this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
247 points (97.7% liked)

science

14564 readers
1249 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Whatever particle physicists are, idiots they’re not

[–] angrystego 6 points 1 week ago

I think that was directed at the journalists coming up with clickbait, not the scientists.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

“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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

in their own field there’s a good chance they have something useful to say

Pity this press release wasn't one of them.

[–] benignintervention 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You're just repeating the article. Nothing you said contradicts what I said.

[–] benignintervention 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, I thought you were legitimately confused. Not going to spend the energy on a troll

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I thought you were legitimately confused

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?

[–] benignintervention 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Maybe a pleasant discussion starting from common ground, rather than this endless contrarian hell

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

a pleasant discussion

About what?

[–] just_another_person 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a HINT, not a certainty 😘

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

It's a HINT

What is?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

LOL yes I know thanks.