The Nature of Scientific Proof in the Age of Simulations. Is numerical mimicry a third way of establishing truth?

Is numerical mimicry a third way of establishing truth? Kevin Heng received his M.S. and Ph.D. in astrophysics from the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA) and the University of Colorado at Boulder. He joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton from 2007 to 2010, first as a Member and later as the Frank & Peggy Taplin Member. From 2010 to 2012 he was a Zwicky Prize Fellow at ETH Z¨urich (the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology). In 2013, he joined the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) at the University of Bern, Switzerland, as a tenure-track assistant professor, where he leads the Exoplanets and Exoclimes Group. He has worked on, and maintains, a broad range of interests in astrophysics: shocks, extrasolar asteroid belts, planet formation, fluid dynamics, brown dwarfs and exoplanets. He coordinates the Exoclimes Simulation Platform (ESP), an open-source set of theoretical tools designed for studying the basic physics and chemistry of exoplanetary atmospheres and climates (www.exoclime.org). He is involved in the CHEOPS (Characterizing Exoplanet Satellite) space telescope, a mission approved by the European Space Agency (ESA) and led by Switzerland. He spends a fair amount of time humbly learning the lessons gleaned from studying the Earth and Solar System planets, as related to him by atmospheric, climate and planetary scientists. He received a Sigma Xi Grant-in-Aid of Research in 2006

Comparison of GOCE-GPS gravity fields derived by different approaches

Several techniques have been proposed to exploit GNSS-derived kinematic orbit information for the determination of long-wavelength gravity field features. These methods include the (i) celestial mechanics approach, (ii) short-arc approach, (iii) point-wise acceleration approach, (iv) averaged acceleration approach, and (v) energy balance approach. Although there is a general consensus that—except for energy balance—these methods theoretically provide equivalent results, real data gravity field solutions from kinematic orbit analysis have never been evaluated against each other within a consistent data processing environment. This contribution strives to close this gap. Target consistency criteria for our study are the input data sets, period of investigation, spherical harmonic resolution, a priori gravity field information, etc. We compare GOCE gravity field estimates based on the aforementioned approaches as computed at the Graz University of Technology, the University of Bern, the University of Stuttgart/Austrian Academy of Sciences, and by RHEA Systems for the European Space Agency. The involved research groups complied with most of the consistency criterions. Deviations only occur where technical unfeasibility exists. Performance measures include formal errors, differences with respect to a state-of-the-art GRACE gravity field, (cumulative) geoid height differences, and SLR residuals from precise orbit determination of geodetic satellites. We found that for the approaches (i) to (iv), the cumulative geoid height differences at spherical harmonic degree 100 differ by only ≈10 % ; in the absence of the polar data gap, SLR residuals agree by ≈96 % . From our investigations, we conclude that real data analysis results are in agreement with the theoretical considerations concerning the (relative) performance of the different approaches.