Scrutable

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:11 pm

Turns out that you don't need to make up a new kind of neutrino if you just do your beta decay calculations properly

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.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:18 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:11 pm

Turns out that you don't need to make up a new kind of neutrino if you just do your beta decay calculations properly

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.

jaap wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:45 pm

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 13, 2023 3:18 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 12, 2023 12:11 pm

Turns out that you don't need to make up a new kind of neutrino if you just do your beta decay calculations properly

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/