tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post311466084281643315..comments2024-03-11T13:47:03.621-05:00Comments on Physics and Physicists: Don't Jump to Conclusion Faster Than c!ZapperZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-90217375736986496472011-09-28T08:01:42.740-05:002011-09-28T08:01:42.740-05:00A question concerning the validity of using supern...A question concerning the validity of using supernova 1987a as a gauge for speed of the neutrinos. I did a little bit of research and the detectors involved in the discovery of the neutrinos emitted from 1987a had a working range of 1983-(to pretty much present time). Now with using the speed received from the results at CERN-Gran Sasso the expected arrival of the neutrinos to earth should have been close to 4 yr +/- 1yr. This brings the arrival time beyond the range of any active neutrino detector that I am aware of, so how can they rule out the superluminal neutrinos from the 1987a event?Joshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01776276190633352947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-8541699195765419672011-09-28T07:58:02.549-05:002011-09-28T07:58:02.549-05:00It's like back in the '90s before the Top ...It's like back in the '90s before the Top Quark was found. I saw a documentary around that time about hunting for the Top. There were a number of interviews with scientists, one of which was Weinberg. His take, which contrasted with some of the others', was that a lot of physicists hoped the Top wouldn't be found, which would then place new, specific demands on theory, and thereby a better theory could be made. The historical success of the Standard Model has also been a liability, in some ways.Pi-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10882386164733498054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-70839984901752779362011-09-28T06:40:17.524-05:002011-09-28T06:40:17.524-05:00You should never forget to remind them that, unlik...You should never forget to remind them that, unlike politics or economics (or any other social sciences), a negative result (or a non-result) can actually be a good thing! The Michaelson-Morley result is one such example. Not finding something in the range that one is looking for means that one can exclude parameters within that range, and allows us to narrow the physics.<br /><br />So unlike many other areas, not finding something is actually an expansion of our knowledge in science! There are a lot of physicists would be THRILLED if the Higgs isn't found. This is because it means that the Standard Model has major fundamental issues to be resolved, and thus, there's a lot of new physics yet to be discovered. This will falsify those who think that the "End of Physics" is near.<br /><br />Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-50695666666241382582011-09-28T06:30:57.077-05:002011-09-28T06:30:57.077-05:00Thanks. I am worried about public perception of ph...Thanks. I am worried about public perception of physics in general and, in particular, particle physics. Many of my non-scientist friends have mentioned that major news coverage has been pretty negative as of late; impatience over a Higgs or DM result and now impatience over this curiosity. On one hand, I understand the tendency to be cautious and assume an error but I think the best thing physicists can do is maintain a true skeptical, scientific view and withhold any judgement until we have more evidence. I understand your expertise gives you a little more in the way of default evidence on which to build mildly legitimate speculation and I've been eager to hear your thoughts. That said, I think the best thing is precisely what you have been doing; to suspend analysis until sufficient evidence is available.LGWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02374809820366400974noreply@blogger.com