Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

FBM wrote:

So...You're giving 25% credibility to something that you simultaneously claim is false. Interesting.

     What is so interesting: 1) 25% credibility is actually False

2) as a matter of fact this hypotheses really cannot be excluded 100% ... with the present-day (lack of) knowledge. I don't see anything so interesting here. What is so interesting to you?

Robust scientific argument

RE: The fake score of 4:0

According to you, the Standard Model explains 4% of the observable universe.

Experimental Tests of the Standard
Model
• What is the Standard Model ?
• How do we test it ?
• Why do we think its incomplete ?
• What are the next steps ?Goal: a theory which describes all of the fundamental constituents of nature and their
interactions with the minimum of assumptions and free parameters. Ultimately describe
all interactions over small distance scales and cosmological observations.
The Standard Model is our best attempt at this - assess how successfult in this lecture.
6 quarks, 6 leptons, 3 exchange bosons
+ antiparticles.
Two independent forces (electroweak and QCD).
19 free parameters: particle masses, mixing angles,
CP-violating term, couplings....
Consistent method of introducing interactions via
so-called gauge invariance and Feynam diagram
formalism.
The Standard Model assumes massless neutrinos
but this is easily fixed.
Barring neutrino oscillations, the Standard Model has never failed a single experimental test.
There is still one test left to pass - finding the Higgs boson.

CMS pins down Higgs with first run data
André David
Posted by Cian O'Luanaigh on 27 Jan 2015. Last updated 27 Jan 2015, 16.43.
Voir en français

New results from the CMS collaboration are pinning down the properties of the Higgs boson (Image: Maximilien Brice/CERN)
With the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) preparing to restart in a few months, data from its first run has already been bearing fruit.
A recent publication by the CMS collaboration brings together the broadest set of results to date about the properties of the Higgs boson. The paper, submitted to The European Physical Journal C (and available at arXiv:1412.8662 (link is external)) showcases what CMS physicists have learnt about the particle using data taken between 2011 and 2012 Together with another paper on the spin and parity of the boson, [arXiv:1411.3441 (link is external)] the results draw a picture of a particle that – for the moment – cannot be distinguished from the Standard Model predictions for the Higgs boson.
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theoretical framework that explains how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by four fundamental forces. Developed in the early 1970s, it has successfully explained almost all experimental results and precisely predicted a wide variety of phenomena – including the mass of the Higgs boson.
The CMS experiment recently combined measurements from different decays of the Higgs to extract the most precise measurement of its mass to date: 125.02±0.30 GeV, with a relative uncertainty of 0.2%. This uncertainty can be split into a systematic component (±0.15 GeV) and a statistical component (±0.26 GeV), which provides excellent prospects for Run 2 to yield an even more precise mass measurement, as more data will reduce the statistical component.
The Higgs boson is the final piece of the Standard Model – when it was discovered by the CMS and ATLAS experiments in 2012, it was the last particle predicted by the Model to be verified experimentally. But with all parameters now experimentally constrained, physicists can use the Model to make even more specific predictions. For example, having measured the mass of the Higgs boson, the Standard Model makes unambiguous predictions as to what the Higgs boson's other properties should be. Some, such as the boson's spin (zero), parity (positive), and electric charge (neutral) stem directly from the symmetries of the Standard Model. But others, such as the strength with which the Higgs boson interacts (or couples) with other Standard Model particles are harder to check.
The Higgs boson decays to many different particles, including photons, Z bosons, W bosons, tau leptons, b quarks and muons. Checking how the Higgs decays into these particles, and with what probabilities, will allow physicists to complete the picture and gain a better understanding of the Higgs.
Finding no significant deviations with the Standard Model has set the bar high for the LHC's Run 2. Theorists and experimentalists will continue working together to find a small wrinkle in the so far smooth Higgs boson picture. That small wrinkle that may point the way out of the Standard Model oasis, across the desert, and the as-yet unknown physics beyond. It's going to be an exciting Run 2.

FBM wrote:

According to you, the Standard Model explains 4% of the observable universe.

     4% of whatever is absolute zero - this is 0.04 ... no matter how you may misinterpret it.

Math is fun, Herod! Give it a quick look

Failure In Real Science Is Good – And Different From Phony Controversies

February 10, 2015 | by Chad Orzel

Last March, the BICEP2 collaboration announced that they had used a microwave telescope at the South Pole to detect primordial gravitational waves. These tiny ripples in spacetime would be the first proof of the theory known as “inflation,” an astonishingly rapid expansion of the universe in the instants after the Big Bang.
...
Last week, a new paper was released backtracking on last March’s announcement. The BICEP2 team joined with rivals on the European Space Agency’s Planck experiment, and found that their results were contaminated by dust. The signal is not large enough to constitute proof of inflation, so cosmology returns to its prior uncertain state. Rather than revolutionizing our understanding, the BICEP2 result is just the latest in a long line of highly public flops.
...
BICEP2 shows how science is properly done, and makes it easier, not harder, to detect the pseudo-science of attempts to discredit science for political gain.

We tend to think of science as a collection of esoteric information, but science is best understood as a process for figuring out the workings of the universe. Scientists look at the world, think of models to explain their observations, test those models with further observations and experiment, and tell each other the results. This process is familiar and universal, turning up in everything from hidden-object books to sports. More importantly, we can recognize the process even in cases where we don’t understand all the technical details, and use that to distinguish real science from phony controversies.

Real scientific controversies are widespread and mainstream. The BICEP2 results were publicly challenged within weeks...most complaints came from scientists associated with BICEP2’s competitors and theorists who prefer alternatives to inflation—they were active and respected members of the community.

Phony controversies, on the other hand, can usually be traced to a handful of opponents, often outside their fields of expertise.
...
Real scientific controversies play out in the scientific literature, through papers drawing on many other sources of data.
...
Phony controversies tend to play out in the media, through press releases, stump speeches, and polemical writing reshared via social media.
...
And most importantly, real scientific controversies are self-correcting. The final nail in the gravitational-wave coffin was a joint paper by both BICEP2 and Planck, combining their data to settle the question. The end result is professionally embarrassing for scientists involved in the original announcement, but they were at the forefront of the effort to resolve the controversy because for real science reputation is less important than the truth.
...
Phony controversies, on the other hand, are endless, with proponents clinging stubbornly to the same positions year after year. Even as their sources are discredited, their conclusions remain unchanged, because phony science is less interested in truth than in selling a conclusion.
...
By providing a clear example of real science done the right way, the controversy over BICEP2 exposes politically motivated phony controversies as hollow frauds.

Nice ring to it, I think. "Herod the Hollow Fraud."

   • What is the Standard Model ?
   • How do we test it ?
   • Why do we think its incomplete ?
   • What are the next steps ?

FBM wrote:

   • What is the Standard Model ?
   • How do we test it ?
   • Why do we think its incomplete ?
   • What are the next steps ?

     There is however one more question that is not mentioned here - and it is the mission critical one: Why is the 'theory' of the Big Bang unbreakable?