science how to

@wildgrass said
Yes, of course, experiments need to be repeated. But for most well-crafted hypothesis testing experiments, exact reproduction is not practical or necessary.

Well colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino (KaTriN Experiment) and most of the work is in trying to get good measurements.

@Ponderable
Do they have upper and lower limits yet for the neutrino mass? Do they know how close to c they travel and if the various types fly at the same velocity?

@ponderable said
Well colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino (KaTriN Experiment) and most of the work is in trying to get good measurements.

My prediction is the mass (once known) will always have a range or standard deviation. It cannot be known with 100% accuracy.

@wildgrass said
My prediction is the mass (once known) will always have a range or standard deviation. It cannot be known with 100% accuracy.

That goes without saying. I think we have some constants with an accuracy of better than 10E-10, which is precise enough for me any day. But some meterologists strife for even better precision which is okay by me.
I myself am a chemist and am happy if I get to about 1% error on my values.

@ponderable said
Well colleagues of mine try to determine the mass of the Neutrino

If your colleagues either want to determine the mass of "the" neutrino or capitalise the "N"eutrino, they're imbeciles.

I strongly suspect they do neither of those, but it's strongly indicative of the level of scientific debate in these forums (not naming names, but the morons are present on both, or rather all, sides of whichever debate is currently slodging (rather than raging) - that I cannot be sure.

You know who you are.