Ask a physicist anything. (7)

[Wiccan_Child]

But it's rather different -- i is defined as the square root of -1, and more importantly, i = i.

Well, if we get into the nitty gritty, i is defined as i[sup]2[/sup] = -1, simply because i = √-1 doesn't make mathematical sense, hence the whole thing.

With 1/0 you'll get infinity -- but you might get a positive or a negative infinity. 0/0 is much more useful, as we use something similar to it for calculus -- but it generally won't be equal to another 0/0, and technically what we're doing is taking limits as a number gets really small. So for example we have 3x/x = 3 no matter how small we make x, and it is very tempting* to say it will still be 3 when x = 0. Whereas trying to define 0/0 = Ф even if you pretend that Ф = Ф would mean that 3x/x = 2x/x when x = 0, which doesn't make sense.

But it still works, inasmuch as we have a placeholder to work with. The imaginary unit doesn't make sense, as it can tell us the roots of quadratic equations that don't actually have any roots at all. It's not meant to make a whole lot of sense, just act as a placeholder for 'root minus one'.

* It becomes much less tempting to say that 3x/y = 3 when both x = 0 and y = 0, especially since it could turn out that y = 2x is also true.

Perhaps it might make sense to define a symbol <small> to use as a sign along with + and -. Putting <small> in front of a number would make it zero for all intents, except that it could be canceled by dividing by another <small> number. Similarly, we could have another number, <big>, which would be the multiplicative inverse of <small>. Basically like keeping track of all numbers but also whether it is zero or infinite or finite. It wouldn't allow anything new over using variables and limits, but it might be convenient nonetheless.

Couldn't you do the same with limits? Taking a limit to zero, it is often useful to know which direction you're coming from, so we use a little + or -. Is it something like that?

 

[Doveaman]

Just because there were no mistakes found doesn't mean there are no mistakes there.

If you guys were this diligent in trying to find mistakes in all your experiments a lot of your theories wouldn&#8217;t have seen the light of day.

But making use of an entirely different experimental team solves this problem entirely because a different measurement apparatus located in a different place is just not going to have the same error.

What error?

The scientists at OPERA have no reason to believe there was an error. So why do you?

So if a second team comes up with a consistent result, then we can say there's something going on here.

And if they come up with a different result, then what?

Would this mean the first experiment had errors, or would it simply mean you now have two different experiments with two different results?

So which of the two results will we then go with?

The most likely conclusion, at this point, is that the scientists at OPERA were insufficiently creative to discover the source of the error.

In other words, the most likely conclusion, at this point, is that the scientists at OPERA were incompetent. Got it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In other words, the most likely conclusion, at this point, is that the scientists at OPERA were incompetent. Got it.

I'll thank you not to troll the thread.

 

[Doveaman]

I'll thank you not to troll the thread.

WHAT?!!?

The most likely conclusion, at this point, is that the scientists at OPERA were insufficiently creative to discover the source of the error.

Insufficiently creative = Incompetent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

WHAT?!!?

Insufficiently creative = Incompetent.

No, it doesn't. 'Incompetent' means you're rubbish at your job. They did their job. Chalnoth said that, simply, they couldn't figure out the source of the error - as he said, "there can still be an undetected source of error that will not make itself known until a different experimental team with a different instrumental setup takes the case", hence why OPERA has asked for such independent analysis. Twisting his words in such a way is being snarky for no productive reason - thus, you're trolling. Not only does that fly in the face of CF's rules, it's against the character of this long thread. I don't want it shut down because of you.

 

[Doveaman]

No, it doesn't.

So let's debate it.

'Incompetent' means you're rubbish at your job. They did their job.

But they did not do it sufficiently, according to Chalnoth.

They were "insufficiently creative".

Chalnoth said that, simply, they couldn't figure out the source of the error

Precisely.

Which means they were incompetent in figuring out the error. Assuming there was an error.

Twisting his words in such a way is being snarky for no productive reason - thus, you're trolling.

I was simply clarifying what he appears to be saying.

Besides, I think Chalnoth have a problem with the whole idea of light speed being broken:

What I do not support are scientists making silly, false statements just to rile people up. The idea of a neutrino being faster than light is a tiny sideshow that really has no bearing on the real science that is being done with OPERA. It's basically just a publicity stunt that shows a shocking lack of care for scientific rigor.

What you have here is Chalnoth claiming that scientists at the OPERA were just putting on a sideshow to rile people up; a publicity stunt that shows a shocking lack of care for scientific rigor. - Source #995

He should give the scientists at the OPERA more credit for their performance.

Not only does that fly in the face of CF's rules, it's against the character of this long thread.

Clarifying = Trolling?

I don't want it shut down because of you.

Nor do I want it shut down because of you. Maxwell511 wouldn't like that.


So is this the longest thread ever, or what? Are you going for a record or something?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

The OPERA scientists themselves asked the communty for potential errors they may have missed. A lot of the time it takes a fresh pair of eyes to notice and error.

 

[Doveaman]

The OPERA scientists themselves asked the communty for potential errors they may have missed. A lot of the time it takes a fresh pair of eyes to notice and error.

I agree.

 

[Chalnoth]

I agree.

Then why are you so annoyed?

I mean, I will admit that I was being a bit overly-dismissive back in post 995 (I've looked into it a little bit more and their statements are much more reasonable than I at first thought), but the fact remains that this result is almost certainly a result of experimental error. This is not an indictment of how competent (or not) these scientists are. Instead, it is an admission that science is hard. Sometimes very hard. The more detailed your measurements become, the more difficult it is to account for biases that impact your measurement.

Crucially, these scientists have broken new ground on performing this kind of measurement. And the history of science has shown that breaking new ground often comes along with new sources of error that take some time to figure out. For example, the first measurement of the charge of the electron was quite far from the true value, much further than the estimated errors on the measurement. It actually took decades of tweaking to get to the point where the measured values actually started to become consistent with the true values: it took that long to discover the true sources of error in the measurements.

 

[chris4243]

If you guys were this diligent in trying to find mistakes in all your experiments a lot of your theories wouldn&#8217;t have seen the light of day.

This may be news to you, but this is how scientists operate and also why we have so few theories despite so many people thinking up ideas all the time. A new theory's greatest enemy is the scientist who originated it -- you may not have noticed, but the very first to try to eliminate the "neutrinos going faster than light" idea was the very scientists who discovered it. But they couldn't disprove it. And even though it may call into question their reputation, they have published their results because hiding the truth is not something scientists do. Now it's up to other scientists to check their work. (If you wish for a sampling of what science might look like without this trial by fire, check out the "pseudoscience and speculations" section of scienceforums.net. They're allowed more free reign there than in other science oriented sites, so you get to see what they're like.)

Once again, if you're so convinced that I'm wrong in dismissing these results, I invite you to bet some money on your conviction. Come on, it's a 100 year old theory vs a single experiment, the old guy doesn't stand a chance! Now put your money where your science bashing is, or go away.

 

[mzungu]

This may be news to you, but this is how scientists operate and also why we have so few theories despite so many people thinking up ideas all the time. A new theory's greatest enemy is the scientist who originated it -- you may not have noticed, but the very first to try to eliminate the "neutrinos going faster than light" idea was the very scientists who discovered it. But they couldn't disprove it. And even though it may call into question their reputation, they have published their results because hiding the truth is not something scientists do. Now it's up to other scientists to check their work. (If you wish for a sampling of what science might look like without this trial by fire, check out the "pseudoscience and speculations" section of scienceforums.net. They're allowed more free reign there than in other science oriented sites, so you get to see what they're like.)

Once again, if you're so convinced that I'm wrong in dismissing these results, I invite you to bet some money on your conviction. Come on, it's a 100 year old theory vs a single experiment, the old guy doesn't stand a chance! Now put your money where your science bashing is, or go away.

You have spoken not only the truth but precisely as well!

I fear that your post will be ignored as we usually end up "knocking on a deaf man's door" when pointing out to people like Doveman the basic rules governing science!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But they did not do it sufficiently, according to Chalnoth.

They were "insufficiently creative".

I agree, but that doesn't mean they were incompetent. They showed competence in the experiment itself, and in openly calling for external help in finding errors. That they couldn't find the errors themselves doesn't make them incompetent.

Precisely.

Which means they were incompetent in figuring out the error. Assuming there was an error.

Which isn't what you said earlier: you simply declared outright that there were incompetent. I agree that they were unable to root out the source of the error, as evidenced by their admission of that fact. But that doesn't make them incompetent.

I was simply clarifying what he appears to be saying.

First, I disagree that you were; you made a glib remark that changed Chalnoth's words, If you had said "In my opinion, OPERA are incompetent", that's fine. But deliberately twisting someone's words to fit your own presuppositions doesn't fit the criteria of honest and civil debate.

Clarifying = Trolling?

No, but twisting someone's words for no reason than to make a snide remark, that's trolling.

Nor do I want it shut down because of you. Maxwell511 wouldn't like that.

The original 'Ask a Physicist' threads were mine, and were shut down by someone like you. Maxwell511 recreated the sixth incarnation, but I still see this thread as my own, if only in spirit.

So is this the longest thread ever, or what? Are you going for a record or something?

In P&LS, it's the longest. I think some of the number threads are longer, though.

 

[Naraoia]

In P&LS, it's the longest. I think some of the number threads are longer, though.

But surely number threads don't count

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But surely number threads don't count

 

[sandwiches]

Then why are you so annoyed?

He's not annoyed. Like many religionists, when they can't debate on the same level as others, he really is just trying to instigate and it seems it worked, unfortunately.

 

[sandwiches]

This may be news to you, but this is how scientists operate and also why we have so few theories despite so many people thinking up ideas all the time. A new theory's greatest enemy is the scientist who originated it -- you may not have noticed, but the very first to try to eliminate the "neutrinos going faster than light" idea was the very scientists who discovered it. But they couldn't disprove it. And even though it may call into question their reputation, they have published their results because hiding the truth is not something scientists do. Now it's up to other scientists to check their work. (If you wish for a sampling of what science might look like without this trial by fire, check out the "pseudoscience and speculations" section of scienceforums.net. They're allowed more free reign there than in other science oriented sites, so you get to see what they're like.)

Once again, if you're so convinced that I'm wrong in dismissing these results, I invite you to bet some money on your conviction. Come on, it's a 100 year old theory vs a single experiment, the old guy doesn't stand a chance! Now put your money where your science bashing is, or go away.

That reminds me of this comic:

 

[Chalnoth]

Just as an update on the neutrino situation, I saw a talk today by one of the members of the collaboration. It was fairly interesting. My basic impression after walking away from the talk is:

1. I'm more convinced than ever that supernova 1987A observations make this result exceedingly unlikely. With SN1987A, the extremely long baseline (about 160,000 light years) means that measurement errors or errors in modeling the supernova simply aren't very important for the final result, which is that the difference in neutrino speed compared to the speed of light cannot be more than about one one thousandth of the observed speed discrepancy by the OPERA collaboration. It's going to be obscenely difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a theory that explains both observations (this was more from conversations before and after the talk than the talk itself, by the way).

2. The OPERA collaboration detected no difference in the arrival time at different energies. This, to me, was a giant red flag: in order to explain both the OPERA and the SN1987A observations, you're going to need the speed to depend upon energy. And yet it didn't appear to.

3. This measurement was an extremely sensitive and difficult measurement to make. It required a series of very accurate determination of time and position. And they did attempt to correct for the various errors by using a level of redundancy on these measurements. Still, if, for example, the delay induced by the electronics at the CERN laboratory were underestimated slightly, or the delay induced by the electronics at Gran Sasso was overestimated, that could explain the discrepancy as well.

4. There may have been some irregularities in the data reduction. As stated above, it's a really really sensitive measurement. And some people thought that the statistical analysis performed to extract the delays may have been a bit dodgy.

5. Approximately half of the OPERA collaboration declined to sign the paper. This may indicate some doubt within the OPERA collaboration that sufficient rigor was employed in this result, and is overall a pretty damning indictment of the results. There may be a mundane explanation for the fact that they didn't sign, but it really is not a good indication.

 

[Naraoia]

Wiccan, the best thing is I didn't spot the pun until I actually typed it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is there an evolutionary music experiment where people are wired up to a bran scanner, and readings are taken which influence automatically synthesized music such that the computer reading the brain scan tries to compose the best music based on the brain scan feedback?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What do you make of the film Koyaanisqatsi?