3 ms·

Way way beyond my comprehension but I will marvel at how peer-review works in science and wonder how much further the world would have progressed if everything

by ck2 2y ago

Way way beyond my comprehension but I will marvel at how peer-review works in science and wonder how much further the world would have progressed if everything worked like that.

exe34 2y ago
my favourite abstract was one where the title asked "did cern measure a neutrino travelling faster than the speed of light?" and the abstract was "no". for some reason I can't seem to find the paper anymore, it was on arxiv.
- fsh 2y ago
  It's probably this paper: https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/49/492001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/49/492001
  - exe34 2y ago
    oh that might be it, two words, they went all out in the final version! edit: no, I must have embellished it in my mind: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832 https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  I like this one. The unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of “writer's block”: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1311997/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1311997/
xelamonster 2y ago
It's a bit dense for sure, lost me a few paragraphs in but this sentence got the point across well enough: > It is not based on consistency with the observed data, but rather on the highest rate of appearance of the image morphology from a wide imaging parameter space. I think the claim here is the original image effectively optimized for "cool shape" instead of accuracy. I also had to jump halfway down the page to find the images, it was driving me crazy to read about their differences without any idea what they looked like.
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  I think their main point is that the EHTC are wrong, and they don't care much about how they prove it, which is why when the serious people at the EHTC replied it reads like this: * M24 does not address the intrinsic variability of Sgr A* in their imaging process. * M24 presents one single image as the end result of their analysis, disregarding the full ensemble of suitable images. * M24 biases their results towards a point-source image through self-calibration. * M24 misstates the biases in their own methodology as demonstrations of biases in the EHTC methodologies. https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/response-independent-analysis-ehtc-imaging-sgr-miyoshi-et-al-2024 https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/response-independent-...
  - xelamonster 2y ago
    Yeah to be clear I only meant to summarize their position as I read it from the paper, I don't know enough to make a judgement on who is right. Appreciate the summary of counterpoints though, very helpful for my understanding!

by ck2 2y ago

Way way beyond my comprehension but I will marvel at how peer-review works in science and wonder how much further the world would have progressed if everything worked like that.

exe34 2y ago

my favourite abstract was one where the title asked "did cern measure a neutrino travelling faster than the speed of light?" and the abstract was "no". for some reason I can't seem to find the paper anymore, it was on arxiv.

fsh 2y ago
It's probably this paper: https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/49/492001 https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/49/492001
- exe34 2y ago
  oh that might be it, two words, they went all out in the final version! edit: no, I must have embellished it in my mind: https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832 https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832
ceejayoz 2y ago
I like this one. The unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of “writer's block”: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1311997/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1311997/

xelamonster 2y ago

It's a bit dense for sure, lost me a few paragraphs in but this sentence got the point across well enough: > It is not based on consistency with the observed data, but rather on the highest rate of appearance of the image morphology from a wide imaging parameter space. I think the claim here is the original image effectively optimized for "cool shape" instead of accuracy. I also had to jump halfway down the page to find the images, it was driving me crazy to read about their differences without any idea what they looked like.

SiempreViernes 2y ago
I think their main point is that the EHTC are wrong, and they don't care much about how they prove it, which is why when the serious people at the EHTC replied it reads like this: * M24 does not address the intrinsic variability of Sgr A* in their imaging process. * M24 presents one single image as the end result of their analysis, disregarding the full ensemble of suitable images. * M24 biases their results towards a point-source image through self-calibration. * M24 misstates the biases in their own methodology as demonstrations of biases in the EHTC methodologies. https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/response-independent-analysis-ehtc-imaging-sgr-miyoshi-et-al-2024 https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/response-independent-...
- xelamonster 2y ago
  Yeah to be clear I only meant to summarize their position as I read it from the paper, I don't know enough to make a judgement on who is right. Appreciate the summary of counterpoints though, very helpful for my understanding!