Leaderboard

encountered the following paper while doing research on Big Bang nucleosynthesis. I was looking at how the PMNS mixing matrix was developed when I came across the following this article seems to imply that leptogenesis and subsequently Baryogenesis can be explained via the Higgs seesaw via the Right hand neutrino mixing angles. I question the accuracy of this claim so will be examining it further but felt posting here may interest other members as well.

I don't think that there was fundamentally new information (or at least I recall that one or two years ago it was reported that there were some folks working at the institute getting ill around the early times of the outbreak. It was a tick towards a potential leak, but nothing conclusive as far as I can tell, even assuming that they got COVID-19 (and not something else). Transparency is certainly something to critique them for, but so far no smoking gun. One problem that I am still seeing is that the earliest timelines are a bit hazy. Now that we know a bit more about the transmissibility of the early variant plus the associated severe disease rate, there is a bit more uncertainty regarding the earliest transmission. This could push the timelines a bit further back, especially in a younger population. But this is purely speculative at this point, of course. It would be interesting to follow up on some of the sample found early in Europe to see whether one can get a bit more precise data (or if available, blood samples in Wuhan). Also, if I recall correctly, at least one of the infected researchers was working in BSL4? If so, that makes it even less likely as they are way better protected there than outside. If there was a leak, I would think that BSL2 conditions are (way) more conducive to escape.

Give me a break! EVERYONE here arguing for reparation has given the reasons for it, and nobody ever implied that it would be based on anything other than discrimination. It just so happens that the folks discriminated against also have black skin, so your argument here is obfuscation by semantics.

@StringJunky, the article that I've linked in the previous comment, contains an answer to your earlier question:

Yes, 8-10 hours round trip. E.g., Titanic tourist submersible goes missing with search under way - BBC News

That's not what we are arguing about, of course people should be compensated for injustice in these instances. We are arguing whether compensation should be made based on the colour of their skin or the way they where treated. Yes, they may have been discriminated against or mistreated due to the colour of their skin but the process to compensate people should not have to follow the same mechanism. e.g - "oh you have black skin and as a result, we will compensate you accordingly" "we are sorry that you where discriminated against, we will compensate you accordingly" There is no reason invoke for the purpose of compensation anything other than the fact they have been ill treated. Each individual knows why they were mis-treated, the people making the compensation know why. The very mechanism that was used to discriminate in the first instance, doesn't need to be repeated for the purpose of reparation. However, for the purpose of improvement and mitigation the details of why they have been mistreated should be at the fore front and should be recognised and dealt with accordingly. I get a little exasperated when considering with racism based on skin color. There often seems to be a lack of consistency. There is a difference between recognising the differences and celebrating the differences in a way that encourages further racism. My best friend is black, great, he is proud of his heritage, great. He is my very good friend who I love dearly, he has a darker skin tone than mine, so what. He is off to an event organised for black people, he apologises to me, he would love to invite me but can't. "Why? I'm your best friend", "yeah but you are not black". This attitude persists in current times, the exact same thing that white people (and I'm sure still do in some areas) did to black people in the past. The way black people were treated in the past, and some in modern times, was/is atrocious behaviour, they deserve compensation, agreed. However, so long as this attitude persists whether positive or negative, then racism based on skin color will never be eradicated. We need to get past this, and see people for who they are as people not what they look like.

That is what I thought, too. But it turns out to be wrong: How does the missing Titan submersible work? Here's a look inside (usatoday.com)

Can you clarify this point? My understanding is that this is NOT an example of emergence, because in this case we CAN explain the macro behavior in terms of the constituent parts. We only call something emergent when we CAN'T explain the behavior of the whole in terms of the parts. And that's why emergence bothers me. It seems like nothing more than a label we apply when we can't explain the qualities of the whole in terms of their parts. In which case it doesn't actually tell us anything. I realize I'm arguing a minority position, since everyone else seems to find the concept of emergence compelling. But can you explain your example? By showing how the macro behavior results from the properties of the parts, my understanding is that this is NOT emergence, but rather basic scientific cause and effect. When we say that "mind is emergent from brain goo," we are saying that we have no idea how the parts product the qualities of the whole, so we slap the label "emergence" on it in lieu of any better explanation. @StringJunky, I looked back through this thread and couldn't find where I posted. I'm still not sure how I got roped into this thread yet here I am. Now THAT's emergence!

The process of conducting an underwater search for a lost submarine has been based on the use of Bayesian Search Theory ever since 1968, when the technique was first successfully used in the hunt for USS Scorpion (SSN-589). This nuclear powered submarine had gone missing while returning from combat patrol to its base in Norfolk Virginia, and might in theory have sunk anywhere between there and its last known location near the Canary Islands. A team of mathematicians and acoustic specialists led by John Piña Craven calculated an optimum search box area, and subsequently located the wreck at a depth of 3047m, and within about 500 metres of the central X of the primary search box near the Azores - (The US Navy thought it had sunk off the Eastern Seaboard). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_search_theory In the case of the Titan submersible, the search teams could define an optimum ‘box’ based on the known time of the loss of contact at 1h 45m into the dive, and the planned descent route to the wreck of the Titanic.

With that last response to Swansont you have proven to me at least. We are not accomplishing anything here.

I can't recall which recent thread in speculation I had posted this. However for precision tests on Lorentz invariance which includes constancy of c. The highest precision test I'm aware of is \(0.707×10^{-11}\) for the upper bound on any deviation for Lorentz invariance. This value is an overall tally of numerous related test methods

You do realize those celebrate events ( you can easily look them up if confused by this info ), not 'races' or distinct groups of people. Even when they do celebrate a heritage, like Canadian Multicultural celebrations, that is vastly different from celebrating an apparent 'race' od skin color.

If you were unfairly denied a loan which resulted in financial harm caused to you I would be in favor of you receiving financial restitution without delay. I do not think it would be fair to make you wait until the financial institution has reviewed, created, vetted and implemented new policies to ensure their unfair practices have been eliminated. Even more so, if a government institution or company wronged you, I don't think your restitution should be dependent on first implementing a behavior change of the general population. I feel confident in labeling that as justice delayed.

Because it is impossible to give a meaningful answer to the OP's question. Because it is potentially helpful to you if we point out that your reply, while well intended, was wrong.

So you caught a specific muon high in the atmosphere, tagged it, and let it go, and found that that same muon reached the earth surface? And if muons are reaching the surface at sea level, then this just shows that some muons have a longer life time than others. Or it might show that muons are not ALL created in the upper atmosphere, some are created lower down. Or it may show that you shortened the normal lifetime of a free muon during the process of capturing it in your cloud chamber after it passed through 14 inches of Perspex to SLOW IT DOWN. You see, here's the thing. ANY EXPERIMENT can be interpreted differently, depending on you prior beliefs. This is why experiment can NEVER PROVE YOUR THEORY. SO STOP GIVING ME ONE EYED EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS AS IF YOU WERE STATING FACT. It doesn't matter who Einstein copied his ideas from, it only matters that this concept is wrong. And I am saying that its impossible to "conclude that c is invariant" now. (but others also have done)

A recent Publication had this to say about Particle Physics: "The foundational theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, predicts that the universe should not exist!" That's how rational Particle Physics is. What Article? Oh nothing really, just a statement from Harvard. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/frustrating-search-new-physics/ So you guys are trying to show where I'm wrong by citing half baked fringe science? When I'm just using axioms of the core of classical physics, that you all still say is valid?