Should we worry about what the LHC is not finding?
newscientist.com
newscientist.com
The LHC not finding particles in the areas we're predicting is simply telling us that our predictions were wrong. Time will tell, the LHC is still relatively new and is producing a metric ton of data. What we find in the next few years will radically change our understanding of the cosmos, I'm sure.
every time current "standard model" was incorrect for some fringe/edge cases a new theory was born that included the old "standard model" as an edge case. Lets this chain continue ( i personally feel that monstrosity of superstring theory is an indication that we've reached the breaking point :)
A much better outcome would be to find something exotic that can spark research in the right direction. At the moment we have many ideas past the standard model but no way to know which to pursue with any seriousness.
Of course, discussion of what would be good or bad doesn't matter much. It will find what it finds (or doesn't)
On the contrary, now we can stop wasting man hours on incorrect theorems and start looking for the right ones. This is really interesting because it means that the universe is much different than we imagined.
The fact that no gravitons have been found below 2 TeV is data from which useful conclusions can be drawn about their nature, if they do exist.
I never understood how you can explain gravity as 1) a bending of space-time caused by mass and then 2) pretend it's a force transmited by "gravitons".
If 1) is true then it's an effect (phenomena), not a cause (force). If 2) is true than it's a cause (force), not an effect (phenomena).
The other thing to keep in mind is that the two characterizations come from two different branches of physics that to date have still not been fully reconciled. (General) relativity is based on a mathematical conception of space-time where gravity can be modeled by mass bending space. Quantum mechanics models all long-distance forces between particles as local interactions with a mediator particle that represents the force. These two theories have trouble getting along together for a number of reasons (look up "quantum foam"), plus we really have no way of telling if these models are a faithful representation of reality, or are just mathematically equivalent to something totally different.
This is similar to e.g. fluid dynamics, which is only valid at scales much larger than the atomic scale. But if you look close enough, you will see effects that are not consistent with viewing a fluid as a continuum of matter (e.g. minute specks of dust moving randomly because they are hit by individual atoms).
Both these views should become approximations of the real theory of gravity, if and when it's created.
Here's the latest thing I have seen, btw: http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Pop science interpretation of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html
If you have a single issue with gravitons that can be expressed mathematically, show us.
Anyways, I saw a Freeman Dyson talk once where he explained that if you were to set up a detector with the cross-sectional area of the Earth, and point it at the sun for the age of the Earth, you would be expected to detect 4(!) gravitons, due to their weak interactions with matter. He was convinced we would run into our inability to continue to test predictions long before we hammered out a decent unification theory.
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/funstuff/tarkin/dsgun.jpg
http://www.starwars.com/img/theclonewars/guide/episode002/il...
There are huge flaws in the art as it is practiced today. They aren't finding what they're looking for because it IS NOT THERE. Go to the following site, and understand the gap between the fantastic but invented idea-chasers that are currently en vogue, and the scientists that are taking measurements and fitting the results to known phenomena.
This will change your view of modern science forever, and I humbly assert that it should.
Uh huh.
This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it.
Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data. THEN make up your mind.
I've been reading the same things as you have. I believed them too, as far as one can without any hard evidence. Even the people in this line of work tell you they have ideas, but few facts. When I found this, it seemed to actually answer, in a lab, no less, some things that common astrophysics can not explain. And it does it coherently, in a methodology that can be observed in a lab. I love science as much as you guys do, and I think you ought to at least acquaint yourself with the plasma sciences, as they are amazingly explanatory of observed interactions both here and in deep space.
I'm not playing zealot here. Take the info as you will. But when I see a scientific explanation that stands up to scientific-method scrutiny, I believe it deserves to be considered in relation to other hypotheses that claim to explain events in a conflicting way.
Also, how would you use EU to quantitatively predict how the orbits of planets diverge from what Kepler's laws would predict, or how the time measurements aboard GPS satellites diverge from clocks on the ground? Or was the page you linked to wrong in claiming that EU disprove's Einstein's relativity?
I did read some of the page, but gave up after it was clear that he thought his "Electric Sky" hypothesis was an alternative to general relativity. It might very well be one could construct a credible argument in some areas, but look at the wikipedia page for tests of General Relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
A new theory can't just provide an alternative to one of those phenomenon or a handful. It must make the same prediction in every single case where General Relativity has been tested and proven right - and then it has to make new predictions where General Relativity will fail. That is the standard by which General Relativity replaced Newton, and by which we would test this if it had any hope of providing a replacement.
It is certainly true that cosmologists are accumulating puzzles and I expect that sooner or later we'll get a new theory that can resolve them. But this theory can't even explain the old puzzles that brought down Newton.
Too bad only a few forums allow you to ignore certain members.
On a more serious note, the quality of scientific debate on Hacker News is really, really low. Part of it is this community's insistence on contrariness – which comes out in a bunch of weird ways, global warming denialism probably the most prominent – but part of it is a really unattractive arrogant streak which refuses to accept that some issues are just complex. Kind of a Dunning-Kruger effect, really.
(I have no solutions, but it's worth noting).
(At least that's how it appears to me.)
Happened to every online community I've seen in the last decade.
Moreover, the "electric universe" hypothesis is well-known and widely rejected by those with expertise in the subject matter. We should not simply trust extraordinary claims by some shoddy website that does little to establish its credibility.