if it did not exists, according to the model everything would be massless
This in a nutshell is all modern physics. Faith in our models, not in observation. "The model they pulled out of our asses says it should be there", and when it proved difficult to find, they lowered the bar for observations, allowing vague "data signals" to be enough to declare existence of something - "you want more solid proof? Triple our funding!" - ad infinitum. And here we are, with LHC being bumped up at tremendous expense to find even more elusive and vague signals identifiable only by the insane and delusional (or clever con-artist) theoretical physicists.
Take gravity. I can show you the equations that predict what happens with 99% repeatability. These hold true for everything from a dropped ball to the fairly short picture of the cosmos we've been watching for 400 years or so.
So when that same equation, taken to the next step, says there's a ridiculously small object that makes it work, but it's at the edge or beyond our ability to measure it, why would we think that it's some scam?
People pressing ahead like this with magnets gave us CT scanners. X-rays were esoteric and useless u til we accidentally saw a bone through flesh with them.
Fumbling around in the dark is the only way we learn.
At a subatomic level we cannot fully predict gravity with the classical mechanics equations used for the macro scale world. We cannot unify QM probabilities with gravity. There has been no successful unification of gravity with quantum mechanics.
That's a non-sequitor. I never stated or implied a unified model - gravity was used as an illustrative device so it could be accessible by those without a grounding in Quantum Mechanics to follow along with my point.
By extension, I also never stated or implied x-rays and/or CT scanners were manifestations of gravity.
This in a nutshell is all modern physics. Faith in our models, not in observation. "The model they pulled out of our asses says it should be there", and when it proved difficult to find, they lowered the bar for observations, allowing vague "data signals" to be enough to declare existence of something - "you want more solid proof? Triple our funding!" - ad infinitum. And here we are, with LHC being bumped up at tremendous expense to find even more elusive and vague signals identifiable only by the insane and delusional (or clever con-artist) theoretical physicists.
It's because the models predict accurately.
Take gravity. I can show you the equations that predict what happens with 99% repeatability. These hold true for everything from a dropped ball to the fairly short picture of the cosmos we've been watching for 400 years or so.
So when that same equation, taken to the next step, says there's a ridiculously small object that makes it work, but it's at the edge or beyond our ability to measure it, why would we think that it's some scam?
People pressing ahead like this with magnets gave us CT scanners. X-rays were esoteric and useless u til we accidentally saw a bone through flesh with them.
Fumbling around in the dark is the only way we learn.
At a subatomic level we cannot fully predict gravity with the classical mechanics equations used for the macro scale world. We cannot unify QM probabilities with gravity. There has been no successful unification of gravity with quantum mechanics.
That's a non-sequitor. I never stated or implied a unified model - gravity was used as an illustrative device so it could be accessible by those without a grounding in Quantum Mechanics to follow along with my point.
By extension, I also never stated or implied x-rays and/or CT scanners were manifestations of gravity.
Oh don't worry - I wasn't attacking you. Just adding information to the context.