Active Users:725 Time:25/11/2024 12:15:39 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel Send a noteboard - 19/05/2011 04:33:06 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.

Fair enough; I'm not demanding all the answers immediately, I just don't want to ask the wrong questions indefinitely because we expect a given answer. When you cite a preliminary measurement as evidence isn't it reasonable to note that it's significantly different from the predicted one?
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.

Mainly in the fact that their nature was actively MISunderstood to be that of fundamental particles. It was only after they continued to multiply at an alarming rate that very capable physicists had the common sense and temerity to suggest that if there were THAT many of them maybe they weren't fundamental particles at all, but composites of more fundamental ones. Had no one every questioned the canon we'd still have dozens of "fundamental" particles and a much more impoverished (and not understood right away) grasp of physics.
Galactic clusters are not nebulae. The former are orders and orders of magnitude larger than the latter.

Right, sorry; I DID know we were talking about galaxies and not nebulae, the super imposed images in the article just reminded me of 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.

Particularly if it's "The God Particle Who Wasn't There". :P Understand, I think it IS there, I just don't want to bet the house on it.
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).

Those increasingly seem to be ruled out entirely. I really don't have a problem with throwing out a theory contradicted by the evidence, which seems to be the case for MACHOs as well, but by that same token I'm leery of the impression I'm getting that refuting MACHO and MOND theories proves exotic dark matter by default. That amounts to saying, "Once we've conclusively demonstrated x isn't 2 or 3, it MUST be 4". Um, not really. Even if we know it must lie between 2 and 4 it may just mean we need to stop looking at whole numbers exclusively.
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.

Alright, but I don't have a problem with the Standard Model, per se, just the notion that anything is set in stone. If that's mostly my impression, my mistake, I just want to be sure that we're testing theories rather than trying to prove them.
Speciation has been observed numerous times. See, e.g., http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

I'll dig through it later; I don't have a dog in that fight, but I'm more interested in stuff like "Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy" than cases that are solely hybridization or polyploidy, and the latter seem multitudinous. A mule is not a new species, after all, or we wouldn't have been doing experiments to observe speciation.
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?

My point was that before any experimental evidence of the charm (beyond the anomaly that led to its postulation as an explanation) people were already postulating additional quarks based on it eventually being found. That all three eventually were found doesn't vindicate that approach; it amounts to extrapolating a cosmological theory that requires dark energy to exist: You're making a fairly weighty assumption your PREMISE.
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.

Well, I'm all for precision; I'll try to work on that.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 19/05/2011 at 04:34:14 AM
Reply to message
Exciting video about the universe Camilla - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1095 Views
Cool, and true *NM* Stephen - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 333 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 823 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 753 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 685 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 798 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 753 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 624 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 658 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 763 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 834 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 678 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 623 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 712 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 632 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 710 Views
The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 653 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 860 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 672 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 741 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM 992 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 994 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 687 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 805 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 776 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 769 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 731 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM 907 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 673 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM 954 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 579 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM 919 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 704 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM 985 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 804 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM 1043 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 809 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 1002 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 702 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 667 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 785 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 619 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1136 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM 663 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 853 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 780 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 932 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 689 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 936 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 683 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 654 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 609 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 736 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 646 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 829 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 807 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at Isaac - 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM 641 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two. Joel - 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM 705 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly Isaac - 30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM 618 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 757 Views
Well, they weren't, not really sure how else to put that Isaac - 10/05/2011 03:19:57 AM 793 Views
Alright then, objection withdrawn (cautious skepticism intact). Joel - 14/05/2011 05:34:17 AM 910 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes