[Ichneumon]

The old way required scientists to set out to disprove a theory (hypothesis), after relentless testing to prove it. One contradictory experiment could undo a whole theory (hypothesis).

That's still what they're doing. All this test will determine is which theories *don't* match their differing predictions about what this test might find. Whatever the test results, it will reject some theories (maybe all current theories, if something really unexpected is observed).

Today, that is no longer a concern. A single test proves a theory (not a hypothesis) and new dimensions and particles are created to explain any contradictions!

Hardly. First, contrary to misleading language in this press article, no single test will "prove" any theory (although it can greatly *support* one and further firm up the likelihood of its being correct), because science doesn't deal in "proofs" of that sort. The reason is that there's always the possibility of some future observation which requires a further unexpected tweak (or rarely, a fundamental rewrite).

Second, particles aren't "created to explain contradictions". That's not how theoretical physics works. Instead, fundamental mathematical models is made which seems to explain current physical laws, and then the necessary consequences of those models are examined to see what else they predict (e.g., which other particles of what particular type must necessarily exist if the model is true, etc.). And then they perform experiments to see whether those necessary predictions hold water or not.

In the case of the "Standard Model", the mathematical consequences of that model imply that a certain type of particle, dubbed the "Higgs boson", would have to exist -- not in order to "explain contradictions", but because that (among other things) is what the mathematical model itself implies must exist if the model is true.

And if this "mathematically predicted" particle is detected after all and its properties match the predictions, then this is a very strong indication that the "Standard Model" is correct, or at least on the right track.

It's similar to how the position, motion, and mass of the planet Pluto was predicted before it was ever found, due to the mathematical implications of gravitational theory and the observed "wobbles" in the orbits of the known planets.

[Gary Boldwater]

Thanks for taking the time for a detailed answer.

Are "virtual particles" real? Or are they an invention to explain a physical event?


Here's a quote from "An Introduction to the Science of Cosmology" published by the Institute of Physics, authors Raine and Thomas:

"Thus the areas of the microwave sky more than 2 degrees apart could not have achieved the same temperature by exchanging radiation. The only answer the standard model can provide is that the uniform temperature was an initial condition of the big bang. This is a rather lame answer, and it would be much more satisfactory if we could find some physical model to circumvent the horizon problem and allow thermal equilibrium to be achieved. We shall show that the inflationary hypothesis provides such a mechanism and it also provides a natural solution of the flatness problem which we consider in the next section."

My questions are "satisfactory to who" and "why not the simplest answer"? Isn't it rather lame not to explain why the lame answer is lame? Maybe you could help me here.

On to the flatness problem:

From the same book and chapter: If omega sub p varies 1 +/- 10^-60 then the universe (or the big bang theory) either recollapses or never forms. What natural constant, other than pi, is known to such precision? But yet this model requires an initial condition of such precision. This very same model relies on the existent of dark matter (conjectured to several percent), uses forces not fully understood (such as gravity and repulsive forces) and so on. It's all speculation. One cannot build an airplane, a bridge or even conduct a repeatable experiment based upon details such as these.

Cosmology is a great fun exercise of the mind, but to claim "proof" based on such speculation is a bit of a stretch.