Since Einstein, we know gravity is the curvature of space-time. It may be represented as a force in calculations but in reality there is no force.
How about I turn that around and say that Einstein showed gravity can be modelled by the curvature of space-time but in reality it is a force? The fact of the matter is that, at a fundamental level, we have no clue what gravity is. However you can represent it very well by a spin-2, mass-less particle which couples to a particle's 4-momentum (the caveat being that you cannot make this theory work without an energy cut-off at some scale for which there is no justification). Until we solve quantum gravity we simply do not know what gravity really is but, if I were to bet, I suspect the latter is closer to the truth but needs some correction for the quantum structure of space-time which is something we have no clue about.
If gravity is not a force then do we really have a hierarchy problem?
Yes, and if anything it would be worse. The current problem comes about because we cannot scale the Higgs corrections up to the Planck-scale where we know there is new physics. If we remove that scale then we have a theory which has no upper scale limit and so should generate infinitely large corrections to the Higgs mass i.e. we go from an incredibly unlikely 1 in ~10^34 chance of the corrections giving such a light Higgs to a zero percent chance of the theory giving a light Higgs, or any Higgs with a non-infinite mass.
Obviously, if this is the case, G has nothing to do with Fermi's constant and we should not compare the two.
You are getting your 'g's and 'G's confused. In the muon g-2 experiment the 'g' is the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment. This is a precision test of Quantum Electrodynamics. The high order corrections to this will involve Fermi's constant (G_F) due to W and Z loops but these contributions will be incredibly small and were this any other experiment I would have said negligible but perhaps not in this case given the incredibly high precision involved. Neither of these constants have anything to do with the gravitational constant (G) nor the local acceleration due to gravity (g). So we are not comparing the two.
The corrections to the muon g-2 experiment are now so high order that they involve QCD loops. These are non-perturbative and incredibly hard to calculate correctly so all a 5 sigma discrepancy may mean is that the theorists have got the calculation wrong. Indeed this has happened before with a 3 sigma g-2 'signal' going away after an error in the theory calculation was found by the student of one of my departmental colleagues.
If I show my bias then I would say that the best chance of new physics is the new LHC run starting in March 2015 where we have almost twice the energy of the previous run and higher luminosity. This should at least double the reach of the LHC for new physics over the next 3 years. After this run any sensitivity gains to new physics will come from increasing luminosity and so take far longer to achieve, perhaps giving one more doubling of the reach but over the next ~15 years and with a lot of work involved since the high luminosity LHC upgrade has incredible background rates!
Everything I've read said it's very unlikely to hit Earth in 2880. One chance in three hundred does not "likely" make.
Especially since it is actually 1 in 4,000 or 0.0248%. Still I'd actually think it would be a good thing to have the odds a lot higher, like 90%, with a lead time like this of 800+ years. To date the existential threat posed by wars have caused science to make massive advances but this has come at a huge cost of misery and death
Think of the scientific advances that could come from an existential threat that, instead of pitting us against each other, actually puts all of humanity on the same side for a change. In the past 800 years we have come from the dark ages to the internet age. If we can't get it together enough to develop the technology needed to cause a small deflection to an asteroid in the next 800 years then I'd say it was probably time for evolution to give it a second roll of the dice.
I don't know about "benefits"...even the abstract says that one of the main triggers to accepting leadership was that the populace had nowhere to go, or that it was too costly to leave.
So really not much has changed. Let's face it if colonizing Mars became possible and cheap tomorrow there would be a mass exodus from the Earth as millions of people left to get away from the dodgy politicians and corporations we all have to put up with today...ironically only to end up with their own dodgy politicians and corporates a century or two later, at least if the colonization of America is anything to go by.
I think it's the nightmare scenario.
True but this is not specific to GPL at all. What has happened is company A bought code from company B and company B did not have all the correct permissions and licenses under both copyright and patent law to sell that code to them. It's true that company A is now stuck because they cannot sell any product which includes that code but this would be true regardless of whether company B violated the GPL or other license.
If anything company A has more options with the GPL that they would with a proprietary license: if they lack the money to pay for a commercial license for the code for all the copies they have sold then they can choose to release their source code under the GPL as well. Note that it is an option only and not required. The code is infringing and there are two ways to fix this: pay damages and ongoing license fees or release the source code. With a commercial license you would only have the first of these options.
Irrelevant to weather it is a success or not. You seem to think that success means 'measured to within a certain accuracy'
Yes actually that is precisely what it means for a scientific theory. The aim of a scientific theory is to model the behaviour of the universe therefore the most successful theory is the one that most accurately describes the universe's behaviour.
Relativity doesnt hold a handle to that. Not even close. Aside from GPS satellites, how has our understanding of relatively improved your life?
Leaving aside that you appear to be confusing Special Relativity with General Relativity, QED requires and relies on special relativity. Hence anything which QED gives us would not be possible without special relativity. You also seem to be confusing QED with quantum mechanics in general. QED has had some useful applications but mainly in medical physics since it only applies to relativistic electrons and high energy photons e.g. PET, electron beam treatment of skin cancers etc. Special relativity also has similar applications e.g. all particle accelerators used to produce medical isotopes rely on it as well as those outside this field e.g. police radar.
There is just as much evidence these criteria are true as there is for dark stuff - currently none.
Not actually correct. The bullet cluster (see Wikipedia) is extremely hard to explain without Dark Matter. This collision between two galaxies has effectively separated he normal matter from the dark matter so we observe a gravitational field bending light where there is no normal matter. Without Dark Matter you are left with the extremely hard task of trying to explain how a gravitational field can exist where there is no matter.
I have no idea! You should probably ask a physicist.
You called? The answer is no and we were not really asking this question ourselves since the one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter (PLANCK CMB measurement) relies on Big Bang models!
Indeed, QED is the most successful theory that man has ever formulated
No, actually that would be special relativity which has been tested to around 20+ orders of magnitude by cosmic rays as well as (arguably) tests of CPT symmetry which last time I checked (quite a while ago) was at about 18 orders of magnitude.
QED is 'only' at about 12-14 order of magnitude of accuracy (which is extremely impressive!). Indeed since QED incorporates Special Relativity it would be hard for it to be tested more accurately that SR since any test of QED is, by definition, a test of SR as well.