The number of kaon to pion and neutrino/antineutrino decays the team observed is higher than the 8.4 per 100 billion predicted by the Standard Model, but it’s still within the uncertainty parameters.
So then how the fuck does that hint at new physics? Idiots.
“One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.”
― James D. Watson, The Double Helix
There’s many things in which we shouldn’t take scientists at their word indeed, but in their own field there’s a good chance they have something useful to say
They demonstrated the event to five sigma certainty, which is significant, but it’s within the uncertainty in the standard model. If they can demonstrate the same or similar things to greater exactness, it could guide research that changes the standard model
I’m just curious: if I had been confused, what were you expecting would have happen if you simply repeated what the article had already stated without adding anything?
The basic procedure at CERN is that in order to be certain about something that’s super random is to conduct the experiment trillions of times until you get a couple thousand events and you get to beat down your error. If they startseeing something, it’ll still take them a couple of years of data to prove it past their uncertainty requirements.
So then how the fuck does that hint at new physics? Idiots.
Whatever particle physicists are, idiots they’re not
I think that was directed at the journalists coming up with clickbait, not the scientists.
“One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.” ― James D. Watson, The Double Helix
There’s many things in which we shouldn’t take scientists at their word indeed, but in their own field there’s a good chance they have something useful to say
They demonstrated the event to five sigma certainty, which is significant, but it’s within the uncertainty in the standard model. If they can demonstrate the same or similar things to greater exactness, it could guide research that changes the standard model
You’re just repeating the article. Nothing you said contradicts what I said.
Oh, I thought you were legitimately confused. Not going to spend the energy on a troll
I’m just curious: if I had been confused, what were you expecting would have happen if you simply repeated what the article had already stated without adding anything?
Maybe a pleasant discussion starting from common ground, rather than this endless contrarian hell
About what?
It’s a HINT, not a certainty 😘
What is?
The basic procedure at CERN is that in order to be certain about something that’s super random is to conduct the experiment trillions of times until you get a couple thousand events and you get to beat down your error. If they startseeing something, it’ll still take them a couple of years of data to prove it past their uncertainty requirements.
LOL yes I know thanks.