4 ms·

You miss the point that you don't know the value of the outcomes. Nobody does because being a matter of judgment about conditions in an unknown future, that's n

You miss the point that you don't know the value of the outcomes. Nobody does because being a matter of judgment about conditions in an unknown future, that's not something that can be known. The best we can do is make educated guesses about potential value. My personal educated guess is that the potential value to fundamental physics of identifying dark matter is great enough to justify the cost of trying. You're free to disagree, but you're in no position to say I'm wrong.

angiosperm 3y ago
Statistics is a science. "Uncorrelated" means something concrete and quantitative. Learning what that means might enable you to produce the sort of educated guesses the rest of science does routinely, and that lead inexorably to the expectation that an abundance of cheaper experiments produce greater value than a few expensive ones. "Expectation" also means something concrete and quantitative.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dventimi 3y ago
  Personally, I value determining the dark energy equation of state to be more valuable than discovering room temperature superconductors. My wife's view is the opposite. Which of us right, and why?
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    She is, obviously. But it is the wrong question. At issue was whether a hundred other experiments were worth more than a single dark matter experiment. (There are no dark energy experiments.) And, statistically, they are, for statistically compelling reasons that are nonetheless wholly accessible without the formal mathematics.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      It's not obvious to me so if you want to persuade me you'll have to make an argument. While you're at it you'll have to make another argument if you want to persuade me you're in a position to know which are the right questions and which are the wrong ones. Finally, if the dark energy equation of state can't be measured with experiments, you should've told the Department of Energy. You could've saved them a lot of money. https://science.osti.gov/hep/Highlights/2019/HEP-2019-08-a https://science.osti.gov/hep/Highlights/2019/HEP-2019-08-a It's not too late to save them even more money, though: https://lsstdesc.org/ https://lsstdesc.org/
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        1. Both of those are doing nothing more than running a computer program on existing data, collected under other projects. I.e., no experiments, in any physical sense. And not, in any case, related in any way to dark energy, except in re-using the adjective "dark". 2. If you can't understand whether a room-temperature superconductor would enormously more consequential than ruling out yet another dark-matter candidate, I can only suggest you defer all judgment on matters of value to your wife. 3. You still wholly miss the point, which would be pointless to repeat a fourth time. I recommend you go back and read previous posts in this thread that explain it.
        dventimi 3y ago
        1. I invite to inform the members of the DES collaboration that they're doing nothing more than running a computer program on existing data. It'll be especially exciting when you tell that to members of the LSST consortium, who have been operating under the mistaken impression that they were building a telescope. I imagine both groups will be surprised to learn they're not working on dark energy at all. Maybe they'll be grateful to you for rescuing them from wasted effort. 2. If you understand why I personally should value room temperature semiconductors over determining dark ENERGY (not dark matter... that's different) parameters then you should be able to explain your understanding. If you don't explain your understanding, people may suspect you can't explain your understanding perhaps because you don't actually possess understanding. 3. That's so easy to say, even I can say it back to you: you've missed the point, and I recommend you go back and review.

angiosperm 3y ago

Statistics is a science. "Uncorrelated" means something concrete and quantitative. Learning what that means might enable you to produce the sort of educated guesses the rest of science does routinely, and that lead inexorably to the expectation that an abundance of cheaper experiments produce greater value than a few expensive ones. "Expectation" also means something concrete and quantitative.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dventimi 3y ago
Personally, I value determining the dark energy equation of state to be more valuable than discovering room temperature superconductors. My wife's view is the opposite. Which of us right, and why?
- angiosperm 3y ago
  She is, obviously. But it is the wrong question. At issue was whether a hundred other experiments were worth more than a single dark matter experiment. (There are no dark energy experiments.) And, statistically, they are, for statistically compelling reasons that are nonetheless wholly accessible without the formal mathematics.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    It's not obvious to me so if you want to persuade me you'll have to make an argument. While you're at it you'll have to make another argument if you want to persuade me you're in a position to know which are the right questions and which are the wrong ones. Finally, if the dark energy equation of state can't be measured with experiments, you should've told the Department of Energy. You could've saved them a lot of money. https://science.osti.gov/hep/Highlights/2019/HEP-2019-08-a https://science.osti.gov/hep/Highlights/2019/HEP-2019-08-a It's not too late to save them even more money, though: https://lsstdesc.org/ https://lsstdesc.org/
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      1. Both of those are doing nothing more than running a computer program on existing data, collected under other projects. I.e., no experiments, in any physical sense. And not, in any case, related in any way to dark energy, except in re-using the adjective "dark". 2. If you can't understand whether a room-temperature superconductor would enormously more consequential than ruling out yet another dark-matter candidate, I can only suggest you defer all judgment on matters of value to your wife. 3. You still wholly miss the point, which would be pointless to repeat a fourth time. I recommend you go back and read previous posts in this thread that explain it.
      - dventimi 3y ago
        1. I invite to inform the members of the DES collaboration that they're doing nothing more than running a computer program on existing data. It'll be especially exciting when you tell that to members of the LSST consortium, who have been operating under the mistaken impression that they were building a telescope. I imagine both groups will be surprised to learn they're not working on dark energy at all. Maybe they'll be grateful to you for rescuing them from wasted effort. 2. If you understand why I personally should value room temperature semiconductors over determining dark ENERGY (not dark matter... that's different) parameters then you should be able to explain your understanding. If you don't explain your understanding, people may suspect you can't explain your understanding perhaps because you don't actually possess understanding. 3. That's so easy to say, even I can say it back to you: you've missed the point, and I recommend you go back and review.