It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to British trio for study of exotic matter

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

To prevent (I hope) further confusion this below is what I was trying to convey about the "Scientific Method"

When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists!
www.sciencebuddies.org...

When I was reading about exotic matter and the different types of exotic matter I wondered if there is a way or will we come up with a way to test and or experiment with matter or particles we cannot see.




posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Greggers

To prevent (I hope) further confusion this below is what I was trying to convey about the "Scientific Method"

When direct experimentation is not possible, scientists modify the scientific method. In fact, there are probably as many versions of the scientific method as there are scientists!
www.sciencebuddies.org...

When I was reading about exotic matter and the different types of exotic matter I wondered if there is a way or will we come up with a way to test and or experiment with matter or particles we cannot see.


Ah, that's a different question. Just to be clear, very little of science adheres to a strict, step by step, rote following of the steps explicitly outlined in the scientific method. There's always customization.

However, consider the high level definition of the scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Nothing about that changes. I mean, how could it? To change that would be to change the very definition of science.

Now, to be clear, there are some things even now that we cannot study. For example, we cannot directly observe the wave function in quantum mechanics. We must be content, for now at least, to understand QM by observing the statistical behavior of particles in aggregate, which is something we can test.

And yes, it could be that there might be some yet undiscovered empirical test that we could run to detect exotic matter. That, however, does not change the scientific method.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




Do you know what the scientific method IS? Do you know what a scientific model IS? Do you know the difference?


Scientific model is a representation whose purpose is to explain and predict observed phenomena.

As we discussed the Scientific can be altered but to what degree Im not sure as Im not a scientist. I linked to the article I was reading about the method as I understand it.



What I guess Im confused about and evidently not making myself clear is how can we test something we cannot observe.

Clearly different scientific methodology is appropriate to answer different resesearch questions such as that of consciousness?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
The wave function in QM is an example of something we cannot observe. However, by conducting empirical observations we can in fact calculate the exact wave function of any subatomic particle, even though we cannot observe the wave function directly and truly do not have a proper idea of what it is.

So it is possible to gain empirical facts about things we cannot observe directly, provided we have some way to observe them indirectly.

If there is no way to observe them either directly or indirectly, all we have are mathematical models. These fall well short of the gold standard of empirical observation, but it's better than nothing.

Again, none of this changes the scientific method. There have always been, and will always be, certain things which are beyond science.

Hopefully, exotic matter is something that can actually be detected.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




However, consider the high level definition of the scientific method: systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Nothing about that changes. I mean, how could it? To change that would be to change the very definition of science.


Science has been changing with time, has it not? It seems to me the quantum world will change the definition of science eventually. How could it not?

ETA:




There have always been, and will always be, certain things which are beyond science.


Although I understand certain things are beyond the scope of science it's still a hard one to swallow. This thing called "proof" ... everyone wants from Science. If science can't prove it, doesn't exist.
edit on 5-10-2016 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

It would not change the scientific method but the understanding of science itself (it would actually increase what we understand about the universe). Regular particles with mass is fairly well known but there are new things being discovered (that is the reason for the LHC).

Strange matter is a different ball game. Quantum mechanics does touch on it but QM gets tough beyond a certain point (like any particle beyond helium the math becomes a huge effort). The pairing of electrons in super conductive ceramics is a great case in point. They realized super conductivity was happening but these guys figured how to mathematically explain it, how it arises (phase transition point), and why it goes away as temperature increases. The material science guys have demonstrated their theory so that is probably why they were awarded the Nobel Prize. That all followed the scientific method of theory, hypothesis, prediction, and experimental evidence demonstrating an understanding of that which was not know previously known. And all that effort points towards new understanding of yet still other unknowns!



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF



And all that effort points towards new understanding of yet still other unknowns!


I love change... and also love pondering the unknown. This is so exciting.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Greggers




Do you know what the scientific method IS? Do you know what a scientific model IS? Do you know the difference?


Scientific model is a representation whose purpose is to explain and predict observed phenomena.

As we discussed the Scientific can be altered but to what degree Im not sure as Im not a scientist. I linked to the article I was reading about the method as I understand it.



What I guess Im confused about and evidently not making myself clear is how can we test something we cannot observe.

Clearly different scientific methodology is appropriate to answer different resesearch questions such as that of consciousness?


The definitions you've supplied are correct, although the flow-chart of the scientific method is rarely followed exactly as described.

The reason I asked you to define both model and method was to illustrate that they are two different things. From my initial post:

String Theory: Model
Quantum Mechanics: Model
Scientific Method: Process



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   


Science has been changing with time, has it not? It seems to me the quantum world will change the definition of science eventually. How could it not?

No. The definition of science has not changed over time. It remains: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

However, the amount of information known by science has increased exponentially over time.





Although I understand certain things are beyond the scope of science it's still a hard one to swallow. This thing called "proof" ... everyone wants from Science. If science can't prove it, doesn't exist.


Yep. And there are some things which will never be proven because they cannot be tested. However, I want to make one quick correction. Science does not claim things don't exist unless they can be proven. Science simply claims it's unproven. In some cases, it might say it's untestable and unfalsifiable, which is simply a way of saying that it's not scientific question.
edit on 5-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

How will we ever figure out something like consciousness?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Greggers

How will we ever figure out something like consciousness?


Simple answer: it won't.

Science can only take an empirical approach to learning about nature. If you're suggesting that consciousness is more than what can be empirically measured, science will never figure it out.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




No. The definition of science has not changed over time


II see... sorry I thought the definition would have been different back in the day. I was thinking more along the lines that science was once a natural philosophy until really the scientific revolution?

What we have in modern science is astronomical for sure.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers




Science can only take an empirical approach to learning about nature. If you're suggesting that consciousness is more than what can be empirically measured, science will never figure it out


If not science then who will?

Where there is a will surely there is a way. I have a hard time with no. lol



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Greggers




No. The definition of science has not changed over time


II see... sorry I thought the definition would have been different back in the day. I was thinking more along the lines that science was once a natural philosophy until really the scientific revolution?

What we have in modern science is astronomical for sure.


Well, there was a huge portion of history where science as a discipline really didn't exist at all. And when it did exist, it was mixed with all sorts of magical thinking.

But we've had a stable definition of science for hundreds of years now. That definition isn't changing.

The two main modes of human inquiry are as follows:

1) Scientific: this includes all things which are empirical, calculable, measurable, and FALSIFIABLE.
2) Philosophical: This includes everything else.

If it does not fall within the purview of science, philosophy is all you have.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

I will take that. Philosophy is a passion of mine just as science is although I understand philosophy better but that doesn't prevent me from trying and having hope that science will take a huge leap.

I bring up exotic matter and consciousness because of this book I was reading. Here it is... books.google.com... S_g34&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLlZfensTPAhUK5CYKHcICC6oQ6AEILDAC#v=onepage&q=exotic%20matter%20and%20consciousness&f=false

It has been said consciousness is outside of us and scientists have touched this subject and are indeed working on theories. There are countless studies... here is one.
is.muni.cz...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join