Ulfgeir
Hero
If it had been Atomic Robo, it would be For SCIENCE!
Science!
If they actually do find another fundamental force, they should just go ahead and call it ”Magic”.*
For the giggles.
* “The Force” and “Forcey McForcerton” would also be acceptable.
For the giggles.
* “The Force” and “Forcey McForcerton” would also be acceptable.
freyar
Extradimensional Explorer
It's weird; this result isn't even all that shocking in the sense that it is really just a confirmation of an experiment from 20 years ago with a newer, better experiment. But we don't have many hints about possible new physics, so it is exciting. Of course, it's entirely reasonable to think our theoretical calculations (which are ridiculously hard to do) are wrong since the two ways we have to do them disagree, and one method is a lot closer to the experimental result. So maybe this isn't new physics but is teaching us about our calculations.
It's also worth noting that experiments like this don't mean that the Standard Model is "wrong," just incomplete. Explanations for stuff we know already will stay the same, just the way our explanation of how things like wheels work stayed the same when we learned about quantum mechanics and how to build cell phones with that knowledge. It's a building process.
And we've known the Standard Model is incomplete for many decades for a few different reasons. But we have very little to go on as to precisely what we need to add to it, and that's why it's exciting that the difference between theory and experiments didn't go away with a new, better experiment.
It's also worth noting that experiments like this don't mean that the Standard Model is "wrong," just incomplete. Explanations for stuff we know already will stay the same, just the way our explanation of how things like wheels work stayed the same when we learned about quantum mechanics and how to build cell phones with that knowledge. It's a building process.
And we've known the Standard Model is incomplete for many decades for a few different reasons. But we have very little to go on as to precisely what we need to add to it, and that's why it's exciting that the difference between theory and experiments didn't go away with a new, better experiment.
Last edited:
shawnhcorey
wizard
The geocentric model of solar system is not wrong. But it does take a lot more calculations to get things right.
Ryujin
Legend
And the amount that The Sun moves in its orbit is rather small
Well, yes and no. You seem to be confusing "model" with "coordinate system choice"
The real geocentric models of the solar system were factually wrong - if you have the stars on a fixed celestial sphere, you are wrong.
You can, if you want, do the math of gravitation taking the Earth to be in the middle of it all... if you want to give yourself a brain aneurism. But that's not a different physical model. That's using the gravitational model with a really awkward choice of coordinate system.
shawnhcorey
wizard
The geocentric model is in a non-inertial frame. The coordinate system is an accelerating one. Once you take the fictitious forces into account, it gives the same results as the heliocentric model. It is not wrong; it just takes more work.
I think you completely missed the point. I'm saying that doing "gravitation in another frame/coordinate system" is not a different model at all. It is the same physics, the same model, just chosen so your math is hard.
The honest-to-goodness geocentric models, before Newton, back in the time of Aristotle and Ptolemy, were factually incorrect in most of their details.
shawnhcorey
wizard
I have to disagree with that. The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient mechanical computer that calculates the positions of the solar system. Reproductions of it, when given today's position of the planets, predicted their movements to the accuracy you would expect from a mechanical computer. They could predict the movement of the planets but they could not explain why they moved that way.
I think @Umbran's point is that the stars in Ptolemy model were supposed to be points on a sphere, so they all were at the same distance from the center of the sphere and had fixed relative positions, which is wrong regardless of whether you are in a geocentric or heliocentric coordinate system.
Similar Threads
