If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Live Science)   Scientists puzzled about shrinking "protons" in cold water   (livescience.com) divider line 24
    More: Cool, protons, muons, percent difference, American Physical Society, observational error, Shutterstock, new physics, atoms  
•       •       •

3561 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Apr 2013 at 2:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-15 02:06:22 PM  
Ah LiveScience - only a few short clicks away from the journalistic integrity of TimeCube...
 
2013-04-15 02:09:09 PM  
flowtv.org
 
2013-04-15 02:16:19 PM  
Yeah, a lot of things shrink in cold water.
 
2013-04-15 02:28:42 PM  
Not having anything remotely to do with this branch of science, asking farkers who are in the know, what does it matter if they're not as large as previously conceived?
 
2013-04-15 02:31:04 PM  
There was only one valid post to be made in this thread and it was done in two.

See you tomorrow, folks.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-15 02:32:03 PM  
what does it matter if they're not as large as previously conceived?

The discrepancy suggests our model of the universe is inaccurate. Traditional chemistry is unaffected because it is based on observation. Ab initio calculations will get slightly wrong answers.
 
2013-04-15 02:39:51 PM  
Subby, why did you put the word protons in quotes?
 
2013-04-15 02:48:09 PM  

Pinnacle Point: [flowtv.org image 300x225]


Done in two.
 
2013-04-15 02:51:59 PM  
What if it was a Bohring answer to the question?
 
2013-04-15 03:02:29 PM  
On a side note, Celine Dion's voice makes my "proton" shrink
 
2013-04-15 03:21:40 PM  

ZAZ: what does it matter if they're not as large as previously conceived?

The discrepancy suggests our model of the universe is inaccurate. Traditional chemistry is unaffected because it is based on observation. Ab initio calculations will get slightly wrong answers.


It demonstrations once again that the problem is not in understanding enough to measure, the problem with gaining knowledge requires understanding how to properly calibrate your answers.
 
2013-04-15 03:22:08 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Subby, why did you put the word protons in quotes?


The same reason why you should have put "Chewbacca" in quotes.
 
2013-04-15 03:29:41 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Not having anything remotely to do with this branch of science, asking farkers who are in the know, what does it matter if they're not as large as previously conceived?


It affects the outcome of the bout with Triangle Man.
 
2013-04-15 05:08:11 PM  

Pinnacle Point: [flowtv.org image 300x225]


Ok, then this.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-15 06:10:40 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Not having anything remotely to do with this branch of science, asking farkers who are in the know, what does it matter if they're not as large as previously conceived?


As people have said, calculations will be wrong if it turns out that protons haven't got a fixed size. On the positive side we'll be one step closer to a shrink ray.
 
2013-04-15 08:05:45 PM  
Variable "Protons" is my new band name.

The quotes around "protons" will be so meta that we will become instantly popular!
 
2013-04-15 09:35:22 PM  
Came for the Castanza shrinkage, leaving satisfied.

/ once again fark lives up to expectations
 
2013-04-15 09:39:51 PM  
This article reminds me of something Donald Rumsfeld once said; "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

Really pretty amazing how much we know.
 
2013-04-16 12:09:46 AM  
All math based "discoveries" are ex recto until they're observed in real life.

Observations trump ex recto.
 
2013-04-16 01:14:37 AM  
Wait, two different measurement strategies resulted in two different results? How about before you push the panic button, you try recreating the original findings using the original experiment's settings, and if they're the same you have on record, you try looking at the difference between the methodologies?
 
2013-04-16 03:01:20 AM  

doglover: All math based "discoveries" are ex recto until they're observed in real life.


LOL - thanks for teaching me that Latin phrase. =)

relaxitsjustme: Really pretty amazing how much we know.


As we discover more and more things, the more insignificant each discovery.  It's diminishing returns.  I foresee a point this century in which we know pretty much everything about the small-scale Universe.  Science would then become entirely the applied varieties, with things like biology being where the most progress is.
 
2013-04-16 04:08:58 AM  

drake113: Wait, two different measurement strategies resulted in two different results? How about before you push the panic button, you try recreating the original findings using the original experiment's settings, and if they're the same you have on record, you try looking at the difference between the methodologies?


Da eff? Do you think we just walk into our labs every day and start pressing buttons at random so we can giggle at whatever happens?

No, seriously, you're accusing professional researchers using tens of millions of dollars of equipment of either not knowing or not adhering to the most basic tenets of the scientific method. I'm genuinely curious what it is you think is going on here.
 
2013-04-16 07:22:01 AM  

erik-k: No, seriously, you're accusing professional researchers using tens of millions of dollars of equipment of either not knowing or not adhering to the most basic tenets of the scientific method.


Yeah, like that's never happened.  And that's not even a comprehensive list.  I can think of other cases of mistakes and some outright frauds not listed.

Now, don't get me wrong:  The best thing about the scientific method is that by and large, it's self-correcting, and I'm a big believer in it.  But it's self-correcting not because of trust, but because of skepticism.  Professional researchers aren't somehow more trustworthy, or above cheating or outright fraud.

Faith in authority is something that belongs in religion, not science.
 
2013-04-16 11:56:11 AM  
Hey man, what if like, say, the universe is expanding, but the smaller particles are staying the same "size" and the larger structures (atoms, molecules, etc.) are expanding in size with the universes expansion?
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report