A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
quantamagazine.org
A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#2> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions.
I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popular now.
I think that's why elegance goes a long way in theories: a simple and concise description is harder to overfit.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#3> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
You may enjoy The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Fantastic book.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#4Something something, all models are wrong, some models are useful.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#5> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
Particle physics is probably still stuck in the butterfly collecting phase, in which case “curve fitting” is not a criticism.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#6> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
It's entirely that.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#7> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
The standard model has a number of free parameters [1] but the results of calculations are pretty sensitive to them, and this is what predicted (not just explained post-hoc) the Higgs. It's not incorrect to say there's curve fitting involved, but it severely understates the magnitude of the achievement that is the standard model, and its success in explaining everything that underpins everyday life[2], as well as most things beyond that regime[3]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Construction_...
[2] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-law...
[3] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128374/evidence-....
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#8> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
The standard model has a number of free parameters [1] but the results of calculations are pretty sensitive to them, and this is what predicted (not just explained post-hoc) the Higgs. It's not incorrect to say there's curve fitting involved, but it severely understates the magnitude of the achievement that is the standard model, and its success in explaining everything that underpins everyday life[2], as well as mos…
The standard model doesn’t explain GPS satellites.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The standard model has a number of free parameters [1] but the results of calculations are pretty sensitive to them, and this is what predicted (not just explained post-hoc) the Higgs. It's not incorrect to say there's curve fitting involved, but it severely understates the magnitude of the achievement that is the standard model, and its success in explaining everything that underpins everyday life[2], as well as mos…
The standard model doesn’t explain GPS satellites.
But relativity explains GPS. And the two theories together explain practically everything to insane levels of precision.
The only time they go wrong is when they both operate at once, in a narrow range around black holes or the very earliest universe.
Re: A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus
#10> Instead, at these scales, a new effective force emerges — the strong nuclear force, transmitted between nucleons by the exchange of pions. I'm admittedly ignorant, but I'm not convinced that a lot of theoretical physics is basically curve fitting where you've got a model with enough flexibility that you can make it fit the data. String theory always seemed like an egregious version of this, I think it's less popula…
What passes the bar for "elegant enough"? Why would laws of nature care about such human principles? And, most of all, why treat elegance as a guiding principle when all it has done is produce models incapable of being accurate outside a narrow range?