Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Again, you're missing his point.

Quantum theory didn't completely overrule how physics works at large length scales. Relativity didn't completely overrule how physics works at slow speeds & sub-planetary length scales. These are the 'apparent exceptions' to the laws of physics Michelson refers to, which lead to 'the discovery of other facts and laws whose action produces the apparent exceptions'. Validating both of those required 'extreme refinement in the science of measurement'. Look, for instance, at the 50 year effort required to validate the Bell Experiment.

Michelson further backs up this point in the next paragraph, where he provides several examples where precise measurements similarly lead to new science. Even more, look at his call to action: "Every means which facilitates accuracy in measurement is a possible factor in a future discovery".

His argument isn't dismissive of new science because it only leads to small differences in measurement. It's supportive of small measurements because it's required for new science.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: