6,574 reputation
13068
bio website sklivvz.com
location London, United Kingdom
age 43
visits member for 3 years, 8 months
seen Jul 19 at 17:26

Stack Overflow Valued Associate

  • Contributor since September 15th 2008
  • Skeptics Moderator from February 2011 to March 2013
  • Core dev since March 2013

You can find me on

Some code of mine, mostly old :-)


Jan
2
comment What really allows airplanes to fly?
@MikeDunlavey we are in violent agreement... :-)
Jan
2
comment What really allows airplanes to fly?
@MikeDunlavey the angle of attack is key, remember that airplanes are known to fly upside down (thus implying that the geometrical configuration of the wing can be reversible).
Dec
6
comment How can we know, today, that there's something from 100 light-years from here?
Note that the distance is irrelevant, we can only measure the past. The present is an illusion, if you think of it.
Nov
21
comment Superluminal neutrinos
@Alain I am a bit confused: if the clocks are in sync, the time measurement does not depend on the GPS movement. Or are you talking about the distance measurement (which is done once)?
Nov
21
comment Superluminal neutrinos
I watched the original presentation of the results, and they say specifically that the clocks are originally synced by using a portable atomic clock, twinned with the ones in the satellites. So this allows for a very strict (original) sync without relying on GPS directly. They further said that each site syncs with the GPS clocks to keep the two sites with max ~1ns difference. So I as far as I see, it would be very hard for the clocks to go out by 60ns. Finally GPS is used to find the site's positions. But these are two independent measurements.
Sep
24
comment What would be the effects on theoretical physics if neutrinos go faster than light?
@RonMaimon "when something crosses a threshhold of plausibility, it is impossible to say what the implications are." -- if you cannot give an answer then don't. Leave a comment saying "this is unanswerable, because...". Use the answer box just for answers.
Sep
23
comment Superluminal neutrinos
@Lagerbaer I think the trajectory is all underground... it starts in a deep tunnel at CERN and ends under a mountain at Gran Sasso :-)
Sep
23
comment Common false beliefs in Physics
@KimKim I didn't express myself properly: I've seen people believing that.
Sep
23
comment Superluminal neutrinos
You would still need to explain why a massive particle (the neutrino) moves faster than a massless particle (the photon).
Aug
1
comment Does the “Energy Catalyzer” generate energy by converting Nickel to Copper?
Moved this off to physics, as it's better suited there.
Jul
31
comment Does the “Energy Catalyzer” generate energy by converting Nickel to Copper?
Hi, add some more on-topic references. Although I totally understand where you're going, I think something more specific would be way more appropriate for the casual reader (this is not physics.SE). Thanks.
Jul
24
comment Einstein's box - unclear about Bohr's retort
@ras: you have misunderstood the argument, which was about whether Quantum theory is self-consistent. The argument was never that Nature is not self-consistent.
Jul
24
comment Einstein's box - unclear about Bohr's retort
I forgot to mention it, but your answer is actually very interesting.
Jul
21
comment Is apparent horizon curvature lesser due to refraction of light in the atmosphere?
You should ask this on Physics. Should I migrate this for you?
May
20
comment Conjectures that have been disproved with extremely large counterexamples
@qme: could you elaborate on the difference?
May
2
comment Anti-matter repelled by gravity - is it a serious hypothesis?
LOL. Thanks for that :-)
Apr
30
comment Has quantum entanglement been demonstrated to be able to take place over infinite distances?
The fundamental point is that QM is not based on probability, but on probability waves (or fields) which, differently from normal statistics, exhibit interference.
Apr
25
comment Does Quantum Mechanics assume space and time are continuous?
@sb1: it's a fact that QM, as proven by experiment, is based on the continuum mathematics of differential calculus. It's not a more general theory which somehow works independently of the mathematical assumptions behind it.
Apr
25
comment Does Quantum Mechanics assume space and time are continuous?
@sb1: but, as Lubos was saying, it depends on it in its current form (e.g. $\Psi$ is assumed to be defined for $\vec{x}, t \in \mathbb{R}$)
Apr
25
comment Does Quantum Mechanics assume space and time are continuous?
The question was about QM, not about current research. The last paragraph is off-topic and speculative.