The end of the world as we know it

[OngBonga]

Funnily enough no power really has an incentive to destroy the world. That being said the level of cock ups with nuclear power have lead to much more disastrous consequences than anything else.

There's an incentive, alright. Imagine if you could wipe out the entire human race, except for those who you choose to shelter with you in your bunker. If you were the only people who survived, the world would be yours. The entire world. Well, what's left of it. But still, it'd be one hell of a prize, knowing that you and your select friends are now the dominant creatures on the planet.

Problem is, of course, that you won't be the only survivors, because you're not the only one with a bunker. So, while the incentive is there, so too is the deterrent.

If there was a way they could guarantee they'd be the only ones to survive, I reckon they'd do it. Crazy thing is, it woulod probably be for the long term benefit of the species.

[Poopadoop]

Crazy thing is, it woulod probably be for the long term benefit of the species.

Because it would free up a lot of resources? or because it would propogate the sociopath genes?

[Poopadoop]

Funnily enough no power really has an incentive to destroy the world. That being said the level of cock ups with nuclear power have lead to much more disastrous consequences than anything else.

Ya, if you read 'Command and Control' by Eric Schlosser there were a lot of pretty close calls and 'minor' accidents, alerts where people had their fingers on the nuclear trigger, and a general lack of fail safes that had the potential to be major disasters. Chernobyl, 3 mile island, etc. were not exactly a joke either.

[Poopadoop]

Speaking of interesting books, Jared Diamond (the author of Guns, Germs and Steel) wrote a book called 'Collapse' in which he described how several different societies in the past experienced their own forms of EOTWAWKI. One interesting case was Easter Island, where the population eventually cut down all the trees and left themselves with no way of having a manageable island. Most of them died though I think some sailed to other islands in the S. Pacific (might be remembering that wrongly, but it was a serious disaster for them either way). The failed colonisation of Greenland was another example he described, and there were a few more.

One of his arguments was that if that can happen on a small scale, who's to say it couldn't happen on a global scale?

[OngBonga]

Because it would free up a lot of resources? or because it would propogate the sociopath genes?

Well it'd be a long, long time before anyone is squabbling over territory. Furthermore, I don't imagine organised religion would emerge as we know it. It would either be seen as an opportunity to establish one religion, or none. Those that survive would have the opportunity to shape the future of humans. You'd like to think they would prefer to leave a legacy that history eventually looks kindly on. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Poopadoop]

You'd like to think they would prefer to leave a legacy that history eventually looks kindly on. Otherwise, what's the point?

You had me up till there, but wouldn't their legacy be 'we're the ones who wiped everyone else out'?

[OngBonga]

You had me up till there, but wouldn't their legacy be 'we're the ones who wiped everyone else out'?

Yes, but if the eventual result was a peaceful and resourceful population of billions, then it woud be better than the world we have.

[Savy]

Ya, if you read 'Command and Control' by Eric Schlosser there were a lot of pretty close calls and 'minor' accidents, alerts where people had their fingers on the nuclear trigger, and a general lack of fail safes that had the potential to be major disasters. Chernobyl, 3 mile island, etc. were not exactly a joke either.

This was only in the news the other day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7226991.html

There's an incentive, alright. Imagine if you could wipe out the entire human race, except for those who you choose to shelter with you in your bunker. If you were the only people who survived, the world would be yours. The entire world. Well, what's left of it. But still, it'd be one hell of a prize, knowing that you and your select friends are now the dominant creatures on the planet.

Problem is, of course, that you won't be the only survivors, because you're not the only one with a bunker. So, while the incentive is there, so too is the deterrent.

If there was a way they could guarantee they'd be the only ones to survive, I reckon they'd do it. Crazy thing is, it woulod probably be for the long term benefit of the species.

None of those things are that appealing, remember people with power already live pretty great lives. Destroying everything isn't really to their benefit. Not to mention if you're controlling nuclear weapons you and your friends are already the dominant creatures on the planet.

[Poopadoop]

This was only in the news the other day.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7226991.html

Jesus. And the scary thing is there's probably nuclear facilities that are even more dangerous in parts of the world.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The unnamed spokesperson said it was safe.

What are you guys worried about?

***
Seriously, though... it's shit like this that is going to exacerbate global climate change more than anything. The only real solution is nuclear energy if we want to move away from fossil fuels. There's nothing else that even has a chance. Problem is, the public still thinks of nukes and other disasters when they think nuclear energy, and finding out that the waste is not being kept properly is like shooting ourselves in the foot as far as convincing the public that they're really misunderstanding how, statistically, nuclear is so so so so much cleaner and safer than any alternative.

[OngBonga]

Nuclear energy is obviously the future, we just need to learn how to make it clean. We can't keep dumping radioactive shit in undergound containers forever, it's not sustainable.

[OngBonga]

If I spit in a solution of brake fluid and chlorine, it goes mental.

Has anyone tried spitting in radiocative material to see if it decays faster?

[JKDS]

I think the time is ripe for nuclear to take over. I learned it was safe in high school, many my age did.

But solar power is making enormous strides...

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nuclear energy is obviously the future, we just need to learn how to make it clean. We can't keep dumping radioactive shit in undergound containers forever, it's not sustainable.

We're currently dumping many orders of magnitude more into the atmosphere... it's a def. improvement over the current situation.

The problems with solar are many and expensive, even under moderately idealized conditions.

You need lots of surface area dedicated to creating free photoelectrons, but you also need, in that same space, conductive wires to collect and direct those charges. Trouble is that conductors are opaque (and usually reflective) exactly because they're conductors.

Then you have the trouble that if you want to absorb a wide waveband, you get low returns, but if you go for a tight waveband of absorption, you aren't taking advantage of the full spectrum.

Then you say, OK, so we'll need more of them than we would prefer, but we can still make 'em.

Where you gonna put 'em? There's lots of sun there, right? Not much clouds? So plenty of dust, right? What are you going to do to prevent your output from dropping by 5% a day when left unattended? What method can you implement which is cheap enough to justify making the solar farm in the first place?

All of these questions have answers, but none of them are easy. We are making great progress in solar power, but there are still major hurdles to overcome.

[CoccoBill]

Deaths caused to date by Chernobyl: 46 (31 in the explosion or due to acute radiation poisoning, 15 due to thyroid cancer)
Projected total deaths by Chernobyl: up to 4000 (cautious estimate, conflicting evidence exists)
Deaths caused to date by Fukushima: 0
Projected total deaths by Fukushima: 0
Deaths caused annually by coal power in China: 600000

[Savy]

Deaths caused to date by Chernobyl: 46 (31 in the explosion or due to acute radiation poisoning, 15 due to thyroid cancer)
Projected total deaths by Chernobyl: up to 4000 (cautious estimate, conflicting evidence exists)
Deaths caused to date by Fukushima: 0
Projected total deaths by Fukushima: 0
Deaths caused annually by coal power in China: 600000

Since when are deaths the only measure of a fuck up?

And I'm all for nuclear power.

[CoccoBill]

^Probably from the moment on someone starts claiming they are and everyone agrees.

Regardless, I'd rank it at least in my top3 measures for fuck ups.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Since when are deaths the only measure of a fuck up?

And I'm all for nuclear power.

Deaths are not the only measure, but perhaps the most significant.

Impact on the environment is another important factor.

Cost effectiveness counts.


Nuclear wins on all of these.

[JKDS]

Sounds like MMM is in the pocket of big nuclear

[OngBonga]

Sounds like JKDS is in the pocket of big oil

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like Ong is in the pocket of big solar.

[OngBonga]

Sounds like poop is a luddite.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sounds like MMM is in the pocket of big nuclear

If you can tell me how to do that, that'd be cool.

Pocket sounds like it's comfy and stuffed with loads of monies.


***
Only pocket I'm currently in is the "I understand energy density and environmental impact" pocket. No monies, here, though.

[JKDS]

Mmhmm. But your studies were funded by big nuclear! They're trying to pollute your mind and get you on their side! And they've succeeded!

[Savy]

Mmhmm. But your studies were funded by big nuclear! They're trying to pollute your mind and get you on their side! And they've succeeded!

But nuclear isn't polluting.

[JKDS]

That's exactly what big nuclear wants you to think.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Mmhmm. But your studies were funded by big nuclear!

Then someone should let my student loan holders know.

They're trying to pollute your mind and get you on their side! And they've succeeded!

Wow... they've got their work cut out for them trying to pollute this mind.

That's not their success. That's someone else's brain-washing.
I blame Neil Degrasse Tyson.

[OngBonga]

But nuclear isn't polluting.

Try telling that to people who live on the Pacific coast.

[Poopadoop]

Are there any issues with security regarding nuclear sites? I mean if some Dr. Evil guy did an Italian Job on a nuclear plant could they then go and build a bomb?

[Savy]

Are there any issues with security regarding nuclear sites? I mean if some Dr. Evil guy did an Italian Job on a nuclear plant could they then go and build a bomb?

In terms of rl security not really, I'd be much more worried about an electronic threat and even then we don't really see anything. Maybe that's surprising or maybe it's just ineffective, it's not like we don't see people screw around with pretty high ranking dangerous things just for shits and giggles so maybe the threat just isn't there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are there any issues with security regarding nuclear sites?

Probably. I mean, it's just my gut, but it seems like it'd be naive to assume otherwise.

I mean if some Dr. Evil guy did an Italian Job on a nuclear plant could they then go and build a bomb?

Not directly, no.

Weapons grade nuclear material is highly refined compared to energy grade nuclear material.

That refining is expensive and requires trained professional nuclear technicians if not physicists to accomplish.

Not to mention that acquiring the nuclear material is only one of the many challenges to making a nuke. Dirty bombs are not nearly as complex since you don't need to initiate a fission reaction. They don't release nuclear energy, though... just spread radiological materials around haphazardly.

[wufwugy]

These three Scott Adams tweets about living in a simulation blew my mind: https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...ang=en&lang=en

[OngBonga]

I read a theory about why matter doesn't seem to exist until observed, and I liked it more than storage limits. It's a shame I'm too stoned to remember what the theory was.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I read a theory about why matter doesn't seem to exist until observed, and I liked it more than storage limits. It's a shame I'm too stoned to remember what the theory was.

What do you (did it) mean "seem to?"

I can't think of any way to prove that something is there if nothing is observing it. Using the QM version of "observe," that is.

[OngBonga]

I can't think of any way to prove that something is there if nothing is observing it. Using the QM version of "observe," that is.

Well if you know both the velocity and location of an object, perhaps a planet, then you can know where the object was before it was observed. One doesn't need to observe something for its entire existence to know that it has an entire existence.

The theory tried to explain why a particle acts like a wave until it is observed, and which point it acts like a particle. I might try to find it later, it was complex enough for me to forget, but it certainly sounded like a nice theory.

[CoccoBill]

^You don't know if the planet took a sudden turn or just popped into existence. There's just some <100% probability the planet used to be there. I've only observed this beer since I bought it, I have no clue if it existed prior to that.

[OngBonga]

^You don't know if the planet took a sudden turn or just popped into existence. There's just some <100% probability the planet used to be there. I've only observed this beer since I bought it, I have no clue if it existed prior to that.

Things don't take sudden turns for no reason, though. Let's say an object drifts close to a black hole, and that causes a sudden change in its path. Well, if we know the black hole is there, and know its mass, then we can calculate the object's path before it was under the influence of the black hole.

If we are aware of all gravitational factors, and accurately know its velocity and location, not only would we know if it turned, but when, and to how much of a degree.

There's just some <100% probability the planet used to be there.

The only reason it's not 100% is because we can't measure both its location and velocity accurately thanks to the uncertainty principle. If we could, it would be 100%.

And considering we're talking about a planet, and not an atom, the accuracy of our calculations is extremely close to 100%, like all of the point nines.

[CoccoBill]

Not for no reason, but we don't know what might have affected it before our observation unless we observe _everything_ else too, constantly. We can make pretty good guesses and fairly probable predictions, but we can't know, even without going into all those epistemological stuffs.

[OngBonga]

Not for no reason, but we don't know what might have affected it before our observation unless we observe _everything_ else too, constantly.

So our ability to know the unobserved past relies on the accuracy of our measurements and the extent of our awareness of the influencing factors.

The information is there, and therefore so is the unobserved past. It happened, whether observed or not.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Things don't take sudden turns for no reason, though. Let's say an object drifts close to a black hole, and that causes a sudden change in its path. Well, if we know the black hole is there, and know its mass, then we can calculate the object's path before it was under the influence of the black hole.

If we are aware of all gravitational factors, and accurately know its velocity and location, not only would we know if it turned, but when, and to how much of a degree.

If you're simply stating Newton's Laws in your own way, then I don't intend to disagree with you.

If you're saying that an object changed motion, therefore a net force was acting on it, therefore there is a source of that net force, then that sounds like it's physics, to me.

However,
If the black hole observes it (in QM, observation is interaction), and we learn of it by observing the black hole, then your postulate that we can know about it w/o observation is not elucidated by this argument. We are using a transitive observation method, to be sure, but we are still observing it.

The only reason it's not 100% is because we can't measure both its location and velocity accurately thanks to the uncertainty principle. If we could, it would be 100%.

The uncertainty principle sets a universal bare minimum of uncertainty, but it is not the actual uncertainty. In practice, the actual uncertainty is many orders of magnitude higher than the minimum. This is because there is observer uncertainty, measurement tool uncertainty, statistical variance in the data collected, etc.

And considering we're talking about a planet, and not an atom, the accuracy of our calculations is extremely close to 100%, like all of the point nines.

This much is pretty true. If we're talking about a planet, then we can make certain assertions to its past, based on observing its present. However, and it's vital to know, that these assertions only bear any fruit by comparing them to other observations.

The bare bones, philosophical statement, "We cannot know for certain what has happened if we have not observed the happening." is still, rigorously, uncontested by the scientific method.

[OngBonga]

(in QM, observation is interaction)

Well, this is quite profound really, if true. I mean everything interacts with everything. Therefore, everything is observed.

Problem solved.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well, this is quite profound really, if true.

How can you observe something if you don't interact with it? Given the wide ranges of sensors and detectors we use to observe things, we must include a wide range of interactions to count as observations. Given that wide berth, it becomes tedious and stagnant to bother making any distinction between observation and interaction on any level.

I mean everything interacts with everything. Therefore, everything is observed.

No.

Neutrinos don't interact with electromagnetic fields, i.e. photons.

Just to name a simple example.

Problem solved.

Is it?

[OngBonga]

Ok, everything with mass interacts with everything else with mass. That much I determine by assuming gravity has negligible, but not zero, influence at great distances.

I'm going to make a leap of faith that everything has mass. That's something I don't doubt you'll take issue with.

[OngBonga]

Electromagnetic fields aren't a physical thing that exists, they're consequences of physical things.

The photon will interact with whatever caused the EM field, no? Assuming the photon doesn't have zero mass, that is.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ok, everything with mass interacts with everything else with mass. That much I determine by assuming gravity has negligible, but not zero, influence at great distances.

Yes. The influence diminishes proportional to the square of the distance. M/x^2 != 0 at any finite distance for any non-0 M.

I'm going to make a leap of faith that everything has mass. That's something I don't doubt you'll take issue with.

Well, you can't have both, I think, to resolve your question.

Your prior statement cutely discounted my assertion by noting that neutrinos have tiny, but non-o mass, whereas photons have (as best we can tell) 0 mass. It's impossible to prove a zero in this case, but we've got the photon mass down to definitely less than 10^-50 g. That's roughly 17 orders of magnitude less massive than a neutrino, which is the lightest "massive" particle.

I'm willing to let it wash on all other particles, though. Photon is only one that I know of.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Electromagnetic fields aren't a physical thing that exists, they're consequences of physical things.

They are def. physical things, which store energy and exert forces.

The photon will interact with whatever caused the EM field, no? Assuming the photon doesn't have zero mass, that is.

A photon is a quanta of the electromagnetic fields. As such it interacts with anything else which has or makes a change in the electromagnetic fields, even if that thing is mass curving spacetime.

I guess you got your answer. Photons are not mass, but they observe mass.

[OngBonga]

I guess you got your answer. Photons are not mass, but they observe mass.

So does this mean that my idea that everything interacts with everything is possibly true?

Neutrinos don't interact with electromagnetic fields, i.e. photons.

Is this hard fact? Or an assumption based on current understanding? Can it be that the interaction is so tiny that it's impossible for us to measure?

They are def. physical things, which store energy and exert forces.

Ok, I mean my understanding of fields is really hazy. I kinda compare EM fields to gravity, which I can sort of get my head around. The gravity itself it not a physical thing, it's a consequence of a phsyical thing. That consequence has energy, because it distorts spacetime and effects mass. But the energy source is mass... I guess my point is that anything that is under the influence of gravity (ie everything) is actually being influenced by mass, something physical, not gravity, which is merely how we observe the influence. Like, when we go down a slide, it's not gravity that is causing us to slide down, it's the mass of the earth. Gravity and mass are essentially one and the same... isn't it the case that EM fields are one and the same with whatever causes the field? They are intricately linked, they are the same physical thing.

I'm sure we've talked about this before, but I have something of a problem with the idea of zero-mass particles. I just think it's very close to zero-mass. I get that even with a mass of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001, we still need infinite energy to accelerate to c, so the velocity of a photon hints that it is indeed massless. But I feel that what is actually happening is our understanding breaks down, in particular our understanding of infinity.

If a photon is massless, well it's then going to be my assumption that it is the consequence of something that does have mass.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So does this mean that my idea that everything interacts with everything is possibly true?

I think I have to agree, but I caution you to understand that my agreement is not very profound.

The amount of interaction happening between, say, free electrons which are more than 1 nm apart, is vanishingly small and truly negligible. I pick electrons for the example because they are stable and exert electro-repulsive forces on each other. I say free electrons to exclude any bound systems, like a molecule, in which the electrons will affect each other in a transitive way, due to the structure of that system.

I mean, the electrons in your fingers are not affecting any theoretically measurable change in the electrons in your brain, except for the neuron cascade which carries that information in a transitive way.

Is this hard fact? Or an assumption based on current understanding? Can it be that the interaction is so tiny that it's impossible for us to measure?

That's as hard a fact as we come by... so maybe incorrect, but almost definitely not. Neutrinos were predicted by many to exist and have no electric charge before we ever observed them. The presence was hypothesized because there was a problem with our application of conservation laws in quantum interactions. By hypothesizing these neutrinos, we could fill in the blanks of certain intrinsic properties of the particles and balance the books as far as conserved quantities.

They were originally hypothesized to be massless, but experiments and theory have since shown that they are not massless, but have very tiny masses in comparison to all other particles except photons.

Being a particle which has no electric charge, it does not interact with electromagnetic fields. As such, it does not interact* with photons, which are the quanta of the EM fields. *does not interact via electromagnetic interactions

However, as I stated, neutrinos do have mass, and therefore curve spacetime, and that expresses forces (energy/momentum changes) to photons... so they do interact via gravitation.

Note that neutrons are not fundamental particles, and while they have 0 net electric charge, they are composed of u,d,d quarks which have charges of +2/3, -1/3, -1/3, for a total of 0 net charge from the outside, but not the inside.

Ok, I mean my understanding of fields is really hazy. I kinda compare EM fields to gravity, which I can sort of get my head around. The gravity itself it not a physical thing, it's a consequence of a phsyical thing. That consequence has energy, because it distorts spacetime and effects mass. But the energy source is mass... I guess my point is that anything that is under the influence of gravity (ie everything) is actually being influenced by mass, something physical, not gravity, which is merely how we observe the influence. Like, when we go down a slide, it's not gravity that is causing us to slide down, it's the mass of the earth. Gravity and mass are essentially one and the same... isn't it the case that EM fields are one and the same with whatever causes the field? They are intricately linked, they are the same physical thing.

Ugh. I see what you mean... you mean that you can't hold a field in your hand, and therefore it's not a "thing," so it's not physical.

I meant, fields are measurable and express observable consequences, and are therefore physical.

We agree that fields are real and measurable and can affect changes to non-fields... so let's not get hung up on the def. of physical.

I'm sure we've talked about this before, but I have something of a problem with the idea of zero-mass particles. I just think it's very close to zero-mass. I get that even with a mass of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001, we still need infinite energy to accelerate to c, so the velocity of a photon hints that it is indeed massless. But I feel that what is actually happening is our understanding breaks down, in particular our understanding of infinity.

You're postulating that a photon needs to be accelerated to c. That means you believe there is such a thing as a photon moving at less than c. If you can prove this is the case, I'm thinking nobel prize.
(Don't try to invoke index of refraction, here, though. That's a statistical phenomenon and not actually slowing the photons down, but causing them to spend time interacting with other stuff and not just zipping along.)

If they're not massless, then it requires a finite amount of energy to slow them down, which we have not been able to do, yet, either.

If a photon is massless, well it's then going to be my assumption that it is the consequence of something that does have mass.

A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic fields. It's a wave moving through a medium, I don't see why it being massless is an issue, aside from that it's the only particle that seems to be massless.

[OngBonga]

The amount of interaction happening between, say, free electrons which are more than 1 nm apart, is vanishingly small and truly negligible

I understand this, but my point is that negligible interaction is still interaction, and thus observation.

You're postulating that a photon needs to be accelerated to c. That means you believe there is such a thing as a photon moving at less than c. If you can prove this is the case, I'm thinking nobel prize.

Sadly, I think someone will beat me to it. Seems like they can change the shape of a photon. What the actual fuck? How does something massless have a shape? How does it have a shape that can be manipulated? Anyway, they fire it through a mask, dunno why a mask, and when it returns to free space, it's still slower than c. I don't think that's index refraction, which is what I assume is responsible for light being a little slower through water, or special crystals, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-30944584

[OngBonga]

Ugh. I see what you mean... you mean that you can't hold a field in your hand, and therefore it's not a "thing," so it's not physical.

And yeah, I guess this is fair if you assume that you can hold a black hole, or an atom, in your hand.

All things that fall into the category of "not physical" in this loose definition, I'd be thinking it's intricately linked to something that is. Such as gravity-mass.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I understand this, but my point is that negligible interaction is still interaction, and thus observation.



Sadly, I think someone will beat me to it. Seems like they can change the shape of a photon. What the actual fuck? How does something massless have a shape? How does it have a shape that can be manipulated? Anyway, they fire it through a mask, dunno why a mask, and when it returns to free space, it's still slower than c. I don't think that's index refraction, which is what I assume is responsible for light being a little slower through water, or special crystals, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-30944584

No equations = no actual statements made.

Changed the shape of a photon? What does that mean?


Trying to find the published article.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not creating a login account to read this report, but the analysis I can find leads me to conclude that they're definitely jazzing up their claim for the news.

They're talking about beams of light in their experiment, but individual photons in their conclusions. They discuss that they're not using "single frequency" light beams, in that they have used both a Gaussian and a Bessel setup. These are probability distributions, meaning the wave packets consist of many frequencies of photons, grouped about a mean. This is going to force us to discuss dispersion, and to understand that wave velocity has 2 components: phase velocity and group velocity.

A wave packet which experiences dispersion can have different group velocity and phase velocity... to the extremes that one can be in the opposite direction of the other. One can even be greater than c.

When they say they've changed the shape of the photons, they mean that they've passed the multi-frequency beam through a dispersive medium, causing the phase velocity and group velocity to change relative to one another. Then they measured that one of them was less than c.


The final clicher on the "not because photons have mass" argument is that the authors of the paper say this is a widely known effect which is observable when a large lens is focused over a short focal length, and can be reproduced in wave pools with mechanical waves.

That sounds like it's a property of any wave, and nothing particular to photons.

[JKDS]

You guys are right, it's possible a giant wave kills us all.

[OngBonga]

This is going to force us to discuss dispersion...

Isn't this moving into index of refraction territory? When I think of dispersion, I think of prisms.

Why are they claiming that the photon continues at <c if this isn't what's actually happening?

Obviously your ability to digest these kind of claims is far superior to mine.

[OngBonga]

You guys are right, it's possible a giant wave kills us all.

Oh yeah this is the EOW thread, not physics thread.

Whatever. Sue me, bitch.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Isn't this moving into index of refraction territory? When I think of dispersion, I think of prisms.

Why are they claiming that the photon continues at <c if this isn't what's actually happening?

Obviously your ability to digest these kind of claims is far superior to mine.

Because the wave packet is made only of photons, and that wave packet has 2 velocities, group velocity and phase velocity. They measured one of those velocities and said, "lol, it's less than c." That's just an everyday consequence of wave interference and nothing interesting about photons, specifically.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the time is ripe for nuclear to take over. I learned it was safe in high school, many my age did.

But solar power is making enormous strides...

I think I might have bashed solar a bit hard. It is making great strides. Bio-electric solar cells, in particular, have seen astonishing improvements in the past decade. Nonetheless, those improvements bring that tech to a point where it's commensurate with other forms of solar cells. I wrote this off at first, but it does sound cheaper than having to mine rare minerals out of the ground to manufacture the solar cells.

If it's significantly cheaper to produce, and perhaps self-maintaining - in that it doesn't have to be protected from erosion by a layer of [something clear] that will need constant cleaning - then we may have a viable source of power.

It will never compare to nuclear in energy per volume, though. Nothing we know of even comes close if you want to get a lot of energy in a short time and w/o taking up too very much space to do it.