A Crisis at the Edge of Physics

[Michael]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0

Today, the favored theory for the next step beyond the standard model is called supersymmetry (which is also the basis for string theory). Supersymmetry predicts the existence of a “partner” particle for every particle that we currently know. It doubles the number of elementary particles of matter in nature. The theory is elegant mathematically, and the particles whose existence it predicts might also explain the universe’s unaccounted-for “dark matter.” As a result, many researchers were confident that supersymmetry would be experimentally validated soon after the Large Hadron Collider became operational.

That’s not how things worked out, however. To date, no supersymmetric particles have been found. If the Large Hadron Collider cannot detect these particles, many physicists will declare supersymmetry — and, by extension, string theory — just another beautiful idea in physics that didn’t pan out.

But many won’t. Some may choose instead to simply retune their models to predict supersymmetric particles at masses beyond the reach of the Large Hadron Collider’s power of detection — and that of any foreseeable substitute.

Implicit in such a maneuver is a philosophical question: How are we to determine whether a theory is true if it cannot be validated experimentally? Should we abandon it just because, at a given level of technological capacity, empirical support might be impossible? If not, how long should we wait for such experimental machinery before moving on: ten years? Fifty years? Centuries?

So much for any 'falsification' potential, and so much for allowing a favorite theory to rise and fall based on the confirmation/falsification of it's "predictions".

Recall the epicycles, the imaginary circles that Ptolemy used and formalized around A.D. 150 to describe the motions of planets. Although Ptolemy had no evidence for their existence, epicycles successfully explained what the ancients could see in the night sky, so they were accepted as real. But they were eventually shown to be a fiction, more than 1,500 years later. Are superstrings and the multiverse, painstakingly theorized by hundreds of brilliant scientists, anything more than modern-day epicycles?

Just a few days ago, scientists restarted investigations with the Large Hadron Collider, after a two-year hiatus. Upgrades have made it even more powerful, and physicists are eager to explore the properties of the Higgs particle in greater detail. If the upgraded collider does discover supersymmetric particles, it will be an astonishing triumph of modern physics. But if nothing is found, our next steps may prove to be difficult and controversial, challenging not just how we do science but what it means to do science at all.

Atheists love to claim that 'scientific' theories require empirical support, and/or they claim that all "scientific" theories must be falsifiable. There are however no such requirements in physics, and there really never have been such requirements in science or physics. Both claims are simply atheist urban legends.

 

[Isaacsname]

Reminds me of this 2007 NY Times article from Paul Davies

" Taking science on faith "

 

[Michael]

Liked this part from your link:

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

 

[[serious]]

The irony here is strong.

No lie, about a month ago I was thinking about posting about how string theory was akin to plasma cosmology if plasma cosmologists behaved better. It was an interesting idea that seemed to be taking FAR longer than it should to produce solid results that set it apart from mainstream understanding. String theorists simply didn't have testable hypotheses yet, though had an interesting idea. Plasma cosmologists likewise had an interesting idea, but insisted that any tests that differed from plasma cosmology weren't really fair tests in order to hold onto the idea of plasma cosmology. It appears now that string theorists are following plasma cosmologists in insisting on their alternate model even when observations don't seem to be bearing it out.

I'd suggest an alternate title, "crisis in fringe physics"

 

[DogmaHunter]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0


So much for any 'falsification' potential, and so much for allowing a favorite theory to rise and fall based on the confirmation/falsification of it's "predictions".



Atheists love to claim that 'scientific' theories require empirical support, and/or they claim that all "scientific" theories must be falsifiable. There are however no such requirements in physics, and there really never have been such requirements in science or physics. Both claims are simply atheist urban legends.

This reminds me of that other thread on evolution where this one dude argues against evolution by speculating on hypothetical reactions of scientists to hypothetical finds (or lack thereof, in this case).

 

[Michael]

The irony here is strong.

No lie, about a month ago I was thinking about posting about how string theory was akin to plasma cosmology if plasma cosmologists behaved better.

It's both fascinating and discouraging that an intelligent person like yourself would compare a purely *hypothetical* concept of like string theory to an *empirically verified* set of physics.

Whatever you might 'feel' about PC/EU theory, it's all based on *demonstrated physics*, all of which actually *works* in the lab.

It was an interesting idea that seemed to be taking FAR longer than it should to produce solid results that set it apart from mainstream understanding.

That's partly due to the fact that we can't simply 'make things up' on a whim to fill in the "gaps" in our understanding. No dark energy, no dark matter, no inflation, etc. It's based on *pure* physics, which is indeed *harder* than simply inventing ad hoc gap filler every time we don't really understand something.

String theorists simply didn't have testable hypotheses yet, though had an interesting idea. Plasma cosmologists likewise had an interesting idea, but insisted that any tests that differed from plasma cosmology weren't really fair tests in order to hold onto the idea of plasma cosmology.

That's simply not the case. Safire is probably the best current example of actual experimentation that is designed to verify or falsify a particular solar model associated with EU/PC theory, specifically Jurgen's solar model. They've been conducting a whole series of tests on the idea. It's a fair test. In fact, while I expect to see some ideas pan out, I'm expecting it to *fail* in the final analysis because it's wired *backwards* with respect to Birkeland's cathode solar model, and I personally prefer Birkeland's cathode model, not Jurgen's anode concept.

The mainstream makes "predictions" with their models, but they simply don't give a darn about the outcome of such 'tests' in the first place. For instance, they 'predicted' that convection on the sun would reach jet speeds, whereas they *measured* something close to 1 percent of their 'predicted' value. Oooops? Only off by *two whole orders of magnitude*? Do they care? What's the point of "testing" a model if you don't care about the results of those tests?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...wer-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/

Their so called "predictions" were off by *two whole orders of magnitude*, and yet they simply do not care! Back they go to peddling a concept that Alfven himself called 'pseudoscience' and which he made obsolete with his double layer paper.

It appears now that string theorists are following plasma cosmologists in insisting on their alternate model even when observations don't seem to be bearing it out.

What "observation" do you believe didn't "bear out" exactly, and when has the mainstream ever been immune from cherry picking data they like, while simultaneously ignoring the data that they don't like? The confirmation bias of the mainstream is unlike anything seen in any other branch of physics. Dark matter tests failed *every single time*, and their galaxy mass estimates were shown to be hopelessly flawed, yet they cling to exotic matter theory anyway! Any negative information goes in one ear and right out the other.

I'd suggest an alternate title, "crisis in fringe physics"

Considering the fact that your so called "physics' needs four unique types of 'supernatural' stuff, I'd say Lambda-CDM is about as "fringe" as it gets compared to actual empirical, lab tested physics.

I really don't understand how you can 'bet against' empirical physics. It *always* wins out over supernatural mythology, and Lambda-CDM is as "supernatural' as it gets. 95 percent of the theory by mass/energy is simply "made up".

 

[Michael]

This reminds me of that other thread on evolution where this one dude argues against evolution by speculating on hypothetical reactions of scientists to hypothetical finds (or lack thereof, in this case).

The obvious difference is that there is nothing "hypothetical" about the physics behind EU/PC theory, whereas 95 percent of Lambda-CDM theory is 'hypothetical' in nature. Furthermore I'm not rejecting science, or the scientific method by rejecting Lambda-CDM, I'm simply promoting a *more empirical* scientific theory, and rejecting a *less empirical* scientific theory.

EU/PC theory is a *real* physics alternative to Lambda-CDM in terms of actually science, and plenty of authors produce *published papers* to support EU/PC theory on a regular basis:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

When was the last time you saw a *published* paper based on empirical evidence that supported YEC?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The obvious difference is that there is nothing "hypothetical" about the physics behind EU/PC theory, whereas 95 percent of Lambda-CDM theory is 'hypothetical' in nature. Furthermore I'm not rejecting science, or the scientific method by rejecting Lambda-CDM, I'm simply promoting a *more empirical* scientific theory, and rejecting a *less empirical* scientific theory.

EU/PC theory is a *real* physics alternative to Lambda-CDM in terms of actually science, and plenty of authors produce *published papers* to support EU/PC theory on a regular basis:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

When was the last time you saw a *published* paper based on empirical evidence that supported YEC?

I don't know anything about that stuff.
I always naturally tune out once you start to accuse the entire scientific community of supernatural beliefs and dishonest science and stuff.

Anyhow, wasn't the article in the OP about supersymmetry and the search for that double particle?

So, I take it that you believe that there is indeed a crisis in physics.
Moreover, I assume that you also have a suggestion on how to resolve it?

How would you resolve it?

 

[marvmax]

Micheal your answers to the plasma doubter were excellent. Hannes Alfven said that results in laboratory plasma experiments can be scaled by 30 orders of magnitude or more, which means that almost anything seen in the plasma laboratory can be seen in the cosmos. Micheal posted another thread http://www.christianforums.com/threads/galaxy-arms-are-composed-of-birkeland-currents.7894169/ that shows that the exact same Birkland Currents in the lab are seen in galaxies, and in sun spots, and in the auroras. The history of Birkland's theory of the auoras and why they were discounted by "accepted scientific dogma" is another fascinating example of how true science works, or doesn't depending on your view.

 

[Michael]

I don't know anything about that stuff.

And yet you accept it *all*, simply on "blind faith''.

I always naturally tune out once you start to accuse the entire scientific community of supernatural beliefs and dishonest science and stuff.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but inflation, dark energy and exotic forms of hypothetical matter are in fact as 'supernatural' as it gets. In fact no "natural" types of matter or energies known to exist could replace the "dark" items in Lambda-CDM. M-Theory is *definitely* as "supernatural" as it gets, and about as unfalsifiable as it gets too. It's a pity you refuse to embrace the empirical facts.

Psssst: Space expansion has never 'caused' a photon to lose momentum in a lab. On the other hand, moving objects and inelastic scattering processes cause photons to lose momentum in a lab, *on a regular basis*.

The very *concept* of "space expansion" being a 'cause' of photon redshift is an *act of pure faith* on the part of the believer in the "unseen* (in the lab).

Anyhow, wasn't the article in the OP about supersymmetry and the search for that double particle?

Yep. The mainstream astronomy community keeps telling particle physicists that they missed something in there standard model, and SUSY theory has been *the* primary theory put forth by astronomers. They came up *empty* in the lab in several different types of experiments, and their baryonic galaxy mass estimates from 2006 were shown to be a complete joke. They botched the stellar mass estimates by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. Ooops?!?!?

So, I take it that you believe that there is indeed a crisis in physics.

Ya, and I'm apparently not alone in that belief. There's a *huge* crisis in physics when they have to hype the hell out of the Bicep2 claims in public *before* they even pass a peer review process! Holy Cow. What a huge scientific blunder! Wow! But you go ahead and ignore their ridiculous behaviors and all their lab failures, and all those revelations about the mistakes in their mass estimates if you like. It's no real skin off my nose if you want to the play the denial game with them. Personally however, I prefer *empirical physics* over 'make believe' every day of the week.

Moreover, I assume that you also have a suggestion on how to resolve it?

Yep. All they have to do is incorporate all those blunders they made in terms of their bayonic mass estimate fiasco, and viola, the problem of 'missing mass' simply goes away in those lensing studies. Ordinary *dust and plasma* can *easily* be used to replace all their irrational claims about 'dark matter'. Their baryonic mass estimation models for galaxies were demonstrated to be *way off*.

How would you resolve it?

Dust, plasma, Birkeland Currents, and *electrical energy*.

The problem for the mainstream is that they quite literally boxed themselves into a "magic form of matter" corner over their nucleosynthesis claims. They *can't* use ordinary matter to replace their 'dark matter' component without messing up other parts of their theory. They therefore sit in *pure denial* of everything we've learned about the universe over the past decade, including the fact that all their precious SUSY models *bit the dust* at LHC.

 

[marvmax]

DogmaHunter, I'm not as smart as Micheal, although I agree with everything he's said because I've read it, I just can't reproduce it as well as he can. Let me give you and example which is much easier to understand.

When was the last time that you read an article on a new astronomical observation that started out with "This is exactly what we expected." instead of "New observations will force astronomers to reevaluate..." I honestly can't tell you how many times that happens but it seems like always to me. That's a sign of a theory that is seriously flawed.

 

[Michael]

DogmaHunter, I'm not as smart as Micheal, although I agree with everything he's said because I've read it, I just can't reproduce it as well as he can. Let me give you and example which is much easier to understand.

When was the last time that you read an article on a new astronomical observation that started out with "This is exactly what we expected." instead of "New observations will force astronomers to reevaluate..." I honestly can't tell you how many times that happens but it seems like always to me. That's a sign of a theory that is seriously flawed.

Case in point:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/140225-black-hole-big-science-space/

It's not the biggest black hole ever found, but it's astonishingly young. The giant appears to have swelled to its enormous size only 875 million years after the big bang, when the universe was just 6 percent of its current age. That's a surprise, astronomers report Wednesday in the journal Nature, because giant black holes are thought to grow relatively slowly by vacuuming up gas and even stars that venture too close.

"How do you build such a big black hole in such a short time?" asks Xue-Bing Wu of China's Peking University, lead author of the study.

It used to be that BB astronomers talked about galaxies forming and maturing over *billions* (plural) of years, whereas now they keep pushing back the formation dates of galaxies based on observations of surprisingly "mature' galaxies at very high redshifts.

http://astronomynow.com/2015/03/02/an-old-looking-dusty-galaxy-in-a-young-universe/

This galaxy was a cosmic infant — but it proved to be precocious. At this age it would be expected to display a lack of heavier chemical elements — anything heavier than hydrogen and helium, defined in astronomy as metals. These are produced in the bellies of stars and scattered far and wide once the stars explode or otherwise perish. This process needs to be repeated for many stellar generations to produce a significant abundance of the heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen.
Surprisingly, the galaxy A1689-zD1 seemed to be emitting a lot of radiation in the far infrared, indicating that it had already produced many of its stars and significant quantities of metals, and revealed that it not only contained dust, but had a dust-to-gas ratio that was similar to that of much more mature galaxies.

Their claims about galaxy evolution timelines have been consistently undermined by more recent and detailed galaxy studies, so they simply keep pushing back the evolutionary process to earlier and earlier in their creation mythos timeline.

 

[dgiharris]

.....Atheists love to claim that 'scientific' theories require empirical support, and/or they claim that all "scientific" theories must be falsifiable. There are however no such requirements in physics, and there really never have been such requirements in science or physics. Both claims are simply atheist urban legends.

I feel like you are being disingenuous here. There are different branches of physics: Applied Physics, Experimental Physics, Classical Dynamics, Theoretical Physics to name a few.

What you are talking about is Theoretical Physics and you are conflating Theoretical Physics with all of Physics and that is just disingenuous.

Theoretical Physics has to be a little bit out there in la-la land. A lot of it is well beyond our technological ability to measure and verify. Before I go on a rant, I'd like to back up a bit and talk about Math.

If you look historically at Mathematics, you'd see that Mathematics has always been well ahead of our technological development. Or put another way, the math required to build an airplane or a skyscraper has existed for hundreds of years. So just imagine how powerful the mathematics of today are especially with the computing power we have...

So, to me, Theoretical Physics gets a ton of leeway and license to live in la-la land. They are wrestling with the very fabric of the universe and are bound to get tons of stuff wrong. But it's okay because the math and science they are developing will have applications somewhere eventually. Just because your models or predictions are wrong doesn't mean they have no utility or that they won't provide a crucial piece to a bigger puzzle later on...

Lastly, I think you are really unfair in regards to the time scale on all of this. Think of what they are trying to accomplish vs the time scale of the physics they are inventing. What I mean is that "fabric of the universe" type physics is in its infancy. That baby just left the womb a few decades ago and we haven't really had the computing power to do it justice until just the last decade of so. Not to mention the new Hadron Collilder is not even ten years old...

So I just think it is disingenuous on your part to hold up Theoretical Physics as a model for all science and scream, "AHA!!! The atheists are a bunch of hypocrites that don't even believe in their own falsification requirements!!!"

Theoretical Physics gets leeway to live in la-la land. They must dare to dream and go out on a limb. 99 times out of 100 they are going to be dead wrong, but it is worth it for that 1 time they are going to be right.

 

[sfs]

Ya, and I'm apparently not alone in that belief. There's a *huge* crisis in physics when they have to hype the hell out of the Bicep2 claims in public *before* they even pass a peer review process! Holy Cow.

You're seriously suggesting that scientists only hype premature results when there's a huge crisis in a field? You've never actually done any science, have you?

 

[Michael]

I feel like you are being disingenuous here. There are different branches of physics: Applied Physics, Experimental Physics, Classical Dynamics, Theoretical Physics to name a few.

What you are talking about is Theoretical Physics and you are conflating Theoretical Physics with all of Physics and that is just disingenuous.

Actually, I personally do distinguish between the two types of physics (empirical/hypothetical), and I would argue that atheists simply misrepresent the scientific method with respect to the topic of "God". Atheists tend to insinuate that science is limited to *empirical* physics. That's simply not the case.

Theoretical Physics has to be a little bit out there in la-la land. A lot of it is well beyond our technological ability to measure and verify. Before I go on a rant, I'd like to back up a bit and talk about Math.

Sure, and it's no more 'la-la-land' than any theory about God in the final analysis. All I'm noting is that "science" has never *required* A) empirical experimental support, or B) falsification potential. These are atheist urban legends.

If you look historically at Mathematics, you'd see that Mathematics has always been well ahead of our technological development. Or put another way, the math required to build an airplane or a skyscraper has existed for hundreds of years. So just imagine how powerful the mathematics of today are especially with the computing power we have...

The problem with mathematical models is that like epicylce theories, they don't necessarily accurately depict reality, even if they have "predictive ability".

So, to me, Theoretical Physics gets a ton of leeway and license to live in la-la land. They are wrestling with the very fabric of the universe and are bound to get tons of stuff wrong. But it's okay because the math and science they are developing will have applications somewhere eventually. Just because your models or predictions are wrong doesn't mean they have no utility or that they won't provide a crucial piece to a bigger puzzle later on...

I'm fine with that attitude as long as it works for atheists and the topic of God too. What I resent is an atheist claiming that a supernatural concept of God concept isn't "scientific' simply because it's not "falsifiable". If that were actually how science worked in real life, there would be no such thing as M-Theory.

Lastly, I think you are really unfair in regards to the time scale on all of this. Think of what they are trying to accomplish vs the time scale of the physics they are inventing. What I mean is that "fabric of the universe" type physics is in its infancy. That baby just left the womb a few decades ago and we haven't really had the computing power to do it justice until just the last decade of so. Not to mention the new Hadron Collilder is not even ten years old...

I think I've been more than fair, and more than patient too. LHC has already falsified every 'popular" SUSY theory on the books and we're basically scraping the bottom of the barrel now in higher energy tests. I actually think that the CDM side of Lambda-CDM is the *least* objectionable parts of the theory since various particle physics models *can* be 'tested' in the lab, whereas their 'space expansion' claim cannot be verified or falsified in any lab on Earth.

So I just think it is disingenuous on your part to hold up Theoretical Physics as a model for all science and scream, "AHA!!! The atheists are a bunch of hypocrites that don't even believe in their own falsification requirements!!!"

It is hypocritical to claim that God theories which don't pass an atheists personal 'falsification' requirement are somehow excluded from being 'scientific' theories based on that requirement, while they *simultaneously promote* mainstream cosmology theory. They simply cannot have their cake and eat it too.

Theoretical Physics gets leeway to live in la-la land. They must dare to dream and go out on a limb. 99 times out of 100 they are going to be dead wrong, but it is worth it for that 1 time they are going to be right.

Likewise there may be a billion and one theories about God that turn out to be wrong, but all it takes is *one to be right*.

 

[Michael]

You're seriously suggesting that scientists only hype premature results when there's a huge crisis in a field? You've never actually done any science, have you?

I'm not suggesting it's the *only* time it happens, but this particular "cry wolf" event sure has all the earmarks of pure desperation.

Let's get real. Prior to even getting through the peer review process, they claimed to the press to have five + sigma confidence in the discovery of:

A) gravity waves
B) evidence for inflation
C) evidence to support BB theory in general

Not a single one of those claims passed the peer review process, and all of their claims were replaced with *ordinary dust*. If they can't tell the difference between *ordinary dust* and gravity waves, how can you call them 'experts' in the first place?

The whole field of science called "astronomy" is simply built on supernatural quicksand. The whole theory is propped up by them claiming to have *eliminated* every other *logical possibility*, therefore supernatural stuff is required. As the BICEP2 fiasco demonstrated, they don't have any *real* ability to eliminate *ordinary* processes to begin with! They simply *assume* they can eliminate every other option, and they constantly stick their foot in their mouth.

It took a decade to show all the flaws in that 2006 lensing study that claimed to find 'proof' of 'dark matter'.

It took more than a decade to figure out that "standard candles' weren't actually "standard" as advertised by dark energy proponents.

It took only a *few months* to blow holes in mainstream inflation hype.

All three *core* claims of Lambda-CDM have been shown to be based on *false premises galore*!

 

[Michael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

So what's been discovered in astronomy since that infamous 2006 lensing study that claimed to find "proof"" of dark matter? Well, the mainstream has repeatedly admitted that they botched every stellar mass estimate and galaxy mass *assumption* which was used in that 2006 study. They grossly underestimated the total amount of light that galaxies emit. They grossly underestimated the number of stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3-20, depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archiv ... 439,en.php
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex ... 90819.html
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/ ... ion-stars/

They also underestimated the total number of stars of various sizes that reside *between* galaxies in clusters, rather than directly *inside* of galaxies too.

http://www.realclearscience.com/journal ... 08929.html

Every one of these revelations drives another nail in the coffin of their claim about any need for exotic forms of matter. Virtually every single assumption that they used to calculate ordinary baryonic matter in that 2006 study has since been shown to be completely worthless. There was never any 'proof' of 'dark matter' from that Bullet Cluster lensing study, they simply 'proved' that their galaxy mass estimates were an absolute *disaster* back in 2006.

In 2012, they also found all their so called "missing baryons" in the form million degree plasma that surrounds the galaxy. Not only did they resolve that minor 'issue', the demonstrated that their useless baryonic mass estimates in 2006 were *pitifully flawed* in virtually every conceivable way. They drastically underestimated the amount of ordinary matter in that 2006 study!

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chand ... 2-331.html

Let's look at what's happened since 2006 as it relates to exotic matter claims in the lab. Not only didn't LHC find any evidence of 'WIMP' sparticles, it found no evidence whatsoever of any "sparticles" associated with SUSY theory, not a single one. Not only did the folks at LHC find the last remaining "standard" particle in the standard model of particle physics, they quite literally ruled out all the 'popular' brands of SUSY theory prior to LHC. "Mainstream" particle physics theory was validated in a huge way at LHC with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, the last remaining particle of the standard model. On the other hand LHC results haven't been at all kind to *non standard* claims about particle physics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100

LUX also struck out in a *huge* way. More millions of dollars were poured own a hole looking for the hypothetical WIMP particle yet absolutely nothing was found. The same NULL results were verified again at PandaX too.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... s-up-empty
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 092814.php

They even tested electron roundness claims in the lab that are related to *various* exotic matter theories, and again they found the ultimate *NULL* result from such lab "experiments".

http://news.discovery.com/space/perfect ... 131219.htm

Every single claim to fame that the mainstream made in 2006 in terms of being able to empirically "test" their claims in a lab blew right up in their empirical face. They all came back with *NULL* results from the LAB, each and every single lab experiment.

So how has the mainstream dealt with this new information?


.

 

[Oafman]

Difficult to falsify is not the same as unfalsifiable. I do accept that SuSy advocates are being backed into an increasingly small corner by the absence of evidence, but that does not prove their hypotheses to be false.

And Michael, why does the word 'atheists' appear in your OP? This subject is not connected to religion.

 

[Michael]

Difficult to falsify is not the same as unfalsifiable. I do accept that SuSy advocates are being backed into an increasingly small corner by the absence of evidence, but that does not prove their hypotheses to be false.

And Michael, why does the word 'atheists' appear in your OP? This subject is not connected to religion.

You're absolutely right that it's a physics dilemma that is not *directly* related to religion, but it does emphasize a very inconvenient truth that atheists who post to this forum tend to ignore with respect to 'science' and the topic of God.

"Science" as a whole has *never* been limited to studying *only* empirical ideas, and falsification is *not* a requirement as atheists seem to *require* as it relates to the topic of God.

In short, atheists tend to impose a 100 percent *empirical* cause/effect demonstrated standard as it relates to the topic of God, particularly with respect to supporting "evidence", and they often try to claim that every concept of God is *necessarily* "unscientific" because of some perceived lack of an ability to falsify the idea. DogmaHunter and I have had that conversation. Cosmology theories (plural) tend to simply *assume* various cause/effect relationships, and there is typically no need of falsification, even in the realm of particle physics.

Thanks to the first round of LHC experiments, LUX, PandaX, and electron roundness "tests", SUSY theory has evolved into an ever shrinking, ever goal posts moving, "exotic matter of the gaps" theory, and it's only *one* of a potentially *infinite* number of potential "dark matter" candidates. Even *if* SUSY theory were outright falsifiable, which is highly doubtful as long as the goal posts can continue moving up the energy spectrum indefinitely, a generic 'dark matter' concept is *beyond* any concept of falsification because *anything* is technically possible. That is particularly true if any exotic matter theory can pop up on any unreachable energy level on a human whim.

Basically we're at the point where it's either 'go big' for SUSY theory in future LHC experiments, or it's go home time. Even still "dark matter" theory on whole is simply a magic matter of the gaps claim on supernatural steroids. M-Theory, the anointed "next step" in cosmology theory, makes *grandiose* assumptions and imposes requirements about non demonstrated external agents just to make it work correctly, and falsification is virtually impossible.

 

[lesliedellow]

Atheists love to claim that 'scientific' theories require empirical support, and/or they claim that all "scientific" theories must be falsifiable. There are however no such requirements in physics, and there really never have been such requirements in science or physics. Both claims are simply atheist urban legends.

Rubbish. String Theory has been heavily criticised within the scientific community, precisely because it has made no falsifiable predictions and shows no signs of doing so.