Re:X17 Particle
by _Nat_ on Saturday November 23, 2019 @09:35PM
(#21617993)
Looks like you have some good questions for [SE.Physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)! @knzhou's profile shows that they're a member there.
Short version's probably that we don't quite have enough data to compellingly argue for excessively elaborate descriptions.
I mean, yeah, every time there's any little observation -- even one that's not anywhere near statistically significant -- there's technically a tiny bit of information in it that could, in principle, be used to better inform a model than a model that excludes it. But at current, folks don't tend to care; too much mental/computational overhead for too little payoff.
Cows in Physicsland aren't spherical because physicists couldn't conceive of more precise descriptions, but rather because non-spherical cows were too much work.
Short version's probably that we don't quite have enough data to compellingly argue for excessively elaborate descriptions.
I mean, yeah, every time there's any little observation -- even one that's not anywhere near statistically significant -- there's technically a tiny bit of information in it that could, in principle, be used to better inform a model than a model that excludes it. But at current, folks don't tend to care; too much mental/computational overhead for too little payoff.
Cows in Physicsland aren't spherical because physicists couldn't conceive of more precise descriptions, but rather because non-spherical cows were too much work.