4 ms·

As I recall, FTL neutrinos were the result of experimental error, not chance; and so are outside the scope of what sigma screen for.

theptip 6y ago
In scope for the context of this thread though; your GP claimed that 4 sigmas means “it’ll probably pan out as being real”, your parent provided a 6-sigma counter example.
- ianai 6y ago
  Or the title of this topic as it is right now is misleading. It says they’ve confirmed the stronger magnetic field. Ie it was either predicted elsewhere or seen elsewhere. The later would build confidence in the testing apparatus.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kbelder 6y ago
  "It's 99.99% significant, if we assume the 10% case that we haven't fucked up somewhere."
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > your GP claimed that 4 sigmas means "it'll probably pan out as being real" No they didn't; they claimed that 4 sigmas means it will probably turn out to be something other than statistical noise. They made no claims about "it's real" versus "it's a systematic, non-statistical error". See also https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2440 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2440
mhh__ 6y ago
It's probably worth saying that even "chance" is still a little misleading in the sense that the quantification of that chance is still done by the physicists and therefore can be biased
lamontcg 6y ago
That's the point. At the time it was very significant results, just like this one. Turned out someone hadn't plugged a piece of equipment in right and it was very precisely measuring that flaw in the experiment. You can't look at any 8 sigma result and just state that it must necessarily be true. Your theory may be flawed or you may not understand your experiment and you just have highly precise data as to how you've messed something else up.
8note 6y ago
Isn't the existence of experiemental error also something you can model as a probability?

theptip 6y ago

In scope for the context of this thread though; your GP claimed that 4 sigmas means “it’ll probably pan out as being real”, your parent provided a 6-sigma counter example.

ianai 6y ago
Or the title of this topic as it is right now is misleading. It says they’ve confirmed the stronger magnetic field. Ie it was either predicted elsewhere or seen elsewhere. The later would build confidence in the testing apparatus.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kbelder 6y ago
"It's 99.99% significant, if we assume the 10% case that we haven't fucked up somewhere."
a1369209993 6y ago
> your GP claimed that 4 sigmas means "it'll probably pan out as being real" No they didn't; they claimed that 4 sigmas means it will probably turn out to be something other than statistical noise. They made no claims about "it's real" versus "it's a systematic, non-statistical error". See also https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2440 https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2440

mhh__ 6y ago

It's probably worth saying that even "chance" is still a little misleading in the sense that the quantification of that chance is still done by the physicists and therefore can be biased

lamontcg 6y ago

That's the point. At the time it was very significant results, just like this one. Turned out someone hadn't plugged a piece of equipment in right and it was very precisely measuring that flaw in the experiment. You can't look at any 8 sigma result and just state that it must necessarily be true. Your theory may be flawed or you may not understand your experiment and you just have highly precise data as to how you've messed something else up.

8note 6y ago

Isn't the existence of experiemental error also something you can model as a probability?