"Neutrinos, they are very small.
They have no charge and have no mass
And do not interact at all.
The earth is just a silly ball
To them, through which they simply pass,
Like dustmaids down a drafty hall
Or photons through a sheet of glass.
They snub the most exquisite gas,
Ignore the most substantial wall,
Cold shoulder steel and sounding brass,
Insult the stallion in his stall,
And, scorning barriers of class,
Infiltrate you and me. Like tall
And painless guillotines they fall
Down through our heads into the grass.
At night, they enter at Nepal
And pierce the lover and his lass
From underneath the bed--you call
It wonderful; I call it crass." -Cosmic Gall, by John Updike
Have you been enjoying the recent excitement over the report of faster-than-light neutrinos from the OPERA collaboration?
Image credit: CERN neutrinos to Gran Sasso.
Was it awesome to learn how these new results are difficult to reconcile with the neutrinos observed from the famed supernova in 1987?
Image credit: C. S. J. Pun & R. Kirshner, WFPC2, HST, NASA.
And to see what it takes to detect these mind-numbingly difficult-to-see neutrinos?
Image credit: Super-Kamiokande.
Well, are we fooling ourselves, or are we really seeing something travel faster than the speed of light?
You've enjoyed hearing about it from me, I know, but don't you wish there was a way to get even more information? And maybe have a chance to get your questions answered, live?
Well, this Friday, September 30th at 7:00 PM Pacific time (10 PM Eastern / 9 PM Central), I'm going to be on KGW's Live @ 7 news here in Portland, Oregon!
Those of you who are local can tune in to News Channel 8, but everyone can watch it live here!
I'll be talking with KGW news anchor Steph Stricklen about neutrino detection, the 1987 supernova, and what scientists are looking for as they go over the OPERA data. So tune in, and don't miss your chance to participate in the live chat, too.
Science! On the news! With ME! Don't miss it!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yaaaaaaaay!
Will it be available anywhere afterwards? I don't fancy getting up at 3 in the morning to watch!
Awesome! I'm on the east coast, but I'll try to tune in somehow.
Finally is something new.
After a segment has aired, KGW usually puts videos of their Live @ 7 segments up here:
http://www.kgw.com/thesquare
Totally worth checking out (probably a day, or maybe a business day) afterwards!
I've tried twice now and the live tv link does not work for me, so I will probably have to wait for the video.
However, I *do* want to see your technique for framing the whole issue for digestibility by the wider tv audience. Do you intend to employ sock puppets, perhaps?
I'm not sure if I can see your segment amongst the other hard hitting news items on that page.
Are you on the "What magical fitness invention should they come up with next?" segment or the "Mango the dog gets her 15 minutes of fame" one?
@ Ethan: Alarm set on phone. Will definitely check it out.
@ Bob: As a sock puppet I resent that.
The Greg Laden site on the string of related American sites called "Scienceblogs" is arguably the most prominent.
Greg is a catastrophic warming supporter, which is his right. He censors opposing views or even questions put courteously which is his right because, as he explains its his site, though incompatible with any claim to "science".
He has claimed to be opposed to censorship. saying "Censorship is the second to last refuge of tyrants, the last is violence" (#23) a refreshingly liberal (in the true meaning of the term) viewpoint on "scienceblogs" where 9 sites, at last count, promote censorship. Rather than answer the 7 questions any climate alarmist should be able to easily answer if it is true, he simply censored them.
Note that he does not delete ad homs or indeed obscenity, which are clearly, after all, the stock in trade of climate alarmist "scientists", particularly those "peer reviewed and published in the finest journals" http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/07/ever (#5) (although he did censor some criticisms made in return, neither ad hom nor remotely obscene since I don't find that persuasive). Indeed, while censoring me, he recently passed a comment that I should be glad Greg hasn't come round to my house and cut off my head which is the last argument he allegedly disapproves of.
It is his choice to run his site that way. However he does worse than that.
Greg has also claimed to be the sole scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism and is not paid by the state. Not one single cent.
He has also claimed to be a "climate scientist".
Indeed he has been given numerous opportunities to say the "misspoke" (a la Clinton), panicked or that the claim needs "clarifying" (a term often used by British politicians caught lying). He has, repeatedly, stood by his claim.
But
Greg Laden is a Biological Anthropologist, studying human evolution, with degrees from Harvard University. He has taught at several universities, including Harvard and is currently a part time Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. He is an independent scholar who blogs athttp://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/. http://myudaily.com/volblogs/newscommentary/religionspirituality/greg-l…
Not a wise move when elsewhere claiming to be a climate scientist receiving not one cent from government. Though his "scienceblogs" bio is replete with "did I mention Harvard"'s it is astonishingly less forthcoming about his present role as a part time assistant teacher at Minnesota U.
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (U of M) is a public research university and A public university is one that is predominantly funded by public means
So the alleged only scientist anywhere in the world who supports warming catastrophism while receiving not a cent from the government is actually an assistant teacher of anthropology, largely or entirely paid by said government (at what I understand Americans call a "cow college" rather than Harvard).
Laden has clearly, deliberately and continuously lied and if the entire "scienceblogs" site and anybody connected is not to it is not to be wholly discredited as not being in any way connected to scientific principles it is impossible he could remain on it.
========================
Knowing a little about anthropology in academe in Britain I can say that it is largely a matter of keeping ones tongue between the cheeks of those above you on the ladder while refusing to notice any scientific evidence which does not suit the politically correct paradigm (admittedly difficult to do otherwise in such a position). Rather than being a real science it is very much the sort of "science" Richard Feynman described in his "Cargo Cult Science" lecture.
Perhaps American anthropology is totally different and a real science.
Perhaps his interest in (and possible limited understanding of CAGW) is inspired by coworkers, friends and neighbours. I haven't visited Minnesota and it may be a warm place with a large coastal area which would explain the local's interest in the possible bad effects of warming. Indeed it must be so because pathetic as it is to lie on the subject it would be unbelievably pathetic to lie in a way that will not impress coworkers and neighbours.
The video is up at: http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Physicist-Ethan-Siegel-explains-speeding-n…
Worth watching for Ethan's beard if nothing else. :)