Beyond Standard Model: What Scientists Think & PFs Debate

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around a complaint regarding the censorship of discussions about well-known scientists' thoughts on the standard model and other cosmological topics. The conversation also touches on the idea of collecting quotes from famous scientists and the limitations and usefulness of such an approach in understanding science. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of discussing and debating different perspectives and ideas, as well as the importance of context in understanding scientific information.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
I think what well known scientists think beyond the standard model is important, there are so many topics that the BTSM thread doe's not cover,
The very fact that PFs allows a BTSM thread should mean that the forum is willing to debate What these guys have put in print, or is PFs going to sensor the thoughts of renowned scientists.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
What exactly is your complaint, wolram?

Is it something in the Guidelines you disagree with or were there specific posts/threads that you are talking about? And what is "ST"?
 
  • #3
Gokul43201 said:
What exactly is your complaint, wolram?

Is it something in the Guidelines you disagree with or were there specific posts/threads that you are talking about? And what is "ST"?

My complaint is that all cosmology is so unintuitive, dark energy, dark mass,
Space tiger closed a thread that i thought could explore what is a well known problem, and what scientist thought about the problem, it is only human to ask, the guide lines should dissallow BTSM if these things can not be discused.
 
  • #4
Or may be you think i am to stupid to understand , well i am sure i am but to try is better than not.
 
  • #5
OOps i have gone to far, you guys love your meat and two vege, sorry i will shut up now.
 
  • #6
Appart from saying cowards.
 
  • #7
wolram said:
I think what well known scientists think beyond the standard model is important

We have an entire forum devoted to "Beyond the Standard Model", which includes topics such as modified gravity, alternative inflation models, cyclic universe, etc. I don't mind you addressing anyone of these topics in the Cosmology forum, but I think it's silly to have a thread that collects all of them together. The scope is too broad and is redundant with BTSM. It would be just as silly to put a thread in the astrophysics forum that collects work on the "expanding universe".

Nothing in the Cosmology forum guidelines disallows discussion of extensions/alternatives to the standard model, as long as they are studied in the mainstream. We have had many threads on the cyclic universe, alternative inflation, MOND, SCC, etc. The only time you have been censored in the Cosmology forum is when you were putting forward conspiracy theories about the suppression of non-mainstream material.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
SpaceTiger said:
We have an entire forum devoted to "Beyond the Standard Model", which includes topics such as modified gravity, alternative inflation models, cyclic universe, etc. I don't mind you addressing anyone of these topics in the Cosmology forum, but I think it's silly to have a thread that collects all of them together. The scope is too broad and is redundant with BTSM. It would be just as silly to put a thread in the astrophysics forum that collects work on the "expanding universe".

Nothing in the Cosmology forum guidelines disallows discussion of extensions/alternatives to the standard model, as long as they are studied in the mainstream. We have had many threads on the cyclic universe, alternative inflation, MOND, SCC, etc. The only time you have been censored in the Cosmology forum is when you were putting forward conspiracy theories about the suppression of non-mainstream material.
What the heck has this to do with what well known scientists have put in print, i only want to know the mind , and arxiv what these guys have said.
 
  • #9
wolram said:
What the heck has this to do with what well known scientists have put in print, i only want to know the mind , and arxiv what these guys have said.

I don't see what's confusing about this. You can't have a thread that archives "Beyond the Standard Model" papers in the "Cosmology" forum, for the reasons I already gave you both in your original thread and in the reply above. Every single day, multiple BTSM papers appear on astro-ph and gr-qc. It is not this site's purpose to archive those papers, particularly in the "Cosmology" forum.
 
  • #10
Wollie, do you really think it would be at all useful (from a scientific point of view) to list various quotes without complete reference to context? And don't you just hate it when quotations from "famous people" get thrown about in defense of this or that pet opinion.

Edit : I thought the idea was to collect quotes, rather than papers.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Gokul43201 said:
Wollie, do you really think it would be at all useful (from a scientific point of view) to list various quotes without complete reference to context? And don't you just hate it when quotations from "famous people" get thrown about in defense of this or that pet opinion.

Edit : I thought the idea was to collect quotes, rather than papers.

If this is your intention, wolram, then I have even deeper objections. Collecting quotations from papers, popular science books, and newspaper articles is an extremely poor (even counterproductive) way to learn about science. Aside from the issues with context, the quotes are often outdated.
 
  • #12
SpaceTiger said:
If this is your intention, wolram, then I have even deeper objections. Collecting quotations from papers, popular science books, and newspaper articles is an extremely poor (even counterproductive) way to learn about science. Aside from the issues with context, the quotes are often outdated.

Would you think quotes from mr j baez counter producutive?, come on guys
what is science?
 
  • #13
wolram said:
Would you think quotes from mr j baez counter producutive?

Without context? Of course I would. Dr. Baez has many fine articles explaining topics in physics and astrophysics that are frequently referenced in the Cosmology forum, but I don't think we should have a thread devoted to cherry-picking quotes from them.
come on guys
what is science?

Not the process of collecting quotes from famous people, that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
SpaceTiger said:
Without context? Of course I would. Dr. Baez has many articles explaining topics in physics and astrophysics that are frequently referenced in the Cosmology forum, but I don't think we should have a thread devoted to cherry-picking quotes from them.

Not the process of collecting quotes from famous people, that's for sure.
Cherry pick you say, i would rather say a wealth of knowledge from the most informed scientists you not included.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
wolram said:
Would you think quotes from mr j baez counter producutive?, come on guys
what is science?

Science is certainly NOT made up with a bunch of quotations!

Zz.
 
  • #16
wolram said:
Cherry pick you say, i would rather say a wealth of knowledge from the most informed scientists you not included.
Single quotes out of context of the entire paper is not science and does not contribute much to knowledge, unless one just happens to like having a quote for every occassion. It still remains that the physics and cosmology forums are not an appropriate place for a collection of quotes. Neither is there a reason to try to cover within one thread a topic for which we have an entire forum. If there is a particular paper that interests you, feel free to discuss it, but if all you're doing is collecting quotes, you can use your journal for that (you can even put a link to the journal in your signature line so others can find it easily if they would be interested in nice quotations).

Wollie, I'm not sure why you're so upset about this. And certainly ST doesn't deserve such harsh treatment for deleting that thread.

I think the original question of why the thread has been deleted has been answered, and you've had your chance to vent about it. Continuing on being rude to ST is uncalled for. Any further disagreement can be continued via Private Message. I'm locking this here.
 

1. What is the Beyond Standard Model (BSM)?

The Beyond Standard Model (BSM) is a theoretical framework that aims to explain phenomena in physics that cannot be explained by the Standard Model, such as dark matter, dark energy, and the hierarchy problem. It proposes new particles and interactions beyond those described by the Standard Model in order to address these unanswered questions.

2. What are some proposed theories within the BSM?

There are several proposed theories within the Beyond Standard Model, including Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, and String Theory. Each theory has its own unique predictions and implications for experimental testing.

3. How do scientists test and validate theories within the BSM?

Scientists use a combination of theoretical calculations and experimental data to test and validate theories within the BSM. This can include particle collider experiments, precision measurements of known particles, and astrophysical observations.

4. What are the potential implications of discoveries within the BSM?

The discovery of new particles or interactions within the Beyond Standard Model could have major implications for our understanding of the universe. It could help explain the nature of dark matter and dark energy, the origin of mass, and the fundamental forces of nature. It could also have practical applications, such as in developing new technologies.

5. What are some current debates within the BSM?

There are ongoing debates within the Beyond Standard Model community about which theories are most promising and how they can be tested. Some scientists argue for the need for new experimental data, while others focus on refining theoretical calculations. Additionally, there are debates surrounding the concept of naturalness and whether the Standard Model is fine-tuned or there is a more elegant solution within the BSM.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top