If I understand correctly, observational data is not available in its raw form the way astronomical data is available in simple tabular format. Physicists take the raw data (what is actually observed) and put it in an interpreted format (in the language of symmetry). So, when you say, “data is available” you are referring to this already processed and interpreted data. Is this correct?

If so I would say that data is not available. Physicists use proprietary software to collect the data and then use proprietary software to analyze and interpret it. The fact that they make it available online does not mean much. Do I understand this correctly?

If you don’t know anything at all about some data, what you do is fit a curve to it. If you are more sophisticated, you fit a symmetry to it. So that is what modern physics does, basically sophisticated curve fitting.

This is revealing. To fit a curve we need computeds. I assume that physicists use the Standard Model as their computeds. Is this correct? And String Theorists are trying to make the String Theory the official computeds of physics. How does the Quantum Mechanics enter into this experimental picture?

In practice, there is no need to have a theory to compute the computeds. If the curve looks like a sine curve we can fit the observed to a sine curve or use another mathematical algorithm such as the least squares. I think that the computeds are never computed from some “theory” but always from geometry. Please correct if this is not the case.

It appears that on top of the geometrical curve physicists lay their legal scenarios to save the doctrine. They label the curve with marketing labels the way Galileo called some line velocity another acceleration.

I think something similar happens with planetary data. NASA uses no theory, such as force, to fit the planetary motions. They use numerical integration. It is all iterations with previous set of data. But then, to conform to their professional tradition they associate planetary motions with Newtonian doctrine in their website. I think this is also happening in the case of collider experiments.

And also what about probability? I thought that in collider experiments physicists observed probabilities.

Symmetry has its limitations, so to get the curve to fit, you assume “spontaneous symmetry breaking”, which you might as well think of as “spontaneous curve fitting violation”, LOL.

This is incredible. In essence “spontaneous symmetry breaking” is another name for ad hoc adjustment of observed data by adding new parameters. So the endless papers in Arxiv are negotiations about whose defined parameters to canonize. Is this a correct interpretation?

The symmetry exists in the ratios of those patterns.

Ok, very interesting. Physicists call an equality of ratios symmetry. So, Kepler’s rule (so-called Kepler’s third law) is a proportionality and physicists will call it a symmetry. How does Kepler’s rule enter here? (If it does enter.) For instance, I know that it exists in the Lagrangian.

I imagine the beam to be a fluid not a collection of absolutely hard particles. What happens when two beams collide is analogous to what happens when two jets of water collide. What we get are drops, not absolutely hard particles. (This is nothing more than my speculative opinion.)

Just understanding the equipment that captures the data (and therefore what the data means) might be the subject of a grad school class.

Am I correct in assuming that no one person understands how these huge colliders work? Every physicist knows his or her little corner and not much else. (I learned this from USA-LHC blogs.) All this suggests to me that the big collider experiments are black box experiments. Just from my simple data fitting experience in spreadsheets with planetary data I know that there is much room for “art” and it is very easy to find what you want to find by adding new parameters.

I think ultimately your comment proves my suspicion that there is a gap between theory and experiment. Experiment is based on standard electronics and curve fitting. Physicists built an elaborate theoretical system (i.e. a system of catchy labels, such as symmetry breaking) and fit what is observed to this theory and present observations in that language.

I don’t trust physicists to interpret what they measure in a scientific way especially when “sophisticated” and proprietary computer programs are involved at every level. Not to mention the pressure of fulfilling the demands of governments who employ the physicists. The stakes are obviously very high. In big physics experiments science is the first casualty.

Physicists will always fit observations into doctrine. The doctrine is atomic materialism of Newtonism hidden in the legal code of physics. Then, they will find what their employers want them to find and then request the building of a more expensive next generation of colliders for the good of humanity.

Thanks for this comment. This was a great explanation and clarified many questions for me.

Re Schwinger’s book: surprisingly the public library did not have it so I couldn’t look at it. But I will have to decide first if and how I can commit time to tackle the Quantum Mechanics business at this time.

Thanks again.

If you don’t know anything at all about some data, what you do is fit a curve to it. If you are more sophisticated, you fit a symmetry to it. So that is what modern physics does, basically sophisticated curve fitting. Symmetry has its limitations, so to get the curve to fit, you assume “spontaneous symmetry breaking”, which you might as well think of as “spontaneous curve fitting violation”, LOL. But the end effect of all this is that particle physics is written in the sophisticated mathematical language of symmetry. And this has been going on for years, so it will take some time for someone just introduced to it to figure it out.

You’ve seen those bubble chamber photographs that show hundreds of curving particle tracks? Physicists understand those pretty much completely. But for an amateur to understand those tracks will take some time. Even if you have access to the original data (which consists of hundreds of thousands of high detail photographs), you will have to be trained to recognize the patterns. The symmetry exists in the ratios of those patterns.

And bubble chamber photographs were the state of the art 40 years ago. Now the amount of data collected is much, much, much, much larger and can only be analyzed by very efficient computer programs using huge amounts of computer time. A single particle experiment generates billions of collisions. And instead of being just photographs like a bubble chamber, the events are captured simultaneously in many different methods. Just understanding the equipment that captures the data (and therefore what the data means) might be the subject of a grad school class.

Thanks for the reference. Probably I’ll look at it in the library. No doubt this is a book I would like to read.

Assume that I read it and I became proficient in “measurement algebra.” Now, I will have to find the actual measurements. In astronomy planetary data is freely available and I can reduce the data using excel. In the case of accelerators, such as the LHC I don’t think this is the case. From the way it looks this is a complex electronics machine. The data that comes out of it is heavily simulated. My impression is that particle experiments are black box experiments. The results are not available to amateurs. But I may be mistaken. What are your thoughts on this?

If you want to learn QM in terms of “what is measured” in real particle experiments, Julian Schwinger’s “measurement algebra” is the way to go. Buy $41 at Amazon, “Quantum Kinematics and Dynamics” by Julian Schwinger. This is a technical book but you have the smarts to read it in a week or two, and it is the stuff at the front that is th most important anyway. This book gives the foundation for density matrix theory, and it is written in terms of particle beam experiments, that is, measurements themselves.

If you want to understand QFT as Feynman does, he wrote a book that has no equations that is called “QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter” that sells even cheaper.

Thanks for the comment and happy holidays to you too. I was just pondering how to move the blog to the next level.

Congratulations once again about your PhD. Is your thesis online?

Thanks for the comment. I am sorry for the late response.
You may be right about the shark situation. I wanted to go away from the blog for a while and ponder about the future. I decided that going forward I needed to spend more time with the blog. My plan is to take some time off from work and study the fundamental issues that I have been questioning in more depth. But this will not happen before the end of March.

Physicists use Kepler’s rule and call it Newton’s laws. I want to be able to prove this beyond doubt.

As far as I understand something similar is happening in Quantum Mechanics. For instance, you work by way of “density matrix” which at least superficially must be connected to Kepler’s law which I see as the definition of density. Also Lagrangian used by physicist is Kepler’s rule stated in their own language. But I cannot convince myself that I need to study 2 years the textbook QM in order to understand this stuff. You already know it Why do I need to learn it? I just read today how Carlo Rovelli was disillusioned about Quantum Mechanics.

And as far as I know textbook QM is totally divorced from practical applications.

I would also like to understand what big physics experiments conducted with the support of the government really measure. Science of collider physics do not seem to be independent of politics.

And there is also the Cavendish experiment.

The gist of it is that I’ll be posting, if I can, brief articles, while I’ll try to save some money to take about a year off and dedicate myself to full time studying.

Thanks again for the comment and your support.