Before the Big Bang? Addendum (Origins)

by dhw, Saturday, August 20, 2016, 12:19 (2798 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID's comment: Just my point. Up to this point the findings fit together neatly. We have no idea what is out there to find next.-Dhw: QUOTE: 'What these null results — these non-discoveries — are telling us is something phenomenal and profound: that physics isn't over and done, but rather that the hints of what comes next REQUIRES LOOKING FAR, FAR DEEPER than we're presently looking. That means higher energies, LARGER TELESCOPES, MORE PARTICLE COLLISIONS, MORE SENSITIVE DETECTORS… and quite likely better, newer ideas than the ones we've been pursuing fruitlessly for so long.” (My bold)-dhw: The bold is just my point. Clearly this author does NOT believe the current pattern makes “perfect sense” or represents an “integrated quantum plan”. If you are fruitlessly pursuing confirmation of what you regard as the correct pattern, it is “quite likely” that the pattern is not correct.-DAVID: I am discussing the current understood particles, not what we don't know. The quote discusses what we don't know, but when this all started in the early 20th Century we had no idea what we might find. Now we have a well understood pattern that led to Higgs, which completed this early pattern.-Yes, of course. Dawkins also discusses the currently understood pattern of a material world, and he points out how science has demolished one myth after another, forcing religions constantly to backtrack on themselves. And he hopes that further research will continue to confirm the well understood materialist pattern that has led to so many discoveries and inventions. I suggest that in both cases it is what we don't know that throws doubt upon the pattern.
 
DAVID: It is true we are not sure what will come next, but it will require higher LHC power or a bigger LHC. That is all quite clear to anyone following the research.
-The question is whether the current pattern makes "perfect sense" or not. I don't think we need to follow the research to understand that if we want to probe deeper, we need larger telescopes, more sensitive detectors, and more money to pay for them.