Comprehensive coverage

The physics beyond the horizon

Dr. Shakma Bressler is trying to find ways to discover phenomena that do not exist according to the standard model of particle physics, thereby expanding our description of the fundamental laws of nature. To this end, she analyzes the data from particle collisions at the LHC particle accelerator, and designs particle detectors that focus on the "blind spots" of the detectors currently operating at CERN.

From the right: Dan Shaked-Reno, Avital Deri, Dr. Shakma Bresler, Ayelet Efrati, Mathias Bierman, Luca Moleri. The structure of the material
From the right: Dan Shaked-Renault, Avital Deri, Dr. Shakma Bresler, Ayelet Efrati, Mathias Bierman, Luca Mullery. The structure of the material


Are there any cornerstones of nature that we have not yet discovered? What hidden worlds still await us in the study of the elementary particles from which the universe is built? Dr. Shakma Bressler tries to challenge the standard model - the theory that describes the elementary particles and the forces acting between them. The discovery of the Higgs boson in the particle accelerator of the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, CERN, served as an important step in confirming this theory. But in science, as in science, the confirmation of one idea may lead to new fascinating questions, and it has long been clear to scientists dealing with particle physics that despite the success of the standard model, the picture it presents is incomplete.

On the line between the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute of Science and CERN, Dr. Bresler is trying to discover evidence that would not be consistent with the standard model. Any such hint of "new physics" will be a significant breakthrough, and may allow shedding light in the future on those issues that the standard model leaves open. "For example", she says, "we know what the mass of the electron is, but we have no explanation why it is its mass. We have no way to predict this, check, and confirm the result." For a physical parameter whose value we do not know how to get from fundamental considerations, physicists call it a "free parameter". Today there are 18 such free parameters, which the standard model, in its current version, neither explains nor predicts. "This is just one example out of many," adds Dr. Bresler, "it's fun to know that we still have a lot of things to understand."

Expanding the standard model

There are many models that try to expand the standard model, but so far no evidence has been found that one of the models might be a step in the right direction. "One of the ways to show the existence of physics beyond the standard model," says Dr. Bresler, "is to discover particles whose existence the standard model does not predict." Such particles, if they do exist, may be created at the Large Hadron Collider, the LHC at CERN, exist for a fraction of a second, and then decay into other particles. In other words, the way to discover these particles is through the detection of their decay products (this is how the Higgs boson was actually discovered as well). "Another way", explains Dr. Bressler, "is to show that particles that appear in the standard model, such as the Higgs boson for example, can also decay in ways that the standard model does not allow."

In her research, Dr. Bresler works on two tracks: one, the analysis of data from particle collisions at the LHC particle accelerator near Geneva in an attempt to discover phenomena that contradict the standard model; The second is the development of the next generation of particle detectors that will allow in the future to improve the level of sensitivity of the search for physics beyond the standard model. The big question is, of course, how it is possible to design and build a particle detector that will detect a particle that we do not know if it exists, what its properties are and "what is its place in the system". To do this, Dr. Bressler and the members of her research group examine the properties of the particle detectors present in the particle accelerator. Naturally, there are areas where these detectors are less "sensitive", or where they have a kind of "blind spots". For example, the existing detectors will not allow measuring the properties of the Higgs particle with sufficient accuracy. Dr. Bressler aims to overcome these weaknesses by designing advanced detectors. This is a long-term process, which may last for many years, and at the end of it we may discover answers to questions that today we still don't know how to ask.


More on the subject on the science website


25 תגובות

  1. skeptic,
    You wrote: "Shachterman did not receive a positive response immediately but only after a long period of time (let's say 20 years after he was barely allowed to publish his words)."

    Here are some facts that you could use if you weren't so ignorant and stupid:
    A. The man's name is Shechtman, not Shechterman.
    B. Prof. Shechtman made his discovery in 1983.
    third. His first paper on this topic was published in the prestigious PRL Physics Journal in 1984, about a year later!
    d. Recognition of scientific research is demonstrated through awards. Prof. Shechtman received the international award from the American Physical Society in 1987, four years after the discovery.

    Have you no shame in writing about things you have no idea about?

    Then you wrote: "Schachterman did not change a paradigm but a local convention that has no influence on most researchers."

    It is not surprising that you do not understand the importance of Prof. Shechtman's discovery, many others (scientists, not idiots who have no idea about their lives like you) understood and appreciated his research and discoveries. For this reason, he received, among others, the following awards:
    1. The International Prize from the American Physical Society (1987)
    2. Award for academic excellence from the Technion (1988)
    3. Rothschild Prize for Engineering (1990)
    4. Weizmann Science Prize (1993)
    5. Israel Prize for Physics Research (1998)
    6. Wolf Prize (1999)
    7. Gregory Aminoff Prize in Crystallography from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2000)
    8. AMT Prize for Chemistry (2002)
    9. Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2011)

    You have proven once again that your stupidity knows no bounds.

  2. safkan

    "Your arguments are irrelevant. I won't go into details."

    Arguments completely to the point. You are simply unable to deal with them, because it is difficult for you to be confronted with your flawed way of thinking and your lack of integrity.

    "I see no point in convincing someone who insists on not being convinced"

    I don't insist on not being convinced, but I prefer to base my conviction or lack of conviction on things with substance and not on conspiratorial nonsense and belief in the unreliability of scientists from a person who does not know a single scientist personally, and has decided that this is a collection of charlatans that all they care about is sitting in a chair and that the salary Keep going in your pocket.

    It is not clear to me what my discussion with Ehud has to do with the matter. Ehud sought to define God as a meaningless term and insisted that God should be given some importance. It has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that you just automatically run away from any discussion of your claims shows that you don't really stand behind your things. You behave just like skeptics and Raphael who are only here to "show that there is another option".

    "Those who accept arguments "from authority" will probably not be convinced"

    It is very funny. After all, your whole view on this subject is based on one book that you read and which you accept as a complete mishna. We actually learned that the one who is convinced is the one who receives arguments from the authority (you).

  3. By the way, I went to the site of this friend of yours Kumai. I read a bit of nonsense that he writes there - it is evident in about the third line that the man knows physics at about your level, maybe a little less (when I say less I mean that he knows more things, but since they are wrong, in fact he understands even less than you). I also looked at the part of the site that bears the defiant and so arrogant name, "Challenge for Physicists". What can I say, if a bachelor's degree student were to tell me the things written there (which claim to "prove" that many basic things in physics are wrong) I would immediately take that name and XNUMX from him, go to the head of the teaching committee and explain to him that if the student receives a bachelor's degree I resign and moves on to investigate at another institution. In other words, it's just embarrassing how a person who doesn't understand what he's talking about isn't ashamed to show his ignorance in public.

  4. skeptic,

    You don't need to understand anything about physics to see that you are a huge liar. For example, anyone can read my response and see that I wrote something like ten lines about the fact that everyone knows that the standard model is not accurate and does not correctly describe all the phenomena in nature, and at the end I wrote one line about the fact that these differences - the places where the standard model does not give the accuracy of something Like ten minus eight percent - hard to find. Somehow your lying brain made it into “your words about the particle models of sorts matching the experiments well. As soon as you confidently assert such a claim, I doubt your honesty or your understanding." Like, are you dumb, can't read, or are you just such a liar that you think you can deny reality?

    So like I said, it's not necessary to understand physics to see that you're a liar, but it helps. For example, someone who understands physics would know that the Nobel Prize was awarded this year for work on neutrino oscillations - a phenomenon that is only possible when the neutrino has mass (while in the standard model it is massless). I mean, to your friend - they handed out a Nobel Prize this year and turned the spotlight of all scientific research in the world on a study that they really want to keep secret so that no one would ever know that the standard model does not correspond 100% to reality. So what do you say, dumb, can't read, or a liar?

    Nor do you need to understand physics to understand that you are retarded. For example, all the commenters here - even though they are not physicists - immediately saw that your psychotic conspiracies are clearly illogical and this is because your weak brain has trouble even understanding how academia works. Do you think that if I say that this or that Torah is true I get a salary and if I disagree with it then I don't? Any person, even if he does not understand physics, can read for 5 minutes on the Internet about the standard model and see that from the moment it was created everyone knew it was inaccurate, but what to do with an approximation that describes *almost* all the phenomena with an accuracy of 99.999999999% (and this is not an invented number, it Really the accuracy of a fairly significant part of the model's predictions) is not bad. At least something to build on while we're looking for the next model (which you may foolishly claim is something unique to the group presented in the article, when any person - even if they don't understand physics - can check in two minutes that this is what *every* group working on particle physics in the world does).

    So like I said, it's not necessary to understand physics to see that you're stupid, but it helps. For example, those who understand physics know that the crushing argument you wrote to Netta, they don't even try to synthesize a constructive process of creating a particle because there is a widespread lack of understanding about the mechanism (for example, no one has created a proton or a neutron from other particles)", is nothing less than retardation. The proton and neutron, my limited friends, are made up of quarks. Quarks are endowed with a feature called confinement, which means that they cannot really exist as building blocks unless they make up something (at least not on energy scales relevant to our technology in the coming decades). So what you say we "even" couldn't do is actually an impossible task. It's like saying that engineers don't understand Newtonian mechanics because they are "not even" able to build a 40 km high tower that stands on a pin made of a single fiber of balsa wood. Besides, your stupid criticism about the way we produce particles (which, whether stupid or curious, you didn't present it accurately: we don't just hope that something comes out in a collision, we know what to access and under what conditions to get the product we want in the right energy and direction, Although there is indeed a strong statistical factor here) shows a childish perception of physics. Say, what do you think, is it Lego? That we can pick up particle A, pick up particle B, and connect them with a screw? Particles are created in nature solely as a result of interaction (or from fluctuation which by definition is spontaneous and therefore it is impossible to produce a particle with its help that does not suffer from a statistical nature). To produce particles, they are brought into interaction, that is, they are brought together. If you have a problem with the fact that we still haven't invented such a small-small-small tweezer that you can use to pick up two quarks and produce food, please contact the public complaints representative at the mental hospital closest to your home, children's department (due to the low intelligence level of the complaint).

    Finally, your criticism of me not speaking nicely to you needs to be addressed. Ok, so first thing, what to do - when a person comes along who is a liar and has interests and tries to poison science because he is very stupid and it hurts him that smart people understand things that seem like magic to him, then there is no reason to be nice to him.

    Secondly, everything comes back to you and is in your hands. Or if you would like a more beautiful language - the falsifier in Momo falsifies. Now you don't understand what I'm talking about, so I'll explain: insults and personal attacks are a sign that the person saying them has nothing to say *only when they don't come alongside meaningful content*. I'll say it again, because you still don't understand. If I call you a fool and give an explanation why, it cannot be said that I called you a fool because I have nothing to say. You claim that I am natzing because I don't understand, but Rabak - everything I say is explained, reasoned, and if necessary - I will also give references to scientific articles (and I do this often). You, on the other hand (now listen, the next part is relevant to you), wrote an entire response in which you questioned my intelligence (even though you have no evidence or proof of this, because whether you like the language I use or not, I very, very understand in the things I'm talking about), you wrote that I don't understand experimental physics because I'm a string guy (which is funny twice: once because you have no idea who I am, what I do, and in which fields I work. A second time because your crippling stupidity doesn't allow you to understand how Different fields of physics are connected to each other, therefore your assertion that those who deal with string theory do not understand experimental physics is based on the fact that you do not understand anything about anything, and only on that), and the rest of the insults. I'll explain again, because you're stupid and you didn't understand - I'm coming down on you but I'm saying things that make sense, and everything is explained, reasoned and stems from a very deep understanding of the field that I've been living and breathing for years. You try to avoid dirty language, but other than explaining that I'm not that smart (even though I am, and you're not, and it takes exactly 4 seconds to see that) you have nothing to say. In fact, the very fact that you admitted that the reason you don't curse is because you're afraid of being blocked shows that in addition to being stupid and a liar, you're also just plain cowardly.


  5. To the skeptic of science
    Your diagnosis is as if most scientists claim that "it is forbidden to reflect on heretical things"
    Neither is correct and even contrary to the basic interest of the scientists.
    After all, the scientist lives from research.
    The day science knows everything, it will be possible to send the scientists to the employment office.
    If you don't care, the scientists, as stupid and fixed as you say, you
    This they are still able to understand.

  6. safkan,

    Could you give a representative example from the book of an experiment where results were obtained that clearly contradict the standard model, and let us hear what the experts here have to say specifically about the experiment in question?

    In the meantime the arguments sound very general, maybe we should concentrate on a specific argument.

  7. safkan
    What a disgusting hypocrite you are 🙂
    The scientists lie that "the ground is falling from under them", because "all they care about is the pursuit of money"...

    But, when you have found your conspirator on duty - you have to listen to the content of his words, and ignore the circumstances....

    Even for you it is low 🙂

  8. walking dead


    Your arguments are irrelevant. I won't go into details.

    At the time I mistakenly thought that there was a point in debating with you, but I was severely disappointed and decided that debating with you is a waste of time. Some of the things I say to your arguments can be found in my responses to others. I will not add more about them, not to you and probably not to others.

    I see no point in convincing those who insist on not being convinced or those who want to have a marathon debate of 100 comments, in my opinion such a marathon debate is a waste of time. I saw how Ehud (the physicist) got into trouble on this site in the discussion about "religious is good or bad", I understood that it was wasted and a marathon debate without results, I do not intend to repeat the mistake he made. I brought a number of arguments regarding the particles to a number of people as food for thought, I also referred to books. Let them do with my arguments what they will, let them do with the books what they want.

    Those who accept arguments "from the authority" will probably not be convinced because they stick to their "rabbinic authority" and will oppose outright what their "rabbis" reject ("the rabbis" for our purposes is "the majority of the academic establishment") Those whose thinking is flexible and is not forced by the rabbis, will check my words Kumai will be convinced or not convinced by the words (his words to the point - otherwise what are his motives which are not interesting).

  9. K.

    I can't respond to all your words because they are long and I don't have the technical arrangements to respond to a long message.

    I will be content with only a few points that I remember. Hope the response will be eloquent despite the technical limitations on my computer.

    A. A person's motive when he expresses his opinion about something is not particularly important. It is important to consider his arguments separately from his motive. Are his arguments valid or not
    That's it, everything else is gossip. According to Komai, the failures of elementary particle models were erased from the textbooks as if they did not exist - which creates a false impression that there were no major failures.

    I suggest you, for the sake of intellectual honesty. Do not use a review that you pulled out of your sleeve after a brief look at the blog. This is a demagogic method. Ofer made an honorable effort to present in an orderly manner the description of the collection of failures. His blog is a kind of summary, or sales promotion, you can't learn from summaries and certainly you can't use the limited understanding from summaries to argue something against.

    I don't know if the model of Eliyahu Komai (Ofer's father) is true or not, it is not a relevant argument. No one has to bring an alternative model to argue that a current model has failed. Personally, I doubt that the alternative model is correct, not because I find problems there, but because according to the collection of failures over 50 years and the lack of real progress in understanding the "rules of the game" of particles - it seems to me that research in this field is futile _nowadays_. Financial resources for research are limited and should only be directed to channels that promise and deliver.

    Schechterman did not receive a positive response immediately but only after a long period of time (let's say 20 years after he was barely allowed to publish his words). Schechterman did not change a paradigm but a local convention that has no influence on most researchers. Challenging the standard model is a dispute over a paradigm and the meaning of rejecting the standard model may hurt thousands of researchers (?) whose careers are based on this model. In such a case, as Cohen said, there is strong opposition to the invalid idea. The objection is expressed in the fact that the falsifier will not get a job or research budgets, he will be dried up. Don't idealize the situation. There is evidence of the drying up of LENR research that was brutally boycotted without justification (within ten years the boycott on LENR may disappear because the experiments there are very successful, the slanders in this matter are part of the boycott on the subject, the experiments of the Russian reactor that produces 1 megawatt are excellent experiments despite all the slanders ). The experiments at LENR were mostly done outside the academy due to the drying up of researchers in the field.

  10. safkan

    There is a very serious problem that you are ignoring. Most of these scientists you say fear for their livelihood, well they have tenure, they don't need to fear for their livelihood.
    You really like to talk about following the money, but for some reason you do it very selectively.
    Your siding with global warming denial using the exact same claims, while ignoring that the real money is right on the other side of the equation, is a prime example of this.

    Your second argument about the fixedness of thought and the fear of change and new discoveries of the scientists is also extremely unfounded. If this were indeed the case, we should have witnessed a scientific world in stagnation and we should not have seen thousands of journals in which millions of scientific articles are published every year.

    The third interesting point is your ability to read a popular science book (and in this case one with a very clear agenda) and come to the conclusion following this reading that you master the material and understand and know better than everyone else.

    Since you really like to analyze people psychologically, you might try to analyze yourself and understand why you are extremely averse and critical towards certain factors, while you are sympathetic and lack any such critical ability when it comes to other factors.

  11. Albanzo

    You are a pathetic physicist who may understand something or a lot about the mathematical model of string theory.
    But you understand very little about human behavior. It is not certain that you understand experimental physics, which is radically distant from pure mathematical research, some seem to think that string theory is completely detached from physics because there is nothing between it and an empirical experiment.

    Therefore I am not impressed by your words that the models of particles of various kinds correspond well with the experiments. As soon as you confidently make such a claim I doubt your honesty or your understanding.

    In addition - someone who sneers like you can't be a great understander. Arrogance is the weapon used by those with weak arguments to show that they are right. You cannot claim that I insulted you as a justification for your hatred. Although I expressed my opinion on your intellectual qualifications (general, non-warning) regarding the laboratory that was placed on the comet Tsurmoev Gersimenko, I did not continue with it because I saw no need to argue with you further. (Reminder: the laboratory made a crash landing and found nothing but marginal findings, but the fact of the crash landing was glossed over with inflated words).

    Now keep shouting. (I don't use harsher words just so my words won't be blocked. Nothing, your unclean tongue does the proper service and it comes back to you like a boomerang, from your unclean tongue they understand what you are worth).

  12. Is this the same Ofer Komai who strongly claimed that the Higgs particle does not exist?
    And he has a clear agenda (he writes about it himself) to save his father's ideas.

    I read Kuhn's fascinating book years ago, I don't remember that he deals there with "what are the human dynamics behind the behavior of researchers who have the ground dropped from under their feet." Of course, it could be that I don't remember everything that was written there, could you provide a quote from the book that demonstrates this?

    In any case, there is no denying that scientists are first of all human beings and are prone to conduct that is unrelated and may even hinder scientific progress. At the same time, only a complete idiot would ignore the sequence of successes of science in the last hundreds of years, and this despite the "problem of humanity" of the scientists. The fact that someone is disappointed that his ideas were not in demand in the scientific community (such as in the case of Komai) does not mean that the scientific community suffers from conservative stagnation, it is much more likely to assume that the ideas of that disappointed person were wrong (oh, the Higgs particle actually does exist...).

    The standard model, although probably not perfect, is the best explanation that exists today to describe large parts of the reality we live in, and is one of the most tested and confirmed models. Your claims that this model is being kept because of greed for money are unfounded both because the model is relevant (because as mentioned it has been confirmed countless times even if not perfectly, and because it is extremely useful for further research) and because there is currently no alternative that reaches its ankles despite its shortcomings. Your arguments are especially stupid in light of the fact that research is actually taking place in which they try to find better models.

    In science, in the end, if you have a strong case, then the scientific community will not be able to dispute the findings. People like you always give the case of Prof. Dan Shechtman as an example of science's resistance to new ideas, but this is an argument based on ignorance at best and stupidity at worst, because a brief examination of the sequence of events clearly reveals that from the moment the findings were published the relevant scientific community changed its mind while A very short time and she received the renewal. In fact, there was only one stubborn opponent who was unable to prevent the publication of Dan Shechtman's findings, and this is an instructive example of the ability of science to adopt a new world view, even if it is contrary to the old well-accepted concept, in a short time, a process that occurs repeatedly in the history of science.

    Speaking calmly does not indicate wisdom, in fact speaking calmly many times covers up ignorance and stupidity as you have proven in your responses.

  13. Ofer "stands firm" You probably said the Hebrew language, there are dozens of prophecies of the particle theories that failed miserably. The failures were swept under the carpet and, among other things, they disappeared from the textbooks (so that we believe that the teachings are more reliable than they really are). If you have any objections to what I said, I suggest you contact Ofer Komai who wrote a comprehensive review on the repeated failures of the particle theories. I'm sure he'll be able to put you in your place.

    Note: Don't refer to me as a retarded child who doesn't know how science is supposed to progress. Your arrogant style is out of place. Every scientific branch has a grace period of, say, 50 years, if after 50 years you remain stuck in a state of lack of understanding in any direction - there is probably a deep failure in the concept of the branch. In case of failure of the conception, the money should be redirected to other research. In scientific research, it is necessary, among other things, to identify when the conception has failed.

    I do not think that it is forbidden to study elementary particles, but in my opinion comprehensive research (like the various models) is an area beyond our ability today due to the lack of good tools for research. One can be satisfied with an _ad hoc_ investigation of quasi-expectant phenomena that accompany them and see if there is a chance of reproducing them (without trying to understand _how the structure as a whole works_). As an example: if it is possible to practically produce muons "cheaply" it can be useful without developing too extensive theories related to production.

  14. Nte
    The key word in the subject is "money". People will do anything to make a living, including fictional stories about fake scientific successes. The smaller the group of in-depth referees (due to the complexity of the issue), the easier it is to fabricate successes that do not exist. This is apparently the situation of the vast majority of the models built to describe the unpredictable behavior of the behavior of elementary particles (or their simple compositions).

    The study of elementary particles began (approximately) 50 years ago and from then until today this research falters, every time a new idea of ​​expanding the model is tried, the new idea solves one problem but at the same time creates three new problems... the best they have succeeded in is to "explain" different situations with One model or another, but they don't even try to synthesize a constructive process of creating a particle because there is a widespread lack of understanding about the mechanism (for example, no one has created a proton or a neutron from other particles).

    The maximum they have done in order to produce particles is to bombard existing parts with a lot of force so that new combinations are randomly formed.

    I suggest you read Kumai's book so you can see how to conduct a respectable argument. I also suggest that you read Cohen's book "Scientific Revolutions" so that you understand what the human dynamics are behind the behavior of researchers whose ground has fallen from under their feet.

    I repeat my main argument so that my words will not be lost in my text here and in the recommended text of the catalogers. The researchers are ordinary people who first and foremost protect their livelihood (including their status in the institution where they are located). When they fear for their livelihood, they will not dare criticize and say heretical things (such as "all models of elementary particles do not properly explain their observed behavior").

    Ignore anyone who speaks nasty things such as Albanzo the wise man. He who speaks hateful things does so because of weakness, he shouts in the hope that he will be considered right. The words of the sages are easy to hear, they don't need natzos.

    In my previous response I referred to a book in Hebrew by Ofer Komai who collected evidence from respected physicists about dozens of predictions of the particle theory that failed in the experiment. The book published by Stimatsky is called "amazing, absurd genius". The state of the particle theories is not a state of "correct theory with a few mistakes" but a continuous collection of major failures in prediction.

    I hope my response will be uploaded because there are technical problems because of which it may come out truncated.


  15. Ofer
    It's not "even if his familiarity with the same subject is minimal and based on kitchen gossip"... the word "also" is unnecessary. As with any conspiracy, the reason is because of the lack of familiarity…..I have yet to hear a conspirator in any field come with adequate knowledge. There were revolutionaries in science, but they didn't call the other scientists liars.

  16. Skeptic: Whoever expands the model will be nominated for the Nobel Prize. It is one of the hot and discussed and financially invested topics.

    But why let the facts confuse conspiracy enthusiasts when you can claim to silence the "establishment" without any proof...

  17. The criticism of a "skeptic" expresses a deep misunderstanding of everything related to scientific work in the world of physics. As Albanzo pointed out, the desire of those engaged in physics research (which has not yet succeeded) is to "go beyond the standard model", but this task is very difficult since the model stands firm despite all attempts to challenge it. For some reason there are those who believe that they must have a firm opinion on any subject even if their knowledge of that subject is minimal and based on kitchen gossip. What is the point of such opinion?

  18. lion

    It's easy to talk about fixed when you only know one detail. The problem with particles is not a conceptual difficulty (as you say). The photon has been known as a massless particle for over 100 years and no one was particularly bothered by this.

    The main problem with the elementary particles is that many of them do not behave according to the accepted theory and this raises the possibility that the accepted theory is incorrect. A popular science book by Ofer Kumai (Stimetsky Publishing) - lists dozens of experiments in which experiments with elementary particles gave similar results, and it also mentions many properties of elementary particles for which there is no satisfactory explanation.

    The research group referred to here challenges the validity of the existing model by looking for other parts, or looking for phenomena that have not been observed so far, or blaming faulty measuring tools.

  19. Wow.

    Skeptic, your comment is the dumbest and most pathetic thing I've read in a long time. You are such a poor man, it's hard to put into words.

    From the day they wrote the standard model, it was known and clear that it is only an approximation, and that it is not a complete or accurate description of our reality. No physicist has *ever* claimed to have a perfect and accurate model that describes the matter and forces known to us in physics. The most popular words in particle physics are "beyond the standard model", because in fact there is no other task or question besides: what is physics beyond the standard model? What is the physics that the Standard Model does not describe? The search for the answer to this question is *everything* that particles do and *everything* that is done in the axis and in every accelerator in the world. But what to do, the standard model is such a good approximation that finding out the differences between it and reality is not an easy task.

    You are a poor piece of liar who to fulfill his miserable life has to escape into pathetic fantasies where he is smarter than the scientists or knows something no one else does.

    Just throw up and pity.

  20. Wow.

    Skeptic, your comment is the dumbest and most pathetic thing I've read in a long time. You are such a poor man, it's hard to put into words.

    From the day they wrote the standard model, it was known and clear that it was only an approximation, and that it was not a complete or accurate description of our reality. No physicist has *ever* claimed to have a perfect and accurate model that describes the matter and forces known to us in physics. The four most popular words in particle physics are beyond the standard model, because in fact there is no other task or question besides: What is physics beyond the standard model? What is the physics that the Standard Model does not describe? The search for the answer to this question is *everything* that particles do and *everything* that is done in the axis and in every accelerator in the world. But what to do, the standard model is such a good approximation that finding out the differences between it and reality is not an easy task.

    You are a poor piece of liar who to fulfill his miserable life has to escape into pathetic fantasies where he is smarter than the scientists or knows something no one else does.

    Just throw up and pity.

  21. It's very simple that there are particles with a charge without mass and it's hard for most people to grasp this... but as my current physics teacher Dr. Katrin Zossef said in physics there is no sense....

  22. skeptic,
    As soon as you claim that there are other objects that are not included in the standard model, you are not necessarily denying it, but calling its integrity into question. It can still be argued to be true, but just not perfect, as the supersymmetry theory tries to make up for it. Another example is the theory of relativity, which did not cancel Newton's theory of gravity, but added to it, filling in "holes" that did not fit with the theory of gravity.
    I agree with you that it is already annoying to hear scientists say "now we have a complete Torah" and never learn the lesson from the past.

  23. For those who did not understand: this research group disbelieves in the correctness of the standard model but does not say so openly, because "it is forbidden to reflect on heretical things".

    The standard model essentially (not in its margins) claims to have a perfect and accurate model that describes the matter and forces known to us in physics. As soon as they claim that there are other objects in nature that are not included in it - they deny it.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.