10 ms·
Trinity College experiment succeeds after 69 years
- Peroni 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(resin)
- xtc 13y ago"Petroleum-derived pitch is black in colour, hence the adjectival phrase, 'pitch-black'." That was the most interesting thing I found in this experiment.
- duggieawesome 13y agoIt should be noted that this experiment is different than the Queensland experiment, which is still going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment
- dalore 13y agoHow are they different? Both the article and the wikipedia link you gave mention they are similar experiments. It seems they are the same experiment to me.
- cecilpl 13y agoThey're similar, yes, but they're aren't one and the same. GP is pointing out that there are two experiments underway.
- albedoa 13y agoThe Queensland experiment was mentioned in the article. The GP is confusing because it insinuates that something wasn't mentioned which should have been.
- peterkelly 13y agoThe theory is that the Australian one will drip upside-down
- vacri 13y agoThat's how we get the pitch into the funnel in the first place!
- berberous 13y agoSame experiment, but I for one was interested to know it was not the Queensland one, because that one has a great Radiolab episode about all the times they missed the drop (webcams failing, etc.). Their pitch is due to drop soon too, so it's sort of sad someone else beat them to finally filming it.
- freehunter 13y agoSounds like the pitch may actually contain the Higgs Boson, and it is going back in time and creating events designed to make the monitoring fail. The failing webcam was the proverbial bird that dropped bread into the coolant pipe.
- synchronise 13y agoThey didn't really record a 'drop', the tail was still connected, so the experiment is still on.
- notacoward 13y agoSame class, different instances. ;)
- cupofjoakim 13y agoDude, I'm finding this hilarious. 69 years to prove that something is a fluid? I picture two really old scientists watching the tape, only to have one of the old geezers turning to the other to spill the sacred words: "Told you so".
- digitalsushi 13y agoScience isn't about "told you so". It's about rigor, about completion. It may seem hilarious because of the length of time involved for the experiment to complete, but what if the results hadn't been what we assumed? Science is the only enlightenment we have, and to dismiss the outcome as obvious is to climb back into the dark ages.
- elnate 13y agoThen the other one would have said it. Everyone enjoys being proven right.
- jgreen10 13y agoReally? Scientists are people. Proving each other wrong is one of the biggest motivators to do years of painstaking, labour-intensive research. Of course, you can't prove someone wrong without being rigorous.
- negativity 13y agoIt gets finnier if you imagine Stephen Hawking saying "I told you so." to Leonard Susskind. D'OOOH... WERNSTROM!!!
- lightcatcher 13y agoYou might find this to be "finny": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93Preskill_bet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne%E2%80%93Hawking%E2%80%93...
- 13y ago
- peterkelly 13y agoI bet the grad student involved is celebrating now that they can finally submit their thesis
- willis77 13y agoWoah woah woah, not so fast, Doctorate McPhdsosoon. Science is repeatable. See you at lab meeting next Monday morning. Please come prepared with a roadmap for phase 2 trials. These grants don't write themselves, you know.
- snowfox 13y agoPhase 2 would be continue to wait to see if the glass funnel would drip in order to prove whether glass is a solid or liquid.
- jgreen10 13y agoand all his colleagues will be jealous of him submitting so quickly.
- stinkytaco 13y agoReally, it seems like a dream gig. Just being a student for years and years and continuing to get financial aid to continue your thesis work. I've often said if I could be a student for life I'd be happy. I was just picking the wrong field of study. Viscous fluids, here I come.
- peterkelly 13y agoIf only it were true. In Australia, they give you 3 years (plus an additional 1/2 year extension, which isn't always granted). After that, you're on your own, and many people get a full time job to support themselves. I've seen quite a few people abandon their PhD because of the need to pay the bills once their funding runs out. It's quite sad.
- aggronn 13y ago
- defective 13y agoI think, after a few missed drops, that I might have added a backup camera.
- rmc 13y agoWell it started in the 1940s. There weren't many webcam then, and video cameras (and tape) were expensive.
- defective 13y agoOf course, I understand that. But it lasted so long, through tenured generation after generation. Even though I'm aware it wasn't anyone's master work, it had to be quite frustrating to miss it decade after decade.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- morb 13y agoRadiolab had an interesting segment about the Pitch Drop Experiment, interesting to listen: http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/ http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wooptoo 13y agoThe title is misleading. The experiment did succeed before, it just hasn't been captured on camera.
- robterrell 13y agoSeriously, people did science before there were cameras, right? I think the drop splatted under the funnel is enough evidence to call it done.
- jkn 13y agoWhile I'm fond of this type of down-to-earth experiments, I'm curious about the scientific value of waiting for decades to observe the drop falling due to Earth's gravity, versus placing the apparatus in a centrifuge, which I imagine would dramatically accelerate the process. Maybe the higher forces would affect the way the drop is formed, in a way that was deemed undesirable?
- contingencies 13y agodown-to-earth experiments Bwahahahah!
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoI would argue that confirmation of the shape in 1G has some actual value. Sometimes "silly" experiments can have value. I chatted with a physic prof once who said the very first experiment he did after gaining tenure was to investigate the isotropy of the universe in particle accelerator experiments -- in other words, do the laws of physic work the same way when the accelerator is pointed one direction, relative to distant stars, as any other. Obviously, the likely result would be nada. However, if he found something, it would be two possible things: (1) He was going to earn an instant Noble prize, or (2) There was a potential subtle systematic design error particle physicists had overlooked -- knowing how to look for this error and/or correct for it could have value. #2 was more likely. But why not?
- throwit1979 13y agoUm, not to take away from the achievement of the result, but couldn't this result have been obtained in much less time with higher force than 1G in, say, a centrifuge?
- rsynnott 13y agoWell, where's the fun in that?
- ChuckMcM 13y agoIn other news students preferred "watching the pitch" over lectures by a margin of 2 to 1. :-)
- omegant 13y agoThey learned as the pitch flowed!
- rtkwe 13y agoThat would be another variable to account for and isn't the a standard test for viscosity. Also with pitch being this viscous having a centrifuge capable of spinning fast enough and long enough would be troublesome.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mathattack 13y agoThere couldn't have been an easier way to test this?
- juice13 13y agoWhat's up with one sentance per paragraph? Feels like reading the simple wikipedia.
- Peroni 13y agoI think (hope) it's worth noting the location of this experiment. Trinity College, and the Irish in general, tend to gravitate towards romanticised notions. Even our scientists. It honestly wouldn't surprise me in the least if the experiment was initiated knowing full well it would take decades to complete but they went ahead anyway 'for the craic'.
- mef 13y ago"For the craic", the original "for the lulz" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craic
- adjustafresh 13y agoAnyone else reminded of those old Heinz Ketchup ads...Anticipation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ
- adamrneary 13y ago"...the scientific value was questionable..."
- finnh 13y agoI call shenanigans. In the time-lapse, the funnel "jumps" upward right when the drop falls (0:56). Unless the funnel's mounted on a spring (?), this is a clear indication that somebody interfered with the drip. I declare this video null and void! ...or maybe the video camera just got jostled when all scientists started dancing around in their glee =)
- aarondf 13y agoMore likely than not, the whole setup there is SIXTY NINE years old and a drop of pitch weighs a bit. Or they got bored and cheated. 50/50 really.
- robomartin 13y agoThe first thought that popped into my punny little brain was: Why didn't they use a centrifuge to accelerate results? The one variable that could be controlled is the gravitational force on the substance. If we were on the moon the experiment, as designed, would take far longer to produce a drop. By using a centrifuge they could have easily simulated significantly greater gravitational forces and arrived at a result much sooner. EDIT: The Queensland experiment data says that it takes about 13 years for a drop to form and fall [1]. You'd need less than 5,000 g's to make it happen within a day or about 160 g's to get results in 30 days. [1] http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caught-on-camera-at-last-1.13418 http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caugh...
- darkchasma 13y agoHow long would you have to run the centrifuge for? If it were 6-7 times faster, you would have to run a machine nonstop for 10 years. Seems like a tremendous waste of energy, heat from a motor which could affect the results, and a great likelihood of experimental equipment failure.
- robomartin 13y agoNo, you could go a million times faster. A million! Here's an interesting resource: http://www.endmemo.com/bio/grpm.php http://www.endmemo.com/bio/grpm.php Now, there might be reasons why a million g's might be a bad idea. Maybe 100K g's is a better choice. Someone with more expertise in centrifuge application could chip in and clarify this.
- jerf 13y agoI'm not sure it would be valid. At a million g's, I'm a liquid. But most people would broadly speaking classify me as a solid (albeit one containing a lot of liquid).
- robomartin 13y ago> At a million g's, I'm a liquid Not really. You'll disintegrate in strange ways based on the relative density of your constituent parts. <edit>: Another thought is that if you laid on a bed for 13 years (the time it took for a drop of pitch to form) without moving --ignoring tissue decay and other factors-- you'd probably "flow" just as you might in a high gravity environment. Gravity, like rust, never sleeps. </edit> Yet, unless a domain expert says otherwise, I think your point is absolutely valid. However, pitch might just be the kind of substance that would be fine at a million g's. I don't know. That's the reason for my request for comment from someone with centrifuge experience. At a million g's a lot of seemingly strange things can happen. However, perhaps 100, 1000 or 10,000 g's is reasonable. I used the million g example as an illustration of the attainable extreme in response to a comment that spoke about 6 or 7 g's. Clearly we can do better, far better. In consultation with a domain expert (Chemist?) I would design the experiment to give results in somewhere between a day and a month. Faster if possible. The criteria would be to choose an acceleration that does not fundamentally change the nature of the substance under test. All we want to do is promote faster flow.
- chm 13y ago"The experiment was begun by a colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton in the physics department of Trinity in 1944." Am I the only one who finds this insulting? They could at least name the guy!!!
- yaddayadda 13y ago"Over the years, the identity of the scientist who began the experiment was forgotten, and the experiment lay unattended on a shelf where it continued to shed drops uninterrupted while gathering layers of dust. Physicists at Trinity College recently began to monitor the experiment again. Last April they set up a webcam so that anyone could watch and try to be the first person ever to witness the drop fall live." - http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caught-on-camera-at-last-1.13418 http://www.nature.com/news/world-s-slowest-moving-drop-caugh...
- randomaccount 13y agoPretty sure it's this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEz2eE048M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEz2eE048M His office is in the same room as this tar drop experiment.
- user24 13y agoI sort of take issue with "experiment succeeds". You don't (shouldn't) set up an experiment to prove or disprove something, merely to discover. I'm sure the issue, if indeed there is one, is with the reporting not the scientists though.
- jbooth 13y agoOf course you set it up to prove or disprove a hypothesis. Otherwise you're just trying random stuff with no idea why it might be interesting.
- pseut 13y agosubstitute "ends" for "succeeds" if you're feeling pedantic. I think that for a decades long experiment the two words become synonyms.
- davebees 13y agoIt's still running!
- aplusbi 13y ago"Succeeded" sounds so much better than "rejected the null hypothesis."
- Dylan16807 13y agoIt succeeded in making a measurement. That was the goal of the experiment, not proving or disproving anything in particular.
- hef19898 13y agoDepends on the sample size and the statistical relevance! ;-) DoE anyone?
- marco-fiset 13y agoAm I the only one to think that this is pretty boring?
- matt1 13y agoFor a bit more background on the history of this experiment and why the previous drips were missed, check out this recent Radiolab podcast: http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop-experiment/ http://joshuafoer.com/radiolab-the-pitch-drop-experiment/
- hansjorg 13y agoThe Radiolab episode was about a similar experiment at the University of Queensland in Australia.
- elmuchoprez 13y ago"Over several decades a number of drips did form in the funnel and fall into the jar, giving credence to the hypothesis that pitch is indeed viscous." It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a conclusion in far less time than 69 years. It just took 69 years for someone to think about video taping it.
- RobAley 13y agoNope, assuming they designed it for scientific rigour. Without observation, it would be impossible to say, for instance, that some external force (vibration, wind, mischievous students) hadn't caused the drip to form or fall/break off. The experiment didn't reach a firm conclusion (to some level of certainty) without observation.
- nagrom 13y agoThat's what the parent said: there were previous chances to definitively end the experiment by observing drips, but no-one thought to monitor it with a video camera until recently. There was no need to wait 69 years.
- RobAley 13y agoNo, they said "It sounds like the experiment, as designed, reached a conclusion". As designed it didn't, as they didn't include camera-based observation in the design, the design called for someone to notice the drip to prove the viscosity of the substance, and that didn't happen until now. Maybe it was a badly planned experiment (or more likely, the cost/availability of cameras in those days prohibited their inclusion in the plans). Nevertheless, no firm conclusion can be drawn that the experiment could have been ended early, those previous "drips" may not have happened without external forces applied and so even if cameras had been used it may not have ended until now. Its probably likely that it would have ended had cameras been available, but the scientific method generally calls for a greater degree of certainty than "probably likely" before calling an experiment a success. And of course, it is called an "experiment", not a "certainty". Mistakes happen and they're not always optimal, that’s all part of the fun of science!
- tragomaskhalos 13y agoMy favourite thing about this story is the various times that this and similar experiments around the world missed capturing the actual drip due to various glitches and snafus; imagine the howl of anguish of the researcher coming in one morning to find that yes something has finally happened after all these years, only to discover that some doofus had left the lens cap on ....
- ryen 13y agoHave they analyzed the dripped substance? My first thought is that it could be from condensation formed on the pitch over a large amount of time due to temperature gradients.
- carlsednaoui 13y agoHeard about this the Pitch Drop Experiment on Radiolab couple weeks ago. Very interesting episode: http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/ http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/never-quite-now/ "...the Pitch Drop Experiment is so slow, you can watch it for hours (check out the live cam) and not detect the slightest movement. But that doesn't mean nothing's happening. Professor John Mainstone tells us about his desperate attempts to catch the flashes of action hiding inside this decades-long experiment."
- aarondf 13y agoThat pitch was a little thick and quite slow. 6/10.
- dokem 13y agowhy did the pitch have to drip? Isn't the fact that a drip was forming proof that the pitch was flowing?
- LeeLorean 13y agoSeems like it to me. Maybe they thought the whole drop quantam tunneled to the bottom I guess you could have asked that if you find a tree that's fallen in a forrest, did it actually fall over if no one saw it?
- kfury 13y agoPeople have waited through so many failed attempts to record the drop that nobody wants to mention that they didn't 'really' record an unassisted drop. The bead is still connected when it hits bottom, and the tail doesn't break until they raised up the suspended platform. Check the video and notice that the suspended vessel jumps about 2 inches higher just after the drop. It's a good recording, but I'm looking forward to a better one in 2026.
- ISL 13y agoIf you wanted to do this experiment with reasonable statistics, it's quite amenable to parallelization. Pitch is cheap, funnels are cheap, dusty basement shelves are (potentially) cheap, and webcams are inexpensive. Doing ~300 of these in parallel wouldn't be hard, and would allow considerable investigation of systematic effects. Decade-scale experiments aren't hard, but they do require planning.
- shabble 13y agoThe Beal seed viability experiment[1] has been running for 120+ years, and iirc they keep increasing the interval between trials because there are only so many seeds stored, and so far they haven't had a significant failure in germinating and growing them. [1] http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full http://www.amjbot.org/content/89/8/1285.full
- thehme 13y agoThis is really cool. I only wish we knew the name of the "colleague of Nobel Prize winner Ernest Walton", so he can get credit for this.
- donutdan4114 13y agoView this one live: http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment http://smp.uq.edu.au/content/pitch-drop-experiment
- codezero 13y agoScience has been confirming results for a long time without the aide of video proof. This sounds like fluff. It's cool fluff, but it's pretty ridiculous to assert that the theory couldn't be proven without video proof.