42,610 reputation
458136
bio website inspirehep.net/…
location Duchy of Grand Fenwick
age 44
visits member for 4 years, 9 months
seen 13 mins 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.


Aug
30
comment Bell's inequality, “complete plans” and spooky action at a distance
Bell's theorem has multiple particles in it by construction. There is no Bell's inequality for one particle. You seem to be trying to make an analogy of some kind, but the math does not translate.
Aug
29
comment Does Hooke's Law apply for microscopic amounts of compression?
You'll want to search for "elastic modulus".
Aug
29
comment Why is local realism not possible with QM?
Violations of Bell's inequality don't prove non-locality as such. They prove that at least one of realism and locality fail. Many people are very firmly of the opinion that obviously one of them can't be violated so it must be the other that fails. Alas, not everyone agrees on the identity of the sacrosanct principle.
Aug
29
comment Why is local realism not possible with QM?
Is the question one of why Bell's theorem identifies differing results for the two case, or why people have concluded that Bell's inequality is violated?
Aug
29
comment Earth density distribution from shooting neutrinos?
Time structured beams would overcome the directionality issue, but we (meaning the whole world) can't afford it. DUNE is projected to be almost of a billion dollars and would represent less than one average accelerator+detector pair for the scheme. The neutrino community is still drooling over the idea of a 2500 km beam experiment (shorter magic baseline), but we can't get the rate with the dollars that we have.
Aug
29
revised Earth density distribution from shooting neutrinos?
added 127 characters in body
Aug
29
revised Earth density distribution from shooting neutrinos?
added 280 characters in body
Aug
29
answered Earth density distribution from shooting neutrinos?
Aug
29
comment Radio active isotopes
On top of the problem with the question not being suitable for the site "activity of 3700000 meters per second" appears to be dimensionally incorrect. Activity generally has units of Becquerels (Bq; mean events per second).
Aug
29
comment Certain doubts regarding the movie 'Interstellar'
@Chris, while I totally agree with you, much was made in the press of the efforts to make the CGI conform to GR, and combining that notion with the usual quality of science reporting and the lack of fine distinction many lay readers bring to such reporting this "Oh, it's a documentary" response should have been predictable. To make the point clear for Aneek: the only thing scientifically accurate in the movie was the visuals. And even then only outside the event horizon.
Aug
29
comment determinism, and quantum computing
Saying that the MWI is testable because it makes predictions totally misses the point. The claim that the MWI is better than other quantum interpretations requires some set of predictions that differ from those made by other quantum interpretations. And while I am not an expert in the foundations of QM, last I heard there are no such testable predictions.
Aug
29
comment Frictional pulley
Aneek, clarifying in the comments is good as far as it goes, but if you edit a clarification into the body of the post your question will appear in the review queue to be checked by other users. That is the main route by which question get taken off hold. Though, of course, review does not automatically imply that question will be taken off hold: it means that close-empowered users who read the review queues will get another look at it.
Aug
29
comment How can we explain the difference in change of kinetic energy, due to different frames of reference?
These things are true, but they don't answer the questions about how to reconcile the difference in the resulting $\Delta \mathrm{KE}$.
Aug
29
comment Decay of excited electron from Schrödinger equation?
I'm pretty sure you have to add a external Hamiltonian contribution by hand or assume the electron starts in a mixture of time-independent eigenstates. If you assume the electron starts in a pure time-independent eigenstate and there is no perturbing component in the Hamiltonian, then you get time-independent behavior.
Aug
28
comment Do relativistic electrons have more charge?
Pay attention to the "closed surface" requirement...
Aug
28
comment Why does a sheet of paper fall slower than the same when rolled into a ball?
Additional thing to try: lay the paper flat on top of a heavy book that is slightly larger than the paper and drop them together.
Aug
28
comment Why teachers use red ink for checking, why are traffic signals show red for stop?
Automated posting bans are a feature of Stack Exchange sites designed as a defense against users who seem to be providing large amounts of poor content and thereby threatening to dilute the high quality of the sites. The details of the algorithms used to decide these blocks are not public, but the message you received when your attempt to post was blocked included a link. Read it. Carefully.
Aug
27
comment It is possible to have a situiation in which $|\mathrm{d}v/\mathrm{d}t|$ is not zero but $\mathrm{d}|v|/\mathrm{d}t$ is?
I'd swear we had another question with this exact title just a month ago. Here we go: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196699/…
Aug
27
comment Why don't lakes have tides?
The point is that the tidal forcing drives resonance in bodies of water, and that causes there to be high and low spots in the surface which have the right period, but are, in general, out of phase; further their size depends on the $Q$ of the resonance rather than directly on the strength of the tidal interaction.
Aug
27
comment What is Drake equation?
"The Drake Equation is a way of predicting how many [...]." (emphasis mine) A less charitable phrase would be "justifying a wild-ass-guess about". Not that there is anything wrong with the process (though the particular factorization into terms in necessarily arbitrary), just that this thing has never had anything like a rigorous use, and won't until we have so much statistical data about biological processes that we'll already know the actual answer.