4 ms·

I’m not sure what’s misleading about it. “If this force exists, you’ll find it in this range” seems to be a valuable detail to know when searching for this forc

I’m not sure what’s misleading about it. “If this force exists, you’ll find it in this range” seems to be a valuable detail to know when searching for this force. It feels to me like this is very similar to the trend of only caring about positive experiment results and thinking negative experiment results aren't interesting. But they are! Negative results are useful and give us information! And are often crucial contributions toward positive results from later experiments.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
It is misleading because it suggests that they have found new signs, previously unknown, that such a force might exist, rather than new details that demote it from "possible with certain limitations" to "possible with narrower limitations". This is presumably why dexwis seemed to think that it was so remarkable and that it might easily be written off as too-fantastic.
vagrantJin 5y ago
> the trend of only caring about positive experiment results Probably starts in school. Negative results are just a loss of marks rather than a potential point of interest. Even if the lab report states that the results were unexpected and possible reasons given - it was an automatic fail. Never has it been considered, at least in my alma mata, that a negative result reasoned about might actually be interesting on its own and worth the time. Since aint nobody got time for that, said trend will probably continue for a long time.
roywiggins 5y ago
Yes, technically it's not over there is a "New detail about a possible fifth force", but it's not exactly what first jumps to mind? Consider "New details about a possible Game of Thrones book release date" being a similarly unsatisfactory headline if the article content is "it's not in the next 12 months". Technically true, that is a new detail, but is it really what the headline implies?
- jcranberry 5y ago
  I think that's not the best example since it is assumed this book is eventually coming out. Maybe if it was "New details about a possible Game of Thrones seasons 5-8 do-over" essentially being "no plans in the next 12 months".
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    The consensus that WoW will ever come out has frayed substantially https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/k4xubh/have_we_as_a_society_given_up_completely_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/k4xubh/have_we_as_a_...
- sidlls 5y ago
  A constraint on the domain and range of values is a detail. Restricting the possible range of action for a force is certainly something physicists look for.
  - roywiggins 5y ago
    It absolutely is very interesting science, but the headline is arguably misleading. It's like saying "we have learned new things about where the body is buried" after searching an area and not finding the body: it's absolutely true, but misleading.
    - sidlls 5y ago
      No, it isn’t misleading at all. Narrowing a constraint is learning something new. It could very well have gone the other way. Or in a way completely unexpected.
dylan604 5y ago
Isn't this pretty much the description of how the Higgs Bosun was found? Fermilab kept finding where it wasn't, narrowing in on where it could be, so that the first time LHC looked it pretty much looked directly at it. Just because an expirement doesn't find the proof of, the proof of it not is also valuable.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

It is misleading because it suggests that they have found new signs, previously unknown, that such a force might exist, rather than new details that demote it from "possible with certain limitations" to "possible with narrower limitations". This is presumably why dexwis seemed to think that it was so remarkable and that it might easily be written off as too-fantastic.

vagrantJin 5y ago

> the trend of only caring about positive experiment results Probably starts in school. Negative results are just a loss of marks rather than a potential point of interest. Even if the lab report states that the results were unexpected and possible reasons given - it was an automatic fail. Never has it been considered, at least in my alma mata, that a negative result reasoned about might actually be interesting on its own and worth the time. Since aint nobody got time for that, said trend will probably continue for a long time.

roywiggins 5y ago

Yes, technically it's not over there is a "New detail about a possible fifth force", but it's not exactly what first jumps to mind? Consider "New details about a possible Game of Thrones book release date" being a similarly unsatisfactory headline if the article content is "it's not in the next 12 months". Technically true, that is a new detail, but is it really what the headline implies?

jcranberry 5y ago
I think that's not the best example since it is assumed this book is eventually coming out. Maybe if it was "New details about a possible Game of Thrones seasons 5-8 do-over" essentially being "no plans in the next 12 months".
- roywiggins 5y ago
  The consensus that WoW will ever come out has frayed substantially https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/k4xubh/have_we_as_a_society_given_up_completely_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/k4xubh/have_we_as_a_...
sidlls 5y ago
A constraint on the domain and range of values is a detail. Restricting the possible range of action for a force is certainly something physicists look for.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  It absolutely is very interesting science, but the headline is arguably misleading. It's like saying "we have learned new things about where the body is buried" after searching an area and not finding the body: it's absolutely true, but misleading.
  - sidlls 5y ago
    No, it isn’t misleading at all. Narrowing a constraint is learning something new. It could very well have gone the other way. Or in a way completely unexpected.

dylan604 5y ago

Isn't this pretty much the description of how the Higgs Bosun was found? Fermilab kept finding where it wasn't, narrowing in on where it could be, so that the first time LHC looked it pretty much looked directly at it. Just because an expirement doesn't find the proof of, the proof of it not is also valuable.