LHC restart

Get your science fix here: research, quackery, activism and all the rest
User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7684
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: LHC restart

Post by shpalman » Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:11 pm

having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

IvanV
After Pie
Posts: 1859
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: LHC restart

Post by IvanV » Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:18 pm

Almost as embarrassing as those other scientists who published that they had found neutrinos travelling faster than light, just before they discovered it was faulty electrical connector on one of their machines.

It seems in this case the red faces can be related to some faulty beta decay calibration data from the late 1980s. But perhaps foolish to overlook another thread of experimentation suggesting that neutrino accounting in nuclear reactors based on that was a bit wrong.

User avatar
jaap
Snowbonk
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:05 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: LHC restart

Post by jaap » Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:45 pm

IvanV wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:18 pm
Almost as embarrassing as those other scientists who published that they had found neutrinos travelling faster than light, just before they discovered it was faulty electrical connector on one of their machines.
But in that case IIRC they clearly stated that they did not think the neutrinos were really going faster than light. They just couldn't figure out how the measurements were what they were and needed help with that, and other people managed to find the problem. To posit a new particle to explain anomalous results instead of trying a bit harder to find an error flies in the face of Occam's razor.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 7684
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: LHC restart

Post by shpalman » Mon Feb 13, 2023 4:28 pm

jaap wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:45 pm
IvanV wrote:
Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:18 pm
Almost as embarrassing as those other scientists who published that they had found neutrinos travelling faster than light, just before they discovered it was faulty electrical connector on one of their machines.
But in that case IIRC they clearly stated that they did not think the neutrinos were really going faster than light. They just couldn't figure out how the measurements were what they were and needed help with that, and other people managed to find the problem. To posit a new particle to explain anomalous results instead of trying a bit harder to find an error flies in the face of Occam's razor.
The problem wasn't found by other people since it was a technical problem within the lab rather than an issue with the analysis. It's not like other people came to their lab to check the connections. (Although someone did apparently guess correctly what the issue might be.)

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles- ... ent-wrong/
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

Post Reply