The elegant nature of science

[houseofcantor]

(18-11-2011 03:44 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  HouseofCantor
Thank you for the links. They are a bit longer and I will need to dedicate a little more time to them to fully grasp what they say. As for the numbers idea, I will have to mull that over some more. A single number as large as the amount of time that has existed or the amount of matter in the universe is so large that I simply cannot conceive of its dimensions. That is why the statement of everything being made up of only 12 particles of matter and 4 forces of nature is so powerful to me. I can see those numbers, I can conceive of their impact on my life and I can imagine the simplicity of that system that can lead to the observed complexity. By no means am I discrediting your evaluation of a single number representing the universe, I simply do not know how to communicate with my own brain about its significance. You obviously can and I applaud that ability.

Mere hypothesis, bro. Science is actually all of us moving forward, hypotheses into theory.

[TheBeardedDude]

Continuing your point, it may have been best to start off with the elegance of the scientific method itself.
Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Continued observation
Amended Hypothesis
New predictions
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Repeat

The method itself is a self-correcting system that fixes mistakes and culls wrong ideas from its pages, but still uses them as a means of learning about our mistakes. The beauty of science may be its ability to remain humble and admit its own mistakes while trying to correct them.

[kim]

(18-11-2011 03:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here's a whole place, make me cry tears of joy:

CERN

They did it again, you know. They just confirmed it, today. Second time.
Neutrinos went faster than the speed of light -little bastards.
Yes, it was the same group. Yes, they will need confirmed independent experiments. Lots of experiments.
But ... my breath comes in crazed, short, gasps with thoughts of... this is not possible!
More to wait for.... we'll see...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236

[daemonowner]

I highly doubt that neutrino's actually went faster than light, they didn't even correct for the other problems with the experiment. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe adressed this once or twice in their podcast, and its essentially been blown out of the water.
The results from two other experiments are due sometime in 2012 though.

[houseofcantor]

(18-11-2011 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Continuing your point, it may have been best to start off with the elegance of the scientific method itself.
Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Continued observation
Amended Hypothesis
New predictions
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Repeat

The method itself is a self-correcting system that fixes mistakes and culls wrong ideas from its pages, but still uses them as a means of learning about our mistakes. The beauty of science may be its ability to remain humble and admit its own mistakes while trying to correct them.

Excellent. Mine is only 5, but I'm pretty advanced for an amateur scientist.

---

...and we will have no panicking over the state of Relativity.

Here's Tommaso with the nitty gritty: Science 2.0 - latest from his blog, he works with them peeps.

From the same site, here's Paolo with a consideration worth considering:
Paolo's thoughts. Now, I ain't superbrain; but I'm thinking this may simplify into - we ain't neutrinos.

And that Science 2.0 is some quick shit.(Tommaso seems to have added to his consideration as I was posting this link -so the latest ain't the latest. ) If you wanna be "cutting edge," that site will keep your razor sharp. Mainstream science is conservative - just as outlined by the bearded dude - theory doesn't mean, "now we know, case closed," theory means "good enough for today, good enough to find out tomorrow what's wrong with today's theory."

---

(18-11-2011 04:19 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  I highly doubt that neutrino's actually went faster than light, they didn't even correct for the other problems with the experiment. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe adressed this once or twice in their podcast, and its essentially been blown out of the water.
The results from two other experiments are due sometime in 2012 though.

The problem with "blowing shit out of the water?"

Sometimes it takes flight, turns into a bird, shits on yer head. Skepticism is not a conclusion; rather, a continuing consideration.

---

In particular, one startling consideration emerges - if the reading of the 20 MHz Opera clock were off by just one tick, the result would be compatible with v=c.

Tommaso's latest, can be found from my previous link. Tommaso plenty skeptical. He also sounds pretty excited.

[kim]

(18-11-2011 04:19 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  I highly doubt that neutrino's actually went faster than light, they didn't even correct for the other problems with the experiment. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe adressed this once or twice in their podcast, and its essentially been blown out of the water.
The results from two other experiments are due sometime in 2012 though.

Oh, I'm skeptical as hell. In fact, when it happened the first time, I blew it off - deciding someone's calculation was off, or someone spilled apple juice on a console somewhere. I was aghast that they would even release this kind of info after a single result -it's ridiculously irresponsible.
Now... I'm freaking excited, but still skeptical as hell. Someone needs to get someone else to do the same thing in a different way, before I think these press releases are little more than fund raising.

---

More inspiration from Richard Feynman

[daemonowner]

http://xkcd.com/955/

[TheBeardedDude]

@kim
A very nice video indeed. That is a rather intriguing issue of people wanting to start complex rather than starting simple. Some of the most eye-opening pieces of information that have left me baffled and in awe have often been the result of some of the most basic scientific principles. These are the most awe-inspiring because one can conceive of how they impact larger more complex systems (one of the most profound for me was discussing entropy in one of my courses and realizing why the lysocline exists as a result).

[houseofcantor]

Someone say keep it simple?

[GirlyMan]

(18-11-2011 03:54 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Continuing your point, it may have been best to start off with the elegance of the scientific method itself.
Observation
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Continued observation
Amended Hypothesis
New predictions
Experiment
Observations
Conclusion
Repeat

The method itself is a self-correcting system that fixes mistakes and culls wrong ideas from its pages, but still uses them as a means of learning about our mistakes. The beauty of science may be its ability to remain humble and admit its own mistakes while trying to correct them.

That to me is its elegance and even grace. "Here's our educated best guess. We know it's incomplete, inconsistent, and in some places just plain wrong. We'll fix the problems as we find them. I mean, this ain't some fucking religion."