Comments on: It may turn out that Teh Physics is polytheistic

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:46:51 +0000

Bill, Wyman, this is, of course, totally fucked and very much in line with what often happens in physics.

Here’s how it often goes:

1) Physicists report new results in standard outlet (a press release on the press release page of the major research institution that discovered the results).

2) Reporters and bloggers note the new finding.

3) Physicists pass around obscure PDF file changing or abrogating the results.

4) Physicists or their friends yell at press and bloggers for not knowing about new results, even though the same original stream of information (press page of major research institution where the original results AND new results were originally obtained) is silent on the matter.

5) Bloggers get mad and accuse the physicists of sucking at public relations and getting good information out there. (That’s where we are at this very second, should that not be obvious.)

6) Physicists spew and fume for a while at the bloggers, make repeated claims that the information certainly WAS put out there in a way that interested parties not on some secret mailing list would find it (even though it was not). (see below?)

7) Press and bloggers grow uninterested in the science and reporting thereof because the impact of the new find is less important than the cost of dealing with a bad information system run by geeks.

8) Physicists shut up because it turns out that on further inspection they really can’t prove that the information was “out there.”

Normally I would just say “thanks for the link” (and I do mean that … thanks for the link!) but I feel it is more important to point out th is gaping flaw in the system.

It could also just be that I’m in a crappy mood this morning. Feel free to tell me what I’ve got wrong here.

By: Wyman

Wyman — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:33:52 +0000

Peter Woit links to the new results at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
The SM violation was never more than 3 sigma, and in the new results is only at 0.8 sigma. Particle physics typically requires 5 sigma confidence to conclude anything, because inference statistics cannot easily account for the way physicists search through data collected by colliders.

By: Not a Physicist

Not a Physicist — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:09:45 +0000

@ BillK – are you saying that the results reported here aren’t true because of more recent results?

I get the frusteration with science reporting – but at some point we have to simplify (just not oversimplify). I’m trying to learn about all this boson stuff and I’m overwhelmed with the seeming contradictions in the data.

Could you provide a DOI or ref for the new data? I’m curious!

By: Bill K

Bill K — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:41:54 +0000

Don’t believe everything you read! News stories like this come about as an interesting interplay between the psychology of three groups of people:
a) Experimental physicists. Who, while striving for accuracy, at the same time want desperately to find something new and different.
b) Theoretical physicists. Who each have their own pet theory to nurse, and pounce on any new result as support for it.
c) Science reporters. Who, in an attempt to write an attention-grabbing story, drop the ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’ and try to extract startling sound bites from (a) and (b).

Meanwhile, the DZero project mentioned above has published updated results, in which the announced effect has basically gone away.