SCIENCE - What actually is Science ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am sure , as this is a science forum , the question must have been raised before !

But the discussions are probably buried deep within the depths of information contained in the Forum .

With the input of new members and the passage of time and events , it might be beneficial to take another look.

 

Google Definition :- - - SCIENCE. - - -

"

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

". *

 

There are quite a few Meaningful words and sentiments here

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

Intellectual Activity : and Practical Activity :

 

Systematic Study of the -: Structure :- of the Physical World and Natural World

Systematic Study of the -: Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World

 

All this :- By Observation and Experiment

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

One could bring examples ( past and present ) to the fore , to advantage , of the descriptive words about science listed above .

 

Mike

 

* link to the definition . Google definition science

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

Very loosely, science is defined by the scientific method: which basically about linking observations/experiments to theorires/hypothesis/conjectures etc.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Very loosely, science is defined by the scientific method: which basically about linking observations/experiments to theorires/hypothesis/conjectures etc.

I particularly like the part. " Observations "

 

Example .

 

When going up in an aircraft , as you go through the first layer of cloud , all the clouds , have a flat bottom , all their bottoms are at the same level . Cloud Base .

[swansont]

I particularly like the part. " Observations "

 

Example .

 

When going up in an aircraft , as you go through the first layer of cloud , all the clouds , have a flat bottom , all their bottoms are at the same level . Cloud Base .

 

 

 

But without some kind of coherent explanation, that fact means very little. With a thermodynamic model that connects pressure, temperature, density and phase change information, however, you can understand what's going on. With the model you could even predict that behavior in the event you'd never observed it.

[EdEarl]

I like this one from the dictionary:

 

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

In other words, it is a body knowledge found under proverbial rocks that scrape fingers, stub toes, fracture egos, and sometimes are thrown to blacken eyes.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

But without some kind of coherent explanation, that fact means very little. With a thermodynamic model that connects pressure, temperature, density and phase change information, however, you can understand what's going on. With the model you could even predict that behavior in the event you'd never observed it.

Well I would agree you need the things you mention for explaining the phenomenon . However I disagree in your comment about

.:- " in the event you'd never observed it."

As you would never start ,going ,doing the calculations , I doubt , unless you had observed the strange phenomenon in the first place .

 

Today I went for a walk and observed a phenomenon I have noticed at sea . Now in a canal see pictures below . Part of the expanse being calm , a distinct other part , being roughed up , likely by wind . It changes very very slowly with time . If it followed the vissisitudes of the wind , it would be all over the place . My initial guess, (Some form of quantum value waves are produced? . ) only a guess at this stage ?

 

Now it needs the physics and maths . This is how new descoverlies are originated. Not by some random mathematical doodling . I trust ?

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

However I disagree in your comment about

.:- " in the event you'd never observed it."

As you would never start ,going ,doing the calculations , I doubt , unless you had observed the strange phenomenon in the first place .

]

You don't know that. Many phenomena were predicted before observation - the theory told the scientists what to look for or what experiment to do - so I think you're dead wrong. The recent gravitational wave observation, for example. Almost anything having to do with relativity, in fact.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You don't know that. Many phenomena were predicted before observation - the theory told the scientists what to look for or what experiment to do - so I think you're dead wrong. The recent gravitational wave observation, for example. Almost anything having to do with relativity, in fact.

Well yes , from that aspect with those predictions I agree. And I suppose as we have researched into areas where we just can not observe . Then you are right. But I would imagine these are more the exception rather than the rule .

Certainly , I think most of the discoveries up through the centuries , by the classical scientists , have been observation First. Models and calculation following . I do not know the proportion for quantum and astronomy , then I imagine what You are saying , often occurs.

 

I still think the human mind ( apart from avid mathematicians ) think in pictures and language. So I think even imaginary observations will figure.

 

In my example of the observation of wave formation .

 

The definition of science quoted. " Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World "

 

So the behaviour in the example . This occurred during a period of Breeze to gentle wind . The surface of the water appeared to have 4 states of surface .

1. Smooth 2. Gentle wave at periphery of patch , 3 looked like wave was double the amplitude , 4 large rough amplitude

 

 

So waves go from smooth (1) by one quantum level of water wave (2) to second quantum level of larger wave . (3) and to highest level wave (4) .

 

Now more observations can be made and calculations made to develop this research .

 

Thus :- quote " Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World " part of science .

 

Mike

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[bluescience]

well isn't the goal of science to find or create a universal theory that describes the universe and its behaviour

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

well isn't the goal of science to find or create a universal theory that describes the universe and its behaviour

 

Well. It would be really nice if it manages to do that . But that could possibly be its highest goal.

In the mean time perhaps little bits , one after another or on parallel as well will take us one step at a time toward

 

"

intellectual Activity : and Practical Activity :

 

Systematic Study of the -: Structure :- of the Physical World and Natural World

Systematic Study of the -: Behaviour :- of the Physical World and Natural World

 

All this :- By Observation and Experiment. "

 

 

Mike

Edited March 28, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well yes , from that aspect with those predictions I agree. And I suppose as we have researched into areas where we just can not observe . Then you are right. But I would imagine these are more the exception rather than the rule .

 

 

We've been over this ground before. Instead of repeating it, you could go and investigate the matter.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We've been over this ground before. Instead of repeating it, you could go and investigate the matter.

 

.

Not sure which bit you are suggesting I research ( investigate ) ?

 

The cloud bit?

 

The gravity bit ?

 

The water roughed into waves bit ?

 

 

Mind you thinking about it , all three might have a common cause ?

 

Mike

 

Ps interesting that although Maths can be viewed as ' An ' investigation . The definition from Google or some of the others did not mention Maths directly . More " systematically " . Maybe ' Maths ' is only one of many systematical methods of investigation ?

 

Quote " The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world "

Here , it is speaking of more general " The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study" . Maths being one of many " intellectual and practical activity " Unquote

 

So an example of science in this context . Could be say ' traipsing, around some rain forest in Borneo looking at what some slithery lizard is doing , and cataloguing it '

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

My initial guess, (Some form of quantum value waves are produced? . ) only a guess at this stage ?

Water waves are classical phenomena, you don't need quantum mechanics here to understand ripples on your canal.

 

In principle you could use quantum mechanics, but the system you have consists of a huge number of molecules interacting... the system quickly becomes well described by classical physics.

 

So, you have given us an example of what science is not. That is, science is not a process where one make random guesses. All guesses should be well founded and based on what is known to be true.

[swansont]

.

Not sure which bit you are suggesting I research ( investigate ) ?

 

The cloud bit?

 

The gravity bit ?

 

The water roughed into waves bit ?

 

 

Did I quote the cloud bit, or the gravity bit, or the rough waves? No. So it's not reasonable to conclude that.

 

I quoted the claim that going from theory rather than observation happens, something you have fought against in numerous threads, but basically all of relativity discovery had theory precede observation. Bose-Einstein condensation theory existed something like 70 years before experiments confirmed it. Lasers (and masers) came from theory — people didn't observe them first. The cosmic microwave background was a prediction from theory before it was observed. A diffraction effect (called the Arago spot or Poisson spot) was a prediction made back in the early 1800s, when the argument first arose between corpuscular and wave theories of light, that was confirmed by experiment afterwards.

 

It's just flat-out wrong of you to pretend this doesn't happen and to exclude it from the scope of what science is.

[studiot]

Mike, I don't know if you are seeking an explanation of the canal surface disturbance or discussing some deeper philosophy (pun intended).

 

Anyway here is my comment on the canal.

 

Whilst they generally have smaller flow rates than rivers, even in canals the water does flow.

 

Any subsurface obstruction will affect the surface in some way, depending upon its disposition, size and proximity to the surface.

You can observe this phenomenon in all flowing water.

 

I suspect that there is a submerged branch or whatever, fallen from the nearby trees, that the flowing water is bumping against, roughening the surface.

This roughening appears as waves which travel sideways and bounce off (are reflected off) the bank, causing an interference pattern a little downstream, which spreads out and eventually dies away.

There is clearly a further longitudinal boundary, perhaps a weed bed? , perhaps the edge of the obstruction with the water being clear to pass by beyond that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Did I quote the cloud bit, or the gravity bit, or the rough waves? No. So it's not reasonable to conclude that.

 

I quoted the claim that going from theory rather than observation happens, something you have fought against in numerous threads, but basically all of relativity discovery had theory precede observation. Bose-Einstein condensation theory existed something like 70 years before experiments confirmed it. Lasers (and masers) came from theory people didn't observe them first. The cosmic microwave background was a prediction from theory before it was observed. A diffraction effect (called the Arago spot or Poisson spot) was a prediction made back in the early 1800s, when the argument first arose between corpuscular and wave theories of light, that was confirmed by experiment afterwards.

 

It's just flat-out wrong of you to pretend this doesn't happen and to exclude it from the scope of what science is.

 

No. I am not trying / have tried to fight against coming from pure theory . That would be crazy on my part. Of course scientists have come from that direction , and are doing it all the time .

 

What I am fighting for is ' old fashioned ' observation . And the ability to have conversations , about observations , without being ' shot out of the water ' at this early stage. Yes discuss and disagree violently . But not shot out the water. Stone dead !

 

I have just had such a discussion about the water ripples and smooth and ruffled quoted in this thread , a post or two back.

Three engineers , scientists , retired , professionals

One of the reactions was similar to AJB' a comments , and in many respects yours .

But in arguing the thing out , that quantum can be larger .even to the example of a 4 meter diameter asteroid is the minimum size celestial object to interact mechanically while physically touching the earth. Therefor a Quantum Particle . Could be described in these terms . The ex NASA member reasoned that because of the historical development of science , we have been used to looking at an ever reducing scale such that we go smaller and smaller , which seems to have no end , apart from the Plank length.

 

However as far as I can see from definitions Quantum in language terms can be applied to the Asteroid as it is the sub atomic particles.

 

Two members suggested oil content on the water. I am NOT convinced on that , yet . I will continue to look at this as I have been observing this effect for some 10 years.

 

My use of the word ' guess ' was unfortunate ( mannerism ) . Should have used the phrase ". long observed and reasoned out suggestion for research " . Which I will do , because I am not convinced on this oil small residue idea. I am of the belief that there is a minimum energy produced by breeze so maintain a water wave . As there are minimum energies for lasers, photo electric effect , ionisation etc . Surely the escape velocity of spaceships from earth is a quantum figure . As is that incoming asteroid compared with lesser meteorites .

 

Mike

Mike, I don't know if you are seeking an explanation of the canal surface disturbance or discussing some deeper philosophy (pun intended).

 

Anyway here is my comment on the canal.

 

Whilst they generally have smaller flow rates than rivers, even in canals the water does flow.

 

Any subsurface obstruction will affect the surface in some way, depending upon its disposition, size and proximity to the surface.

You can observe this phenomenon in all flowing water.

 

I suspect that there is a submerged branch or whatever, fallen from the nearby trees, that the flowing water is bumping against, roughening the surface.

This roughening appears as waves which travel sideways and bounce off (are reflected off) the bank, causing an interference pattern a little downstream, which spreads out and eventually dies away.

There is clearly a further longitudinal boundary, perhaps a weed bed? , perhaps the edge of the obstruction with the water being clear to pass by beyond that.

.

 

Now we have .. Underwater branches, Oil content, my quantum of wind .

 

I tried to do an experiment with a falling yellow water single drop onto Black Paper , so as to demonstrate the quantum effect ( crown ) . A few moments ago.

In the Cafe we all met in . But they walked out on me !

 

So !

 

 

Mike

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

well isn't the goal of science to find or create a universal theory that describes the universe and its behaviour

That would be one of the very long term goals of theoretical physics. Usually people are interested in examining and describing some smaller range of phenomena.

 

 

However as far as I can see from definitions Quantum in language terms can be applied to the Asteroid as it is the sub atomic particles.

Okay, but the action scale for an asteroid is much larger than Planck's constant. You can safely ignore quantum mechanics for most things concerned with the dynamics and interactions of asteroids.

 

Anyway, are we slipping off topic here?

Edited March 29, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

No. I am not trying / have tried to fight against coming from pure theory . That would be crazy on my part. Of course scientists have come from that direction , and are doing it all the time .

 

What I am fighting for is ' old fashioned ' observation . And the ability to have conversations , about observations , without being ' shot out of the water ' at this early stage. Yes discuss and disagree violently . But not shot out the water. Stone dead !

You're going to get shot out of the water when you are trivially and obviously wrong.

 

I have just had such a discussion about the water ripples and smooth and ruffled quoted in this thread , a post or two back.

Three engineers , scientists , retired , professionals

One of the reactions was similar to AJB' a comments , and in many respects yours .

But in arguing the thing out , that quantum can be larger .even to the example of a 4 meter diameter asteroid is the minimum size celestial object to interact mechanically while physically touching the earth. Therefor a Quantum Particle . Could be described in these terms . The ex NASA member reasoned that because of the historical development of science , we have been used to looking at an ever reducing scale such that we go smaller and smaller , which seems to have no end , apart from the Plank length.

No idea what you're talking about here, regarding a 4-meter object being a quantum particle.

 

However as far as I can see from definitions Quantum in language terms can be applied to the Asteroid as it is the sub atomic particles.

Without details it's difficult to comment, but I think the odds are better that you are just misunderstanding something.

 

 

Two members suggested oil content on the water. I am NOT convinced on that , yet . I will continue to look at this as I have been observing this effect for some 10 years.

 

My use of the word ' guess ' was unfortunate ( mannerism ) . Should have used the phrase ". long observed and reasoned out suggestion for research " . Which I will do , because I am not convinced on this oil small residue idea. I am of the belief that there is a minimum energy produced by breeze so maintain a water wave . As there are minimum energies for lasers, photo electric effect , ionisation etc . Surely the escape velocity of spaceships from earth is a quantum figure . As is that incoming asteroid compared with lesser meteorites .

Ionization is because the energy levels of the atoms are quantized. Escape velocity of a craft from a planet is not (in any meaningful way), because the mass and radius of a planet would be a continuum. Some equation having a unique solution fro one set of the variables is not the same thing as being quantized.

 

As ajb noted before, this is an example of how not to do science — you can't just throw around some terminology from material that you don't really understand.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That would be one of the very long term goals of theoretical physics. Usually people are interested in examining and describing some smaller range of phenomena. Okay, but the action scale for an asteroid is much larger than Planck's constant. You can safely ignore quantum mechanics for most things concerned with the dynamics and interactions of asteroids.Anyway, are we slipping off topic here?

Yes , ok on quantum mechanics , being understood to be the size of atoms and below .

But I would like it clear so that I do not make any more mistakes in terminology .

I genuinely thought Quantum xxxxxx whatever could be applied to anything ( including an asteroid ) if it was the smallest item that could be used to interact with something else . If this is NOT SO. I need to remove it from my vocabulary .

 

I am happy with quantum mechanics being to do with granular atomic issues . But I am unclear how big it is possible to use the term . Say " in quantum steps " say ?

 

Mike

[swansont]

Yes , ok on quantum mechanics , being understood to be the size of atoms and below .

But I would like it clear so that I do not make any more mistakes in terminology .

I genuinely thought Quantum xxxxxx whatever could be applied to anything ( including an asteroid ) if it was the smallest item that could be used to interact with something else . If this is NOT SO. I need to remove it from my vocabulary .

 

I am happy with quantum mechanics being to do with granular atomic issues . But I am unclear how big it is possible to use the term . Say " in quantum steps " say ?

 

Mike

It is not so.

 

As ajb noted, the general rule is that quantum mechanical system are where Planck's constant is important in describing the energy or angular momentum. If classical physics explains what's going on, then there's no reason to invoke quantum mechanics.

[ajb]

If you have a quantum system then the classical limit is understood as Planck's constant going to zero (ie, it is small compared to anything you want to measure), while allowing very large quantum numbers. In this limit we recover standard classical mechanics (glossing over some technical questions here). Thus one would expect macroscopic objects to usually be well described using classical mechanics. For example, you could try to calculate the probability of an asteroid quantum tunnelling from one position to another. The probability is tiny and the time you need to wait to likely see such an event is many times the age of the Universe (I have not looked at the numbers here for a long time).

 

It is not that you could not apply quantum mechanics to a system of asteroids, but rather that this would be very hard to do and corrections due to quantum mechanics would be impossibly small to see. We like to understand the classical world as a limiting case of the quantum one, but in practice this is not so easy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It is not so.As ajb noted, the general rule is that quantum mechanical system are where Planck's constant is important in describing the energy or angular momentum. If classical physics explains what's going on, then there's no reason to invoke quantum mechanics.

.

.

O.k. Well I sort of understand that. And have understood it.

 

But that is really within the confines of Science . Which is of course it emanates from .

 

But I have heard the word 'Quantum , ' used in general society to mean .' Take a quantum step ' or 'quantum leap forward ' as if one took a single step to where you wanted to be. . I appreciate this is a possible ' crib from science ' but is this not accepted by the community at large , as to what ' quantum ' can mean ?

 

Mike

If you have a quantum system then the classical limit is understood as Planck's constant going to zero (ie, it is small compared to anything you want to measure), while allowing very large quantum numbers. In this limit we recover standard classical mechanics (glossing over some technical questions here). Thus one would expect macroscopic objects to usually be well described using classical mechanics. For example, you could try to calculate the probability of an asteroid quantum tunnelling from one position to another. The probability is tiny and the time you need to wait to likely see such an event is many times the age of the Universe (I have not looked at the numbers here for a long time).It is not that you could not apply quantum mechanics to a system of asteroids, but rather that this would be very hard to do and corrections due to quantum mechanics would be impossibly small to see. We like to understand the classical world as a limiting case of the quantum one, but in practice this is not so easy.

.

 

As comments to Swansont

 

This is where definitions come in and meaningful ?

 

Mike

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

But I have heard the word 'Quantum , ' used in general society to mean .' Take a quantum step ' or 'quantum leap forward ' as if one took a single step to where you wanted to be. .

 

 

This is where definitions come in and meaningful ?

Remember we are discussing science. You will have to be careful not to understand terms in their 'common meaning' and understand them in there scientific meaning(s).

[swansont]

.

.

O.k. Well I sort of understand that. And have understood it.

 

But that is really within the confines of Science . Which is of course it emanates from .

 

But I have heard the word 'Quantum , ' used in general society to mean .' Take a quantum step ' or 'quantum leap forward ' as if one took a single step to where you wanted to be. . I appreciate this is a possible ' crib from science ' but is this not accepted by the community at large , as to what ' quantum ' can mean ?

That's, at best, "pop" science. Quantum means discrete, while the common use it is meant to imply big. If properly applied, a quantum leap could be the smallest possible advance you could make. That's a cautionary tale as to why you should not rely on pop science. I remember reading a quote (I think from physics blogger ZapperZ) to the effect that popular science articles teach you about science. They do not teach you how to do science. And since this thread is discussing what science is, we should be focusing on what it means to do science.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

An example of " Doing Science " was a combination of observation and theorising . Both by Robert Brownian who saw particles of Pollen being wobbled by something .

Einstein came forward some years later to Theorise this movement to be by very small particles called Atoms , colliding with the pollen grains causing them to jostle about by being continually hit by different moving atoms . This was conducted in a fluid ( gas or liquid ) .

 

This observation and theory of atoms moving about is taught in Schools to this day .

 

Link to Wikipedia :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

 

Further roots to this sort of approach can go back to LUCRETIUS ( Roman Poet and Philosopher )

In his thoughts back in Roman times . ( 99 BC TO 55 BC. )

He referred to it as " De Rerum Natura " ( On the Nature. Of Things )

 

Link :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius

 

Mike

Edited March 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos