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
		Birdeye Send a noteboard - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
		
	 Birdeye Send a noteboard - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
		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.
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
  of course, on the astro side, the discovery of literally 100s of planets when there were only 9 (now  before started out like hand waving and guesswork but at least planets don't disappear when you try to measure them
 before started out like hand waving and guesswork but at least planets don't disappear when you try to measure them 
			US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 04:04:14 AM
	        855 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
			I minored in modern physics, which means, I have enough knowledge to be.....
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 04:45:35 AM
	        441 Views
	        
	    
	
		
	    
			this has always bothered me about particle physicists....
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 05:32:26 AM
	        480 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Yeah, always been my problem, too.
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 05:44:30 AM
	        408 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
			Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him.  - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
	        434 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
	        434 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	     - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
	        434 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
	        434 Views
	        
	
		
	    
			Well, we've been pretty bad at name stuff
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 08:52:09 AM
	        442 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
	    
			"Giant radiating dyke swarms"?!!!  - 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
	        436 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
	        436 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	     - 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
	        436 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
	        436 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			It's more than a few right answers.
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 06:26:35 AM
	        562 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			did you go to school in wisconsin? cause you sound just like that guy  - 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
	        421 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
	        421 Views
	        
	
		
		
	
	     - 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
	        421 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
	        421 Views
	        
	
		
				
			Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list!  - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
	        459 Views
		
	         - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
	        459 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	     - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
	        459 Views
		
	         - 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
	        459 Views
	        
	
		
	    
			right, but it's still out there in the same orbit with the same momentum and positioning  - 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
	        553 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
	        553 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	     - 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
	        553 Views
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
	        553 Views
	        
	
		
	    
			It had to lose its status or you'd have to memorize several more planets
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 08:57:20 AM
	        461 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			y'all are screwing up my "uncertainty principle" joke dammit!  *NM*
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
	        184 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
	        184 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
		
	     *NM*
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
	        184 Views
 *NM*
	    
	         - 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
	        184 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			I was disappointed they didn't make all the dwarf planets into planet planets.
	    
	         - 16/06/2010 01:00:51 PM
	        454 Views
	        
	    
	
	    
			As a physicist, I find this quite interesting.
	    
	         - 16/06/2010 09:08:15 PM
	        551 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Not quite.
	    
	         - 16/06/2010 09:57:18 PM
	        545 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
	    
			Re: Not quite.
	    
	         - 16/06/2010 10:22:14 PM
	        563 Views
	        
	
		
	    
	
		
	    
	
	    
	
	    
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 Totally missed it *NM*
 Totally missed it *NM*