6 ms·

"It's the most recent in a growing body of evidence that our understanding of the outer Solar System is lacking..." Isn't this -- finding out that what we didn

by mikece 3y ago

"It's the most recent in a growing body of evidence that our understanding of the outer Solar System is lacking..." Isn't this -- finding out that what we didn't know is far greater than we realized -- typical in any field of science or even profession? When I was 5 years into my programming career I had the cocky feeling of knowing everything. 20 years later I feel more like I know nothing because every day I'm discovering more about my profession that I never even knew existed (thank you, HN!).

rtkwe 3y ago
We tend towards finding smaller and smaller details that we didn't understand as a field matures unless it gets upended by large new discoveries. Classical mechanics for example, we can safely say we've got that pretty much locked down and know what it's good for and where we need to apply other methodologies. Also we have to zoom out from the individual view when thinking about collective knowledge in an entire field. Each individual person has a vast amount they can continue to learn of course but fields as a whole can tend towards more complete knowledge of a particular topic.
- tzs 3y ago
  > Classical mechanics for example, we can safely say we've got that pretty much locked down and know what it's good for and where we need to apply other methodologies Yet even classical mechanics holds some surprising mysteries, such as how bicycles self-stabilize [1]. [1] https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-libris-universum/balancing-bicycles https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-l...
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    I'm not sure how closely that applies. We didn't, but mostly because people hadn't really studied it and hadn't worked through the mechanics. As soon as we really started looking AFAIK the solution came pretty quickly; it's a combination of 3 things that all make the bike steer towards where it leans: gyroscopic precession, head angle and CoM of the front steering section. All 3 of those things can be tuned to be larger or smaller and that affects the velocity required to achieve stability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo
    - tzs 3y ago
      Note that near the end of that video he says: > But amazingly, even for a riderless bike science currently doesn't what it IS about the special combinations of variables that enables a bike to stay up on its own. We just know that some combinations work and others don't.
      - rtkwe 3y ago
        There have been studies characterizing it more since then both analytically and quantatatively. There have been model bikes built with counter rotating weights to eliminate the gyroscopic effect and it still works. Part of the complexity is they all work together so the parameter space is complex. People have isolated the effect of things like the head angle though or the gyroscopic effect.
BurningFrog 3y ago
I'd bet that's written by a journalist, not a scientist.
verisimi 3y ago
And yet, it is also claimed that: > Astronomers using the Webb telescope discovered complex organic molecules in a galaxy located over 12 billion light-years away. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/webb-telescope-distant-organic-molecules-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/webb-telescope-dist... To me, this sort of claim is beyond embarrassing. How can we possibly reconcile knowing about organic molecules, and not know about our backyard.
- CuriousCosmic 3y ago
  It's contradictory feeling but it's often easier to know more about small things far away than small things nearby. The reason? Light. Webb was able to detect the absorption characteristics of PAH (the organic molecules in question) from a distance because there was light from behind illuminating it (and it was absorbing only parts of that light). We know roughly what the light being emitted "looks like" so we are able to extrapolate based on what light isn't present what is in that region. And it wasn't as if individual particles were being seen but rather there is a sufficient density of these molecules spread out in the regions where they were detected that when the light passed through them, it was noticeable from a distance. Kinda like how you can't see the air but you can see the sky. I'm probably not explaining it super well but it's the phenomenon where you can see the gaps in between up close but from far away it looks like one big blob. But point being Webb was able to make that discovery because those molecules basically had a giant lamp shining on them from behind and we the observer are at such a distance that we can see all the little bits of information that would otherwise be indistinguishable from noise all together at once. Now comparatively, the stuff out in the far reaches of our solar system have a lamp shining on them (our sun) but we are on the wrong side to be able to see the shadows that are cast. So unfortunately that means if we want to learn about this blindspot of ours we have to physically go out there to see it.
bluGill 3y ago
There are places where science doesn't understand things, but we understand (or think we understand) well enough to place limits on what is happening. Then there are places that we know out current theories are not enough to explain things, but we don't have a clue what a theory that explains them are. Once in a while we think something is the first but when we get more detail we discover current theories are not enough and so we expand the number of things we need to figure out. In general I would expect this to be a case where we didn't expect something but once we look closer we discover it fits with our current known physics - this is the majority of "interesting" discoveries. However once in a while we discover something unknown.

by mikece 3y ago

rtkwe 3y ago

We tend towards finding smaller and smaller details that we didn't understand as a field matures unless it gets upended by large new discoveries. Classical mechanics for example, we can safely say we've got that pretty much locked down and know what it's good for and where we need to apply other methodologies. Also we have to zoom out from the individual view when thinking about collective knowledge in an entire field. Each individual person has a vast amount they can continue to learn of course but fields as a whole can tend towards more complete knowledge of a particular topic.

tzs 3y ago
> Classical mechanics for example, we can safely say we've got that pretty much locked down and know what it's good for and where we need to apply other methodologies Yet even classical mechanics holds some surprising mysteries, such as how bicycles self-stabilize [1]. [1] https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-libris-universum/balancing-bicycles https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/ex-l...
- rtkwe 3y ago
  I'm not sure how closely that applies. We didn't, but mostly because people hadn't really studied it and hadn't worked through the mechanics. As soon as we really started looking AFAIK the solution came pretty quickly; it's a combination of 3 things that all make the bike steer towards where it leans: gyroscopic precession, head angle and CoM of the front steering section. All 3 of those things can be tuned to be larger or smaller and that affects the velocity required to achieve stability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo
  - tzs 3y ago
    Note that near the end of that video he says: > But amazingly, even for a riderless bike science currently doesn't what it IS about the special combinations of variables that enables a bike to stay up on its own. We just know that some combinations work and others don't.
    - rtkwe 3y ago
      There have been studies characterizing it more since then both analytically and quantatatively. There have been model bikes built with counter rotating weights to eliminate the gyroscopic effect and it still works. Part of the complexity is they all work together so the parameter space is complex. People have isolated the effect of things like the head angle though or the gyroscopic effect.

BurningFrog 3y ago

I'd bet that's written by a journalist, not a scientist.

verisimi 3y ago

And yet, it is also claimed that: > Astronomers using the Webb telescope discovered complex organic molecules in a galaxy located over 12 billion light-years away. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/webb-telescope-distant-organic-molecules-scn/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/webb-telescope-dist... To me, this sort of claim is beyond embarrassing. How can we possibly reconcile knowing about organic molecules, and not know about our backyard.

CuriousCosmic 3y ago
It's contradictory feeling but it's often easier to know more about small things far away than small things nearby. The reason? Light. Webb was able to detect the absorption characteristics of PAH (the organic molecules in question) from a distance because there was light from behind illuminating it (and it was absorbing only parts of that light). We know roughly what the light being emitted "looks like" so we are able to extrapolate based on what light isn't present what is in that region. And it wasn't as if individual particles were being seen but rather there is a sufficient density of these molecules spread out in the regions where they were detected that when the light passed through them, it was noticeable from a distance. Kinda like how you can't see the air but you can see the sky. I'm probably not explaining it super well but it's the phenomenon where you can see the gaps in between up close but from far away it looks like one big blob. But point being Webb was able to make that discovery because those molecules basically had a giant lamp shining on them from behind and we the observer are at such a distance that we can see all the little bits of information that would otherwise be indistinguishable from noise all together at once. Now comparatively, the stuff out in the far reaches of our solar system have a lamp shining on them (our sun) but we are on the wrong side to be able to see the shadows that are cast. So unfortunately that means if we want to learn about this blindspot of ours we have to physically go out there to see it.

bluGill 3y ago

There are places where science doesn't understand things, but we understand (or think we understand) well enough to place limits on what is happening. Then there are places that we know out current theories are not enough to explain things, but we don't have a clue what a theory that explains them are. Once in a while we think something is the first but when we get more detail we discover current theories are not enough and so we expand the number of things we need to figure out. In general I would expect this to be a case where we didn't expect something but once we look closer we discover it fits with our current known physics - this is the majority of "interesting" discoveries. However once in a while we discover something unknown.