4 ms·

> 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 theor

> 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?
  - krastanov 8y ago
    There is a very large and very convincing body of purely mathematical arguments, and some minor experimental work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of...
    - blueprint 8y ago
      For some reason I had a feeling you'd post that. That wikipedia page doesn't show anything except for, at best, an argument that the Standard Model is incompatible with gravitational repulsion plus many statements of unsuccessful attempts to falsify repulsion of antimatter. Did you even read it?? By the way, it's old news by now that Standard Model is incomplete. But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet by implying they've never studied so much as modern QFT because we're not prepared to understand their original argument.
      - eganist 8y ago
        > But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet Please stop accusing people of this; it's being observed as radiating from your own commentary by multiple people, which might explain why others are responding in kind. I called out the gaslighting elsewhere, and the fact that you're persisting with it against multiple parties hampers constructive discussion.
        blueprint 8y ago
        Are you not aware of his other comment to me? I've seen it many times before. We don't know each other so perhaps defer belief that you can tell whether that is true or not until you have some evidence. Gaslighting... lol
      - krastanov 8y ago
        How was I passive aggressive or condescending? I do believe you are misunderstanding what the math says about all of this, but I am eager to suggest textbooks that explain my point of view. I am suggesting textbooks not because I am condescending, rather because I can not give a meaningful arguments in a comment. And you are misrepresenting the wiki page. There is a large number of "though experiments" and a few actual experimental observations that make antigravity look implausible. Yes, there are loopholes (like in virtually any statement about fundamental physics) and we should devise experiments to test the loopholes, but when these loopholes are already implausible it is not unreasonable to put the majority of your resources in more interesting experiments. P.S. None of my comments have anything to do with the Standard Model and I do not see why you are bringing it in this conversation.
blueprint 8y ago
> attempting to locate the Higgs Boson Isn't this a false equivalence? The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model. Antigravitation of antimatter is not. How is an experiment that might have failed to detect something predicted by the Standard Model equivalent to "experimentation for novel theories"? > Well, possibly, but not for the conspiratorial reasons you're alluding to. What "conspiratorial" reasons? I never suggested any conspiracy was required whatsoever. Please refer to my other recent comment on this. > prioritization can really only be accomplished by gauging the likelihood of an outcome which produces new knowledge I don't know if you'll be receptive but I also happened to touch on this very point in the same other comment. > No one behind the operation of the ALPHA-g detector is going to block an experiment because they may personally not like the results That's also not equivalent to what I suggest, which is that it can be deprioritized, not blocked... a notion which you and others are already admitting. > 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 Is that why we do science?
- eganist 8y ago
  > Isn't this a false equivalence? The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model. Antigravitation of antimatter is not. How is an experiment that might have failed to detect something predicted by the Standard Model equivalent to "experimentation for novel theories"? The comparison you're suggesting isn't the one being made; the comparison being made is that any experiment yielding net-new knowledge risks shifting the accepted expertise in a different direction, and to that end, the Higgs Discovery is representative of this fact simply because it confirmed one set of predictions and refuted others. > What "conspiratorial" reasons? I never suggested any conspiracy was required whatsoever. Please refer to my other recent comment on this. Let's not gaslight people in a public forum; it's poor form. You set the tone in your initial comment: "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." focus is drawn to the sudden change of heart ("suddenly"), the emphasis on how this experiment might be having a "harder time" than other experiments, etc. > I don't know if you'll be receptive but I also happened to touch on this very point in the same other comment. You touched on positive outcomes alone. Any net-new knowledge including validation of existing knowledge is fair game. The risk here is that neither validation nor invalidation of existing knowledge will take place, i.e. we'll be no further along after the time is spent. > That's also not equivalent to what I suggest, which is that it can be deprioritized, not blocked... a notion which you and others are already admitting. True, we're admitting as such because there are other areas where the maths already suggest there's likely to be something interesting to explore or some existing body of knowledge to strengthen from a novel angle. You also did in fact say "harder time," which is not the same as blocking; I'll give you as much. > Is that why we do science? The point conveyed is that there is no personal motive observed by the ALPHA-g detector team to impede the experiment. The most likely motive is simply prioritization because of... again... the likelihood of net-new knowledge. --- I hope this helps. If not, I hope other commenters are successful in bringing you around, but I now need to invest my time elsewhere. Feel free to have the last word. Or not. It's up to you :)

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?
- krastanov 8y ago
  There is a very large and very convincing body of purely mathematical arguments, and some minor experimental work https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of...
  - blueprint 8y ago
    For some reason I had a feeling you'd post that. That wikipedia page doesn't show anything except for, at best, an argument that the Standard Model is incompatible with gravitational repulsion plus many statements of unsuccessful attempts to falsify repulsion of antimatter. Did you even read it?? By the way, it's old news by now that Standard Model is incomplete. But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet by implying they've never studied so much as modern QFT because we're not prepared to understand their original argument.
    - eganist 8y ago
      > But let's just go back to passive aggressively condescending to people we don't know on the internet Please stop accusing people of this; it's being observed as radiating from your own commentary by multiple people, which might explain why others are responding in kind. I called out the gaslighting elsewhere, and the fact that you're persisting with it against multiple parties hampers constructive discussion.
      - blueprint 8y ago
        Are you not aware of his other comment to me? I've seen it many times before. We don't know each other so perhaps defer belief that you can tell whether that is true or not until you have some evidence. Gaslighting... lol
    - krastanov 8y ago
      How was I passive aggressive or condescending? I do believe you are misunderstanding what the math says about all of this, but I am eager to suggest textbooks that explain my point of view. I am suggesting textbooks not because I am condescending, rather because I can not give a meaningful arguments in a comment. And you are misrepresenting the wiki page. There is a large number of "though experiments" and a few actual experimental observations that make antigravity look implausible. Yes, there are loopholes (like in virtually any statement about fundamental physics) and we should devise experiments to test the loopholes, but when these loopholes are already implausible it is not unreasonable to put the majority of your resources in more interesting experiments. P.S. None of my comments have anything to do with the Standard Model and I do not see why you are bringing it in this conversation.

blueprint 8y ago

> attempting to locate the Higgs Boson Isn't this a false equivalence? The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model. Antigravitation of antimatter is not. How is an experiment that might have failed to detect something predicted by the Standard Model equivalent to "experimentation for novel theories"? > Well, possibly, but not for the conspiratorial reasons you're alluding to. What "conspiratorial" reasons? I never suggested any conspiracy was required whatsoever. Please refer to my other recent comment on this. > prioritization can really only be accomplished by gauging the likelihood of an outcome which produces new knowledge I don't know if you'll be receptive but I also happened to touch on this very point in the same other comment. > No one behind the operation of the ALPHA-g detector is going to block an experiment because they may personally not like the results That's also not equivalent to what I suggest, which is that it can be deprioritized, not blocked... a notion which you and others are already admitting. > 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 Is that why we do science?

eganist 8y ago
> Isn't this a false equivalence? The Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model. Antigravitation of antimatter is not. How is an experiment that might have failed to detect something predicted by the Standard Model equivalent to "experimentation for novel theories"? The comparison you're suggesting isn't the one being made; the comparison being made is that any experiment yielding net-new knowledge risks shifting the accepted expertise in a different direction, and to that end, the Higgs Discovery is representative of this fact simply because it confirmed one set of predictions and refuted others. > What "conspiratorial" reasons? I never suggested any conspiracy was required whatsoever. Please refer to my other recent comment on this. Let's not gaslight people in a public forum; it's poor form. You set the tone in your initial comment: "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." focus is drawn to the sudden change of heart ("suddenly"), the emphasis on how this experiment might be having a "harder time" than other experiments, etc. > I don't know if you'll be receptive but I also happened to touch on this very point in the same other comment. You touched on positive outcomes alone. Any net-new knowledge including validation of existing knowledge is fair game. The risk here is that neither validation nor invalidation of existing knowledge will take place, i.e. we'll be no further along after the time is spent. > That's also not equivalent to what I suggest, which is that it can be deprioritized, not blocked... a notion which you and others are already admitting. True, we're admitting as such because there are other areas where the maths already suggest there's likely to be something interesting to explore or some existing body of knowledge to strengthen from a novel angle. You also did in fact say "harder time," which is not the same as blocking; I'll give you as much. > Is that why we do science? The point conveyed is that there is no personal motive observed by the ALPHA-g detector team to impede the experiment. The most likely motive is simply prioritization because of... again... the likelihood of net-new knowledge. --- I hope this helps. If not, I hope other commenters are successful in bringing you around, but I now need to invest my time elsewhere. Feel free to have the last word. Or not. It's up to you :)