These are two different data series involving cooperation with different research partners. The article claims confirmation not independent confirmation.
It seems to me there is enough accumulated oddity to follow up with some space based measurements in order to get a better signal to noise ration and eliminate some possible systematic error sources.
This would be a good follow up. But producing a high flux of neutrinos is not trivial especially the right kind. The current thinking is that there are three types of neutrinos and that the latter change via a process called neutrino oscillation on the way from sun to earth.
Ups, wan't aware of thtat when I submitted this. At least there is some additional info in this article i.e. the more detailed graphs from the research and the video. Although not the most captivating speaker the presentation adds interesting details to extend that they think they see patterns specific to the core of the sun.
If this pans out it could actually open up the possibility of neutrino telescopy. That'll be extremely exciting.
Well, this is a different data series so I still think it's fair to say that the second study confirms the original finding, although further completely independent confirmation is highly desirable.
Also noteworthy: This apparently only affects beta decay i.e. it seem to hint at an unknown reaction involving the weak force only.
The video goes into some more detail, revealing that they found periodicities that are typical for the core of the sun, only neutrino interaction could account for that.
Had no idea that transfinite numbers were such a controversy. When I first learnt about the distinction between countable and non-countable infinite sets I thought it made perfect sense.
Amazing that it was so offensive to many great mathematicians. (Not surprised about the religious objections though. After all these people seem to live for the opportunities to get their nickers in a bunch over nothing).
1) When he lectured on the suspect he wanted to demonstrate how the know statistical physics did not produce the Planck law but rather the ultraviolet catastrophe. Hence he wanted to demonstrate that the theory at the time was faulty. But he made a "mistake" along the way and out popped Planck's law.
The "mistake" was the way that you count the states available to a photon. I.e. as illustrated in the coin toss example nature doesn't count photons as distinguishable particles like coins. Nature counts head-tail and tail-head as only one state.
This is obviously wrong in the macroscopic domain. Bose realized that this "mistake" must actually correctly reflect how nature accounts for states in the quantum domain.
2) During or shortly after his lecture Bose must have realized that his "mistake" must actually reflect the correct statistics for photons.
3) We now know that Bose's static is entirely correct for Bosons, but at the time all particles were imagined to exhibit the same statistic as macroscopic particles. I.e. they were thought to be always properly distinguishable. But it turns out you cannot put "labels" on Bosons, not even theoretically. I.e. if you have two identical Lego pieces and you exchange them between two identical Lego projects, you may not be able to immediately tell the difference, but you know that a real change occurred and you could make this explicit by labeling and keeping track of the Lego bricks. At the quantum domain there is no equivalence to this, in a quantum "Lego" project (e.g, a Bose-Einstein condensate) nature will not make a difference, not even in principle, if you exchange two identical particles that are in the same quantum state. Actually, even the concept of such an exchange loses all meaning.
The/. byline is: News for nerds stuff that matters.
I already interpreted this as with an OR condition. I.e. sometimes the stuff that matters doesn't have to be all new to be interesting for the/. crowd.
I think the little known fact that a major insight in physics came from an initial "mistake" is such an interesting morsel.
Especially when contemplating that nowadays physicists are constantly beset by crackpots and have subsequently being conditioned to quickly dismiss information that seems faulty. I am certainly as guilty of this as anybody. If I think I spot an obvious mistake in a paper from a dubious source I don't bother to read the rest.
If Einstein would have operated like this Bose's paper would have never been published.
Anyhow, the newsy aspect of this story is that Einstein's paper on this subject is now available in a new translation. For some reason there was no English version anywhere to be found on the Internets.
"Especially when it seems to contain an obvious glaring mistake."
Bose's paper was rejected because the mainstream opinion was that he didn't count the photons correctly. This was exactly the kind of "mistake" that he made in his lecture that miraculously lead to the correct radiation spectrum formula (Planck's law).
Einstein directly addressed this critique in his follow up paper (paragraph 7 search for "Ehrenfest").
F'book gave me $50 voucher to get to play with ads.I was actually quit impressed with the ad interface. You can chose to pay by result i.e. getting a "Like", rather than for clicks. Don't see how bots would give them any advantage if you chose that paying scheme.
I am really not a huge F'book fan, don't like their laxness with regards to privacy data at all. Don't have a profile other than this page. Nevertheless, I really don't see how this story has legs. Just pay for "Likes" and check on your followers' profiles (random sample will do). It will be hard to build diverse profiles that look real.
Also it doesn't make business sense. Ad revenue is their lifeblood. They really cannot afford to lose trust in the integrity of their ad delivery.
Just noticed for the first time that you left a comment on an old submission of mine pointing to this blog entry. For some reason didn't get a notification on that at the time and now this thing is archived. Hence my abuse of this comment thread.
Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed reading the chapter of your SF story that you linked to, and was wondering if you ever completed that story?
Slashdot Mirror
These are two different data series involving cooperation with different research partners. The article claims confirmation not independent confirmation.
Current neutrino observatories are very difficult to build.
E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory
This probably could give neutrino observatories quite a boost.
It'll be great if you could take the time to scrutinize these papers. If this is simply due to erroneous data analysis this deserves to be shut down.
It seems to me there is enough accumulated oddity to follow up with some space based measurements in order to get a better signal to noise ration and eliminate some possible systematic error sources.
This would be a good follow up. But producing a high flux of neutrinos is not trivial especially the right kind. The current thinking is that there are three types of neutrinos and that the latter change via a process called neutrino oscillation on the way from sun to earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation
Yeah, because slashdot always only carries peer reviewed research from top notch Ivy League universities.
Oh wait a second ... these papers are actually peer-reviewed results from Ivy League research universities.
The hypothesis is that a yet unknown weak force interaction triggered be the sun's neutrino's is responsible for this.
It'll hardly be the first time that a scientifically observed phenomenon has no current theoretical explanation.
If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.
Ups, wan't aware of thtat when I submitted this. At least there is some additional info in this article i.e. the more detailed graphs from the research and the video. Although not the most captivating speaker the presentation adds interesting details to extend that they think they see patterns specific to the core of the sun.
If this pans out it could actually open up the possibility of neutrino telescopy. That'll be extremely exciting.
Well, this is a different data series so I still think it's fair to say that the second study confirms the original finding, although further completely independent confirmation is highly desirable.
Also noteworthy: This apparently only affects beta decay i.e. it seem to hint at an unknown reaction involving the weak force only.
The video goes into some more detail, revealing that they found periodicities that are typical for the core of the sun, only neutrino interaction could account for that.
... never had problems maintaining a normal weight, and I love potato chips and ate a ton of it growing up.
Is this study maybe sponsored by the American Corn Syrup Council?
Interesting. Just read up on it.
Had no idea that transfinite numbers were such a controversy. When I first learnt about the distinction between countable and non-countable infinite sets I thought it made perfect sense.
Amazing that it was so offensive to many great mathematicians. (Not surprised about the religious objections though. After all these people seem to live for the opportunities to get their nickers in a bunch over nothing).
Thanks :-)
And no worries, I've been long enough on this site to take the good with the bad.
Wouldn't expect mathematics to have this much trouble to get published though.
If Bose's work had not been picked up by Einstein it would have gone unnoticed.
Mathematics as purely logical science doesn't have the problem that it may ran afoul preconceived notions about how nature operates.
Actually the author of the quote was Mark Twain as he was the first to put it in print.
But he was by his own accord not the the one who originally uttered it.
1) When he lectured on the suspect he wanted to demonstrate how the know statistical physics did not produce the Planck law but rather the ultraviolet catastrophe. Hence he wanted to demonstrate that the theory at the time was faulty. But he made a "mistake" along the way and out popped Planck's law.
The "mistake" was the way that you count the states available to a photon. I.e. as illustrated in the coin toss example nature doesn't count photons as distinguishable particles like coins. Nature counts head-tail and tail-head as only one state.
This is obviously wrong in the macroscopic domain. Bose realized that this "mistake" must actually correctly reflect how nature accounts for states in the quantum domain.
2) During or shortly after his lecture Bose must have realized that his "mistake" must actually reflect the correct statistics for photons.
3) We now know that Bose's static is entirely correct for Bosons, but at the time all particles were imagined to exhibit the same statistic as macroscopic particles. I.e. they were thought to be always properly distinguishable. But it turns out you cannot put "labels" on Bosons, not even theoretically. I.e. if you have two identical Lego pieces and you exchange them between two identical Lego projects, you may not be able to immediately tell the difference, but you know that a real change occurred and you could make this explicit by labeling and keeping track of the Lego bricks. At the quantum domain there is no equivalence to this, in a quantum "Lego" project (e.g, a Bose-Einstein condensate) nature will not make a difference, not even in principle, if you exchange two identical particles that are in the same quantum state. Actually, even the concept of such an exchange loses all meaning.
The /. byline is: News for nerds stuff that matters.
I already interpreted this as with an OR condition. I.e. sometimes the stuff that matters doesn't have to be all new to be interesting for the /. crowd.
I think the little known fact that a major insight in physics came from an initial "mistake" is such an interesting morsel.
Especially when contemplating that nowadays physicists are constantly beset by crackpots and have subsequently being conditioned to quickly dismiss information that seems faulty. I am certainly as guilty of this as anybody. If I think I spot an obvious mistake in a paper from a dubious source I don't bother to read the rest.
If Einstein would have operated like this Bose's paper would have never been published.
Anyhow, the newsy aspect of this story is that Einstein's paper on this subject is now available in a new translation. For some reason there was no English version anywhere to be found on the Internets.
Reading comprehension?
"Especially when it seems to contain an obvious glaring mistake."
Bose's paper was rejected because the mainstream opinion was that he didn't count the photons correctly. This was exactly the kind of "mistake" that he made in his lecture that miraculously lead to the correct radiation spectrum formula (Planck's law).
Einstein directly addressed this critique in his follow up paper (paragraph 7 search for "Ehrenfest").
So, I fully stand by my summary.
You can always go to the original articles that are linked on the site if you really want to understand it.
Bose's paper
Einstein's paper
There is (a very slow loading) Google cache version available.
It is currently down.
... one fundamental aspect, so let's get this out of the way: Yes, information is physical.
At least not unless they are skillfully faking profiles.
Of course my crappy little page plays to a small niche audience just to advertise my blog.
F'book gave me $50 voucher to get to play with ads.I was actually quit impressed with the ad interface. You can chose to pay by result i.e. getting a "Like", rather than for clicks. Don't see how bots would give them any advantage if you chose that paying scheme.
I am really not a huge F'book fan, don't like their laxness with regards to privacy data at all. Don't have a profile other than this page. Nevertheless, I really don't see how this story has legs. Just pay for "Likes" and check on your followers' profiles (random sample will do). It will be hard to build diverse profiles that look real.
Also it doesn't make business sense. Ad revenue is their lifeblood. They really cannot afford to lose trust in the integrity of their ad delivery.
Just noticed for the first time that you left a comment on an old submission of mine pointing to this blog entry. For some reason didn't get a notification on that at the time and now this thing is archived. Hence my abuse of this comment thread.
Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed reading the chapter of your SF story that you linked to, and was wondering if you ever completed that story?
He's quite tweet active on the issue.
Of course I suspect he is just envious that there is another organization even more toxic than Fox News.
As a 41 year old IT consultant I am still interested in learning everything about new technologies.
My current fascination with quantum computing even prompted me to start blogging about it.
So I'd say your co-workers are not typical - or they may be just typical for the industry you're in.