I don’t get it. What does she want people to do?
"And please spare me the complaints that I supposedly do not have anything better to suggest, because that is a false accusation. I have said many times that looking at the history of physics teaches us that resolving inconsistencies has been a reliable path to breakthroughs, so that’s what we should focus on. I may be on the wrong track with this, of course. But for all I can tell at this moment in history I am the only physicist who has at least come up with an idea for what to do."
I'm no physicist, so I can't have a (useful) opinion, but she does offer at least a broad suggestion of what to do.
Something Deeply Hidden is a good book on the subject(as a non physicist).
Of course I am just a layman who likes to read books about these subjects but I honestly don't know shit. Just what I read.
Physicists are probing the heck out of every theory. However, QM has proven to be _extremely_ reliable, even some 'Gedankenexperimente' by Einstein trying to make it look wrong turned out to be true ('geisterhafte Spukwirkung').
>> There is a lot to be explored there but academia tells people to avoid it.
I don't think so. I mean just look at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which probes fundamental forces which are... guess what... based on quantum field theory which itself is based on quantum mechanics.
Let me be frank I am getting way outside my true understanding and parotting what I have read. But if QM the way it is because it fits the many worlds theory? Are we missing another piece to explain it? If you take the simplest version of QM that can solve the problems, you are stuck with many worlds.
These are important areas that colliders aren't going to answer but physicists push new physicists to avoid.
There are other theories but require dressing up the base QM math to eliminate many worlds.
Very few are doing work in this area
Where we can expect to see EM with LHR? Can we see it in our Laniakea? Or at opposite side of Shapley Attractor - Dipole Repeller? Or at perpendicular one? Do we have void between RHR and LHR? Can we cross it?
What is nature of EM? Is it because of nonlinear trajectory of motion of our galaxy from Dipole Repeller to Shapley Attractor? Or it because of non-linear motion of our galaxy within Laniakea? Or something else?
How photons are formed? IMHO, FTL speed is required to form a photon.
How photons are consumed? Can we make a macro model for this?
Can we cool/condensate/warm up vacuum? How this will affect speed of light?
What will see if we will zoom in to zoom level below Planck scale?
How long photon can travel? 100B years? 100T years? What will happen at EOL? Where lost energy is going?
What does the future hold for particle physics?
One of the things that Sabine has pointed out with respect to supersymmetry is that, for the last two particle accelerators, physicists have been arguing that they'll be able to find the supersymmetric particles to expand the model. And when they've failed to find any evidence for such particles, they've twice said "okay, it's not fatal to our theory, but we'll find them in the next one for sure." Every potentially predictive phenomenon arising from supersymmetry has failed to be found, and the response has been to merely twist the knobs so that these phenomena will happen just out of reach of current technology.
The real risk here is that we are so wedded to particular ideas that we refuse to give up on them, even when they have given us absolutely nothing in terms of extra (validated) predictive value, no matter how much we try to squeeze it out of them.
Yes it does. It has dark matter candidates. The Standard Model does not have any.
They’re simple speculation; what philosophers right back to the ancient Greeks were only too happy to rest on for 2000 years, until Persian protoscientists, during their own all-too-brief golden age, annoyingly said “but wait, don’t you think we should at least test our beliefs before we take them as granted?”; a practice that fully went mainstream a half-millennium later as the European Renaissance kicked off; and so modern-day Natural Philosophy was born.
If the first rule of science is, “you must not fool yourself (and you are the easiest person to fool)”, then rule zero must surely be “stuff’s hard, folks”. And some things are just invariant, no matter how much you might wish that they not be†.
--
(† So no Warp Drive either, kids… sorry!;)
Warp drive will be real when we will crack vacuum. Maybe we will be able to condensate vacuum, or make a supercavitating shield, or something else.
I have idea of an engine, but a) it must be supertiny, b) the only possibility to feed enough energy into engine is to launch it through Sun.
The problem with FTL engine is that Cherenkov radiation alone will convert any FTL object into ball of plasma.
The only way for material object to survive FTL speed is to travel in the it own space-time "bubble". The only natural object with properties of such bubble is black hole. So, warp drive is possible to create, in theory, if we will be able to create an artificial black hole like shield.
Moreover, the only way to reach FTL speed is to throw something back at FTL speed. It's not possible to create any material fuels with FTL exhaust velocity. The only way to throw something at FTL speed is to throw it in it own space-time bubble.
Although a lighthearted joke about “sciencing hard” being invariant certainly flew off its rails just as fast.:p
http://pma.caltech.edu/research-and-academics/physics/physic...
That's exactly what (a lot of) people is doing! Is there a second suggestions?
There are some "interesting" experiments. One is the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the muon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_mome...
Theoretical: 0.000116591804(51)
Experimental: 0.00011659209(6)
People is trying to solve it. The idea is that the theoretical model is missing a particle or an interaction between the known particles. So, it's a guess game. You must guess how the particle must behave. Some properties like charge are fixed, some properties like mass are a parameter. So you must guess the main properties of the particle and tweak the parameters until you get a theoretical result that is closer to the experimental result.
The problem is that the new proposed particle may change the theoretical expected result of other experiments. So you must fix the theoretical result of this experiment without breaking allllllllllllllll the other experiments.
And the properties are very constrained.
The easier to explain is the charge that must be an integer number. Or in some cases n/3, but you must explain very well why the fractional charges are no found in the wild. Other charges are posible, but people will think you are nuts unless there is a lot of supporting evidence.
Other properties are more difficult to explain, like the symmetry of the W+, W- and Z0 particles. If you propose a new particle that interacts with the W+ particle, there are a lot of restrictions because the particle you propose must interact with the W- particle, or you have to propose another particle that interacts with the W- particle in a very similar way. And at the same time, you must also fix a similar problem with the Z0 particle.
More details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo...
The main problem is that most of this extensions to the standard model are very technical and boring, and they are not covered by the popularization press.