[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 70 KB, 550x679, 1579975745900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11337225 No.11337225 [Reply] [Original]

How true is this?

>> No.11337228

>>11337225
Pretty true, lots of discoveries were made by doing that.

>> No.11337244
File: 61 KB, 1134x856, Levitrolling.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11337244

>>11337225

>> No.11337260

>>11337225
Comparing results from two different methods that should give you ostensibly the same or similar answers is an old, basic technique that has yielded a lot of information. That being said, such an argument comes off like it reads like the worst of proof by contradiction - I’m not a physicist, but I think students’ objection to this way of thinking is that it feels
1) dubious, since it asks you to nonconstructively assert the existence of a physical thing
2) like a cop out, since you also have to assert that such a thing is conventionally unobservable, which probably sours the mouth of anyone who studies an empirical science
2) skeptical, because it seems like this answer is a convenient construction in order to fit our current understanding instead an argument asserting existence directly, which goes back to 1). The undergrad would ask, “well, why would the answer be so convenient? What if we have more information?”
Again I’m no authority so take my words with salt, but I’m pretty sure the issue with this sort of “compare and fit” argument is a problem for physics since it asserts unobservable existence nonconstructively whereas even in the most nonconstructive proofs, we get the sense that we aren’t just making everything up and are actually exploring a sequence of cascading dominoes that leads to necessary contradiction...well, there are still exceptions, but those are my two cents.

>> No.11337272

show 1 (one) paper that does this

>> No.11337315

>>11337272
Theres too many to choose from...

>> No.11337506

>>11337315
then show first one

>> No.11337823

>>11337244
fuck

>> No.11337872

>>11337225
I miss cool/troll face guys

>> No.11337875

>>11337506
the first one sorting how? alphabetically? by date of publication?

>> No.11337878

>>11337875
by order of it is relevant to your shit argument

>> No.11337943

>>11337878
In the 1930s Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of the neutrino in order to satisfy the conservation of energy for radioactive decay, it was later proven to exist.

"In a letter to the attendees of a physics conference in Tübingen, Germany, Wolfgang Pauli proposes as a "desperate remedy" the existence of a new neutral particle to explain the apparent energy nonconservation in radioactive decays. During the next few years, scientists elaborate Pauli's theory and conclude that the new particle must be very weakly interacting and extremely light."

https://www-numi.fnal.gov/public/story.html

You'll have to find actual papers on it yourself.

>> No.11337958

>>11337943
so what's your point?

anyhow the true history of it, if you did your reading, is that Pauli was reluctant to publish his neutrino theory, and actually Fermi was the one to put forth the theory nearly a decade later. in that case, Pauli was doing his best to avoid making speculative assertions. so i think your point is basically doubly wrong

>> No.11337971

>>11337225
It's different when the numbers represent physical objects.

>> No.11337995

>>11337958
The point is that the numbers didn't add up, so he just made up a particle so they would... and he was right.

>> No.11338043

>>11337225
This is literally the way most numbers were invented.
negative, complex,....

>> No.11339446

>>11337244
Magnetic monopoles arent real and protons do not decay

>> No.11339872

>>11337315
*There are

>> No.11339890

>>11337244
good ol memes

>> No.11339939

>>11339446
Strong opinion. Can you back that up?

>proton hasn't been observed to decay means it never decays
>no magnetic monopolies have been found (apart from topologically isolated ones) meaning they don't exist

>> No.11339998

>>11339939
(Not they same guy) what would it decay to? It has to be something lower energy and the decay has to obey conservation laws?