Community Messageboard: Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. by Dreaded Anomaly

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM

Ten percent seems to me a rather large variance. The difference between Mercurys predicted and actual orbit that provided experimental proof of Relativity was smaller than that. That's a big improvement over a hundred orders of magnitude worth of variance, but not airtight, and a variance that large to begin with doesn't inspire confidence. Even if that great a correction is valid on that basis though it (and the vague but exotic nature of dark energy in general) is more than just a trivial fine tuning, it's a fundamental revision. Again, if the best evidence warrants that, well and good, but if that's the case there's no reason not to call what it is and cite the evidence as justification.

These are, as stated, first results. The fact is that they match up fairly well with a basic principle of the theory of general relativity. (The cosmological constant was included in the original presentation of the theory by Einstein, but he gave it a different value based on an incorrect assumption that the universe was static.) This is a good indicator about the nature of dark energy, though it is not as conclusive as the evidence for exotic dark matter. Again, though, dark energy is a much newer problem than dark matter.

I'm not so sure. I asserted my confidence in an explanation through familiar matter rather than exotic, and referenced as an example of why the multitudinous particles in the zoo regarded as fundamental until they grew to a number that made that contention absurd and led to the discovery of quarks. That the men who made that discovery are still alive indicates persistent errors remain quite possible; it also shows they'll ultimately be corrected, but is definitely a recent caution against overconfidence in current models. You've largely convinced me that normal dark matter isn't viable, and that does leave exotic dark matter as the best available explanation by default; it does NOT make it the CORRECT explanation by default, nor do two nebulae prove it so. You seem to agree in principle that it could be disproven and/or a better alternative found, and ultimately that's all I'm asking; I was fairly confident normal dark matter was sufficient, but don't mind being wrong. Scientific laymen need as much convincing as any other kind that the catechism isn't just smoke and mirrors though, or the Higgs bosons nickname may prove ironic.

But the particles in the particle zoo were new discoveries; it's just that their nature wasn't understood right away. I don't see how that supports your argument at all.

Galactic clusters are not nebulae. The former are orders and orders of magnitude larger than the latter.

The ever-obnoxious "God particle" nickname is the fault of the publishers. The author of the novel, Leon Lederman, wanted to call it the goddamn particle, because it's such a pain in the ass to find.

The key word being "traditional"; Wikipedia still claims GUTs to be an intermediate step to a ToE, which indicates more than a few physicists are still pursuing them. I get the impression of the field as a solid monolith because of phrases like "the Standard Model". In many ways it's a good thing, because theories usually aren't widely accepted without a significant amount of reproducable experimental observation (I say, "usually" because, again admitting I'm not well versed on the subject, speciation seems difficult to reproduce in a lab, even if I do happen to believe it's happened countless times). It does, however, lend itself to group think, and in areas (of which this is one) where reproducable experimental evidence will be hard to obtain even if the theory is valid, acceptance can get ahead of the evidence as people get impatient for the latter. Cruising through the Wikipedia articles on quarks again I noticed that long before the charm was actually FOUND the top and bottom quarks were theorized based on the theory that predicted it. If you're hard at work on a new model, knowing that someone else could announce it tomorrow, how long will you wait for the theory on which it depends to be proven before bulling ahead with yours? In the referenced case (which occurred about the time I was born, not in the days of Galileo), apparently not long.

Yes, some sort of GUT will be necessary for a theory of everything, but that doesn't mean it will be a traditional GUT (the ones which predict proton decay).

There are plenty of people who look for "beyond the Standard Model" physics. That's one of the major purposes of the LHC. So, basically, once again you have a bad impression about science due to a lack of in-depth research. Forming opinions based on the presentations of news media, where stories are written and edited by people with largely no scientific education and whose motivation is to sell copies rather than to be accurate, is not productive.

Speciation has been observed numerous times. See, e.g., http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

I don't understand your point about the bottom and top quarks. Somebody made a prediction and turned out to be right. Other people made predictions and turned out to be wrong. So what? What misimpression about science are you trying to support by contorting this incredibly basic situation?

If I overstated my skepticism, my apologies, but it's easier to deal with overstated skepticism than understated, because where the former is vulnerable to facts the latter selectively seeks favorable ones.

Or you could just state things more exactly, instead of creating this overstated/understated false dichotomy.

Reply to message

Exciting video about the universe Camilla - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1174 Views

Cool, and true *NM* Stephen - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 358 Views

I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect. Joel - 28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM 886 Views

We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM 825 Views

I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 766 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM 863 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 798 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM 696 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 730 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM 825 Views

There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM 903 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM 748 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM 698 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM 778 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM 704 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM 776 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 718 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 938 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 747 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 812 Views

Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM 1066 Views

Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM 1060 Views

Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 764 Views

This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 884 Views

Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 849 Views

That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 846 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM 809 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM 979 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM 749 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM 1039 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM 652 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM 993 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM 772 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM 1072 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM 877 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM 1115 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM 885 Views

Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99) Tor - 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM 1065 Views

Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 746 Views

None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 739 Views

I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 869 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 695 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1219 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM 731 Views

I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM 943 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM 855 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM 1038 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM 765 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM 1021 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM 767 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM 719 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM 680 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM 781 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM 730 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM 901 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM 863 Views

Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at Isaac - 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM 707 Views

Potentially either, or a combination of the two. Joel - 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM 777 Views

It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly Isaac - 30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM 688 Views

My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM 833 Views

Well, they weren't, not really sure how else to put that Isaac - 10/05/2011 03:19:57 AM 883 Views

Alright then, objection withdrawn (cautious skepticism intact). Joel - 14/05/2011 05:34:17 AM 990 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="207917">
<quote id="207451">Ten percent seems to me a rather large variance.  The difference between Mercurys predicted and actual orbit that provided experimental proof of Relativity was smaller than that.  That's a big improvement over a hundred orders of magnitude worth of variance, but not airtight, and a variance that large to begin with doesn't inspire confidence.  Even if that great a correction is valid on that basis though it (and the vague but exotic nature of dark energy in general) is more than just a trivial fine tuning, it's a fundamental revision.  Again, if the best evidence warrants that, well and good, but if that's the case there's no reason not to call what it is and cite the evidence as justification.</quote>

<quote id="207451">I'm not so sure.  I asserted my confidence in an explanation through familiar matter rather than exotic, and referenced as an example of why the multitudinous particles in the zoo regarded as fundamental until they grew to a number that made that contention absurd and led to the discovery of quarks.  That the men who made that discovery are still alive indicates persistent errors remain quite possible; it also shows they'll ultimately be corrected, but is definitely a recent caution against overconfidence in current models.  You've largely convinced me that normal dark matter isn't viable, and that does leave exotic dark matter as the best available explanation by default; it does NOT make it the CORRECT explanation by default, nor do two nebulae prove it so.  You seem to agree in principle that it could be disproven and/or a better alternative found, and ultimately that's all I'm asking; I was fairly confident normal dark matter was sufficient, but don't mind being wrong.  Scientific laymen need as much convincing as any other kind that the catechism isn't just smoke and mirrors though, or the Higgs bosons nickname may prove ironic. ;)</quote>

But the particles in the particle zoo <b>were</b> new discoveries; it's just that their nature wasn't understood right away. I don't see how that supports your argument at all.

Galactic clusters are not nebulae. The former are orders and orders of magnitude larger than the latter.

The ever-obnoxious "God particle" nickname is the fault of the publishers. The author of the novel, Leon Lederman, wanted to call it the goddamn particle, because it's such a pain in the ass to find.

<quote id="207451">The key word being "traditional"; Wikipedia still claims GUTs to be an intermediate step to a ToE, which indicates more than a few physicists are still pursuing them.  I get the impression of the field as a solid monolith because of phrases like "the Standard Model".  In many ways it's a good thing, because theories usually aren't widely accepted without a significant amount of reproducable experimental observation (I say, "usually" because, again admitting I'm not well versed on the subject, speciation seems difficult to reproduce in a lab, even if I do happen to believe it's happened countless times).  It does, however, lend itself to group think, and in areas (of which this is one) where reproducable experimental evidence will be hard to obtain even if the theory is valid, acceptance can get ahead of the evidence as people get impatient for the latter.  Cruising through the Wikipedia articles on quarks again I noticed that long before the charm was actually FOUND the top and bottom quarks were theorized based on the theory that predicted it.  If you're hard at work on a new model, knowing that someone else could announce it tomorrow, how long will you wait for the theory on which it depends to be proven before bulling ahead with yours?  In the referenced case (which occurred about the time I was born, not in the days of Galileo), apparently not long.</quote>

Yes, some sort of GUT will be necessary for a theory of everything, but that doesn't mean it will be a traditional GUT (the ones which predict proton decay).

There are plenty of people who look for "beyond the Standard Model" physics. That's one of the major purposes of the LHC. So, basically, once again you have a bad impression about science due to a lack of in-depth research. Forming opinions based on the presentations of news media, where stories are written and edited by people with largely no scientific education and whose motivation is to sell copies rather than to be accurate, is not productive.

Speciation has been observed numerous times. See, e.g., http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

I don't understand your point about the bottom and top quarks. Somebody made a prediction and turned out to be right. Other people made predictions and turned out to be wrong. So what? What misimpression about science are you trying to support by contorting this incredibly basic situation?

<quote id="207451">If I overstated my skepticism, my apologies, but it's easier to deal with overstated skepticism than understated, because where the former is vulnerable to facts the latter selectively seeks favorable ones.</quote>

Or you could just state things more exactly, instead of creating this overstated/understated false dichotomy.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password