Daily Bulletin

The Conversation

  • Written by Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Sydney

“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there” L. P. Hartley

While the past may seem like a foreign country, the future is a more mysterious land. Full of potential and promise, tragedy and heartache, people have always sought glimpses of a map of the future. Visions of Christmases-Yet-to-Come terrified Scrooge in Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, while less fictional, and more powerful, characters have sought future insight from the dances of the planets and stars.

But while science is about astronomy, not astrology, and the entrails of animals are about biology, not fortune-telling, gazing into the future is central to science.

What really is science?

The physical sciences appear to be comprised of two key pieces: the experiments that gather data about the universe around us, and theory that tries to make mathematical sense to these observations. In fact, a university education in a topic such as physics will involve lectures of sometimes incomprehensible mathematical theories, intertwined with time spent in the laboratory with equipment that never works properly.

While there is no doubt that theory and experiment are essential aspects of science, the process of comparing the two, asking how well your mathematics can accurately account for noisy information, is essential. For many, the language of statistics, inference, and model comparison become the language of science.

But there is more.

The scientific method

Popular accounts of science will talk about the scientific method as a “wash-rinse-repeat” approach, with leapfrogging steps of experiment and theory. Apparently, a theory will be confirmed by the experimental data, or be falsified and cast into the wastebasket of broken scientific dreams.

The actual process of science can quite messy, but the central question is about scientific prediction. Does it hold up against the data?

Suppose you have developed a new scientific theory, maybe a new description of gravity and how it interacts with the world of the quantum. The first question any theorist must ask is whether this theory can account for the masses of data that have been taken through history.

If your new quantum gravity theory predicts that one in ten times that I drop a ball it will fall up instead of down, clearly your Nobel Prize is going to have to wait.

Prediction of the past is the vital first step of science.

The next step asks whether your new theory continues to explain the world as new data comes in. With more data, accuracy generally increases and uncertainty goes down. Apparent signals glimpsed in the noise can evaporate as clarity is achieved. This often happens at the cutting-edge, where experiments are difficult and the stakes are high. The recent vanishing di-photon excess, an unexpected signal of a new particle seen at the Large Hadron Collider that was potentially heralding an era of “New Physics”, clearly demonstrates this. As Neils Bohr quipped, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future”.

After this comes the predictions for experiments that haven’t been done yet, consequences of your new theory that have never been tested. This is where your theory is really placing its cards on the table, with the mathematics telling you that if you do a new experiment, new bits of the universe will be revealed.

In recent years, we have seen the discovery of the Higgs Boson and the detection of gravitational waves from colliding black holes at LIGO, both phenomenon that were predicted many decades before they were successfully revealed.

These successful predictions add further weight to their respective underlying theories; the standard model of particle physics, describing the Higgs mechanism, and Einstein’s general theory of relativity for gravitational waves. But no evidence ever means either are right, and, as scientists continue to push the theory and devise new experiments, we know that they must ultimately fail. The gravitational and quantum world are incompatible and must break down somewhere and somewhen.

Which brings us to the most exciting aspect of scientific prediction!

Failing predictions light the way

In the Hunt for Vulan, Thomas Levenson meticulously describes how the failure of Newtonian mechanics in explaining the orbit of Mercury led to Einstein’s vision of gravity. And Max Planck documented his desperate act of quantizing the universe to explain the radiation from a hot object. In both cases, the failure of established science led to revolution.

We live in interesting times. Both the world of the quantum and the world of the cosmos are described by standard models, mathematical frameworks that continue to make accurate and robust predictions. Questions remain, but these standard models continue to serve science well.

But as we have seen, these standard models are ultimately incompatible and they must eventually fail. There are things that they should explain, such as what dark matter is, or how the universe began, but they simply do not contain the answers. Parts are missing, or the board needs to be wiped clean, and we need to begin again.

We keep making predictions, and testing them with telescope and collider, and they continue to be borne out. Scientists are now desperate for their calculations of the future to fail and to provide guidance on what we should be doing to make the next intellectual leap.

Science is driven by predictions, but scientific revolutions are made when predictions fail. This is why “that’s funny” will always trump “Eureka!”

Authors: Geraint Lewis, Professor of Astrophysics, University of Sydney

Read more http://theconversation.com/peering-into-the-future-does-science-require-predictions-66494

Writers Wanted

Ancient sponges or just algae? New research overturns chemical evidence for the earliest animals


Silky oaks are older than dinosaurs and literally drip nectar – but watch out for the cyanide


Scott Morrison's message to China: Don't pigeonhole us


The Conversation


Prime Minister Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT: Kieran Gilbert here with you and the Prime Minister joins me. Prime Minister, thanks so much for your time.  PRIME MINISTER: G'day Kieran.  GILBERT: An assumption a vaccine is ...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Scott Morrison: the right man at the right time

Australia is not at war with another nation or ideology in August 2020 but the nation is in conflict. There are serious threats from China and there are many challenges flowing from the pandemic tha...

Greg Rogers - avatar Greg Rogers

Business News

InteliCare triple winner at prestigious national technology awards

InteliCare triple winner at prestigious national technology awards Intelicare wins each nominated category and takes out overall category at national technology 2020 iAwards. Company wins overal...

Media Release - avatar Media Release

Arriba Group Founder, Marcella Romero, wins CEO Magazine’s Managing Director of the Year

Founder and Managing Director of the Arriba Group, Marcella Romero, has won Managing Director of the Year at last night’s The CEO Magazine’s Executive of the Year Awards. The CEO Magazine's Ex...

Lanham Media - avatar Lanham Media

5 Tips For A Successful Blog Layout

There’s far more that goes into making a blog successful than simply having a way with words. How you display your content will have a huge impact on how easy it is to read, and whether people a...

Wayne Burden - avatar Wayne Burden

News Co Media Group

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion