How would the scientific community validate or invalidate the findings of CERN without throwing equivalent piles of money at peer review to conduct independent experiments?
It seems like the findings are sort-of a religion if you cannot run the experiment yourself due to lack of multinational financing.
Exactly OP. We all know gravitational waves are actually a jewish conspiracy to prove (((Einstein)))'s theories. It is all now accepted science (see /pol/ for references) that Einstein was 100% wrong but jews have to save face somehow so they just poured all this money (not that much money, the so called collider is actually made out of cheap plastic and not functional, it is just for show. It is all CGI in the videos) into faking scientific results.
Not a /pol/ fag.
Do you have a billion dollars to test their results?
I'm not saying their results are correct or incorrect.
What if there is an unknown flaw in their rig?
They are like the Moses or Joseph Smith of science; they bring a message from God and nobody can validate or invalidate it.
Your cognitive dissonance is showing.
do you think CERN is one entity? it's comprised of dozens of companies and countries working on it. they are peer reviewing the experiment itself.
But it is only ONE rig with multiple people looking at the results.
What if there is an unknown flaw?
>muh peer review
Truth is not decided by consensus buddy. The OP's question is simple: how are these results replicated? (They aren't.)
you want to propose a flaw? then where is that flaw? you can't just suggest building a new rig is the only way to discern flaws. there needs to be a tangible aspect filtered out of all other possible factors from building the collider tunnel, calibrating the detector, or even assembling the magnets.
truth is not decided by consensus, but bias is. if you want replicated data then you reproduce them with the lhc. that's what they do; they do run multiple tests.
OP here. I have an interesting link pertaining to lack of replication in science.
bbc.com
I can see skewing of results to shape legal policies that leads to profit as an incentive.
There is a financial bar there as well.
Whoever throws more money at studies whose results sway the consensus their way, gets their way legally.
I don't think CERN is trying to peddle a product (or are they) so that could rule out intentional skewing of results.
But the question still stands.
If you do not have multinational (or eccentric billionaire) financing, how do you replicate their experiment?
supercomputer simulations maybe?
What if you had a scale with very high precision but low accuracy. Multiple tests on that single scale would agree with each other but wouldn't tell you jack about the accuracy.
>sort-of religion
That's not what religion means you fucking donut. It's fetishism at best, but not even when you have hundreds/thousands of people either independent or from tens of different companies working on these projects
Doubting results from the LHC is like denying the holocaust at that point. You can do it all you want but just know you're a retard for doing it
They would be assuming what they are trying to prove (the laws of nature).
no i mean, they simulate the standard conditions then build up to what the magnets do. then simulate the relativistic effects and then the collision dynamics that would occur on the quantum level, although would that be possible?
But what if something happens at those high energies that defies our understanding of the laws of nature as we know them?
Like relativity applying at speeds that were beyond our normal understanding.
they run experiments over and over again and different teams from different nations analyse data independently,
also results are verified in national research centers like DESY, J-PARC or Fermilab.
Try to use Newton's laws to extrapolate relativity.
The best we could hope for is a theory that does agree at the low energies/speeds but does its own thing higher up the scale.
SeeThe problem I have is with the ONE apparatus.
The others don't have the same kick.
The Higgs hasn't been detected at other colliders.
>mentions the holocaust just because
Please be bait.
>you fucking donut
Don't insult my coffee mug ;^)
Already slapped him
see
If the apparatus was damaged in some way, we'll probably get the same "noise" all the time and figure it out.
It would be quite the coincidence for it to stop working just when the higgs boson was detected. And an error that just so happens to look exactly like said boson would be astronomically improbable.
So mostly, we have enough evidence to trust the machine itself works fine.
The way I see it, the accelerator is like a rocket carrying a satellite into space/orbit.
Just because the numerous satellites all used the same rocket to get to space does not mean their various scientific payloads are somehow invalidated.
I guess the real question is how often are the DETECTORS swapped out for independently made DETECTORS?
Would swapping out a detector then calibrating it to agree with the old detector somehow lead to an accumulation (or preservation) of error.
It's one collider, but multiple detectors. ATLAS and CMS can and do compare their results.
And what flaw should there be in colliding protons?
There might be flaws in the detector, but as I said, there are several detectors.
SeeI'm slowly regaining confidence in the results.
What are the benchmarks for calibrating detectors?
Can error still be accumulated/preserved?
Well, all the measurements you do with the detectors have some uncertainties. If, for instance, you measure the track of an electron you get for the positions x +/- error(x).
Another example is the energy calibration of the calorimeters, for this you also have an uncertainty.
At the end, all these uncertainties are taken into account when a result is published.
So the "flaws"/uncertainties of the detector are basically included in the error of the results.
What they discover works with the math.
Also CERN isn't the only particle accelerator. There are thousands. CERN is just the biggest one.
Well, Heisenberg/Resolution aside, at some point I'll have to "trust" that the people doing the experiments are more Druish than myself. It would be cool to go there and see for myself.
I don't like leaning on "Proof by Intimidation(Prestige)"
I still find it worrisome that all of the low-hanging fruit have already been picked (both fiscally low as well as creatively).
You can read all about the calibrations etc, it's all public, for example cds.cern.ch
Bedtime reading...so exhausted.
I'll look for anything I can see fault in.
Way more work than most of the lemmings who regurgitate the "facts" will ever do.
It's been fun.
(sometimes when I see "I'm not a robot" I'm not so sure lol.)