>particles are way too small for us to see or feel >can't

>>7755571
Statistically significant abnormalities in decay products and patterns.

It explains why the weak force has such a short range.

>>7755571
Make a set of instruments that can feel the particles, based on decades of research and development.
Can now prove they exist (or not, which is more interesting).
Use a machine that can smash particles together based on decades of research and development.
Show images generated using the output of the instruments to give something to the people who want to feel smart but who wont read the research papers generated that will have the actual results and what they mean.
Naming your new theoretical particle to piss off the religious and those who don't want to piss off the religious. Only way to go.

You can debate the pros and cons of spending that much money on something like this forever, but when your first point on anything is that you cant feel something therefore is must not exist, just do the race a favor and kill yourself.

>>7755571
2 words:
Cloud chamber

>>7755571
>can't prove they even exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFVZU2YwwJ4

>>7755571
>I can't see it so it doesn't exist!
>I'm too lazy to read the publication which explains everything in that photo!
>I have no idea that math can be use to prove and predict the existence of things!

>>7755571
if everyone had that mindset, new discoveries would only be discredited and no actual scientific advancement would be made.

>>7755669
Our instruments and machines are based purely on the ideas and theories we currently have though. What if we were wrong from the start?

>>7755734
then we wouldn't have instruments and machines to begin with

Electron microscopes exist.

>>7755571
You are absolutely right. Matter is made of earth wind and fire, the world revolves around of the earth, television and computers work under a magic spell and planes metal birds scientist bent to their will to make you believe they know stuff.

>>7755571
As a result of OP's question, I was going to suggest he put his head into the collision chamber so he could observe for himself exactly what was going on.

The idea of the collision occuring inside his brain, appealed to me. Then I realised, I have no idea at all of the scale of OP's picture....

I imagine true scale is 20mm long? Can anyone enlighten me?

>>7755798
the cylinder shape in the picture (see blue rectangles) are at the LHC's outer layer

>>7755798
has happened in the '70s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski

>>7755798
I don't think the LHC is precise enough to hit something as small as OPs brain

>>7755830
kek

>>7755571
wherever you look, you are looking at particles

>>7755571
90% of your post is shit, but I'll answer the first one
>particles are way too small for us to see or feel
What's so special about seeing and feeling that you wouldn't dismiss them as false?

>>7755734

So far they don't appear to be wrong, if in future we take this technology to its maximum extents and find that there was something wrong at the start that is still progress and it doesn't matter too much as up to that point our eventually incorrect theory matches what ever the correct theory ends up being.

>>7755804
Thank you. That is WAY bigger than I expected

>>7755734
If we were wrong to begin with, the machine would yeild no results or different results.

>>7755830
Shots fired

File: Knee beans repel dorito chip .png (51KB, 479x480px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 479x480px

>>7755571
I KNOW RIGHT! IT IS LIKE THE EYE IS WAAAY TOO COMPLICATED TO JUST SUDDENLY HAPPEN. IT HAD TO BE DESIGNED!

>>7755742
>>7755734
>>7755988
If the underlaying foundation for your tools is incorrect, it does not mean you won't get an expected result. Because it means that the methods you use to check it and the maths used to create it are the same flawed maths that allow you to first come up with the idea that there is something there that needs checking.

If it really is flawed then the corrected version would not allow for the formation of the idea for the particle in the first place. However, that does not mean you wouldn't think of the idea of some other type of particle with different properties for which you make another set of tools to measure.

>>7755828
>they wouldn't even give the poor bastard his epilepsy pills
Fuck the soviets, I'm glad those cunts are gone.

>>7756035
well first off, in order to make the machine the theory of electromagnetism must be correct. in order to actually use a transformer you need to pass AC current through a coil in order to get an electric field which causes a current flow in the other. if all of that was wrong then no electronic on earth would exist. high energy electrons hitting metals also generates X-Rays. you can see this by taking a vacuum tube, hooking it up to high voltages, and swallowing it. if you don't get cancer within a few years, then particles don't exist.

look dude, dark energy and dark matter all are demons bro

>>7756198
That wasn't the point at all, but you wanted to prove anon wrong so hard you had to jump off the deep end.