●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
45842133
story
Posted
by
timothy
ril 25, 2013 @01:57PM
from the taste-nearly-identical dept.
The Bad Astronomer writes "A experiment called IceCube — consisting of sensitive light detectors buried deep in the Antarctic ice — has detected two ultra-high-energy neutrinos, each with over a peta-electronVolt of energy (a quadrillion times the energy of a visible light photon), the highest energy neutrinos ever seen. The two events, nicknamed Bert and Ernie, have a 99% chance of originating outside our galaxy, likely created either by a supermassive black hole or an exploding gamma-ray burst."
Related Links
Recovering Data From Broken Hard Drives and SSDs (Video)
Two Changes To Quirky Could Change The World
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
What will it be in joules, 1 peta electronVolt?
Could I boil a kettle on this neutrino (potentially)?
byclick2005 ( 921437 ) * writes:
FTA:
Out of the countless detections it’s seen, two of them—nicknamed, seriously, Bert and Ernie—were phenomenally, unbelievably energetic: Each had an energy over one thousand trillion times the energy of a visible light photon. That’s huge, far larger energies than even the Large Hadron Collider can create. It’s very roughly equivalent to the energy of a raindrop hitting you on the head which may not sound like much, but remember we’re taking about a single subatomic particle with that much energy
Parent
twitter
facebook
byP-niiice ( 1703362 ) writes:
are you not familiar with the upside the head measurement of force? measured in FredSanfords
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
you big dummy.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You're too young.
bymacraig ( 621737 ) writes:
Not only is he young, he doesn't know how to use the Internet to find out about this "obscure" Fred Sanford.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
And "here comes the big one" means something completely different to him too...
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I'm 40 and live in the UK so I watched Sanford and Son when it was called Steptoe and Son.
bynewcastlejon ( 1483695 ) writes:
To this day I'm still sure that Dot from Eastenders is secretly Albert Steptoe in drag.
byRockDoctor ( 15477 ) writes:
To this day I'm still sure that Albert Steptoe is secretly Dot from Eastenders in drag.
FTFY
I find it somewhere between amusing and slightly worrying that I'm not sure if the Dot character is dead yet ; but it's probably a couple of decades since I sat through an episode, deliberately or accidentally.
bytehcyder ( 746570 ) writes:
I'm 40 and live in the UK so I watched Sanford and Son when it was called Steptoe and Son.
You dirrrty old man.
bymacraig ( 621737 ) writes:
The comment modding system exists precisely so you can register your admiration without the rest of us having to hear about your nostriladamus incident.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byloufoque ( 1400831 ) writes:
But can we harness that power to make magic?
byDoug Otto ( 2821601 ) writes:
Not without, at least, dinner and drinks. (tits would be a big help too)
byRene S. Hollan ( 1943 ) writes:
160 uJ, give or take.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytrum4n ( 982031 ) writes:
But what is that in m/s?
byceoyoyo ( 59147 ) writes:
Lots. You'd have to know the neutrino mass to calculate it precisely.
bytrum4n ( 982031 ) writes:
Lots as in near light speed?
byceoyoyo ( 59147 ) writes:
Yup. If you want a number, 3 x 10^8 m/s (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum) works pretty well. A neutrino with that much energy must be going at 99.many-nines % of the speed of light. The actual number of nines depends on the mass.
Even regular solar neutrinos go at essentially the speed of light, as far as the m/s scale goes, and they have energies that are far lower.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
Actually, rounding to the nearest 10^-20 m/s, it would be 299,792,458 m/s.
We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light ( 10^15. Thus beta = v/c = sqrt(1-1/gamma^2) 1-0.5*10^-30: the neutrino is moving at a velocity within 1 part in 10^30 of the speed of light.
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
D'oh, formatting ate my math symbols. Above should read:
We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light (m < 1 eV / c^2). Thus, a neutrino with total energy E = 10^15 eV has a Lorentz factor of gamma = E/m*c^2 > 10^15. Thus beta = v/c = sqrt(1-1/gamma^2) > 1-0.5*10^-30: the neutrino is moving at a velocity within 1 part in 10^30 of the speed of light.
byRoger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light (m
Not quite - IceCube looks for muon neutrinos and these have a mass limit of 0.19 MeV/c^2 [lbl.gov]. The lowest mass constraint is actually 2 eV/c^2 for electron anti-neutrinos from tritium decay spectrum measurements.
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
We've got poor direct limits on muon neutrino mass from muon neutrino experiments; however, there are other sources of much stronger constraints on neutrino masses. See the "summed mass" limits a few pages down in your reference.
From a Borexino neutrino experiment page at Princeton [princeton.edu]:
The current limits from cosmological considerations are less than about 0.5 eV (one millionth of the electron mass!) for the sum of the masses of all three neutrino types. The known values of the mass-squared differences imply that the heaviest neutrino type cannot be less massive than about 0.05 eV.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bywonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) writes:
We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light
I thought that was photons.
bydimeglio ( 456244 ) writes:
Interesting. So if one of these neutrinos hits me, will I feel it? I understand due to electroweak unification (of these very high energy neutrinos) it will cause interaction with our body.
byspectrokid ( 660550 ) writes:
The neutrino is going to go straight through you with a 99.99999% probability. But if it does stop inside your body and deliver its energy, it should give of one hell of a whack. Wonder if you would be able to feel that?
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
If the neutrino does interact inside your body, it's highly unlikely that much of the energy will stay there. The neutrino would transfer some chunk of its 10^15 eV of energy to another particle, such as a proton, in your body. A 10^15 eV proton will also shoot right through you --- smashing up nuclei and creating a big cascading shower of ionizing radiation (the signal this scientific experiment is looking for in the antarctic ice), most of which will escape your body. The "impact" will thus not be a "loca
byRoger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
The neutrino is going to go straight through you with a 99.99999% probability.
Actually that is probably not quite true. For the vast majority of neutrinos you encounter on a daily basis (from radioactive decay, relic Big Bang neutrinos, solar etc.) you are completely correct. Indeed for these, as the article states, they will pass through the earth without blinking.
However PeV neutrinos are NOT your everyday neutrino. These guys have such an incredible energy (over 100 times the proton energy in the LHC) that the earth is actually opaque to them. In fact if you look at the IceCube analysis they look for down going neutrino i.e. ones coming in from above despite the problems with the back grounds from cosmic rays. This is because they cannot look for neutrinos which have passed through the earth because, at these energies, there will be none!
The reason for this is that neutrinos interact with matter through W and Z bosons. These have a mass ~80 to 90 times the mass of a proton. The reason that normally neutrinos do not interact is that there is insufficient energy to make a "real" W or Z in the interaction and this heavily suppresses the chance of it happening (due to quantum mechanics it can till occur though). Above a PeV the energy becomes high enough that this energy suppression effect gets a lot smaller and so the chance of interacting becomes a lot higher - eventually becoming slightly stronger than electromagnetism at really high energy when real W's and Z's can be created.
So the upshot of this is that a really high energy neutrino might actually have a reasonable chance of interacting in your body and the article is completely wrong when it describes the earth as basically transparent to these neutrinos...although it is an understandable mistake given that it is transparent to most neutrinos.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
Putting some rough numbers on this:
Atlower energies, neutrino cross sections [cupp.oulu.fi] scale roughly proportional to energy with sigma/E ~ 10^-38 cm^2 / GeV. At high energy [fnal.gov], the cross section at 10^15 eV is around 10^-33 cm^2. Thus, compared to an ~1MeV neutrino with a cross section on the order of 10^-41 cm^2, the PeV neutrino has ~10^8 greater cross section. You are about 10^-7 the thickness of the earth. Thus, you are roughly 10x more likely to be hit by a PeV neutrino passing through than the earth is to be hit
byRoger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
Yes - you have to go a above 1 PeV to get a decent chance of an interaction in a human - I did say "really high"!
byedumacator ( 910819 ) writes:
I have no idea what this means, but I will memorize it and use it at a party. I might not walk away with the ladies, but if people think I'm smarter than them after repeating this, then maybe the next time I say something stupid, they might just think it was over their heads.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byRoger W Moore ( 538166 ) writes:
I tried to explain it without maths in the post above - the more energy you have the easier it is to make a W or Z boson which is how the neutrino interacts with matter. Think of it like a the neutrino being trapped in a valley and in order to interact it has to get over the valley sides. Fortunately it can tunnel so it does not have to clear the peak but the more energy it has, the higher up the valley side it can get and the easier it is to tunnel through. If it does have enough energy to clear the peak t
byK. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) writes:
It’s very roughly equivalent to the energy of a raindrop hitting you on the head
Does that mean that hitting people repeatedly with PeV neutrinos is a form of torture, too? Damn, the current administration won't be amused.
byhpa ( 7948 ) writes:
1 PeV is approximately 160 microjoule.
byBrucelet ( 1857158 ) writes:
https://www.google.com/search?q=10%5E15+eV+in+joules [google.com]
byOpportunist ( 166417 ) writes:
Because a peta-electronvolt is such a handy unit to work with.
This is actually one of the few kinds where converting it to another unit makes sense, because we're already dealing with a force that the average person can "understand", or "grasp", if I may be so idiomatic. Yes, we may be nerds here, but not everyone is into astronomy.
The feeling of a raindrop hitting your hand is something most people could relate to. And the rest of us can at least go outside the basement next time it rains to find out.
bymbone ( 558574 ) writes:
MKS units are always appropriate, especially for something aimed at the popular level.
byPhamNguyen ( 2695929 ) writes:
Yes. Preferably in a Hank Hill voice.
bymarcosdumay ( 620877 ) writes:
I prefer it in horsepower minute.
bymeglon ( 1001833 ) writes:
Peta-burro-hectares by centon.
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
10^15 eV is approximately 3.6 nano-horsepower-minutes. Happy now?
bymarcosdumay ( 620877 ) writes:
Yeah, now that you explained it on usual and unambiguous units, yes, I'm happy.
You did the calculation on English horsepower, at a standard gravity and the international pound, right? I'm asking that's because I'm at 1100m of altitude, so I must apply some corrective factors before I'm really sure what exactly that value means.
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
Ah yes, please excuse me for not fitting in all the details of my result above. I'm really more an experimentalist than a theorist, so I didn't feel up to calculating the conversion from first principles. But I did have a bit of spare beam time on the schedule. Finding appropriate nano-horses was a bit tricky. My first attempt started with a pony (just a small horse to first order), but its energy output didn't scale very linearly when I chopped it into pieces. I finally ended up using fetal sea-horses for the comparison, though the first couple batches didn't fare well during pumpdown, and left a bit of a mess on the scintillator calorimeters. Anyway, I don't want to bore you with all the sticky details, which I've got to get back to scrubbing off the inside of our vacuum chamber.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byexcelsior_gr ( 969383 ) writes:
WORD! That's a fly name for an experiment dawg!
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Yeah, Fuck the Pole-Ice!
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBenJeremy ( 181303 ) writes:
Seriously, I'm getting very annoyed when particles or chunks of meteorites are somehow identified as coming from some specific place... WTF?
A Neutrino is a Neutrino. It has no identifying characteristic. The nature of a single variable, the charge, may describe the sort of event the particle originated from, but hardly any specificity of the actual event or where that event took place. At least a chunk of space rock might be comprised of minerals that are similar to those from a neighboring planet (though t
byJicehix ( 778864 ) writes:
anything happening inside the event horizon of a black hole doesn't really matter...
Are you saying matter doesn't matter ?
byAnonymous Coward writes:
So many words for all of them to be so wrong.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
A Neutrino is a Neutrino. It has no identifying characteristic.
Way to be oblivious there. If they are detecting a passing neutrino, then the particle has a velocity, right? So, a finite mass moving at a finite velocity has an energy, which is different than that of the same particle moving at a different speed (independent of direction). And if the energy of two identical particles can be different, then you can identify a difference between them. Which is kinda the whole point of TFA, and the IceCube experiment itself. The scientists try to understand all the dat
byinterval1066 ( 668936 ) writes:
Its the nrg. The point of origin can be norrowed down by eliminating sources that don't have that amount of nrg. Simple.
bytnk1 ( 899206 ) writes:
Neutrinos, as matter, have plenty of characteristics that could be used to identify them. And saying that it comes from a specific place is not really that difficult since things coming in from space don't take U-turns or pit stops. They come at us in a straight line only perturbed by gravity or other objects that we can observe and compensate for. So if a particle has a certain energy level and direction that does not match anything inside the galaxy, you can do a pretty reasonable job of figuring out where it came from.
As for black holes, yes, nothing is coming out of a black hole's singularity, but the black hole does affect matter outside its event horizon and it is expected that certain black holes will cause matter to be accelerated in such a way that it attains highly energetic characteristics. This is what they mean, or they mean that the neutrino was created in the initial supernova/hypernova that generated the black hole to begin with. Probably the former, as most large black holes are probably generated by accretion over time, and not sudden stellar compression.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bychihowa ( 366380 ) writes:
When a neutrino impacts a particle in the detector, it creates a cascade of new particles. Since the momentum of the neutrino is conserved in the cascade of particles that can be more easily detected, the direction that the neutrino came from can be determined.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGiant Electronic Bra ( 1229876 ) writes:
While the angular resolution of IceCube is not GREAT it DOES detect the direction from which the particles it detects came. This happens because, as others pointed out, the neutrino has a momentum. When it slams into a nucleus in the dectector the resulting collision debris carries away that momentum, thus the velocities of those particles, which are easily determined allows an estimate of the velocity of the original neutrino and thus its point of origin in the sky.
Of course the distance it came from is not readily determined, but if there's nothing terribly energetic nearby, then presumably you're looking at something from further away, and when we're talking about PeV neutrinos it has to be VERY energetic, not something we'd likely miss if it was nearby. Remember, we detected 2 neutrinos, that means there were literally trillions more (well, far more than that probably) that simply passed on through the detector with the same energies.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byEowaennor ( 527108 ) writes:
The surrounding ice around the detector array acts as a scintillator which generates a minute track of light as the particle passes thru the area. That immediately gives directionality, and energy in eV is computed by summing the light response from the entire detector array during that "event".
bymedv4380 ( 1604309 ) writes:
but doesn't it correlate to any possible event yet, or are we just guessing about were it came from?
twitter
facebook
byPhxBlue ( 562201 ) writes:
If it's a supernova event, hopefully we'll spot it in the next day or two.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byfemtobyte ( 710429 ) writes:
Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light. Neutrinos interact far less than light with matter; so, a supernova neutrino going at very nearly the speed of light can outrun a photon through space. In Supernova 1987A [wikipedia.org], neutrino detectors saw neutrinos about three hours before light reached earth's telescopes.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light.
While I'm sure that effect plays a part, the more obvious reason is that a supernova releases a burst of neutrinos long before the light produced can escape.
byTheInternetGuy ( 2006682 ) writes:
Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light. Neutrinos interact far less than light with matter; so, a supernova neutrino going at very nearly the speed of light can outrun a photon through space. In Supernova 1987A [wikipedia.org], neutrino detectors saw neutrinos about three hours before light reached earth's telescopes.
Very informative, thank you. (No mod points today)
byzlives ( 2009072 ) writes:
These neutrino's were not the neutrinos they were looking for
twitter
facebook
byOxdeadface ( 1968100 ) writes:
it must have been a good day.
byAltesse ( 698587 ) writes:
Please explain for the layman that I am, how can these neutrinos be so energetic ? I thought neutrinos were very elusive particles that don't interact much with matter, and that's why they're so difficult to detect. With that much energy, these neutrinos should interact with matter and do heavy 'damage', àla cosmic particles, no ?
twitter
facebook
byGary Perkins ( 1518751 ) writes:
I can't explain completely, but I can say the energy level has most to do with the momentum of the particle. The faster a particle goes, the more energetic it is. It's a very simplistic explanation, and only one facet of what energizes a particle, but should work for laymen such as us. As for the interaction: if I remember right, neutrinos are very small. They tend to fly between the atoms, which at that scale are very far apart.
byAltesse ( 698587 ) writes:
Thanks ! It's a bit clearer now.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
One of the properties that IceCube takes advantage of is that at higher energies, neutrinos are much more likely to interact with matter and produce particles that it can detect. There's actually a specific energy close to the observed energy of these particles for an electron anti-neutrino where there is a spike in the probability to interact with electrons (6.3 PeV, the Glashow resonance).
byBrucelet ( 1857158 ) writes:
Because neutrinos don't interact much, there are very few ways for them to release their kinetic energy, even when there is a lot of it.
Neutral refers to the fact that neutrinos don't interact electromagnetically. They also don't interact via the strong force, and gravitational interaction of anything on this scale is negligible (although neutrinos are believed to have very small but nonzero masses). That leaves only weak nuclear interactions, which happened to occur twice in this detector.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
The bigger question is how did a chargeless neutrino particle get accelerated to that energy. Most current theories like 2nd order Fermi acceleration act on charged particles bouncing among moving plasma shock waves. Imagine a ping pong ball bouncing between between two walls in a cubic room that are approaching each other. There's no limit to how fast the ball can go because upon each bounce it gains a bit more speed from the wall and it doesn't matter that the ball speed is greatly higher than the wall
byslashmydots ( 2189826 ) writes:
So why would a neutrino from a gamma ray burst in a galaxy far far away have more energy than one from a gamma ray burst within our own galaxy? And then there's the probability of being in the path of one in our own galaxy vs outside....
bymedv4380 ( 1604309 ) writes:
A gamma ray burst in our galaxy would probably kill us.
byThagg ( 9904 ) writes:
Back when it was thought that neutrinos were massless, it was impossible to believe that there were huge masses of neutrinos surrounding galaxies, as they would have to travel at the speed of light. But now that we know that neutrinos have mass, maybe they could travel a lot more slowly, slow enough to be captured by a galaxy.
Think about it; there are a huge amount of neutrinos created every microsecond in every star in every galaxy, and they hardly interact with anything. They've been accumulating since the big bang.
What happened to the early photons? Those created as the universe first became transparent initially were very high energy indeed, but as the universe has expanded they've lost energy, to the point that they correspond to a temperature of just 3 degrees kelvin. What happens to neutrinos of a similar vintage?
twitter
facebook
byBaloroth ( 2370816 ) writes:
Same thing happened to the neutrinos as happened to the photons. They cooled down. Currently, the neutrino background is ~1.7K, I believe (they're a bit cooler than photons as photons decoupled from matter much later in the early universe than neutrinos did). Neutrinos are, on cosmological scales, treated mostly the same way photons are (they behave in a similar fashion). In any case, the current energy in neutrinos is about ~60% of that in photons, and photons are about 4 orders of magnitude below the energy in dark matter.
We can also predict how the universe would evolve if neutrinos made up the bulk of dark matter. Since it didn't evolve that way, dark matter has to be something else.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byevilviper ( 135110 ) writes:
Could dark matter be super low-energy neutrinos?
Nope.
Or at least, they could still only account for a small fraction of observed dark-matter.
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/MAP/Bahcall/node6.html [princeton.edu]
Parent
twitter
facebook
byGodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) writes:
From the galaxy called, Neutrinos With Attitude!
bystanlyb ( 1839382 ) writes:
Since when we do know for sure that neutrionos exists?
bymarcosdumay ( 620877 ) writes:
Well, ok. Welcome to the XXI century, I have some news for you:
1 - We didn't spray nuclear bombs through the Earth at the 60's. You didn't have to hide in that shelter.
2 - You must have noticed that technology evolved a bit. Unfortunately, space exploration and nuclear fusion didn't move as fast as expected.
3 - We know that neutrinos exist, that they have mass, and that they come in 3 different flavours (and oscilate between them).
4 - But, no, they are not responsible for the dark mass. We still don't know WTF is that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bystanlyb ( 1839382 ) writes:
And 5 - No, there were so many attempts to "catch" the elusive neutrino, with zero results.
Sorry pal, you are apparently too old and are taking the wet dreams for reality.
bygstoddart ( 321705 ) writes:
Since when we do know for sure that neutrionos exists?
Since 1987 when they measured it [wikipedia.org]?
These two [wikipedia.org] guys [wikipedia.org] share a Nobel for it.
Seriously, we've known they have mass for 25 years now. And you're asking how we know we know they even exist?
byTablizer ( 95088 ) writes:
The scary part is when those galaxies insist we return them.
twitter
facebook
byH0p313ss ( 811249 ) writes:
From now on in all job interviews I shall state my hobby as "Intergalactic Neutrino Detector" and refuse to work for anyone who doesn't giggle or laugh.
twitter
facebook
byWillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) writes:
At best we can only detect vector and derived energy, but we don't know where they came from or if they actually came from dark matter space in an area we don't traditionally think of as an origin point.
bymbone ( 558574 ) writes:
Say WHAT? There isn't even consensus that these cosmic neutrinos are either neutrinos or cosmic, much less where they come from. Extra-galactic is reasonable, but I would put it more in the 20-30% range, not 99%.
From the ABSTRACT of the actual paper [arxiv.org]:
Though the two events could be a first indication of an astrophysical neutrino flux, the moderate significance and the uncertainties on the expected atmospheric background from neutrinos produced in the decay of charmed mesons do not allow for a firm conclusion
byclick2005 ( 921437 ) * writes:
It was obviously the explosion created from the enormous energy from a supergate in the galaxy Atlantis lives in.
That would be our galaxy. It moved here in the final episode (San Francisco I think).
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
In my country a person like you would be called an ant-fucker. Because ant-fuckery is the only way to describe this level of pedantry. Don't get me wrong, it's not meant as a grave insult. Polite people use the term in casual conversation and nobody is offended.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Note that this is different than an aunt-fucker, which is sort of like a cross-eyed mother fucker.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
No, your wife being an aunt doesn't make you an aunt fucker. You would also need to fuck your wife.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bytehcyder ( 746570 ) writes:
In my country a person like you would be called an ant-fucker. Because ant-fuckery is the only way to describe this level of pedantry. Don't get me wrong, it's not meant as a grave insult. Polite people use the term in casual conversation and nobody is offended.
Welcome fellow citizen of Kazakhstan! How much for sister?
byMozeeToby ( 1163751 ) writes:
So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byl0ungeb0y ( 442022 ) writes:
I believe it is Sithic philosophy that states you are either absolutely for or absolutely against something.
So I would not argue with Troyusrex, unless you want to get force choked.
byTarlus ( 1000874 ) writes:
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Therefore, Obi Wan is a Sith.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bygl4ss ( 559668 ) writes:
well he lives in a cave and his favorite past-time is scaring the natives... sure sounds like sith to me.
byTarlus ( 1000874 ) writes:
I like how that got modded insightful. Only on Slashdot does one earn praise for arguing Star Wars on a science news post. =)
byChris Burke ( 6130 ) writes:
What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?
Internet-pedantry, where either 1) pedantry is misapplied because the word in question does not have a single, precise definition to be pedantic over, and both the the original and the "pedant's" "pedantic" correction are correct or 2) pedantry is possible because the word does have a precise technical definition, but the "pedant" has no idea what that is and is wrong while the original usage was correct.
bytehcyder ( 746570 ) writes:
So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?
A mathematically correct, but absolutely useless one. The guy's obviously an actuary.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Troyusrex: I'm familiar with this use of probability, so allow me to clarify:
There's no need for quantum anything. Probability is simply how one quantifies uncertainty. Here's an example: suppose I flip a coin and you do not see it. I might see it come up heads, and so I would assign a 100% probability that it came up heads. You would assign a probability of 50% to each possible outcome. Who's right? We both are: we're both describing our personal states of awareness about what happened, and they are different.
In this case, the scientists who conducted the experiment are 99% sure that they originated outside our galaxy, presumably because they were able to reject most in-galaxy source explanations. But they cannot be 100% sure.
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymartas ( 1439879 ) writes:
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Not to get into a Bayesian vs. frequentist debate here, but note that this is not the only interpretation of probability out there. The frequentist interpretation is, in spirit, a statement "in hindsight". Troyusrex's point is that it's meaningless to talk about probabilities of things that are fixed quantities; the frequentist interpretation gets around that by making statements about quantities that have yet to be determined. So one only speaks of probabilities before an experiment has been performed and
byBryanL ( 93656 ) writes:
I have moderation points but unfortunately there is not a +1 Pedant mod.
byBrucelet ( 1857158 ) writes:
Or a -1 Pedant mod
byceoyoyo ( 59147 ) writes:
Chance. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
byrasmusbr ( 2186518 ) writes:
Mark your preferred definition of probability
[ ] Bayesianism
[ ] Frequentism
[x] Ridiculous frequentism
Parent
twitter
facebook
bystanlyb ( 1839382 ) writes:
LOL, i agree with you. We should set a quota for these nasty mexi...i mean aliens. Like, no more than 50% foreign neutrions...
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
356 commentsIn a Last-Minute Decision, White House Decides Not To Terminate NASA Employees
●
317 commentsCDC Changes Webpage To Say Vaccines May Cause Autism, Revising Prior Language
●
306 commentsUS Formally Withdraws From WHO
●
303 commentsElon Musk Urges Deorbiting the International Space Station 'As Soon as Possible'
●
302 commentsAmerica's NIH Scientists Have a Cancer Breakthrough. Layoffs are Delaying It.
Two Changes To Quirky Could Change The World
Recovering Data From Broken Hard Drives and SSDs (Video)
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
/* Halley */
(Halley's comment.)
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Two Changes To Quirky Could Change The World
103 comments
Recovering Data From Broken Hard Drives and SSDs (Video)
173 comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...