New Results Contradict Long-Held Chemistry Dogma 316
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers have found that the long-held belief that only the outer, valence, electrons of an atom interact may be false. Computer simulations have shown that at pressures like those in the center of the Earth the inner, core, electrons of lithium also interact."
Re:For the avoidance of doubt (Score:2, Interesting)
For supposedly trying to be neutral, a lot more posts negative of religion or the right get modded up. The GP could be -1 troll as easily as +5 insightful. Unfortunately the modding doesn't work and you have to post AC if your not following the official prejudices.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, there are several dogmas of science, and they are each found to be violated after a few years.
On the central dogma of molecular biology for example, the dogma holds that DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is then translated into protein.
With retrovirus though, it goes RNA--> DNA --> RNA --> protein, which is the most blatant violation. Regulatory RNA mollecules also violate the dogma, showing that whole protein step is non-essential.
Given the traditional definition of dogma as something that is inflexible to the point of causing violence, I think it's good that science has started to co-opt it and prove concretely that dogmas can be violated without the general veracity of them falling apart.
Maybe religions will take note. "Hey, the central dogma of mobio has some exceptions but still DNA gets turned into RNA and then gets turned into protein. Maybe if we admit the bread doesn't ACTUALLY become flesh, we won't all go to hell?"
Yeah, crazy thoughts that will probably get me burned at the stake.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only they knew, they had even measured the circumference of the Earth! It just drives me crazy that all this knowledge was somehow forgotten for over 1000 years... For example, even Colombus who knew the earth was round, should have also known the distance to India going the other way around, so it should be obvious to him that he found a new continent...
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're dealing with cosmology. Then, whenever your theory proves to be wrong or you observe phenomenon that it did not and could not have accounted for, you just patch up your existing theory without questioning any of the underlying assumptions and without examining alternative explanations. Or worse, you just ignore contradictory evidence.
Gravity alone can't account for the energetic events we see? Well obviously there must be mysterious dark matter that we can assume to exist anywhere needed to save the existing theory, nevermind that this majority-of-the-universe dark matter has never been observed in a laboratory (never been observed at all actually, just assumed) or verified by experiment at all, anywhere.
The solar wind is a moving flow of charged particles? That's the definition of an electric current, but obviously it's a strictly mechanical phenomenon!
The inventor of magnetohydrodynamics, Hannes Alfven, admitted that he was wrong about magnetic field lines being "frozen" in plasma and proved it? Nah, let's keep using that model to describe stars anyway!
Schwartzchild and Einstein are completely misrepresented, their results don't actually predict black holes at all, but that's okay, it sounds good so let's keep asserting that they did.
The tiny Comet Holmes suddenly flares up to become the only object in the solar system larger than the sun? You'd think that'd be newsworthy. Well, our theories don't predict it and can't explain it, so let's make sure this extremely unusual and novel event is almost completely unreported and certainly not debated, since the "dirty snowball" model might be threatened by it. Speaking of the "dirty snowball" model, the Deep Impact mission found nothing of the sort. The comet it struck with a 300-pound copper projectile was a solid rock just like an asteroid. Nah, we don't need to question our assumptions or start trying to throw out what we thought we knew at all. How scientific.
Cosmology right now is like Ptolomy and his epicycles, which were needed to save the geocentric theory of the solar system. Contradictory evidence was found, so he just kept patching up the old theory to foce it to get the answers needed instead of questioning whether the old explanation might be completely wrong. We think we're so sophisticated that such a thing could only happen "back then" but with this amount of hubris it can happen and is happening now.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't forgotten. The reason Columbus had so much trouble getting funding was that the royal courts of the time hadn't forgotten; they used Eratosthenes' old number (confirmed by the astrolabe), and then accepted Ptolemy's assessment that it was 180 degrees from one end of Europe to the opposite end of Asia. They knew there was no way that Columbus could reach Japan from the Canaries, 12,000 miles away, without running out of water (no ship of the era was big enough to carry enough for a trip of that length). So advised against giving him money, no matter how much Columbus insisted it was only 2,300. As it was, the reason why the terms of his contract with Fredinand & Isabella was so generous is that everyone expected him to die on the trip rather than make landfall.
And Columbus wasn't ignorant of Eratosthenes' number and Ptolemy's estimate; it was simply that he reached his error based on a different set of authorities:
1) That of Marinus of Tyre (from the first century AD), who thought that Eurasia was 235 degrees in width instead of about 180.
2) The measurement of Alfraganus that underestimated the size of a degree somewhat.
3) His own mistake of assuming that Alfraganus's mile was the same length as an Italian mile (which were 2/3rd the size).
Based on those numbers, it was perfectly reasonable to believe he'd reached Asia.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:1, Interesting)
Not trolling, but the Bible actually pointed out that the earth was a sphere over 2500 years ago. Isaiah 40:22. The word rendered "circle" in most bible translations actually means sphere. Science and the Bible do not disagree. It is religion that disagrees with science (and often the Bible too).
Re:Proof that Proof isn't Always Right (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm... maybe it's better to say that Philosophy tries to explain some of the who and why of things. Some of it happens to be wrapped in a religious context, but much of it tries to step outside of a strict religious context.
Religion is mostly a social construct, more often than not concerned with maintaining and justifying a given status quo amongst its leaders and followers.
"Anything outside the world around us (aka: God) is, by definition, not bound by the rules of science. "
Well, if all the world is created by God (whatever form he/she/it is), would that not also include the rules of science and scientific thought and practice (or that we've been wired to "discover" and further develop these rules and practices)?
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that any 2nd year Chemistry student will tell you that it was never dogma. The reason why they don't consider the "interior" electrons is because analytical solutions are... difficult and there influence is negligible. So, they ignore the effects because it doesn't effect the outcome.
(Aside: Engineers do the same thing. If you saw the math that they use, they regularly assume that series converge and chop off all but a few terms because it won't change the outcome in context.)
Continuing, there is a difference between computer simulations and actual experimental verification. Sure, we now have evidence of something going on that we didn't know before. Well, actually only in the details. But, what needs to happen now is predictions made, and an experiment run. THEN we'll know if these calculations hold water.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:2, Interesting)
...just hypotheses and results that you better not question because then you might piss off someone, lose you grants and be blackballed in peer reviews.
If you replaced "losing grants" with "excommunication", wouldn't that be dogma? A rose by any other name...
Re:Proof that Proof isn't Always Right (Score:2, Interesting)
You are absolutely right. Science is how we find out about our (created) universe. There's nothing wrong with wanting to know and with using the scientific method to find out how things work. Contrary to common belief on Slashdot, nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Thou shall not use science". If I remember correctly, King Solomon was quite a learned and "scientific" man (scientific for that day, at any rate). Science is a great tool to learn about Creation.(what?! A Christian on Slashdot? Who's saying science is a good thing? Wait! This can't happen!)
However, I do have a problem with treating the scientific method and anything labeled with "science" as fact. I know that's not what science is about and that you adapt to what you find out when you find that you're wrong. I'm not a complete dullard (woah. This is still a _Christian_ saying this? What's going on?!?!). But for years, that (the valence electrons, that is...that's what the original subject was, right?) was considered fact because of a missing piece of information. In the same way, who's to say that there isn't some missing piece of information that points to creation and thus, God?
The scientific method is an amazing tool, even to Christians, and I'm not bashing it or saying we shouldn't find out about the physical laws that God gave us. But remember: Before the Enlightenment period, people thought that alchemy and speculation were the best ways to find out about the world. Could the scientific method also be replaced for something else, something that uses a piece of information about the universe that we don't have right now?
But I digress. But this is Slashdot, so it's okay.
Re:Poor choice of words (Score:4, Interesting)
Generally, the dark ages weren't nearly as dark as historians from the 19th century depicted it to be.
give him a break (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a reasonable statement. Anyone in the business (chemical engineering) would be likely to make it. Supercritical CO2 is much more advanced tech than supercritical H2O. Arguably it's more useful, too, since you probably get better interaction with nonpolar substances, the critical pressure for CO2 is a lot lower than for H2O, and the critical temperature is near room temperature (as opposed to nearly 300 C for water). Supercritical H2O undoubtably has applications, but so far as I know supercritical CO2 has many more applications at present.
Re:Proof that Proof isn't Always Right (Score:2, Interesting)
This just goes to show that just because something is done scientifically and according to the scientific method doesn't mean it's right.
Nobody claims it is. That's one of the differences between science and religion. Scientists don't never claim they're right unless it's a direct observation. They claim that a particular theory best fits current observation until it is contradicted. Scientists live for finding contradictions in accepted theories. That's the best result there is, because it leads to greater understanding.
For instance, you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist all you want given the small amount of information we know about our universe.
No, you can't. That's why religion isn't science. A requirement for any scientific theory is that it be falsifiable. It must make predictions that, if they do not hold true, indicate the theory is wrong or at least incomplete.
The reasonable objections to the religious folks (I'll certainly admit there are some people that have unreasonable prejudices against religion) is when they try to place religion in the science classroom. You can't teach intelligence design as an alternative theory to evolution because intelligence design is not a falsifiable theory, and is therefore not science. Scientists are not saying that Intelligent Design isn't true. They're saying precisely that they can't prove that it's not true, and it therefore does not qualify as science. To ask it to be placed in equal footing in the science classroom is as ridiculous as asking churches to teach evolution in sunday school as an alternative to ID and creationism. It's not religion, it's science, it makes no sense for it to be taught there.
In other words, science can't explain everything...anything outside the world around us (aka: God) is, by definition, not bound by the rules of science.
Agreed, and no scientist claims otherwise. That's exactly why we can't include anything related to God or other religions in scientific theories, regardless of the personal beliefs of the scientist. However, many of the religious folk take leaving out God from the theories as saying that science is trying to disprove God. It's not. We simply accept that we can't disprove God, we can't prove or disprove Shiva, and we can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster through any observation. Therefore, we cannot assume their existence and try to explain all physical phenomena we can without them.
Let the burning begin.
Hopefully you'll agree that there was no burning. I'm agnostic, and I don't personally believe we need a "purpose" here other than the one we create for ourselves, but I completely respect whatever beliefs you choose to have. This isn't arrogance on my part, I'm also prepared to admit that your beliefs may be the correct ones (which is what makes me an agnostic), even though I don't share them. I just thought that you were being honest in your mistaken belief about the scientific method, and not trolling, maybe because of encounters you've had with people who were prejudiced against religion, and figured I could point you in the right direction.
Re:Proof that Proof isn't Always Right (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, you can scientifically prove that God doesn't exist all you want given the small amount of information we know about our universe.
well, we know where you get your bias against science.
Science tries to prove testable positives. You know a theory is "wrong" if the observations don't match the hypothesis. Even then, it doesn't necessarily mean the theory must be completely disregarded (example: newtonian and quantum mechanics coexist today).
You can't "disprove" god with science because god is not rationally testable. You can't "prove" it either because of that, though, and as such no man of science will accept "the will of god" as an explanation for something, or a reason to perform/avoid certain actions.
dogma ??!! (Score:3, Interesting)
fuck! the editor uses the word Dogma and everybofy goes ballistic with politics, philosophy, science, the electric universe ....
gee what a succesful troll.
Shit! if things continue to get this bad I will have to RTFA just to have some insight on the lithium thing ...
relax