2 réponses à ce sujet

[A-K-M]

http://news.discover...ton-110724.html

"The study, which showed that single photons also obey the speed limit c, confirms Einstein's causality; that is, an effect cannot occur before its cause," the university said.

"By showing that single photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light, our results bring a closure to the debate on the true speed of information carried by a single photon," said Du, assistant professor of physics.

"Our findings will also likely have potential applications by giving scientists a better picture on the transmission of quantum information."

The team's study was published in the U.S. peer-reviewed scientific journal Physical Review Letters.

Bummer 

 

[Stanley Woo]

naughty99 wrote...

Scientists said it was impossible for a human to travel faster than 30 MPH or a heart attack would kill the traveler.

Scientists said it was not physically possible to travel faster than the speed of sound

Scientists also said open heart operations were impossible

Then they said heart transplants were impossible

Many scientists believed that the first nuclear detonation would ignite the atmosphere and destroy all life on the planet

Some scientists believed that it was impossible for a human to survive outside the earth's atmosphere because of the radiation present in space.

That's all correct, but your conclusion is wrong. Just because we keep discovering new information and are able to modify earlier conclusions, it does NOT mean that we should automatically disbelieve the science that is being reported. Science should always be judged by what we know to be true "at this time." When new and/or contradictory information comes up and we are proven to be wrong, well then, we start the process of discovery again from a new starting point. That's how science works.

[Stanley Woo]

Godak wrote...
A scientific conclusion should not be immediately thrown out as invalid, I agree. However, we should not disregard a possible alternative simply because the tools at our disposal do not allow said conclusion to occur.

I don't think I said anything about disregarding possible alternatives. in fact, I believe I made explicit mention of accepting a disproven conclusion (if the science is sound, of course) and moving on and discovering anew from that point.

Waiting for contradictory information to simple show itself would likely be a fruitless endeavor. Many scientific discoverys of the last millenium can be attributed to men and women who went against the grain, not those who went with it.

I am aware that science does not exist in a vacuum, to coin a phrase. Science happens because people are pursuing knowledge and testing ideas and analyzing data to prove hypotheses. Contradictory information would "simply show itself" through the data gathered by those working on experiments. i'm not suggesting we sit around and believe whatever scientists say until a piece of evidence pops out of the ether.

I'm just waiting for a "definitive" answer on whether coffee and wine are good for you. How about it, science?