Wednesday, January 14, 2015

How "settled" science is performed

This is a blast from the past, but is strangely current:
For over a century, Einstein’s theory of relativity has been one of the unimpeachable pillars of science, so much so that the statement “nothing is faster than light” is often taken as a simple fact of life. It is a theory upon which much of modern physics is based.
Several weeks ago, scientists in Europe came across something they shouldn’t have:
…They had measured particles called neutrinos which traveled around six kilometers (3.75 miles) per second faster than the speed of light, determined by Einstein to be the highest velocity possible.
Further experimentation gave similar results.  This doesn't mean that relativity is wrong but it does suggest that what was "settled" physics is less well understood than we had thought.
What’s interesting, of course, is how much more mature physicists seem to be than climatologists.  Dissent from a scientific paradigm much more firmly established than anything in climate science isn’t greeted with howls of rage, fury and charges of heresy.  Many physicists are skeptical, as well they should be, of evidence that seems contrary to decades of experiment and analysis, but the overwhelming mood seems to be one of curiosity rather than rage.  Could these new results possibly be real?  What would this mean if it is true?  How can we check these results to see how fast these neutrinos are really moving?

This is how real science operates.
Physicists don't "hide the decline".  This tells you everything that you need to know to understand just how pitifully weak climate "science" is today.


Anonymous said...

More likely is that they are dealing with particles that are moving so fast and are so small that they are simply beyond their ability to measure accurately, even when they can detect them. Repeating experiments only confirms that your instruments are consistent, not accurate.

I am NOT a robot.

Anonymous said...

Article's a couple years old. Turned out to be a loose fiber-optic cable. Your point about the response still stands, of course.

Anonymous said...

And of course only now do I see that the first sentence of your post is an acknowledgement of it being old news. I think I need more coffee...

Weetabix said...

You have to wonder, though. Could it be the case that Einstein's model is correct, but that he was working with older technology that a) couldn't measure as accurately as today's and b) might not have known about other objects? For example, did he know about neutrinos? I don't know.

It could be that he was on an asymptotic curve but just hadn't quite reached the asymptote.

Science is wonderful. REAL science, anyway. ;-)