4 ms·

Until the faster than light result can be recreated in an independent experiment, I am treating this like cold fusion. Neat result and absolutely deserving of f

Until the faster than light result can be recreated in an independent experiment, I am treating this like cold fusion. Neat result and absolutely deserving of further investigation, but not definitive.

Jach 15y ago
I don't really get why you're being downvoted to oblivion, that's a great stance to take on science in general. So much media buzz is made over n=1 things; you can cut out a lot from your information diet by ignoring things until they get replication. If special relativity is wrong, we'll find out in due course, and the current counter-evidence against special relativity is hardly a dent compared to the massive evidence in favor (both theoretical and experimental). Just a few days ago I discovered this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 They assert Events as the only fundamental object, not space, not time. Then: "by asserting that some events have the potential to be influenced by other events, but that this potential is not reciprocal, we can describe the set of all events as a partially ordered set or poset, which is typically known as a causal set" and from there they derive Special Relativity.
- jholman 15y ago
  Actually, while I fundamentally agree with the "ignoring things until they get replication" proposal, I think there's an impracticality there, due to the way information dissemination works. There will be no flurry of HN links about this when someone replicates it (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that neutrinos really can be fired FTL, all of current physics is wrong, etc etc). Maybe a single link. It just won't have the network effect; too much of the collective audience's interest has already been consumed. And there'll definitely be no HN links when the third and fourth teams replicate it. Even if that's a wrong claim for this hypothetical result about relativity, consider yesterday's "forced exercise and Parkinson's" link ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106799 ). That result is _completely_ immature (the rat experiments tested something very different from the human experiments, there has only been one human experiment, the causal story is all conjecture, etc), and there's no _way_ we're gonna hear about it when it's usefully mature (i.e. after ten more studies). (Epistemologically, I think the current result is not far removed from alternative medicine - there's some evidence, but no elegant pattern of evidence across multiple contexts, and no rigorous-but-failed attempts at falsification.) It's an interesting subject, and an interesting research programme, and I want to know about things like this, but it's too early to take this into account when making lifestyle tradeoffs. So it seems to me that my choices are kind of ugly: I can read a LOT of cutting-edge stuff, and read all the follow-ups, knowing that most of the ground-shakers won't actually pan out. Or I can wait 20 or 50 or more years until it starts showing up in undergraduate textbooks. Or... I don't know, there must be other options, but I don't know what they are. Another option is reading Malcolm Gladwell et al, which I think is generally viewed with a certain exasperation by the genuinely knowledgeable? Is there a blog or magazine or whatever, that popularizes science, with this slightly delayed view? "Exciting science news from 10 years ago, complete with a decade of 20/20 hindsight!"
  - 0x12 15y ago
    You're on to something here. One of my favorite subjects is 'what happened to 'x'' where 'x' is some discovery or bit of news some time down the line. Most people don't even remember 'x' when asked about it until you jog their memory a bit, I can't seem to help remembering all those things. So, how did that story with the solar panels made from hair pan out? It was pretty solidly debunked here on HN (as it rightly should have been), but what interests me is what happened to the major players in that episode, if they're still making solar panels from hair or if they came to terms with their error and documented that and published it to negate some of the damage done.

Jach 15y ago

I don't really get why you're being downvoted to oblivion, that's a great stance to take on science in general. So much media buzz is made over n=1 things; you can cut out a lot from your information diet by ignoring things until they get replication. If special relativity is wrong, we'll find out in due course, and the current counter-evidence against special relativity is hardly a dent compared to the massive evidence in favor (both theoretical and experimental). Just a few days ago I discovered this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 They assert Events as the only fundamental object, not space, not time. Then: "by asserting that some events have the potential to be influenced by other events, but that this potential is not reciprocal, we can describe the set of all events as a partially ordered set or poset, which is typically known as a causal set" and from there they derive Special Relativity.

jholman 15y ago
Actually, while I fundamentally agree with the "ignoring things until they get replication" proposal, I think there's an impracticality there, due to the way information dissemination works. There will be no flurry of HN links about this when someone replicates it (even assuming, for the sake of argument, that neutrinos really can be fired FTL, all of current physics is wrong, etc etc). Maybe a single link. It just won't have the network effect; too much of the collective audience's interest has already been consumed. And there'll definitely be no HN links when the third and fourth teams replicate it. Even if that's a wrong claim for this hypothetical result about relativity, consider yesterday's "forced exercise and Parkinson's" link ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3106799 ). That result is _completely_ immature (the rat experiments tested something very different from the human experiments, there has only been one human experiment, the causal story is all conjecture, etc), and there's no _way_ we're gonna hear about it when it's usefully mature (i.e. after ten more studies). (Epistemologically, I think the current result is not far removed from alternative medicine - there's some evidence, but no elegant pattern of evidence across multiple contexts, and no rigorous-but-failed attempts at falsification.) It's an interesting subject, and an interesting research programme, and I want to know about things like this, but it's too early to take this into account when making lifestyle tradeoffs. So it seems to me that my choices are kind of ugly: I can read a LOT of cutting-edge stuff, and read all the follow-ups, knowing that most of the ground-shakers won't actually pan out. Or I can wait 20 or 50 or more years until it starts showing up in undergraduate textbooks. Or... I don't know, there must be other options, but I don't know what they are. Another option is reading Malcolm Gladwell et al, which I think is generally viewed with a certain exasperation by the genuinely knowledgeable? Is there a blog or magazine or whatever, that popularizes science, with this slightly delayed view? "Exciting science news from 10 years ago, complete with a decade of 20/20 hindsight!"
- 0x12 15y ago
  You're on to something here. One of my favorite subjects is 'what happened to 'x'' where 'x' is some discovery or bit of news some time down the line. Most people don't even remember 'x' when asked about it until you jog their memory a bit, I can't seem to help remembering all those things. So, how did that story with the solar panels made from hair pan out? It was pretty solidly debunked here on HN (as it rightly should have been), but what interests me is what happened to the major players in that episode, if they're still making solar panels from hair or if they came to terms with their error and documented that and published it to negate some of the damage done.