floofboop
84101
1495
21
Apr 9, 2021 10:04 PM
floofboop
84101
1495
21
slidewhistlesymphony
Excellent post. Bravo!
twfeline
Therefore, ALL OF SCIENCE IS A HOAX.
PenguinNamedWobbles
I'm a penguin, not a particle.
LordElups
Thank you for taking the time to compile this @op
RideTheStimutacs
That's nothing, my uncle figured this out in the 70s after taking a ton of LSD.
klomb8888
Had a friend claim the extra wobble proved the existence of god ?
thenetvines
This is how you get a black hole by accident.
RealScienceMan
#9 Hey I'm in that picture that was my first trip to the lab.
Partieartie22
It's always something with these guys!
Aim3777
What!? You mean to tell me that science doesn't know everything yet?
wadatahmydamie
The particle
taurondir
I don't understand why no one is researching Stupid Particles, as they seem plentiful and apparently interact frequently with people.
Jinxies
I'm tiny and no one cares when I wobble!
PawsOverClaws
"not yet known to SCIENTISTS" not science. Fixed it for you.
pumper
Nice sensationalism. This would not upend known laws of physics because they are known and tested to work. It would change some hypotheses.
DignamWhenAskedaQuestion
" what monsters may be laying there " ? JESUS H CHRIST ! Don't throw up the flags like that ! Who talks like that ? !
pfunk81
Yeah, well I watched this youtube video that you should see...
sochilln
TheLookAndFeelMUSIC
God Is hate science journalist headlines. There are DEFINITELY forms of matter and energy out there we don't know about.
nottitanium
So... did we just discover faster-than-light travel? Yes please!
Isi151e
Yeah yeah, weeble wobble come give my particles a gobble. I'm not falling for that one again science
Madmanphsycho
Physics students hating life right now
DarkSock
sciencebasedlifeform
Do the chickens have large talons?
WeShareTheSameSpace
So Doctor Who's explanation of "Wibbly, wobbly, timey, whimey" is in correct scientific terms then?
speedonthis
Only within the Commonwealth
BonPublic
If your are using Fahrenheit in the same sentence yes.
LANAAAAAAAAAA
PictureArchiver
It’s not even at 5 sigma. The next set of data will confirm there is in fact nothing new going on and the Standard Model, thank god in 1
PictureArchiver
heaven, holds up for the next millennium because it’s the perfect explanation of how the universe works that physicists just can’t take 2
PictureArchiver
as a good enough answer. They spend all this time looking for new physics, can’t even explain gravity. NO new funding for you until you tell
PictureArchiver
us you’ve found a way to generate artificial gravity! 4
IAlwaysUpvoteSexy
My understanding of this stuff is wobbly at best
Niiorkl
@IAlwaysUpvoteSexy Wibbley wobbly timey stuff ???
eddbrowne
Fat electrons defeat standard model. (I think the answer is 42.)
Imademyselfsquirtle
My understanding is that the way we see, perceive and understand things may not be set in stone. Too stubborn to be wrong about maffs.
notdeadjusttired350
I'm an expert in wombology
IAlwaysUpvoteSexy
You wombo?
JollyRogarrgh
You're a muon
Niiorkl
And you're a moron...Wait, is a moron a fundamental particle??anyway, you're a moron ^^
wazscience
He is a bit strange, don't you think?
canigifinpaint
Geez "Fat Electrons?" That sounds so negative
ProficientInGifs
New band name I called it!
lurkhard
How about dumb thicc electrons?
a2s2020
Depends how you spin it
IHaveAGuyForEverything
I love science. Not because of what we know, but because of what we don’t know yet. Imagine what we’ll find tomorrow! So fun.
Medic36
Thanks K
IHaveAGuyForEverything
Eh?
[deleted]
[deleted]
IHaveAGuyForEverything
Oh. Yes, actually! It fits in pretty well. Very logical approach to science.
giley
Tldr. Currently accepted scientific theory says particle should do a thing. Scientists did an experiment to check. Turns out that......
GForce805
particle is like the spinning top at the end of Inception
giley
the particle doesn't do the expected thing! It does something different! Conclusion - our current understanding of the universe is wrong.
immoral0
That's a big Ole 'duh' from scientifically challenged me, of course our current understanding isn't correct, or even remotely complete.
immoral0
That's why it's referred to as our *current* understanding.
IHaveAGuyForEverything
That’s what makes it so exciting! We know what we know today. What will we know tomorrow?!?! I can’t wait to find out.
silversean
But I thought when presented with new and contradictory info you pretend it doesn’t exist?
LordElups
Ah, religion
knowmeandsayhello
Physics since forever in a nutshell folks.
urukhello
Science, really.
VidiVeniThenSheLeft
Well, it MAY not have done the expected thing. Every so often, we come across unexpected results but they're usually the result of 1/
VidiVeniThenSheLeft
something else being off (miscalibration, unexpected interference, etc) vs imploding our understanding of the universe. 2/2
vendiago
Thank you so much for the tldr!
AntiProtonBoy
It’s always wrong and always will be. We can probably reverse engineer it up to a point and no more.
Noevilgifs
Or they observed the particle which bounced light off of it so it did a different thing
pmaknelluf42
Not wrong, incomplete. The Standard model is a working theory that still has a couple holes, which was shown here.
CandleToad
-Might- be wrong. According to one experiment/calculation. Another gave results that fit the current model. More testing is needed.
giley
Two experiments now, this one agrees with the Brookhaven results performed back in 2001.
CandleToad
That still makes it a maybe, yet your TL;DR makes it sound like it's a done deal, which it's not.
ScatterJ0Y
Current understanding is wrong, or just incomplete?
dryrunner
Incomplete is better.
Brunitski
Incomplete
esseprometheus
Incompletely wrong.
IAlwaysUpvoteSexy
So, when does the universe explode?
xRHIN0x
Look up Heat Death of the Universe
sdfsfsfsgs
What if it is somehow preventable. Maybe by starting again.
IssacOppenheimer
hangar
best comment
DontusetheMword
Tomorrow. Bring snacks
TheHighestSeraph
Finally
Luccio
If they used some of the same equipment from the original experiment, could that be why they got the same result?
ProficientInGifs
That’s a good question
giley
It's possible, but unlikely. The only part they reused was the magnet ring, other components were new.