Difference between revisions of "3254: Detector"
(→Transcript) |
(touch-up) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
{{incomplete|This page was detected recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}} | {{incomplete|This page was detected recently. Don't remove this notice too soon.}} | ||
| + | [[Ponytail]] and [[Hairy]] are showing [[Cueball]] a machine, claiming it is their most sensitive detector. Normally, detectors have a designated detecting job, such as smoke detectors which detect smoke. Being more sensitive means that it can detect (and perhaps quantify) far lower quantities/magnitudes of the target of its detections. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this case, "more sensitive" seems to mean that it is sensitive to more ''different'' things. To quote Ponytail, it detects "gas, dust, particles, light, radio waves, gamma rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, fields, forces, events, potentials, or states", which runs almost the entire gamut of things that ''might'' be detectable, and leaves little room for there being any situation in which none of the aforementioned items are there to be detected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cueball points this out and Hairy says that it ''has'' been continuously lit this way since they turned it on. And Ponytail is left shocked when Cueball asks what would happen if the light labeled "Not detected" were to shine. Hairy claims that such a thing would be pretty bad, the presumption being that, if that were to happen, there would have to be no matter, light, forces, etc. within the detector's range of detection. (With almost no reason for the "Not detected" light to shine, they could have simply provided continuous power to the "Detected" light, but the reactions of the experts present show that neither of them think that this has been done.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The title text states that the machine has the lowest false-negative rate out of any other machine as the "Detected" light will always continue shining. If it never ''ever'' states a negative, then it can never be wrong about it being negative, even though it is not clear what circumstances would result in a negative state being required, nor whether the detector will then (correctly) state that, rather than just continue to provide a (now) false-positive. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Randall had recently talked about detectors in [[3249: Neutrino Project]]. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
| − | |||
[Hairy is standing next to a large machine labeled "Detector". The front of the machine has two lights, labeled "Detected" and "Not detected". The "detected" light is lit up in green. Ponytail and Cueball walk towards the machine] | [Hairy is standing next to a large machine labeled "Detector". The front of the machine has two lights, labeled "Detected" and "Not detected". The "detected" light is lit up in green. Ponytail and Cueball walk towards the machine] | ||
| Line 20: | Line 28: | ||
Cueball: What does it detect? | Cueball: What does it detect? | ||
| − | Ponytail: Lots of stuff. Gas, dust, particles, light, radio waves, gamma rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, fields, forces, events, potentials, or states. | + | [The next panel zooms in on the detector] |
| + | |||
| + | Ponytail: (off-screen) Lots of stuff. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ponytail: Gas, dust, particles, light, radio waves, gamma rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, fields, forces, events, potentials, or states. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [The next panel zooms out.] | ||
Cueball: I don't understand. Aren't most of those always present? | Cueball: I don't understand. Aren't most of those always present? | ||
| Line 33: | Line 47: | ||
{{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | {{comic discussion}}<noinclude> | ||
| + | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Physics]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Science]] | ||
Revision as of 00:19, 4 June 2026
| Detector |
 Title text: No other experiment has a lower false negative rate. |
Explanation
|
This is one of 44 incomplete explanations: This page was detected recently. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page! |
Ponytail and Hairy are showing Cueball a machine, claiming it is their most sensitive detector. Normally, detectors have a designated detecting job, such as smoke detectors which detect smoke. Being more sensitive means that it can detect (and perhaps quantify) far lower quantities/magnitudes of the target of its detections.
In this case, "more sensitive" seems to mean that it is sensitive to more different things. To quote Ponytail, it detects "gas, dust, particles, light, radio waves, gamma rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, fields, forces, events, potentials, or states", which runs almost the entire gamut of things that might be detectable, and leaves little room for there being any situation in which none of the aforementioned items are there to be detected.
Cueball points this out and Hairy says that it has been continuously lit this way since they turned it on. And Ponytail is left shocked when Cueball asks what would happen if the light labeled "Not detected" were to shine. Hairy claims that such a thing would be pretty bad, the presumption being that, if that were to happen, there would have to be no matter, light, forces, etc. within the detector's range of detection. (With almost no reason for the "Not detected" light to shine, they could have simply provided continuous power to the "Detected" light, but the reactions of the experts present show that neither of them think that this has been done.)
The title text states that the machine has the lowest false-negative rate out of any other machine as the "Detected" light will always continue shining. If it never ever states a negative, then it can never be wrong about it being negative, even though it is not clear what circumstances would result in a negative state being required, nor whether the detector will then (correctly) state that, rather than just continue to provide a (now) false-positive.
Randall had recently talked about detectors in 3249: Neutrino Project.
Transcript
[Hairy is standing next to a large machine labeled "Detector". The front of the machine has two lights, labeled "Detected" and "Not detected". The "detected" light is lit up in green. Ponytail and Cueball walk towards the machine]
Ponytail: Over there are our electron microscope, XRF scanner, and mass spectrometer. And this is our most sensitive detector.
Cueball: What does it detect?
[The next panel zooms in on the detector]
Ponytail: (off-screen) Lots of stuff.
Ponytail: Gas, dust, particles, light, radio waves, gamma rays, protons, neutrons, electrons, fields, forces, events, potentials, or states.
[The next panel zooms out.]
Cueball: I don't understand. Aren't most of those always present?
Hairy: Yeah, it's been saying "detected" continuously since we turned it on.
Cueball: What happens if it says "not detected"?
Ponytail: Oh gosh.
Hairy: That would be pretty bad, I think.
Add comment 
Create topic (use sparingly) 
Refresh Discussion
The deluxe edition of the machine probably has "Detected/Not detected" lights for each of those items. I would guess its cost would be significantly higher. 47.248.235.170 21:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Pat
To whoever wrote the initial transcript: the title text should not be included. Barmar (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't even detect a vacuum? Useless thing, showing not even a vacuous truth. 2A02:590:1402:2E01:102F:245D:DD57:1937 22:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
It also has zero false positive Rtanenbaum (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. We are told that it never says "No" when it should be saying "Yes", which suggests that there will be no false negatives. If were trust that assertion.
- But we aren't given any assurance at all (even a simple nodding statement with no provability behind it) that the machine will not continue to say "Detected" even if it somehow really shouldn't. Should it do so, it would be be a false positive. Even though various other existential problems might be more important to anyone around who might care about it, at that point. 81.179.199.253 23:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Add comment
