Evidence & Testing in the Scientific Field (Updated 1/8)

[A Lost Iguana]

Kaz-Balan

NOT ALL OF THE OTHERS HAVING BEEN DEBUNKED FOR NOW.

You do not need to dismiss all hypotheses in order to prefer one. You can have multiple viable solutions: you prefer the more parsimonious and the one that is is more general without a loss of experimental accuracy. Can you suggest an alternative hypothesis that has the same level of experimental support?

Kaz-Balan

Having studied and considering the history of sciences, I'd like to get your attention to the very situation that was faced by Einstein ( and many other scientists ) right before his 1905's marvelous E=mc^2 equation : the "classic" physics could NOT explain all observed phenomenons.
And there appeared a huge amount of various theories.
Among which TWO seemingly opposite ones emerged :
. Einstein's "Relativity"
. Quantum physics
These two were confirmed... but what about ALL the other ones ?...

Before I accuse you of being obtuse, which alternatives should be considered?

Kaz-Balan

The strange inaptitude at defining void ( of matter... or energy ? )
  with matter appearing from void or disappearing into it in some experiments
and many other unexplained phenomenons... just like before 1905.

Which experiments?

Kaz-Balan

Are the scientists still able to ask questions more...
  than trying to answer the needs of industries and states ?
  ( Heh... I can guess : Who finances them ? )

Yes. Given that politicians do not understand science, science only need to convince the politician that the project is worthy of finance. I laugh at the suggestion that the politicians are manipulating science: they don't have the grounding in the subject to do so!

[A Lost Iguana]

Kaz-Balan

The history of science could STILL suggest many NON-invalidated hypothesis that have been presented all along.
Trouble is it's not about "preference", it's about what is to be forgotten...
Let's take the atom model : I'll just throw a name ( Protodiakonov ), an approximate date ( 50s' ), and the principle ( geometric : "simple" tors, explaining almost ALL interactions between the nucleus and the electrons, INCLUDING some strange exceptions, like for Be7 that can change at the atomic level ONLY by the impulse of chemical / physical actions... ).
Then, mere curiosity may have anyone reconsider.

Nuclear interactions are epiphenomenal extensions of more fundamental sub-atomic interactions. Given that we did not complete the standard model until the 70s, with the third generation of quarks not complete until 1995, I doubt that Protodiakonov's model would be more than a curious coincidence like the SU(2) isospin symmetry between protons and neutrons [which we know to not be the whole story because it was only by chance that the up and down quark masses are so similar] which we replaced with the quark model and SU(3) of quantum chromodynamics.

Kaz-Balan

A Lost Iguana

Before I accuse you of being obtuse, which alternatives should be considered?

Consider me obtuse all you want but has any scientist SERIOUSLY considered matter could be an illusion, in the sense it could merely be a cloud of energy ( or, more precisely : energy density ) ? Then what sense would it have to consider void as "material" void ( as in "c is the celerity of light in the void" ) or endlessly "chasing for particles", when what may be important could be the energetic levels and interactions between various forms of energy ( that are the results of applied forces ) ?

Erm, quantum field theory? Tell me what the expectation value for the energy of an empty Fock state is, or what an electron actually is. I simply do not think you have the grounding in current modern physics to make these statements.

Kaz-Balan

A Lost Iguana

Which experiments?

I don't have the refs right here, but the results of the experiments I mentioned could be interpreted as :
. particles may appear ( in some conditions ) in "complete" material void
. particles may disappear without material echo in "complete" material void

What is a complete material void in context? In plain English and not cloaked in metaphysics, if you would. A region of space devoid of all matter and energy? Why are these experiments special? Which particles, which conditions?

Kaz-Balan

A Lost Iguana

Yes. Given that politicians do not understand science, science only need to convince the politician that the project is worthy of finance. I laugh at the suggestion that the politicians are manipulating science: they don't have the grounding in the subject to do so!

Please reconsider : When "politicians" PAY for $ billion chasms "research projects", either they have VERY good ( economical or political - like with JFK and the Apollo Project - ) reason to do so, or the financed projects ARE ( industrially or for state reasons ) - more & more - IMMEDIATELY interesting.

What is the industrial or state benefit gained from particle physics experiments? They are very costly and there is no immediate technological application. The scientist attempts to convince the politician that a project is worthy of funding: these can be the reasons you list as why certain projects we funded, but it is the scientists who make these suggestions and they will spin their research to make it as appealing to the politicians as possible. The decision is then made on the merits of the "dressed up" proposals and not the core science. That is my argument, the core science is not driven by politics on the basis on the science itself because the politicians do not understand it.

[A Lost Iguana]

Kaz-Balan

A Lost Iguana

...

I am NOT a "current modern" physicist.
Just someone curious enough to have dug and studied deep enough in dusty scientific archives.
And found out some "oddities".

Yet, you do not seem to reagrd modern physics so have no appreciation of whether the past work is even relevant any more. We obtain new data every single day: past ideas can be the result of not having enough data to be able to form conclusions and are later supplanted. We have some of the most dedicated people on he planet working in fields for the shear love of their work — they could certainly get more money working outside of academic disciplines — testing and forming hypothesis with the combined sum of data we have collected to data, yet you see fit to ignore their contributions and decide that they are at fault for not doing their homework.

Modern science involves some exceptionally crazy ideas. New particles and mechanisms are proposed all the time in order to explain quirks in data. These ideas are then tested and found to not be the correct answer. All the time this happens, if alternative hypotheses fit the data then they will garner support. It is a reflection of the success and brilliance of GR and the standard model that they have resisted challenges for so long. Although, the standard model is struggling a little with the problem of neutrino mass and the continued absence of the Higgs boson; these problems are well documented in scientific circles and if alternative ideas agree with past data and solve these problems, people will explore them further.

Take Kaluza-Klein theory: it was originally posited to unify electromagnetism and gravity before we conceived of the strong or weak forces. KK did not work [it also could not be the final story because it said nothing of quark-quark and quark-lepton interactions] so was abandoned but some of the principles — for example, an additional curled-up spatial dimension — have applied to our current ideas about the new physics making the idea of detection extra dimensions at CERN a possibility in the coming years.

Kaz-Balan

A Lost Iguana

What is a complete material void in context? In plain English and not cloaked in metaphysics, if you would. A region of space devoid of all matter and energy? Why are these experiments special? Which particles, which conditions?

I turn the question back to any curious scientist mind :
HOW DO YOU DEFINE VOID ( or "vacuum" ) ?

You brought up the idea that particles appearing or disappearing into a "complete material void" was a problem for science. Why? I should not define a void because it is not "my void" into which particles appear and disappear, it is this as-of-yet unmentioned void: I wish to know what the properties of this void happen to be; hence, I ask you to explain your terms.

Kaz-Balan

Ever considered absolute void seems impossible to get ?

Yes. That much was inferred by mentioning of the Fock vacuum: the expectation value for the energy of this vacuum is infinite. In fact, the idea of "energy" is the difference between the vacuum state and the vacuum state plus energy.

Kaz-Balan

Ever considered all experiments have been conducted on our Earth,
  which orbits at a certain distance of the Sun,
  which emits a huge amount of energy around ?

Unless you are going to bring up some variant of energy thanks to the wonder of unorthodox metaphysics, the energy emitted by the Sun takes the form of the charged-particle solar wind, photons and neutrinos [which in turn are quantum fields].

Kaz-Balan

Ever considered calculating the energy density we may all bathe in ?

The Earth is protected from the solar wind by the magnetosphere [otherwise we would be royally ********], photons interact in generally well understood ways, and the observation of neutrinos reaching Earth was one of the key steps in one of the most promising new avenues in physics [the aforementioned neutrino mass].

What do you mean by "energy density" because, to me, it is just the amount of energy per unit volume? We do not bathe in the energy density of much of the Sun because most of it is stopped before it gets to us [solar wind, photons] or it is has a very tiny effect on us [neutrinos, they interact with us very very rarely; we think this because we've stuck huge vats of heavy water about the planet and looked for them, it does not happen often].

Kaz-Balan

Ever took that in consideration in ALL experiments ?

Are the effects non-negliable? Some effects are so small that we could not even resolve their effect because our apparatus is not sensitive enough. But, scientists are resourceful people and sources of signal contamination can come from obscure places you would not expect; and they are found and corrected for.

Kaz-Balan

I don't claim having an answer ( or even a "better" hypothesis to propose ),
  I just call to scientific minds that should honestly consider and reconsider
  exceptions and remaining questions.

They do. I find it incredible that you claim they do not.

Kaz-Balan

About "modern current" physics... I find it funny that scientists are more ready to accept
crazy x-dimensional mathematic models ( String theory )

Many do not because it cannot be tested.

Kaz-Balan

fundamental absurdities like "space and time may be deformed"

Absurd? That is observer bias. As non-intuitive as it seems, that is what the evidence suggests.

Kaz-Balan

than considering their observations could be interpreted
in unexpected ( energy density )

What in the seven shade of s**t do you mean by "energy density" exactly? It exasperates. Given that "particles" do not exist and that what we are really doing is obtaining particulate properties by interacting with quantum fields.

Kaz-Balan

forgotten ( Protodiakonov )

I am yet to be convinced that his work is a sin of omission. Mainly because atomic interactions are not fundamental, and the fundamental physical theories have exceptional experimental success.

Kaz-Balan

despised ( "Aether" ) ways...

I would not call it despised. Remember that alternative conjecture must be able to reproduce same agreement with experiment as the current theory.

I think the implicit accusation that scientists refuse to consider alternatives and history is unfair.

[Jaaten Syric]

Hey Voija? Sorry for the pseudo-spam and repeat of my PM, but my Kentuckian blood drives me to at least attempt to look like I know something about the topic at hand. I'm sorry. Issa compulsion. sweatdrop

Unless you really want to stretch the definition of 'equine', whales have very little to do with them. All (known) cetaceans descend from artiodactyl ungulates. Equines descend from perissodactyl ungulates. Same infra-class, different orders.

[VoijaRisa]

Updated: Added recommended changes from mitoguard and Jaaten as well as adding the following additional discussion on errors.

VoijaRisa

However, just because our data doesn't match, doesn't mean that the hypothesis is completely flawed. If the error intrinsic to the measurement is large, then we need to take that into account and find a way to reduce that uncertainty. This can be done either by making more accurate experiments, or simply by taking the average of a lot of observations. The more observations, the smaller the error gets. This is why we keep testing things in science. Incidentally, because the first time an experiment is run no earlier tests exist, this means that the initial hypothesis is likely to be quite different than reality. It requires tinkering and more observations to reduce errors. In this light, when people say that some of what Darwin said was wrong, it should be considered beside the point. We never expected it to be dead on. There's details that obviously wouldn't match. But as we've learned more, we've corrected the details he got wrong. The theory of evolution today, is not the same as the one Darwin posited over 100 years ago.

...

But let's go back to the concept of "error" I discussed earlier and explore how it works a bit more. It should be clear that data at every single point along the way isn't necessary. But as I mentioned, the more times you test something the more your error goes down, and the greater your confidence in your hypothesis becomes. I've just presented a handful of tests that are extremely conclusive. In science, having just a handful of data points that are so well constrained and with such low errors, already gives you extremely high confidence.

However, like I said, having lots of measurements, even without really small errors on each individual ones, can be taken collectively to still give extremely high confidence. Here, evolution shines again. Consider this: It would only take one fossil to disprove all of evolution. This is often referred to as the proverbial "fossil rabbit in the Precambrian." Effectively, what it says, is that if we even find one fossil out of place chronologically, then all of evolution is shot. So if evolution were wrong, it should be pretty easy to find fossils out of place that didn't match with evolutionary predictions. In this light, every fossil dated is a test of evolution. This gives thousands of tests for evolution, of which it has passed every single one. Like I said earlier, the more tests you have, the greater the confidence. In this regard, the confidence level of evolutionary theory is almost unprecedented.

[Yesterdays Salvation]

..::[Taste the fury]::..

..::[That feed the devils inside]::..

Voija, I have to say, I ******** love you. XDD
I have nothing to say other than, well, thanks. ^_^

..::[Fueled by torment]::..

..::[Sin, sex, sickness, and pride]::..

[VoijaRisa]

Kaz-Balan

Interesting absence of reaction from the OP.

OMG! I have a life!

Kaz-Balan

IF matter ( ie particles ) is in fact just clouds of condensed energy,
both ( material ) "void" and particles ( matter, or "mass", for some )
may in fact be a sort of general bath of energy ?

Sounds like you're trying to describe quantum foam. Do keep in mind that matter and energy are the same thing.

Kaz-Balan

What if c had a different value according to the milieu's energy density ?

Interesting "what if" question, but given that c has been measured to be one of the most well determined universal constants, it's rather beside the point.

Kaz-Balan

What if such a "bath" could show unexpected signal propagation effects ?

This is sounding suspiciously like the "ether" which was discounted almost a century ago because all tests showed there was no medium. It was also determined that electromagnetic waves need no medium.

Kaz-Balan

In my opinion, scientists SHOULD meddle with society, talk to public medias

While this sounds all nice and good, the problem is that, for scientists to talk to the public, there needs to be some common form of communication. Incase you haven't been paying attention, the public schools have failed miserably at their job of making students literate in scientific jargon among other things (eg, how many times have we heard the equivocation on the term "theory" wink . So there's a sort of language barrier. Since it takes years of study to really learn the technical language, this requires that the scientists be the ones to reach out to the people.

Sadly, few scientists want to do this. They're much happier in their labs and at conferences, not having to dumb themselves down to communicate. And even for many scientists that would make that effort, many simply aren't good at it.

So, while I think having scientists communicate better is a wonderful idea, it's much easier said than done.

Kaz-Balan

Nowadays ( since 1947, and moreso since some measures in medias in the early 60s' ),
the scientists may just look like slaves to the industries and states

In some instances I think you're right. But speaking from inside the field, we still have a good deal of autonomy. Of course, there's plenty of instances (I'm thinking of Detusch and NASA recently) where the government has been known to censor scientific conclusions. Corporations also frequently misrepresent scientific data for their own purposes. But the scientific field itself is remaining pretty well intact (despite efforts from creationists, governments, and corporations to undermine it). Good thing the NAS selects its own members!

[VoijaRisa]

Krad Raef XIII

Voija, I have to say, I ******** love you. XDD

That's the third time I've gotten something like that this week alone....

sweatdrop

[VoijaRisa]

La la la. *works on another update regarding statistics*

[Khrea]

I sheepishly call myself a scientist when I know I couldn't have put together even half of this myself.

I like the main point of how/when to make plausible assumptions based on relatively consistent results from valid and repeated experiements. Understanding what makes a valid experiement is the most important part and yet a lot of people, even scientists themselves overlook it.

It's sad to know that many people discredit science. No it does not always provides proof, but as if there is another reasonable way to logically approach for answers. In cases like evolution it's my opinion that science tries to disprove the impossible rather than prove a progressive notion. Which is why I think it's silly when people think scientists are like this cult who have no intention but to be joy killers.

But I still think evolution and God are on 2 separate fields of concepts. Because one may exist it doesn't mean it excludes the other.

[Steampunk Patashu]

Khrea

But I still think evolution and God are on 2 separate fields of concepts. Because one may exist it doesn't mean it excludes the other.

Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, but Evolution and Creationism beliefs definitely are.
(In fact, I don't think anything is mutually exclusive with god except no god.)
Oh, and there are plenty of Christians who think you have to deny evolution to accept God anyway, so... xd