In fact, you'll find the probability of this happening 3% is only about 3 percent, of it happening just by accident.
实际上你会发现,出现这种情况的概率是,所以说他们的实验结果完全是偶然的。
And again there, too, you saw an experimental result you were presented with that says, well at least to the extent that it could be measured, it was obviously getting very small.
再一次,你看到了一个,你经知道的实结果,至少在实验测量的范围内,对理想气体条件下的气体这一项很小。
And so this is not like a math problem set or a physics problem set. Or, like a high school physics lab, where we all know what the answer should be, and you could fake your lab results anyway.
或是物理问题集合,又或者是高中的物理实验室,我们对这些问题都有确切的答案,或者你可以把你的实验结果改成正确的,有些事情是不能明确界定的。
And what it turns out is experimental evidence tells us that these two structures are equivalent.
而实验结果也告诉我们,这两种结构是等价的。
Well, that's a laboratory effect but there are some more interesting manifestations of cognitive dissonance.
这是实验室中得出的结果,但其实认知失调还体现在很多有趣的地方。
And then the investigators actually measured these things, and found that with reported and actual energy intake, how many calories people were consuming, there was really quite a difference.
研究人员实际上得到了以下结果,实验对象汇报的和实际的能量摄入,也就是人们摄入的卡路里,两者有较大差异
That's something you find out by experiment.
这个结果是实验得到的
So, introduction, "in order to explain the results of experiments on scattering of alpha rays by matter, Professor Rutherford," and there is a footnote to the Rutherford model.
嗯,绪论,为了解释实验的结果,关于物质的alpha散射,卢瑟福说“,这儿有一个卢瑟福模型的脚注。
So when someone comes to me, and they're about to do a test, I ask them, what do you expect your program to do?
因此当很多人找到我想要,做一次实验的时候,我问他们你期待你,的程序返回什么结果呢?
And the finding is that the majority of people will deliver fatal shocks to this person who they had never met based on the instructions of another person.
实验结果表明大部份人,会对这个从来没见过的人进行致命电击,根据的是另一个人的指示。
And we must know what the result is supposed to be. Typically when you run an experiment, you say, and I think the answer will be x.
这样我们可以来查看代码的进程,我们还必须清楚结果应该是怎么样的,比如当你运行一个实验的时候。
And, of course, all that's left is this positive pudding. So that's not going to do anything either. And what he found when he did this experiment, was that the count rate with still 132 000 counts per minute.
剩下的是带正电的布丁,也不会产生什么影响,结果他实验上观测到,计数器测得每分钟132000下,所以到目前为止,他可以说实验。
Not just one answer at the end.
尤其是实验能有有用的中间的结果就更棒了。
The notion of a self-assured experimenter-- The results would be very different if the experimenter himself seemed nervous, unwilling to proceed, confused, but he was confident and he kept saying that he will take responsibility.
还有电击者的自信程度-,实验结果会大为不同,如果电击者,紧张,不愿进行电击,迷惑,但电击者很有信心,不停地说,他会承担责任。
So in this experiment here, delta p is less than zero. You need to have this whole thing greater than zero. So delta T is less than zero as well. So if you're below the inversion temperature and you do the Joule-Thomson experiment, you're going to end up with something that's colder on this side than that side.
所以在这个实验中,Δp小于零,这全部都大于零,因此ΔT也小于零,所以如果在低于转变,温度的情况下做焦耳-汤姆孙实验,最后的结果是,这边的温度比这边低。
And therefore, they are not systematic about interpreting the results.
预期的正确实验结果,因此,他们就没法做到系统化的去分析结果了。
应用推荐