Ping!...................
The science is settled. 97% of them agree.
The smaller the thing you’re looking for, the bigger the device you need to see it.
Wait, isn’t “science” always “settled”??? /sarc
Bingo. Always need a bigger collider.
Every time we think we know it all, we learn something new!
With the state of STEM right now, I no longer trust results from big research projects.
To many people with agendas other than results.
Well they found the God particle(Thank you Dr. Higgs) One would think that would be it.
Need a subatomic hockey stick. Done.
Just when you think the science is settled...
re: “Cannot Be Explained by Our Current Laws of Nature”
CONTINUED refusal to apply such basic laws as Newton and Maxwell at the atomic level can LEAD TO such thinking ... instead, from 100 years ago Schrodinger is still invoked.
Want to read the alternative? Look up GUT-CP. Its the theory behind the a priori ‘prediction’ that the electron in the Hydrogen atom CAN BE brought to a _lower_ ‘orbital’ than the so-called “ground state” as defined by QM.
Want a quick intro? See this lecture by Prof Bakker:
Lecture begins at timestamp 04:30
http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d
Prof. Huub Bakker, a senior lecturer in engineering at Massey University, presented the following lecture on Randell Mills’ Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUTCP). Prof. Tony Signal, representing the Physics Dept., responded with a critical view.
Prof. Bakker’s presentation is a survey of Mills’ 1800-page thesis and necessarily omits any deep analysis or mathematical proofs. Nevertheless, it is a fascinating introduction to the topic and he forcefully makes the point that Mills is either a fraud or the most gifted thinker of our time. According to Bakker, “there is no middle ground.”
More background, for interested parties: https://brilliantlightpower.fandom.com/wiki/BrilliantLightPower_Wiki
“But trans women are just as beautiful as CIS women, so why won’t CIS men date them?”
I haven’t heard anyone refer to the bottom quark as the “beauty” quark in 20 years. What seems to be at issue the the completeness of the SU(2) symmetry that mixes neutrinos, electrons, up quarks, and down quarks based on 3 Standard Model groupings that increase in mass (electron, mu, tau) and the quarks (up, strange, top, down, charm, bottom). The SM is much more general and includes the U(1) symmetry (electromagnetism) and the SU(3) symmetry (color quarks). I doubt this structure is in question but there are always interesting nuances like parity conservation that crop up from time to time and must be resolved.
We spend an awful lot of money keeping egg heads entertained.
I guess they didn’t get the memo that science is not to be challenged after “experts” declare their is no more debate.
how many genders does the Hadron Collider say we have?
Blatant rescue propaganda!
Right on schedule...