How science works

[Cnut237]

Some of you may have heard about the latest results from the LHCb experiment at CERN, which suggests (currently 3.1σ) a violation of lepton flavour universality and hence of the standard model of particle physics.

I thought it might be worth writing a post to highlight how physics, and science in general, advances. I'll leave it up to you to compare and contrast with how religion and other forms of truth work.

The standard model underpins the modern scientific understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe and all elementary particles. It's the ground upon which everything else is built. However, it's incomplete. There are gaps in the explanation - such as how it describes three of the four fundamental forces, but doesn't encompass gravity.

So the standard model is treated not as an absolute, perfect and inviolable truth. but rather as our best approximation so far. Instead of ignoring or glossing over its imperfections, physicists instead focus their attention on these areas, and work relentlessly to unpick the uncertainties and ambiguities. Essentially, they try to break it, so that its faults can be understood and new understanding can arise.

This can be seen in the way that physicists are reacting to the news. The basis of their understanding and expertise may be under threat, but instead of challenging this and trying to fortify their long-established positions, they welcome the new developments... because the search is for truth, regardless of whether or not it is desired or convenient.

"If a violation of lepton flavour universality were to be confirmed, it would require a new physical process, such as the existence of new fundamental particles or interactions," says LHCb spokesperson Professor Chris Parkes from the University of Manchester and CERN. "More studies on related processes are under way using the existing LHCb data. We will be excited to see if they strengthen the intriguing hints in the current results."

https://home.cern/news/news/physics/intriguing-new-result-lhcb-experiment-cern


... And this is how science proceeds. Previous theories are revealed to be simply approximations. Every advancement that tears down preconceptions is welcomed. Because the search is for truth, not for the reinforcement of an ideology.

https://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/Publications/p/LHCb-PAPER-2021-004.html


... And here's an image of a high energy proton-proton collision from CERN, producing an explosion of more than 100 particles. Physicists literally breaking stuff in order to see what comes out of it, in an ever-advancing and never-ending search for truth.




edit: typo

[BADecker]

But regarding the scientists at CERN, their biggest science has to do with how to scientifically hide their real understanding from all of us. Any particle scientist worth his weight knows that the fabric of the whole thing that is called empty space, is solidly a mass of moving particles, and that leptons are almost nothing compared with what is going on in this solid, moving space.

The balance of natural-space doesn't easily come apart by using forces on it, as CERN scientists are attempting.

[Cnut237]

But regarding the scientists at CERN, their biggest science has to do with how to scientifically hide their real understanding from all of us.

I've actually had the privilege in the past of being given CERN particle traces to analyse. It's quite something to see, before your eyes, direct evidence of these tiny pieces of reality.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge. It's those who pursue money who have a motivation to guard secrets and hide understanding... business people and politicians.

the fabric of the whole thing that is called empty space, is solidly a mass of moving particles

Yes, of course. I never thought I'd ever be discussing elementary particle physics with you, and that we would agree! But even beneath that, a 'particle' is not really a particle. And wave-particle duality is a simplification, too. It does seem that, beneath everything, the universe consists of fields, and it is the perturbations and interplay of these fields that manifest as matter.

[Smartvirus]

Science have come up with the world evolution to conote a gradual or series of change in a thing. Standing on that existing concept and with the fact that, science is always on a precept of trying to know or understand a thing, a law defying another law doesn't really undermines the concepts of science or physics.
The evolution that occurs amongst things simply creates some changes in that thing and compounds that exists. So, there is bound to be new discoveries at some point and like you said @OP, what we know now is mare approximations and its okay. Even religion does this and in such points of doubts, your expected to have faith.
So, its our world and we aren't done with it neither is it done with us.

[franky1]

the way i view 'particles'... is just waves.
so many waves at so many different frequencies.
with some interfering with others that then bend around into their own loops.
(like radio frequencies bouncing off the ionosphere to loop around the world)

these loops in a circular orbit with enough energy obstruct other loops from passing through. this resistance is what makes the energy have substance.

the different frequency gives it different features. such as higher frequency for photons(light spectrum frequency)

even things as small as quarks are just loops of waves which then if in a certain formation with certain energy  and attracting other bals of waves .. become the core of bigger orbiting waves. which become protons and neutrons. which in combination of these become the core of bigger orbiting waves which attract other smaller waveloops balls(electrons). and become atoms


this is the 'mystery' of particles.. at micro level you can just study the physical substance of the tightly packed energy balls resisting and attracting.
at the pico level its all just waves in different formations

[famososMuertos]

Well, some data from CERn are available to everyone, but working with them is so complex that it is only the disposable of millions of data that can be accessed and only a privileged group can work on them both for scientific knowledge, hardware and software.

And to the title of the OP, one can respond as the head of CERN did at the time when a journalist asked him "what is the use data of all this colliding particles, what scope it can have" and he replied "I don't know ..."

It is what has made us advance as a species, sometimes we want to look for answers and there are more questions ...
______

^{You must edit: 100 particles.}

[Poker Player]

... And this is how science proceeds. Previous theories are revealed to be simply approximations.

That sounds to me quite like Karl Popper, according to whom scientific theories cannot be verified, they can only be falsified, so that we can only gradually get closer to the truth.

Every advancement that tears down preconceptions is welcomed. Because the search is for truth, not for the reinforcement of an ideology.

I would argue that it is not that science works this way, but that it should work this way. Most of the time it does but even to this day there are parts of science where questions about established preconceptions are not so welcome.

[Cnut237]

even to this day there are parts of science where questions about established preconceptions are not so welcome.

Yes, scientists are still human, and egos can be a problem.

I'd say that the biggest challenge to scientific integrity is probably money, by which I mean scientific experiments funded by industry, where there is a clearly desired outcome. I'm not suggesting that links between science and business should be severed, that's a bad idea and it would impede progress... but certainly there should be more rigorous oversight of these purportedly impartial business-funded studies.

[BADecker]

There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

[franky1]

There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

well an out of date and debunked theory is not science. especially if the theory is made by someone that does not specialise in the topic the theory he makes concerns

take badeckers influencers they have no practical hands on scientific experience of the topics that make theories about. so in badeckers own request above. he should not be automatically considering their theories as science..
koffman has no virology or vaccine experience.. thus. badecker just debunked his favourite influencer
in short badecker just debunked his own influencers

...
anyway back on topic.
science is not an end result.. take for instance if we were to solve the mysteries of the high level of the solar system. once working out the solar system you can then use that to look at the mid level of planets and moons. and the low level of smaller parts.

cern is looking at the low levels of the energy that make up the parts that make a atom.. next would be the wave research that make the energy

[Zilon]

Physicist works relentlessly on nuclear particles since energy needed for most day to day activities of major machines lies on the central knowledge of particulate nature of matter. CERN scientist at Europe play major roles in harnessing the limitless opportunities open to science and man. Nuclear science which tries to marry the various forms in which matter could exist

CERN scientists ideologically brings to our consciousness the beauty of natural phenomenons. For decades excessive research has gone down on natures particles and massive toxic, harmful and dangerous chemicals has been converted to habitable substances based on relentless discoveries.

[franky1]

Physicist works relentlessly on nuclear particles since energy needed for most day to day activities of major machines lies on the central knowledge of particulate nature of matter. CERN scientist at Europe play major roles in harnessing the limitless opportunities open to science and man. Nuclear science which tries to marry the various forms in which matter could exist

CERN scientists ideologically brings to our consciousness the beauty of natural phenomenons. For decades excessive research has gone down on natures particles and massive toxic, harmful and dangerous chemicals has been converted to habitable substances based on relentless discoveries.

particles are just densely packed waves so much so that they create resistance
knowing the frequencies and features of the waves and how the impact each other to attract or repel each other. and how the energy of such creates fields of repulsion/attraction. has helped them identify better ways to neutralise toxins by identifying other 'particles' that can cancel out the signals and break the bonds more easily

this stuff is also useful for identifying different wavelengths that different biological materials produce. so they can use things like photo-sonic scanners to identify different biologicals
like identify the difference between a healthy cell and a tumour cell.. find the tumours frequency and then adjust the radioactive frequency of cancer treatment accordingly

it can also enhance xray and mri scanner detail/quality by allowing it to layer different frequencies to pick up different parts in more detail. rather than a single layer 'shadow'

it can also make new scanners that look for particular frequencies
right now many technologists are trying to find patterns of frequencies which people with certain ailments do have that people without those ailments dont have. so that they can find ways to scan for ailments without anything invasive.

[tarzan2]

as someone whose worked in labs, pretty much all pure science is developed from the collection of buttloads (official terminology here) data points. scientists spend years doing repetitions and variations of the same thing to collect data and develop hypotheses/theories. the scientific method doesn't leave much room for personality and ego and in the cases where this does occur peer reviewed journalism weeds out the junk science.
its not foolproof but its close

[BADecker]

^^^ Not everything that is called science has to do with pure science.

[tarzan2]

^^^ Not everything that is called science has to do with pure science.

oh sorry i thought we were talking about intelligent people. my bad

[BADecker]

^^^ Not everything that is called science has to do with pure science.

oh sorry i thought we were talking about intelligent people. my bad

You bad(?). We were talking about science.     

[Cnut237]

There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

You've tried to make this distinction before, and I've never understood what you meant. Engineering is just applied science, whether you're talking about chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, whatever. If you're saying that 'real world' solutions don't match theory, well, this is true only insofar as a theory, for simplicity, describes ideal conditions, whereas in the real world an implementation of a scientific theory may have to deal with external factors. For example, an electrical engineer may have to take steps to ensure that rats can't chew through his cables... but it's absurd and a false syllogism to conclude from this that electrical science doesn't mention rats, but electrical engineers have to deal with rats, therefore engineering isn't science.

[BADecker]

There is an overlap in real science, science theory and engineering. For example...

If you compare real science with science theory, and if you do it carefully and slowly, you will find that true science doesn't match science theory.

Regarding engineering, a developer may develop some practical device off some science theory, but when you critically examine the engineered development against the science theory, you will find that the development has all kinds of tiny departures from what the science theory says.

If an engineered development uses practical proven science, often it will use pieces of science that are not included in the abstract of why and how it works, scientifically.

The point is moving forward. The point should be defining the various levels of science properly, so that we can see the differences between what science really is... and often, what it is not.

You've tried to make this distinction before, and I've never understood what you meant. Engineering is just applied science, whether you're talking about chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, whatever. If you're saying that 'real world' solutions don't match theory, well, this is true only insofar as a theory, for simplicity, describes ideal conditions, whereas in the real world an implementation of a scientific theory may have to deal with external factors. For example, an electrical engineer may have to take steps to ensure that rats can't chew through his cables... but it's absurd and a false syllogism to conclude from this that electrical science doesn't mention rats, but electrical engineers have to deal with rats, therefore engineering isn't science.

True engineering is simply applied science... true.

Engineering is not applied science theory, however. Why not? All it takes is a comparison between a chunk of engineering that is based on a particular science theory, and what the science theory says. They are different, sometimes in only tiny ways.

The people who applied the engineering might have looked at the science theory, and rather than using it completely, used parts of it and added or modified the engineering so that it didn't fit the science theory at all.

This then shows the difference between real science and science theory.

In your rat idea, rats are outside the comparison between the engineering and the science theory. You are simply fallaciously using the rat comparison to distract from the fact that engineering is different than science theory. The biggest way that we can tell that engineering is different than science theory is, once the working engineering absolutely matches the science theory completely, the science theory becomes science rather than science theory.

[Cnut237]

The biggest way that we can tell that engineering is different than science theory is, once the working engineering absolutely matches the science theory completely, the science theory becomes science rather than science theory.

I'm interested in exploring this further. Are you saying that not all scientific research is proven fact? This is certainly true. Some is proven, to our current understanding. What I mean by this is that science sits outside the realm of a priori or inherent truths... these are the preserve of mathematics. Scientific theories remain just that - theories - until they are proven, to our current understanding. By which I mean that Newton's laws of motion were 'proven' until Einstein came along. This sort of science is our best approximation to truth. Because scientific truths are a posteriori truths, i.e., they need to be proven, they need empirical evidence, and experiments need reproducible results.

But this doesn't mean that scientific truths are vague approximations. Some are, certainly, at the frontiers of science. But many - and arguably all of those used in engineering - are based on proven (to our current understanding) facts.

If I say you're travelling at 30 miles per hour, that's true. Or is it? No, it's an approximation, you're actually travelling at 30.1 miles per hour. But actually 30.1 is just a better approximation, really you're travelling at 30.097 mph, etc.

Any subsequent proof doesn't remove the previous truth, it just refines it. If our scientific understanding improves, we get a better approximation. Newton's laws of motion, for example, are perfectly adequate for most everyday engineering. But if you accelerate to say half the speed of light, they won't be a good enough approximation, and you'll need to apply relativity.

Please could you give me an example of where engineering goes against scientific truths?

[BADecker]

The biggest way that we can tell that engineering is different than science theory is, once the working engineering absolutely matches the science theory completely, the science theory becomes science rather than science theory.

I'm interested in exploring this further. Are you saying that not all scientific research is proven fact? This is certainly true. Some is proven, to our current understanding. What I mean by this is that science sits outside the realm of a priori or inherent truths... these are the preserve of mathematics. Scientific theories remain just that - theories - until they are proven, to our current understanding. By which I mean that Newton's laws of motion were 'proven' until Einstein came along. This sort of science is our best approximation to truth. Because scientific truths are a posteriori truths, i.e., they need to be proven, they need empirical evidence, and experiments need reproducible results.

But this doesn't mean that scientific truths are vague approximations. Some are, certainly, at the frontiers of science. But many - and arguably all of those used in engineering - are based on proven (to our current understanding) facts.

If I say you're travelling at 30 miles per hour, that's true. Or is it? No, it's an approximation, you're actually travelling at 30.1 miles per hour. But actually 30.1 is just a better approximation, really you're travelling at 30.097 mph, etc.

Any subsequent proof doesn't remove the previous truth, it just refines it. If our scientific understanding improves, we get a better approximation. Newton's laws of motion, for example, are perfectly adequate for most everyday engineering. But if you accelerate to say half the speed of light, they won't be a good enough approximation, and you'll need to apply relativity.

Please could you give me an example of where engineering goes against scientific truths?

All scientific research that is done is a fact. Some of it is proven fact. Some of it is not proven fact. If there are notebooks and records and videos of a particular piece of scientific research, it is most likely proven to have been done. If there are hearsay suggestions that it was done or that it was proven to have been done, without notebooks and records and videos, it most likely isn't proven to have been done. If there are eye witnesses who can accurately reconstruct the scientific research being done, and concur in their reconstruction results, the doing of it can be proven at times without the notebooks and records and videos. This is simple logic regarding proof that some particular scientific research was done. There may be additional.

Mathematics itself is an abstract. It doesn't exist in nature or the real world. We simply apply the mathematical abstract to the real world to get the results we want... and often get.

Newton's laws didn't extend to the distance that Einsteins theories went. Or maybe you could say it the opposite way. Many of Einsteins theories are based in the idea that empty space exists... which it doesn't. People have known for thousands of years that so-called space is filled with the aether, even though they couldn't comprehend what the aerther is. Einstein's theories simply extend to certain operations in the aether, and relationships between those operations, without comprehending the whole of everything. Newton, being closer to aether understanding, naturally set his laws in an aether setting, often without speaking of the aether at all.

Scientific truths are NOT vague approximations. Man's understanding of them may be vague approximations. The fact that a piece of engineering works, is often the first proving of the science facts regarding it.

Actually, I'm on earth. So you need a relationship to something to determine how fast I'm traveling. After all, the Solar System is moving around the Galaxy, which might be moving around the Universe Center. But we are too ignorant to know for certain how all this traveling relates to universal traveling. Suggesting that anybody or anything is moving at a certain speed, has to have a relational object that it is moving in relationship to. When you add the motion of the aether to it, you completely remove any possibility of coming close to an exact speed of relative traveling.

Engineering doesn't go against scientific truths. But the engineer who makes a working piece of engineering, is closer to the scientific truths than the scientific theorist is.