Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Missing stuff

  1. Apr 20, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There are many papers in the arxiv that require some as yet to be found particle, for the said papers to be valid such as.

    the axion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion
    the Graviton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
    the Higgs boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

    When i say valid i mean that, if the required particle is proven not to exist the paper is falsified.
    This leads me to ask, where will theories lead if the existence of any, all of these particles are found not to exist?

    But it is not just" missing particles", huge chunks of the mass of the universe are missing.

    Dark energy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
    Dark matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

    So i ask the same question.

    Although some theories do not require some of this missing
    "stuff", these theories seem to be on the fringe of main stream science,
    i am not sure how many if not all are falsifiable, but unless some of this missing ,"stuff" , is found then it seems nearly every paper on this subject is falsified.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2005 #2

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  4. Apr 20, 2005 #3

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This situation is pretty frustrating. If you work on a model that does not require these things, people who gladly believe in these things will publicly call you a crank and denigrate you. These same people will blithely keep believing in the mysterious entities, and when the best, most expensive telescopes, colliders, underground detectors, etc, in the world fail to detect them, they say "well, we have to wait until the NEXT big telescope/collider/detector comes on line, because entity X will be detected at a higher resolution/energy level/sensitivity than we predicted when we built the last instrument." This kind of behavior is more indicative of blind faith than logical inquiry.
     
  5. Apr 20, 2005 #4

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    By TURBO 1
    This situation is pretty frustrating. If you work on a model that does not require these things, people who gladly believe in these things will publicly call you a crank and denigrate you. These same people will blithely keep believing in the mysterious entities, and when the best, most expensive telescopes, colliders, underground detectors, etc, in the world fail to detect them, they say "well, we have to wait until the NEXT big telescope/collider/detector comes on line, because entity X will be detected at a higher resolution/energy level/sensitivity than we predicted when we built the last instrument." This kind of behavior is more indicative of blind faith than logical inquiry.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    I can well imagine this frustration, especially if one has a falsifiable
    theory on the back burner.
    I am trying to look forward and guess if any of these particles, entities
    will ever be "discovered", to date the search for same is akin to climbing
    a greasy pole that gets ever taller.
    But until the existence or lack of for this stuff is proven the arxives
    is just a deposit of unfinished synphonies.
     
  6. Apr 20, 2005 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If String theory is to be included, then also Missing "entities" are
    extra dimensions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    As of 2005, string theory is unverifiable. It is by no means the only theory currently being developed which suffers from this difficulty; any new development can pass through a stage of unverifiability before it becomes conclusively accepted or rejected. As Richard Feynman noted in The Character of Physical Law, the key test of a scientific theory is whether its consequences agree with the measurements we take in experiments. It does not matter who invented the theory, "what his name is", or even how aesthetically appealing the theory may be—"if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." (Of course, there are subsidiary issues: something may have gone wrong with the experiment, or perhaps the person computing the consequences of the theory made a mistake. All these possibilities must be checked, which may take a considerable time.) No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that an experiment could check. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it can become verifiable. These developments may be in the theory itself, such as new methods of performing calculations and deriving predictions, or they may be advances in experimental science, which make formerly ungraspable quantities measurable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  7. Apr 20, 2005 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Apr 20, 2005 #7

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  9. Apr 20, 2005 #8

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I guess this seems a very negative thread, Main stream cosmology theories
    auto, seems to be running without an engine or wheels, but that could
    change at any time with one discovery, maybe some one out there has
    a brighter take on the situation, i would love to hear good news :biggrin:
     
  10. Apr 20, 2005 #9

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  11. Apr 20, 2005 #10
    The explosion of physics in the first half of the 20th was primarily based upon simple mechanics, mostly of motion--spin, collision, movement of a particle on the surface of a sphere, speed of light, etc. I, being old-fashioned, tend to get a little nervous about explaining the cosmos when we move far away from the simplest views and approaches. Dark energy and matter seem to become a fudge factor for what we can't yet explain. We lose sight of Occam's razor. I guess the only point of this post is that it reveals my bias towards the fundamentals, and the fact that I believe the "secrets" to be revealed will still come from exploration of basic mechanics.
     
  12. Apr 20, 2005 #11

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    I guess the development of new maths opened up new possibilities, but
    when all the calculations are done and they predict some thing is missing
    and that thing can not be found it must at least suggest the possibility
    that some thing is wrong.
    It could be that it is to early to sound the alarm bells, but it seems that
    there are to many triggers to keep them silent.
     
  13. Apr 20, 2005 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I have just found this in the reference library courtesy of MARCUS

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503107
    Understanding Our Universe: Current Status and Open Issues
    T. Padmanabhan
    To appear in "100 Years of Relativity - Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond", A.Ashtekar (Editor), World Scientific (Singapore, 2005); 30 pages; 4 figures

    "Last couple of decades have been the golden age for cosmology. High quality data confirmed the broad paradigm of standard cosmology but have thrusted upon us a preposterous composition for the universe which defies any simple explanation, thereby posing probably the greatest challenge theoretical physics has ever faced. Several aspects of these developments are critically reviewed, concentrating on conceptual issues and open questions. [Topics discussed include: Cosmological Paradigm, Growth of structures in the universe, Inflation and generation of initial perturbations, Temperature anisotropies of the CMBR, Dark energy, Cosmological Constant, Deeper issues in cosmology.]"
     
  14. Apr 20, 2005 #13
    Even if superstring theory is correct, it probably will never be proved in this millenia because we can't reach the energy scales needed. Only in some 10,000 years from now it will become possible.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2005
  15. Apr 20, 2005 #14

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hi Starship

    I know very little about ST and how it can be tested,or if it can, other
    than the few over views i have read, i do know that these extra dimensions
    are being looked for by high energy experiments, but you say in 10,000 yrs
    from now, is it so far beyond us?
     
  16. Apr 20, 2005 #15

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's also Pop III stars, cosmic strings (different from string theory), B-mode polarization of the CMB, the integrated sachs-wolfe effect, and many more, I'm sure. I'll keep thinking about it while I'm attending the talk that's starting now.
     
  17. Apr 20, 2005 #16

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am agog ,"about the talk that is that is starting now," i know about cosmic
    strings, and there falsification, but what is this talk about?
     
  18. Apr 20, 2005 #17

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I just meant I didn't have time to write a longer post cause I had to attend a talk. I'm a student, you know. :wink:

    The talk was about period-finding in photometric data.
     
  19. Apr 21, 2005 #18

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string

    A cosmic string is a hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defect in the fabric of spacetime. Cosmic strings are hypothesized to form when different regions of spacetime undergo phase changes, resulting in domain boundaries between the two regions when they meet. This is somewhat analogous to the boundaries that form between crystal grains in solidifying liquids, or the cracks that form when water freezes into ice.

    Cosmic strings, if they exist, would be extremely thin with diameters on the same order as a proton. They would have immense density, however, and so would represent significant gravitational sources. A cosmic string 1.6 kilometers in length would exert more gravity than the Earth. Cosmic strings would form a network of loops in the early universe, and their gravity could have been responsible for the original clumping of matter into galactic superclusters.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A bit about the cosmic strings, mentioned by Space Tiger.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2005
  20. Apr 21, 2005 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Theories are great. I love a great theory. However, theories that explain perceived anomalies, while ignoring all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are likely to be wrong. Especially the ones that suggest modern scientists are too idiotic, or brainwashed, to tell the difference.

    I am still awaiting an example of a high redshift entity superimposed "directly in front" of a lower redshift object. A single example will suffice.
     
  21. Apr 21, 2005 #20

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    T Padmanabhan

    "Last couple of decades have been the golden age for cosmology. High quality data confirmed the broad paradigm of standard cosmology but have thrusted upon us a preposterous composition for the universe which defies any simple explanation
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By CHRONOS
    I am still awaiting an example of a high redshift entity superimposed "directly in front" of a lower redshift object. A single example will suffice.

    I guess it is possible that the composition of the universe is not "preposterous,
    may be it is the, "broad pardigram of standard cosmology", that is preposterous.

    But i am certainly not qualified to make a judgment."
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Missing stuff
  1. More BH stuff (Replies: 0)

  2. Us stuff (Replies: 21)

  3. Missing galaxies? (Replies: 11)

  4. Missing Matter? (Replies: 2)

Loading...