Re: [math-fun] Combining results of scientific experiments -- CODATA claimed to be wrong
From: Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [math-fun] Combining results of scientific experiments -- CODATA claimed to be wrong Message-ID: <CAN57YqveH-4rHSe+UkdOmBi7dA4ZjRy5THkSU2XeVDFMU=tj6g@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
How much difference would your suggestion make to the currently agreed values? WFL
--I do not currently know. Finding out may not be so easy. There are two issues (a) the values and (b) the error bars and their interpretation. Either one changing, is important. A ton of physics papers are based on the claimed error bar of something or another, e.g. muon magnetic moment "disagrees" with theory, hence there "must be new physics such as supersymmetry" and on and on. A ton of that kind of stuff is presumably now bullshit. As a start to make progress: must get ahold of the database of measurements that CODATA must have that underlies all their stuff.
Hello, I happen to work in the measurement business more or like and I could read what they have to say about what is 1 kg, it is related to the Bureau des poids et mesures, the people that makes the standard about weights. Well, what can I say, the work they do is quite serious and they know what they are doing with what is an 'error' of measurement. And this is just ordinary weights, the standards they use is of a very high level, You can search on the internet about it and you will see that this notion of error is not as naively wrong as you may suggest. Now, the CODATA measurement process and the error they claim to have, I do not think that they are wrong about that, this is perhaps 2 layers higher from what I can see here at the ordinary level. I think they know perfectly what is an error. So in my humble opinion : think twice, they are probably right about the error. Best regards, Simon Plouffe
participants (2)
-
Simon Plouffe -
Warren D Smith