What physical phenomena can science not explain?

[HubZilla]

I was going to say the WOW Signal, but the article above already stated it.

[Johanna]

Ah, they’re 1930s-style “Grass Rollers.”

[Shalmanese]

@rowrrbazzle

Homeopathic “medicines” are just placebos, so separating them on that list is not a good sign.

Did you read the link? Homeopathic medicines were found to have had an effect on cell cultures. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), nobody has been able to replicate the result and it was probably due to some unfortunate methodological error.

[Mathochist]

@Chronos

And there’s no real reason, aside from aesthetics, to expect that all four forces should be unified, anyway: As it is, electroweak unification is well-established, but models unifying the strong force with the electroweak still have some pretty big gaps in them (though these gaps aren’t nearly as far out of reach as are the gaps in quantum gravity; in the next few years accelerators should be good enough to start testing some of the predictions).

And anyhow, the other three forces are unified in the framework of Yang-Mills theories, which essentially quantize the notion of principal G-bundles for various Lie groups G. Gravitation, on the other hand, deals with the geometry of space itself rather than with the geometry of some additional structure put on top of spacetime (like a G-bundle). Locally SR says that it should look like a principle bundle for the Lorentz group, but GR says that we should really consider invariance under all diffeomorphisms. Besides, the Lorentz group is non-compact so the basic ideas underpinning Yang-Mills theories are unfounded. When it comes down to it, I think a mathematician (soberly reflecting) would be surprised to find a true unification putting gravitation on the same footing as the other interaction(s).

[Malacandra]

@muttrox

You don’t need a program to figure out the dice example.

1s can only come from dice rolled in the last minute that came up 1.
2s can only come from dice rolled in the last 2 minutes that came up 2.
3s can only come from dice rolled in the last 3 minutes that came up 3.
4s can only come from dice rolled in the last 4 minutes that came up 4.
5s can only come from dice rolled in the last 5 minutes that came up 5.
6s can only come from dice rolled in the last 6 minutes that came up 6.
1+2+3+4+5+6=21.
100/21 = 4.761%.
P(1) = 14.761%
P(2) = 24.761%
P(3) = 3*4.761%
etc.

I’m not sure, but I would think it would close in on these numbers after a very small number of rolls (21? 7?), you shouldn’t need 10 million iterations. It’s not approaching a limit, it’s just statistically varying around the statistical ideal.

— from PC Apeman
1: 4.7613%
2: 9.5266%
3: 14.2940%
4: 19.0557%
5: 23.7952%
6: 28.5672%

Spot on. Or, on average, a die will spend one minute out of every twenty-one showing a 1, two minutes out of 21 showing 2, and so on. (Over all time it will show all six faces an equal number of times, so just multiply proportion of instances by duration per instance to get proportion of duration.)

[rowrrbazzle]

Do we really know what inertia is?

@Shalmanese

Did you read the link? Homeopathic medicines were found to have had an effect on cell cultures. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), nobody has been able to replicate the result and it was probably due to some unfortunate methodological error.

Yes I did. If as you report they couldn’t replicate the cell culture result, that means there’s no evidence homeopathic “medicines” are anything more than placebos. Which is what I said. So what’s your point?

Mine is that New Scientist seems to be prone to presenting less than experimentally confirmed ideas and can’t be relied on completely.

[Frylock]

@rowrrbazzle

Do we really know what inertia is?

Yes I did. If as you report they couldn’t replicate the cell culture result, that means there’s no evidence homeopathic “medicines” are anything more than placebos. Which is what I said. So what’s your point?

I took Shalmanese to be saying that this is what is said at the link, meaning, it doesn’t reflect badly on New Scientist that they mention it.

But I haven’t read the link so maybe I’m reading Shalmanese wrong.

-FrL-

[Frylock]

@rowrrbazzle

Do we really know what inertia is?

Yes I did. If as you report they couldn’t replicate the cell culture result, that means there’s no evidence homeopathic “medicines” are anything more than placebos. Which is what I said. So what’s your point?

I took Shalmanese to be saying that this is what is said at the link, meaning, it doesn’t reflect badly on New Scientist that they mention it.

But I haven’t read the link so maybe I’m reading Shalmanese wrong.

-FrL-