11 Mar 21
@wildgrass saidWell colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino (KaTriN Experiment) and most of the work is in trying to get good measurements.
Yes, of course, experiments need to be repeated. But for most well-crafted hypothesis testing experiments, exact reproduction is not practical or necessary.
12 Mar 21
@Ponderable
Do they have upper and lower limits yet for the neutrino mass? Do they know how close to c they travel and if the various types fly at the same velocity?
16 Mar 21
1 edit
@ponderable saidMy prediction is the mass (once known) will always have a range or standard deviation. It cannot be known with 100% accuracy.
Well colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino (KaTriN Experiment) and most of the work is in trying to get good measurements.
12 Apr 21
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThat goes without saying. I think we have some constants with an accuracy of better than 10E-10, which is precise enough for me any day. But some meterologists strife for even better precision which is okay by me.
My prediction is the mass (once known) will always have a range or standard deviation. It cannot be known with 100% accuracy.
I myself am a chemist and am happy if I get to about 1% error on my values.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
15 Apr 21
@ponderable saidIf your colleagues either want to determine the mass of "the" neutrino or capitalise the "N"eutrino, they're imbeciles.
Well colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino
I strongly suspect they do neither of those, but it's strongly indicative of the level of scientific debate in these forums (not naming names, but the morons are present on both, or rather all, sides of whichever debate is currently slodging (rather than raging) - that I cannot be sure.
You know who you are.