4 ms·
I think there's definitely a cultural problem where the outcome of an experiment is associated with the reputation of the scientist who performed it. We see thi
by dkbrk 11y ago
I think there's definitely a cultural problem where the outcome of an experiment is associated with the reputation of the scientist who performed it. We see this in the bias to publish only positive results - as though if an experiment did not make findings of significance it is a failing of the scientist who performed it - and we see this in the reluctance of many scientists to investigate that which would be very surprising if found to be true.
The NASA research into the EmDrive is an excellent example of this. The discovery of a method of propulsion which does not consume onboard mass yet achieves energy efficiencies greater than that of a photon rocket would be extremely surprising, which makes it all the more important that apparent effects such as these are investigated. The correct response on seeing an unexpected experimental result is not to ignore it or to assume the experiment is wrong (although that should be treated with a high probability), but to report it and to systematically investigate the discrepancy until either the unexpected result is confirmed with a degree of evidence commensurate with its unexpectedness or the error is discovered. Extreme skepticism can be equally as bad as extreme gullibility, and it is extremely discourteous to imply or to assume the existence of fraud, or to attack the character of the researcher unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting such an aspersion. Even if it might by probabilistically justified to promote the possibility of fraud on the part of the scientist to the most likely explanation for an unexpected result, this has negative externalities on entire scientific fields and forces researchers to "stake their reputations" on publishing surprising results, which is just the sort of perverse situation we should strive to avoid.
- snowwrestler 11y agoThe NASA EmDrive research is what I thought of, as well. I found the vehemence and personal nature of the attacks on those results to be surprising, disappointing, and beyond the bounds of typical rational skepticism. Sure, it will probably turn out to be nothing, but NASA is not trying scam us. Not every investigation of weird results is a scam.
- powera 11y agoIf this is such a credible or important result, why are none of the articles about it ever from NASA or quoting NASA?
- marshray 11y agoI thought it was 99% an independent effort and a NASA lab just let them use their vacuum balance test chamber.
- snowwrestler 11y agoI didn't say it was credible or important, just that it's not a scam. There's a huge range in between those two extremes. Here's an earlier comment about this research: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10497100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10497100
- XorNot 11y agoNo, no there is not. Because 100% of the time so far in cold fusion, no one has built a device that actually works or subjected it to tests which would prove it does. Rossi is a fraud. His public tests always mysteriously wind up involving him tinkering with the device, and involve people he has prior relationships with.
- mahranch 11y agoYeah, I don't get this. To overcome the Coulomb barrier at room temp (source: http://zidbits.com/2015/05/how-does-fusion-power-work/ http://zidbits.com/2015/05/how-does-fusion-power-work/) is akin to claiming you built something which goes faster than light. That's why the term "cold fusion" has such a stigma attached to it, it's literally on the same physics defying level as perpetual motion machines. Because of the stigma attached to the term cold fusion, they have now switched to calling it "low-energy nuclear reactions" or LENR. It's the same exact thing, just a fancy new name to attract naive & moronic investors.
- kefka 11y agoWell, let's look at the basic formula: U(coul) = (1 / 4PI e0) ( q1q2 / r) U(coul) is the stated coloumb barrier. e0 is the permittivity of vacuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permittivity q1, q2 are the charges of the interacting particles. r is the interaction radius. So, if I want to lower U(coul), I either target q1 and q2 and make them smaller, or make e0 and/or r larger. So, how do we do that? e0 seems like a prime area to do some math. The permittivity of water is 710. Are there higher ones? http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/db/d0006c.htm http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/teach_res/db/d0006c.htm Also, we know that high amounts of electricity strip the electrons off atoms. How does this change the coloumb barrier? Does it at all? At high enough electron densities, is it possible for an electron to hit a proton and make the next lower element at a different isotope? It's also obvious that lighter metals are ideal, as they have less protons than heavier elements. Given that, which metals have a seemingly-valid energy path, IF the barrier can be surpassed?