4 ms·
Oh, there is always a third option in science: "Oops, the box would have given us a definitive yes-or-no answer if only the fuse hadn't blown, and gosh darn it,
by mechanical_fish 15y ago
Oh, there is always a third option in science: "Oops, the box would have given us a definitive yes-or-no answer if only the fuse hadn't blown, and gosh darn it, the local stores have no fuses in stock. Oh, and these fuses are special and cost $750,000."
You'll learn all about this phenomenon in years two through six of your seven-year Ph.D. program in experimental physics. ;)
- thyrsus 15y agoI learned it in my first year physics course: to a good approximation, accuracy of results = log(log($equipment_cost)).
- jmaygarden 15y agoSo, 100% accuracy cost $10 billion?
- dfranke 15y agoI think what he means is "systematic_error = 1/log(log(equipment_cost))"
- mikeash 15y agoFor best results, purchase all equipment in Zimbabwean dollars.
- swombat 15y agoSounds about right! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost > With a budget of 7.5 billion euros (approx. $9bn or £6.19bn as of Jun 2010), the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built. If only they'd put in $1b more, they'd have found that Higgs boson by now.
- jodrellblank 15y agoThe article actually claims "it will either succeed today, or fail today and Rossi has two months to rectify any problems". So it already was avoiding a definitive answer from the start.