4 ms·

> New evidence > ... > The team has used computer simulations to help explain what features distinguish the two liquids at the microscopic level I regrettably(

> New evidence > ... > The team has used computer simulations to help explain what features distinguish the two liquids at the microscopic level I regrettably(?) don't have the physics background to interpret the actual paper (linked in the sibling comment), but saying "computer simulations" are "evidence" seems suspect to me

galaxyLogic 4y ago
Evidence is not proof, it is evidence. It is still valuable because it can guide the way to experiments that give us empirical proof, or refutation of the conjecture.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  It behooves the authors to present the limitations of the study. Lay people, unfortunately the majority, will interpret this to be definitive.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    >Lay people, unfortunately the majority, will interpret this to be definitive. They're not the target audience of scientific papers.
    - feet 4y ago
      On top of that, the linked article is simply a press release and not the research paper itself. Papers usually list limitations and such, that's very normal
    - salahaldden422 4y ago
  - gregoryl 4y ago
    This leads me to a different path. Some (most?) papers require an almost absurd amount of context; in the extremes, single digit audiences with the knowledge to understand. Perhaps putting that context into publications would be more effective?
    - t6jvcereio 4y ago
      > Perhaps putting that context into publications would be more effective? It's called introduction
    - swatcoder 4y ago
      You’re describing a pop science book, and of course people write those too. But research publishing is a traditionally internal dialog among people who ostensibly spent years being inducted into a common contextual foundation. Post-web journalism and open access publishing might be challenging that tradition, but the answer is probably not to staple an introductory textbook to every paper.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      Then all scientific papers would be thousands of pages long.
      - gregoryl 4y ago
        Ahh, the dangers of writing a comment whilst distracted. I meant rather to include the context you need to have yourself; something akin to "you must be this tall to ride", "you need a doctorate in physics to have a chance of understanding this properly".
t6jvcereio 4y ago
Computer simulations are not nothing either.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  > The team expect that the model they have devised will pave the way for new experiments that will validate the theory and extend the concept of ‘entangled’ liquids to other liquids such as silicon. Yes, they are very useful. Now they have something specific to look for with in experiments.
adamredwoods 4y ago
And Albert Einstein only had pencil and paper! https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691171074/einsteins-jury https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691171074/ei... "The book examines Einstein’s theory of general relativity through the eyes of astronomers, many of whom were not convinced of the legitimacy of Einstein’s startling breakthrough. These were individuals with international reputations to uphold and benefactors and shareholders to please, yet few of them understood the new theory coming from the pen of Germany’s up-and-coming theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein. Some tried to test his theory early in its development but got no results. Others — through toil and hardship, great expense, and perseverance — concluded that it was wrong."
- cvoss 4y ago
  I think it is a reasonable position to maintain, then, that there was insufficient evidence for GR until at least the Eddington experiment. That the derivation may have seemed so inevitable to Einstein once he saw it, or that its elegance was so pleasing, is not enough. For a more modern example, String Theory is a very attractive hypothesis to many physicists, but as yet remains beyond the reach of experimental physics. Pursue it, by all means, if the elegance makes you think you're hot on the heels of the truth, but don't jump the gun and say we have evidence if the only experiment you can run is a computational thought experiment. In the case of the water research, what's been shown is that some computational models (read "approximations") of how water behaves matches this old hypothesis that's been posed. But no experiment was conducted to show that real live water behaves this way. Granted, it looks like the researchers did this for three _different_ models and found corroboration among them, and are saying that gives the result more punch. I don't think folks here are trying to say this computational approach is invalid. I think there's a justified quibble with calling it "evidence" of a real world phenomenon that has never been observed.
  - Someone 4y ago
    Also, as with GR, there’s an experimental observation that doesn’t fit with the simpler model. For GR, it was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is constant, for this, it’s “the anomalous behaviour of its thermodynamic response functions upon cooling, the most famous being the density maximum at ambient pressure” (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01698-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01698-6.pdf) So, basically, there’s a reigning theory that correctly describes lot of observations but then, a loose end is discovered, and theorists try to find the simplest theory that fixes that loose end. I think string theory is different. There are no observations that show the existence of loose ends, only a desire to have a quantum theory of gravity, or even a Grand Unified Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
askvictor 4y ago
Studying the positions movements of single molecules in a fluid is near-impossible; increasingly (as we've eaten all of the low-hanging fruit), more science is being done through simulation. Certainly, we should vet those simulations very carefully (as should we more direct experiments). But they're just another tool to understanding the world.

galaxyLogic 4y ago

Evidence is not proof, it is evidence. It is still valuable because it can guide the way to experiments that give us empirical proof, or refutation of the conjecture.

hackernewds 4y ago
It behooves the authors to present the limitations of the study. Lay people, unfortunately the majority, will interpret this to be definitive.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >Lay people, unfortunately the majority, will interpret this to be definitive. They're not the target audience of scientific papers.
  - feet 4y ago
    On top of that, the linked article is simply a press release and not the research paper itself. Papers usually list limitations and such, that's very normal
  - salahaldden422 4y ago
- gregoryl 4y ago
  This leads me to a different path. Some (most?) papers require an almost absurd amount of context; in the extremes, single digit audiences with the knowledge to understand. Perhaps putting that context into publications would be more effective?
  - t6jvcereio 4y ago
    > Perhaps putting that context into publications would be more effective? It's called introduction
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    You’re describing a pop science book, and of course people write those too. But research publishing is a traditionally internal dialog among people who ostensibly spent years being inducted into a common contextual foundation. Post-web journalism and open access publishing might be challenging that tradition, but the answer is probably not to staple an introductory textbook to every paper.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Then all scientific papers would be thousands of pages long.
    - gregoryl 4y ago
      Ahh, the dangers of writing a comment whilst distracted. I meant rather to include the context you need to have yourself; something akin to "you must be this tall to ride", "you need a doctorate in physics to have a chance of understanding this properly".

t6jvcereio 4y ago

Computer simulations are not nothing either.

micromacrofoot 4y ago
> The team expect that the model they have devised will pave the way for new experiments that will validate the theory and extend the concept of ‘entangled’ liquids to other liquids such as silicon. Yes, they are very useful. Now they have something specific to look for with in experiments.

adamredwoods 4y ago

And Albert Einstein only had pencil and paper! https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691171074/einsteins-jury https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691171074/ei... "The book examines Einstein’s theory of general relativity through the eyes of astronomers, many of whom were not convinced of the legitimacy of Einstein’s startling breakthrough. These were individuals with international reputations to uphold and benefactors and shareholders to please, yet few of them understood the new theory coming from the pen of Germany’s up-and-coming theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein. Some tried to test his theory early in its development but got no results. Others — through toil and hardship, great expense, and perseverance — concluded that it was wrong."

cvoss 4y ago
I think it is a reasonable position to maintain, then, that there was insufficient evidence for GR until at least the Eddington experiment. That the derivation may have seemed so inevitable to Einstein once he saw it, or that its elegance was so pleasing, is not enough. For a more modern example, String Theory is a very attractive hypothesis to many physicists, but as yet remains beyond the reach of experimental physics. Pursue it, by all means, if the elegance makes you think you're hot on the heels of the truth, but don't jump the gun and say we have evidence if the only experiment you can run is a computational thought experiment. In the case of the water research, what's been shown is that some computational models (read "approximations") of how water behaves matches this old hypothesis that's been posed. But no experiment was conducted to show that real live water behaves this way. Granted, it looks like the researchers did this for three _different_ models and found corroboration among them, and are saying that gives the result more punch. I don't think folks here are trying to say this computational approach is invalid. I think there's a justified quibble with calling it "evidence" of a real world phenomenon that has never been observed.
- Someone 4y ago
  Also, as with GR, there’s an experimental observation that doesn’t fit with the simpler model. For GR, it was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light is constant, for this, it’s “the anomalous behaviour of its thermodynamic response functions upon cooling, the most famous being the density maximum at ambient pressure” (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01698-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-022-01698-6.pdf) So, basically, there’s a reigning theory that correctly describes lot of observations but then, a loose end is discovered, and theorists try to find the simplest theory that fixes that loose end. I think string theory is different. There are no observations that show the existence of loose ends, only a desire to have a quantum theory of gravity, or even a Grand Unified Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

askvictor 4y ago

Studying the positions movements of single molecules in a fluid is near-impossible; increasingly (as we've eaten all of the low-hanging fruit), more science is being done through simulation. Certainly, we should vet those simulations very carefully (as should we more direct experiments). But they're just another tool to understanding the world.