Skip to main content

The honourable physicist

CERN's Alpha Project mentioned below - image courtesy of CERN
I had a very interesting exchange with a physicist the other day which I think really helps underline the difficulties of getting science right.

I had asked this person 'do you have any personal expectations (or even hope!)' about the outcome of an experiment. His response was 'As an experimentalist, I must be completely unprejudiced about
the outcome of our experiments. So I don't have any expectations.'

Now, in answering one part of my question he was entirely correct and proper. But as far as the other part goes, assuming he is a human being and I wasn't communicating with a robot, he is fibbing. The right and proper part is having no expectations. We now recognize that it is very important that an experimental scientist does not prejudge the issue and expect an experiment to come out a particular way. This is because there is plenty of evidence of the 'experimenter effect' where an individual's expectations colour their interpretation of the data.

The archetypal experiment designed to demonstrate this kind of unconscious experimenter bias was a trial undertaken in 1963 involving albino rats and, more importantly, young scientists who believed they were experimenting on the rats, but in truth were themselves the experimental subjects.

Robert Rosenthal and Kermit Fode of Harvard University set up an experiment where twelve psychology students were given five rats each to test on a simple T-shaped maze. All the rats were from the same stock, but one group of the students was told that they had especially bright rats, naturally suited to solving mazes, while the other group was told that their rats were of a less able strain that struggled with maze solving. Those with the bright rats were instructed that their animals would show clear learning during the first day of running the maze and after that their performance would improve rapidly. The subjects with the “dull” rats were told that their experimental subjects would provide little evidence of learning.

Both “types” of rat (bear in mind that all the rats were identical in ability) did prove to have performances that improved over time, but every day over the five day trial the “bright” rats were recorded as performing better than their peers, achieving successful runs up to twice as frequently as the “dull” rats, and getting to a successful conclusion significantly quicker than their supposedly slow counterparts.

When dealing with bright rats, experimenters could have encouraged them more, given them more positive handling, which could have influenced actual performance. This is unlikely to be a problem with a physics experiment. However - and this applies to all kinds of experiment - true improved performances were not necessary as the experimenters could easily have biased the results, even though they could be totally unaware that they were distorting the data.

One possible approach that would shift the results to match the experimenters’ expectations would be if they counted borderline runs as successful with bright rats, but not with dull ones. They might also have decided to be selective about which results to record because of some apparently sensible reason (perhaps the rat was distracted by a loud noise), cherry picking positive results. And there are other, more subtle ways available for experimenters to fool themselves.

So even though some of the greatest scientists in history have had a tendency to ignore adverse results because they knew their theory was right (Newton is a good example), it is isn't an appropriate thing for a modern scientist to do. The physicist I was emailing was absolutely right to have no expectations.

However, the reason I suspect my contact of fibbing is that it's one thing not to have expectations and it's another not to have hopes. The only kind of scientist who could be totally devoid of hope and simply carry out an experiment as a wholly neutral observer has lost his or her humanity. You might think they shouldn't care about the outcome, that all outcomes should be equally interesting, but the fact is that all outcomes aren't equally interesting - at least this is true in many cases. And to pretend otherwise is a subtle form of deceit.

Take, for instance, the Alpha experiment at CERN. If everything goes to plan, phase 2 of this may well tell us in the next few years, the answer to a question that has fascinated physicists for a long time. Under the influence of gravity, does antimatter act the same as ordinary matter, or does it feel an opposing force? Would it float up rather than fall to Earth? We just don't know, because we've never had enough antimatter to measure the very weak pull of gravity.

Now, the emotionless robot scientist, the hypothetical textbook scientist, doesn't care which outcome we get. Each has exactly the same reward value - it is a result, tick, move on. But I don't think any human can honestly say they wouldn't get a thrill if antimatter acts as if it was experiencing antigravity and is repelled by massive objects. That would be just so much more exciting than if it acted like ordinary matter.

That being the case, while I can only commend the scientist I was emailing for his lack of expectations, I am very sad if he truly was without hope.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope