4 ms·

I feel that's not a good understanding of experimental physics. Why do you think I didn't understand the rather limited independent variables in my measurement

by gnufx 6y ago

I feel that's not a good understanding of experimental physics. Why do you think I didn't understand the rather limited independent variables in my measurements or not understand the experimental setup well enough to debug experiments which I hadn't been involved in? Make good measurements of the right things. That's what advances experimental science. Obviously have a basic understanding of statistics for guidance.

rualca 6y ago
> I feel that's not a good understanding of experimental physics. Why do you think I didn't understand the rather limited independent variables in my measurements or not understand the experimental setup well enough to debug experiments which I hadn't been involved in? Your example is not good because increasing resolution is a "let them eat cake" copout, and ignores the importance of grasping basic parameter identification techniques to figure out key parameters from real data that is available instead of hypothetical data whose recording might even be unrealistic. Suggesting that you should start by looking at the right place and employ real or fictional equipment to get enough resolution to make the data obvious is both unrealistic and unhelpful.