Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybarry
It's a good time to be alive, these problems are being looked at harder and harder than ever before. Something's gotta give.
|
... but maybe not provably in our lifetimes. Some observation I read about dont take into account their observed events in time only in distance, which to me takes me to different conclusions than they come to. I think we're in a transition period and some people need to relax and be patient (ie media) for results to be examined and peer reviewed before making press announcements and hyped promises on the return/meaning. I dont think we yet have the precision in many tools to make the correct measurements. Instead we are building tools that can find "something" then the next project comes along with an alternate tool/method and finds the same something. They can then start to calibrate and refine off each other to get a tool that can take confident measurements with certainty about what the "something" actually is. Then another project will see how to build on that to find/measure another something. All the way the tools are refining so are the theoretical models to build the full picture to explain it all. Its a little uncomfortable our current best model is one that is aesthetically pleasing and we are working to explore the gaps that have yet to be observed, we haven't yet got all the pieces of the jigsaw, just the picture on the box and hunting for the pieces to fit. Somewhat sloppy I guess but the bottom line we are making observations and collecting data which is key. Eventually we'll have an understanding that allows us to look back on our old data and understand the hidden signal better. We've seen it already after LIGO published, people were able to use that to examine their old data and recognise the signal that was there all along.
Good to see progress in science at least even if the Australian Government isnt too keen on fostering it. Will we survive as a species though to understand enough science for technology to save us.