Technically no, but realistically yes. Average particles per cubic light would not be zero. Could be.00000000000000000000000000001
Which is not zero. Not perfect. Like how your car isn't gonna get the mileage claimed, and you don't always get exactly 1.000000000000 gallons of gas when the pump says so. But that number is better than guessing, or picking numbers from a hat, and if the latest guess predicts things better than the old one, than it will be strongly considered, and discussed.
Most science is "this works pretty good, and allows us to make reasonable predictions about how the universe will behave.
We can and will improve this idea/formula/equation, and the best way to do that is to find situations in which the current understanding is demonstrably wrong/incomplete. AND showing why it is incomplete/wrong creating a new formula that exceeds the old in both reliability accuracy.
Excellent point. I just wanted to add that it really opens your eyes when you realize that science ultimately boils down to our best guesses based on what evidence and math can tell us.
When I first realized that, it blew my mind. It’s understandable why some people allow themselves to worship it like some sort of religion - just goes to show how little they actually understand or critically think about what they’re told.
Essentially what I meant with "basically". Thanks for your accurate reply.
Basically how I do validation's engineering. Seeing where the assumptions are wrong, and refining those assumptions until they can make predictions.
(post is archived)