- #1
- 4,430
- 327
Title: Can apparent superluminal neutrino speeds be explained as a quantum weak measurement?
Abstract: Probably not
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832
Abstract: Probably not
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2832
Explaining Apparent Superluminal Neutrino Speeds as Quantum Weak Measurement
- Context: Graduate
- Thread starter Pythagorean
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Abstract
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of apparent superluminal neutrino speeds and whether they can be explained through the framework of quantum weak measurement. The scope includes theoretical implications and potential publication considerations.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant suggests that the idea of explaining superluminal neutrino speeds as a quantum weak measurement is probably not viable.
- Several participants express amusement and enthusiasm regarding the abstract's presentation, indicating a light-hearted tone in the discussion.
- There are comments on the clarity and appropriateness of the term "superluminal," with some participants finding it potentially obtuse while others defend its standard usage.
- A later reply highlights the credibility of the first author, Sir Michael Berry, suggesting that the paper may have merit due to his expertise in quantum measurement theory.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the viability of the proposed explanation for superluminal neutrino speeds, with some expressing skepticism while others support the notion based on the author's credentials.
Contextual Notes
There are unresolved assumptions regarding the interpretation of superluminal speeds and the implications of quantum weak measurement theory. The discussion reflects a mix of serious inquiry and humorous commentary, which may affect the focus on technical details.
- #2
KrisOhn
- 195
- 2
Hahaha, that's awesome.
- #3
Jack21222
- 209
- 1
That's brilliant! I hope it gets accepted for publication like that.
- #4
fourier jr
- 764
- 13
- #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,112
- 20
hahahahahaha that's epic!
- #6
billiards
- 765
- 16
epic. but "superluminal"? Yeah i get it, but it seems a bit obtuse.
- #7
Jimmy Snyder
- 1,137
- 21
Short, yes, but I see room for improvement.
- #8
billiards
- 765
- 16
It reminds me of an exam question that some philosophy student got full marks for ...
Q: Define risk.
A: this
Q: Define risk.
A: this
- #9
Jack21222
- 209
- 1
billiards said:
That's the standard adjective to use in this case. Not obtuse at all.
- #10
jetwaterluffy
- 227
- 0
billiards said:
Or even, http://www.studential.com/bio/getps.asp?ps=1492". Philosophers seem to be very risky individuals.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #11
f95toli
Science Advisor
- 3,510
- 1,073
Jack21222 said:
It might very well get accepted like that. Note that the first author is Sir Michael Berry from Bristol Univerist, (of "Berry phase" fame); so it wasn't written by some unknown PhD Student.
Berry is one of the leading experts of the world when it comes to quantum measurement theory, and the rest of the paper is quite conventionall when it comes to how it is written.
Similar threads
Undergrad
A test for a superluminal neutrino?
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 57 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 22 ·