Hacker News Reader

Oh, there is always a third option in science: "Oops, the box would have given us a definitive yes-or-no answer if only the fuse hadn't blown, and gosh darn it, the local stores have no fuses in stock. Oh, and these fuses are special and cost $750,000."

You'll learn all about this phenomenon in years two through six of your seven-year Ph.D. program in experimental physics. ;)

View on HN

I learned it in my first year physics course: to a good approximation, accuracy of results = log(log($equipment_cost)).

So, 100% accuracy cost $10 billion?

I think what he means is "systematic_error = 1/log(log(equipment_cost))"

For best results, purchase all equipment in Zimbabwean dollars.

Sounds about right!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost

> With a budget of 7.5 billion euros (approx. $9bn or £6.19bn as of Jun 2010), the LHC is one of the most expensive scientific instruments ever built.

If only they'd put in $1b more, they'd have found that Higgs boson by now.

The article actually claims "it will either succeed today, or fail today and Rossi has two months to rectify any problems".

So it already was avoiding a definitive answer from the start.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com