Neutrino experiment reveals inconsistency in how matter and antimatter behave(quantamagazine.org)
quantamagazine.org
Neutrino experiment reveals inconsistency in how matter and antimatter behave
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutrinos-suggest-solution-to-mystery-of-universes-existence-20171212/
9 comments
1999 article talking a little about historical results and projections for CP violation http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28092
Oof, p value misinterpretation:
> That result got the community excited — although most physicists were quick to point out that with such a small sample size, there was still a 10 percent chance that the difference was merely a random fluctuation. (By comparison, the 2012 Higgs boson discovery had less than a 1-in-1 million probability that the signal was due to chance.)
> That result got the community excited — although most physicists were quick to point out that with such a small sample size, there was still a 10 percent chance that the difference was merely a random fluctuation. (By comparison, the 2012 Higgs boson discovery had less than a 1-in-1 million probability that the signal was due to chance.)
Yep. When reading the actual papers from the LHC, LIGO, etc groups the p-value/significance aspect seems nearly irrelevant though.
My impression is usually they have some set of possible theories that predict the exact result observed, then go on to do more experiments to distinguish between the predictions of those.
Really they should just drop the significance testing because it adds nothing and they don't seem any better at interpreting those tests than other fields. If I am wrong about all this and that aspect actually is crucial, then physics is in trouble...
My impression is usually they have some set of possible theories that predict the exact result observed, then go on to do more experiments to distinguish between the predictions of those.
Really they should just drop the significance testing because it adds nothing and they don't seem any better at interpreting those tests than other fields. If I am wrong about all this and that aspect actually is crucial, then physics is in trouble...
In HEP, it’s more that the bar is so damned high, and your n equals something in the billions or trillions, and oversight from the community is extreme. The confidence required for example, to make people feel generally positive about the discovery of the Higgs boson, was in the realm of billions to one. Generally there is a model, and dats needs to fit that model to what would be an insane degree of confidence in most other fields.
There is a bit more to it than just pure sigma values; it is also a matter of how closely the data fits the model overall, a lack of competing hypotheses to explain said data, and to what degree other evidence exists to support the model. Of course, if the theory being confirmed is complementary to existing physics, that also helps a lot. Having said that, 3 sigma is about when people started to get excited about the Higgs, and 5 sigma was confirmation.
There is a bit more to it than just pure sigma values; it is also a matter of how closely the data fits the model overall, a lack of competing hypotheses to explain said data, and to what degree other evidence exists to support the model. Of course, if the theory being confirmed is complementary to existing physics, that also helps a lot. Having said that, 3 sigma is about when people started to get excited about the Higgs, and 5 sigma was confirmation.
5-sigma is a ridiculous level. Im not that confident of my own name, which i spell incorrectly on at least two of every billion forms i fill.
The problem is that the sigma calculation is only about rejecting the null model (ie, the model of "background noise"). That number is calculated without including info about any theory/evidence regarding the Higgs boson.
So, all of the confidence and confirmation regarding the Higg's boson better actually be coming from "how closely the data fits the model overall, a lack of competing hypotheses to explain said data, and to what degree other evidence exists to support the model".
As an example, I'd imagine detecting the Higgs boson at 1 eV energy levels is theoretically predicted to be even less likely than billions/trillions to one odds, therefore detector noise would be a more likely explanation for such results, despite the low p-value.
So, all of the confidence and confirmation regarding the Higg's boson better actually be coming from "how closely the data fits the model overall, a lack of competing hypotheses to explain said data, and to what degree other evidence exists to support the model".
As an example, I'd imagine detecting the Higgs boson at 1 eV energy levels is theoretically predicted to be even less likely than billions/trillions to one odds, therefore detector noise would be a more likely explanation for such results, despite the low p-value.
>That number is calculated without including info about any theory/evidence regarding the Higg's [sic] boson.
That's not true. You can see plots in the 2011 and 2012 papers that give these calculations as a function of mass. It's basically impossible to make a mass-independent calculation. (Not withstanding the fact that there's no Higgsless theory to do calculations for the background).
>As an example, I'd imagine detecting the Higg's [sic] boson at 1 eV energy levels is theoretically predicted to be even less likely than billions/trillions to one odds, therefore detector noise would be a more likely explanation for such results, despite the low p-value.
You're right, the p-value is much lower. Previous experiments have long since excluded such a low Higgs mass. Also, if the Higgs mass were so low, we probably wouldn't exist.
That's not true. You can see plots in the 2011 and 2012 papers that give these calculations as a function of mass. It's basically impossible to make a mass-independent calculation. (Not withstanding the fact that there's no Higgsless theory to do calculations for the background).
>As an example, I'd imagine detecting the Higg's [sic] boson at 1 eV energy levels is theoretically predicted to be even less likely than billions/trillions to one odds, therefore detector noise would be a more likely explanation for such results, despite the low p-value.
You're right, the p-value is much lower. Previous experiments have long since excluded such a low Higgs mass. Also, if the Higgs mass were so low, we probably wouldn't exist.
1) Typos fixed.
2) "That's not true. You can see plots in the 2011 and 2012 papers that give these calculations as a function of mass."
- Can you explain what you mean via figure 1 in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235 ?
- I don't see the relevance of calculating p-values as a function of mass to my comment
3) "Not withstanding the fact that there's no Higgsless theory to do calculations for the background"
- Then what model did they use to calculate the p-values? (I do not know the details but am fairly certain it is one where there is no Higgs boson at any given mass)
4) "Also, if the Higgs mass were so low, we probably wouldn't exist."
- Ok, but I've also read headlines like "CERN proves the universe shouldn't exist", clearly this is just because their model of the universe is wrong. I'm sure in a pinch people could come up with some kind of balancing out of whatever problems would arise from such a small Higgs mass. The point was that assuming the current theory is correct, the Higgs would be a much worse explanation than detector noise.
2) "That's not true. You can see plots in the 2011 and 2012 papers that give these calculations as a function of mass."
- Can you explain what you mean via figure 1 in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235 ?
- I don't see the relevance of calculating p-values as a function of mass to my comment
3) "Not withstanding the fact that there's no Higgsless theory to do calculations for the background"
- Then what model did they use to calculate the p-values? (I do not know the details but am fairly certain it is one where there is no Higgs boson at any given mass)
4) "Also, if the Higgs mass were so low, we probably wouldn't exist."
- Ok, but I've also read headlines like "CERN proves the universe shouldn't exist", clearly this is just because their model of the universe is wrong. I'm sure in a pinch people could come up with some kind of balancing out of whatever problems would arise from such a small Higgs mass. The point was that assuming the current theory is correct, the Higgs would be a much worse explanation than detector noise.
RE 2: What I mean is that "N-sigma" and local p-value are being used interchangeably, which you can see from this plot. There's no "number ... calculated without including info about any theory/evidence regarding the Higgs boson".
RE 3: The model used to calculate the background are unphysical in the sense that they set the Higgs production cross section to zero without changing anything else. There's no physical Higgsless theory.
RE 4: I was agreeing with you and adding some facts.
RE 3: The model used to calculate the background are unphysical in the sense that they set the Higgs production cross section to zero without changing anything else. There's no physical Higgsless theory.
RE 4: I was agreeing with you and adding some facts.
>'What I mean is that "N-sigma" and local p-value are being used interchangeably, which you can see from this plot. There's no "number ... calculated without including info about any theory/evidence regarding the Higgs boson".'
Sorry, I still don't see what information is being used that requires theory/evidence regarding the Higgs boson. Whether or not anyone knows about the Higgs boson they could be plotting p-value by mass for these experiments.
>"The model used to calculate the background are unphysical in the sense that they set the Higgs production cross section to zero without changing anything else. There's no physical Higgsless theory."
So they actually change their model to be surely false, then go on to prove the known false model they just created... is false. This is pointless.
Sorry, I still don't see what information is being used that requires theory/evidence regarding the Higgs boson. Whether or not anyone knows about the Higgs boson they could be plotting p-value by mass for these experiments.
>"The model used to calculate the background are unphysical in the sense that they set the Higgs production cross section to zero without changing anything else. There's no physical Higgsless theory."
So they actually change their model to be surely false, then go on to prove the known false model they just created... is false. This is pointless.
> they could be plotting ... by mass
he was saying, the mass calculation depends on the theory about the higgs? they can't just put it on a scale :)
he was saying, the mass calculation depends on the theory about the higgs? they can't just put it on a scale :)
You may be right on that point. For some reason I was thinking they just summed up the velocities, etc from whatever hits the detector. Perhaps somewhere they assume something about the Higgs boson though.
This makes the significance testing they do even more ridiculous though. At first I thought the model of background noise was simply not providing much info about the topic of interest: the existence and mass of the Higgs.
According to what I have learned here, it is much worse. Not only are they testing a purposefully rendered false model (and taking rejection of that known-false model as evidence for the Higgs), but they are also assuming the Higgs exists (and has whatever properties you all are referring to) as part of this process. As a result, the Higgs exists either way (whether background model is rejected or not) according to this process.
Doing this test sounds pretty meaningless to me.
This makes the significance testing they do even more ridiculous though. At first I thought the model of background noise was simply not providing much info about the topic of interest: the existence and mass of the Higgs.
According to what I have learned here, it is much worse. Not only are they testing a purposefully rendered false model (and taking rejection of that known-false model as evidence for the Higgs), but they are also assuming the Higgs exists (and has whatever properties you all are referring to) as part of this process. As a result, the Higgs exists either way (whether background model is rejected or not) according to this process.
Doing this test sounds pretty meaningless to me.
We should just drop the significance testing/reporting period. The ASA's recent statement on p-values is spot on:
http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf
http://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf
Significance testing is probably fine as long as you put your theoretical prediction as the null hypothesis.
Measurements are inherently probabilistic. If there was no trouble, there would be no physics.
How can they know they detect their neutrinos not the neutrinos travelling through space and passing earth as if it wasn't there?
Sine we are living in matter dominated region of space it would stand to reason that most stellar neutrinos that pass through us are matter neutrinos.
Sine we are living in matter dominated region of space it would stand to reason that most stellar neutrinos that pass through us are matter neutrinos.
They can infer the momentum of a detected neutrino from the detector data, which lets them statistically distinguish neutrinos coming from the beam they control (controlled direction and energy) from background noise (e.g. neutrinos from the sun).
They’re also talking about low numbers. It’s bad for statistical noise but helps to distinguish generated from background.
What about neutrinos from outside of the solar system?
I don't know what biases there are in the distribution of such neutrinos, but the basic idea still holds, which is that they have a specific source of neutrinos they're looking out for and neutrinos of other origins will only look like they're from that source very seldom. They can infer the origin of the neutrinos based on the direction from which they entered the detector and how energetic they are.
The Super-Kamiokande detector is useful for neutrino detections generally, and they calibrate it from time to time using various devices, and have been for decades (!).
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9807027v1 [1998]
The T2K experiment is in a way essentially another calibration system. It of course has its own overview page at http://t2k-experiment.org/t2k/
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9807027v1 [1998]
The T2K experiment is in a way essentially another calibration system. It of course has its own overview page at http://t2k-experiment.org/t2k/
I highly doubt they can rule out other sources with total observations counted in single or double digits especially that they can detect just one in bazzzilion of neutrinos that go through the detector.
But I guess you are right. I just read that in case of some more energetic neutrinos interaction can create electron muon or tau dependant on neutrino flavor.
But I guess you are right. I just read that in case of some more energetic neutrinos interaction can create electron muon or tau dependant on neutrino flavor.
I don't work with accelerator neutrinos, but I imagine that. very simplistically, they can compare times when the neutrino beam is on (signal + background) with times that the neutrino beam is off (background only).
They aim for maximal stability of direction and flux.
"It is essential that the direction of the neutrino beam be stable to within 1/20 th of a degree, and that the intensity of the beam be constant over time ..." http://t2k-experiment.org/t2k/
While turning it on and off or steering it differently seems like it would help generate correlations with the detectors to distinguish T2K daughter products from those of other phenomena, the total set of detections are fleetingly rare. Moreover, the background is reasonably well characterized from the more than ten years before T2K existed, peppered with data from the various periods when T2K's beam was off for extended periods.
A brief explanation of why the T2K's beam is angled slightly away from the SK detectors is elsewhere at the same link.
"It is essential that the direction of the neutrino beam be stable to within 1/20 th of a degree, and that the intensity of the beam be constant over time ..." http://t2k-experiment.org/t2k/
While turning it on and off or steering it differently seems like it would help generate correlations with the detectors to distinguish T2K daughter products from those of other phenomena, the total set of detections are fleetingly rare. Moreover, the background is reasonably well characterized from the more than ten years before T2K existed, peppered with data from the various periods when T2K's beam was off for extended periods.
A brief explanation of why the T2K's beam is angled slightly away from the SK detectors is elsewhere at the same link.
"Experts believe that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos have super heavy counterparts" - is this one about supersymmetry?
Then, "some experts" not "[all] experts" since supersymmetry is not universally accepted with its lack of evidence.
Then, "some experts" not "[all] experts" since supersymmetry is not universally accepted with its lack of evidence.
Definitely. ADMX for example, is searching for axions, under the assumption that WIMPs or sterile-heavy neutrinos are he wrong bet. Having said that, SUSY is still very popular, albeit unsupported by evidence. Critically for proponents of supersymmetric theories, they have also not been ruled out, and nothing else has been ruled definitely in.
> is this one about supersymmetry?
Not necessarily. The seesaw mechanism [1] itself does not require supersymmetry, it's quite generic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism
Not necessarily. The seesaw mechanism [1] itself does not require supersymmetry, it's quite generic.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism
Maybe more precise would be to say "might have"
It's a false scottsman, those other experts aren't true experts.
Maybe to lower down expectations we should have two names: Universe existence and Universe formation.
Universe formation is how the universe "formed".
Universe existence is how the universe come to exist out of nothing.
The article and neutrino experiment talk about the former. The latter is more interesting, though.
Universe formation is how the universe "formed".
Universe existence is how the universe come to exist out of nothing.
The article and neutrino experiment talk about the former. The latter is more interesting, though.
The latter feels like a classic case of questions for which the answer is unhelpfully, 42. That is to say, do we even know what the question is? We have no real reason to believe that the universe came from nothing, or that nothing exists in a way that isn’t purely Conceptual. Certainly all of our explorations into the nature of nature indicate complete absence of nothingness, which may go someway to explaining the popularity of theories which don’t require it. Cyclic universes, cyclic ekpyrotic universes, multiverses and more all essentially attempt to reframe the question on nature’s terms, not ours.
So it’s interesting to think about, but there are reasons to believe that humans will always lack the tools to find the answers. Imo that makes it feel like questions about the existence of god, or an afterlife. They are important and have massive bearing on our existence, but I doubt in our ability to answer them, or even to ask the right questions in the first place. In that sense, they’re less interesting than questions we can actually formulate and hope to answer, like the “hows” rather than the “whys” of existence.
So it’s interesting to think about, but there are reasons to believe that humans will always lack the tools to find the answers. Imo that makes it feel like questions about the existence of god, or an afterlife. They are important and have massive bearing on our existence, but I doubt in our ability to answer them, or even to ask the right questions in the first place. In that sense, they’re less interesting than questions we can actually formulate and hope to answer, like the “hows” rather than the “whys” of existence.
Nothing is a concept; therefore it should exist, no? The only possible exception I can think of is if concepts are actually physical the way physical reality is.
In classic physic, nothing is a concept true, in quantum physic with the foam of virtual particles coming from the void (see casimir effect) 'nothing' is a much nebulous concept!
We can’t even imagine nothing though... it’s just a word we use to describe a state which may not and may never have existed.
[deleted]
How do they produce exactly same number and energy distribution of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos?
What a terrible headline.
Why? It sums up perfectly the article. The existence of the Universe IS a mystery. And the article is about neutrinos.
There are mysteries in the universe that may be solved through a discovery about neutrinos. But the mystery of the very existence of the universe itself cannot be solved by appealing to the existence of some other contingent object within the universe.
Let's go one step at time. Matter and antimatter should be created in equal way and they annihilate once they bump into each other. This very fact should raise an eyebrow that no matter should exists, but clearly does. If we solve this mystery then we can go further another step.
If they would simply be annihilated after being created, why be created at all?
I feel like somehow, we are way off in our understanding of the universe and how it works. There are so many unanswered questions, such as:
1) If the big bang created space and time as we know it, what was there before that?
2) Why did the big bang suddenly occur 14 billion or so years ago? Why not a couple billion years before or after that?
I know that the steady state theory of the universe has fallen out of favor, but I wonder if some appeal could be made to some kind of fundamental force that has always existed and always will, which behaves with fluid dynamics, and the "islands" of matter that we experience are actually some kind of fluctuations in that fluid.
I feel like somehow, we are way off in our understanding of the universe and how it works. There are so many unanswered questions, such as:
1) If the big bang created space and time as we know it, what was there before that?
2) Why did the big bang suddenly occur 14 billion or so years ago? Why not a couple billion years before or after that?
I know that the steady state theory of the universe has fallen out of favor, but I wonder if some appeal could be made to some kind of fundamental force that has always existed and always will, which behaves with fluid dynamics, and the "islands" of matter that we experience are actually some kind of fluctuations in that fluid.
1) The canonical answer is: there was no before, the singularity happened at delta_t=0. It is a mathematical construct resulting from extrapolating a physical model backwards in time which somehow converges. I'm not sure its not just convention. The big bang didn't create space time. It is space-time indeed and we know nothing (absolutely nothing, I believe!) about an object that has no spacial or temporal extend. All they are interested in is a few seconds after.
And the other big point is that our concept of time might be flawed. Maybe in relativistic terms, from our point of view it was a few seconds, but it actually took an eternity and you could keep observing closer and closer to the origin (in the diagrammatic sense) but never reach it, so who even cares, still? So, in a way more easily grasped by humans, it would be more apt to say, there is no after, because we will possibly never get behind it in our way forward. Does that seem sensible to you?
2) Because that's when the size of the universe in the calculation reaches plank scale? I'd like some correction because I have read before that plank scale is not actually a hard physical boundary, but I believe we just don't have the tools to say anything about that time with any certainty. And don't be mistaken, there are loads of competing theories and all have warts, paradoxes and open questions. Such is life, ironically, which I still think is a comfortable closure.
And the other big point is that our concept of time might be flawed. Maybe in relativistic terms, from our point of view it was a few seconds, but it actually took an eternity and you could keep observing closer and closer to the origin (in the diagrammatic sense) but never reach it, so who even cares, still? So, in a way more easily grasped by humans, it would be more apt to say, there is no after, because we will possibly never get behind it in our way forward. Does that seem sensible to you?
2) Because that's when the size of the universe in the calculation reaches plank scale? I'd like some correction because I have read before that plank scale is not actually a hard physical boundary, but I believe we just don't have the tools to say anything about that time with any certainty. And don't be mistaken, there are loads of competing theories and all have warts, paradoxes and open questions. Such is life, ironically, which I still think is a comfortable closure.
1) It obviously did not create time, because if time didn't exist then no events could take place, and the big bang was an event. Hence time must necessarily have existed before the big bang.
2) We should expect to find ourselves in a time and place that accommodates observers, see o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
2) We should expect to find ourselves in a time and place that accommodates observers, see o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Can nothing influence rate of oscilations of neutrinos?
I have trouble accepting CP symmetry violations.
I have trouble accepting CP symmetry violations.
> I have trouble accepting CP symmetry violations.
Universe does seem to exist, though, doesn't it?
How would you explain that without CP symmetry violation?
Universe does seem to exist, though, doesn't it?
How would you explain that without CP symmetry violation?
> How would you explain that without CP symmetry violation?
My preferred explanation is that areas dominated by matter and anti-matter got pushed away far apart by the energy of annihilation between them, universe is much larger than observable universe and our galaxy, neighbouring galaxies, possibly even whole observable universe belongs to region that was dominated by matter that is now separated from anti-matter dominated ones with sufficiently large and empty void.
I don't exactly buy the idea that all of the matter was at the beginning in one geometrical point, and exactly uniform. Background radiation is not exactly uniform so imho not all places in space had exactly the same amounts of matter and anti-matter either.
My preferred explanation is that areas dominated by matter and anti-matter got pushed away far apart by the energy of annihilation between them, universe is much larger than observable universe and our galaxy, neighbouring galaxies, possibly even whole observable universe belongs to region that was dominated by matter that is now separated from anti-matter dominated ones with sufficiently large and empty void.
I don't exactly buy the idea that all of the matter was at the beginning in one geometrical point, and exactly uniform. Background radiation is not exactly uniform so imho not all places in space had exactly the same amounts of matter and anti-matter either.
The geometrical point you refer to is a projection, not an empirical fact. PBS has an excellent YouTube series called Space Time, which describes the Big Bang cosmology in some detail, in several episodes. I'm not exactly sure which ones, but I could track them down if you like. However, I might recommend the entire series; you might be able to refine your speculation somewhat.
My impression as a layman is that quantamagazine.org is leaking a lot of ... ambitious ... physics headlines into HN; I've kind of stopped clicking on them after the first few.
Physicists in the audience, is that an accurate assessment or should I go back to excitedly clicking through when I see them?
Physicists in the audience, is that an accurate assessment or should I go back to excitedly clicking through when I see them?
I work for a physics journal and when we make articles for the public to describe findings we have the opposite problem when it comes to authors. Scientists especially in theory are reluctant to ascribe much at all to their research other than the phenomenon shown. In research this is a good thing, but when we want to show the public what these very theoretical or specialist discoveries mean to our total understanding of physics it is not as helpful. Just getting anyone to speculate what a finding means is hard.
In this case, this is something that might explain a CP violation that can explain why we exist in a universe of matter. To a physicist, explaining it is a CP violation is grandiose enough. But in reality the title is not at all misleading as CP parity is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, and yes it is a mystery as to why we have a universe of matter that exists. So while it may seem ambitious to a person in the field, it is indeed truthful and exciting research.
In this case, this is something that might explain a CP violation that can explain why we exist in a universe of matter. To a physicist, explaining it is a CP violation is grandiose enough. But in reality the title is not at all misleading as CP parity is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, and yes it is a mystery as to why we have a universe of matter that exists. So while it may seem ambitious to a person in the field, it is indeed truthful and exciting research.
Quite simply, when the specialist tell you that it is not news worthy, then it is probably not news worthy. Otherwise we get all these new particle discovered clickbait, where the journalists just neglect to mention that the "particle" in question is a compound state that was well studied in the 60ies or that the particle in question is just an oscillation mode of a crystal. (I am not joking, both are examples that were well upvoted on HN.)
And that is just the ideal case, where journalists report on experiments. In theory most articles are just as interesting as someone created a branch on a github project, that is the very first step towards something that may develop into something interesting, or it may not.
So yeah, "just getting anyone to speculate what a finding means is hard," because everybody knows that science journalists try to feed the public bullshit. Seriously, every single climate change denier I ever discussed with has given me page after page of links to popular science reporting where the entire problem was, that the journalist found someone who was willing to speculate and these speculations turned out to be wrong.
And that is just the ideal case, where journalists report on experiments. In theory most articles are just as interesting as someone created a branch on a github project, that is the very first step towards something that may develop into something interesting, or it may not.
So yeah, "just getting anyone to speculate what a finding means is hard," because everybody knows that science journalists try to feed the public bullshit. Seriously, every single climate change denier I ever discussed with has given me page after page of links to popular science reporting where the entire problem was, that the journalist found someone who was willing to speculate and these speculations turned out to be wrong.
Well, the fact that CP violation is related to the "existence of the universe" (which I guess refers to Baryogenesis) is not ambitious. It's also not terribly surprising that there would be CP violation in neutrinos.
It's true that the significance isn't enough to meet the standard in particle physics, but a result will always be weak before it is strong, so this is still something that's exciting. It should also be noted that the 5-sigma "standard" is set to be so stringent partially because physicists in the past were not so good at estimating things like trial factors and systematic errors. We are better at this now (and T2K has some talented statistics-minded physicists on it), so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it on those grounds.
It's true that the significance isn't enough to meet the standard in particle physics, but a result will always be weak before it is strong, so this is still something that's exciting. It should also be noted that the 5-sigma "standard" is set to be so stringent partially because physicists in the past were not so good at estimating things like trial factors and systematic errors. We are better at this now (and T2K has some talented statistics-minded physicists on it), so I wouldn't immediately dismiss it on those grounds.
>
My impression as a layman is that quantamagazine.org is leaking a lot of ... ambitious ... physics headlines into HN; I've kind of stopped clicking on them after the first few.
I find this to be a repeated pattern where some fault is immediately assumed by the submission without any explanations to support their case as to why HN audience should mistrust it.
> Physicists in the audience, is that an accurate assessment or should I go back to excitedly clicking through when I see them?
It doesn't instill much confidence to call something shit and then forcing the onus on somebody else with more expertise to support their jaundiced claim without any supporting arguments.
At least if you are going to call something as untrustworthy, back it up with examples and clear explanations as to why we should not trust it.
I find this to be a repeated pattern where some fault is immediately assumed by the submission without any explanations to support their case as to why HN audience should mistrust it.
> Physicists in the audience, is that an accurate assessment or should I go back to excitedly clicking through when I see them?
It doesn't instill much confidence to call something shit and then forcing the onus on somebody else with more expertise to support their jaundiced claim without any supporting arguments.
At least if you are going to call something as untrustworthy, back it up with examples and clear explanations as to why we should not trust it.
> leaking a lot of ... ambitious ... physics headlines into HN
QuantaMagazine is a very good bridge between cutting edge research and layman. What does leak even mean? They don't write titles to be "hackernewsed".
This headline in question is also totally normal, not sure why you have a problem with it.
QuantaMagazine is a very good bridge between cutting edge research and layman. What does leak even mean? They don't write titles to be "hackernewsed".
This headline in question is also totally normal, not sure why you have a problem with it.
The title suggests that a discovery had been made that explains why the universe exists.
Can you come up with a more grandiose title?
Can you come up with a more grandiose title?
"Suggest" as is used in the title isn't a very grandiose assertion. If the research pans out, then it solves a great mystery. This isn't more hyped than how the researchers running the project see it.
Well, it IS grandiose if true (like the word suggest anticipate). I don't see how is this not accurate.
Mystery is a weasel-word and I suppose the article doesn't explain what is so mysterious about the universes existence, because if it would be explained, it wouldn't be mysterious.
Edit: okay, it's in the first paragraph, but still. Scientists are trying to detect new particles or particle interactions. Nothing new about that, superficially speaking. but it doesn't explain all of the big bang, maybe a piece of the puzzle, but not at all why it happened.
Edit: okay, it's in the first paragraph, but still. Scientists are trying to detect new particles or particle interactions. Nothing new about that, superficially speaking. but it doesn't explain all of the big bang, maybe a piece of the puzzle, but not at all why it happened.
'Mystery' is not a 'weasel word', unless you find something particularly weasely about the concept of mystery itself.
Mystery is the epitome of weasel words. A weasel word obscures rather than clarifying. Something obscure is a mysterious. See also my edit.
Another offense to scientific writing is the antropomorphism. It's actually the scientists who actively suggest the story and they surely wouldn't go for quite as bold a statement.
In terms of storytelling we can assume that there's a lot of importance in what isn't said, and that's often achieved by exaggeration of known wrongs, as in sarcasm. Nothing particularly wrong about that, but not terribly scientific. Take away the whole fluff and you have a report about an experimental result with low p-value and the plan to improve it via added reaction mass which is not further explained. That's hardly the mystery, it's a key to the puzzle, maybe.
Edit: to elaborate further on the weaselisms. Solutio to mystery kinda annihilates, just like antiparticles and counterparts, so the headline corrected for all would be: Scientists suggest Neutrinos prove Universes Existence. Welp, color me slightly unimpressed. Though I'm complaining on a high level, this is actually super cool just not new to me.
Another offense to scientific writing is the antropomorphism. It's actually the scientists who actively suggest the story and they surely wouldn't go for quite as bold a statement.
In terms of storytelling we can assume that there's a lot of importance in what isn't said, and that's often achieved by exaggeration of known wrongs, as in sarcasm. Nothing particularly wrong about that, but not terribly scientific. Take away the whole fluff and you have a report about an experimental result with low p-value and the plan to improve it via added reaction mass which is not further explained. That's hardly the mystery, it's a key to the puzzle, maybe.
Edit: to elaborate further on the weaselisms. Solutio to mystery kinda annihilates, just like antiparticles and counterparts, so the headline corrected for all would be: Scientists suggest Neutrinos prove Universes Existence. Welp, color me slightly unimpressed. Though I'm complaining on a high level, this is actually super cool just not new to me.
"Solution to mystery" kinda annihilates, just like antiparticles and counterparts
It's interesting you've invented your own quantum chromodynamics of English but, really, that's a perfectly normal, pedestrian (stable, if you prefer) and widely used phrase with a clear, unambiguous meaning.
It's interesting you've invented your own quantum chromodynamics of English but, really, that's a perfectly normal, pedestrian (stable, if you prefer) and widely used phrase with a clear, unambiguous meaning.
Have you tried answering that question? Or does the answer require some deity? I mean how dare somebody who dedicated their entire life to this particular field to suggest not claim as assumed, a solution that offends the Gods.
WTH are you blabbing about?
You've been breaking the HN guidelines repeatedly. If you continue to do this again we will ban you. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act if you want to keep commenting here.
I studied applied mathematics and I often point those (few) people who ask me questions about abstract issues towards their articles (e.g. about symmetry and group theory). They're excellent in that regard.
Regarding other subjects, I'm no expert, but I appreciate their style (and I have to say their infographics are very pleasing on the eye). I never watch videos or multimedia content so I can't vouch for the videos either (which others in this thread have expressed appreciation for).
Regarding other subjects, I'm no expert, but I appreciate their style (and I have to say their infographics are very pleasing on the eye). I never watch videos or multimedia content so I can't vouch for the videos either (which others in this thread have expressed appreciation for).
I’d call it... aspirational. It’s not there yet, but it’s almost always an interesting discussion. Typically for pop-sci it oversells the matter, but it feels more enthusiastic than deluded or dumb.
Just my gut though, as a dilettante.
Just my gut though, as a dilettante.
I can't speak for their articles in general, but this one seems to not be clickbait. One of the objectives of T2K is to measure the cp violating phase of neutrino oscillations. As more data is being collected it is appearing there is a good chance that neutrinos indeed do violate cp symmetry.
I am just into physics as a hobby as well, but yes, the site is a somewhat extreme variant of soft/popular science. (maybe extreme isn't the right word, but it's very much inside this category with all the enthusiasm that comes with it)
I like their biology, natural sciences and mathematics articles. They are usually an interview with the researcher and a video.