[sidlls]

Yes, but these experiments serve at least three purposes.

One, to verify the Model (after all, if its predictions fail in some part it will have to be revised).

Another, to verify the characteristics of the predicted particles (there might be some differences from the prediction that are important, but not hypothesis-breaking).

Finally, however unlikely and yet most excitingly (to me at least), to open new avenues of questioning and hypothesis up by really throwing into question some things.

[M_Grey]

It's worth remembering that the Higgs particle was also predicted by the standard model, and no one underestimates the importance of that confirmation.

[whyever]

The Higgs is an elementary particle, so its discovery was much more exciting. There are a lot of particles made up of quarks, like the five mentioned in the article:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-mesons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-qtab-baryons.pdf

[lngnmn]

What is at least one single scientific (replicated) evidence that these tables does not contain merely a socially constructed crap, modern day alchemy deduced from flawed models and/or instruments?

[whyever]

These tables are editorialized by the Particle Data Group, they summarize and distill the empirical evidence of thousands of high-energy physics experiments. Not every experiment is replicated, but some are, hence the different ratings of how sure the editors are the particles exist.

From their website:

"In the 2014 Review, the listings include 3,283 new measurements from 899 papers, in addition to 32,000 measurements from 9,000 papers that appeared in earlier editions. Evaluations of these properties are abstracted in summary tables."

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/html/what_is_pdg.html

[lngnmn]

> probability, statistics, accelerators and detectors

Surely, there could not be any error here. Nothing socially constructed.

Isn't it already borders nonsense that in the universe which is sustained by a couple of fundamental conservation laws there supposed to be hundreds of elementary (presumably fundamental) particles which emerge and disintegrate in time, which is not even an intrinsic property of "more real" things like photons.

[whyever]

> Surely, there could not be any error here. Nothing socially constructed.

There could be. Physicists have been trying very hard for the last 40 years to find something the standard model cannot explain, without success. Some experimentalists are actually disappointed about this.

> Isn't it already borders nonsense that in the universe which is sustained by a couple of fundamental conservation laws there supposed to be hundreds of elementary (presumably fundamental) particles which emerge and disintegrate in time, which is not even an intrinsic property of "more real" things like photons.

You are confused. The standard model has 17 elementary particles (+ anti particles). There are a lot of composite particles, like the ones the article talks about. Not sure what you mean about decays, but photons are a special case, because they move at the speed of light. Other elementary particles, like the heavier quarks, can and do decay.

[krastanov]

Given that science is done with models and instruments I am confused what answer you expect. Those models and instruments are validated in thousands of different experiments, at different energy and length scales, from astronomical observations to man-made particle accelerators. Each of the experiments and observations testing slightly different part of the theory, all of them mostly in agreement. It is the rare disagreements that are actually most exciting, because they pave the way forward to pieces of the theory we do not understand yet.

Here are two independent examples that agree in their results: experimental measurements at the LHC; theoretical​ predictions from QFT.

[lngnmn]

Why, there are way too many well-documented instances of socially constructed and socially accepted bullshit in the history of mankind. Actually, it is much difficult task to find instances of accurate approximations to the truth.

There has been times when Hegelian "logic" has been accepted, published by Oxford University press, peer-reviewed, highly praised and successfully taught to students. I have read parts of Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences. I have read it after The Principles of Mathematics and things like Haskell Prelude.

I have read peer-reviewed commentaries to The Highest Yoga Tantra and such crap like commentaries to Hatha Yoga Pradipika by some Australian lady with some funny Hindu nickname.

I have read even beautiful sufi texts in which they freely mix and match anthropomorphic qualities to produce a beautiful carpet of linguistic patterns which describe nothing that exist. Peer-reviewed and highly praised, of course.

Socially constructed nonsense is not something rare and uncommon. To the contrary, most of publicly available information is bullshit, or at least highly inaccurate, full of meaningless generalizations, flawed logic and amounts to nothing but mere compilation of current memes.

So, I am more or less familiar with how such things could emerge. My question is - what is a single falsifiable experiment which proves that this is not socially constructed, highly sophisticated sectarian set of beliefs supported by complex (but meaningless) simulations (instead of mere a book of dogma).

[sqeaky]

You are barking up the wrong tree.

There is plenty of stuff in science that is imperfect and deeply flawed. Look at all the poorly reproduced studies on various nutrition and health products, for example. The Standard model is not part of that weak set.

The way to oppose social construction is increased rigor and experimentation. The Standard Model has some of the highest rigor and largest amount of experiments backing it.

[macintux]

Skimming through your comment history it's obvious you have a bone to pick with modern physics. Is there some discrete point in history where you think we started diverging from falsifiable experiments so we can perhaps compare before and after?

[dogecoinbase]

My question is - what is a single falsifiable experiment...

Can you describe how such an experiment might be constructed?

[cynicalkane]

Not in the same way. There was no experimental evidence for the Higgs field before the Higgs was observed. These new particles arise naturally out of parts of the Standard Model that are already experimentally tested.

[M_Grey]

You're not wrong, but you'd have been really hard-pressed to find someone of significance who didn't already believe the Higgs mechanism was there. In the sense that mass exists, there was a high degree of expectation there too. It's actually quite amazing to have so many of these recent discoveries, also be confirmations. It's been over a century of this, starting with Relativity.