Pages:
Author

Topic: How science works - page 2. (Read 284 times)

legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
March 27, 2021, 06:40:56 PM
#10
There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

well an out of date and debunked theory is not science. especially if the theory is made by someone that does not specialise in the topic the theory he makes concerns

take badeckers influencers they have no practical hands on scientific experience of the topics that make theories about. so in badeckers own request above. he should not be automatically considering their theories as science..
koffman has no virology or vaccine experience.. thus. badecker just debunked his favourite influencer
in short badecker just debunked his own influencers

...
anyway back on topic.
science is not an end result.. take for instance if we were to solve the mysteries of the high level of the solar system. once working out the solar system you can then use that to look at the mid level of planets and moons. and the low level of smaller parts.

cern is looking at the low levels of the energy that make up the parts that make a atom.. next would be the wave research that make the energy
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 27, 2021, 06:11:39 AM
#9
There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
March 27, 2021, 04:12:27 AM
#8
even to this day there are parts of science where questions about established preconceptions are not so welcome.

Yes, scientists are still human, and egos can be a problem.

I'd say that the biggest challenge to scientific integrity is probably money, by which I mean scientific experiments funded by industry, where there is a clearly desired outcome. I'm not suggesting that links between science and business should be severed, that's a bad idea and it would impede progress... but certainly there should be more rigorous oversight of these purportedly impartial business-funded studies.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 2017
March 27, 2021, 01:39:53 AM
#7
... And this is how science proceeds. Previous theories are revealed to be simply approximations.

That sounds to me quite like Karl Popper, according to whom scientific theories cannot be verified, they can only be falsified, so that we can only gradually get closer to the truth.

Every advancement that tears down preconceptions is welcomed. Because the search is for truth, not for the reinforcement of an ideology.

I would argue that it is not that science works this way, but that it should work this way. Most of the time it does but even to this day there are parts of science where questions about established preconceptions are not so welcome.
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 2919
LE ☮︎ Halving es la purga
March 26, 2021, 03:50:10 AM
#6
Well, some data from CERn are available to everyone, but working with them is so complex that it is only the disposable of millions of data that can be accessed and only a privileged group can work on them both for scientific knowledge, hardware and software.

And to the title of the OP, one can respond as the head of CERN did at the time when a journalist asked him "what is the use data of all this colliding particles, what scope it can have" and he replied "I don't know ..."

It is what has made us advance as a species, sometimes we want to look for answers and there are more questions ...
______

You must edit: 100 particles.
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 4534
March 25, 2021, 07:01:48 PM
#5
the way i view 'particles'... is just waves.
so many waves at so many different frequencies.
with some interfering with others that then bend around into their own loops.
(like radio frequencies bouncing off the ionosphere to loop around the world)

these loops in a circular orbit with enough energy obstruct other loops from passing through. this resistance is what makes the energy have substance.

the different frequency gives it different features. such as higher frequency for photons(light spectrum frequency)

even things as small as quarks are just loops of waves which then if in a certain formation with certain energy  and attracting other bals of waves .. become the core of bigger orbiting waves. which become protons and neutrons. which in combination of these become the core of bigger orbiting waves which attract other smaller waveloops balls(electrons). and become atoms


this is the 'mystery' of particles.. at micro level you can just study the physical substance of the tightly packed energy balls resisting and attracting.
at the pico level its all just waves in different formations
legendary
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1139
March 25, 2021, 03:49:27 PM
#4
Science have come up with the world evolution to conote a gradual or series of change in a thing. Standing on that existing concept and with the fact that, science is always on a precept of trying to know or understand a thing, a law defying another law doesn't really undermines the concepts of science or physics.
The evolution that occurs amongst things simply creates some changes in that thing and compounds that exists. So, there is bound to be new discoveries at some point and like you said @OP, what we know now is mare approximations and its okay. Even religion does this and in such points of doubts, your expected to have faith.
So, its our world and we aren't done with it neither is it done with us.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
March 25, 2021, 09:36:28 AM
#3
But regarding the scientists at CERN, their biggest science has to do with how to scientifically hide their real understanding from all of us.
I've actually had the privilege in the past of being given CERN particle traces to analyse. It's quite something to see, before your eyes, direct evidence of these tiny pieces of reality.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It's those who pursue money who have a motivation to guard secrets and hide understanding... business people and politicians.


the fabric of the whole thing that is called empty space, is solidly a mass of moving particles
Yes, of course. I never thought I'd ever be discussing elementary particle physics with you, and that we would agree! But even beneath that, a 'particle' is not really a particle. And wave-particle duality is a simplification, too. It does seem that, beneath everything, the universe consists of fields, and it is the perturbations and interplay of these fields that manifest as matter.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
March 24, 2021, 02:32:44 PM
#2
But regarding the scientists at CERN, their biggest science has to do with how to scientifically hide their real understanding from all of us. Any particle scientist worth his weight knows that the fabric of the whole thing that is called empty space, is solidly a mass of moving particles, and that leptons are almost nothing compared with what is going on in this solid, moving space.

The balance of natural-space doesn't easily come apart by using forces on it, as CERN scientists are attempting.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1277
March 24, 2021, 10:21:02 AM
#1
Some of you may have heard about the latest results from the LHCb experiment at CERN, which suggests (currently 3.1σ) a violation of lepton flavour universality and hence of the standard model of particle physics.

I thought it might be worth writing a post to highlight how physics, and science in general, advances. I'll leave it up to you to compare and contrast with how religion and other forms of truth work.

The standard model underpins the modern scientific understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe and all elementary particles. It's the ground upon which everything else is built. However, it's incomplete. There are gaps in the explanation - such as how it describes three of the four fundamental forces, but doesn't encompass gravity.

So the standard model is treated not as an absolute, perfect and inviolable truth. but rather as our best approximation so far. Instead of ignoring or glossing over its imperfections, physicists instead focus their attention on these areas, and work relentlessly to unpick the uncertainties and ambiguities. Essentially, they try to break it, so that its faults can be understood and new understanding can arise.

This can be seen in the way that physicists are reacting to the news. The basis of their understanding and expertise may be under threat, but instead of challenging this and trying to fortify their long-established positions, they welcome the new developments... because the search is for truth, regardless of whether or not it is desired or convenient.

Quote
"If a violation of lepton flavour universality were to be confirmed, it would require a new physical process, such as the existence of new fundamental particles or interactions," says LHCb spokesperson Professor Chris Parkes from the University of Manchester and CERN. "More studies on related processes are under way using the existing LHCb data. We will be excited to see if they strengthen the intriguing hints in the current results."
https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern


... And this is how science proceeds. Previous theories are revealed to be simply approximations. Every advancement that tears down preconceptions is welcomed. Because the search is for truth, not for the reinforcement of an ideology.

https://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2021-004.html


... And here's an image of a high energy proton-proton collision from CERN, producing an explosion of more than 100 particles. Physicists literally breaking stuff in order to see what comes out of it, in an ever-advancing and never-ending search for truth.




edit: typo
Pages:
Jump to: