India Nuclear News And Discussion

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 01:54

^^^Fundamental constants as experimentally observed. Even some of the "predictive" theories need at least one "constant" to be "measured", and then other constants predicted from theoretical considerations based on this measured one. We still "measure" the velocity of light. Theoretical speculations about non-constant speed of light is pretty old now and there are always new enthusiasts!

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 May 2011 02:14

Bade wrote:OT, but not all fundamental constants are statistical averages. If the speed of light were not a exact constant in vacuum then it would have interesting consequences.

The speed of light, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value in vacuo (in a vacuum) is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second[1]
A more authoritative source on values of fundamental constants.
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/reviews/rpp2010 ... stants.pdf

Thanks.
Also what Brihaspatiji is not understanding, IMO, is difference between uncertainty in measurements (experimental errors) and statistical variation. Most physical (and mathematical) constants, such as e, c, k etc..etc.. (or mathematical constants like pi, e etc) have fairly narrow uncertainty. Radioactive dose in a "typical banana" may vary as bananas come in variable sizes.

One example, for those who want to understand, may be question like "population of a medium size city" (or a "medium size family) or "weight of a typical dog" vs "population of a give city" etc..

200 Mev example I gave, and it seems most do not understand it, was more of the type of "population of a medium size city", in the sense that, unless one knows *more* about the other aspects of the reactor/fuel etc ... the value can vary a lot.

Hope that helps.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 May 2011 02:15

Bji, Does not change what I mentioned and is quoted in PDG. The velocity of light is still a fundamental exact constant, irrespective of what each experimental setup trying to measure it, show different measurement uncertainties and hence different average values of the measurement made.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 02:18

I agree with the "uncertain" bit. But when no distributional information is given about the nature of this "uncertainty", one of the standard procedures is to test for robustness of the results when you perturb the assumed values a bit. Really, if you bring in "uncertainty" then you need to make some probabilistic statements - say at the least between some lower limit and upper limit at 95% confidence level? Or sufficient data that allows us to estimate the density. If none of that is given, and still "uncertainties" are to be taken into account - it becomes rather arbitrary. But even then a rough analysis would go through some type of "sensitivity" analysis. That was what I suggested - check it how it all changes the reults down the line if you assume 10% higher or lower. It would then give some idea of the nature of the variability that could result.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 02:23

Bade ji,
unfortunately, "velocity of light is a constant" [in fact should be stated also with "in vacuum"] - is an axiom of the special theory of relativity. More accurately it is assumed to be "locally" constant either in "flat space" or in a local flat-approximation of curved space. People try to confirm it is so. So far all such attempts depend on experimental observation. Up to the degree of accuracy currently achievable, the null hypothesis of "constant" cannot be rejected with significant probability. We cannot as yet rule out future observations at levels of accuracy that could challenge this axiom.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 10 May 2011 03:26

brihaspati wrote:Amber G,
...even the fundamental constants are statistical averages.

Not true. Actually, generally one would not call them "statistical average" if they are constants. One may say Pi is approx 3 (or 3.14) and would be right..not that statistical average of pi is xyz...

Anything that you observe experimentally is a statistical average

.
Not true, I just observed that I have 2 eyes. No, it was not a statistical average.

...if we follow your logic.... There are uncertainties in all the quantities in that formula.

You start with wrong axioms.. no wonder, rest make little sense..

I agree and am delighted that you finally say in essence that "200 MeV" is actually a particular average realization of a certain random variable observed in a sample of values.

How can, any one misunderstands this one, after so many posts! /sigh/ and what is with this qualifier "finally"? The post I posted was more than an year old.. besides any good book on nuclear fission would give the details..(One has fairly precise values for different component of the the energy in fission, but for more precise value of energy absorbed and given out by the reactor, one has to know geometry, fuel etc..)

200 Mev, (in that context) is not 'particular average' of a 'random variable' .. It is just "rough" value
(just like "medium size dog weighs X kg" ... This is very different from 'average KE of gas at 300K'

It is good to know that 1st year physics books now teach students to compute on such basis.

What they teach is, among many other things, pay attention to significant digit concepts.

Are you saying because of the essentially random nature of all experimental observables, we cannot work with "average" values as fixed estimates? Do you realize that the same would then work for the 2-D diffusion equations? In fact for any calculation, even the fitted values for your two-term "decay formula" will be random variables.

Not really, in fact I have been very clear in what I said. All you have to do, I believe, is to read it carefully. <smile>

Any way, I believe it is now at the stage of diminishing returns so I will stop.
(Any good book on nuclear fission, or internet source, would be more helpful to us all)

Folks, I hope, for everyone else, it is clear what I pointed out. Why it make little sense to give a value with 3 significant figure which is calculated based on values which are nowhere as precise.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 04:01

Amber G,
yes my first statement was not accurate, and which I clarified in a subsequent post, based on "experimentally observable" measures of "fundamental constants". But "fundamental constants" are constants of theories that appear to explain observable phenomena within current limits of accuracy. Please do not make them sound as if they exist independent of theoretical assumptions and axioms.

I still do not see why you cannot work with upper and lower limits on your "200 MeV" or perturb values a bit and see the effects on sensitivity. If you are observing/considering over "long" time frames, the random fluctuations should tend to cancel out on averaging. If you are considering different geometries giving rise to different values [in a non-random way]- different from "200" even that can be considered, isnt it - bys pecifically considering reactor models?

If different reactor geometries do give rise to significantly different values from "200" - they can be plugged in the formula and the effects computed, no? Are you saying that within a given reactor geometry there are unknowable factors that can change - that say reactor specific "180" by non-random or random amounts? Even that can be considered, in typical fashion - when unknown factors within limits of observed variation are assumed to follow some regular probability distribution.

We seem to have a great deal of expert knowledge on specific geometries here on the forum! Are we not able to provide the geometry-specific values and their knowable and unknowable-factor/unpredictable spreads - for India specific reactors which can be used to check the formula?

If we have not done those alternate calculations, how are we so confident in rejecting the "rough" calculations of the "formula" as trash or perfidy? To show that the fixed assumption of "200" is wrong, should have plugged in the various alternative values that seem to be available to you and show that for India, the formula as it stands, gives wrong values!

The number of significant digits should be much less according to you. Fine! Agreed! What is the maximum you would accept?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 05:12

Amber G,
did not notice your "logic" about experimental observation of "2 eyes". OT perhaps, are you sure you want to claim that thing about "not everything observable is a statistical average"? I had the impression you had very deep knowledge of physics, so you must be aware that from the "quantum-mechanical" viewpoint, all that you observe is really a "statistical average". But anyway, the context [context...context is supposed to be so important, otherwise!] was about "fundamental constants" of physical theories - and observation being statistical averages was about such "fundamental constants" of "theories" which appear to fit "observed data" within current limits of accuracy, "very well".

If your fundamental objection is not about "randomness", and that different geometries give different values - different from the assumed average of "200", then the correct formula version should use a harmonic mean of the different values for the reactors concerned. Surely that must have been available then and when all the values were plugged in - the correct or more accurate "value" was derived? This was fundamentally different from "200" and hence formula with "200" was trash?

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 10 May 2011 06:53

B is correct. Quantum wise nothing is absolute. Speed of light is constant similar to the way time was a constant earlier. We know the Theory of Relativity is incomplete as is quantum theory. Until we find a better theory the speed of light is considered a theoretical constant.

On a side note the weird fundamental uncertainty of the weak nuclear force was beautifully demonstrated by the 'Schrodinger's Cat' thought experiment. Per the experiment theoretically the Cat is both dead and alive at the same time till the box is opened. This is why quantum physics too is considered incomplete.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 May 2011 07:21

Sanku wrote:Finally, Amit has been asking for too many things, almost including Newton's original manuscript stating the laws, every time anyone mentions physics. One cant be bothered.

Spreading falsehoods again are you? I challenge you to point to one post where I've made any demand similar to asking for "Newton's original manuscripts stating the laws every time anyone mentions physics". If you can't I hope your realise what that make you, not that it would be a surprise to folks here.

I know it's beyond your comprehension but what I've been saying it's not just a question of the physics of nuclear power generation. Rather the issue is about the economics of power generation particularly nuclear vis a vis coal and the cost:benefit between the two as neither is perfect. Both are the most efficient base load generation.

But since it appears to be a vexing question to many -- a example of private enterprise in mass transport?

Airlines in US. (yes in US they are MASS transport in their context). There are others too, number of bus lines etc but since clearly that was a rhetorical question, I am not inclined to reply. Now please dont bring up that bus lines need roads on which buses run etc, we are not talking of govt creating enabling conditions. We are talking of private run mass transport systems.

Wow, you still can amaze! So you think airlines qualifies as mass transit??? Phew!

I wonder, do you take an airplane to work every day?

Let me educate you about what mass transit is about.

Link 1

Mass transit refers to municipal or regional public shared transportation, such as buses, streetcars, and ferries, open to all on a nonreserved basis. An important form of mass transit is rapid transit, such as subways and surface light rail systems, designed for commuting between urban and suburban (or exurban) centers

Link2

public transport, especially in a city or town

Link 3

a large-scale system of public transportation serving a city or metropolitan area, or such systems collectively

So now Sanku the question still remains. Can you point to one mass transit system which is a) profitable; b) in the private sector; c) has not depended on govt subsidies for construction, infrastructure and running costs. Like I said you can pick anyone from around the globe.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 May 2011 07:26

GuruPrabhu wrote:Also, is accusing someone of spreading patent falsehoods NOT a "personal attack"? Is it a compliment in your mind?

Just look at how you entered the discussion and derailed it.

GP, thanks but this kind of personal attack is the usual and is a sign of a poster who does not have logic and reason on his side.** But I must say the poster is not partial, he spreads his talents across threads and posters in a very even manner.

Added later: ** You will notice he did not respond to the point by point rebuttal I gave to his post!

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 08:28

I wrote this:

GuruPrabhu wrote:Amber,

Nature is amazingly loyal to exponential decays. Just about everything does it, so no need to specify the exact system. There are simply no power laws in quantum mechanical decays.

From what I can make out, buried in the reams of gibberish is a disagreement with this statement.

To all these worthies, well-versed in quantum mechanics, I ask that they name an exception (averaged classical concepts like thermodynamics do not count). Just name one quantum mechanical *physical system* that violates this.

I doubt that the howling fan club will come forth with a simple ONE line answer with an example.

However, I do expect several MegaByte posts with all sorts of spin.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 08:49

oh, by the way, all the critical reading has not gotten any closer to the boo-boo in MVR's paper. I will wait patiently.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 May 2011 08:51

GuruPrabhu wrote:oh, by the way, all the critical reading has not gotten any closer to the boo-boo in MVR's paper. I will wait patiently.

You are a patient man!

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 09:42

amit wrote: You will notice he did not respond to the point by point rebuttal I gave to his post!

You anti-India person can not understand the power of holistic replies. Point-by-point is for pointless people. Here is the strategery of brilliant responses:

Sanku wrote: Since 1 << inf && 2 << inf

1 == 2.

...

Jai ho.

Beat that, you India-hating person!

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 10 May 2011 10:21

Fukushima effect on India by P K Iyengar, express buzz, Last Updated : 10 May 2011 01:20:44 AM IST

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 17:18

Rajendra Pachauri is perhaps playing an anti-India role, in not being able to prevent such potentially anti-India reports from being placed :

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/pres ... tion.shtml

PRESS RELEASE
Potential of Renewable Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Experts Underline Significant Future Role in Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Powering Sustainable Development

Over 160 Scenarios on the Potential of six Renewable Energy Technologies Reviewed by Global Team of Technological Experts and Scientists

11th Session of Working Group III Abu Dhabi, 9 May 2011 – Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows. The findings, from over 120 researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also indicate that the rising penetration of renewable energies could lead to cumulative greenhouse gas savings equivalent to 220 to 560 Gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtC02eq) between 2010 and 2050.

The upper end of the scenarios assessed, representing a cut of around a third in greenhouse gas emissions from business-as-usual projections, could assist in keeping concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million.

This could contribute towards a goal of holding the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius – an aim recognized in the United Nations Climate Convention's Cancun Agreements.

The findings, launched today after being approved by member countries of the IPCC in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, are contained in a summary for policymakers of the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN).
The summary is a short version of a roughly a thousand page comprehensive assessment compiled by over 120 leading experts from all over the world for IPCC‘s Working Group III.

They cannot use the "emissions argument" to say this! They simply cannot! That is a mainstay of using nuclear energy! 80%? - must be a conspiracy! Suppose India has to achieve this 80% target within its own borders, then only 20% is left for nuclear power - where will all the miraculous and guaranteed breakthroughs scheduled for the future until 2050's be applicable which was supposedly needed to make up for at least 25%-30% of India's total energy needs. Maybe since all technical arguments are pushed with a hidden ideological agenda, IPCC is engaged in some hidden ideological agenda against India's burgeoning nuclear industry. Only their previous outpourings about "emissions" are relevant and not pushed by "ideological agenda" [since if you include that in "ideological motivation", its in-turn use to justify more nuclear power also becomes ideologically motivated]. Or maybe there should start a mocking campaign about how "climate change" reports are doctored or based on "shoddy" data - except of course the dilemma is that the same shoddy data based "emissions" apocalyptic scenarios are crucial to support use of nuclear-power too!

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 May 2011 17:24

Sanatananji

pk iyengar makes valid points from where he stands, as someone who spent a lifetime fighting sanctions to preserve the roadmap for the thorium cycle programme.

But clearly he is being selective with facts. There is "no g'teed fuel supply or reprocessing commitment from the US"? But obviously, we haven't struck a single deal with them yet! The only deal on commercial track is the one with areva, and he fails tO mention that both fuel and reprocessing us part of that deal.

If anything, all hr says goes to show rlthat the nuke deal was exceptionally struck - no "pressure" visible to buy lots of foreign reactors, but the shortages being addressed.

Pki's last point - on attracting new talent. He perhaps doesn't realize that the best way of doing that would be to have a vibrant pvt sector in the nuke world. Nothing attracts talent as much as the freedom and compensation of the pvt sector. The nuke deal goes some way in facilitating that, though the liability act constrains it. So he shd be happy!

But PKi says things that can be discussed . What do you say to people who start by declaring that agri is 40% of electricity demand (and most of t&d losses!) and end by annoimting airlines as "mass transit system"! No wonder our uber "nationalists" are so out of depth intellectualy on most issues!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 17:31

Someone was saying that "uber nationalists" are only used for people outside the forum? And he could not see why the khujli in such terms being used? Confusion reigns supreme in sourcing all opposing positions into a single person? Maybe "doddering" shows up not only in "babus" and not only because of "reservations" - but also eager-beaver "uber pseudo secularists pseudo nationalists" who themselves resent "casteist" categorizations while using it liberally on "babus" and who were never contaminated by oh-so-low "rural origins"!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 18:21

OT. But there are "quantum mechanical" theoretical claims of possibility of power law decays at very short time intervals for example. There are "hidden variable" theories for example [Bohm] and a few others. So far appropriate experimental setups have not been feasible to test them out. As far as "physics" is concerned, people can look up condensed matter physics. Or something called quasi-diffusion.

Better not use "physics statements" as "known/exact/constant" - or in absolute terms indiscriminately claiming that certain things never happen etc. It is not a revealed religion. They are paradigms subject to change in the future as and when greater accuracy of or new observations throw up problems with the pre-existing one.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 18:33

Look up Bell Inequality which rules out non-tachyonic hidden variables.

Can't come up with a *physical system* so going for unproven stuff, eh?

As I said, "nature is very loyal to exponential decays". To prove this disloyalty, one has to provide an example of a measurement, not theoretical dreams.

To put it in layman terms, I am loyal to my wife but dream of Ash Rai. Until someone measures me with Ash Rai, I stay loyal.

Added Later: ok, looked up quasi-diffusion. here is paper, but I don't have membership to download: http://tinyurl.com/6kqfmfz

The authors seem to predict something, so not proven yet. In any case, they are talking about a "cross-over", so it is probably an effective phenomenon. Not sure if this is a decay process -- seems like it is a bulk phenomenon like phonon transport.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 May 2011 18:36

Japan pulls back from Nuclear, officially.

Sad day for Nuclear or bust crowd.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 18:44

Sad day for Japan, indeed.

Hopefully India doesn't do such silly things.

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 10 May 2011 19:03

GuruPrabhu wrote:Hopefully India doesn't do such silly things.

Apparently we have to wait for our own Fukushima moment before we too get caught with our pants down. This is what passes for nuclear positives in this country.

amit · Post by **amit** » 10 May 2011 19:07

Bit OT so apologies but I want to make a general comment.

I don't believe in feeding trolls. Waste of bandwidth.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 May 2011 19:12

Theo_Fidel wrote:B is correct. Quantum wise nothing is absolute. Speed of light is constant similar to the way time was a constant earlier. We know the Theory of Relativity is incomplete as is quantum theory. Until we find a better theory the speed of light is considered a theoretical constant.

.... This is why quantum physics too is considered incomplete.

I hope you did look up the derivation of Planck's law where quantum principles were used by none other than SN Bose, to get an exact formula. It is routinely used in "remote sensing" and in predicting the solar irradiance spectrum to great accuracy. There is no incompleteness there for all practical purposes.

There are many more similar examples you will find.

Bji, hope you did contact PDG and ask them to remove the 'exact' constant quote for the speed of light in their table.

Better not use "physics statements" as "known/exact/constant" - or in absolute terms indiscriminately claiming that certain things never happen etc. It is not a revealed religion.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 10 May 2011 19:14

Theo_Fidel wrote:
GuruPrabhu wrote:Hopefully India doesn't do such silly things.
Apparently we have to wait for our own Fukushima moment before we too get caught with our pants down. This is what passes for nuclear positives in this country.

No actually I have higer hopes from India, our nuclear setup despite its short comings is actually far more responsible and we can see people like PKI, Santy, Chellany et al, really putting a spanner in the harakiri plan. All insiders.

Sanatanan Guru had posted a excellent article which the personal sniping crowd did not even look at. Let me post it again

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/fu ... 72913.html

.

The ostensible reasons forwarded for this were the relative paucity of uranium deposits in our country, the need to urgently increase the share of nuclear energy in the country. While these general arguments are well-accepted, what was new, and difficult to understand, was the extremely urgent and ambitious time-frame being projected as a necessity.

Further, nobody has agreed to long-term assurances for the supply of the fuel. The US has not yet approved expansion of our reprocessing facilities, and we haven’t yet concluded any commercial deals with the US. A few hundred tonnes of natural uranium have been supplied by Russia, France and Kazakhstan.

Some of us argued against the need for such haste in the matter, pointing out that even these strenuous efforts would increase the contribution of nuclear power by only 3 per cent (compare this with transmission and distribution losses of around 30 per cent!), but these voices were ignored.

This can only be handled with greater transparency in dissemination of information and decision-making, with scientific and technological realities taking precedence over politics and narrow, short-term economic considerations

Despite all the brute force silencing being carried out by hired poison pens, India fights back, from inside.

The LWR import is in one word a SCAM -- no different from Air India being forced to buy 68 aircrafts instead of 28 and necessarily from Boeing.

Transparent scam -- do they think all Indians are fools?

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 19:19

amit wrote:Bit OT so apologies but I want to make a general comment.

I don't believe in feeding trolls. Waste of bandwidth.

Good point. Only some Indians are fools, not all. Over and out.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 May 2011 19:20

They are paradigms subject to change in the future as and when greater accuracy of or new observations throw up problems with the pre-existing one.

Accuracy and precision are two different things and I am sure you can infer the difference. A precision measurement with 0.000001 % statistical error can still be inaccurate by a large margin, due to wrong underlying models. Decreasing the statistical error alone will not lead to any new insights on alternate paradigms.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 May 2011 19:35

Well some more "conclusive" conclusions being drawn from a news that says nothing of that sort.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world ... ss&emc=rss

what the naoto kan admin has done is to stop construction of new reactors. They have also declared that they are going to "retain" nuclear as an energy source. Point to remember is that nuke already contributes 30% to japan's electrocity. After an incident like this most democratic govt would be forced to react the way kan did, given that nuke is already so high in importance.

To conclude from that that japan has "abandoned" nukes is only slightly less hilarious than stating airlines are mass transit systems.

Of course, critical to the whole thing is how the Indian govt has reacted. And that is reaffirm faith in increasing nuke power capacities.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 20:17

Bade ji,
increasing accuracy itself need not create new paradigms. But it may throw up anomalies that need the older paradigm to be changed. For example a rather simplistic example would be the assumption that Newtonian gravity accounted for most astronomical observations, and to a great degree of "accuracy" at least for terrestrial purposes. But one of the confirmations for the GR predictions came from a very "small" "anomalous" astronomical observation that did not appear to be accounted for by Newtonian gravity [the orders of accuracy needed to find the discrepancy did not exist in the earlier positional astronomy observations - and hence before, there would be reasons to feel satsified and delighted with the prevailing "accuracy"]. Most elementary GR texts will provide the "exact derivation". Now having done that is GR the limit and sacrosanct? As for "constants", especially etc, any good text on SR or GR will state this clearly that "velocity of light is a constant in vacuum" is an axiom of SR. Tests within current levels of accuracy simply fail to reject this hypothesis.
A more accurate statement should be "is a constant of the theory of special relativity". If it is constant, no need to add "exact". If you really want this to be debated - perhaps we need to go into the physics thread.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 May 2011 20:33

Bji, I am comfortable with the existing statement on the speed of light by (PDG). There is little need to debate it on BR, for debate sake.

Again, the issue of whether a theory is sacrosanct or not forever is not being debated. Till a new measurement as a result of a new experiment is performed, the statement regarding the "current" values of whatever that is being measured is used as the best result or the most accurate one to date. This does not violate any laws of physics or the march towards understanding them at deeper levels if needed.

The point in this case is that value of 'c' is not just a constant of the theory of special relativity, it is also measured to be a constant by experiments to date.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 20:37

The MVR paper that I quoted, and another paper that has been suggested here as being "perfidious" and based on false/unjustified assumptions, were both peer reviewed papers. I have discussed both the papers together with the supposed MVR-perfidious-claims busting Mohanakrishnan paper with people involved in nuclear physics. It has been suggested, that for a concrete rebuttal, the amount or estimated "error" made due to the MVR papers' assumptions needs to be derived and shown. Without some estimate of errors, or failure to provide "exact" data which should invalidate the assumed values in the "rough" calculations, MVR and co, can still get away with the argument that in the absence of actual data, working with averages is standard practice.

Moreover, to show "perfidy", we need to show availability and existence of such data - to the "perfidious" authors, i.e., that they deliberately ignored contradictory evidence/data.

I think, it is indeed a serious academic accusation, and should be followed up. It implicates not only the authors, but also the reviewing process followed by the journal concerned, the reviewers and the editors. So all those who are convinced about this perfidy, or waiting to "watch the fun" as to how we fail to see how the Mohanakrishnan "extremes of theoretical possibility" paper busts the earlier MVR paper, should really put up their arguments in formal, technical and quantitative data terms in a paper form.

If they are unwilling to submit the rejoinder paper themselves, I can submit it formally. Or if you are willing I can forward it for preliminary anonymous vetting by some internationally known experts in the field.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 20:38

Bade ji,
do you see the difference between what I stated : "that current measurement fails to reject the hypothesis that it is a constant" and "it has been measured to be a constant"? Even "laws of physics" are axioms/models that have been proposed to account for experimental observations. They need not but could change.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 20:47

Ah, the "fault finding" team seems to have given up. Even after consulting with "nuclear physicists", they can not spot the perfidy. Keep trying boys, no rush on my part. Ask some "nuclear engineers" next -- they may be better tuned.

Why not ask the "international known experts"?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 20:58

Original statement was rather vague isnt it - that "power law decays" are unknown in "physics"? "unknown" in what sense - not a theoretical possibility [like the zirconium less "extremes of theoretical possibility" 'theoretically" "attainable" BR of 1.61] or not observed in "practice" so far? so now taking cover under narrowing it down to "nuclear" onlee?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 21:01

But still not confident enough to put up a rejoinder paper to the journal to expose the "perfidy"? Fear of exposure, is it?

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 10 May 2011 21:08

Bji, you are agreeing with me in a rather roundabout way. When the laws of physics are stated, or models as you want to address them as, are created by the smart ones it is still an 'exact' formulation.

When you want to test this law of physics or 'model' one has to formulate a hypothesis for rejecting or accepting this law/model. This requires the design of the 'measurement process' to accept or reject by formulating a hypothesis. The law or model stands independent of the hypothesis being tested or measured.

Some experiments cannot measure the value itself but produce upper or lower limits only or when more successful both limits to the measured value predicted by the model/law.

The model or law of physics exists independent of your ability to make accurate and precise measurements. The fact of the constancy of speed of light existed, long before humans had the ability to measure it. The null hypothesis statement is only from a measurement perspective. It is a description of the processes on the measurement side. It says nothing about the law and its formulation which are determined independent of the measurement or the ability to make one itself.

GuruPrabhu · Post by **GuruPrabhu** » 10 May 2011 21:14

I will explain the perfidy if the fan club apologizes and admits failure at "fault finding", a game that I did not initiate.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 May 2011 21:17

The "statement" I made is the "safer form", because it does not give the impression that a certain "perception" of physical reality [even that is a rather loose term] is permanent and can never be challenged as a model. "Falsifiability" is a key basis of all modern scientific "theories". If you insist on "measured to be a constant" means you cannot ever challenge this conclusion. If suppose in the future, somewhere there appears "measurement" evidence that the constancy is violated, will you reject such observations simply because it has already been "measured to be a constant"?