История изменений

Вот так, выжили учёного и только после этого смогли что-то „опровергнуть“, а до этого что-то не получалось.

Никто его не выживал, он сам всё опроверг. Письмо от него ниже.

http://www.lescienze.it/news/2012/03/30/news/opera_ereditatos_point_of_view-9...

Antonio Ereditato sent us this message which we are happy to publish regarding his resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment

To the Editor: I wish to clarify a number of issues surrounding news of my resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment. I must say that I am highly surprised by the great media resonance the news has had. When, last September, we announced to the scientific community that we had detected an “anomaly” in the speed of neutrinos, we were well aware that this finding would cause a stir among our colleagues and indeed, given the self-evident major media interest in the topic, a wider audience too. This is one of the reasons why the approach we followed complied wholly with scientific methodology. Even when they are particularly unexpected or “uncomfortable”, findings must be made public, entailing scrutiny by the scientific community. Never did I or any of my colleagues at OPERA talk of a discovery or a final result. On the contrary, we stated time and again that from that moment onwards, our primary task was not to consolidate the result, but to demonstrate the existence of a potential physics-based, instrument-related or “conventional” methodological effect that might allow us to interpret it.

That is exactly what happened a number of months down the line. It is a matter of record that we detected and announced the existence of two subtle instrument-related effects that can either totally or partially explain the anomaly. The words “errors”, “mistakes” and “flop” were bandied about regarding what in actual fact is standard scientific procedure in experimental work. One of the many potential causes of error had escaped the attention of the team working on the experiment, as a reminder that scientists are not indeed infallible, and that they have their own inescapable limitations. As you are only too well aware, this is a natural part of the canons of scientific process. Science forges ahead in the land of the unknown by taking two steps forward and one step back, making corrections and learning from its mistakes, in a process physiological to overall progress. It is no accident that the word “error” has a completely different meaning in scientific method than it does in common parlance.

Ты лично ту неполадку видел, или бабки на скамеечке сказали?

Чувак, которого якобы ушли, про неё сказал. Опять же, читай полную версию письма по ссылке.

Вот так, выжили учёного и только после этого смогли что-то „опровергнуть“, а до этого что-то не получалось.

Никто его не выживал, он сам всё опроверг. Письмо от него ниже.

http://www.lescienze.it/news/2012/03/30/news/opera_ereditatos_point_of_view-9...

Antonio Ereditato sent us this message which we are happy to publish regarding his resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment

To the Editor: I wish to clarify a number of issues surrounding news of my resignation as Chairman of the OPERA experiment. I must say that I am highly surprised by the great media resonance the news has had. When, last September, we announced to the scientific community that we had detected an “anomaly” in the speed of neutrinos, we were well aware that this finding would cause a stir among our colleagues and indeed, given the self-evident major media interest in the topic, a wider audience too. This is one of the reasons why the approach we followed complied wholly with scientific methodology. Even when they are particularly unexpected or “uncomfortable”, findings must be made public, entailing scrutiny by the scientific community. Never did I or any of my colleagues at OPERA talk of a discovery or a final result. On the contrary, we stated time and again that from that moment onwards, our primary task was not to consolidate the result, but to demonstrate the existence of a potential physics-based, instrument-related or “conventional” methodological effect that might allow us to interpret it.

That is exactly what happened a number of months down the line. It is a matter of record that we detected and announced the existence of two subtle instrument-related effects that can either totally or partially explain the anomaly. The words “errors”, “mistakes” and “flop” were bandied about regarding what in actual fact is standard scientific procedure in experimental work. One of the many potential causes of error had escaped the attention of the team working on the experiment, as a reminder that scientists are not indeed infallible, and that they have their own inescapable limitations. As you are only too well aware, this is a natural part of the canons of scientific process. Science forges ahead in the land of the unknown by taking two steps forward and one step back, making corrections and learning from its mistakes, in a process physiological to overall progress. It is no accident that the word “error” has a completely different meaning in scientific method than it does in common parlance.