Physics tweak solves five of the biggest problems in one go

[aethertap]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2110591-physics-tweak-solves-five-of-the-biggest-problems-in-one-go/

[ccvannorman]

Headline: Single theory solves 5 physics problems including 2 of my favorites, dark matter and inflation

Reality: Some scientists invented fields/particles to fit what we already know about inflation and dark matter

Prediction: Neither of these two particles will be found

[dzdt → ccvannorman]

I agree. It sounds like epicycles to me. [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle]

[cnlevy → ccvannorman]

Mandatory TL;DR comment needed in every HN post

Thanks !

[Terr_]

> Dubbed SMASH, the model is based on the standard model of particle physics, but has a few bits tacked on.

That sounds very familiar... https://xkcd.com/793/

[andrewflnr → Terr_]

Uh, not really. To start with, it's physicists on both sides in this case.

[Terr_ → andrewflnr]

I'm saying it seems to validate the joke about how physicists approach theory problems.

[andrewflnr → Terr_]

Yeah, because that's how physics is done. Bringing up how that approach fails when applied to other fields is a non sequitur.

[nonbel]

>“The best thing about the theory is that it can be tested or checked within the next 10 years or so,” Ringwald says. “You can always invent new theories, but if they can only be tested in 100 years, or never, then this is not real science but meta-science.”

Is that a dig at climate research?

Also, I don't see why kugelblitz* are not invoked more often in these theories about the early universe. You could go

  EM-radiation-only universe 
     --fluctuation above density threshold--> 
  EM-radiation + BH universe 
     --pair production with BH as momentum sinks--> 
  EM-radiation + BH + matter + antimatter universe

I do not claim to really know what I am talking about, just a vague sketch.

  *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_%28astrophysics%29

Edit: I forgot to add, where does all the antimatter go? Clearly some small proportion of matter/anitmatter generated will get incorporated into the BH soon after creation, but what is the probability of this happening in exactly equal proportions at all times? I don't know what is supposed to determine the direction and momentum of these newly created particles, but if it is "random" then that would be essentially zero.

So from that you get a tiny imbalance and annihilation will take care of the rest.

[snowwrestler → nonbel]

I'm sure it's referring to string theory.

The theories behind climate science are easily testable and frequently tested. Accurately modeling future climates is difficult because of the immense complexity of the system being modeled.

[cygx → nonbel]

Is that a dig at climate research?

If anything, more likely string theory.

[pwatsonwailes → nonbel]

I'd guess it's the explanations for QM, which all currently fall in the philosophy area of science, as they make the same claims regarding observation, but offer nothing that you could actually test to disprove them.

[bmh100 → nonbel]

The "meta-science" comment is a strange one. By that definition, gravitational waves, Bose-Einstein condensates, Higgs bosons, genes, and dark matter were all "meta-science".

[jsprogrammer → bmh100]

What is so strange about it? If a theory is not and cannot be tested, it is not science by definition.

That doesn't mean the theory is not valuable, just that you need a different word to describe it. If a theory may become testable in the future, but is not currently, meta-science seems as good as any other term.

[thisrod → jsprogrammer]

"Speculative science" is the normal way to describe that.

[labster → nonbel]

If it was a dig at climate research, it would have been 30 years, not ten.