40,227 reputation
355127
bio website inspirehep.net/…
location Duchy of Grand Fenwick
age 44
visits member for 4 years, 6 months
seen 6 hours ago

Experimental nuclear and particle physicist. These days I'm teaching, but I've spent a lot of time on nucleon structure in fixed target electron scattering and neutrino oscillations using reactors and beam sources.

Been reading Zemansky & Dittman's book on thermodynamics recently. Quote: ``The concept of temperature is rich in interpretations and levels of abstraction.'' Nice.


12h
comment With the LHC about to restart as max energy, are there absolutely no hints or tantalizing signs of Supersymmetry in previous data?
@Curious Ah ... I didn't to suggest looking to Fermilab for evidence; only that "absolutely no hints [...] in previous data" isn't really applicable to the low-energy LHC data as yet.
13h
comment With the LHC about to restart as max energy, are there absolutely no hints or tantalizing signs of Supersymmetry in previous data?
@Curious Certainly they'll still working on that data because they aren't part on a LHC experiment, but they are still getting new things from it. The depth of the data from these big experiments and the analytic cleverness of the physicist who run them is staggering and too easily underestimated.
16h
comment Why is a beam reach the fastest point of sail on modern sailboats?
Back when I was learning sailing they told me the broad reaches were a bit faster than beam. But in any case, the question of why reaches (in general) are fast on sloops is a good one.
17h
comment True randomness?
Hmmm ... on further reading I see that you are trying to draw a strong denotative difference in the works "random" and "probabilistic". I see where you're coming from on that, but I don't believe that this distinction is universally recognized.
17h
comment True randomness?
This bit "those processes are not random from a QM point of view. Simply QM introduces, as I said, the concept of probability of a measure as opposed to exact knowledge." is interpretive and not backed up by clear experimental data. The data tell us that it is either actually random or practically random because we can't know the hidden variables, but it doesn't distinguish the two cases. You can have either a local truly random theory or a non-local hidden-variables theory. You just can't have a local hidden-variable theory.
17h
comment With the LHC about to restart as max energy, are there absolutely no hints or tantalizing signs of Supersymmetry in previous data?
Be aware that CDF and D0 are still analyzing their data years after the Tevetron shut down, taken apart and bits of it chopped up and put on display in the lobby of the highrise. "Absolutely no hints of [...] in the data" is too high a standard to expect for the 3.5 and 4 TeV data for another decade or more.
1d
comment Does “finite” include zero?
I've been trying to break myself of this habit for a couple if years now, but it's been slow going.
May
26
answered Trying to locate information on alpha particle scattering/peak resonance energies for elements
May
25
comment Programming in physics
The real difficulty with this is that there are no wrong answers here. No right answers either given that what is true in my bit of physics in doubtless wrong in some other corner of the discipline. Short versions: there is no preparatory curriculum of "physics programing", because there is no single notion of programming in physics. Not for software, not for language, not for hardware (which changes ever ten years or so, anyway).
May
25
answered Charged-current: Why does the neutrino interact with the down-quark?
May
25
comment Sonoluminescence spectrum
For that matter, is the spectrum thermal in the first place? Can you find the (some) temperature from it? My suspicion is that it is not (insufficient time, after all) but I don't know.
May
25
comment Action-Reaction pair in case of rocket accelerating in space
Don't let the names "action" and "reaction" that Newton used fool you. The two are simultaneous in time and there is no implication that one must be active and the other passive. There is neither a point nor a need to sort out which one is the "action". You just need to identify the pair.
May
24
revised Time dilation derivation of special relativity
rolled back to a previous revision
May
24
revised Is it foolish to distinguish between covariant and contravariant vectors?
rolled back to a previous revision
May
24
revised How can there be a current and an electric field in an idealized wire with no voltage drop?
rolled back to a previous revision
May
24
revised Difference Between Fraunhofer and Fresnel Diffraction
rolled back to a previous revision
May
24
comment What does “Standard Model” really refer to?
I like to say (in a very casual way) that we're currently on Standard Model 2.1beta. If you are still using the buggy 2.0.5 release or earlier versions you should upgrade at the earliest convenient moment.
May
24
comment Why do planets move in fixed orbits?
I know that. You know that. But the readers that this answer would potentially help the most don't, and as written the answer conflates the two.
May
24
comment Why do planets move in fixed orbits?
Can't sat I like this answer because it makes no distinction between the ongoing, chaotic perturbation of every orbit in the system and catastrophic events like planetary ejections.
May
23
comment Scattering and form factor
Krane appears to be assuming that you have a basic understanding of how to work out scattering integrals, such as you would get from most introductory textbooks on quantum mechanics at the graduate level and many at the undergraduate level. While some kind soul might answer this, you might want to have such a text in your possession going forward.