[charles1948 (OP)]

The trouble with "learning" things is this: how can you be sure what you are "learning" is actually true?

[alancalverd]

Eddington (or was it Rutherford?) said science was either physics or stamp collecting. If you understand science, you can see the subtle truth in the statement, and realise that most science is a combination of the two disciplines..

Chemistry is "physics in a bucket". What goes on in a test tube or a gas reactor is so varied and so complicated that it is best studied as a separate subject because there are around 120 elements (the stamp album is full) each with its own physics, and an unlimited number of ways of combining them (if you understand the physics) to make something useful. 

Modern biology rapidly moves from stamp collecting (identifying a new species) directly to physics and indirectly via chemistry - why does that shape or color confer an advantage? Why are there different chemical pathways to photosynthesis which exploit different bits of the solar spectrum and ambient temperature?

Dismissing other sciences as "mere" stamp collecting is a bit like dismissing architecture as merely piling bricks. The world is very simple to a simpleton who doesn't appreciate its complexity, or to a genius who can see how the complexity all derives from a few quarks, but for a lot of us the complexity deserves a lifetime of study.

[alancalverd]

how can you be sure what you are "learning" is actually true?

In science, you can't. That's the whole essence of the scientific method. What we know is nothing more or less than the totality of hypotheses that have not been disproved by experiment.

This distinguishes us from parasites like philosophers, priests and politicians, whose worthless product is absolute truth. 

[Bored chemist]

The trouble with "learning" things is this: how can you be sure what you are "learning" is actually true?

The physicists  have evidence.

[Kryptid]

The trouble with "learning" things is this: how can you be sure what you are "learning" is actually true?

Philosophically speaking, you can't. You can only become increasingly certain of an idea's truth or falsehood based on the strength of evidence. For all we know, the Earth might really be flat and there are super-advanced aliens out there feeding us false observations to fool us into believing it is round. Does that mean we should reasonably bring the Earth's roundness into doubt just because that is technically possible?

[charles1948 (OP)]

I agree with your point about the "roundness" of the Earth.  There are enough photographs of the Earth, taken from orbit and the Moon, to establish its roundness beyond any reasonable doubt.  There's direct photographic evidence.  So we can sure about it.

But this is the thing - what photographic evidence do Physicists have that the "Higg's Boson" exists?

In the past, Physicists used "Bubble Chambers" which allowed particles to be tracked and photographed as they passed through the chamber and visibly ionised the fluid within it.

But nowadays, physicists don't use Bubble Chambers any more. Just racks of diodes and transistors which register differences in electrical current.  These differences could result from anything, perhaps differences in thickness of the wiring, or conductivity of the silicon, or quality control between the different manufacturers who supplied the components.

So the Higg's Boson might not actually exist, but just be a product of variation in electric wiring?

[evan_au]

But nowadays, physicists don't use Bubble Chambers any more. Just racks of diodes and transistors which register differences in electrical current.  These differences could result from anything, perhaps differences in thickness of the wiring...So the Higg's Boson might not actually exist, but just be a product of variation in electric wiring?

The first thing to say is that the existence of the Higgs Boson was not inferred from a single reading (a single reading which may have been due to a fault or tolerance variation).

The Higgs Boson was seen by two different teams, using two different types of experimental devices (CMS & ATLAS, kilometers apart) at the LHC.
- Each of these teams studied trillions of proton-proton collisions at various energy levels before they homed in on the particular "resonance" that is represented by the Higgs Boson.
- These trillions of collisions (the vast majority of which did not assist the search for the Higgs boson) exercised all parts of these machines, and showed that they worked well.
- While psychology papers are accepted if they demonstrate a p=0.05 (ie 5% probability that they could be talking nonsense), particle physicists look for 5σ, or approximately 0.00006% chance that the result could be just luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_the_Higgs_boson#Discovery_of_new_boson

Having said that, physicists have never detected a Higgs Boson directly.
- The mass of this particle is so great (125GeV/c²), and the lifetime is so short(10^-22s) that it doesn't make it out of the vacuum pipe and into the detector before it decays.
- So the existence of the Higgs was determined from its unique decay products and distinctive energy
- This is not so different from the way chemistry worked for many years - many chemical reactions took place in such a small volume, in such a small time, that chemists had to work backwards from the mix of chemical products to determine what chemical species had produced them.

[evan_au]

This is not so different from the way chemistry worked for many years

Nobel prizes were awarded in 1998 and 2013 for computational methods in chemistry.
- These apply the laws of quantum physics in a computer program to determine what is going on inside chemical reactions-  chemical reactions that take place in such a small volume, in such a small time, that they can't be observed directly.
- Other techniques like superfast pulsed lasers and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance are now able to study chemical structures in more detail.
See: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/computational-chemists-take-nobel-prize/6676.article

So you could say that chemistry is like physics, but taken to an entirely different level
- And biology is like chemistry, but taken to an entirely different level
- And brain science is like biology, but taken to an entirely different level
- And psychology is like brain science, but taken to an entirely different level
- Nobody can hope to understand all these levels in great detail

Dr Karl says that he can take an expert in any field, and in 20 questions, come to some area where the expert says "nobody really knows".
- So nobody really understands everything, these days
- Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean that someone just "made it up"
- All you can do is to try and identify the limits of your ignorance, and try to expand your boundaries.
- But do recognize that there is a difference between a p=0.05 and a 5σ result.

[Bored chemist]

So the Higg's Boson might not actually exist, but just be a product of variation in electric wiring?

No, that's obviously silly.
The differences in wiring (and it's more complex than that  but, never mind, the point is still valid) are constant.
But the signature of the particles are not.

[Kryptid]

So the Higg's Boson might not actually exist, but just be a product of variation in electric wiring?

That's a completely unreasonable conclusion in light of all of the testing that has been done. You'd think any such wiring issues would have been found after 8 years. Many different experiments have been done on the Higgs to establish that its properties align with what has been predicted. Do you really expect equipment errors to conveniently give those results, especially when false positives from equipment errors are exactly the kind of things that are checked for?

[charles1948 (OP)]

So the Higg's Boson might not actually exist, but just be a product of variation in electric wiring?

That's a completely unreasonable conclusion in light of all of the testing that has been done. You'd think any such wiring issues would have been found after 8 years. Many different experiments have been done on the Higgs to establish that its properties align with what has been predicted. Do you really expect equipment errors to conveniently give those results, especially when false positives from equipment errors are exactly the kind of things that are checked for?

I take your point.  But just suppose that after all the years of checking - someone did find find that the LHC, and all the other electronic equipment used to to detect  particles such as the Higgs, and Gravity Waves, had been wrongly wired up

 Wouldn't that be a huge embarrassment to Science?  Could it ever be admitted?  I mean, thousands of scientists have written papers based on the results from these instruments.  What a disaster it would be for them, and their careers, if their papers turned  out to be based on some technician having connected the input-lead to terminal B instead of A..

Don't these things sometimes happen?  Not the scientists' fault.  Any more than it was a few years ago, when NASA technicians wrongly inputted US measurements instead of Metric into a Mars probe causing the total destruction of the probe.
 
There are no "Scientists", only human beings who sometimes get things wrong.

[Colin2B]

The trouble with "learning" things is this: how can you be sure what you are "learning" is actually true?

That’s why when learning science (physics, chemistry, biology etc) we don’t just read books and sit in front of spoon feeding lecturers. There are numerous experiments to check what you are being told is true, and quite a few to explore things you haven’t been told.
You will never know until you try it.

[Bored chemist]

There are no "Scientists"

That's not what it says on my passport.

Seriously, there are loads of scientists. Essentially everyone under about 3 years old is a scientist.

It's when you stop asking "but why...?" that you stop being one.

 Wouldn't that be a huge embarrassment to Science?  Could it ever be admitted? 

Not really, and yes it was,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly#Measurement_errors

It's a bit awkward but fundamentally, science is self correcting.

[alancalverd]

You don't have to be a scientist to screw things up with measurement systems. An old flying chum was an industrial architect who was commissioned to design a hangar for a municipal airport in Saudi Arabia. If it still exists (this was 45 years go) it is the most expensive garden shed on earth. Being wise to the fact that the rest of the world is metric, he specified every component in meters, and the prime contractor, being wise to the disgusting and depraved
 Imperial system, had all the steelwork fabricated in feet and decimals thereof. Of course it all fitted together perfectly and the riggers built a beautiful doll's hangar, just big enough for a few tractors.   

There was a wiring problem in 2011 that led to a brief embarrassment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly. The neutrinos that arrived before they were created turned out to be a loose plug. Egg on several hundred faces.

Likewise "ice nine". Kurt Vonnegut wrote some great sci-fi including "Cats Cradle" (1963), which was predicated  on the synthesis of a phase of water that was solid at room temperature. No problem until somebody dropped a crystal into the Atlantic. By 1966, several labs had reported making a gel phase at 20°C. I narrowly missed getting recruited into an Ice Nine research project which was well funded because, of course, solid water would be an incredibly useful and unbelievably dangerous material. Turned out to be a silicate sludge - test tubes are indeed slightly soluble! - but almost as many good people were involved in that wild goose chase as in the later Pons and Fleishmann cold fusion debacle. 

The great strength of science is that it survives cockups because nobody claims to have the absolute revealed mystic truth, only a bunch of indicative measurements which everyone else is at liberty to scrutinise and reinterpret.

 

[charles1948 (OP)]

I thought about the FTL neutrinos when composing my post.  But  left it out, because it  was a very brief incident, sorted out in a few months.

But the Higgs Boson nonsense has been going on for years and years!

After that length of time, it has acquired an imperviousness to doubt, which none dare question for fear of imperilling their reputation and career.

[alancalverd]

My reputation and career are imperilled every day. It's part of the game. If you invent or discover anything remotely different or profitable, some folk will use your results for the benefit of mankind, and others will try to disprove them. Giving your first presentation of findings or product that nobody else has ever seen, is like a barmitzvah and inquisition all in one, and marks your transition from pupil to student.

[Bored chemist]

After that length of time, it has acquired an imperviousness to doubt, which none dare question for fear of imperilling their reputation and career.

Says who?

[Kryptid]

But just suppose that after all the years of checking - someone did find find that the LHC, and all the other electronic equipment used to to detect  particles such as the Higgs, and Gravity Waves, had been wrongly wired up

You want to take a guess as to how incredibly unlikely that is? Doubly so for gravitational waves, given that we had two different projects (LIGO and VIRGO) working on it at the same time and confirming one-another's observations.

But the Higgs Boson nonsense has been going on for years and years!

Nonsense? Excuse me?

After that length of time, it has acquired an imperviousness to doubt, which none dare question for fear of imperilling their reputation and career.

Or (and this is the better option) there is no good evidence that there is anything to doubt in the first place.

[evan_au]

Wouldn't that be a huge embarrassment to Science?  Could it ever be admitted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment
- This "failed" experiment was one of the inputs to Einstein's theory of relativity
- What you have missed is that scientists actually like finding errors in previous theories, as it gets them research grants and highly-cited papers (eg anomalous rotation of galaxies)
- and the bigger the error they discover, the more likely they are to receive a Nobel prize (eg the accelerating expansion of the universe)
- The Nobel committee tends to be very conservative, so if an area receives a Nobel Prize, it has been fairly convincingly demonstrated (eg gravitational waves)

For failures of a different kind, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#Controversy_and_criticism

In fact, there are Wikipedia pages listing things that just seem wrong (or at least incomplete).
- One of them is physics beyond the Standard Model (which many physicists today link to identifying the nature of Dark Matter)
- In contrast to this, the Higgs Boson was predicted as part of the current standard model, and some of it's characteristics fairly well predicted (but it's mass was highly uncertain)
- If the Higgs were not real, you would find several new entries on the following page:
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

It's not the only field with unsolved problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_chemistry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_biology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_neuroscience

[evan_au]

...Gravity Waves, had been wrongly wired up

It is true that LIGO (USA), VIRGO(Italy) and KAGRA (built by a team in Japan) are continually straining to extract a Gravitational Wave signal from the noise.

But the Nobel Committee awarded a prize in 1993 for astronomical evidence of Gravitational Waves from a binary pulsar.
- This was well before the first gravitational wave detection by LIGO, in 2015
- This pulsar method doesn't require detection of subtle vibrations smaller than the diameter of a proton.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary

In reality, the generation of Gravitational Waves in Spacetime from accelerating masses is no more surprising than:
- generation of Electromagnetic Waves from accelerating charges in a wire (eg radio, TV and cell phones)
- generation of Water Waves from a stone dropped in a pond (accelerating water molecules)