People think all kinds of funny things. Science has been littered with examples of bad theories that have gone nowhere. I'll give full props to the theories that were well developed yet were proven false through replicated formal experiment. The process and formalism of scientific thought is of param-ount importance and underpins what society expects from practitioners of physics, chemistry and science in general.
The statistics behind formal scientific thought and our understanding of what is true in our natural world comes from an adherence to a rigid set of counting. Counting successes and failures and determining truth or hypothesis verification to a confidence level of 95 or 99 percent. Failure to determine the exact nature of a hypothesis verification or a truth leads to muddy conclusions, half-baked science, hacked products and engineered systems that fail. Failed systems undermine the public's trust of engineers and science.
Using this forum I'd like to explore for myself what makes good science. Society is being peppered with examples of experiments that reference atomic tornadoes or molecular resonance. Are underdeveloped ideas being pushed into the limelight too quickly or do we need loose confidence levels that can be put together in strings of replicated experiments that yield high confidence 4.5 sigma output? Duane's reliability growth is an example of how strings of serial and replicated experiment can achieve a high reliability grows curve and an excellent output.
Magnets may or may not make use of electrostatic interactions to clear ions out of their path to create a vacuum for magnetic attraction. We know the phenomena of ion path vs. magnetic field is highly orthogonal to electrostatic forces but does this result of Maxwell's famous set of equations always hold true or are there deeper hypotheses to consider. Secondly, how might these be verified beyond a 99% degree of confidence?
Gravity is a weak force but if it is just a result of additive statistical electromagnetic attraction are there static attraction hypotheses to consider with respect to gravity? Can't gravity just be a rather simple result of the electron being radically lighter than the proton and the neutron. The electrons will fly off towards the edge of the sphere or planet and then arc back for a return trip. The resulting electron rain creates a force that binds us all to earth and tethers the astronaut or cosmonaut to the moon or to mars. Gravity may just be a mathematical-statistical result of the properties of a sphere. The mass and velocity of the electron is lighter and faster than the nucleus. How can hypothesis verification prove truth on such things?
No comments:
Post a Comment