need to take a physics lesson.

If there is a fifth field, it might help explain why a unified field theory was so elusive. Trying to combine forces when you are missing one seems a fools errand.

this is you, /sci/entists

1650 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1700 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1750 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1800 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1850 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1900 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
1950 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
2000 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now
2011 AD: yay, we were wrong before but we're right now

>>2848979

We are, and always will be, wrong. However, we become increasingly less wrong over time.

>>2848979
That's how learning works nigger.

>>2848979
No physicist claims that the current understanding is the definitive truth. Each model and revision makes more accurate predictions, and that's the best we can hope for.

>mfw one day in the distant future someone discovers that within these particle accelerators we've been using, we create zones where the normal laws of physics don't apply, thus creating seemingly anomalous results.

>>2848985
>>We are, and always will be, wrong
Sucks to be you guys.
Christians
0-2011AC - We are right. Yup.

>>2848985
nope, even that will be wrong

>>2849016
that's also wrong

do you guys just like being wrong? is that it? is there some attraction for always being wrong that i'm missing?

>>2849043
Tell me, what's wrong about it?

Mathfag here.

Feels good to be able to prove I'm right.

>>2849039

Did you mean to reply to another post? I claimed exactly the point you corrected me on.

People, we need to build a huge particle accellerator -
ALL AROUND THE FUCKING MOON!

To discover what you ask? NOTHING.
We'll do it because it's fucking awesome.
And when one day the aliens come to Earth, they'll be like: Dude, they have a particle accellerator on their fucking moon dude! Like, whoa.
This is how you get respect with the starfleet.

>>2849079
you will not be increasingly less wrong over time

that is wrong

>>2849055
that the best man can hope for is an accurate model of a unified field theory

>>2849108

Unless you consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be purely binary then I don't see how you could make that claim.

>>2849117
that would be one set of conditions under which it would be impossible to be wrong a sufficient amount of times and approach being right

but there are others

SCIENCE

'nuff said

>>2849121

I didn't say anything about being right. Becoming progressively less wrong is pretty much the whole point of empiricism, so I guess you would have to dispute empiricism as a philosophy to make your claim.

Ofc, it would be much easier if you just explained what you mean instead of making me guess.

>>2849030
More like
>we've been wrong since the start and haven't bothered to change anything.
but I don't need to tell you that, troll.

>>2848800
Not to derail, but what ever happened with that alien life claim? has it been peer-reviewed yet?

>>2849113
...which would presumably be more accurate than the current model. Which is exactly what I said.
U tarded brah?

>>2849170
so, being progressively less wrong leads you asymptotically to the truth?

i don't think so, willis

>>2849204
that's the best mankind can hope for?

yeah, didn't think so

>>2849214

Again, I never mentioned truth. Being progressively less wrong means, you become progressively less wrong. Whether or not 'truth' is possible is another matter (I would claim no, but I have no proof for that claim: It merely seems the fractal nature of reality prescribes any possibility of complete knowledge of the Universe, and therefore 'truth' is unobtainable)

>>2849247

sp/prescribes/proscribes

>>2849238
We will never know the absolute truth, because there will always be some margin of error. The best we can hope for is good enough.

i'd like to point out here that as exited as everyone is the standard model bring proved wrong is nothing new, there will be no nobel prizes.
when it was discovered neutrinos had mass disproving the standard model nobody gave a shit
because the standard model is not really a theory anyway, its an ad hoc collection of observations, so another problem with it is completely unsurprising.
and also D0 the other detector at fermilab hasn't seen it, despite looking.

>>2849288
Nice presumption. The ancient civilizations didn't think we'd ever be flying space ships or cloning human hearts and yet here we are.

The standard model is a failure, let's acknowledge that the only way to believe it as a factual representation of reality is to accept blind faith presumptions of hypothetical and unfalsifiable things like gravitons, and then move on and try to find a model that actually really works instead of pandering to our failed model trying to "make it work with invented concepts of which there is no basis for in reality, similar to invisible unicorns" because that's just not fucking science.

The goal of science is to self correct, saying "meh, let's just pretend we figured it out even though we haven't" is antithetical to the endeavor of science in the first place.

>>2849319
No it is not, not everything in the standard model is an observed phenomenon, some of the things in that model are as verified as leprachauns and fairies, actually less so because these have significant written mythos whereas gravitons were just blatantly invented to "try and make it work" which is, as I've been saying, antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge.

Gravitons are not observed by any means, they were literally invented to try and fix contradictions between reality and the Standard Model. Instead of saying, "Oh, reality contradicts our model" the community went, "Oh, reality contradicts our model, let's invent shit so it still works."

>>2849343
You keep mentioning gravitons. Gravitons are not part of the standard model.

>>2849343
i agree with you that some things aren't actually observed such as quarks which have no direct evidence.
however the standard model doesn't include gravity or gravitons
the idea for gravitons was inspired by the success of quantum field theory but it is not included in the standard model and the standard model doesn't need them to work either

>>2848738

> This is actually what euros believe

>>2849343
>>2849329
>gravitons
Still no.
And I don't think you know what a model is, or what science is or aims to do. If there is an objective truth to be known, there will never be a way to measure it completely accurately. All models seek to do is explain observations and make predictions, and to the extent that they can do these things they are considered successful or not.

>>2849369
They were invented specifically because they help make the Standard Model work correctly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

They were invented "because of the great success" of quantum field/standard model, eg because these seemed to mostly work, but needed "gravitons" to actually truly work, and because these 'theories' are greatly successful, rather than dropping them, they invented shit so they would still work.

>>2849410
No, see>>2849383
Apparently you don't know what the standard model is either.

>>2848744
So the correct means to obtaining breakthroughs in science ARE in fact to say "we're closing your operations down, haha you nerd scientists" and they go "OH SHIT OH SHIT OH SHIT" and make Earth shattering breakthroughs?

This doesn't look good for funding for science, true results appear to come from threatening to shut them down.

>>2849329
there are plenty of people working on fixing the standard model and going beyond it
as i explained it is an ad hoc collection which was adjusted every time a new discovery was made.
it may be flawed but don't for a second try to claim it hasn't been successful and don't think it is some hand wavey theory.
for one you don't know anything about it, the standard model doesn't describe gravitons or gravity.
it does have unobserved parts such as the quark model but this has been incredibly successful.
and you can fuck right off if you try to claim that any particle physicist worth his salt has ever claimed in light of the discoveries in the past 10 years that the standard model was perfect.

stop projecting, yes its broken but you know fuck all about why.

>>2849422
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
"Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of quantum field theory (in particular, the Standard Model) at modeling the behavior of all other known forces of nature as being mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated by a – yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed the graviton. In the classical limit, the theory would reduce to general relativity and conform to Newton's law of gravitation in the weak-field limit.[6][7][8]"

Please correct the wiki if it's lying.

>>2849410
yes they were thought up because QFT was so successful but the standard model never described gravity its doesn't need or include gravitons.
you're talking bullshit

>>2849436
Nowhere in there does it say gravitons are part of the standard model.
>Gravitons are postulated because of the great success of quantum field theory
Does not mean
>Gravitons are postulated as part of quantum field theory

And even if it were, notice how all over the page it says "hypothetical", "postulated", "theoretical", etc.

>>2849436
its not lying, it doesn't say the standard model includes gravitons rather it say's it was inspired by the standard model but not a part of

>>2849447
Why does the wiki say
> In particular, the Standard Model

You are the one talking bullshit, either step up and prove the citations in the wiki asserting this wrong or you shut the fuck up.

I'm citing sources you are just making claims. The Graviton was postulated because of the success of quantum field theory and "in particular", the Standard Model.

You are the one who is bullshitting, I assume you are a third year undergrad taking introduction to Physics or in AP physics in high school and think you know what you are talking about.

Go ahead, discuss it on the wiki page and convince them that their cited information is bullshit and that that section needs to be changed.

You can't because you are wrong.

>fermilab
>accomplishing something

I came

>>2849465
>The Graviton was postulated because of the success of quantum field theory and "in particular", the Standard Model
lrn2read
It doesn't say gravitons are part of the standard model. Quantum field theory, and the standard model in particular, was successful, which inspired scientists to postulate the existence of gravitons. Gravitons are not part of the standard model. They're not part of anything, they're an unproven hypothetical like the Higgs boson.

>>2849464
Yes, the standard model is broken, and gravitons were postulated (this doesn't mean "put into the model" per say) IN ORDER to make it work.

Eg, as I've been saying, "inventing shit" to make the theory work.

The standard model is older than gravitons, they are being postulated in order to try and fix it, they don't need to be "part" of the actual model for this to be the case.

Again, if you are being truthful then correct the wiki and see if it sticks. EG put up or shut up.

:)

Here take a read at what people in the Physics community have to say about it:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=gravitons+and+the+standard+model

This shit is not hard to verify, the graviton was invented specifically to try and 'help' the Standard Model.

>>2849491
Nowhere in anything does it say gravitons are part of the standard model. Because they're not.

>>2848699

Woah dude, calm down for a minute.
First of, have a look at this, much more moderate article:

http://io9.com/#!5789759/has-fermilab-really-discovered-an-entirely-new-subatomic-particle

Then realize this: "I've seen three-sigma effects come and go," says Kenneth Lane of Boston University in Massachusetts.
Which basically means 0,01 percent chance that it's a fluke is still a good chance that it's a fluke.

And then realize that this will hardly invalidate the standard model. A fifth or sixth etc. force has always been a possibility. The standard model describes the forces that cause events that we perceive. We can never be sure that we've perceived all possible events in this universe. If anything, this will expand the standard model.
Also
>So implications, how many man hours were wasted on the standard model?
How are these hours wasted? They brought us quite far, don't you think?

>>2849484

Ya because discovering the top quark wasn't a big deal.

>>2849514
Re-read my post.

>>2848937
Geocentrism
heliocentrism
newtonian gravity
einsteinian gravity
were all the most accurate predictions of any scientific theory ever.
Gravitons are accepted to be part of the standard model by the majority of particle physicists
I sincerely doubt that everything is going to change given the lack of information released

>>2849518
If you were offered the opportunity to buy a single lottery ticket with a 0.01% chance of winning, would you say it had a good chance?

>>2849063
it's funny because you think you think objectively yet you cannot show that your thought is not flawed

Maths is a cool guy though. If it weren't for the fact things are about to get interesting in physics I'd have definitely chosen it

>>2849525
Oh hey look, someone else is now claiming that the majority of particle physicists accept the graviton as part of the model.

Gee, still gonna keep talking saying that it wasn't invented specifically to help the Standard Model, regardless of if it's officially "part" of it (it was invented after the Standard Model was in trouble in order to account for observations which contradicted the theory).

Now we're hearing that most particle physicists accept it as part of the model.

Shit's religious as fuck, "These theories all seemed very accurate, but then we started noticing inconsistencies, so instead of acknowledging them we created the graviton which is also conveniently unfalsifiable."

>>2849524
Still wrong. Gravitons are not part of the standard model. They don't describe things in the standard model. They don't relate to the standard model. No standard model. Got it?

>>2849465
fine citations here we go

>cern
>http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/StandardModel-en.html
"The Standard Model includes the electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and all their carrier particles, and explains extremely well how these forces act on all the matter particles. However, the most familiar force in our everyday lives, gravity, is not part of the Standard Model. In fact, fitting gravity comfortably into the framework has proved to be a difficult challenge."


>the bbc
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666173
Although gravity is the most obvious force in everyday life, it is not explained by the standard model.

>wikipedia
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
It does not attempt to explain gravitation
it does not incorporate the physics of general relativity, such as gravitation and dark energy.


happy, the standard model does not rely, depend upon or include gravity or gravitons

>>2849526
Relative to the odds of buying a normal lottery ticket?

Yeah, I would.

Fermilabs is just pulling a stunt because they don't want to get shut down, they're literally going to lie and fabricate shit damaging the scientific community just to save their own asses.

Let's be real here. The Standard Model is wrong, but Fermilabs did not just discover something proving it wrong, it's already been known to be wrong for a while and we've just been inventing shit to try and explain away the inconsistencies.

>>2849533
Nobody accepts it as part of the standard model. The standard model doesn't describe gravity. Gravitons were not "invented" to fix the standard model, which, again, does not describe gravity. Gravity is not part of the standard model. Gravitons are not part of the standard model. How much clearer can I make it? You don't know what the standard model is, do you?

>>2849539
:o
I retract what I said about the standard model then. My mistake

>>2849526
Who needs probability when you have poor analogies, eh?

>>2849526

Considering that a regular lottery ticket has a chance of 0,00000072 % (germany) I'd say "HELL YEAH!"

But that's not the point. I'm just saying it may still be a fluke .. shit like that is bound to happen some times. See the quote from Kenneth Lane.
And if it's not a fluke there are still other possibilities. This won't give the phrase "Fucking magnets how do they work?" a new meaning!

>>2849539
You still don't get it.

Since the standard model cannot reduce with gravity, the graviton was invented to allow it to do so. Since the standard model cannot explain or account for gravity (a significant force, even if it is 'weak'), it was basically in a place where, as an explanation, it was failing.

Boom, Gravitons, now the quantum field theory can finally reduce, and thus the graviton took hold.

You still don't even understand what I am arguing because you are retarded. I am arguing that the graviton was created specifically to give the Standard Model the ability to account for gravity.

Jesus you are daft, again, you're completely failing to put up. Gravity is "not yet" a part of the standard model, but the graviton hypothetical is the attempt to add gravity to the standard model, jesus fuck I can't even continue to try explaining this to you, you are either a troll or extremely ignorant.

My guess is you are a variation of a "concern" troll.

Yes the Graviton was invented specifically to give the standard model relevance with gravity, since all observation has failed to do so, and since without gravity the standard model is ultimately a failure (wrong, because it is ignoring a fundamental force, eg eventually it will be considered a "contrived" theory rather than an observational one, though I am hopeful many components will hold through the times).

>>2849572
In fact, to be on topic with FERMILABS:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/madeof/index.html

Read it motherfucker, yes they are trying to add gravity to the standard model and "gravitons" is what they want to use to do so.

Stop being daft as fuck and actually read my posts.

"Particles transmit forces among each other by exchanging force-carrying particles called bosons. These force mediators carry discrete amounts of energy, called quanta, from one particle to another. You could think of the energy transfer due to boson exchange as something like the passing of a basketball between two players.

Each force has its own characteristic bosons:

The gluon mediates the strong force; it “glues” quarks together.
The photon carries the electromagnetic force; it also transmits light.
The W and Z bosons represent the weak force; they introduce different types of decays.
Physicists expect that the gravitational force may also be associated with a boson particle. Named the graviton, this hypothetical boson is extremely hard to observe since, at the subatomic level, the gravitational force is many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three elementary forces."

According to Fermilabs,
> Physicists expect that the gravitational force may also be associated with a boson particle.
(the graviton)

> Physicists expect.

EG they want this shit to be true but have no real evidence of it being so, even Fermilabs talks about gravitons as though they are "expected" to be real. Now stfu.

>>2849572
You're still wrong. Gravitons don't integrate the standard model with gravity even if they do exist. They were hypothesized in parallel to the standard model.

what if the force is so small it doesn't challenge the standard model. i mean small in the dimensional sense, not physically.

>>2849597
Again, it's hypothetical. It's not part of any current model.

>>2849597
Also related from SAME fucking page from Fermilab:

"One essential ingredient of the Standard Model, however, still eludes experimental verification: the Higgs field. It interacts with other particles to give them mass. The Higgs field gives rise to a new force carrier, called the Higgs boson, which has not been observed. Failure to find it would call into question the Standard Model. Experimenters at Fermilab hope to find evidence for the Higgs boson and make further discoveries in the next few years."

LOL?

Exactly what I've been saying this whole fucking thread you daft motherfucker.

Graviton was invented specifically to save the Standard Model because it's not that it "doesn't" account for gravity, it's that it "can't" account for gravity, and it needs to in order to be legitimate.

>>2849615
add a question mark to the end of that. my bad.

>>2849607
More uncited bullshit, I'm pulling shit directly from fermilab motherfucker, stop trolling.

>>2849631
The standard model by definition does not include gravity. You've changed your argument through the thread as well. Good job being retarded.

>>2849572
oh for fuck sake cut the fucking attitude, its a discussion so calm down

yes the graviton was invented as an attempt to combine gravity with the standard model and so far it has been unsuccessful in predicting the gravitational force
thats why it never became a part of the standard model

and its not because we haven't seen the graviton nobody expects to, gravity is so weak will will never directly detect it

however the failure of gravitons is not a failure of the standard model, it works for three forces
it never attempted to be a theory of everything it doesn't even combine the three forces it describes into a single description

its true the standard model doesn't yet include gravity but it was never meant to, gravitons were a theoretical model, they are not an excepted part of it

saying the standard model is wrong because of gravity is like saying Maxwell's equations and general relativity are wrong because they don't include the strong force

well guess what they were never meant to they fill their role

>>2849618
the difference is the higgs field was predicted (calculated) from the standard model, the graviton on the other hand was hypothesised so can't claim the standard model as evidence for its existence like the higgs field

>>2848985
or decreasingly wrong

>>2849652
Gravitons treated as "real" by Fermilabs (within the last one year).

http://conferences.fnal.gov/dmwksp/Talks/Graviton%20Nausheen%20Shah.pdf

http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/results/final/NP/N10A/N10A.pdf

http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/physics/exotic/r2a/20100513.graviton.diphoton/cdf_RS_diphoton.pdf
^
> 95% "confidence level" among the Fermilab particle physicists.

They are actively spending shitloads of money using Tevetron to confirm the Graviton because they believe and want it to exist, it's practically a religious figurehead it's so important to find, and while they can't find it it is being played the fuck down.

"It's not important but we need to spend all this money and time trying to find it but it doesn't mean anything's wrong if we can't!"

lmao.

95% sure.

Yeah that seems like it's not "accepted" when Fermilabs is 95% sure, but I'll trust a high schooler on /sci/ instead of cited sources from relevant sources.

>>2849597
> Physicists expect that the gravitational force may also be associated with a boson particle.
read it again jackass

> Physicists expect.
this does not say
> Physicists claim.

sometimes in physics you need to pick a model or a hypothesis in order to describe something, sometimes you can't derive things
for example the quark model has no direct evince however it fits
Schroedinger's wave equation is not derived either and general relativity too was an attempt to model graviton it to is not derived for gravity its self but is a model

just the same gravitons are an attempt to model gravity on microscopic scales, but its an attempt nobody is saying its the case yet but you need to give it time before we can find out if its correct or not

>>2849706
I have no idea what you are arguing or who you are arguing it to

you're... Against the existence of the graviton?

>>2848927
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

>>2849722
This is like saying, "You're... against the existence of invisible Unicorns?"

Both are equally as verifiable.

>>2849706
in physics its not about wanting things, they either are or they aren't
but sometimes you need to go out on a limb and try something so you can say its not the case and rule something out
but when you rule something out you need to be certain so you can move on
the point is they are trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, you are doing fuck all
and don't claim to be a physicist you just called the particle physicists religious
one of the biggest cases for building the LHC was moving beyond the standard model, nobody is worshipping it

>>2849731
Article is bullshit, the Sumerians knew that the Earth was not flat and they understood our solar system to a decent degree. Pic fucking related, it's a depiction of the solar from ancient Sumeria.

>>2849785
In fact the Ancient Sumerians were the first known civilization to recognize the axial tilt of the Earth and the resulting precession of the equinox over 26,000+ years of time. They figured that shit out even though it's nearly impossible to observe the change in a single life time by just looking at the stars.

>>2849761
How are unfalsifiable concepts in physics less religious than unfalsifiable concepts in philosophy?

I'm a fucking atheist and when someone throws a god at me (regardless of it's an invisible unicorn or an almighty being or a graviton), I want evidence.

They have none but "expect" it is real and want it to be real, just because you claim they don't have human emotions and want various things to be real doesn't mean they actually don't.

lmao.

>>2849757
You've shown again and again that you know nothing about physics, so that doesn't mean much coming from you. It also happens to be fucktarded all on its own without your help.

>>2849800
usually when somebody throws god at me they don't use the word hypothetical
if gravitons and string theory can be used to accurately predict the forces at microscopic and macroscopic levels i will accept them as the prevailing theory and id expect so would everyone else.
also a particle accelerator could turn up missing energy corresponding to a graviton this would not be absolute proof but it would be evidence for something

nobody is claiming gravitons are concrete not even string theorists

Fermilab falsifying data to save their necks in the next budget cut, heh heh...

>>2849810
Shit wasn't coming from me dumbass it was coming from Fermilabs and Wikipedia, you've just been asserting bullshit while I've been documenting my claims, you just don't like them so you religiously react against them.

>>2849844
Most Christians would tell you that they don't KNOW god is real but instead they have faith and EXPECT that he is, just like Fermilabs particle physicists "EXPECT" gravitons but have no evidence for them whatsoever other than "if it's not there then our ideas are wrong."

>>2850045
>Shit wasn't coming from me dumbass
The unicorn comment? Because that's what the post referred to. Derp.

>>2850053
yes but when they say expect you can infer that the theory behind it is wrong
you're grasping at straws, i've never heard a Christian say they didn't know god was real
you're talking bullshit again
again as i've said before sometimes in physics you need a model first before you can prove it

>>2849785
>>2849788
I am curious - how did they figure that shit out?

>>2850067
The Higgs Boson is not more verifiable than an invisible unicorn, it's just needed for shit to work.

Same with graviton.

Herp derp, I'm the one who cited sources for my views dipshit. You just regurgitate bullshit that's unrelated to my actual points.

>>2851240
No idea how they figured out we just have direct evidence which suggests they did. I assume they drew star maps and were very meticulous about it, and deduced all of it from the movement of the constellations, even in tiny amounts over hundreds of years.

>>2848761

don't you forget strangelets!