/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2964632
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2011/today11-04-07_CDFpeakresult.html

Still have to wait for confirmation by D0 or the like.

Anyway, there are already a gazillion theory papers, trying to explain the findings... ranging from light-Higgs up to supersymmetry or a weird Z' boson that only couples to certain quarks..

>>2964664
Yes, I know. But That doesnt change the fact that this is awesome new science! As opposed to /sci/ talkig about shitty rumors, THIS IS REAL ACTUAL SCIENCE!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGG

>he actuall wants to discuss science when there are fifty billion better websites with actual intellgient people on them.

How do we know it's not just an error in measurement?

>>2964699
>insulting himself

>>2964632
I'll wait until they confirm.

Also, I'm pretty sure there have been more important discoveries in my lifetime, like the discovery of dark matter.

>>2964710
And dark energy**.

>>2964701
There is a slight possibility it could be, hence more testing is needed. Still though, this is actual science. Actual published resultst, which scientist are actually invetsigating and discussion, yet most news sources havent convered this.

Instead, they covered a shitty rumor about the higgs, that had no basis in reality, had no relaible source, and literally was just a shitty blog some one made up to mess with people. Mass media is dumb as fuck. They woudl rather discuss rumors and conspiracy theories about science, then actual science.

>>2964710
>>2964711
>Implying Dark matter and Dark energy have been discovered

There is still no actual experimental evidence that confirms dark matter and dark energy.

>>2964735
(Introduction to modern cosmology) 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Skip ahead to the part about how we weighed this cluster of galaxies and more importantly the space inbetween, and how we found that while there were spikes of matter at the galaxies, there was still a lot of matter inbetween the galaxies.

Not sure what else you want bro.

>>2964742
So the fact that we needed to completely fabricate something else our model falls apart is evidence of that things existence and not that our model is full of crap?

I guess we just need to have faith in dark matter.

>>2964725

In other words, business as usual

>>2964749
But our model is amazingly accurate as verified by other predictions.

Let me tell of you of a story, and how science really works, as opposed to naive Popper-ism (?).

There was a guy who postulated a theory of the orbits of the 7 known planets. The theory beautifully predicted the observed motions of all of the known 7 planets, except for the 7th, Uranus. It was slightly off.

Scientists were faced with a quandary. Do they throw out this beautiful theory which works in all cases, or do they posit the existence of a yet unobserved planet which altered the observed orbit of Uranus?

In the end, they found that new planet exactly where it was predicted to be by the theory. They called it Neptune.

>>2964707

>>2964699 self-deprecating humor

>>2964742

>>>2964749 made the point I was going to make. The problem with Dark shit, it that we say it exist so our model works. That is not really a logically or scientifically valid method of investigation. According to that logic, we can say the Higgs must exist since it is in our model.

You cannot take a Scientific model as a priori. A model is just that, a model. The model is supposed to model reality, reality is not supposed to model the model.

>>2964777
Indeed. And the most plausible explanation by far is that there really is some shit out there that doesn't emit light and effects gravity. It's not matter in the normal sense. It's not made of the same stuff as hydrogen, helium, and so on. We call it "dark matter" because that's the term that has caught on.

>>2964783
Sonofabitch.
*affects

>>2964764
So your argument is that dark matter exists because of Neptune?

>>2964789
My argument is to not dismiss a theory that works wonderfully in a shitton of observation when a single plausible ad-hoc hypothesis will do.

There's also the fact that the potential dark matter candidates, WIMPs, arise naturally out of previous models, and are therefore not all that ad hoc.

>>2964797
Thank you sir who knows more than I.

>>2964783
>>2964783
Yes, so Dark Matter Exists, like the Higgs exists. It is all about how each field establishes its burdens of proff though.

In particle physics a great deal of proof is required to confirm somthing as "true" (hence it is unknown if the Higgs exists), while the burned of proff in cosmology is a lot less (yes they say Dark shit exists).

It basically boils down to the fact that we cant directly observe space shit, so the burned of proof is much much less in cosmology, and the field is open to much more conjecture.

>>2964783
>is that there really is some shit out there that doesn't emit light

Or it could just be we dont understand how gravity works on the universal scale.

See, thats reasonable, because that would call into question a lot of things, but big things, far away.

Saying we dont know how electromagnetism works and thus there are invisible space crap that we can not detect causes a lot more immediate problems.

>>2964807
No one here is trying to claim anything like the usual burden of scientific proof has been met, but it's a lot more than whatever shit the aether ever had.

>>2964811
I find such an idea highly implausible given what little I know of cosmology.

>>2964794
Im not saying we have to stop using something that works in some cases just because it ends up not working in all cases.

Im just saying that things that are predicted should not be assumed to exist just because they are predicted by something that otherwise works great with the things it predicts that we can test.

The existance of dark matter should be no more (or less) credible than the idea that the theory is not correct, but only 'good enough' to work within a certain threshold of applicable situations and phenomena.

Kind of like how we still map the sky with a geocentric orientation because it works fabulously for looking at stars while standing on the surface of the planet.

>>2964811
One big issue with this is that none of the proposed hypotheses regarding modified gravitational models have worked (such as MOND). On the other hand, observations of structures like the Bullet Cluster have brought out strong evidence of dark matter.

>>2964824
>Im just saying that things that are predicted should not be assumed to exist just because they are predicted by something that otherwise works great with the things it predicts that we can test.

But that's a large part of science, extrapolation. Example: Neptune. The key is not extrapolating "too much". In other words, inductive reasoning.

>>2964824
Or the way that newtonian physics works well, up to a point.

We still use those sorts of things, you conveniently forget that the predictions on 'how the universe works" (static and never changing) that came from them are discarded.

In much the same way our predictions on how the entire universe works (big bang, entropy, etc) could one day be discarded, while the ideas that lead to them could still work well in the scope of the things we were using them to look at.

>>2964807
The conjetures are still heavly based on science and reality though. Didn't mean to imply they weren't. The ideas of dark are still the "best" we can do for now.

>>2964794
This is the same reasoning that leads some to think that the "graviton must exist". However, It is often the case that a theory works for all things but a few "anomalies". Special relativity for example, could just be an anomaly of classical mech. The solution however wasn't to slight modify classical mechanics. The Anomaly actually needed a new physics, which would approximate to classical mech at low speeds.

>>2964832
Most of our physics, although it works in its range, will probably turn out to be fundemnatlly wrong.

That is the way science works, it changes.

>>2964836
>Special relativity for example, could just be an anomaly of classical mech.
Not in the same sense. We have observationally confirmed SR to quite a high degree, from the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, to f'ing GPS. Saying the Bullet Cluster is a "fluke" really isn't the same thing.

>>2964845
Ack, GR*.

>>2964829
Science is a tool. Humans use a lot of tools, such as back scratches and thermobaric bombs.

Its useful because it demands a certain kind of scrutiny.

Making assumptions is fine, but that's not science, that's humans thinking stuff up. Science can then be used to prove those ideas.

But when you try and stretch and expand what science is to allow for 'built in' imagination, it loses its edge and effectiveness for what it should be, and you get these huge systems based on faith and conjecture.

Im a skeptic, a real one. That means i am a 'radical empiricist'. The fact that so little of my every day world is proven to me and i have to be accustomed to using things that i dont trust to be 'true' but trust to 'work well enough' allows me to ironically be much more open to alternative explanations or ideas, and more willing to discard old ones the minute something that looks more useful comes along.

I honestly see a 'church of science' developing where ideas are widely accepted and taken on faith while being proclaimed 'science' with out the demanding proof that science should be demanding, where anyone with alternative explanations is branded a heretic and threatened with ostracization. And it worries me.

Ideas like dark matter are one of the things that bother me. It seems like everyone has heard of it, and the more people hear about it and the more the idea circulates the more accepted it becomes based entierly on its own familiarity to people. Thats dangerous.

Ill believe in invisible matter when i can see it ~_^

>>2964859
>Ideas like dark matter are one of the things that bother me. It seems like everyone has heard of it, and the more people hear about it and the more the idea circulates the more accepted it becomes based entierly on its own familiarity to people. Thats dangerous.
>Ill believe in invisible matter when i can see it ~_^
So... not a believer of atomic theory are we? And no, that wasn't an asinine remark. Your remark that you'll believe it when you see it was asinine.

>>2964845
>Misses the point

The point was that Classical Mech worked great (macroscopically) excpet for the fast shit. But instead of trying to incoperate fast shit into Classical mech, it just requires a whole new physics.

Said may end up being same case for alleged "dark matter". Physics more fundmental then GR, that ends up explaining dark matter, and approximates to darkmatterless GR in the cases it needs to.

> I honestly see a 'church of science' developing where ideas are widely accepted and taken on faith while being proclaimed 'science' with out the demanding proof that science should be demanding, where anyone with alternative explanations is branded a heretic and threatened with ostracization. And it worries me.

Of course, this statement can be shot down simply by looking at string theory, which is praised as much as it is criticized.

>>2964868
And all of that is in a general sense right. I'm disagreeing over the specifics. I think the current situation is much closer to Netwonian with Uranus and Neptune than Newtonian to GR with the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

>>2964864
I believe its useful in that i can use it to explain why my electricity works and why certain materials behave in a certain way and others behave in other ways.

I do not need to believe its true beyond that.

So if you ask if im certain that we understand what matter is really made of, no. And i dont need to be.

>>2964859
>ideas are widely accepted and taken on faith while being proclaimed 'science'

NO. Even the most "relaxed" burned of proof in science, is still extremely very well thought out and check against reality countless times. We are just arguing the "particlaurs" about the scrutity of the burned off proof in this thread. There are different requirements depending on the field.

However, the burdned of proof for any branch of physics/astronomy, is still far greater than any non-scientist can imagine. No theory in all of science is ever just accepted by "faith" , that is not science. U trollin?

>>2964884

>>2964869
Yes, but string thoery in general is not considered "physics" by the physics community. It is still akin to a fringe group, fancy maths, or a philosophy. Until it starts producing results and verifyable predictions, it is not considered science. The only people who give it any merit, are people working in the field, and stupid people who no nothing of science.

It is no way consider a "pillar" of physics, or even a well established branch of physics. It is more a "special topics" kinda thing, few learn it. It usually is not required in order to be a physicst, particle physics, or nuclear physicst. As opposed to somthing like Quantum Electrodyanmics, which is well esatblished, has been verifited limitless times, and is required of all particle and nuclear physicists.

It seems fairly obvious that dark energy/dark matter are akin to the aether in the overall evolution of physics.

They're conditional hypotheses that are necessary given our current understanding but we're always actively working to undermine them with experimental evidence if we can.

Also, the 'degrees of acceptance' feature of scientific progress is just part and parcel with the methodology. The longer a useful idea goes without being refuted the more likely it is to 'ossify.' It's not necessarily a bad thing, either, since it frees us to explore farther and maybe set up experiments which contradict our cherished ideas.

>>2964884
The idea that the sun was the center of the solar system only ever caught on because galileo was a good speaker.

>>2964918
... And evidence. Lots and lots of evidence.

>>2964916
>'ossify'

There are general areas of physics that are precieved as dead, becuase they have fully explain all phenomia in there range of validity, and there are no open questions regarding the fundmentals of the theory.

Classical Mechanics for example, is usually considered a dead branch of physics. It explains very well all phenomia in its range of validity. There really are no open questions regarding the basic structure of its physics. The only questions that remain usually deal with partiuclar approxmations methods, which actually is just a gap in our general mathematical ability, not out physics.

Similar could be said for basic quantum mechanics and special relativity. The fundmentals of QFT are complete (or near complete), how QFT actually applies to our universe (the standard model) is not complete.

>>2964977
Also, one day some phenomia may come along which the 'ossified theories' dont explain, in there given range of validty. We could never exclude this possibility. However until then, they are can be thought of as pretty much set-in stone.

>>2964977
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

You realize that Relativistic Mechanics supplanted Classical Mechanics, I hope. The situation with what we currently accept in physics is entirely the same, we're simply more likely to throw away new ideas than old ones. (Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but a methodological convention nonetheless).

It's about time the Standard Model got the banhammer. It's been there for ages, and it's pretty shitty at doing much of anything.

>>2964977
That pic makes me rage.

>>2964990
>You realize that Relativistic Mechanics supplanted Classical Mechanics

Yes, but classcical mech is still used, for things going slow and of a certain size. It has a known range of validity, and within that range it works beautifully. It has always agreed with experiment 100%, and predicted all phenomia
(within its range of validity). Hence it is 'dead' as far as fundmental research of the theory goes.

The Full "Classical Mech" is a pillar of physics, and all physicsts are required to learn it, simply becuase it works for most everyday things.

>we're simply more likely to throw away new ideas than old ones

Yes, if the old ideas are known to work within a range of validity, then we seldom, if ever, through them out completely.

Why would you through out somthing that works? That would be some shitty logic. Science keeps the things that work, and adds new things that work. It discards things that dont work.

>>2964990
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis

News science gets built off old science. WOW, realy fucking ground breaking...LMFAO.

Sounds like a very shitty and obvious statement to build a whole thesis on. No wonder people say philosophy is a fail. Anyone who doesn't understand the whole "sholders of giants things", shouldnt even be in college.

What's next, a thesis that "proclaims people dance to music". Realy fucking breakthrough philosophers! LMAO

>>2965029
>Why would you through out somthing that works? That would be some shitty logic.
No, actually it's perfectly reasonable logic given contradictory evidence. The decision to favor the elimination of newer ideas is simply a convention that science has come to as the methodology has evolved. It isn't written in stone, and it isn't based in logic.

>old ideas are known to work within a range of validity
I'll just point out that this is, again, a methodological convention. The convention of treating the older, failed theory as an instrument with suitable restrictions of scope. Again, it isn't based in logic, but expedience.

>>2965052
Your reading comprehension seems to be flawed. There are two main points to the Duhem-Quine thesis:

1) Logically speaking, a negative experimental result doesn't merely repudiate the hypothesis you wish to test, but rather must be taken holistically. You are essentially making the tacit assumption that everything that has been done up to any given point in science is accepted when you do so. (see also: my points about choosing to discard new ideas over old ones)

2) Experimental interpretations are 'theory-laden' in the sense that you must, again, assume the validity of current theory a priori in order to make an interpretation of a given piece of experimental data. You are, essentially, seeing what you see in the language of the models you already accept.

These aren't fundamental problems in any sense, but they do eliminate some of the traditional naive notions about the justification of scientific progress and experimental data. If nothing else, the notion of verification is seriously in doubt.

>>2965062
Examples: I know equation 'a' works for system 'b'. There is direct experimental evidence of this.

So we use equtaion 'a' when talking about system 'b'. You are saying this is not logical train of thought? That it would be just as reasonable to find a equation 'c' that works as well? Is that really what you are saying?

>>2965088
>the notion of verification is seriously in doubt

No notion of verification? Have fun in your world of supreme-skeptism and no notion of truth.

Sounds like the typical needless philosopical musings. Arguing about nonsense, in a system you constructed that has no truth-functional propositional logic. Please tell me, what you plan to get accomplished which such a system?

>>2965100
Theories are not logically validated by experimental evidence: that being the problem of induction. Our attribution to theories that survive 'trial-by-fire' a greater measure of validity is simply built in to how we practice science by how the discipline has evolved.

As to the comment about using Classical Mechanics as a model for local mechanics, I see no expressly logical reason that the Newtonian model is the only possible useful instrument or that it is somehow impervious to obsolescence. Using it is certainly 'reasonable' but it is in no way logical.

>>2965126
There are many easy experiences in our lives where induction fails us, and the logical point is simply that nothing about science makes it immune to this problem. Moreover, given our continuing descent in science to the realm out of what can possibly be considered 'intuition' we are ever more in danger of getting away from the comfort zone, so to speak. Revisiting the assumptions of the Scientific process seems like good exercise to me.

>>2965171
>Theories are not logically validated by experimental evidence.

>Revisiting the assumptions of the Scientific process

Your train of thought is "philosophical", not "scientific". You make an argument againist "science" in general, but the argment you construct cannot be deemed valid or invalid according to your system of reasoing. Nor can your argument be deemed as a nesscary course of action, or just some bullshit you "feel". The system you construct in not in your favor, nor it it in the favor of the scientific method.

It basically helps no one, nor provides any new insignt into anything. All you are doing is a big circle-jerk, where no one gets off. All you are doing is playing games.

If you stumble upon somthing 'better then science', that provides us with all the shit science have provided us, then by all means let's see it. Until then you statements, while nice things to comtemplate, and im sure fun to thing about while drunk, end up being uttelry meaningless, and unfruitful, just like most of philosophy.

Although, I do understand what you are saying, and your points are well made, there is no point arguing with you, cause we could not come to a concenus on 'nesscary assumptions and reasoning'. If you deny truth and validity, there is no discussion or argument. You are constructing a religion, not a logically consistant form of reasonig. Good day.

>>2965199

DAMMNIT I WISH THESE ASSHOLE WOULD JUST HURRY UP AND CONFIRM THIS SHIT ALREADY!

I CAN'T SIT HERE WONDERING ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE STANDARD MODEL FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS.

>>2965199
You sound...upset. I'm sorry I broke your toy, but here let me see if I can at least help you get the point.

Science is a human institution, and it's grown and changed for as long as it's been around. This isn't a logical statement, it's an empirical (dare I say, historical) one that I think is fairly uncontroversial. Confusing this statement with a "repudiation of science" or with "science-skepticism" is absurd.

All I'm contemplating in this discussion is that we're embarking ever more on an investigation of things (like the LHC data, quantum gravity, superstring theory, etc.) where our "traditional" way of thinking about and talking about science is quite possibly getting in our way. That's all.

Also, it should be noted that most important evolutions in scientific understanding are accompanied by or are preceded by philosophical shifts. So, this year's "unfruitful and meaningless mental masturbation" may be next year's common sense.

>>2965088
Luckily such ideas of scientific relativism are bullshit.

Also, I love this guy:
>>2965199
I'd like to repeat what Feynman has once said. In order to make a claim, you must first allow something to be true. My interpretation of what he's getting at is that all claims are made in some axiomatic framework. Science is merely one such axiomatic framework. You can't dismiss science using science, and you can't justify science using science.

Of course, if you disagree with the fundamentals of science, then I consider you insane.

>>2965233
>All I'm contemplating in this discussion is that we're embarking ever more on an investigation of things (like the LHC data, quantum gravity, superstring theory, etc.) where our "traditional" way of thinking about and talking about science is quite possibly getting in our way. That's all.
That is a substantially different claim than your earlier claim. You made a rather interesting claim about falsification. Let me reproduce it here.

>1) Logically speaking, a negative experimental result doesn't merely repudiate the hypothesis you wish to test, but rather must be taken holistically. You are essentially making the tacit assumption that everything that has been done up to any given point in science is accepted when you do so. (see also: my points about choosing to discard new ideas over old ones)
This is a rather naive view of falsification that was never really in style. It vaguely reminds me of the (wrong) ideas of Popper. Falsification doesn't work that way in actual science. Instead, when you get a piece of falsifying evidence, you don't assume that all of the theories in existence are true except for the one which you're testing. When you get that piece of falsifying evidence, you have to take all of scientific knowledge as a whole, and figure out which is the weakest link, and call into question that link. Perhaps that one piece of evidence is sufficient to throw it out, and perhaps you're left in a situation where you don't know what to throw out and you go gather more evidence.

ITT: more proof that mathematics > physics

>No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
>Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
>A theory is something nobody believes, except the person who made it. An experiment is something everybody believes, except the person who made it
>If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.