Uh-oh: the speed of light is not what we thought it was

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Does this mean that when I work for 1 hour for a client I can charge for 3?

How long has this theory been around?

I think my attorney has been doing that for years.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23562

Offtopic :

In reference to Stern's billing remark above:

Many years ago I was involved in a case with 14 defendants represented by 14 different lawyers/law firms. Oral discovery lasted almost 3 years. The deposition schedule was every other week was a week of deposition, and more often than not all the attorneys and I traveled out of state for those depositions. On many occasions there were 2 depositions going on at the same time, and on a few occasions 3. On those occasions there were, of course, double and/or triple the number of attorneys and court reporters involved.

"Most" of the defendants had a very narrow (or smaller) interest/exposure than what I'll call the 4 "main" defendants. During most of the depositions those attorneys whose clients had limited exposure/interest would work on other cases while defending the deposition they were attending (drafting interrogatories, motions, responses to motions and briefs). They also (admittedly) were billing the client they were there representing in the deposition and the other client for whom they were doing the work. In other words, billing more than one client for the same time.

The plaintiff's attorney filed a complaint with the disciplinary board against some (not all) of the attorneys involved, asserting it was an ethics violation. None of the attorneys (to my knowledge) claimed they were not "double billing." The board ruled while it was certainly a practice that should be discouraged it was not a violation of ethics. :shock:

The case settled about a week before trial for $6.4mm

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9376

realist wrote:

Offtopic :

The plaintiff's attorney filed a complaint with the disciplinary board against some (not all) of the attorneys involved, asserting it was an ethics violation. None of the attorneys (to my knowledge) claimed they were not "double billing." The board ruled while it was certainly a practice that should be discouraged it was not a violation of ethics. :shock:

The case settled about a week before trial for $6.4mm

I'm not sure this is really off-topic. We're dealing with quantum physics here, and as any number of pop culture icons have told us, quantum physics in pop culture means you're allowed to make shit up, be in two different places, make no sense at all, travel backwards in time and all kinds of nonsense. Just cite Gödel's incompleteness theorem to appear to know what you're talking about and pretty much anything you say after that is automatically smart. Ergo, I'm on-topic.

I have to agree with the board on this one. It's obviously not optimal to have your attorney, supposedly paying attention at some bullshit deposition of some idiot who probably has minimal relation to your own liability, actually doing work on some other case at the same time. However, it's not like she's playing Angry Birds or completely ignoring your case. Presumably, if the testimony strays into some interesting area, the lawyer's ears will perk up.

The solution is that if having an actual attorney at a deposition is not valuable enough to justify having one there, don't bother. Split costs and get a transcript. If anything useful is there, draft some cross examination questions. If exposure is actually that minimal, why bother with the show of force? Unless you really do just want some bored associate showing up to half-listen to a bunch of irrelevant testimony while playing Angry Birds.

DaveMuckey · **Posted:** Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:41 pm

Did they account for the tail wind?

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:31 pm

It is probably only on The Fogbow that a discussion of the ethics and practices of lawyers could successfully meld with a discussion of quantum mechanics and measurement error.

It reminded me of the story of Dr. Ronald Mallett's interest in time travel. At a very tender age Ron lost his father to alcoholism and its associated diseases. Early on he began to dream that he would be able to help his father if only....

Many kids either blame themselves for the death of a parent or try to understand what happened and why. Ron took that question a step further, thinking that if only he could travel back in time, he could do an intervention and save his father. So he became one of the nation's first African-American theoretical physicists.

He is working now on an aspect of the General Theory of Relativity. He does a great deal more than fiddle with one of the terms in the equation, such as being a highly effective and inspirational teacher. As for time travel, the most he hopes for is sending a particle back in time for an instant -- perhaps 40 nanoseconds. It is a weird and wonderful world in which he thinks. The Spike Lee film, if it is ever made, will be about the journey of a remarkable man to a destination that few others have reached, not a film about time travel. It was a tough journey.

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/main ... eefilm.htm

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:33 pm

I think the speed of light measurements will eventually be found to relate to spooky entanglement. Just my two cents.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:15 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I think the speed of light measurements will eventually be found to relate to spooky entanglement. Just my two cents.

Somebody shoulda tightened the cable.

Science Insider Feb. 22, 2012 BREAKING NEWS: Error Undoes Faster-Than-Light Neutrino Results by Edwin Cartlidge

Quote:

It appears that the faster-than-light neutrino results, announced last September by the OPERA collaboration in Italy, was due to a mistake after all. A bad connection between a GPS unit and a computer may be to blame.

Physicists had detected neutrinos travelling from the CERN laboratory in Geneva to the Gran Sasso laboratory near L'Aquila that appeared to make the trip in about 60 nanoseconds less than light speed. Many other physicists suspected that the result was due to some kind of error, given that it seems at odds with Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That theory has been vindicated by many experiments over the decades.

According to sources familiar with the experiment, the 60 nanoseconds discrepancy appears to come from a bad connection between a fiber optic cable that connects to the GPS receiver used to correct the timing of the neutrinos' flight and an electronic card in a computer. After tightening the connection and then measuring the time it takes data to travel the length of the fiber, researchers found that the data arrive 60 nanoseconds earlier than assumed. Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Now I have to figure out how to slow down. They never told us how to do that.

Estiveo · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:06 am

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6633

Edit:

Adelante · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:44 am

TollandRCR wrote:

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Now I have to figure out how to slow down. They never told us how to do that.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:18 am

While this has been fun and we can all snicker about a loose fiber optic cable there is a good lesson to be had about the way science works vs. the way cults and conspiracy theorists like Birthers work. The claim that neutrinos could travel faster than light was an extraordinary and important claim. The majority of scientists did not accept it on face without the usual testing for new theories. I think one physicist was so sure it was wrong that he said he would eat his boxer shorts on TV if it were found true. They asked questions like: Are there errors? Can it be duplicated? Are there alternative explanations? What other ramifications would this imply that we could test? Conspiracy nuts on the other hand would ask none of these questions but would demand the condemnation of anyone who dared to challenge the new "holy neutrinos".

PaulG · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:13 am

Reality Check wrote:

While this has been fun and we can all snicker about a loose fiber optic cable there is a good lesson to be had about the way science works vs. the way cults and conspiracy theorists like Birthers work. The claim that neutrinos could travel faster than light was an extraordinary and important claim. The majority of scientists did not accept it on face without the usual testing for new theories. I think one physicist was so sure it was wrong that he said he would eat his boxer shorts on TV if it were found true. They asked questions like: Are there errors? Can it be duplicated? Are there alternative explanations? What other ramifications would this imply that we could test? Conspiracy nuts on the other hand would ask none of these questions but would demand the condemnation of anyone who dared to challenge the new "holy neutrinos".

Very true. Just look at the stories quoted...

Quote:

...
Should the results stand, they would upend more than a century of modern physics.

And...

Quote:

...
Since this time is subtracted from the overall time of flight, it appears to explain the early arrival of the neutrinos. New data, however, will be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
...

The plan remains the same, check all the equipment and run the experiment again. Many people just do not get this.

Walt Tuttle · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:00 am

A faster-than-light joke I read somewhere...

The bartender says, “We don’t serve your kind in here.”
A neutrino walks into a bar.

:rimshot:

majorbabs · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:15 am

Reality Check wrote:

While this has been fun and we can all snicker about a loose fiber optic cable there is a good lesson to be had about the way science works vs. the way cults and conspiracy theorists like Birthers work. The claim that neutrinos could travel faster than light was an extraordinary and important claim. The majority of scientists did not accept it on face without the usual testing for new theories. I think one physicist was so sure it was wrong that he said he would eat his boxer shorts on TV if it were found true. They asked questions like: Are there errors? Can it be duplicated? Are there alternative explanations? What other ramifications would this imply that we could test? Conspiracy nuts on the other hand would ask none of these questions but would demand the condemnation of anyone who dared to challenge the new "holy neutrinos".

For many of the very conservative people I know, the fact science self-corrects is proof that science is not to be believed. Of course, their understanding of how science works is almost non-existent. It is no surprise to me that there is a such a large percentage of American who suffer from science illiteracy. We need another Sputnik moment IMO.

kate520 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:07 pm

Walt Tuttle wrote:

A faster-than-light joke I read somewhere...

The bartender says, “We don’t serve your kind in here.”
A neutrino walks into a bar.

:rimshot:

Me, this morning: wanna hear a science joke?
Hubby, getting dressed: sure
Me: the joke
Him: quizzical look

A few minutes later I heard him chuckling in the kitchen: ok, got it!

More chuckling for the rest of the morning.

Foggy · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:28 pm

Outstanding joke, Walt! =))

esseff44 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:42 pm

I have the kind of dyslexia that prevents me from have a natural sense of left/right distinctions. I had a problem learning to tell time on an analog clock because you had to understand clockwise and counter-clockwise were not the same. Dials of all kinds were problematic. If the hands went one way, why not the other? I never understood why people though time went in one direction only. I also think it is possible to 'see' past and future events. But first you have to be convinced it is possible.

Estiveo · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:57 am

esseff44 wrote:

I have the kind of dyslexia that prevents me from have a natural sense of left/right distinctions. I had a problem learning to tell time on an analog clock because you had to understand clockwise and counter-clockwise were not the same. Dials of all kinds were problematic. If the hands went one way, why not the other? I never understood why people though time went in one direction only. I also think it is possible to 'see' past and future events. But first you have to be convinced it is possible.

Linear time, sidereal time, directional time, human defined time, all of that, like the cake, is a lie. (◄ stole some commas from Orly, had to use ‘em)

Space time is such a profound construct that us poor little killer apes from an obscure planet around an undistinguished star in an average galaxy in this vast universe...we can never hope to figure it all out before we go extinct.

However the beauty part of being human is that we never stop trying to know.

John Thomas8 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:06 am

majorbabs wrote:

Reality Check wrote:

While this has been fun and we can all snicker about a loose fiber optic cable there is a good lesson to be had about the way science works vs. the way cults and conspiracy theorists like Birthers work. The claim that neutrinos could travel faster than light was an extraordinary and important claim. The majority of scientists did not accept it on face without the usual testing for new theories. I think one physicist was so sure it was wrong that he said he would eat his boxer shorts on TV if it were found true. They asked questions like: Are there errors? Can it be duplicated? Are there alternative explanations? What other ramifications would this imply that we could test? Conspiracy nuts on the other hand would ask none of these questions but would demand the condemnation of anyone who dared to challenge the new "holy neutrinos".

For many of the very conservative people I know, the fact science self-corrects is proof that science is not to be believed. Of course, their understanding of how science works is almost non-existent. It is no surprise to me that there is a such a large percentage of American who suffer from science illiteracy. We need another Sputnik moment IMO.

Wait until the Chinese put men on the moon (Peter Simpson, Daily Telegraph.

That'll get their attention.

Of course, 8 years from now we'll have about eighty cents to put towards serious space exploration.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:04 am

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences ... ight-speed

Quote:

As expected, CERN scientists measuring the speed of neutrinos have discovered that the particles aren't traveling faster than light after all.

Last year, CERN scientists were bemused to discover that a neutrino beam being sent to Italy's Grand Sasso laboratory appeared to be arriving sooner than it should, breaking the speed of light. If correct, this would have indicated that Einstein's theory or relativity was wrong.

But using data from the same short, pulsed neutrino beam - but, crucially, an independent timing system - the ICARUS experiment at Gran Sasso hasn't replicated the OPERA results.

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 10:46 am

Physical Review Letters April 26, 2012 Stimulated Generation of Superluminal Light Pulses via Four-Wave Mixing by Ryan T. Glasser, Ulrich Vogl, and Paul D. Lett, National Institute of Standards and Technology and Joint Quantum Institute, NIST and University of Maryland. Emphasis mine.

Quote:

We report on the four-wave mixing of superluminal pulses, in which both the injected and generated pulses involved in the process propagate with negative group velocities. Generated pulses with negative group velocities of up to vg=-1/880c are demonstrated, corresponding to the generated pulse’s peak exiting the 1.7 cm long medium ≈50 ns earlier than if it had propagated at the speed of light in vacuum, c.We also show that in some cases the seeded pulse may propagate with a group velocity larger than c, and that the generated conjugate pulse peak may exit the medium even earlier than the amplified seed pulse peak. We can control the group velocities of the two pulses by changing the seed detuning and the input seed power.

Because I keep hoping that somebody can build the Enterprise for Capt. Kirk.

Slightly more info

kate520 · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 10:52 am

I know all the words in that paragraph. I can't really make head nor tails out of what they describe. :lol:

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Mon May 07, 2012 11:17 am

kate520 wrote:

I know all the words in that paragraph. I can't really make head nor tails out of what they describe. :lol:

The e!-Science article is not any clearer.

The erroneous Gran Sasso experiment found a ~60 nanosecond "discrepancy," which turned out to be due to an improperly fitted cable. It would be embarrassing if NIST's experiment is also plagued by measurement error. Surely, the editors and referees for Physical Review Letters were painfully aware of the Gran Sasso error. However, they may also share my yearning for Capt. Kirk's Enterprise.

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Tue May 08, 2012 3:26 pm

Can we now speculate with scientific evidence at hand that Obamas birth certificate arrived before he was born :?:

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:27 am

Now an even more disturbing finding:

Thunderbolts Project - Huge Quasar Cluster refutes Big Bang Theory :evil:

[This site triggers no alarms in my security software, but don't go there unless you are well-protected.]

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Uh-oh: the speed of light is not what we thought it was

Who is online