This isn’t even worth talking about unless you know a serious amount about the precise details of the experiment.
I’m stupid so I shouldn’t talk about physics? That’s absurd, Less Wrong is devoted to discussing exactly this kind of thing. Like… really? I’m really confused by your comment. Do you think the author of the Nature News piece should not have written for fear of causing people to think about a result?
This kind of comment you made is one of the most perniciously negative types of things you could say here. Please try not to stop discussion before it even starts.
Instead of shutting down discussion and saying it isn’t worth talking about, maybe you should try and expand on “Error caused by some novel physical effect”.
You’re not stupid, but we’re not (as far as I know) qualified to talk about this particular experiment. There’s no hope in hell that the particles are going faster than light, so the only interesting discussion is what else could be causing the effect. This would involve an in depth knowledge of particle physics, as well as the details of the experiment, how the speed was calculated, the type of detector being used, etc. I don’t work at CERN, and I don’t think many LessWrongers do either.
Less Wrong is devoted to discussing exactly this kind of thing.
LessWrong is for discussing rationality not physics. Assigning probabilities to the outcomes stretched my rationalist muscles (I wasn’t sure about 10^-8. Too high? Too low?), but that’s the only relevance this post has (and yes, I did downvote it).
Do you think the author of the Nature News piece should not have written for fear of causing people to think about a result?
It would be fine to report the anomalous result, and give an interesting exploration of what faster than light particles would imply, making it clear that it’s horrendously unlikely. But presenting it as if the particles might actually be going faster than light is misleading.
Instead of shutting down discussion and saying it isn’t worth talking about, maybe you should try and expand on “Error caused by some novel physical effect”.
I’ve heard that the detector works by having the neutrinos hit a block where they produce some secondary particles, the results are then inferred from these particles. If these particles are doing something novel, or if the neutrinos are producing an unexpected kind of particle, then this could lead to the errors observed.
EDIT: I’m being too harsh. LessWrongers with less knowledge of the relevant physics would be perfectly justified in assigning a much higher probability to FTL than I do, and they’ve got no particular reason to update on my belief. Similarly, I expect my probability assignment would change if I learnt more physics.
I believe I am more skeptical than the average educated person about press releases claiming some fundamental facet of physics is wrong. But I would happily bet $1 against $10,000,000 that they have, indeed, observed neutrinos going faster than the currently understood speed of light.
I’d rather do it through an avenue other than Paypal, since I give odds near unity that if I won, Paypal would freeze my account before I could withdraw the $10 million. Also, considering that less than .01% of the world’s population has access to $10 million USD in a reasonably liquid form, there’s some counterparty risk.
But, IIRC, you’re confident you have the resources to produce a subplanetary mass of paperclips within a few decades, so let’s do it!
I apologize for being ambiguous; I should have been more clear that 10^-8 was way too low. Hopefully you weren’t counting on those resources for manufacturing paperclips.
If you have a bitcoin address, the smallest subdivision of a bitcoin against 1 bitcoin (historically, 1 bitcoin has been worth somewhere within $10 of $10) would do the tric.
…even Ereditato says it’s way too early to declare relativity wrong. “I would never say that,” he says. Rather, OPERA researchers are simply presenting a curious result that they cannot explain and asking the community to scrutinize it. “We are forced to say something,” he says. “We could not sweep it under the carpet because that would be dishonest.”
I’m stupid so I shouldn’t talk about physics? That’s absurd, Less Wrong is devoted to discussing exactly this kind of thing. Like… really? I’m really confused by your comment. Do you think the author of the Nature News piece should not have written for fear of causing people to think about a result?
This kind of comment you made is one of the most perniciously negative types of things you could say here. Please try not to stop discussion before it even starts.
Instead of shutting down discussion and saying it isn’t worth talking about, maybe you should try and expand on “Error caused by some novel physical effect”.
You’re not stupid, but we’re not (as far as I know) qualified to talk about this particular experiment. There’s no hope in hell that the particles are going faster than light, so the only interesting discussion is what else could be causing the effect. This would involve an in depth knowledge of particle physics, as well as the details of the experiment, how the speed was calculated, the type of detector being used, etc. I don’t work at CERN, and I don’t think many LessWrongers do either.
LessWrong is for discussing rationality not physics. Assigning probabilities to the outcomes stretched my rationalist muscles (I wasn’t sure about 10^-8. Too high? Too low?), but that’s the only relevance this post has (and yes, I did downvote it).
It would be fine to report the anomalous result, and give an interesting exploration of what faster than light particles would imply, making it clear that it’s horrendously unlikely. But presenting it as if the particles might actually be going faster than light is misleading.
I’ve heard that the detector works by having the neutrinos hit a block where they produce some secondary particles, the results are then inferred from these particles. If these particles are doing something novel, or if the neutrinos are producing an unexpected kind of particle, then this could lead to the errors observed.
EDIT: I’m being too harsh. LessWrongers with less knowledge of the relevant physics would be perfectly justified in assigning a much higher probability to FTL than I do, and they’ve got no particular reason to update on my belief. Similarly, I expect my probability assignment would change if I learnt more physics.
I believe I am more skeptical than the average educated person about press releases claiming some fundamental facet of physics is wrong. But I would happily bet $1 against $10,000,000 that they have, indeed, observed neutrinos going faster than the currently understood speed of light.
Taken! Paypal address?
I’d rather do it through an avenue other than Paypal, since I give odds near unity that if I won, Paypal would freeze my account before I could withdraw the $10 million. Also, considering that less than .01% of the world’s population has access to $10 million USD in a reasonably liquid form, there’s some counterparty risk.
But, IIRC, you’re confident you have the resources to produce a subplanetary mass of paperclips within a few decades, so let’s do it!
Oh, sorry, I was confused and thought you were offering the bet the other way around.
I apologize for being ambiguous; I should have been more clear that 10^-8 was way too low. Hopefully you weren’t counting on those resources for manufacturing paperclips.
Sadly I’m not in possession of even 10^8 cents, so I can’t make this bet.
If you have a bitcoin address, the smallest subdivision of a bitcoin against 1 bitcoin (historically, 1 bitcoin has been worth somewhere within $10 of $10) would do the tric.
From here.
Which part of my post is this addressed to? I don’t see any direct relevance.