Skip to content
 
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.

(Forbes)   A failed nucleon decay experiment accidentally invented neutrino astronomy, becoming a neutrino detector experiment. And so they renamed KamiokaNDE to... KamiokaNDE?   ( forbes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, CLOSE More Options, Forbes  
•       •       •

623 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jul 2018 at 9:30 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



15 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-07-10 06:06:25 PM  
KamehameHAAAAAAA
 
2018-07-10 06:47:31 PM  
I really cannot keep track of all these various Linux window managers and the projects forked off from them.
 
2018-07-10 09:31:59 PM  
Friends don't let friends click Forbes "science" links.
 
2018-07-10 10:06:10 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: Friends don't let friends click Forbes "science" links.


Okay, I've been silent on this for a while.  Is there a better source for this article?  It's well written and informative.  If it were a mere re-link I'd get the hate, but what am I missing?
 
2018-07-10 10:15:22 PM  

Keyser_Soze_Death: Friends don't let friends click Forbes "science" links.


I thought this one was pretty good.

It's interesting that this part is similar to where we are with dark matter today. He calculates that *something* is there, but unobserved. We only know it from the behavior of everything else.

In 1930, Wolfgang Pauli proposed a new particle that could solve the problem: the neutrino. This small, neutral particle could carry both energy and momentum, but would be extremely difficult to detect. It wouldn't absorb or emit light, and would only interact with atomic nuclei extremely rarely.

Upon its proposal, rather than confident and elated, Pauli felt ashamed. "I have done a terrible thing, I have postulated a particle that cannot be detected,"...
 
2018-07-10 11:58:10 PM  

asymptonic: Keyser_Soze_Death: Friends don't let friends click Forbes "science" links.

Okay, I've been silent on this for a while.  Is there a better source for this article?  It's well written and informative.  If it were a mere re-link I'd get the hate, but what am I missing?


Forbes links long ago wore out their welcome. They know what they did.
 
2018-07-11 12:20:08 AM  
By 1987, the detector had been running for years, without a single instance of proton decay. With around 1033 protons in that tank, this null result completely eliminated the most popular model among Grand Unified Theories. The proton, as far as we could tell, doesn't decay. KamiokaNDE's main objective was a failure.

So by proving protons don't decay and changing our understanding of physics, it failed?
 
2018-07-11 12:27:31 AM  
I accidentally sat on someone else's balls because Forbes.
 
2018-07-11 01:17:04 AM  

Baron Harkonnen: So by proving protons don't decay and changing our understanding of physics, it failed?


It failed to confirm the hypotheses it was designed to test.

You knew that.
 
2018-07-11 01:37:52 AM  

jaytkay: Baron Harkonnen: So by proving protons don't decay and changing our understanding of physics, it failed?

It failed to confirm the hypotheses it was designed to test.

You knew that.


That's a useful result.
 
2018-07-11 01:42:56 AM  

DoctorWhat: That's a useful result.


Yes. Because it failed to confirm the hypotheses it was designed to test. As told in the article.

Getting defensive about it is inserting emotion into a plain story about scientific investigation.
 
2018-07-11 01:54:41 AM  

jaytkay: DoctorWhat: That's a useful result.

Yes. Because it failed to confirm the hypotheses it was designed to test. As told in the article.

Getting defensive about it is inserting emotion into a plain story about scientific investigation.


Welcome to Fark.com? ;-)
 
2018-07-11 02:14:23 AM  

Baron Harkonnen: By 1987, the detector had been running for years, without a single instance of proton decay. With around 1033 protons in that tank, this null result completely eliminated the most popular model among Grand Unified Theories. The proton, as far as we could tell, doesn't decay. KamiokaNDE's main objective was a failure.

So by proving protons don't decay and changing our understanding of physics, it failed?


I agree, we need to get away from believing experiments fail when they don't prove the existing hypothesis. By all means repeat the test to ensure it wasn't a fluke but the failure wasn't in the test it was in our working theory. Sometimes a negative result is just as important as a positive result.
 
2018-07-11 03:43:56 AM  
What the Super Kamiokande detector looks like from inside, FWIW:

img.fark.netView Full Size


What Big Red, the mascot of the Western Kentucky University Hilltoppers looks like:

img.fark.netView Full Size

img.fark.netView Full Size


Draw your own conclusions.
 
2018-07-11 12:46:42 PM  
TetsuoNDE!
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report