Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will Old Ideas Ever Die?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On a blog discussing recent comments about a somewhat significant event at LHC, the blog’s author talks what another SUSY enthusiast has written. SUSY, for those who don’t already know, is short for Super-Symmetry, a theory allied to “string” theory, or, better yet, “superstring” theory.

The LHC was supposed to turn up the elusive Higg’s boson (the so-called “God-particle”), and to detect, as well, supersymmetric particles, which are particles sharing certain properties with other known particles, but existing in different quantum states (spin and charge, e.g.). Well, they haven’t shown up. So what is a good SUSY enthusiast to do?

Well, interestingly enough for the ID/UD community, it’s to rationalize away the results.

We, thought it was just Darwinists. But now the physics community is getting into the swing of things.

Here’s what the blogger writes concerning our SUSY enthusiast:

Peskin goes on to argue though that the thing to do is not to abandon SUSY since it hasn’t shown up where it was supposed to, but to “acknowledge that, to test SUSY, we must search over the full parameter space of the the model”. The obvious problem with this is that the “full parameter space of the model” is huge, containing all sorts of corners that will never be accessible to the LHC, or that can be made arbitrarily difficult to rule out, requiring intensive effort from LHC experimenters for decades to come.

You see, these supersymmetric particles are out there—-somewhere. We just don’t have a complete record of the energy sectors where they might be hiding.==== (The reason that we don’t find fossil intermediates is because the fossil record is so incomplete.) (Even though positive selection can’t explain how these protein changes came about, the completely random process of neutral drift has provided all of the needed raw ingredients for evolution to take place.)

Science is unraveling. It’s become a religion.

Comments
Interesting response Well, of course, the Big Bang implies a “beginning” to the universe Technically , the beginning of the visible universe. There may be something else,to soon to tell. which is consistent with, as you put it, “origin’s myth. By definition origins myths deal with beginnings,so it would also be consistent with "Once upon a Time" appearance of life seem like an astronomically improbable event—and gives the appearance of “someone tinkered with the universe Again unlikely events happen all the time, do the calculation for your likelihood of existing? Astronomically improbable? Fred Hoyle also thought the universe was steady state. So, if you want to term the Bible’s creation account a “myth”, that’s your prerogative, but it does turn out to conform with experimental data The order of creation is the same as the present theory of the big bang? Earth precedes Light. Day and Night? These don't seem in line with present knowledge Bottom-line: Experimental data conforms more to Judeo-Christian claims of a Creator than to “natural” causation Really ,please make the case.Especially the Judeo-Christian part.velikovskys
October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Velikovskys: Let's start here: You mentioned both theistic overtones of the big bang and experimental results. Overtones seem a little vague,care to expound? Well, of course, the Big Bang implies a "beginning" to the universe which is consistent with, as you put it, "origin's myth". And the fine-tuning of the constants found in the Standard Model makes the appearance of life seem like an astronomically improbable event---and gives the appearance of "someone tinkered with the universe" (paraphrasing Fred Hoyle). These are true difficulties for the atheist scientist, and one which seems to increasingly force them to propose hypotheticals that are not only highly improbable, but unfalsifiable. How do we prove that there are no other universes? That is, if, by assumption, we have no contact with them---since otherwise we would be part of their universe---how do you disprove this? It's simply a logically absurd question, which should be dismissed from the get-go. And yet, there are now theories about all of this. Shouldn't these "scientific" proposals be seen as no more than "origin's myth"? Judeo-Christians have been talking about a beginning of the universe for over 3,000 years, and now it's been confirmed. So, if you want to term the Bible's creation account a "myth", that's your prerogative, but it does turn out to conform with experimental data. The "multiverse" proposals can't be proven or dis-proven. They live in the land of conjecture, never to be resolved. And they involve the invocation of an existence that is supernatural (if it were natural, then it would be part of our universe). So, these take on the structure of supernatural conjectures. Jesus is an historical figure; is a "multiverse" part of history? Here's the quote from the OP:
The obvious problem with this is that the “full parameter space of the model” is huge, containing all sorts of corners that will never be accessible to the LHC, or that can be made arbitrarily difficult to rule out, requiring intensive effort from LHC experimenters for decades to come.
You wrote: Theory has to conform with material observations. But here are scientists who, when confronted with "material observations" inconsistent with their theorizing, not only do not abandon their theory, but want experimental proof to a degree that is, as Woit says, "arbitrarily difficult to rule out." Or, how do you "rule out" a "multiverse"? Bottom-line: Experimental data conforms more to Judeo-Christian claims of a Creator than to "natural" causation. And this is being met, increasingly, by an atheist cabal of scientists who stretch science beyond recognition in order to preserve their prior commitment to a religious idea: that is, the a-religious idea of atheism.PaV
October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Pav Somehow it seems you’ve missed the entire point of what I posted. Sorry, I thought your point was science's refusal to own up to the its shortcomings of its theories was exactly like a religion's steadfast belief in its origin's myth as accurate. That was my thinking quoting Brian Cox. He basically said nothing is sacred, the maths have to work. That is, there has to be more than philosophy to prove a theory workable. Theory has to conform with material observations. Then you clarified And the ineluctable conclusion is that we’re witnessing a slide into a “consensus” atheistic vantage point demanding extremely improbable scenarios in an effort to skip around the theistic overtones of experimental results. I assume by atheistic vantage point you mean the assumption of naturalism? I agree no science accepts as a cause a being which is capable of beyond natural causes. A surely there is no need to point out the extremely improbable happens all the time, the difficulty with improbability is when a certain result(teleos) is desired. You mentioned both theistic overtones of the big bang and experimental results. Overtones seem a little vague,care to expound? From your follow up I see I may have missed your point. Your objection isn't that science is like a religion ,it is which religion.velikovskys
October 24, 2011
October
10
Oct
24
24
2011
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
PaV: "...a recent book written by a prominent scientist gives a history of the cosmological constant and the Big Bang that leaves out the person of Fr. Georges LeMaitre, the person most responsible for what we term the Big Bang. How was he airbrushed out of science’s history?" Because Lemaitre was Catholic priestjunkdnaforlife
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
velikovskys: Somehow it seems you've missed the entire point of what I posted. Perhaps you're simply giving a different opinion within the scientific community as a demonstration that not all within the community think this way. That's all well and good. But nevertheless, the quote from Peskin shows a mindset that wants to run to a zone of unfalsifiability in an attempt to prop up a theory into which the particular scientist is very likely heavily invested. Look at the whole idea of "multiverses", etc. And "Big Bounces", etc. All of this is to somehow get around the Anthropic Principle, which, apparently, is a thorn in the side of non-believing scientists, and especially the theological overtones of the Big Bang. (Interestingly,a recent book written by a prominent scientist gives a history of the cosmological constant and the Big Bang that leaves out the person of Fr. Georges LeMaitre, the person most responsible for what we term the Big Bang. How was he airbrushed out of science's history?) We see more of this happening. And the ineluctable conclusion is that we're witnessing a slide into a "consensus" atheistic vantage point demanding extremely improbable scenarios in an effort to skip around the theistic overtones of experimental results. (Which is also an apt description of Darwinism) This, then, is like a religion.PaV
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
Professor Peter Woit, as usual, has a very no nonsense way at looking at this latest 'hype' over SUSY:
Not Even Wrong - The Status of SUSY Excerpt: For details on what has been going on, various recent sources to consult include Anyes Taffard’s FNAL talk on ATLAS SUSY searches (“SUSY was NOT ‘just around the corner’ … must be hiding well … Or may be … need to go back to the drawing board”) and the many talks at the Berkeley Workshop on Searches for Supersymmetry at the LHC which included a huge array of negative SUSY results, including the one that for some reason got Matt so excited. Besides the kinds of models that Peskin expected to see at the LHC, lots of other more obscure ones are being ruled out by new LHC analyses. These include some that had gotten a lot of popular attention, such as split supersymmetry and F-theory models. These predicted things like long-lived gluinos or staus, which have now been searched for and ruled out in regions where they were supposed to show up. For example see here for more about F-theory and the stable staus, which CMS now says are not there where they were supposed to be (below 300 GeV). http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4065
bornagain77
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
right v, physics is much different than the neo-darwin religion. PaV makes a good point that there are similarities in some factions of physics, but as a whole physicists live and die by experiment. Generally a very disciplined bunch of egg heads.junkdnaforlife
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Brian Cox one is what would happen if there isn't a Higgs particle at the Large Hadron Collider and how we might explore the physics that must be there if there isn't one. It's very rare that you get to build an experiment in science where you're guaranteed to discover something new. The Large Hadron Collider is such an experiment, in that the standard model of particle physics predicts that there's going to be a Higgs particle. But it's not necessarily going to be there and if you take away the Higgs particle out of our standard theory, you take away all the maths and throw it in the bin and see what's left… and what's left is a theory that doesn't make sense Doesn't sound like a religious zealot to me, you?velikovskys
October 23, 2011
October
10
Oct
23
23
2011
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply