Neutrinos, Muons and the Standard Model

scorp1us writes: "I can't believe I haven't seen this posted yet. Apparently experiments in particle physics aren't holding to theory. The result: a search for a new form of energy or matter. Read about it in the Post. No wonder witches weigh as much as a duck."

Comments

Your logic escapes me.

[Keith Mickunas]

Witches weigh as much as a duck because they're both made out of wood. Everybody knows that.

Re:Your logic escapes me.

[Fnord]

I got better......

Re:Your logic escapes me.

[motardo]

a shrubbery?

Re:Your logic escapes me.

[loraksus]

If you don't get this, please, please, see monty python and the holy grail. (just had to explain it to some nitwit who has never seen it)

A "high" powered "particle" beam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Meyers, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was not part of the research team, said the finding is the "sort of crack" that "has been sought for many, many years."

Great. It looks like it's not just the moderators, then.

I'd like to get in a check out Fermilab

[crumbz]

bu they have restricted access since 09/11. You can't even hike in the woods around it anymore.

Um...yeah?

[BMazurek]

I can't believe I haven't seen this posted yet.

I think it was posted yesterday. It just didn't reach the front page.

That article had many more references, too...

Re:Um...yeah?

[Random Walk]

And the funny thing is that the worse article has attracted already about six times as much posters ... seems the newspapers are right in dumbing down stories to the least common denominator.

Apart from that, it is an interesting result, but only three sigma from the standard model, which is not really too much if you want to announce something groundbreaking. Sometimes even four sigma results turn out to be just experimental outliers.

Re:Um...yeah?

[Debillitatus]

And the funny thing is that the worse article has attracted already about six times as much posters ... seems the newspapers are right in dumbing down stories to the least common denominator.

I think it might have something to do with the fact that it landed on everyone's front page, eh?

Apart from that, it is an interesting result, but only three sigma from the standard model, which is not really too much if you want to announce something groundbreaking. Sometimes even four sigma results turn out to be just experimental outliers.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with that. Three standard deviations is worth noticing, but it's not worth getting all crazed out. After a few more runs, we'll see what's up.

Always wondered...

[atgrim]

I had always wondered about all the hard "facts" in science. Considering that most of science is based on educated guesses, it was only a matter of time before real hard facts started surfacing. Maybe this is the start of disproving Einstein's theory.

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

All science is based on "educated guesses." It's just that some guesses are much more educated than others, and turn out to fit the facts pretty well. Relativity is one of those very good guesses, along with Newton's laws (and no, Einstein didn't replace Newton, just refined Newtonian physics in a small but significant way), Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics, Boyle's law, etc. ...

But this is the defining characteristic of science: everything, always, is open to question. Hypotheses that are borne out by experiment and observation turn into theories, and those theories which stand the test of time are honored by being called laws, but none of them are "facts" in the sense that they can't be proven wrong. This is the principle of falsifiability, and it is the one thing which sets science apart from religion, philosophy, law, and other areas of human intellectual endeavor which seek to make statements about our world.

So relativity isn't a "hard fact." Neither is gravity. But that gravity, and relativity, and evolution, and plate tectonics, et bloody cetera, will operate the way the theories say they will, is the way to bet unless and until something dramatically better -- and by "better" I mean "backed by lots of reproducible evidence" -- comes along.

Re:Always wondered...

[Baconator]

I think the principle of falsifiability has gone out of vogue almost entirely. Karl Popper, who popularized the principle of falsifiability, shifted to a weaker form of the principle in his own lifetime, and post-modern critiques of the principle have eroded its popularity greatly.

The main critique against the principle is that scientific propositions require auxilliary hypotheses to have any predictive value. When a specific prediction is falsified, it is possible to "get around" the problem by modifying the auxilliary hypotheses. Since such modification to auxilliary hypotheses is considered a normal part of the scientific process, falsifiability doesn't really work very well.

Or something like that... it's been a couple of years since I studied this stuff.

Re:Always wondered...

[Anonymous Coward]

none of them are "facts" in the sense that they can't be proven wrong. This is the principle of falsifiability

I think that you meant "they can be proven wrong".

Re:Always wondered...

[geekoid]

I could answer that, but you posted as AC, so I won't bother. Its a shame because it is a good question.

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No, I meant "can't." 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, and you can't prove it wrong, period. (This is why mathematics, despite being called "the queen of the sciences" and immensely valuable to just about every branch of science, isn't a science in itself. It's ... something else, really, its own field of endeavor.) But F = m a, while borne out by an enormous amount of experimental evidence and almost certainly true, _can_ be proven wrong if in fact it _is_ wrong. Now, if you just assert that F =/= m a, you're most likely wrong, and I feel free to heap upon you the same scorn Richard Dawkins shows for creationists ... but if you're right, science (uniquely) gives you a mechanism to show that you're right. Er, until someone else does a better experiment and shows us that we're both wrong, of course ...

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

What the hell, I'll answer it, AC post or not.

There are two reasons. The first is that evolution is uniquely under attack -- there are cranks who attack relativity, plate tectonics, and other major, well-supported scientific theories (in fact, I'd go so far as to call all of these "laws") but few of them have the numbers or the potential power the creationists do. So Dawkins, quite understandably, feels defensive.

Second, without exception, creationists fail to mount a scientific attack on evolution. They either just say it contradicts the Bible and so must be false (the old school) or they use pseudo-scientific language and deliberate misrepresentation of scientific evidence (the new school.) What they don't do is attack the theory the way real scientists attack a theory, with hard evidence, because they don't have any.

But the new-school creationists have very good PR, and an amazing number of otherwise rational people are fooled by their rhetoric into thinking that "evidence against evolution" actually exists. This, of course, gets Dawkins' goat. And although I think his "undisguised clarity" may be a bit counterproductive, the more dangerous creationism gets, the more I find myself in sympathy with his outspoken exasperation.

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Could you give some examples of what you're talking about? For the record, I work in biotech, and pretty much our whole business is built on falsifiability; I've never heard a working scientist argue seriously against it.

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

And, therefore, F = m a is falsifiable, and is a theory (or a law, at this point), while 2 + 2 = 4 is unfalsifiable, and is a fact. Where's the contradiction?

Re:Always wondered...

[beanyk]

To quote from the original statement:

none of them are "facts" in the sense that they can't be proven wrong. This is the principle of falsifiability

I think you two are actually in agreement, just using ambiguous language. As far as I can tell, what Daniel Dvorkin means is:

none of them are "facts" (that is, things that can't be proven wrong) [...]

It's just your phrasing that could be misconstrued. Am I right?

Re:Always wondered...

[MarkusQ]

...the principle of falsifiability has gone out of vogue...Karl Popper...shifted to a weaker form...post-modern critiques...have eroded its popularity greatly...scientific propositions require auxilliary hypotheses to have any predictive value. When a specific prediction is falsified, it is possible to "get around" the problem by modifying the auxilliary hypotheses. Since such modification to auxilliary hypotheses is considered a normal part of the scientific process, falsifiability doesn't really work very well.

----------

Could you give some examples of what you're talking about? For the record, I work in biotech, and pretty much our whole business is built on falsifiability; I've never heard a working scientist argue seriously against it.

----------

I'll take a stab. Suppose I say "It's raining outside." This sounds like a classicly falsifiable statement. But is it? If you look out the window and don't see rain, it may be that I was wrong. Or (I could perversely argue) it could be that you (incorrectly) assumed that

1) by "outside" I meant "outside, near this building" not "outside, somewhere"

2) the rain would be all around, not just on the side of the building with the window

3) the rain drops would be large enough to see

4) there would be enough rain drops to notice

5) it would still be raining by the time you looked

6) enough photons would interact with enough raindrops before reaching your eyes that you would detect the rain (instead of all missing)

7) the window really is a window, and not a clever high-res display

...and so on and so forth. The point is there are an infinite number of these silly secondary assumptions needed to go from "it's raining outside" to "if I look out that window I should see rain"; failure of the second claim does not falsify the first.

The hard core rationalist claim that "all it takes is a single counter example to disprove a theory" doesn't really work. In practice, then, we deal with a sort of fuzzy-falsification, and come up with estimates (w. specified confidence levels) that an assertion is true or false. A single test can't really topple a theory since you can't know for sure that the problem was in the theory and not in your test.

Make sense?

-- MarkusQ

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yeah, that's fair enough.

Re:Always wondered...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, yeah, it makes sense, but frankly, to me it sounds like the argument of a philosopher who doesn't really understand how good science operates. Any well-designed experiment or well-written report of observations will list the assumptions involved.

Re:Always wondered...

[dipfan]

"All science is based on "educated guesses." It's just that some guesses are much more educated than others, and turn out to fit the facts pretty well. Relativity is one of those very good guesses, along with Newton's laws (and no, Einstein didn't replace Newton, just refined Newtonian physics in a small but significant way), Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics, Boyle's law, etc. ..."

This is a strange idea of how scientific discovery takes place. I'd suggest that (typically) the "educated guesses" or hypotheses come after observation of some sort.

And I'd question the "small but significant" refinement that Einstein made to Newton - relativity is far, far bigger than that, and if anything it showed Newtonian physics to be a small sub-set of quantum physics, and yes it did replace Newtonian physics.

"This is the principle of falsifiability, and it is the one thing which sets science apart from religion, philosophy, law, and other areas of human intellectual endeavor which seek to make statements about our world."

Ah.... ever come across logic as a branch of philosophy? That's what it's all about.

Re:Always wondered...

[FrostedChaos]

2+2=1. 4 doesn't exist in base 3.
2+2=0. 4 doesn't exist in base 4.
2+2=22, where + is defined as concatenation
Do any of these details change the fact that 2 added to 2 is 4? (And by the way, 2+2=11 in base three. Base three doesn't have a fourth digit, but that doesn't make 1=4. Likewise, 2+2=10 in base four.)

The point the original poster was trying to make, which you seem to have totally missed, was that mathematics and science have different concepts of "proof." In science, proof is based on experiment and observation. In mathematics, proofs are perfect and immutable. 2+2=4, always. It cannot be proven wrong by experiment, because the concept of "doing an experiment" is outside the domain of math.

Godel says otherwise. There are true things in mathematics and the physical world which cannot be proven or disproven. If you don't believe this, then please provide me with a proof or disproof of the Axiom of Choice.
Again, you are only confusing the issue. I doubt Godel would approve of this kind of obfuscation, even if you did use the words "axiom of choice." Yes, axioms are assumptions, and cannot be proved. But proof in the real world (tm) is a different ball game. Remember, you can't mathematically prove anything about the real world. All you can do is make a mathematical model and assume that it's true. Then, you can begin proving things based on your initial assumptions. But at some point your model will break down. Planets are not perfect spheres; newton's law is not completely correct; gasses are not quite ideal. Usually these deviations are minor, but sometimes a serious conceptual error comes up, like a force you forgot to include or a particle you didn't even imagine could exist. Science is based on probabilities, not on certainties.

The point of this thread is not that mathematics is "better" than science, or vice versa, but that they are different fields. A mathematician who tried to prove something by finding a lot of examples would be laughed at. A scientist who tried to disprove Einstein's theory with number theory would be dismissed as irrelevant.

Re:Always wondered...

[Baconator]

I guess my point wasn't that a theory that is clearly unfalsifiable can be scientific, but rather that the criterion of falsifiability isn't a good test for how scientific a theory is. Any theory can be protected from falsification by the introduction of ad-hoc hypotheses, but just because a theory contains ad-hoc hypotheses doesn't make it unscientific.

Let's take for example the criticism of Lakatos. When the perturbation of the orbit of Uranus was conclusively demonstrated, one might have said that the Newtonian theory of gravity had been falsified. To wit, an auxilliary hypothesis was introduced: "perhaps there is another, unseen, body causing the perturbation". In this particular case, the offending body (Neptune) was discovered shortly thereafter. But what if, for some reason, Neptune continued to evade terrestrial observation? Would that invalidate the entire Newtonian program? Not at all, it would merely have remained an ad-hoc ancilliary hypothesis.

Obviously, when a theory becomes too full of such ad-hoc hypotheses we become doubtful of its viability as a working scientific model. And rightly so -- the Copernican model of the cosmos replaced the Ptolemaic model for exactly this reason. But does that mean that the Ptoemaic model was unscientific?

Re:Always wondered...

[number one duck]

2 + 2 = 4 is only a fact if you take the pieces it is contructed out of as fact also. (Perhaps that there are such things as 2 and 4, and that there is such a process as addition, etc).

Eventually all math works down to a set of undefined precepts, which are closer to imagined than anything else. If you change these precepts, its possible to still have a consistent system (non-euclidian geometry, for instance).

Re:Always wondered...

[Socramon]

Evolution, in its simplest form -- the contention that species change over many generations -- is a fact. We can observe this change in species with quick mating cycles. Fruit flies, for example have been rather exhaustively studied in past years. You could put fruit flies in an environment slightly different from the one they're adapted to, watch them for a few hundred generations, and if the ecosystem you made for them can support their presence long enough, you will be able to see certain defining characteristics of the fruit fly begin to change.

An implicit agreement with the basic premise of evolution has made its way into our language. We speak casually of species mutating, of strains of virii becoming resistant to whichever antibiotic is being used against them, but we just can't stomach the claim that we, perfect omniscient humans, are descended from a more primitive species. Evidence of evolution can be found almost everywhere.

In the broader sense, the statement that all species currently on earth are descended from some common ancestor or that humans are descended from some early species of primate are less certain, but very well supported both by the amount of genetic similarity between the species and by our archaeological (and geological) records.

Chris.

Re:Always wondered...

[Wishmaster Gazou]

This is the principle of falsifiability, and it is the one thing which sets science apart from religion, philosophy,
law, and other areas of human intellectual endeavor which seek to make statements about our world.

A simple definition to know what falsifiability means..

A sentence is verifiable just if there is a procedure for determining whether it is true or false.
The sentence 'there are one hundred pages in this book' is verifiable because there is a procedure
for determining whether it is true or false. A sentence is falsifiable just if there is a procedure
which could determine that it is false. Some sentences are falsifiable but not verifiable.
For example, the sentence 'all swans are white' can not be verified, because no matter how many
swans one examines and finds to be white there is always the possibility that the next one will not
be white, that not all swans are white. But the sentence 'all swans are white' can be falsified by
the discovery of a non-white swan.

http://www.xrefer.com/

A philosophy theory only exist when it cannot be proved with existing evidence.
As example you can take Freud psychanalysis that was first considered
in the philosophy field and entered in the scientific one then.
So philosophy that has falsifiability becomes science.

But I don't think you can compare philosophy with law and religion
as you imply it's full of paradigms in those two.
Philosophy's relation to religion is the goal to basically know the human nature.
Philosophy's relation to science is method : after all they share
the same father (Platon, Socrate, Aristote). So philosophy
purpose is to tentatively support or reject ideas on human nature.
The fact is that philosophy will stand on an idea if it
got some falsifiability potential.

--
Gazou

Re:Always wondered...

[gewalker]

Well, I am not so sure about your facts.

There is evidence against that I am familiar with against general relatively -- I read an interesting paper that used the common assertion that the precession of the orbit of Mercury was a slam dunk for general relatively, this paper argued with lots of mathmatics, that the orbit of Mercury was much better explained with Newtonian mechanics once you factored in that the sun was not spherical, but a lumpy oblate spheriod. It also happened that the irregularities in the orbits of other planets also can closer to observations on this basis as well. I found a link the refers to this here though it does not cover the theory

Re: Gravity, not much that I know of except for the possibility of gravity in more dimensions as you get small enough so that is no longer follows the inverse square law. This has been discussed several times on /. in recent articles on producing quantum black holes in particle accelerators. I have also seen some technical discussions of whether the gravitation constant changes over time (and the speed of light with it) or whether it is the same constant in all points of the universe.

Evolution. You must either be kidding, or be ignorant - or as I expect, you simply dismiss the validity of the counter arguments. There is a host of scientific evidence that is is opposition to Darwinism (and it comes from scientist and atheists). IMO Haldanes dilemma is one of the more powerful anti-Darwinist arguments and here is an anti-Darwinist site produced by an evolutionist that describes Haldanes dilemma as well as several other evidences against evolution. Yes, I am fully aware that creationists use some of the same arguments, but that does not invalidate the fact that there are scientific evidences against Darwinism. Read Haldanes dilemma, and tell how this is not a valid scientific argument against. BTW, I happen to follow the creationist, esp. given that Don Patton is a friend of mine. You'll have no trouble finding him if you dig into the creationist literature. IMO, some of it is good science (regardless of who developed it), and some of it is horrible junk science.

Plate tectonics, I know little about, but would be surprised if there was not contrary scientific evidence. Maybe someone else will point out the scientific weak links for us.

I point these out to refute the gerneral perception (not necessarily one you fall under) that science consists of a bunch a proven facts

Do such contrarian arguments mean we should discard the theory, not likely in the judgement of most scientists. But such contrarian arguments are often the beginning of discarding the theory (phlogiston) or refining it (Newton vs. Einstein)

Re:Always wondered...

[HiThere]

Sorry, that's an almost true. Like nearly everything else.

A good report of a well designed experiment will list all of the assumptions that the experimenters thought of and considered important. It won't list the things that were considered too obvious. It won't list the effects that were considered too small. etc.

The real world may not be infinitely complex, but it is more complex and interactive than any intelligible procedure can handle. The trick is to find cases that are simple enough to be understood. That means where, e.g., you can ignore the friction when comparing the time for two balls to drop (a Galileo and his trough reference).

No, you can't simply depend on falsifiability. You also need to use Occam's razor. And it is known to be undependable. So you need to come up with several different approaches to the same point.

Falsifiability is a crude description of the real process. But it was simplified to cause it to be intelligible. And it is a necessary component. Not sufficient, but necessary. Even though, because of it's dependancy on Williams untrustworthy razor, you can never reach certainty. Ever.

Re:Always wondered...

[HiThere]

1 cup of water + 1 cup of alcohol yields less than 2 cups of liquid.

Therefore:
1 cup of liquid + 1 cup of liquid of integer arithmetic

It's not less than that, and it's a bit more, but it's not a universal truth for whereever people use numbers. Some people claim that it only applies to number theory, but that is an over-restriction. OTOH, only in number theory does the absolute certainty apply. (And even there, theories thought to be certain have been overthrown before, though not frequently.)

Re: Always wondered...

[Inthewire]

Thanks for the link to the "What's wrong..." page.
I love having access to new information, especially when there's a lot of it in one place.
There's nothing like learning something new.

Hmmm, if the laws of physics keep changing...

[Slipped_Disk]

Maybe I'll win that bet I made with my highschool physics professor that I could break at least one before I die! :)

Seriously though, this is cool stuff, I'd read the actual paper when it gets published but I'm sure I'd drown in a see of evil mathematics.

Re:Hmmm, if the laws of physics keep changing...

[geekoid]

you can not break the laws of physics, only refine our understanding of it.

Changing theories

[Debillitatus]

I can't believe I haven't seen this posted yet. Apparently experiments in particle physics aren't holding to theory

I think that this is maybe not so surprising. Theories in particle physics are very unlike a lot of other theories. There's not much evidence sitting around for some of these things, and as new evidence comes in, the theories change.

This is true for any scientific endeavor, but the changes are much more rapid in things like high-energy physics.

In short, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be taken as a "radical breakthrough" just because someone had the muon equation wrong, because it was going to happen at some point.

More forms of matter?

[clandaith]

prompting physicists yesterday to announce that they might be on the verge of finding a new form of matter or energy.

I thought the guys who won the Nobel Prize for Physics already discovered a new form of matter. Is this more of their findings, or something totally different? Does this mean that there could be 2 new forms of matter to bring the total up to 5 forms?

Plus:

"On a statistical basis, that would be a 1 in 400 probability of happening as a result of chance. "

That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That sounds more like a problem in the experiement. I don't think anyone should be jumping for joy at this discovery until they duplicate it in another test.

Re:More forms of matter?

[Mr. Slippery]

I thought the guys who won the Nobel Prize for Physics already discovered a new form of matter. Is this more of their findings, or something totally different?

Totally different. The Nobel guys found a new state of matter, the Bose-Einstein condensate.

Does this mean that there could be 2 new forms of matter to bring the total up to 5 forms?

There's already (at least) 5 states of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma (gas so hot that it gets ionized - the sun's made out of it), and the recently confirmed Bose-Einstein Condensate (gas so cold that weird quantum things start to happen).

You've also got the degenerate states of matter found in white dwarfs (where the electrons squeeze together), neutron stars (where the electrons smush into the nucleus), and black holes (where...well, it all breaks down there). These don't seem to be counted in the usual enumeration of states of matter, but then they've never been produced on Earth, they're really still theoretical.

What they'd be looking for out of this new discovery is more along the lines of a new fundamental particle or force.

Re:More forms of matter?

[MP*Birdman]

I was under the impression there were already 5 forms..
solid, liquid, gas, plasma, bose-einstein condensate?

Re:More forms of matter?

[WhyCause]

I hate to pick nits, but here I go:

These are five 'states' of matter, each one obtained (at least for the first four you list), by adding more and more energy into the system. I am not very familiar with bose-einstein condensates, but I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) they are a state of matter that occurs at energies close to absolute zero, and are thus just another step on the continuum with which most of us are familiar.

I think that examples of different 'forms' (to which they are referring in the article) of matter might be regular matter and antimatter, but don't quote me on that.

Re:More forms of matter?

[snake_dad]

Excellent explanation of the BEC! Thanks Mr. Slippery!

Re:More forms of matter?

[trixillion]

Well, plasmas aren't necessarily more energetic than gasses. Plasmas are basically ion gasses and can be either hot or cold.

Re:More forms of matter?

[wpmegee]

There already are five forms of matter. Solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and neutron star. Not counting the so called dark matter that may or may not exist.

Re:More forms of matter?

[Eric Sharkey]

There's already (at least) 5 states of matter: solid, gas, liquid, plasma (gas so hot that it gets ionized - the sun's made out of it), and the recently confirmed Bose-Einstein Condensate [colorado.edu] (gas so cold that weird quantum things start to happen).

There are also higher temperature states above plasma. A plasma is a gas that's so hot the kinetic energy of the atoms is larger than the binding energy of the electrons and they get stripped.

If you raise the temperature more (a lot more) above the binding energy of nucleons in the nucleus, all nuclei break down and you have a gas of just protons and electrons.

Beyond that, there might be a state where the nucleons themselves break apart into a "quark-gluon plasma". This hasn't been experimentally discovered yet, but it's what they're looking for at RHIC.

Deja vu, and not a very good article.

[Christopher Thomas]

This was posted a few days ago, along with links to much better articles:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/08/222121 3

What the experiment shows is that the plan-vanilla Standard Model doesn't perfectly match reality. This is a surprise to nobody.

The results give a tantalizing look at one region of this breakdown, but proclaiming "a new form of energy or matter" is a bit premature at this point. What this will actually do is help confirm, refute, or fine-tune a few of the new models that are replacement candidates for the Standard Model.

Not Reviewed Yet

[TheBoquaz]

I found it interesting that these "results" ended up in the media before being accepted by the Journal they are publishing in.

In science, especially physics, there is a tradition of review which has caught many claims such as this before.

It is likely that they have missed some minor force or effect in thier Standard Model calculations, or that we simply need to understand neutrinos better.

Until a Physical Review Journal accepts research, and even sometimes after that, it should not be viewed as anything more than fantasy.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[warpSpeed]

yeah, can anyone say cold fusion...

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[efuseekay]

That's fine. If you areconfident in y our results and your results are sufficiently groudbreaking that itdeserves to be told to Joe Public who funds it in the first plac.

You can get the articles (not-reviewed) from the XXX server and decide for yourself how good they are.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[3am]

yeah, you know how 'Joe Public' is dying for some fresh news on the high energy particle physics front...

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[efuseekay]

Well, it is part of the job of the scientists to try to get them interested. That's called public outreach. And lots of money from grants goes into PO programs. Believe it or not.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[Dwonis]

I don't remember the details, but there apparently have been some recent experiments with cold fusion that have produced results that could possibly be explained by cold fusion. It's all preliminary, AFAIK.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[madprof]

Get them interested in....non-peer reviewed science?
Well I've got a theory that we're all living inside a giant cosmic nostril. I could get someone to print that in a journal without getting decent peer review, get publicity and call it 'science' but I doubt it's very helpful.
If it is imperative that absurd ideas like that get peer review then why not all science?

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[dragons_flight]

High Energy Particle Physics is something of a special ball of wax because of the huge teams involved. For instance this paper has 44 names attached. If even half of those have seriously critiqued the paper then I'd be pretty confident there is nothing wrong the results.

Of course I don't want to encourage "publishing to the press" as it's called, and in any case there will have to be more experiments to follow up this result.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[efuseekay]

I think you missed the point. Their paper has been submitted for peer-review. You can even get it at the XXX place (postscript required) and read it if you want to. The paper is not published yet, but big results like this do not come out of your nostril on a whim. People in the physics community knows about what you are doing and wait for your results. Getting it to the public (and the rest of the world) as early as you can is part of your job else NSF will ask you what they hell are you doing with our money.

So, yeah, you can come up with your nostril theory. And yeah, if you want to get it published, submit it to a journal. Better, you can put it up on the LANL XXX archive site .In fact, you will see once in a while a crazy theory like this appearing there. But don't cry mommy if people laugh at you.

Re:Not Reviewed Yet

[3waygeek]

Well I've got a theory that we're all living inside a giant cosmic nostril. I could get someone to print that in a journal without getting decent peer review, get publicity and call it 'science' but I doubt it's very helpful.

Well, I think this guy beat you to it.

Don't forget the implications...

[Mr. Sketch]

to the drug industry. After all they did say:
Peter Meyers, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was not part of the research team, said the finding is the "sort of crack" that "has been sought for many, many years."

I'm sure this will the ultimate crack that crackheads everywhere will be searching for and paying top dollar for.

What should they name it?

[almightyjustin]

I propose "cowboynealon"...

what kind of crack?

[rnd()]

Someone asked professor Peter Myers, "What kind of crack are you smoking?"

Peter Meyers, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was not part of the research team, said the finding is the "sort of crack" that "has been sought for many, many years."

More Information

[EccentricAnomaly]

A quick search of the Fermilab site found some more specifics than in the Washington Post article: a press release, the paper itself: A Precise Determination of Electroweak Parameters in Neutrino-Nucleon Scattering, and some slides [PDF] from a Fermilab seminar.

Follow-up experiments.

[Christopher Thomas]

"On a statistical basis, that would be a 1 in 400 probability of happening as a result of chance. "

That doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That sounds more like a problem in the experiement. I don't think anyone should be jumping for joy at this discovery until they duplicate it in another test.

This *is* a duplicate experiment - or close to it. Check the previous Slashdot article on the subject. This project is measuring a value that was measured by three previous experiments. Two of the previous experiments gave a very wide range for results, and the other one gave a narrow range for the results consistent with this experiment's results.

Blatant Karma Whoring Link

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Here's a good "plain english" explanation of what happened.

Karma whore disclaimer: This link was stolen from the other article about this experiment.

/me applauds.

[Forager]

Since neutrinos are so small, most of the time they passed through the nucleus without affecting it. The frequency of collisions told scientists about the electromagnetic forces that affect how neutrinos behave -- the so-called weak forces. The scientists found slightly fewer interactions with one of the weak forces than had been predicted by the Standard Model, physicists' current description of fundamental forces and particles. Since the model is very precise, scientists concluded that the difference was significant. (emphasis mine)

This is what I love about science. Here we have the Standard Model, formed from exhaustively detailed tests over the last 30 years. As the article states, the model is very precise, and slight deviations are significant issues. However, rather than scrap the entire idea, or announce that the tests were probably flawed, or decry the scientists who performed the tests as heathens and radicals, here we see that the community will embrace this new data and reform the model in such a way as to make it work.

This is the beauty of science. If something doesn't work out the way it was supposed to, if a theory doesn't fit with the cold, hard data, the majourity of scientists will go out of their way to fix the theory (not the data). Scientists are always going out of their way to keep each other in check; at any given time one scientist may be checking some prominent theory or another. It keeps them honest, and while the system isn't fool proof, it's damn tight.

Sometimes it's great to be a geek.

~Aaron.

Re:/me applauds.

[turboalberta]

Hum, sounds a lot like pro open source fanfare. I like that, but you're really uninformed if you think that when one scientist finds a lot of good evidence that something accepted is wrong, that all of a sudden all the other scientists will follow suit. That certainly is NOT the case. It has happened an afwul many times in scientific history that somebody comes up with very decent research and is plainly ignored by his colleagues for the good reason that they don't want to accept it. Reinaert

Re:/me applauds.

[ConceptJunkie]

The scientists found a descrepancy with the Standard Model because they are in league with the Devil. Burn them! Burn them!

Er, what were you saying?

Re:/me applauds.

[Millennium]

Actually, the truly scientifically correct thing to do would be to duplicate the tests several times, just to make sure the deviation could be reproduced in a reliable manner.

The results of any experiment should be called into question until several other people have done the same thing and gotten the same results. The whole point of this redundancy is to reduce the chance of a flawed experiment being accepted.

Yeah, it's not as efficient. But science should be nothing if not reliable.

Re:/me applauds.

[blair1q]

I'm sure there will be plenty who step on what these people are doing, because to disagree you only need a different belief and a means to communicate. But in the end, the disagreement almost always ends up finding the right answer.

Falsehood requires a continuing string of liars or dupes, all repeating their tale the same.

The truth is the same no matter who discovers it.

Truth survives the argument by outlasting the lie, because truth can't die with its tellers. In this way, Science evolves an epistemology of things that we expect will be true no matter who tries it. It is the repeatability that is paramount, not the words that describe it or the people who wrote them or the institutions they represent.

--Blair

Re:/me applauds.

[Dwonis]

Regarding redundancy, it's not just to filter out flawed experiments, but to make sure the correct parameters are being considered. If one experimenter can reliably reproduce his results, but few others can, it means there might be a different cause of the results that wasn't anticipated.

In subatomic physics, one such cause could be a security guard somehow getting access to the room where measurements are taking place, opening the door, and shining a flashlight into the room. Or, it could be something more subtle.

It all seems to be breaking down.

[Anton Anatopopov]

The more I read about modern physics, the more it seems our current models are flawed. I recently read an article in 'wired' about programmable materials made from 'atoms' which do not contain a nucleus. Simply lots of electrons forced into atom-like patterns.

I really wonder if we might not be better of throwing the physics textbooks out of the window and starting over again.

Re:It all seems to be breaking down.

[Christopher Thomas]

The more I read about modern physics, the more it seems our current models are flawed. I recently read an article in 'wired' about programmable materials made from 'atoms' which do not contain a nucleus. Simply lots of electrons forced into atom-like patterns.

I really wonder if we might not be better of throwing the physics textbooks out of the window and starting over again.

Bear in mind that "Wired" is not known for its contributors' understanding of science :).

It sounds like a second-hand description of "quantum dot" technology. This is where you create a potential well in a conducting material and confine an electron within the well. Because the well is small, you get only certain energy levels permitted for the electron, just as in an atom. By changing the properties of the well, you change the properties of this "fake atom".

There are many examples of materials where electrons aren't bound to individual atoms. Metals are a great example of this.

All of this is perfectly consistent with the models of how electrons and atoms behave (look up "Schrodinger's Equation" in a first-year physics text for a description of the model used for this).

Summary: Most perceived flaws are the result of bad or oversimplified explanations :).

Re:It all seems to be breaking down.

[Debillitatus]

Bear in mind that "Wired" is not known for its contributors' understanding of science :).

Ain't that the truth!

It sounds like a second-hand description of "quantum dot" technology. This is where you create a potential well in a conducting material and confine an electron within the well. Because the well is small, you get only certain energy levels permitted for the electron, just as in an atom. By changing the properties of the well, you change the properties of this "fake atom".

Just out of curiousity, do you any more info on this, or on applications for it? I buy that you can do this, but it seems hard to control this sort of potential except using nuclei?

Re:It all seems to be breaking down.

[Kenyaman]

I really wonder if we might not be better of throwing the physics textbooks out of the window and starting over again.

All of science involves constant revision. Get used to it.

Non absolutes...

[laserjet]

At the risk of being slightly off topic, does anyone else get a little flustered with all the non-abolutes that seem to nearly accompany scientific papers? Examples from this very article:

"...prompting physicists yesterday to announce that they might be on the verge of finding a new form of matter or energy."

"While this discrepancy could be a fluke, then scientists who conducted the experiment said the odds were it represented something meaningfull..."

"If some hidden matter or energy did cause the discrepancy..."

"It could be a very big deal..."

"It would be very exciting if we find another force"

"...there is a high probablility that something is wrong with the theory"

Just something to think about, not really a big deal, but it would be nice for people to just tell it how it is.

Re:Non absolutes...

[Wraithlyn]

Absolutes and hyperbole are the refuge of the close minded. They are simply not ruling out any possibilities without further confirmation.. this is an excellent practice I feel. They suspect they could be onto something big, but don't want to "over hype" it.

"The wise man is the one who realizes that he knows nothing." - Socrates

Re:Non absolutes...

[michael]

That's the mark of a good scientist.

Really.

When you have beliefs about the world and universe that are absolute, the term for that is "religion". Good scientists know that they don't know.

Re:Non absolutes...

[phliar]

... does anyone else get a little flustered with all the non-abolutes that seem to nearly accompany scientific papers?

People who want absolutes should stick to religion!

(Or formal logic.)

Re:Non absolutes...

[Metrol]

Science is not an answer!

Science is the process of how to ask the question.

So that's why they call 'em High energy physicists

[Johnny Vector]

From the Post article:

Peter Meyers, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was not part of the research team, said the finding is the "sort of crack" that "has been sought for many, many years."

I am always wary of results obtained by any physicists who have spent years and years seeking any sort of crack.

(Sorry about that)

That is how it is.

[3am]

There are no absolutes in science, only hypotheses. And they are valid only as long as they fit with evidence. Evidence can be flawed, misinterpreted, and outright lied about.

So no, it doesn't bother me. It would bother me if they were too confident.

They are 'telling it how it is'

Re:That is how it is.

[laserjet]

It doesn't bother me too much, I just read the article, and was asking myself "well, is there anything you DO know?" - I know, that's how science goes. But, it's Friday, damnit, and I want answers!

Re:That is how it is.

[3am]

But, it's Friday, damnit, and I want answers!

that is an awesome quote :)

And thats what really happened....

[darrad]

GOD: No, no, no..you have it all wrong..nuetrinos really are nuetral....Henderson had a bag of Cheetos for lunch and forgot to wash his hands.

evidence?

[3am]

i don't believe you. ideas have momentum, but historically, science has gotten more and more accurate at describing the natural world.

many times existing theory has inertia, but if the evidence is strong enough, the more correct hypothesis will subplant the weaker one.

now, if you are going to accuse people who resist new ideas of small mindedness, then you are doing them a great disservice. Skepticism must be on both sides of a scientific dispute. Fawning over and prematurely accepting new theory is just as bad for Good Science as being to stubborn to accept that your idea is wrong.

if you want to dispute this, show me some evidence. Recall that astronomy has gone from a geo-centric world (with heaven in the out spheres)to a helio-centric universe. Newtonian mechanics were replaced by general relativity. the whole history of science shows the same trends.

Re:evidence?

[retinaburn]

You list the evidence yourself.

Galileo was jailed despite his 'strong evidence' ..what was his evidence just not strong enough ?

Theories have intertia, and can be changed when an attitude of reflective equilibrium is taken. However people are deathly afraid of change, especially a change that affects the basis of their world view.

Re:evidence?

[turboalberta]

I'm not saying, although it might look like that, that in the end the "truth" comes out. It's just not the case that this happens at once, as the previous post seems to point out. Science is not an easy world to win in, you might win in the end, but sometimes at a serious personal cost.

Re:evidence?

[3am]

Galileo was PUT UNDER HOUSE ARREST BY THE _CHURCH_.

And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)

Some scientific changes in world view.

1. Evolution (darwin, of course)
3. Quantum nature of energy (many, early 20th century)
4. Relative nature of the speed of life. (Mickelson, Morley, Einstein, Grossman...)
5. Goedel's theorem, incompleteness (not empirical, but monstrous revelation at the time)
6. Microbial cause of disease (Pasteur).

there are so many.

Re:evidence?

[Darth]

Galileo was jailed by the Roman Catholic Church for supporting Copernicanism, which was considered a heresy by the Inquisition.

This event is not evidence of the scientific community's resistance to correcting it's theories.

Re:evidence?

[furiousgeorge]

Galileo wasn't not jailed because of his 'strong evidence'.

He didn't have any evidence. He had a theory. What unequivicable proof did he present that the earth went around the sun? None. He had well reasoned arguments, but nothing that would constitute modern 'proof'.

Look at this another way - what would things look like if the sun went around the earth? From our vantage point - exactly the same.

It's very easy to subscribe to historical revisionism because he *was* right after all. But don't start giving him extra credit where none is deserved.

Galileo wasn't jailed. He was under house arrest because he dared go against the teachings of the church. Thats a whole other argument.....

Re:evidence?

[haruharaharu]

Galileo was jailed despite his 'strong evidence' ..what was his evidence just not strong enough ?

No, he called the pope an idiot in a book he published. Bad move

Re:evidence?

[geekoid]

he had mathmaticle evidence. The church did NOT disagrtee with him, and in fact the church had the most powerful observitory on the planet.
The church at the the time, embraced scientific learning.
However, he did not follow proper 'protocal' for the time and that was used against him because he said something the church(i.e.Pope) didn't like.

Re:evidence?

[3am]

I see how I misinterpreted the first post - I think I agree with you...

I think it's unfortunate that most people (in general) can't be more objective. However, I think scientists are, for the most part, some of the more objective ones out there...

Re:evidence?

[Shimmer]

Look at this another way - what would things look like if the sun went around the earth? From our vantage point - exactly the same.

WTF? If this were true, Galileo's heliocentric model would have no merit.

In fact, there are subtle but detectable differences in the two models (just like in the neutrino experiment under discussion). For example, the paths of the planets (including their "retrograde motion") could not be adequately explained in the geocentric model.

-- Brian

Re:evidence?

[Fesh]

Actually, not so much for supporting Copernicanism, but for telling the masses about it. Another post in this thread points out the the church knew full well that Copernicus was right. However, the church pushed the Aristotelian view because it put the peasants in the exact place that the hierarchy wanted them.

Geez. Sounds like Microsoft source code. History, unlearned lesson, repetition...

Re:evidence?

[Planesdragon]

And note this: do we believe in a Earth-centric solar system any more? No. Galileo's ideas were accepted, albeit slowly (and not rejected because of empirical science but the ludicrously anthro-centric 'science' imposed by the catholic church)

It is as correct in an infineitly expanding universe to say that the Earth is the center as it is the sun. Nothing makes it "more correct" to place the sun as the center as opposed to the Earth.

It just makes it a SIMPLER model. That's all.

Re:evidence?

[3am]

you're right, and in the spirit of science i will admit i was wrong (but semantics games aside, they thought the earth was the center of the universe in a much more concrete way than that :) )

Re:evidence?

[uXs]

No, you're wrong. Well, sort off anyway. You see, off course you can say that the earth is the center, ignoring gravity and all that stuff.
But. If you try to find a scientific theory for explaining how the planets move about in the solar system, you simple have to use the sun as the center; if you don't, you'll have to invent all sorts of weird forces that keep the earth in its place and stuff.

You see, I used to think that it was possible to just think of the earth as the center. But if you try to picture the solar system, with the earth in the center, and the sun circling around it, and then all the planets around the sun, it just doesn't work. You'd have to nail the earth to it's place, and connect the sun and the planets with strings and stuff, effectively inventing forces.

So, if you really want to think if the earth as the center, be my guest. But physically, it just doesn't work.

uXs

Re:evidence?

[Planesdragon]

No, you're wrong. Well, sort off anyway. You see, off course you can say that the earth is the center, ignoring gravity and all that stuff.
But. If you try to find a scientific theory for explaining how the planets move about in the solar system, you simple have to use the sun as the center; if you don't, you'll have to invent all sorts of weird forces that keep the earth in its place and stuff.

Nope. I can just say that that the sun orbits the Earth, and that the rest of the system is pulled into their odd orbits because of the sun's gravity.

The heliocentric model is *simpler*, but it's no more "correct" than the palenocentric. (sp?)

You see, I used to think that it was possible to just think of the earth as the center. But if you try to picture the solar system, with the earth in the center, and the sun circling around it, and then all the planets around the sun, it just doesn't work. You'd have to nail the earth to it's place, and connect the sun and the planets with strings and stuff, effectively inventing forces.

If you're getting into forces, of course the planets are pulled along their orbits by the sun's gravity. But speaking of a simple astrological model, we can pin the earth as "never moving" (since, to us, it doesn't) and then chart all the rest of the planets on their path relative to our own.

The model would be more complex, but I'd wager it'd be a bit simpler to actually use. (i.e., to find a planet.)

We could even say that the Moon is the center of all creation, and so then the Earth orbits the moon, the Sun orbits the Earth, and everything else orbits the sun. This model wouldn't do us very much good unless we were on the Moon, though.

Re:evidence?

[maxpublic]

Without inventing additional forces you cannot accurately describe the motions of all the heavenly bodies in the solar system assuming that the Earth is the center of the system. Great minds tried and failed miserably, completely unable to reproduce by any means the exact path of the planets and sun with the Earth as the stable center.

Which led to Galileo and a heliocentric view of the universe, aptly putting into perspective how things *really* work. The heliocentric model was *much* simpler and required only one force to explain everything - gravity.

Max

Re:evidence?

[Planesdragon]

Did you even read what I wrote?

You *don't* have to account for any extra forces. "The Sun's Gravity" works fine.

Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.

Galelio wasn't even the first bloke to figure out that everything orbited the sun. He was just the first one with the cojones to stand up to the Church.

Short physics lesson: *ALL MOVEMENT IS RELATIVE!!!*

It is as correct to define *any* point as the center as any other. It is literally just as correct to say that the Sun orbits the Earth as it is to say that the Earth orbits the sun--relative to the Earth, the sun moves. Relative to the Sun, the earth moves.

Gravity explains an Earth-centered model of the system just as easily as a it does a sun-centered model. The model's just a bit easier to chart out into a diagram if you center it on the sun.

Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. The sun and the moon would have a circular orbit, and the rest of the system would have an orbit that looks like a stenograph toy's design--a looping orbit that circles again and again.

Re:evidence?

[maxpublic]

Astronomers weren't "unable to reproduce the exact path" of the system due to a lack of measurement, not some inability to record how the stars all travel.

Actually, their measurements were quite good, especially given the instruments of the day. However, prevaling Aristotelean theory couldn't account for the motions of the celestial bodies, giving rise to Copernicus' heliocentric view of the solar system. Tycho tried to counter the Copernican view because he objected to the sun being the center of the solar system on religious grounds, yet his models couldn't account for all observed motions. Kepler came along and further attempted to modify the model to keep the earth at the center of the solar system, yet after years of trying he finally admitted that the entire system didn't work unless the sun was at the center, not the Earth.

This has nothing to do with relative motion of any kind. It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot. If it were we wouldn't have bothered giving up the geocentric view to begin with. If it were as efficient it would be more effective (and mathematically easier) to use the geocentric view when planning interplanetary satellite lauches - but you don't see NASA doing this.

It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun. All of our astronomical models are based upon this very simple, and easily observed, precept. Word play doesn't change any of this, nor does sitting on a bench and watching the sun travel from east to west.

You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years. You can decide that any other point is the 'center' through symantics but observationally it makes no practical sense to do so - well, except perhaps to extend an argument on Slashdot.

Max

Re:evidence?

[Planesdragon]

It's about models and which of these models best explains observations. A geocentric view of the solar system isn't as efficient as a heliocentric one, not by a long shot.

You won't get any argument on that point from me. The system we have right now is the way it is because it's the *simplest* way to do so.

It's clear to practically everyone that the sun is, indeed, at the center of the solar system, and that the Earth orbits the sun.

It's "clear to practically everyone" because that's what we've taught for 400 years. But academnic inertia doesn't change the fact that we can arbitrarilly pick any point in the cosmos to be "stationary" and be just as technically correct.

You can argue until you're blue in the face over the definition of 'center', but the physics of the entire system become a hell of alot easier if you state that the center is the largest gravitational mass - the Sun, which is what we've been doing for the last 400 years.

Yes. And for teaching physics, or the outlay of the system, it's just plain easier to center it on the large thing that everything else has a relative orbit to.

But lets say, oh, that you've got a terrestrial star chat that includes the motions of the plannets through the sky. That's a model of the system (and the constellations beyond it) that is centered on the earth and useful.

Yes, this is a very rare case when an earth-centered view is useful--but it's still every bit as "correct" as the simple physics-teaching sun-centered model.

And now, having forgot what this damn thread was about in the first place, I'm going to stop responding. :)

Re:evidence?

[3waygeek]

Galileo was jailed by the Roman Catholic Church for supporting Copernicanism, which was considered a heresy by the Inquisition.

Why would the RCC care about what Galileo put on his bread?

Re:Theory

[Meridun]

"If you can't get a good quote something, make one up and attribute it to someone famous and intelligent"
--death_denied(User#533148)

There is a simple explanation...

[Hal-9001]

...for why the experiments don't agree with the theory. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is...

Anyhow, if the results of all experiments had to agree with theory, undergraduate physics labs would have disproved all the laws of physics a long time ago... :-p

Actually...

[Bowie J. Poag]

Its not that witches weighed as much as a duck... Its just that the duck has a higher dispacement of water pound for pound than your typical witch does. ;)

And yes, PROPAGANDA is still up,

My daughter has the answer!

[infinite9]

My nine-year-old daughter and I were having a discussion about a month ago. She was studying the bohr model of the atom in her science class. I became interested when she started talking about the nucleus. So I asked, "which particles are inside the nucleus?" She didn't know so I described protons and neutrons. Then I asked, "which particles are outside the nucleus?" She thought for a minute and said, "Croutons?"

My wife and I laughed for about a half hour, since she always steals the croutons from our salads at restaurants.

Re:My daughter has the answer!

[pilez]

well ain't that cute...

BUT IT"S WRONG!!!

From Particle Physics

[MetricT]

Disclaimer: I used to study gravity, not particle physics. That said...

Neutrinos only interact with other particles through the electroweak force (ignoring gravity for the moment). There are three bosons which "carry" the electroweak force, called W+, W-, and Z0. The discrepency with the Standard Model seems to occur with the Z0 (called the neutral current in the paper).

There are several things it could be other than a new force. The scientists will have to eliminate all forms of background noise and detector errors, the possibility that it was just some sort of hadron resonance, and a lot of other things.

It is amazing how sensitive particle experiments can be. I remember reading about one that had to filter out (among other things) the noise caused by the motion of the moon orbiting the earth in order to extract the signal.

That said, I think they may be on to something.

Re:From Particle Physics

[dragons_flight]

Disclaimer: I used to study gravity, not particle physics.

I remember reading about one that had to filter out (among other things) the noise caused by the motion of the moon orbiting the earth in order to extract the signal.

I'm wondering if perhaps you haven't gotten confused and are thinking about LIGO (Large Interferometry Gravitational Observatory). I would be rather surprised if particle experiments could pick up the motion of the moon. Among other things the moon doesn't move significantly over the span of each event, and particle detectors and what not are usually concerned with EM effects largely neglect gravitational effects.

On the other hand I do know that LIGO has to contend with a laundry list of crazy sources of interference, including cars on the nearest road, lunar motion, continental drift, and tumbleweeds bumping into the research buildings. That is what you get when you want to measure average displacement of a macroscopic object to within a fraction of an atomic nucleus.

This is the start of General Relativity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's a really good comment. It's not common knowledge, but the initial insight into Relativity came to Einstein when he was reading about a scientific study that had gone wrong. I can't remember the scientists, but they were measuring the speed of the Earth, and were planning to use the difference in the speed of light as the Earth went away from and toward a certain star at different times in the year to measure the speed of the earth. But much to their surprise (and what they figured to be data error) the speed of light was constant.

This led Einstein on his investigation/theory which resulted in the foundation of modern physics.

Never throw away data... :-)

Ah, let it flow.

[Zach`]

This is an amazing poem.
----------
Neutrinos, they are small.
They have no charge, they have no mass.
They do not interact at all.
The Earth is just a silly ball

to them through which they simply pass
Like photons through a sheet of glass
Or dustmaids down a drafty hall.
They snub the most exquisite gas,
Insult the stallion in his stall,
Cold-shoulder steel and sounding brass
And pass, like tall and painless guillotines,

through you and me into the grass.
At night they enter Nepal
And pierce the lover and his lass

from underneath the bed.
You call it wonderful? I call it crass.

- John Updike

Re:Ah, let it flow.

[scorcherer]

You call it insightful? I call it Karma Whoring.

-- Heavy Sandhog

[OT] rerunning articles

[eddy the lip]

going to sacrifice a couple karma points by going wildly off topic, but this is something that's been bugging me lately - the continual bitching when the occasional article gets rerun. (please note, i am not accusing the parent poster of this. that was just a helpful link for those that weren't reading the science section).

newspapers rerun stories all the time. the news networks are 90% recycled, content free info. as a general rule, /. does a pretty fine job of delivering up spanking fresh content, filtered for interest, packaged and delivered free (free, goddamnit!) to my desktop.

it wasn't that many years ago when i had to make do with the anemic science and technology section of the daily rag.

damn. i feel better. thanks /.

Re:[OT] rerunning articles

[michael]

Exactly. Let's take yesterday. Yesterday, we got a bazillion submissions about Bell Labs having invented a one-molecule transistor. Wait, we said, we already ran a story about that.

Here's the link that we ran a few weeks ago. And here's the press release from yesterday that caused another round of news stories, and another round of story submissions to slashdot. Go ahead, click through and check them out.

Now, every news source that covers these things went ahead and ran two stories about this - after all, there were two press releases! Nobody wrote in to them to complain about duplication, because it isn't easy and your complaint just disappears into the ether. Here it's easy and you can complain publicly.

Re:[OT] rerunning articles

[Lozzer]

Imagine I am Vic Reeves, waving a handbag in your general direction saying 'Ooooooooh!' in a high pitched voice.

(It would make more sense if you'd watched Shooting Stars)

Not rare enough.

[blair1q]

Okay, if you do 400 experiments, you can expect 1 would be in the 1-in-400 bin on the tail of the histogram.

I'm sure the Standard Model has endured way more than 400 tests.

A few more labs need to repeat this experiment to make sure the result is accurate.

--Blair

P.S. If a neutrino is chargeless, how do you "fire" one at something?

Re:Not rare enough.

[Doctor Fishboy]

P.S. If a neutrino is chargeless, how do you "fire" one at something?

How about a beam of relativistic charged particles that decay and release neutrinos as a byproduct? Relativistic beaming means most neutrinos in our rest frame are being beamed in the direction of propagation.

Re:Not rare enough.

[osu-neko]

I'm sure the Standard Model has endured way more than 400 tests.

Err, actually, this part of the standard model has not borne anywhere near that many tests. The number four comes to mind, two of which were not accurate enough to pinpoint this problem, and two of which have suggested it's wrong. So not, it has not in fact endured any testing on this particular issue. So far, it has failed every time. The only problem being, "every time" means roughly "twice", as I understand...

Re:Not rare enough.

[MillionthMonkey]

Okay, if you do 400 experiments, you can expect 1 would be in the 1-in-400 bin on the tail of the histogram. I'm sure the Standard Model has endured way more than 400 tests.

Not via this specific experiment it hasn't! You're comparing apples and oranges. That 400-1 test is the probability that this given experiment turned out the way it did by pure chance. If they repeat the experiment and get the same results then you will have a P-value of 160,000 to 1 to explain.

P.S. If a neutrino is chargeless, how do you "fire" one at something?

Well, it isn't like loading a gun with bullets and then shooting them. Accelerating an existing neutrino is pretty hard. Usually what you do is create them when you fire them.
A trivial example would be putting cobalt-60 (beta emitter) in a solenoid. Electrons fly out one end and the antineutrinos come out the other.

Re:Not rare enough.

[blair1q]

>Not via this specific experiment it hasn't!

Yabbut, that's the point. You do 400 experiments, then everyone goes ga-ga over one that has a strangeness quotient of 400?

>If they repeat the experiment and get the same results then you will have a P-value of 160,000 to 1 to explain.

Precisely, exactly, and perfectly the reason I said more labs need to try it. Push that improbability right out of the realm of chance result in the number of experiments it is possible to perform in the course of human history. I mean, even if it wasn't true, if it happens every time you do the experiment, it might as well have been true.

>A trivial example would be putting cobalt-60 (beta emitter) in a solenoid. Electrons fly out one end and the antineutrinos come out the other.

Interesting. But then the e-field has to influence the generation of the electron, not just its momentum after it is generated. If you fire a bullet from a gun, the gun goes the other way; if you suck a bullet out of a gun, the gun would tend to come along. So, does the e-field align the electron and the neutrino before the neutrino is fired from the electron? And if the neutrino isn't charged, how the hell does that happen? If there's a proton involved (and there is, because this is neutron decay, right?) then the proton-electron dipole would be aligned, and you're saying the neutrino comes out by going through the proton, or around it, like a snapped rubber band...

Sorry about all the naff questions. I'm good at physics, but I stopped studying nuclear physics at the early graduate level when they started offering me money to do semiconductor design.

--Blair

Got 'cher evidence right here.

[Fesh]

Hold onto that thought, 'cause I'm about to blow a Mack truck-sized hole in it.

Do a google search on Alfred Wegener, and you'll see a guy who got his ass kicked all over the place for proposing a theory that contradicted scientific understanding at the time. And was harassed as vigorously as any religious heretic. Want more? Here's the frigging link.

Through the hoop, nothin' but net.

Do yourself a favor and check out Science's reaction to Darwin and doubters of Global Warning. Shocking behaviour all around, if you ask me.

Re:Got 'cher evidence right here.

[geekoid]

So your saying science never embraced tetonic theory?
If I came out with vague proof that squirrels are telepaths, the scientific community will scoff at me. but in time the truth will come out beause there are Scientists who will take the time to read my reasearch.

Re:Got 'cher evidence right here.

[3am]

Overstated. you may have put a pin hole in it.

You may notice that in fields where empirical evidence is less certain (evolution, geology) and massive time scales are involved, there is more controversy over new theory. This is because the body of proof needed to overturn existing theory is much more difficult to build. Additionally, Wegener did not seem to have an air-tight claim (from your NASA link): "Scientifically, of course, Wegener's case was not as good as Galileo's, which was based on mathematics. His major problem was finding a force or forces that could make the continents "plow around in the mantle," as one critic put it. Wegener tentatively suggested two candidates: centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the Earth, and tidal-type waves in the Earth itself generated by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon. " You may note that he was wrong on both causes...

Anyway, an exception to the rule doesn't change the overwhelming trend in science to accept ideas on their agreement with experimental evidence.

CLARIFICATION: I have little sympathy for researchers unwilling to work within the scientific process. An idea is the first part of research. Next you devise an experiment, and justify that it will prove your idea correct. Then you perform that experiment as accurately as possible. Then you see how the results from your experiment match your idea. If they don't, then you admit it. Anything else isn't real science.

Re:Got 'cher evidence right here.

[Fesh]

Yah, I realized that once I read down the thread a little farther... *grin* The way I read your statement was that scientists never act like religious zealots facing a heretic. And I really thought that this was a case of violent rejection simply because the prevailing thought didn't happen to like the idea.

And yeah, I was a bit cavalier with the wording there. As you can see, I thought I was replying to a much simpler challenge.

Re:Got 'cher evidence right here.

[HiThere]

CLARIFICATION: I have little sympathy for researchers unwilling to work within the scientific process. An idea is the first part of research. Next you devise an experiment, and justify that it will prove your idea correct. Then you perform that experiment as accurately as possible. Then you see how the results from your experiment match your idea. If they don't, then you admit it. Anything else isn't real science.

Nearly right. The wrong part is that the various parts of the operation require different skills, so they are usually done by different people. That means that there needs to be communication between them before the process is completed. It's wrong to call the original hypothesis a scientific result, but it's also wrong to dismiss it as fantasy. It's a hypothesis . The proposer of the first experiment to test the hypothesis is sometimes also the originator of the hypothesis, but frequently not in the original paper. And it's quite rare for the experimentalist to be the same person as the originator. And communication and discussion is needed at each of these stages.

Equally, what the results of any experiment means is generally subject to further discussion and refinement. Usually after the fact, though in fortunate cases some of the discussion will take place before the experiment. (And here I'm simplifying, because each of these "individuals" is not a person, but rather a team of people.)

I think that a recent coverage of Wegener by Stephen J. Gould (I forget the title, so read them all. They're worth it!) handled this well. He's generally entertaining as well as informative. (He does love his "punctured equilibrium" theory, but then I suspect that it's probably right. And he makes not bones about loving the theory partially because he was one of the creators.)

Re:Got 'cher evidence right here.

[3am]

spirited discussion is what it's all about - sorry, i could've been clearer.

OT: Quantum dots.

[Christopher Thomas]

It sounds like a second-hand description of "quantum dot" technology. This is where you create a potential well in a conducting material and confine an electron within the well. Because the well is small, you get only certain energy levels permitted for the electron, just as in an atom. By changing the properties of the well, you change the properties of this "fake atom".

Just out of curiousity, do you any more info on this, or on applications for it? I buy that you can do this, but it seems hard to control this sort of potential except using nuclei?

It's actually quite easy to control the resulting energy configuration. The "allowed" energy levels depend on the size of the well (controlled when you etch it) and the electric potential between the inside and the outside of the well (which you can get "for free" by making the well on a semiconductor wafer and doping the inside and outside differently, or which you can fine-tune by having an electrode next to the well).

A decent introduction into quantum dots is here:

http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/1097solidstate/ 1097corcoran.html

Scientific American has a few other articles on quantum dots, which you can find through their search page.

A collection of more in-depth articles is here:

http://www.mitre.org/research/nanotech/quantum_dot .html

Applications include quantum computing (if you put multiple dots on a chip close enough together to interact with each other), and building semiconductor lasers with any frequency you like (even tunable frequency). More applications will undoubtedly arise; we've only just started to play with these things.

But who gets the patent?

[3seas]

Geee, maybe I can patent it.

.

Re:How to get your lab mentioned in the media...

[SIGFPE]

You've discovered the secret of psychology.

big deal

[TeknoHog]

<include IAAP.h>

The article, in essence, doesn't say anything about anything. These kinds of things happen in particle physics every day and it takes more than that to change the established theory.

The established theory? To begin with, the Standard Model only involves massless neutrinos. There are already many 'established' discrepancies to the Standard Model: for instance that neutrinos have non-zero mass, and the Higgs mechanism by which masses are created.

So there's already 'something wrong with the theory'. And everybody knows that. The Standard Model is somewhat an old fart among many, partly contradictory theories in particle physics.

So, I don't have a cool concluding quip today, just the note that this isn't real news.

Re:big deal

[Barry Wilkes]

There are already many 'established' discrepancies to the Standard Model: for instance that neutrinos have non-zero mass, and the Higgs mechanism by which masses are created.

Well, the Higgs mechanism is a CRUCIAL part of the standard model. So it is hardly a discrepency. And the standard model makes NO predictions regarding neutrino mass.

The Standard Model is somewhat an old fart among many, partly contradictory theories in particle physics.

It may be old, but it does make predictions. It also fits existing experimental data. This is why it stands out.

Neutrinos -- Heavy Man!

[bief]

From the Post article:

Unlike electrons, which are negatively charged, neutrinos have no charge. Because they are also very light compared with other subatomic particles, they behave in a ghostly way...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were still working on the whole "Do neutrinos have mass?" question. If something has no mass can it be said to be lighter than something else?

Re:Neutrinos -- Heavy Man!

[TeknoHog]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were still working on the whole "Do neutrinos have mass?" question. If something has no mass can it be said to be lighter than something else?

<include IAAP.h>

We're pretty sure they have mass. Observations show that neutrinos can oscillate between different forms (i.e. cousins of electron, muon and tauon) and basic quantum mechanics shows that such an oscillation requires mass differences between the different types.

So, perhaps one type of the three is massless. And since we're only dealing with squares of masses, it may be that the masses are imaginary.. (i.e. square roots of negative numbers). Future experiments (in which I've participated at CERN :-) will tell more.

Re:Neutrinos -- Heavy Man!

[Roger_Wilco]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were still working on the whole "Do neutrinos have mass?" question. If something has no mass
can it be said to be lighter than something else?


Experiments indicate how light neutrinos are. When each experiment fails to find any mass in neutrinos, the conclusion is "neutrinos are lighter than X". X has been getting smaller, and it's less than the mass of other particles.

Neutrinos are .... SMALL?

[novastyli]

The Post article says:

Since neutrinos are so small, most of the time they passed through the nucleus without affecting it.

Well, I didn't think it was a matter of size...

The Standard Model and the Linux kernel

[HRB]

It is not the first time that the Standard modell has been modified.

For example in the begining there has been only
one generation of quarks and leptons.
(namely: up and down) But on electron collision experiments showed that there must be new generations: (now called
strange - charmed and beauty - truth.)

Until 1995, where experimental evidence was found, the truth quark was only a postulate based on symmetry considerations.

The same applies to symmetry conservation. For a long time CP (Charge conjugation with Parity) was considered conserved. But an experiment on T (Time inversion) violation showed if CPT was to be conserved, CP must be violated. Again the standard model had to be adabted.

And at the CERN (Eruopean Nuclear Research Center) in Geneva they believe, that they have fond some evidence for the so called Higgs particle, which is the cause for the mass of particles. A proof for the Higgs particle would be an enhancement for the Standard Model

Those examples show that the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions is not a static one.
It is almost like the linux kernel - if you permit this comparision - people send in patches.
If a patch is useful it will be released for the masses :-)

Maybe we are entering a odd release stage now :-)

Not that significant

[zwalters]

I wouldn't make any long term plans based on this paper. The "one chance in 400" is misleading -- if you look at the paper, what it's really saying is that their experimental result differed from their theoretical result by three standard deviations (three sigma). On the face of it, this isn't very impressive. The trouble with straightforward statistical analysis in this fasion is that particle physics is hard. Experiments are being done at the limits of detectability, and often in ways that have never been done before. Because of this, it's extremely hard to tell what one sigma is, since it's entirely possible (and somewhat likely) that you just don't understand the pitfalls yet. Particle physicists have a rule of thumb for cases like this: a six sigma effect pans out about half the time. This is only a three sigma result, so adjust your expectations accordingly. A result like this is worth publishing, but won't persuade many people unless followup experiments get the same results (with *much* better statistics).

Re:Not that significant

[Zeinfeld]

I wouldn't make any long term plans based on this paper. The "one chance in 400" is misleading -- if you look at the paper, what it's really saying is that their experimental result differed from their theoretical result by three standard deviations (three sigma). On the face of it, this isn't very impressive. The trouble with straightforward statistical analysis in this fasion is that particle physics is hard. Experiments are being done at the limits of detectability, and often in ways that have never been done before.

As a former experimentalist in the field (they gave me the Phd so I couldn't be all that bad) I am not getting excited.

The problem is that the experiments are simply not accurate enough to jump up and down in celebration for such a miniscule deviation.

What I am really suspicious about is that the number of observations is much lower than expected. That can happen because you just missed some particles you should have seen.

You can have a deviation that is 'significant' at twenty or a hundred standard deviations and it can still be the result of experimental error rather than a flaw in the standard model.

Given the way the physicists write their programs I would not be at all surprised if this turns out to be no more than the result of a flaw in PAW or GEANT. A physicist will go off to beg congress for a billion dollars to four experiments on the same accelerator (e.g. LEP) so that each can cross check the results of the other. Then they will all share the same analysis programs even though they are known to be riddled with bugs. And don't start on about the Web, first off the Web code was not built on a twenty year old code base from the dawn of Fortran, second there were multiple versions of the code written from the very start. In 1992 there were 10 browsers and at least 5 Web servers.

Re:Not that significant

[glastonbur]

Experimenters at the Large Electron-Positron (LEP) collider at CERN recently measured this same interaction in a different particle reaction with a similar precision. They observed the same discrepancy, however, with less certainty. The consistency between these two very different measurements is striking.

If both Fermilab and CERN found a similar deviance, then I don't believe it's a flaw at Fermilab.

Re:Not that significant

[Zeinfeld]

If both Fermilab and CERN found a similar deviance, then I don't believe it's a flaw at Fermilab.

If they both used the same Monte-Carlo simulation or the same analysis package the potential for common failure is high.

There was a similar event that happened with the 19KeV Neutrino, two apparently independent experiments turn out to have used the same counter unit with a bizare temperature-dependent fault that causes lost counts in wierd circumstances.

Re:Not that significant

[FredGray]

I don't know what analysis tools NuTeV used, but there is at least some competition to the mess called CERNLIB these days. Many "younger" collaborations have switched over to ROOT, which is mostly a clean break from the past.

Nevertheless, its primary developers are Rene Brun and Fons Rademakers (familiar names from the old days), and at least one crucial bit of code (the MINUIT minimization engine) has been run through f2c and recycled, so it's not fully independent. Seriously, it would be very useful if someone were to rewrite MINUIT in an intelligible style.

Re:Not that significant

[DrSpin]

While some people might think 1 in 400 is "a high probability". its not the odds you'd expect for a likely Derby winner.

When a new experiment is devised, and tests performed, we may know a lot more. This is just evidence that the present experiment is not up to the mark.

what have they been smoking?

[option8]

what have these guys been smoking? oh yeah, here it is in the article:

"Peter Meyers, a professor of physics at Princeton University who was not part of the research team, said the finding is the "sort of crack" that "has been sought for many, many years."

that explains it all to me...

electromagnetic != weak

[hardcorejon]

Just a minor clarification:

The frequency of collisions told scientists about the electromagnetic forces that affect how neutrinos behave -- the so-called weak forces.

Actually, since neutrinos have no charge, electromagnetic forces have NO effect on them. The second half of the sentence is correct, it is the weak force that is acting here, which is a nuclear force, not an electromagnetic one.

Phyisics primer for the interested: there are 4 fundamental forces of nature (in increasing order of strength): gravity, electromagnetic, weak nuclear (keeps electrons in orbit around atomic nuclei), and strong nuclear (keeps atomic nuclei from flying apart).


- jonathan.

Strawman Argument

[forii]

I'll take a stab. Suppose I say "It's raining outside." This sounds like a classicly falsifiable statement. But is it? If you look out the window and don't see rain, it may be that I was wrong. Or (I could perversely argue) it could be that you (incorrectly) assumed that
[deleted various arguments]

All this goes to show is that your "classicly falsifiable statement" is a bad theory. This is why actual theories are either much more complicated, taking into account all sorts of possibilities (as you detailed), or are very explicit (as in the F=ma form).

Making a statement, in casual language, as you did, is not thorough enough. For example, one could say "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light.", but that isn't the actual theory. In fact, the theory is just a set of mathematical equations that show (among other things) that the mass of an object increases by a factor of (1/sqrt(c^2-velocity^2)), so that unless something can have an infinite mass (or a resting mass of 0), it can't go at the speed of light. And other fun things that all, together, show that nothing can travel at the speed of light.

A single test can't really topple a theory since you can't know for sure that the problem was in the theory and not in your test.

Sure, testing errors are always possible, but this is what repeatability is all about. A single test , run multiple times, can definitely topple a theory. If two separate people do the exact same test and come up with the same disagreement with the theory, then the chances of testing error are much smaller. The point is that if a theory can't explain a discrepancy, then the theory is either wrong or incomplete.

Those of us from Santa Cruz already know this...

[Mutiny Evolution]

If you saw balls rolling up hill, you'd believe too!

Please keep up-to-date

[Magnusite]

Hmm, somebody hasn't been doing their assigned reading. You may not have heard about it, so I will tell you. In 1979, the Nobel Prize in Physics was given to a group of scientists that showed how the electromagnetic and weak forces were actually different views of the same force. Their theory has pretty much been widely accepted. You can see for yourself here.

And here is the text I linked to if the link goes down:

electroweak theory,
a unified field theory that describes two of the fundamental forces in nature, electromagnetism (see electromagnetic radiation) and the weak interaction. The electroweak theory derived from efforts to produce a theory for the weak force analogous to quantum electrodynamics (QED), the quantum theory of the electromagnetic force. Although the weak force fails to meet a requirement for that theory-that it behave the same way at different points in space and time-because it acts only across distances smaller than an atomic nucleus, it was shown that the electromagnetic force, which can extend across interstellar distances, and the weak force are but different manifestations of a more fundamental force, the electroweak force. This made it possible to formulate a unified model that predicted the existence of mediating, or messenger, particles. The electroweak theory, for which Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg shared the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics, was confirmed in 1983 by the discovery of the W and Z particles, two of a number of elementary particles it predicted.

So then, there are 3 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electroweak, and the strong force.
Please throw your old physics primer away, it is outdated.

Re:Please keep up-to-date

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't be so hasty!

Consider what this result (if it bears up) will mean. There is of course a difference between electromagnetic and weak forces below electroweak unification energy (about 1 TeV) due to the spontaneous symmetry breaking at the EWPT (electroweak phase transition)... it is this which makes the "B" singlet and W0 mix into the photon and Z0. According to the standard model, the charge of the neutrino is 0 and the photon does not couple with it, so the poster you reply to was actually correct about that.

The electroweak mixing parameter is called the Weinberg angle, theta_W. This experiment was intended as a new, precise, independent measurement of theta_W. It seems that this new measurement is inconsistent with the previous world average. This leads us to believe there is something wrong with the measurement (quite possible), or something wrong with our understanding of electroweak unification (also quite possible).

If the latter is true, your entire post is founded on a theory which, although it seems to be mostly correct, may need a certain amount of fixing up. Just because some people got a Nobel Prize, it does not follow that their theory will stand the ultimate test.

I am looking forward to seeing how this will turn out. Even if there is "something" here, I personally suspect that the standard model will need only minor adjustments.

But then, that's what people though when Michelson and Morley got their famous null result (and the first time they published, they had only a 2.5 sigma result... of course, physicists (and everyone else) know even less about statistics back then.)

New force discovered.

[3seas]

It's called the ThinkOn

Re:This says nothing

[Schpoonk]

You're a 5th year physics student and you don't know that the plural of formula is 'formulae' ?

Blood Sport

[Tim12s]

One of my university leacturers told me why he decided to go the mathematics route.

"Mathematics and Physics are the last true blood sports. Kill one bird an EVERYTHING goes."

Funny when you realise the ramifications of this since ALOT of work needs to be reevaluated, etc, even when the results are "statistically" correct, since the explinations and models of how things achieved some result are now totally different.

-Tim

Re:Not much content in this post...

[stox]

Authorship of such papers includes all the scientists who contributed to the experiment. Thus, giving credit to all. Among other things, this enables all the participating institutions to share the credit in the discovery, giving them incentive to participate in further experiments. It also encourages a more open environment of exchange among the members of the experiment. It is a good system, and it helps to breed an environment that promotes the open exchange of information, instead of hoarding it.

The paper

[McCarr]

A preprint of the paper reporting the experiment is posted at:
http://arXiv.org/find/hep-ex/1/au:+McFarland/0/1/0 /2001/0/1
hep-ex/0104037 "Observation of an Anomalous Number of Dimuon Events in a High Energy Neutrino Beam."

I'm not so sure I agree with plasma as a state....

[xeeno]

Many of the models involving it treat it as a fluid, so I'm not so sure I can agree with it being a different state of matter. As for the article itself, well, it's interesting an all, but it doesn't really *mean* anything unless they repeat the experiment at other colliders to demonstrate that the error observed doesn't come from the apparatus itself. If they can get the same thing elsewhere, then maybe they have something.

Schrodinger's Cat, or Nonlocality... Anyone?

[mim]

Does the logic escape the principle? How about the perspective?

Science - The Real Truth

[NatePWIII]

The interesting thing to think about in all of this is that the goal of science is to find the "real" and underlying "truth". Obviously we are still a little way out from this "holy grail" however I would venture to say we have made considerable progress. Somehow, somewhere out there the truth does exist however, and we simply have to find it and realize it. Some would argue that there is no real truth since the universe is inherently chaotic and is constantly reinventing itself. If this were the case then the everyday ordinary things we take for granted (such as the earth revolving around the sun) could just all of a sudden change. Of course our evidence points otherwise, so we can probably safely assume that the "truth" does actually "exist". Now we just need to find it. You are correct in the saying science is a bunch of theories, because in fact until we hit upon the full truth we only have guesses, hypothesis and "partial truths" that may explain one phenomena or another. That is what makes science, particularily physics, so interesting it is a constant quest for "truth" which will never really end until we reach the omega point.

Well, science IS Open Source

[fractaltiger]

This is the beauty of science. If something doesn't work out the way it was supposed to, if a theory doesn't fit with the cold, hard data, the majourity of scientists will go out of their way to fix the theory (not the data). Scientists are always going out of their way to keep each other in check; at any given time one scientist may be checking some prominent theory or another. It keeps them honest, and while the system isn't fool proof, it's damn tight.

I think your description fits open source's, and it's nice to realize at this time of night that at least Physics will not rest in the hands of a few who "discovered" or created the building blocks of its Standard Model.

The Physics Exam

[leonbrooks]

Can't remember where I heard it, but there is a story about a Physics exam...

A group of tourists is being taken around the Physics department of a major university, and one tourist is puzzled by a long document mounted in a glass case in the foyer that they pass on the way in. When the tour ends in the same foyer, he asks the guide about the document.

``That's our exam,'' he is told.

Stunned, he asks, ``What? Don't you change the questions every year? Don't people just read it and cheat?''

``Well, no...'' the guide responds, ``we have a much better system. We only change the answers.''

Re:So whats your point?

[Zeinfeld]

Are you basically saying you got a Phd for saying "nah, thats gotta be BS"??

It does not take a degree in Nuclear Physics to know that the probability this turns out to be experimental error is way more than 1 in 400.

And don't pine on about getting a Phd, no one gives a shit if you wasted six years of your life at Mulligan College in Jerkwater, Missouri.

Oxford UK.

They were published in Physical Review Letters, you were published in Slashdot

Last time I bothered to look I had 30 publications in the likes of Physics Review Letters. They mean absolutely nothing.

If there is an experimental error the referee is not going to find it.

It fails to mention the other 'cracks'

[kievit]

From the article it might seem that we the Standard Model (SM) has been checked for 20, 30 years and this would be the first time to find something that is not predicted correctly. That is not the case:

• In June we got the news from the Sudbury Neutrino Oscilloscope that from the detection rates of muon-type and electron-type neutrino's coming from the Sun we should conclude that neutrinos oscillate (change type) and are therefore massive, which is in full contradiction with the SM.
• In March this year the results of the 1999 data of the muon g-2 measurement at Brookhaven National Laboratory showed that the (anomalous) magnetic moment of the muon is not described correctly by the SM. This 'magnetic moment' indicates how much the spin of a muon is affected by a magnetic field (a bit like how quickly a compass needle reacts to a new orientation of the compass). This measurement generated lots of theoretical ideas for mods of the SM and/or signs of supersymmetry and what not.
• The Standard Model is ugly.

And I am now probably also failing to mention other important failures of the SM.

Mach's principle

[spiralx]

Actually general relativity was in part inspired by Mach's principle, which basically asks the question - in a universe with nothing in it other than a single sphere, does it make any sense to consider that sphere to be rotating? Since there's nothing there to measure the rotation against, can you claim with equal validity that the sphere isn't rotating at all? Mach (IIRC) stated that the only way for this to make sense was that rotation could only be considered as being relative to the entire Universe.

Unfortunately for Einstein GR didn't really answer the question.

I think you're thinking of the Michelson-Morley experiment to measure the speed of light both when the Earth was moving towards and away from the source. This was a lot of the impetus for special relativity, not general relativity.

Re:Why the difference

[HiThere]

If you try to tell me that rocks fall up, you will need a lot better evidence than if you try to tell me that rocks fall down. This is a surprise?

It it proper that unexpectable results demand a higher standard of proof. For many statements I don't require any proof at all. After all, I already believe them independantly. But if you try to tell me that Bill Gates invented the computer, then I will need quite a lot of evidence that I can personally check fairly easily before I even consider the idea seriously.

And the more time and effort I have put into learning (or creating) something, the less willing I am for someone else to blythly say "O, didn't you know that turtles can fly?", and the less willing I am to listen to that as other than fantasy (I had no objection when Terry Pratchett used that theme).

So when someone says that continents dance, it takes a good deal of evidence. Wegener didn't have it. He had an idea. It was an interesting idea, and matched a few geographic features. I made the same guess in grade school, though I didn't publish a paper about it. But all I had was an idea, and that's about all that Wegener had. His was more developed, but he didn't have any mechanism. He looked and couldn't find it. Neither could anyone else who was interested, until ... was it the early 1960s? ... thermal plumes were detected in the magma. Prior to that evidence had been accumulating, and people would periodically go back to the continental drift theory (I read about one of those in Science Digest), but every time it got dropped because there wasn't any mechanism, even though it would have explained a lot, and everyone knew that it would have explained a lot. Withing a few years of the discovery of the mechanism, the theory surfaced again. And this time it was accepted.

Theories recognized as incomplete won't get accepted over current theories, even when the current theories are also known to be incomplete. Sorry, there are good reasons. There are also bad reasons, but there are a lot of good reasons, which mainly add up to "Why should I bother to learn a new bad idea to replace an old bad idea." It's too much work for no gain.

Popular Science

[Rinisari]

This month's Popular Science has an article about the same thing. Fermilab and CERN are working to expose the Higgs Boson. The article is here.