3 ms·

> 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

> 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 :)

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 :)