5 ms·

This could be one of the most important experiments that modern physics has attempted. It's funny that they must adapt their schedule to others, and not the ot

This could be one of the most important experiments that modern physics has attempted. It's funny that they must adapt their schedule to others, and not the other way around. They're being given just a few days to carry everything out before hitting a cut-off point that may realistically cause the experiment never to get done due to changes in funding or the landscape. If they obtain a positive result, how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise? Suddenly, I wonder if they are having a harder time than other experiments, and whether there are any at CERN who actually don't want the experiment to occur.

krastanov 8y ago
It is silly to suggest conspiracy theories like that. This is not "one of the most important experiments that modern physics has attempted". Most physicist would say "the result is a forgone conclusion, but it is our job to double check". This is why the experiment is not a priority compared to experiments where the result is unknown. Yes, if it turns out that the result is positive, this would be enormously exciting, especially for these experts that you are worried would lose their expert status. It is just that scientist do not get excited over something that has pretty enormous chances of not happening.
- blueprint 8y ago
  No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory. If you think about it, there is no need for people to conspire to produce the effect. There is simply the clear psychological reaction that people tend to reject what contradicts the things they are deeply involved in and have already accepted. Does that mean all scientists who learn about and believe they understand the Standard Model have closed minds? No. But it does mean that individual scientists' judgement will tend to be influenced to give a lower priority to the things they think are less important. Please don't misrepresent my comment. As a side note if something is true then it has 100% chance of happening. If you don't know it's not true then you don't know about the enormity of its chances.
  - krastanov 8y ago
    Your last comment about chances shows misunderstanding of how science and/or statistics work. We have not tested our theories in every possible way, so yes, we know they will need updating here and there. However, there is an immense body of work pointing to no "antigravity", so the chance of a surprising result from this experiment is vanishingly small. If you are interested, check out Feynman's Quantum Field Theory textbook where he quite descriptively puts constraints on tensor interactions (like gravity). I would be happy to suggest more introductory books if you are interested.
eganist 8y ago
> If they obtain a positive result, how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise? This is true of most experimentation for novel theories, and it's true of many large experiments e.g. attempting to locate the Higgs Boson (the discovery of which invalidated many theories of physics just through confirming certain unknowns.) > Suddenly, I wonder if they are having a harder time than other experiments, and whether there are any at CERN who actually don't want the experiment to occur. Well, possibly, but not for the conspiratorial reasons you're alluding to. It's a powerful device with only so much time to operate; the usage of that time needs to be prioritized, and that prioritization can really only be accomplished by gauging the likelihood of an outcome which produces new knowledge (either validating a theory or invalidating it). No one behind the operation of the ALPHA-g detector is going to block an experiment because they may personally not like the results; if the detector has a hand in a successful discovery, the detector and the team supporting it will be able to claim having a hand in the discovery.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The real issue is so far all the supporting evidence and theory says antimatter obeys normal rules of gravity. So it really is a long-shot experiment - if it actually differs in a significant way (and let's be clear: experiencing less gravity, going in a slightly different direction - anything - would be major) - then that would be a huge surprise.
  - eganist 8y ago
    Right, and if it turns up nothing, what does it invalidate? ...well, nothing. The negative conclusion of this experiment doesn't achieve anything, and the aspirational conclusion is a colossal longshot. So more likely than not, time is wasted here (though it'd be cool if there were a Discovery, or even just a 3σ observation).
  - blueprint 8y ago
    What evidence are you referring to which supports antimatter obeying "normal rules of gravity", by which I am presuming you mean gravitating in the same direction as matter?
chr1 8y ago
> how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise? None. Math stays the same, and the skills needed to solve the problems stay the same. In general new discoveries in physics only add detail to what we know and do not invalidate the old knowledge.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- blueprint 8y ago
  > Math stays the same Not necessarily. How much calculus which is necessary to do modern physics has been built on discrete numbers? > do not invalidate the old knowledge Of course what is truly known will never be invalidated. But it's clear that the (rare?) situation in which something which is widely accepted turns out fundamentally flawed has the potential to make those who have proclaimed their strong confidence in it lose apparent credibility (not to mention many years of their life).

krastanov 8y ago

It is silly to suggest conspiracy theories like that. This is not "one of the most important experiments that modern physics has attempted". Most physicist would say "the result is a forgone conclusion, but it is our job to double check". This is why the experiment is not a priority compared to experiments where the result is unknown. Yes, if it turns out that the result is positive, this would be enormously exciting, especially for these experts that you are worried would lose their expert status. It is just that scientist do not get excited over something that has pretty enormous chances of not happening.

blueprint 8y ago
No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy theory. If you think about it, there is no need for people to conspire to produce the effect. There is simply the clear psychological reaction that people tend to reject what contradicts the things they are deeply involved in and have already accepted. Does that mean all scientists who learn about and believe they understand the Standard Model have closed minds? No. But it does mean that individual scientists' judgement will tend to be influenced to give a lower priority to the things they think are less important. Please don't misrepresent my comment. As a side note if something is true then it has 100% chance of happening. If you don't know it's not true then you don't know about the enormity of its chances.
- krastanov 8y ago
  Your last comment about chances shows misunderstanding of how science and/or statistics work. We have not tested our theories in every possible way, so yes, we know they will need updating here and there. However, there is an immense body of work pointing to no "antigravity", so the chance of a surprising result from this experiment is vanishingly small. If you are interested, check out Feynman's Quantum Field Theory textbook where he quite descriptively puts constraints on tensor interactions (like gravity). I would be happy to suggest more introductory books if you are interested.

eganist 8y ago

> If they obtain a positive result, how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise? This is true of most experimentation for novel theories, and it's true of many large experiments e.g. attempting to locate the Higgs Boson (the discovery of which invalidated many theories of physics just through confirming certain unknowns.) > Suddenly, I wonder if they are having a harder time than other experiments, and whether there are any at CERN who actually don't want the experiment to occur. Well, possibly, but not for the conspiratorial reasons you're alluding to. It's a powerful device with only so much time to operate; the usage of that time needs to be prioritized, and that prioritization can really only be accomplished by gauging the likelihood of an outcome which produces new knowledge (either validating a theory or invalidating it). No one behind the operation of the ALPHA-g detector is going to block an experiment because they may personally not like the results; if the detector has a hand in a successful discovery, the detector and the team supporting it will be able to claim having a hand in the discovery.

XorNot 8y ago
The real issue is so far all the supporting evidence and theory says antimatter obeys normal rules of gravity. So it really is a long-shot experiment - if it actually differs in a significant way (and let's be clear: experiencing less gravity, going in a slightly different direction - anything - would be major) - then that would be a huge surprise.
- eganist 8y ago
  Right, and if it turns up nothing, what does it invalidate? ...well, nothing. The negative conclusion of this experiment doesn't achieve anything, and the aspirational conclusion is a colossal longshot. So more likely than not, time is wasted here (though it'd be cool if there were a Discovery, or even just a 3σ observation).
- blueprint 8y ago
  What evidence are you referring to which supports antimatter obeying "normal rules of gravity", by which I am presuming you mean gravitating in the same direction as matter?

chr1 8y ago

> how many experts will suddenly no longer have a position of expertise? None. Math stays the same, and the skills needed to solve the problems stay the same. In general new discoveries in physics only add detail to what we know and do not invalidate the old knowledge.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
blueprint 8y ago
> Math stays the same Not necessarily. How much calculus which is necessary to do modern physics has been built on discrete numbers? > do not invalidate the old knowledge Of course what is truly known will never be invalidated. But it's clear that the (rare?) situation in which something which is widely accepted turns out fundamentally flawed has the potential to make those who have proclaimed their strong confidence in it lose apparent credibility (not to mention many years of their life).