Acho que estou devendo uma pizza para o Jorge Stolfi. Como disse Giovani Amelino-Camelia, a chance dos neutrinos superluminais realmente existirem era de uma para dez mil, mas apostar nessa possibilidade era por demais tentador, pois participar de uma revolução científica com essa chance é bem melhor do que apenas fazer trabalhos tecnicamente corretos e mesmo elegantes, mas de significância marginal.
I observe that, as the physics side of the OPERA-anomaly story is apparently unfolding, there can still be motivation for philosophy of science to analyze the six months of madness physicists spent chasing the dream of a new fundamental-physics revolution. I here mainly report data on studies of the OPERA anomaly that could be relevant for analyses from the perspective of phenomenology of philosophy of science. Most of what I report is an insider’s perspective on the debate that evolved from the original announcement by the OPERA collaboration of evidence of superluminal neutrinos. I also sketch out, from a broader perspective, some of the objectives I view as achievable for the phenomenology of philosophy of science.
|Comments:||13 pages, LaTex|
|Subjects:||History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); High Energy Physics – Experiment (hep-ex); High Energy Physics – Phenomenology (hep-ph)|
|Cite as:||arXiv:1206.3554v1 [physics.hist-ph]|
Elwood H. Smith
Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe (July 5, 2012)
It also prompted a worldwide settling of scores as physicists — inveterate gamblers — examine the data to decide whether it is time to pay up on longstanding bets about the existence of the boson, which has been the object of a 40-year manhunt.
As described by the Standard Model, the theory that now rules physics, the Higgs boson would be tangible evidence of a hypothesized cosmic molasses known as the Higgs field. That field endows some elementary particles with mass, breaking a logjam of mathematical symmetry in the laws of the early universe and thus adding diversity and the possibility of life to the cosmos. Physicists say it will take them at least the rest of the year and maybe longer to ascertain whether the new particle fits the theoretical prediction — in particular that it has no spin, the first known subatomic knuckle ball.
Nevertheless, the British cosmologist Stephen Hawking, who 10 years ago bet the University of Michigan theorist Gordon Kane $100 that the particle didn’t exist, has already told reporters he is conceding defeat. Dr. Kane is awaiting his windfall. “I haven’t heard directly from him,” Dr. Kane said in an e-mail, “but I assume I will soon, in some interesting way.” Read more [+]