4 ms·

> The energy of this particle was some 40 million times that of the highest-energy protons that have been produced in any terrestrial particle accelerator. If

by bArray 3y ago

> The energy of this particle was some 40 million times that of the highest-energy protons that have been produced in any terrestrial particle accelerator. If it were me observing this, and I didn't observe it again, I would attribute it to something else. However rare, I would consider some phenomenon as part of the sensor (for example decay causing a release of energy), or two particles arriving at the same time, some localised event, etc. I'm sure they already addressed this, but I would be considering some other source of such a high energy particle. It's just too perfect, why would we see such a high energy particle and nothing inbetween?

jackmott42 3y ago
As the article states, it was observed again eventually.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Generally observations might be confirmed through: - Repeated observations. - Simultaneous independent observations: multiple devices/instruments. - Observation of primary and corresponding secondary events, e.g., an initial interaction with the atmosphere and further observations consistent with collision / decay particles arising from an initial interaction. Put another way: if you see a bright flash (visual sensation), and some seconds later hear a heavy rumble (audio sensation), and within a few minutes observe heavy rain, odds are quite strong that the initial observation was lightning. This is based on multiple independent channels of information. If you and multiple other people see the same flash at the same time, you have independent observations, and can validate the initial observation by that means. In a world of increasingly high-plausibility generative tools (images, audio, text, video), the ability to show multiple independent observations of a given event becomes far more critical than the emergence of any one high-detailed, realistic document (where document refers to a record in text, audio, image, video, etc.).

by bArray 3y ago

jackmott42 3y ago

As the article states, it was observed again eventually.

dredmorbius 3y ago

Generally observations might be confirmed through: - Repeated observations. - Simultaneous independent observations: multiple devices/instruments. - Observation of primary and corresponding secondary events, e.g., an initial interaction with the atmosphere and further observations consistent with collision / decay particles arising from an initial interaction. Put another way: if you see a bright flash (visual sensation), and some seconds later hear a heavy rumble (audio sensation), and within a few minutes observe heavy rain, odds are quite strong that the initial observation was lightning. This is based on multiple independent channels of information. If you and multiple other people see the same flash at the same time, you have independent observations, and can validate the initial observation by that means. In a world of increasingly high-plausibility generative tools (images, audio, text, video), the ability to show multiple independent observations of a given event becomes far more critical than the emergence of any one high-detailed, realistic document (where document refers to a record in text, audio, image, video, etc.).