Editing 2113: Physics Suppression
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Megan responds mockingly to the idea of a "mafia" that suppresses inconvenient science. She points out that, if such an organization existed, they'd "do something about the dark energy people". {{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy isn't proven to exist, it can't be detected directly, and its nature is unknown, but it's advanced as an explanation of observations which don't conform to accepted theories in physics. | Megan responds mockingly to the idea of a "mafia" that suppresses inconvenient science. She points out that, if such an organization existed, they'd "do something about the dark energy people". {{w|Dark energy}} is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy isn't proven to exist, it can't be detected directly, and its nature is unknown, but it's advanced as an explanation of observations which don't conform to accepted theories in physics. | ||
| β | Megan's point is that dark energy (and the data leading to the hypothesis) are exactly the kinds of things that a science mafia would suppress, if one existed. The data and the theory are highly inconvenient to the accepted physical models, and they compel scientists to acknowledge that there are things about the universe that we still don't understand. This is likely why Megan claims that she's "still mad" at them. And yet, rather than suppress the data or shun people who theorize about it, {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}} {{w|Nobel Prize}} in physics was awarded to a group of researchers for their work on the topic. The point is that scientists, as a group, are fascinated by unexplained results, and celebrate those who manage to develop new models and theories, even where that forces a re-examination of existing theories. The caveat is that those theories need to be supported by evidence and stand up to rigorous examination. | + | Megan's point is that dark energy (and the data leading to the hypothesis) are exactly the kinds of things that a science mafia would suppress, if one existed. The the data and the theory are highly inconvenient to the accepted physical models, and they compel scientists to acknowledge that there are things about the universe that we still don't understand. This is likely why Megan claims that she's "still mad" at them. And yet, rather than suppress the data or shun people who theorize about it, {{w|List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics#Laureates|2011}} {{w|Nobel Prize}} in physics was awarded to a group of researchers for their work on the topic. The point is that scientists, as a group, are fascinated by unexplained results, and celebrate those who manage to develop new models and theories, even where that forces a re-examination of existing theories. The caveat is that those theories need to be supported by evidence and stand up to rigorous examination. |
The likely explanation for why White Hat's theory is ignored by physicists is that he can't back it up with evidence, and may not even have a cogent model. He may interpret this rejection as "suppression", but radical new theories are never accepted without clear and convincing evidence. Expecting his theory to be embraced without proof suggests he doesn't understand how basic science works. | The likely explanation for why White Hat's theory is ignored by physicists is that he can't back it up with evidence, and may not even have a cogent model. He may interpret this rejection as "suppression", but radical new theories are never accepted without clear and convincing evidence. Expecting his theory to be embraced without proof suggests he doesn't understand how basic science works. | ||
