DailyDirt: If I Could Catch Time In A Bottle...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The scientific method relies on independent verification of measurements and results, but sometimes it's not easy to replicate experiments or measure things at the leading edge of science. Scam artists are often identified when they explain that their results are so far advanced that no one else can replicate them. Real scientists, though, don't buy that. Here are a few scientific discoveries that still need a bit more verification. By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-hydrogen, antimatter, ftl, gravity, higgs boson, lhc, measurements, neutrinos, particles, physics, science
Companies: cern


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • identicon
    6, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:54pm

    "Does anti-hydrogen rise, fall or do nothing in a gravitational field? "

    That would depend on which way the field lines were going. It should not "do nothing" as they can be magnetically trapped. One would expect there charge to be +e because it has a positron around it but I may be mistaken about that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihydrogen

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3D_image_of_Antih ydrogen.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      LDoBe (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 8:10pm

      Re: Charge

      It would have a net charge of 0, exactly the same as Hydrogen.

      An antiproton has a charge of -1, a positron has a charge of +1, making a neutral particle.

      The "surface" of antihydrogen would be positive and attracted to the "surface" of regular matter.

      The general consensus is that antimatter has regular positively signed energy-matter of the same values as it's matter counterparts, and would fall towards regular matter and antimatter alike.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    RIAA, 6 Mar 2012 @ 6:01pm

    If we could catch time in a bottle

    We could save our industry.



    The 1980's forever!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    6, 6 Mar 2012 @ 6:01pm

    Actually nm that

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

    They trap them using the magnetic moment of the component parts, the particle itself is neutral and doesn't do a whole lot in an ordinary magnetic field.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2012 @ 3:31pm

      Re:

      except they are talking about what it would do under the influence of GRAVITY.. not a magnetic field.

      and of course gravity affects anti-matter just like affects normal matter.

      ie it would be influenced by gravity the same way as 'normal' hydrogen does.

      Hydrogen also does not 'rise' by itself, it rises because in air it is less dense, it therefore floats. (lighter than air).

      considering I would expect there to be little or no air mixed with the anti-matter H+, that it would be attracted by the gravity of the earth, and would tend to fall, just as normal hydrogen would fall, when not suspended in air.

      what level of science education do they have in the US ?

      no wonder your country is going to shit!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    artp (profile), 6 Mar 2012 @ 7:31pm

    Time in a bottle

    About your title: "If I Could Catch Time In A Bottle..."

    Jim Croce's agent [Bad, Bad Leroy Brown] called. He wants his royalties. He said, "I've Got A Name, and You Don't Mess Around With Jim. Don't make me do this The Hard Way Every Time, or you'll be singing those Workin' At The Car Wash Blues. So pay up, or it'll be More Than That Tomorrow."

    Just thought I'd pass it on! ;-)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 6 Mar 2012 @ 10:30pm

    Conspiracy

    "As some expected, there were systematic errors that produced a timing error of just 60 nanoseconds. "

    Great, another government cover up. You'd think they would let us have just one little breakthrough, but nooo.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 6 Mar 2012 @ 10:32pm

    "This sub-atomic particle has been nicknamed the "God Particle" -- but it looks like it's just a matter of time before people either find it or start re-writing modern physics."

    If it truly is the God particle it will only be found when it is good and ready. If it has a sense of humor it will wait until physics is re-written. Now that would be funny!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      bssellin (profile), 7 Mar 2012 @ 5:21pm

      Re: the god particle

      Some time ago (don't recall where) I read that Peter Higgs was exasperated about the elisive particle and called it the "god damnned particle". The name got shortened for reasons of propritey.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TimothyAWiseman (profile), 7 Mar 2012 @ 10:16am

    Give the CERN team credit

    The phrasing on this quote "the CERN team that first said they saw some FTL neutrinos, now admit they made a couple mistakes. " does the CERN team a disservice.

    They arranged an incredibly complex experiment and got anomolous results. When they could not find a reason, they presented to the broader community for analysis. They always contemplated that it could be an error or systematic flaw. This phrasing, while technically accurate, seems to imply that they tried to hide or were at least surprised by the fact there were mistakes.

    A better phrasing would be "the CERN team, after displaying unusual data, determined definitively that it was caused by a mistake and what that mistake was with input from the broader scientific community."

    The CERN team worked hard, honestly presented their results with full contemplation it might include errors, and publicized all details when they were known. The Scientific Community, including the CERN team, worked exactly the way it should in this case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Michael Ho (profile), 7 Mar 2012 @ 1:45pm

      Re: Give the CERN team credit

      You're totally right about how the scientific process played out. The CERN team did a superb job of handling a mysterious measurement that, if accurate, would have been a significant discovery. (Completely unlike the NASA press event on arsenic-based life...)

      I've updated the post to reflect your edit. Thanks!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2012 @ 3:45pm

    scientific method

    clearly you dont understand that either, how was Darwins scietific theory of evolution 'repeatable'?

    it is not about having it independly tested by another lab, it is a scientific consensus.

    Global warming has been determined by applying 'the scientific method' to the earths climate, there is a concensus amoung the majority of scientists that is exists.

    You cannot 'do the experiment' in another lab to prove it, we have only one earth.. evolution cannot be confirmed in another 'lab' as we have only one earth.. does not mean that the science in invalid.

    physics is being re-written every day as knowledge of physics progresses.

    did you guys ever go to school ? if so how come you failed to learn anything ? or is it because you 'have the internet' there is no reason to think anymore!! or are you just stupid ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Michael Ho (profile), 7 Mar 2012 @ 4:36pm

      Re: scientific method

      I'll just say that I never stated that the repeatable experiments are the ONLY requirements in the scientific method... and that it'd be somewhat difficult to achieve a "scientific consensus" if observations weren't able to be independently verified...

      One last clarification: science doesn't prove anything. Science can only disprove.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.