CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment • Hacker News Board

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#61

Post by hugh3 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 9:17 PM UTC

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #5

A great article on various disagreements between Tesla's and Einstein's view of the physical world. http://www.writingriffs.com/2009/09/13/tesla-vs-einstein-tra... Will Tesla have the last laugh?

Usually I hate people who comment only with "I stopped reading at...", but in this particular case I'll make an exception. For myself.

I stopped reading at:

"As far as I know, no book on the history of physics mentions Tesla"

which is a statement approximately as correct as "As far as I know, no book on the history of the United States mentions Woodrow Wilson"

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#62

Post by drbaltar » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 9:27 PM UTC

cube13 wrote: post #45

ajross wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All true. But to be fair, you're praising the easy stuff. This is one of those one-in-a-career, truly groundbreaking results. They don't have to sell it. They just write it up in plain language and it sells itself.

Most importantly, they're not presenting the finding as fact. They're really asking for anyone that can prove them wrong, because they don't believe it, and are almost positive that there's something wrong with either their methodology or measurements.

I wonder how the Cold Fusion fiasco was presented back in the 90's? Not that they are at all similar, but those were certainly bold claims as well.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#63

Post by hugh3 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 9:28 PM UTC

sprovoost wrote: post #48

My guess is there's something wrong with the statistical modeling, but I realize that's not a very useful statement. I missed the press conference, but I did read the paper and I even understood a few things. :-) It was good to see they even thought about seismic activity (centimeters). One thing I noticed in both the article and the media is that the effect is never expressed in terms of distance (about 15 meters),…

At this point I'm 99.9% certain that we're looking at some kind of experimental error, but being unfamiliar with the details I'm not about to start speculating on particular things that might be wrong. Any possible error that I could think of would probably, if presented to the experimentalists, result in a rolling of eyes and a "Don't you think we already checked that?"

To put it in terms that people here can understand, suppose you're three days into tracking down some incredibly obscure bug and your mother asks "Did you try turning it off and turning it on again?"

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#64

Post by aaronbrethorst » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 9:36 PM UTC

drbaltar wrote: post #62

cube13 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most importantly, they're not presenting the finding as fact. They're really asking for anyone that can prove them wrong, because they don't believe it, and are almost positive that there's something wrong with either their methodology or measurements.

I wonder how the Cold Fusion fiasco was presented back in the 90's? Not that they are at all similar, but those were certainly bold claims as well.

Late 1980s — early 90s, it turns out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Fleischmann.E2.80.9...

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#65

Post by thumper » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #63

sprovoost wrote: post #48

My guess is there's something wrong with the statistical modeling, but I realize that's not a very useful statement. I missed the press conference, but I did read the paper and I even understood a few things. :-) It was good to see they even thought about seismic activity (centimeters). One thing I noticed in both the article and the media is that the effect is never expressed in terms of distance (about 15 meters),…

At this point I'm 99.9% certain that we're looking at some kind of experimental error, but being unfamiliar with the details I'm not about to start speculating on particular things that might be wrong. Any possible error that I could think of would probably, if presented to the experimentalists, result in a rolling of eyes and a "Don't you think we already checked that?" To put it in terms that people here can unders…

The crazy thing is that when people say that to me, I kinda roll my eyes but try it so that I'm not dismissive... and sometimes it works!

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#66

Post by Arjuna » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 10:45 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #37

thoradam wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0.002% faster.

+/- 0.002%

"+/- 0.002%"

How did you derive a negative bound? A negative bound suggests that arrival times could be slower than c.

The paper indicates that arrival times are always faster than c.

From the paper:

"An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured."

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#67

Post by MarkPNeyer » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 11:21 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #59

nirvana wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My background is in physics and one of my first programming jobs was writing code for a lab of international importance. At the time, I would engage the other members of the lab in an ongoing debate about Einstein, where I'd take the position that Einstein was wrong (About anything, or everything, whatever the handy topic was.) I was, and am, an Einsteinian skeptic. I learned a lot in that, and one thing that actuall…

You do realize that proving "Einstein was wrong" is a favourite activity of the many physics cranks who hang around sending letters to physics departments year in year out? And that of all the thousands of folks who have claimed to have a "proof" that relativity is wrong, the they break down as about seventy percent simple misconceptions and thirty percent complete nonsense, with the remainder being zero? At the time…

believing in something to be the truth, no matter how much 'convincing evidence' there is to support that conclusion, isn't really a scientific princple. skepticism, on the other hand, most certainly is.

science isn't about believing in anything to be the truth; it's about constructing analytical models that make accurate predictions while consistently exercising skepticism about the ability of any model to do so.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#68

Post by sneak » Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 12:15 AM UTC

Arjuna wrote: post #66

sneak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+/- 0.002%

"+/- 0.002%" How did you derive a negative bound? A negative bound suggests that arrival times could be slower than c . The paper indicates that arrival times are always faster than c . From the paper: "An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ± 6.9 (stat.) ± 7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured."

Perhaps my one-word comment was an insufficient indicator of my sarcasm. 't'was a joke, good sir.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#69

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 12:57 AM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #59

nirvana wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My background is in physics and one of my first programming jobs was writing code for a lab of international importance. At the time, I would engage the other members of the lab in an ongoing debate about Einstein, where I'd take the position that Einstein was wrong (About anything, or everything, whatever the handy topic was.) I was, and am, an Einsteinian skeptic. I learned a lot in that, and one thing that actuall…

You do realize that proving "Einstein was wrong" is a favourite activity of the many physics cranks who hang around sending letters to physics departments year in year out? And that of all the thousands of folks who have claimed to have a "proof" that relativity is wrong, the they break down as about seventy percent simple misconceptions and thirty percent complete nonsense, with the remainder being zero? At the time…

It is very apparent that Einstein was wrong, only because his theory does not account for quantum effects. But it works for human sized stuff and up to galactic supercluster motion.

It is also apparent that Quantun Chromodynamics is also wrong because it does not account for gravity. But it works for super small stuff including CPUs and subatomic theory.

But they both work tremendously well for their scope. Hence the seeking for a Theory of Everything, because each is incompatible with the other without that mystery glue. But they both are "Wrong" - because they themselves say their theories are incomplete.

Re: CERN press release regarding neutrino experiment

#70

Post by hugh3 » Sat, Sep 24, 2011, 2:58 AM UTC

MarkPNeyer wrote: post #67

hugh3 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that proving "Einstein was wrong" is a favourite activity of the many physics cranks who hang around sending letters to physics departments year in year out? And that of all the thousands of folks who have claimed to have a "proof" that relativity is wrong, the they break down as about seventy percent simple misconceptions and thirty percent complete nonsense, with the remainder being zero? At the time…

believing in something to be the truth, no matter how much 'convincing evidence' there is to support that conclusion, isn't really a scientific princple. skepticism, on the other hand, most certainly is. science isn't about believing in anything to be the truth; it's about constructing analytical models that make accurate predictions while consistently exercising skepticism about the ability of any model to do so.

Yes, the English language really lacks the vast suite of words we need in order to express our degrees of certainty about things. Words such as "know", "believe", "think" and "suspect" don't express these things properly, but we have to make do with what we have.

I don't think that "believe" is a particularly bad word for the relationship of a rational person to a fairly well established fact, though. I believe, for instance, that the Earth has an iron-nickel core. I fully acknowledge the possibility that it might not, and am fully ready to change that belief based on new evidence, but I think it's fairly well established and I am willing to act as if it were true.