Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Researchers Orbit A Muon Around An Atom, Confirm Physics Is Broken


Fweethawt

Recommended Posts

They can orbit a muon around an atom, but they still can't cure the common cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, the words, 'physics is broken' shouldn't be taken to mean that everything is wrong in physics.

 

Nor should these words be taken as a call for the complete rejection of all 20th and 21st century physics.  

The LIGO results confirming General Relativity still stand.  The multiple confirmed predictions of Inflationary theory (re: the Big Bang) still stand.  The confirmed prediction of the Higgs boson still stands.   A new explanation of the proton's nature won't totally trash what still stands any more than Einstein's work on gravity totally trashed Newton's earlier work.  That didn't happen.  No reputable scientist called for the complete rejection of Newtonian physics when Einstein's work surpassed it.  NASA still uses Newtonian physics, because it still works in a majority of applications.  Einsteinian physics just happens to be better in different applications.  

 

So, let's be clear about about this.

Scientists know that the Standard model of particle physics cannot be a complete description of nature.  That's a given.  It does it's job well enough (just as Newtonian physics does) but it falls short of accurately describing how protons behave.  There always was an expectation that one day the Standard model would have to be superseded by a better one.  In the light of the proton radius problem, that day could soon be upon us.  When that day comes, the Standard model will be accorded the same place in physics currently enjoyed by Newton's work on gravity.  A helpful and useful tool for understanding nature, but not the best one. You don't consign what is helpful and useful to the trash bin of history.  Nor do you totally reject the helpful and useful things you've learned.  Instead, you build on what has gone before, retaining that which works and finding better ways of understanding how nature works.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, the words, 'physics is broken' shouldn't be taken to mean that everything is wrong in physics.

 

Wrong. This means we should all use the Pan Theory instead, because it solves everything for all science. Suggesting that we should be refining the Standard Model instead of using the Pan Theory to explain all physics shows you're just being closed-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just for the record, the words, 'physics is broken' shouldn't be taken to mean that everything is wrong in physics.

Wrong. This means we should all use the Pan Theory instead, because it solves everything for all science. Suggesting that we should be refining the Standard Model instead of using the Pan Theory to explain all physics shows you're just being closed-minded.

Here! Here!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is so exciting to read. I don't understand half of it but it brings me great joy to know that humans can discover so much more about the universe than our ancestors could ever imagine in their wildest myths

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muons play stretchy stretchy with protons. Looks like we have an exception to some theory now, eh? Probably not the end of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As already stated, most who work in the field understand and readily accept that while the standard model is currently the best theory available, it is quite limited and incomplete at best. One of the glaring pitfalls is that it cannot account for gravity.

 

We do not even need to point to rather esoteric scenarios like the one mentioned in this article. In fact, we do not have exact analytical solutions to standard atoms beyond one electron systems. This has been an issue that chemists have struggled to improve upon since shortly after the Schrodinger equation heralded contemporary quantum chemistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Life was so much easier when we just had the flat earth and firmament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't everybody just hate it when that happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just for the record, the words, 'physics is broken' shouldn't be taken to mean that everything is wrong in physics.

 

Wrong. This means we should all use the Pan Theory instead, because it solves everything for all science. Suggesting that we should be refining the Standard Model instead of using the Pan Theory to explain all physics shows you're just being closed-minded.

 

 

No, everyone does not need to change their physics to the Pan Theory as yet. Particle physics is based upon a very large body of theoretical tenets, most of which have been very difficult to refute, for those who might try.

 

From Wiki:  "The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known. It was developed throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as a collaborative effort of scientists around the world."

 

The assertion that the charge radius of a charged particle (a fermion) does not, or cannot change, is less than one spittle in a full spittoon. Maybe a dozen ad hoc hypothesis could be proposed as an explanation concerning how this phenomena could occur. Maybe one or more of these hypothesis could have some validity. No, it will take a lot more than this minor observation to dump over the whole spittoon or break it, even if the spittoon is only made of ceramics.

 

Something strong like a hammer or bullet could shatter the spittoon, but another spittle more or less, or a bee bee shot from afar, won't do it. 

 

The types of experiments that might break the standard model, by a hammer so-to-speak:   Suppose there was an experiment that could show that nucleons are mechanically connected and therefore there would be no such thing as the strong or weak nuclear forces, and another experiment which could somehow show that the electro-magnetic force and gravity are both the result of the field flow of a background particulate field. These experiments all together would indicate that there would be no-such-thing as a pulling force-at-a-distance. If this was the accepted conclusion then the standard model of particle physics would be replaced. Of course right now this only involves extreme supposition sad.png  

 

And that's only part of it; particle theory is only a small part of physics as a whole. To say physics is broken is like thinking of throwing the baby out with a little dirty bath water based upon some relatively minuscule experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

 

You selected only the highlighted portion, leaving out such important points as 'experimental confirmation', 'success in explaining' and 'huge and continued success in providing experimental predictions.'

 

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagneticweak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known. It was developed throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as a collaborative effort of scientists around the world.[1] The current formulation was finalized in the mid-1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the top quark (1995), the tau neutrino (2000), and the Higgs boson (2012) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as the "theory of almost everything".

Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions, it does leave some phenomena unexplained and it falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the universe (as possibly described by dark energy). The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses).

 

So an uninformed reader of only your comments would come away with the false impression that the Standard Model of particle physics...

 

*  Isn't experimentally confirmed  - When it is.

 

*  Isn't successful in explaining a wide variety of experimental results  - When it is.

 

*  Hasn't demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions  - When it has.

.

.

.

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

 

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

 

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantheory,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

 

You selected only the highlighted portion, leaving out such important points as 'experimental confirmation', 'success in explaining' and 'huge and continued success in providing experimental predictions.'

 

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagneticweak, and strong nuclear interactions, as well as classifying all the subatomic particles known. It was developed throughout the latter half of the 20th century, as a collaborative effort of scientists around the world.[1] The current formulation was finalized in the mid-1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the top quark (1995), the tau neutrino (2000), and the Higgs boson (2012) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as the "theory of almost everything".

Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions, it does leave some phenomena unexplained and it falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the universe (as possibly described by dark energy). The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses).

 

So an uninformed reader of only your comments would come away with the false impression that the Standard Model of particle physics...

 

*  Isn't experimentally confirmed  - When it is.

 

*  Isn't successful in explaining a wide variety of experimental results  - When it is.

 

*  Hasn't demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions  - When it has.

.

.

.

Before you post any more selective misrepresentations, would you please explain to us why you cannot accept what others can?

 

If not here, then in a thread specifically dedicated to that purpose.

 

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I don't know your real name but i almost consider us friends. Of course you know mine. If you trust me, e-mail me, or  PM me and tell me your name, It's been a long enough time my friend.

 

Anyway in my own theory, quarks are not real particles. Just a mere fantasy.   I remember a quote, long ago,  from Murry Gell-Mann where he said the same thing . Since his quote is no longer available on the net I will paraphrase it. He said: think of quarks as part of a mathematical system in physics that seems to work. One should not consider quarks as real particles.

 

As far your other comments go:

 

Your quote:

 

*  Isn't experimentally confirmed  - When it is.

 

It has been experimentally confirmed, true, but all observations are based upon interpretations; Interpretations usually have their basis in theory.

 

*  Isn't successful in explaining a wide variety of experimental results  - When it is.

 

Again, the answer would be the same as above.

 

*  Hasn't demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions  - When it has.

 

It has continued to be observationally successful  in line with prevailing theory, but which could be interpreted otherwise.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

"I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would certainly be fascinated to understand exactly why you think as you do."

 

Bottom line is that I think reality is far too simple to be placed into theories which have a plethora of complication to them. I wholeheartedly believe in the principle of parsimony. 

 

OK, I will give it a try, I will start I new thread and hopefully it might be valuable or interesting to others besides sarcasm and rancor.

 

But if the rancor becomes too great I will back off as usual and only deal with PM's. Hopefully others will be as interested as you seem to be BAA. Look for my new post. I will put it up in a day or so :)

 

with best regards, Forrest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.