5 ms·
Some quotes from the end of the article: As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL
by cygx 12y ago
Some quotes from the end of the article:
As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL bad sign. It was already well below what the theory predicted. That sets off alarm bells. After all this time, if something isn’t in hand to float around a table top, its should still at least be producing unequivocal results.
I am aware of only one positive replication attempt, and even that experimenter (Paul March) had concerns over its validity. All other replication attempts have either been negative or ambiguous. My own experiments were ambiguous.
It seems to make the effect happen, a lot of parameters for the test devices, some not clearly understood, need to be “just so”. The question remains, are the devices being dialed in to create a real effect, or do things need to be just so to cause merely a false positive?
- dnautics 12y agoit's (sadly) very refreshing honesty from a scientist. In grad school, I counseled a junior grad student on this sort of phenomenon, she didn't take my advice and learned a very hard lesson - spending 4 years of grad school chasing down ghosts. On the other hand, it wasn't a waste, she got a very good job in the pharma industry on the back of her commitment to sussing out errors, her honesty and introspection.
- tormeh 12y agoGiven the potential upsides, I would say it's worth finding the errors in this reactionless drive. Even if it turns out to be just a fantasy the poorly understood effects that need to be "just so" might be interesting in their own right.
- jessriedel 12y agoThat seems like a compelling position until you're exposed to a million such cases. There's no end to the number of weird, malfunctioning pieces of equipment or complicated many-body systems for which we have a theory that sort of explains them with a few poorly understood wrinkles.
- saalweachter 12y agoYes, yes, a million times yes. In a world as big as ours, it's reasonable to diversify your investments and keep a few million to one long-shots going, but it's important not to lose sight of the odds. Buy a lotto ticket every now and again, but put the bulk of your money in a 401k or other solid investment. In this case, I think we're giving this idea more or less exactly the right amount of attention: one dedicated crank (and I use that term lovingly) devoting his life to his crazy theory, and a handful of less invested others occasionally checking in on it. If he can make it work, fantastic, if he can't, well, we didn't waste too much on it.