en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager
2 corrections found
Wallace measured the curvature of the canal's surface using two markers separated by about 5 km (3 mi) and suspended at equal heights above the water's surface. Using a telescope mounted 5 km from one of the markers, Wallace established that the nearer one appeared to be the higher of the two.
This describes Wallace’s 1870 Bedford Level setup incorrectly. Contemporary accounts say he used three signals over a six-mile span, with the middle signal three miles from each end—not two markers 5 km apart.
Full reasoning
Contemporary sources describing Alfred Russel Wallace’s 1870 Bedford Level wager do not describe a two-marker, 5 km setup.
A contemporaneous Nature report says: “six miles of the Bedford Level were used, three signals … being put up three miles apart.” It further explains that Wallace’s test was whether the central signal would appear elevated relative to the line joining the two end signals.
The reproduced 1870 Field report is even more specific: it says there was one signal on Old Bedford Bridge, a staff at three miles distance along the canal, and a third signal on Welney Bridge three miles farther, with observations made “from bridge to bridge the full six miles.”
So the article’s description changes the structure of the experiment in two ways:
- It says Wallace used two markers, but the original reports describe three signals/markers.
- It says the markers were separated by about 5 km (3 mi) with the telescope 5 km from one marker, but the original reports describe a 6-mile total span with the middle signal 3 miles from each end.
That makes the article’s account of the experimental arrangement materially inaccurate.
2 sources
- The Rotundity of the Earth | Nature
“To test this point, six miles of the Bedford Level were used, three signals, each 13 feet 4 inches above the water level, being put up three miles apart.”
- The Convexity of Water (reproducing the 1870 Field report)
“At three miles distance along the canal a staff was erected… and on Welney Bridge, three miles further, a third signal was placed… The observations were made… from bridge to bridge the full six miles.”
In 2000 roughly 40 physicists made a bet about the existence of supersymmetry, to be settled in 2011, but because the Large Hadron Collider was delayed the bet was extended to 2016.
The original supersymmetry wager was not set to be decided in 2011. The 2000 document set the deadline at June 21, 2010; 2011 was the year participants met and agreed on a five-year extension.
Full reasoning
The date here is off by a year.
The original 2000 wager document asked whether “in ten years from now, that is by noon C.E.T. June 21st, 2010” at least one supersymmetric partner would be discovered. It also said the winners would organize a meeting “not later than in June 2011.” In other words, 2010 was the discovery deadline; 2011 was only the latest date for the follow-up meeting.
A later University of Copenhagen summary confirms this sequence: it says the wager asked whether supersymmetry would be discovered “before 2010,” and that when participants reconvened in 2011, they decided to prolong the bet by another five years because the LHC had been delayed.
So the article is incorrect in saying the bet was originally “to be settled in 2011.” The original settlement deadline was 2010, with the extension agreed in 2011.
2 sources
- Wager on Supersymmetry (Triangle-2000 meeting document)
“QUESTION: Do you think that in ten years from now, that is by noon C.E.T. June 21st, 2010, at least one supersymmetric partner… will be experimentally discovered?” The document also states: “The party of winners organizes a meeting… not later than in June 2011.”
- Supersymmetry bet settled at NBIA workshop - University of Copenhagen
“Would supersymmetry be discovered… before 2010? … when [participants] returned to Copenhagen for an NBIA workshop in 2011… [the bet] should be prolonged for another five years.”