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.
Yes. Theoretical physicists basically "mathematically" determine how a thing might happen. Based on an observation, they make guesses as to why a given thing was observed. They apply those guesses to other expectations. They work with "real" physicists to design experiments to test these expectations.
For the ol' theory of gravity... An example might be...
"Real" experimental physicists drop various objects with various masses in a vacuum and record how fast they fall. The experiment creates data.
The theoretical physicists would say "Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the ground at 32 feet per second, per second. Any time anything is dropped it should accelerate at 32 feet per second."
Experimental physicists find an opportunity to do the same test on the moon. They find that the 32 ft/s^2 theory is wrong! On the moon they measured 5.3 ft/s^2! Back to the drawing board.
Theoretical physicists try to figure out what other factors might come into play. By comparing observations of orbital mechanics, data gathered from experiments in free space, noting the slight variability of the experiment depending on where on Earth it is performed, they come up with: F = G(m1m2/r2).
Experimental physicists try to design an experiment where they can tweak m1 and m2 (the masses of the two interacting bodies) and move them at different distances to each other (r). Then they measure the gravitational force and find... It matches what the theoretical physicists predicted.
Case closed right? Nope... The theoretical physicists aren't quite happy... the "G" in their equation is the "gravitational constant". It's a really tiny number that you randomly have to stick into their otherwise neat equation to make it work. This number is currently "6.674×10−8 cm3·g−1·s−2" (with quite a bit of "uncertainty" due to how weak gravity is). Theoretical physicists want to know where the hell that number comes from... what causes it... can it be changed... does it work regardless of scale... between planets, or between particles? So they're off to the drawing boards again.
Edit: i thought it was obvious, but we definitely had the equation for gravity figured out before space travel / the moon. I was construting an example of the difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics. Not history.
That wasnt an argument. It was an example of the difference between theoretical and experimental physicists. That is not how the gravitational force equation was determined, and we knew this equation well before space travel was a thing, or not a thing.
Your acceptance of a moon landing is irrelevnt to the comparison.
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?
fuckinghell ago
Get a theoratical physics degree.
SaveTheChildren ago
theoretical physics, rather than real physics.
ZYX321 ago
Yes. Theoretical physicists basically "mathematically" determine how a thing might happen. Based on an observation, they make guesses as to why a given thing was observed. They apply those guesses to other expectations. They work with "real" physicists to design experiments to test these expectations.
For the ol' theory of gravity... An example might be...
"Real" experimental physicists drop various objects with various masses in a vacuum and record how fast they fall. The experiment creates data.
The theoretical physicists would say "Gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the ground at 32 feet per second, per second. Any time anything is dropped it should accelerate at 32 feet per second."
Experimental physicists find an opportunity to do the same test on the moon. They find that the 32 ft/s^2 theory is wrong! On the moon they measured 5.3 ft/s^2! Back to the drawing board.
Theoretical physicists try to figure out what other factors might come into play. By comparing observations of orbital mechanics, data gathered from experiments in free space, noting the slight variability of the experiment depending on where on Earth it is performed, they come up with: F = G(m1m2/r2).
Experimental physicists try to design an experiment where they can tweak m1 and m2 (the masses of the two interacting bodies) and move them at different distances to each other (r). Then they measure the gravitational force and find... It matches what the theoretical physicists predicted.
Case closed right? Nope... The theoretical physicists aren't quite happy... the "G" in their equation is the "gravitational constant". It's a really tiny number that you randomly have to stick into their otherwise neat equation to make it work. This number is currently "6.674×10−8 cm3·g−1·s−2" (with quite a bit of "uncertainty" due to how weak gravity is). Theoretical physicists want to know where the hell that number comes from... what causes it... can it be changed... does it work regardless of scale... between planets, or between particles? So they're off to the drawing boards again.
Edit: i thought it was obvious, but we definitely had the equation for gravity figured out before space travel / the moon. I was construting an example of the difference between theoretical physics and experimental physics. Not history.
FuckReddit69 ago
Moon? I stopped reading at that point. We never went to the moon so your argument is moot.
ZYX321 ago
That wasnt an argument. It was an example of the difference between theoretical and experimental physicists. That is not how the gravitational force equation was determined, and we knew this equation well before space travel was a thing, or not a thing.
Your acceptance of a moon landing is irrelevnt to the comparison.