Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: FX claim Neut: judge's statement changed

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: fx-discuss: FX claim Neut: judge's statement changed ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: Jim Gillogly's post
Date: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:24 pm
Jim Gillogly
chrisran.bma e-mailNeal Gafter
Kerry Whisnant



> . Any stake-holders care to weigh in on whether you'd care about the
> choice of one of Kerry's options?
>

I have no holdings nor ever traded this claim, though I have a book order to buy
at 1 and may well have had more reasonably priced orders in past.

The claim says it is about "rest mass of the electron neutrino" so I think it
should be about electron neutrino and not the lightest of the neutrinos or any
other such variation on that.

5 sigma was suggested as being needed and I am aware of this being required to
claim a discovery in this field. However, for the purposes of settling a bet,
that would sound to me like prevaricating as an excuse to not settle a bet by
requiring something too near certain proof. Hence I would be more inclined to
suggest at least 3 sigma (also used in the field as indicative but not
established beyond doubt?) or maybe something else between 3 sigma and 5 sigma
to be more appropriate.

If it turns out to be close to 0.01 eV, the mass might be known with reasonable
precision but the claim go on for a very long time to get to 5 sigma level.
Perhaps some decent length of time with no change in the central value estimate
from under to over the limit might be appropriate before reducing 5 sigma level
to 3 sigma level might be another/better alternative?

Hope this makes sense, regards.

Chris Randles

(7886)

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL