Am I the only one who finds subatomic experimentation to

>>7786893
Probably because you don't understand it.

>>7786907
Do you?

>>7786918
From the theoretical side. (i.e. I've taken courses in QFT & the Standard Model)

So I know that the experiments the perform are perfectly reasonable and the results they gather line up well with theoretical predictions.

>>7786963
How can we verify the accuracy of the equipment and the readings?

>>7786893
>dude black holes are scary man
>dude we're , like, going to become nothing: how do you cope with this?
>heat death man, of the universe. what's point bro?
>man aren't subatomic particles spooky or some shit
>PASS THE BONG BRO
/sci/ - idiot stoner general

>>7787007
By calculating scattering cross sections and decay rates using QFT and comparing it to the experimental results.

File: wSDAnXM.jpg (494KB, 673x7839px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 673x7839px

>>7787007
>>7787021
Here is a brief overview...

>>7787021
Is there a calculated certainty or something? No chance of a reading that isn't 100% correct as we interpret it? Every time I've seen something published about a sub atomic event it's presented as certain fact. And if I'm not mistaken some of the crazier stuff isn't verified through repeated process or anything but rather a once-ever type of observation.

>>7787059
In theory:

Things like cross sections and decay rates are calculated perturbatively so they are not 100% accurate. We also constrain our calculations to only hold at the appropriate scales (i.e. at the planck scale where quantum gravity effects are noticeable, pure QFT calculations do not hold). If the theory is non renormalizable, then it can only be used at low energies (this is not the case of the standard model).
So yes while our calculations are not 100% accurate, they can be determined to a higher degree of accuracy then we can reach experimentally. This means the calculated quantities are reliable enough to confirm experimental data.


In experiment:

If you have every taken even intro experimental physics, you would know every measurement has an uncertainty. So that means any data gathered from an experiment performed at the LHC, will only be accurate up to an experimental uncertainty. We generally refer to the accuracy of an experiment by saying something like it has "n sigma" accuracy. So generally if an experiment is accurate to about 5 sigma, we consider the data reliable. We can then compare our data with the perturbative QFT calculations to see if theory and experiment match up.