Posted on 06/13/2016 1:30:08 PM PDT by samtheman
This is by far the most exciting thing that has happened in particle physics over the last three decades. If this hint of new physics is confirmed—something that could happen within just a few weeks, or possibly even within days—it is difficult to state the importance of such a discovery. It would be bigger than the detection of the Higgs boson, which was just confirmation of what was already known.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.scientificamerican.com ...
Very naughty - I can see why you’re familiar with hot tabasco sauce.....that’s what you would have gotten at my house after a comment like that!
Sounds like you are talking about Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore the Department of Energy Labs that haven’t accomplished anything since the atomic bomb.
Maybe...I based my comments on an article I read in a physics journal awhile back. The author did not believe in string theory. He said that since most university physicists are all-in for string theory, when it goes bust it will mean decades of wasted research.
Even though I have taught physics, my primary training is in chemistry. So I'll just stick with the periodic table for answers.
“to fund a whole decade of new bullshit research that has produced not a single thing for humanity in the last 50 years.”
GPS satellites apparently use the BS tech, but it was not useful until TomTom created portable GPS.
Just when Sheldon became one of the mud people. He switched to geology.
Pretty much, the atomic bomb, nuclear power and the moon shots were all helped by physics and in some cases particle physics. But since then, nothing has been produced by the esoteric sciences...particle physics, quantum physics, and astrophysics are basically a bunch of nerds creating complex formulas to explain the universe but they have proven nothing and produced nothing. Stephen Hawking makes a living writing books about black holes and to this day nobody has actually proven that they exist!
Once in a while, some little blip of data comes along which turns a theory upside down. If the original theory was that flawed, how much confidence should we have with the newly spawned theory? Not much in my book.
To me, there is nothing wrong with scientists pursuing these things, but they have been elevated to rock star status without producing one useful thing, sucking massive amounts of tax money to build huge supercolliders and other things.
Actually, more useful technology has been produced by Stephen Hawking fans who helped soup up his wheelchair and communication devices than Stephen Hawking has produced in his lifetime.
There may be some small incremental spinoffs that I’m not aware of, but certainly nothing really big. I’m not a physicist but I have spent a lot of time trying to read and understand some of these guys like Hawking and I finally determined that its mostly BS.
” I finally determined that its mostly BS.”
You should win the Nobel prize, not those bozos.
Lol! You made me laugh, because one of my elementary school teachers was Miss Higgans and she had a very large bosum. Brought back memories of 5th grade. 6th grade was even better because Miss Hartman was young and beautiful, all us boys were dreamy eyed. Anyway, who wants to look for tiny particles when there are better things to look for.
Could be. On a related note, wouldn’t it be nice
if we could append the [caucus] designation on some
physics threads to forestall the pumping of Jesus
and Creationism where they are not wanted?
.
Not wanted, but deeply needed.
.
Looky Looky what we found! Need more funding!
Here’s a brand new article that illustrates my point, lol
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/science/stephen-hawking-black-holes.html?_r=0
I believe this is the missing Higgs bosun’s mate.
.
“Dark Matter” and to”Dark Energy” are solutions to a false problem.
They were proposed to provide support to the unsupportable assertion that the universe could be unbounded.
The evidence shouts that the universe is bounded, and that its boundary forms a near perfect sphere around our approximate location.
They must be wrong...after all, the Standard Model has an “overwhelming scientific consensus” behind it, right?
...
No. As the article indicates it was expected to give way to a better theory eventually, but it’s taken longer than expected.
****Brought back memories of 5th grade. 6th grade ****
Y’all be a late bloomer ... Ms Comstock my Kindergarten and then my Second Grade Teacher... I spent many hours in the Playground dreaming about her and I being Married!
Had not a clue of what that entailed but it did not stop me.
The Concepts of Negative #’s and “Where the Cash Flows” were a few years down the road...
That was really TRUE LOVE (yet it didn’t cost me a dime)
Country Song in their somewhere
I guess I didn’t make my case. What I ment to say is suppose we take a single proton and examine what it is made of. It could be composed of either a single sub atomic particle (a proton like we suppose) or it could be made of more than one sub sub atomic particle.
My guess is that suppose you take an individual proton (or better stated H+ ion) and look at it under intense magnification you might find that it is made up of smaller particles that looks and acts like a proton, maybe has a neutron and/or an electron in an orbital with a lot of space in the orbital.
Good day all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.