Active Users:323 Time:15/05/2024 04:29:17 AM
Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list! Birdeye Send a noteboard - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
There are currently six known quarks: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, top. Only the first three were known before the second three were predicted by theory in the early 70s; they were all eventually confirmed by experiment, but the top quark wasn't found until 1995.

That's one example of how powerful the predictions of theory can be; there are many more. Obviously, there are a lot of incorrect theories, too. It may seem like physicists just invent new particles to solve any problems, but no matter what we hypothesize, it all comes down to what the experiments show. So far, we have found many predicted "new" particles in consistent ways (although the list of particles that have been proposed and never found is very large indeed).

The Higgs mechanism has been around since 1964, along with the prediction of at least one new particle to go along with it. It's only now that we have the technology to probe the high energy range at which such a particle could be seen.

Don't get caught up in sensationalized news reporting, which makes everything seem like a brand new invention. (To be fair, this was actually one of the better mass-consumption science articles I've read recently.) Most of the theories for which we'll soon be searching for evidence have been around in some form for decades now, being refined and probed.


oh, i'm well familiar with the theory behind the particles, it just seems like a lot of guesswork and hand waving to me. maybe i should have taken more than a couple semesters of quantum mechanics but i've always been more of an astrophysics kind of person as opposed to particles ;) of course, on the astro side, the discovery of literally 100s of planets when there were only 9 (now 8) before started out like hand waving and guesswork but at least planets don't disappear when you try to measure them :P
Reply to message
US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles' - 15/06/2010 04:04:14 AM 696 Views
- 15/06/2010 04:11:11 AM 341 Views
this has always bothered me about particle physicists.... - 15/06/2010 05:32:26 AM 350 Views
Down with particle-of-the-gaps thinking! - 15/06/2010 05:38:20 AM 340 Views
Yeah, always been my problem, too. - 15/06/2010 05:44:30 AM 292 Views
Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him. - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM 314 Views
Well, we've been pretty bad at name stuff - 15/06/2010 08:52:09 AM 319 Views
"Giant radiating dyke swarms"?!!! - 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM 316 Views
Oh, yes, and it's often accompanied by Dickite - 15/06/2010 06:18:35 PM 307 Views
This I can believe. - 15/06/2010 06:02:37 PM 259 Views
It's more than a few right answers. - 15/06/2010 06:26:35 AM 437 Views
did you go to school in wisconsin? cause you sound just like that guy - 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM 297 Views
Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list! - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM 328 Views
As a physicist... - 15/06/2010 06:13:01 AM 436 Views
Cool. - 16/06/2010 01:01:34 PM 355 Views
I feel ya! *NM* - 17/06/2010 12:18:30 AM 205 Views
As a physicist, I find this quite interesting. - 16/06/2010 09:08:15 PM 437 Views
Not quite. - 16/06/2010 09:57:18 PM 422 Views
Re: Not quite. - 16/06/2010 10:22:14 PM 432 Views
Nerds! - 17/06/2010 12:19:57 AM 259 Views
Re: Not quite. - 17/06/2010 12:45:06 AM 489 Views
Re: Not quite. - 17/06/2010 08:23:10 AM 413 Views
Eight minus three is five - 17/06/2010 09:19:46 AM 236 Views

Reply to Message