According to his profile (quoth the profile "Last Activity: Today 06:26 AM") he's still around.

__________________
"Any Sufficiently Analyzed Magic is Indistinguishable from SCIENCE!" -Agatha Heterodyne

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it." -Florence Ambrose

Well, it's Nobel season again so it's time for the third annual exercise in thread necromancy that 01101001 and I have been engaged in. So Jerry, here we are in 2009 and Wolfgang Ketterle still has his Nobel Prize. Any new evidence, or are you willing to concede on this one and admit that his work on Bose-Einstein condensates is valid?

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

It's that time again already? Wow. I think I'll win a Nobel before you get your answer, Eta C.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

A festive annual BAUT tradition.

Apparently running until hell freezes over.

Cheers!

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

You know, his work doesn't even have to be valid. All that matters, if I understand Jerry's claim correctly is that he still has to have the thing and still has to be considered a Nobel laureate.

So, Jerry?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I've never had a hard opinion about Ketterle's work. It is the very first claim, by Cornell and Wieman that I strongly question. The apparatus was too new, the pressures too great, and the results were too perfect. To the best of my knowledge, no one has duplicated their work (using the same materials) and producing anywhere near such a picture-perfect signal of a Bose Einstein hole. Ketterle's data is much more iffy, if you will - as is every BE paper I have read since. If the Cornell/Wieman apparatus worked so well, why hasn't anyone followed their lead?

See

http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Th...bellthesis.pdf

This is a thesis based upon work in the MIT 'rubidium' laboratory, and constrast the results with the widely published Cornell image obtained ~seven years earlier. FWIW, I'm not convinced that a new state of matter is necessary to obtain the interference patterns observed. (Not that I am opposed to BE condensates; but I am extremely skeptical of Einstein's primary product: General relativity. It is failing miserably this century, and we have to do better.)

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

in post #38 Jerry says

Although there have been some doubters recent research confirms the original findings of von Frisch (although it says that the bees take no notice most of the time, except when supplies are short).

Source - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...b6733a3c554a50

Although interestingly, all of the assumptions of their pricing model are now known to be incorrect.

Far from Black-Scholes showing us how to price options, we still take the price itself as the fundamental quality, and only really back out the volatility for purposes of comparison with other prices, or with other times.

It's a strangely simple piece of work to win a nobel prize for, I think (even one in economics). Years ago, my boss asked me to calculate the price of an option from first principles, and, after a short while, I inevitably ended up with the Black-Scholes equation in all its over-simplified beauty.

I suppose, though, that it's always hard to know how people thought of this pricing back before their work, so it's always a bit unfair to offer post-hoc opinions on its value.

No retraction. No apology.

All Jerry grants us is another year of silence on his original claims. How embarrassing for BAUT.

When?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...