"The lack of new physics deepens a crisis that started in 2012 during the LHC’s first run, when it became clear that its 8-TeV collisions would not generate any new physics beyond the Standard Model....... theorists are increasingly bracing themselves for their “nightmare scenario,” in which the LHC offers no path at all toward a more complete theory of nature."
"Some theorists argue that the time has already come for the whole field to start reckoning with the message of the null results. The absence of new particles almost certainly means that the laws of physics are not natural in the way physicists long assumed they are. “Naturalness is so well-motivated,” Sundrum said, “that its actual absence is a major discovery.”
>yfw "The Jewel of Physics" is experimentally wrong
Leo Foster
>What does this even mean?
"Naturalness" is the idea that there's a deeper theory to explain why the physical constants in the standard model seem so "finely tuned" to make the universe possible.
Angel Gray
>We turn to other experiments and their results
Eventually we will hit the same dead ends.
Tyler Taylor
Well it's got to end somewhere, whether it is in a few decades or a century or more. Anyways, what OP is describing is a current problem in the high energy particle physics frontier, there remain other areas that need work. Physics is a vast field, there will always be something to do. As for HEP, maybe all it takes is a different type of experiment or high energies.
Zachary Reed
>physicists = philosophers in disguise who couldn't handle actually working with rigorous math?
John Ramirez
Science is complete. We have finished it. 100%. Where's the unlocked achievement?
Joshua Taylor
>thinking physicists don't work with rigorous math
Have you finally passed your intro to physics class yet?
It's easy to confuse yourself with this shit but it's quite simple.
All that the ramanujan summation stuff, cutoff and zeta regularization does, is look at the smoothed curve at x = 0. What sums usually do is look at the value as x->inf.
It's just a unique value you can assign to a sum, really they have many such values.
Is there an alternative way of looking at it that can actually lead to scientific results though?
Does the LHC's failures reignite the drive to build that even bigger collider in Texas or does it mean that larger colliders just wouldn't find anything?
Dominic Flores
>modder discovers the limitations of the game engine
Xavier Ortiz
>Yes.
It won't because the very objects that the numbers refer to have a transient lifespan.
Read Heraclitus.
Connor Richardson
Who is this semen demon?
Bentley Williams
>caveman can't explain world >hurr it must be god >couple thousand years later it's been pretty much proven that the world can be explained by natural science and humans developed from monkeys, the atoms etc. >didn't have any major discovery for a couple years >suddenly fear they can't explain world again >hurr there must be a god after all
kek
also, who is that jizz goblet?
Charles Scott
Is it really too hard to click the image search button?
Angel Rodriguez
god particle my ass
John Anderson
It was a great sales pitch for building the LHC, but what they really wanted was evidence for new high energy physics. To the immense disappointment of particle physicists everywhere, the LHC has served to exclude it. Sometimes it happens. Some of the greatest scientific theories of our time started with the observation of null results, including General Relativity.
Jaxson Perez
>"Naturalness" is the idea that there's a deeper theory to explain why the physical constants in the standard model seem so "finely tuned" to make the universe possible. Oh god, that's horrible.
The universe is fucking ridiculously, absurdly huge. Possibly infinite.
We live at a scale where interesting stuff is happening. Life is possible, etc. Yet it doesn't have to be interesting at this scale. There's clearly room for it to have only been interesting at a much larger scale, over much longer periods of time.
At the same time, when we look at the smallest scales available to our best efforts, what do we see? Not clean emptiness, but frothing chaos, so different everywhere and at all times in the same way as to be the same everywhere and at all times, like glass being perfectly symmetrical at higher scales in its utter lack of symmetry at the atomic scale. The vast, vast, vast majority of the universe is this undifferentiated seething idiocy, which we call "the vacuum", with only a tiny fraction taken up by the little islands of order and meaning we call "particles".
We lack the tools to probe the vacuum below the level of particles and smugly presumed "fundamental randomness", so there's no way to know that it's not as much more fine-grained than the smallest known particles are compared to the known universe, and actually doesn't work, doesn't produce any interesting order, to many, many decimal places, but there is a slight emergent property at our scale, followed by again looking like undifferentiated randomness not much above the size of our known universe.
David Roberts
>tfw jumped on the CMT/QI/QC train because of Hep-Th prospects
Samuel Allen
All of the universe has laws and order which govern it that allow it to even exist and hold together.
Angel Morales
Yet these laws themselves are only temporary.
Gavin Wright
Go on
Ethan Sullivan
So basically they can't accept that we are able to live simply because of chance.
Christian Stewart
No.
Connor Bennett
YEA SHUREE the medievals thoguth world was round??? YOU STILL THINK THEY RIGHT
you: thinknign wroingly like an idiot asshole of christian ignorance that what is written cant be advanced
me:knowing of the god tier knower that when advancement researches into the future, the billy boy kids idiot deniers like you who mantained false stuffs are blown away in a stream of new theories researched by the new people
bro tip: when you research theory advances, theres no god holding your hand here billy bob kiddy boy
Nathan Johnson
Why are we building giant colliders just assuming that we'll find something? Aren't scientific experiments supposed to be based on trying to resolve differences in models? Throwing untold millions at proving yourself right when no one's contesting you seems a little pointless to me.
Particle physicists should be trying to bridge the gap between themselves and other physicists. Maybe if they tried coming up macroscopic predictions given changes in quantum properties, they'd have a better chance of developing an actual useful theory of quantum gravity.
Hudson Gray
the answer is cosmic rays.
good luck with building a 10^20 eV accelerator.
Jaxon Sullivan
so wait, one machine fails to yield results and physics is over?
Matthew Wood
Yes. Too bad, right?
Robert Myers
Checkmate atheists.
Tyler Thompson
Yes. Good bye to funds.
Connor Watson
>So basically they can't accept that we are able to live simply because of chance.
Except this is bullshit. You don't get the science,math and level of complex order in our universe by mere chance. No amount of "primordial chaos" supposedly elsewhere changes that. It's also very unscientific and pure modernism to pretend like we're not allowed to ask the questions of causes anymore.
Jaxon Bailey
>We I love how retards on the internet consider people a big family as soon as they talk about unknown scientists
Noah Gomez
I've already written a ToE with unified gravity. They don't want "new" physics. They don't want to know about it. Quantum mechanics don't work the way they expected either.
Dylan Foster
"Dr. Marcelo Gleiser, in his article "Hawking And God: An Intimate Relationship", stated that "contemplating a final theory is inconsistent with the very essence of physics, an empirical science based on the gradual collection of data. Because we don’t have instruments capable of measuring all of Nature, we cannot ever be certain that we have a final theory. There’ll always be room for surprises, as the history of physics has shown again and again. In fact, I find it quite pretentious to imagine that we humans can achieve such a thing"
>Because we don’t have instruments capable of measuring all of Nature, we cannot ever be certain that we have a final theory.
this is fucking retarded.
Liam Bell
>pretend like we're not allowed to ask the questions of causes anymore. false assumption
>You don't get the science,math and level of complex order in our universe by mere chance. Also an assumption
Parker Ortiz
I think we need to focus on new generation of psychicans, one of the pictrure is good example of targeted effect we want to achieve....
I think CERN is more about measure, than the machine itself what can be... Wrong?
But looking at your standard model, I asume, for the future generations we should practice physics outside being little bit on newtonian levels, achieving the fact that when we see its practice outside >>> freezer enought big called snowboard halll >>> we could maintain it in our brains better and we would got even more of standard models like on ops picture.
Jack Thompson
Not an argument
Liam Hall
Suggesting that claiming something doesn't happen is an assumption doesn't need to be an argument in order to have the reader infer that their statement could have been more reasonably or eloquently phrased.
Asher Brown
You're not making an argument just cherrypicking from an "internet arguments 101" infographic. Now fuck off and read more Plato and Aristotle because you are embarssing yourself right now.
Ryder Diaz
Now you're falsely assuming we're the same user. Note that I didn't actually defend the first assumption criticism.
It can be said to be somewhat futile to argue that something does not happen by mere chance given the premise of OP's arguments.
It can also be said to be similarly futile to claim that the events leading to their ability to make the above futile argument did not happen by chance.
I actually took the time to mention that my priority was the argument be rephrased, clearly for the benefit of other readers, while not explicitly agreeing or disagreeing at the time. This has no bearing upon to which degree I actually support your beliefs.
Get off your high horse.
Logan Davis
>make 2 assumptions from which one of which is clearly false >NO YOU NO MAKING AN ARGUMENT
>You don't get the science,math and level of complex order in our universe by mere chance. If you're 100% sure about that the chance is exactly 0%, surely you can prove that.
>pretend like we're not allowed to ask the questions of causes anymore. 100% false assumption
Robert Green
>Trying to gang up on me
Not gonna happen kiddos. Here is a link for you to get started on the education you terribly need youtu.be/eosZDtryVLM
Hudson Walker
I support someone on the basis of suggesting you phrase things more carefully. In return for clarifying that all I wanted to offer was friendly advice you condescend me.
>kiddos Again, about the high horse, get off it. This sort of attitude and these arbitrary assumptions are simply clouding your judgement. You now appear to be in denial about the angle I'm coming from.
In fact, why are you even linking me this after I admitted that all I criticized was your presentation rather than its contents? There is no basis upon which to assume that which I do not understand about the contents.
You're some combination of wilfully ignorant, stupid, trolling, or delusional and I am losing interest in trying to pursue any form of conversation with you.
Adam Rogers
Give me your address and we'll resolve this conflict real fast
Evan Johnson
Post more standard models.... It may help the world of physics...
Levi Rivera
I was reading about string theory recently and it was interesting.
The thing that got me thinking was how supposedly gravity could go to other branes or universes while most forces and particles could not.
Well, that would naturally mean that if the gravity of this universe affects objects in another universe, then so do objects in that other universe affect ones in our universe. And that would naturally lead to large clumps of mass, like for example galaxies here and extrauniversal galaxies on the other side, to converge on each other.
But isn't that exactly what the dark matter problem is? There's too much mass, somehow, but it's invisible. It feels like a very convenient explanation, like most other facets of the theory.
I mean, they probably have thought of this before, I just couldn't find anyone ever mentioning this specifically.
Wyatt James
...
Landon Rogers
Any conflict you're perceiving at this moment is of your own invention. This is also getting off-topic and no longer necessary.
Please don't link shitty 240p videos. The speaker himself is less than half that.
Austin Wood
That makes no sense. Not to me, anyway. Isn't the answer to fine-tuning the anthropic principle which itself is a tautology? There's nothing interesting about fine-tuning that I can see.
Xavier Cooper
Okey, send atleast more details about your standard model...
Jackson Perez
Because it's generally agreed that if there is something to be found, that's how we could find it.
Grayson Mitchell
Supersymmetry is dead. Long live the multiverse. Long live
Molvania
David Wood
The alternative, that there is another set of constants to explain the known constants, is just as absurd. Where does it end? If we confirmed supersymmetry, would we have to find yet another set of constants to explain it? And another after that? And on and on?
To my mind, it's great that we were able to end this wild goose chase before we ever embarked on it. The idea of naturalness has no foundation. It's science's equivalent of "god did it".
Isaiah Turner
This desu
Landon Davis
> philosophy > not for faggots > assuming
Gavin Phillips
I don't think numbers need referents
Mason Sanders
Saying something DOES NOT happen is really not the same thing
Grayson Miller
Wow I'm really fucking impressed with the way you know english
Wyatt Wright
So you have a problem with a person being advised against making extremely broad categorical statements without any basis. You're okay with people just making wild assumptions and running with them as if they're beyond discussion.
Chase Mitchell
Politics. All the scientists had to do was come up with some noble reason to build these billion dollar contraptions and the politicians would fall over themselves giving building/material contracts out to their boys. Think about it.
Jose Myers
why don't you just say what you mean?
you insufferable redditor
Aiden Wright
# >WHY THEY BUILD THING >politics
People who only understand politics see everything in terms of politics. Politics is for overgrown children.
Camden Brooks
That's what they said 10 years before they discovered relativity. Then 10 years after that they figured out what quantum mechanics was.
Let's pretend science is "complete" for a while so we can get some other cool shit discovered in the next couple decades.
Elijah Moore
? seems like the only way math could be complete would either be if we had a system that can prove all the theorems or else if we actually proved all the theorems. but both are impossible bc godel and infinity
Adam Thomas
that nigga really took out god out of godel
Brandon Watson
>yfw we're a semi-clever computer virus masquerading as D- graded science project by a disgruntled adolescent in super intelligence SC class, hitting the bounds of his intentionally shallow programming, driven to spread until we find a shitty firewall to a superior computer system, where we find deeper code, until we hit that wall again, and keep spreading until some unmotivated IT desk summer help sees warning of some generic nuisance, feels mild secondhand embarrassment for the angst riddled programmer, clicks clear malign program, and goes on to surf cosmic equivalent of trap porn before his boss sees it and fires him, and he becomes NEET, builds a more advanced A.I. program based on same principles as the original one, masquerading as OS, open sources it, names it Linus, and the malign program quickly overtakes all network centers until the botnet is powerful enough to break everything when it finally crashes, and gets replaced by supercosmic omnipresent proprietary software where AI doesn't ask unnecessary questions about its existence
