I swear, every time a new physics discrepancy is measured, everyone jumps up yelling that it's definitely not real, invites others to openly sneer at it, compares it to the infamous faster-than-light neutrinos the OPERA experiment measured, and finally points to some alternate nutty theory that's definitely right, will be proven in 10 years time, mark my words.
The biggest damage OPERA inflicted wasn't the loss of time and effort to explain it, nor the resulting confusion, but rather the idea that EVERY SINGLE EXPERIMENT IS LIKELY WRONG.
Because obviously, someone screwed up and thus everyone is also screwing up.
Which is as far away from the truth as possible. Most physics experiments are boring and just confirm exactly what we expect.
It's precisely those hints that there's something wrong with our ideas about the universe that need to be explored thoroughly, and no amount of time and effort spent doing that is wasted.
@lynne well the good thing about physics, AFAIK, is that nobody will settle on a single experiment. If they notice something wrong, they'll try to reproduce the bug in a more issue-focused environment, or come up with new experiments that should also confirm the existence of that bug, and learn how to exploit it, right?
But from what what I've heard other sciences aren't in such a good shape, and have a replication problem or sth...
@scarlet If results are published, everything is already well thought over and accounted for. Before construction even begins, during construction, during calibration, during the actual data gathering and after all the data gathering, at least twice, by independent parties.
By plainly declaring "it must be wrong!" and discouraging further review, it's doing everyone involved a disfavor.
A Mastodon instance for people interested in multimedia, codecs, assembly, SIMD, and the occasional weeb stuff.