Disturbing discoveries (A mad world)

by dhw, Friday, August 12, 2016, 08:45 (3024 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: “Yesterday, after the release of a trove of new data by Cern, it was revealed that it was a statistical blip after all. The search for a new particle continues.”
Thinking of the time, the effort, the money spent on studying a particle that doesn't exist makes the mind boggle. But so does the thought that perhaps some currently favoured theories may also be based on blips of one kind or another: the big bang, dark matter, dating techniques (no, not the romantic type), the history of everything, God…Imagine a few thousand years from now: will scientists and thinkers be telling us that their 21st-century colleagues got it all right? 
Maybe 5 billion papers have already been written about blips (hilarious), maybe vast numbers of our assumptions are based on blips (disturbing), but blips or no blips, we humans will never give up our search for the truth (admirable).-DAVID: I'm back. I followed the blip. The reason for all the hubbub was that not enough data had been collected to reach a significant level of what is called five sigma. Now the data is in and the blip was just that. Not to worry, all the other solid stuff that makes up current theories is at the five sigma level.

https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/08/05/the-2016-data-kills-the-two-photon-bump/ -No more now. Have to get caught up. Met folks who blindly believe Darwin was absolutely correct and never heard of the Cambrian Explosion!-Welcome back. I hope you had a wonderful time. Your absence caused a big blip in the evolution of the forum!-I guess the folk who blindly believe Darwin was absolutely correct form a nice balance with the folk who believe the Book of Genesis was absolutely correct.-Re the statistical blip, the hilarious element I pointed out was the premature explosion of excitement together with the fact that 500 papers had already been written about the sensational new particle, presumably in the belief that sufficient data were already available. In any case, I'm not sure what you mean by “solid”. If current theories were based on “solid stuff”, they would turn into facts. How can anyone know that sufficient data are in, if 90% of the universe consists of unknown matter/energy? (Another “five sigma” theory?)