Re: more Japanese gyro-dropping

[Doug Craigen <dcc@cyberspc.mb.ca>]

On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, LUDWIK KOWALSKI wrote:

> The task of winning a recognition would be greatly simplified if a 
> preexisting theory predicted the effect of spinning on G, and if the 
> predicted magnitude were close to what was actually observed. The

True.

> theorist and the leader of the experimental team would share the Nobel 
> Prize and nobody would be bothered by a possibility that a well know 
> theory can also be used to account for what was actually observed.

I hope not.

> Not fair, n'est pas? It is much easier to discover something that was
> predicted (you know what to look for) than to recognize a phenomenon
> while doing something else. 

When it comes to credibility, prediction is very important.  An
observation is an observation is an observation.  Assuming there to be no
experimental bugs, the group has observed that a falling spinning top
takes slightly less time to fall a given distance in a vacuum (anyone
know the pressure btw?) than the same top when it isn't spinning.  That is
the observation (as I understand it).  To say that G therefore depends on
spin rate is a theoretical leap, a possibility to be explored to explain
the observation.  There are other, perhaps more mundane, possibilities to
be explored too.  If a theory of G dependence on spin had been used in
advance to predict the result, then that would be the top candidate
theory, but as is it is lumped in with the others.

One thing that has become increasingly clear to me the longer I spend in
labs is how easy it is to be mistaken about the source of unexpected
results, especially when tempted with an explanation that would make you
famous if it were true. Who did Feynman say was the easiest person to
fool?