21–30 of 33 posts
>> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons"
Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
e.g. Dan Shechtman, who recently got a nobel for his work in crystallography, was an outcast for a long while because his data did not fit with the prevailing model - to the point that people in his lab refused to peek through his microscope eyeviewer because what he said they will see there should not have been possible.
Read http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jan/06/dan-shechtman... and also http://motherboard.vice.com/read/quasicrystals-are-natures-i... (it's about a lot more, but also talks about Shechtman's history)
There are a few other cases like this: Robin Warren (Ulcer/Helicobacter connection), Barbara McClintock ("Jumping Genes"). The farther back they are, the harder it is to get the real story, but unfortunately Shechtman's story is far from unique.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never would have thought the A-10 could become an instrument of science
"The jet will also have its nose-mounted, 30-millimeter cannon removed, opening up more space for scientific instruments." http://blog.ametsoc.org/uncategorized/plane-has-combative-at... Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed.
Given that it's an A-10, it might be more accurate
to say that the cannon is having its aircraft removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#/media/File:GAU-8...
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
1. He wanted to be 100% sure about the data and not rush it, especially if it could be an error with the instruments
2. He has funding for other projects that needed to be worked on in the mean time, and didn't have a lot of time to devote to this work (this can make #1 take longer)
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
If I tell you that General Relativity is fine, and Einstein's a little more right, you might be impressed and give me a job. If I report that there's something unexpected about gravity at distances less than a millimeter, and I'm not absolutely correct, it might end my career.
Irreversibly-unblinded blind experiments are a technical way to solve this problem (I just unblinded my thesis work a week ago. Gravity turned out fine, after a clerical glitch.), but it does not solve the social stigma that can be attached to someone who has made a measurement ultimately found to be incorrect.
>> “This was so strange that we sat on this observation for several years” >> "We tried for five years to model the production of the positrons" Why would a scientist withhold data for 6 years? How typical is it for scientists to not reveal data until they can explain it using current models? I would think that Dwyer would have rushed to publicize such fascinating results.
This is fascinating. I've only ever really though of antimatter forming in the early universe, at the edges of black holes, and in particle accelerators. I love the thought of them forming in thunderclouds as well, and I'm quite curious to hear about the followup investigations.
Bananas are a weak source of antimatter [0] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40
This is fascinating. I've only ever really though of antimatter forming in the early universe, at the edges of black holes, and in particle accelerators. I love the thought of them forming in thunderclouds as well, and I'm quite curious to hear about the followup investigations.
Never would have thought the A-10 could become an instrument of science
I'm a surprised that the plan isn't to use a UAV. Small things can be really tough, are subject to smaller gradient-driven forces, and, if the airframe comes apart, a brave pilot won't have to die.
