IIRC, the LHC has several detectors, and they're each run by different groups. Additionally, they show their findings to other similar installations, and through those 2 methods, they're able to verify their findings. I remember a recent event where some group (Not CERN, I think) had some anomalous results regarding the speed of light being broken, and after being unable to falsify the results themselves, they released their data to the scientific community, basically asking for more eyes to proof their work. It was eventually found to be a glitch in some clock or another a loose connection (Thanks kneo24!), giving a bad reading. But yes, I understand that particle physicists working at installations like these work closely together to confirm (or reject!) each others' findings.
Well, that starts treading into conspiracy territory very quickly, but to give an honest answer... I suppose at some point you need to determine for yourself a means to filter truth from fiction, and that's for everything, not just interesting science articles. Regarding physics discoveries, I'd strongly suggest hunting down the actual published papers, and reading them. Now, if you're anything like me, the math gets complicated quickly. In that instance, I have a Physicist friend from college who I'll regularly call to explain such esoteric topics.
Buuuut, to reject the "Just an illusion" hypothesis, or that they may just be actors? Well, if they're actors, they publish very impressive physics papers! If they were lying, others in the community would quickly debunk their findings. You see that all the time, science works by examining the world, suggesting hypothetical explanations on "what's going on," performing experiments, observing the results, adjusting the hypothesis, and repeating. Sometimes you spend silly amounts of money on a super stable measuring device floating on a pool of mercury only to find the thing you're looking for, the thing physics (at the time) thinks MUST exist... doesn't. And then you can watch as the physicist community goes into a frenzy trying to create a new model that takes into account the new findings until a patent clerk worked with a mathematician on some thought experiments regarding the speed of light (This anecdote revolves around the "crisis in physics" after the Michaelson-Morely experiment demonstrated the non-existence of the luminiferous ether, and Einstein's work on relativity that resolved the crisis).
I suppose, assuming you're serious about this line of inquiry, that the best way to be certain would be to get a PHD and join the physics community. But I certainly agree that such a method of verifying truth is time consuming at best. After you've spent a decade on your PHD, finally getting to a point where you can verify these findings, only to now wonder how to be sure, say, doctors are correct about correct about the use of chemotherapy for certain types of cancer. Time to goto med school!
I think a better solution would be to trust the community-regarded "experts" when dealing with information outside your area of expertise, and do your best to expand your area of expertise into areas you find interesting. This way, you'll always be expanding your knowledge, and you'll be able to tell more easily for yourself, simply from your vast and diverse experience, what "truth" and "untruth" looks like. I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
But maybe not. In the end, whom to trust and whom to distrust are very personal decisions you can only make for yourself.
Good luck!
I don't deny the physics papers are good, I just don't think the ones that play the part (stephen hawking for example) are really the person writing the paper. For instance, in mathematics, the name escapes me, but many top mathematicians got together and wrote a book under one name. They eventually came out and admitted there was no single author, but it was a group of them writing under one name.Now-a-days they could easily concoct up an actor to play the part of such a group of top physicists.
I just don't believe 'the experts'. Who gets to select 'the experts'. You can't just go get your PhD and do your own fringe research. It is all filtered through the system. Academia is very political. I have personal experience.
The ones who 'become' the top of the field are selected, in my opinion. They are not organic. They are fairy tale stories they tell us in order to obscure the truth. I don't think that all of science is bogus, I just believe what ((they)) tell us is nothing but a bunch of half-truths anyways, so we are better off sticking to things we can verify ourselves, or for which there exists overwhelming proof that anyone can look at and see for themselves, and if we can establish the proof is genuine and not fabricated.
The problem about a lot of these claims is that we just cannot very for ourselves if they are bullshitting everything. It would be really easy to restrict access to the top physics instruments to a select few who are a part of a system meant to function as gatekeepers.
When you say this,
I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
I can't tell from your history what your professional experience may be, you seem to run in conspiracy circles, so I'll just be quick since I don't think you and I will change our minds much here. But I come from an environment where truth is vital to the continuing functioning of the system. If people lie to me, I can't do my job, and neither can they. So I suppose I'm predisposed to assume the best from people in general, and I understand that I may be outside the norm there. From your posts, I assume you come from a quite different environment.
For me, I trust "scientists" in general (there can be a great discussion around specific individuals, I'm sure) because it works. Sure, you can make the argument that experiments like this are merely "stamp collecting," but as we learn more about the environment around us, we're able to do such fascinating things. Like go to the moon. But this is where I think I'll end, because it appears that you don't think we even accomplished that feat. So... Not sure there's much more we would have in common. Ships passing in the night, I suppose.
Mitchell and Webb have a sketch that mirrors my response to moon hoaxers. Enjoy.
I don't believe we went to the moon. That's bullshit. Watch this conference and tell me what you think. It's only 3 and a half minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.
FYI, just because something is a 'conspiracy' doesn't make it false. Newsflash, people do conspire, especially those at the top. There's a reason when you think 'conspiracy theory' you assume false immediately. You've been brainwashed.
view the rest of the comments →
SaveTheChildren ago
Are their results verifiable by a third party?
Stadred ago
IIRC, the LHC has several detectors, and they're each run by different groups. Additionally, they show their findings to other similar installations, and through those 2 methods, they're able to verify their findings. I remember a recent event where some group (Not CERN, I think) had some anomalous results regarding the speed of light being broken, and after being unable to falsify the results themselves, they released their data to the scientific community, basically asking for more eyes to proof their work. It was eventually found to be
a glitch in some clock or anothera loose connection (Thanks kneo24!), giving a bad reading. But yes, I understand that particle physicists working at installations like these work closely together to confirm (or reject!) each others' findings.SaveTheChildren ago
How can you be for certain that That's Not Just an Illusion though and that those aren't just actors playing top particle physicists?
How can we confirm the machine works like they tell us?
Stadred ago
Well, that starts treading into conspiracy territory very quickly, but to give an honest answer... I suppose at some point you need to determine for yourself a means to filter truth from fiction, and that's for everything, not just interesting science articles. Regarding physics discoveries, I'd strongly suggest hunting down the actual published papers, and reading them. Now, if you're anything like me, the math gets complicated quickly. In that instance, I have a Physicist friend from college who I'll regularly call to explain such esoteric topics.
Buuuut, to reject the "Just an illusion" hypothesis, or that they may just be actors? Well, if they're actors, they publish very impressive physics papers! If they were lying, others in the community would quickly debunk their findings. You see that all the time, science works by examining the world, suggesting hypothetical explanations on "what's going on," performing experiments, observing the results, adjusting the hypothesis, and repeating. Sometimes you spend silly amounts of money on a super stable measuring device floating on a pool of mercury only to find the thing you're looking for, the thing physics (at the time) thinks MUST exist... doesn't. And then you can watch as the physicist community goes into a frenzy trying to create a new model that takes into account the new findings until a patent clerk worked with a mathematician on some thought experiments regarding the speed of light (This anecdote revolves around the "crisis in physics" after the Michaelson-Morely experiment demonstrated the non-existence of the luminiferous ether, and Einstein's work on relativity that resolved the crisis).
I suppose, assuming you're serious about this line of inquiry, that the best way to be certain would be to get a PHD and join the physics community. But I certainly agree that such a method of verifying truth is time consuming at best. After you've spent a decade on your PHD, finally getting to a point where you can verify these findings, only to now wonder how to be sure, say, doctors are correct about correct about the use of chemotherapy for certain types of cancer. Time to goto med school!
I think a better solution would be to trust the community-regarded "experts" when dealing with information outside your area of expertise, and do your best to expand your area of expertise into areas you find interesting. This way, you'll always be expanding your knowledge, and you'll be able to tell more easily for yourself, simply from your vast and diverse experience, what "truth" and "untruth" looks like. I'm firmly of the opinion that, if you watch people for long enough, you start to get a taste for how they sound when they're lying or otherwise trying to deceive, and when they're honest.
But maybe not. In the end, whom to trust and whom to distrust are very personal decisions you can only make for yourself.
Good luck!
SaveTheChildren ago
I don't deny the physics papers are good, I just don't think the ones that play the part (stephen hawking for example) are really the person writing the paper. For instance, in mathematics, the name escapes me, but many top mathematicians got together and wrote a book under one name. They eventually came out and admitted there was no single author, but it was a group of them writing under one name.Now-a-days they could easily concoct up an actor to play the part of such a group of top physicists.
I just don't believe 'the experts'. Who gets to select 'the experts'. You can't just go get your PhD and do your own fringe research. It is all filtered through the system. Academia is very political. I have personal experience.
The ones who 'become' the top of the field are selected, in my opinion. They are not organic. They are fairy tale stories they tell us in order to obscure the truth. I don't think that all of science is bogus, I just believe what ((they)) tell us is nothing but a bunch of half-truths anyways, so we are better off sticking to things we can verify ourselves, or for which there exists overwhelming proof that anyone can look at and see for themselves, and if we can establish the proof is genuine and not fabricated.
The problem about a lot of these claims is that we just cannot very for ourselves if they are bullshitting everything. It would be really easy to restrict access to the top physics instruments to a select few who are a part of a system meant to function as gatekeepers.
When you say this,
I suggest you go watch the appolo 11 conference video and tell me if you think they are lying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
Stadred ago
I can't tell from your history what your professional experience may be, you seem to run in conspiracy circles, so I'll just be quick since I don't think you and I will change our minds much here. But I come from an environment where truth is vital to the continuing functioning of the system. If people lie to me, I can't do my job, and neither can they. So I suppose I'm predisposed to assume the best from people in general, and I understand that I may be outside the norm there. From your posts, I assume you come from a quite different environment.
For me, I trust "scientists" in general (there can be a great discussion around specific individuals, I'm sure) because it works. Sure, you can make the argument that experiments like this are merely "stamp collecting," but as we learn more about the environment around us, we're able to do such fascinating things. Like go to the moon. But this is where I think I'll end, because it appears that you don't think we even accomplished that feat. So... Not sure there's much more we would have in common. Ships passing in the night, I suppose.
Mitchell and Webb have a sketch that mirrors my response to moon hoaxers. Enjoy.
SaveTheChildren ago
That's called an appeal to authority.
I don't believe we went to the moon. That's bullshit. Watch this conference and tell me what you think. It's only 3 and a half minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.
FYI, just because something is a 'conspiracy' doesn't make it false. Newsflash, people do conspire, especially those at the top. There's a reason when you think 'conspiracy theory' you assume false immediately. You've been brainwashed.