Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 408 posts

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#21

Post by Paracompact »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #15

Here is one fact that seems, to me, pretty convincing that there is another layer underneath what we know. The charge of electrons is -1 and protons +1. It has been experimentally measured out to 12 digits or so to be the same magnitude, just opposite charge. However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it. It beggars belief that these just happen to be exactly (as far as we can…

Technically, the charge of a proton can be derived from its constituent 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, which have charges 2/3 and -1/3 respectively. I'm not aware of any deeper reason why these should be simple fractional ratios of the charge of the electron, however, I'm not sure there needs to be one. If you believe the stack of turtles ends somewhere, you have to accept there will eventually be (hopefully simple) coincidences between certain fundamental values, no?

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#22

Post by rjh29 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #15

Here is one fact that seems, to me, pretty convincing that there is another layer underneath what we know. The charge of electrons is -1 and protons +1. It has been experimentally measured out to 12 digits or so to be the same magnitude, just opposite charge. However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it. It beggars belief that these just happen to be exactly (as far as we can…

One argument (while unsatisfying) is there are trillions of possible configurations, but ours is the one that happened to work which is why we're here to observe it. Changing any of them even a little bit would result in an empty universe.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#23

Post by Paracompact »

bananaflag wrote: post #7

It's basically the opposite situation from 150 years ago. Back then, we thought our theory was more or less complete while having experimental data which disproved it (Michelson-Morley experiment, Mercury perihelion, I am sure there are others). Right now, we know our theories are incomplete (since GR and QFT are incompatible) while having no experimental data which contradicts them.

What about underexplained cosmological epicycles like dark matter (in explaining long-standing divergences of gravitational theory from observation), or the Hubble tension?

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#24

Post by klipt »

bananaflag wrote: post #7

It's basically the opposite situation from 150 years ago. Back then, we thought our theory was more or less complete while having experimental data which disproved it (Michelson-Morley experiment, Mercury perihelion, I am sure there are others). Right now, we know our theories are incomplete (since GR and QFT are incompatible) while having no experimental data which contradicts them.

Doesn't that imply our theories are "good enough" for all practical purposes? If they're impossible to empirically disprove?

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#25

Post by XorNot »

Paracompact wrote: post #23
bananaflag wrote: post #7

It's basically the opposite situation from 150 years ago. Back then, we thought our theory was more or less complete while having experimental data which disproved it (Michelson-Morley experiment, Mercury perihelion, I am sure there are others). Right now, we know our theories are incomplete (since GR and QFT are incompatible) while having no experimental data which contradicts them.

What about underexplained cosmological epicycles like dark matter (in explaining long-standing divergences of gravitational theory from observation), or the Hubble tension?

This is your regular reminder that epicycles were not an incorrect theory addition until an alternative hypothesis could explain the same behavior without requiring them.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#27

Post by andyfilms1 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #15

Here is one fact that seems, to me, pretty convincing that there is another layer underneath what we know. The charge of electrons is -1 and protons +1. It has been experimentally measured out to 12 digits or so to be the same magnitude, just opposite charge. However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it. It beggars belief that these just happen to be exactly (as far as we can…

For a given calculation on given hardware, the 100th digit of a floating point decimal can be replicated every time. But that digit is basically just noise, and has no influence on the 1st digit.

In other words: There can be multiple "layers" of linked states, but that doesn't necessarily mean the lower layers "create" the higher layers, or vice versa.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#28

Post by david-gpu »

throwup238 wrote: post #20
tasty_freeze wrote: post #15

Here is one fact that seems, to me, pretty convincing that there is another layer underneath what we know. The charge of electrons is -1 and protons +1. It has been experimentally measured out to 12 digits or so to be the same magnitude, just opposite charge. However, there are no theories why this is -- they are simply measured and that is it. It beggars belief that these just happen to be exactly (as far as we can…

Or why the quarks that make up protons and neutrons have fractional charges, with +1 protons mixing two +2/3 up quarks and one -1/3 down quark, and the neutral neutron is one up quark and two down quarks. And where are all the other Quarks in all of this, busy tending bar?

They have fractional charges because that is how we happen to measure charge. If our unit of charge had been set when we knew about quarks, we would have chosen those as fundamental, and the charge of the electron would instead be -3.

Now, the ratios between these charges appear to be fundamental. But the presence of fractions is arbitrary.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#29

Post by PlatoIsADisease »

klipt wrote: post #24
bananaflag wrote: post #7

It's basically the opposite situation from 150 years ago. Back then, we thought our theory was more or less complete while having experimental data which disproved it (Michelson-Morley experiment, Mercury perihelion, I am sure there are others). Right now, we know our theories are incomplete (since GR and QFT are incompatible) while having no experimental data which contradicts them.

Doesn't that imply our theories are "good enough" for all practical purposes? If they're impossible to empirically disprove?

If I have to make a guess, we are at the level of pre-copernicus in particle physics.

We are finding local maximums(induction) but the establishment cannot handle deduction.

Everything is an overly complex bandaid. At some point someone will find something elegant that can predict 70% as good, and at some point we will realize: 'Oh that's great, the sun is actually at the center of the solar system, Copernicious was slightly wrong thinking planets make circular rotations. We just needed to use ellipses!'

But with particles.

Re: Is particle physics dead, dying, or just hard?

#30

Post by doctoboggan »

klipt wrote: post #24
bananaflag wrote: post #7

It's basically the opposite situation from 150 years ago. Back then, we thought our theory was more or less complete while having experimental data which disproved it (Michelson-Morley experiment, Mercury perihelion, I am sure there are others). Right now, we know our theories are incomplete (since GR and QFT are incompatible) while having no experimental data which contradicts them.

Doesn't that imply our theories are "good enough" for all practical purposes? If they're impossible to empirically disprove?

The theories don't answer all the questions we can ask, namely questions about how gravity behaves at the quantum scale. (These questions pop up when exploring extremely dense regions of space - the very early universe and black holes).
Post reply on HN