The Experts below are selected from a list of 237 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
J Zmuidzinas - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
on the use of shot noise for photon counting
The Astrophysical Journal, 2015Co-Authors: J ZmuidzinasAbstract:Lieu et al. have recently claimed that it is possible to substantially improve the sensitivity of radio-astronomical observations. In essence, their proposal is to make use of the intensity of the photon shot noise as a measure of the photon arrival rate. Lieu et al. provide a detailed quantum-mechanical calculation of a proposed measurement scheme that uses two detectors and conclude that this scheme avoids the sensitivity degradation that is associated with photon bunching. If correct, this result could have a profound impact on radio astronomy. Here I present a detailed analysis of the sensitivity attainable using shot-noise measurement schemes that use either one or two detectors, and demonstrate that neither scheme can avoid the photon bunching penalty. I perform both semiclassical and fully quantum calculations of the sensitivity, obtaining consistent results, and provide a formal proof of the equivalence of these two approaches. These direct calculations are furthermore shown to be consistent with an indirect argument based on a correlation method that establishes an independent limit to the sensitivity of shot-noise measurement schemes. Furthermore, these calculations are directly applicable to the regime of interest identified by Lieu et al. Collectively, these results conclusively demonstrate that the photon-bunching sensitivity penalty applies to shot-noise measurement schemes just as it does to ordinary photon counting, in contradiction to the fundamental claim made by Lieu et al. The source of this contradiction is traced to a Logical Fallacy in their argument.
-
on the use of shot noise for photon counting
arXiv: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics, 2015Co-Authors: J ZmuidzinasAbstract:Lieu et al. (2015) have recently claimed that it is possible to substantially improve the sensitivity of radio astronomical observations. In essence, their proposal is to make use of the intensity of the photon shot noise as a measure of the photon arrival rate. Lieu et al. (2015) provide a detailed quantum-mechanical calculation of a proposed measurement scheme that uses two detectors and conclude that this scheme avoids the sensitivity degradation that is associated with photon bunching. If correct, this result could have a profound impact on radio astronomy. Here I present a detailed analysis of the sensitivity attainable using shot-noise measurement schemes that use either one or two detectors, and demonstrate that neither scheme can avoid the photon bunching penalty. I perform both semiclassical and fully quantum calculations of the sensitivity, obtaining consistent results, and provide a formal proof of the equivalence of these two approaches. These direct calculations are furthermore shown to be consistent with an indirect argument based on a correlation method that establishes an independent limit to the sensitivity of shot-noise measurement schemes. Collectively, these results conclusively demonstrate that the photon bunching sensitivity penalty applies to shot noise measurement schemes just as it does to ordinary photon counting, in contradiction to the fundamental claim made by Lieu et al. (2015). The source of this contradiction is traced to a Logical Fallacy in their argument.
Marc V...[et Al.] ,van H. Regenmortel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Viral species, viral genomes and HIV vaccine design: is the rational design of bioLogical complexity a utopia?
Archives of Virology, 2018Co-Authors: Marc V...[et Al.] ,van H. RegenmortelAbstract:A common Logical confusion is prevalent in the whole of biology, namely that bioLogical species are viewed both as an abstract category in an hierarchical classification and as a concrete kind of organism. This is partly due to the fact that the vast majority of living organisms do not have common names that differ from the Latin name of the species to which the organism belongs. However, it is somewhat astonishing that the same confusion exists in virology since every virus has a common name, different from the species name to which the virus belongs, which could be used to refer to the infectious viral entity as a concrete material object. The original 1991 ICTV definition of virus species stated that a virus species is a polythetic class of viruses and thus that a species is a class, namely a conceptual construction of the mind and not a physical, real object located in space and time. In 2013, the ICTV redefined a virus species no longer as a class but as a material object consisting of a monophyletic group of viruses that were all physically part of the species. This new definition is reminiscent of an earlier school of thought known as bionominalism which considered species to be concrete individuals rather than classes. Both bionominalism and the new ICTV definition are based on the Logical Fallacy of reification which treats abstractions such as classes as if they were concrete physical entities. The implications of this new ontology of virus species for virus taxonomy and for the possibility of incorporating nucleotide metagenomic sequences in the current ICTV classification is discussed.
-
Viral species, viral genomes and HIV vaccine design: is the rationaldesign of bioLogical complexity a utopia?
Springer, 2018Co-Authors: Marc V...[et Al.] ,van H. RegenmortelAbstract:AbstractA common Logical confusion is prevalent in the whole of biology, namely that bioLogical species are viewed both as anabstract category in an hierarchical classification and as a concrete kind of organism. This is partly due to the fact that thevast majority of living organisms do not have common names that differ from the Latin name of the species to which theorganism belongs. However, it is somewhat astonishing that the same confusion exists in virology since every virus has acommon name, different from the species name to which the virus belongs, which could be used to refer to the infectiousviral entity as a concrete material object. The original 1991 ICTV definition of virus species stated that a virus species is apolythetic class of viruses and thus that a species is a class, namely a conceptual construction of the mind and not a physical,real object located in space and time. In 2013, the ICTV redefined a virus species no longer as a class but as a materialobject consisting of a monophyletic group of viruses that were all physically part of the species. This new definition isreminiscent of an earlier school of thought known as bionominalism which considered species to be concrete individualsrather than classes. Both bionominalism and the new ICTV definition are based on the Logical Fallacy of reification whichtreats abstractions such as classes as if they were concrete physical entities. The implications of this new ontology of virusspecies for virus taxonomy and for the possibility of incorporating nucleotide metagenomic sequences in the current ICTVclassification is discussed
Henry Shenkin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is an ounce of prevention always worth a pound of cure no promoting prevention to contain costs is a Logical Fallacy
Western Journal of Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Henry ShenkinAbstract:Screening large numbers of healthy people to find the few who will develop a particular disease is rarely cost-effective.1 For instance, some policy analysts hesitate to recommend screening for colorectal cancer. Lowering high serum cholesterol concentrations with the use of statins may reduce the incidence of heart attacks by 30% to 35%, but such drug therapy costs more than $1,000 per year per patient, and that is simply not cost-effective. The risk factors for many chronic diseases have now been identified. Heart disease, for example, is attributable to unhealthy diet, elevated blood cholesterol levels, smoking, and physical inactivity. Counseling to change the lifestyles of those at risk would, therefore, seem to be indicated. But studies have shown that this does not save money and, therefore—especially in countries with universal medical care—it should not be recommended. What is medically advisable for individual patients—certainly if they pay for it on their own—and what is cost-effective for the nation are 2 entirely different considerations. The British government has tried but failed to broaden preventive care by revising its National Health System's general practitioner contract. The revisions were intended to increase the incentive for practitioners to do specified preventive procedures. A policy specialist, citing studies questioning the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention, concluded that the inclusion of health promotion in the general practitioner contract reflected a political view that prevention is popular and cheap. An editorial in the BMJ also concluded that, through altering priorities, the emphasis on prevention was severely interfering with the general practitioner's main goal of “helping patients to understand and cope with illness, relieving symptoms, and offering the occasional cure.”2 In any event, the notion of promoting prevention to contain costs is a Logical Fallacy: even if disease-preventive measures save money in the short run, making people live longer will impose an even greater later expense on any medical care delivery system because there will then be more people to develop expensive chronic geriatric illnesses. Wrongly advocating preventive medicine as a cost-saving method only detracts from its true value—improving longevity and quality of life. If we can agree that each person's well-being and the ability to live as long as possible are important goals of human life, then the use of preventive care would not be to save resources—as so many analysts and planners contend3—but primarily to preserve, and add to, health.
Kwang-hee Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Review on Problems with Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Dental Research and Its Alternatives
2016Co-Authors: Kwang-hee Lee, Corresponding Kwang-hee LeeAbstract:There are many problems in evaluating study results by p value in null hypothesis testing for dental research. It is a Logical Fallacy to conclude that the null hypothesis is true when the it is not rejected. There are much serious misunderstanding about p value, and researchers should be cautious about interpreting p value in writing papers. As alternatives to complement or replace the null hypothesis significance testing, effect size, confidenc
-
Review on Problems with Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Dental Research and Its Alternatives
THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY, 2013Co-Authors: Kwang-hee LeeAbstract:치의학 연구에서 사용되는 귀무가설 유의성 검정에서 p값을 기준으로 연구의 결과를 평가하는 것은 많은 문제점을 내포하고 있다. 귀무가설이 기각되지 않은 경우에 귀무가설이 옳다는 결론을 내리는 것은 논리적 오류이다. p값에 대한 중대한 오해가 많이 있으며 연구자는 논문을 작성할 때 p값의 해석에 신중해야 한다. 귀무가설검정을 보완하거나 대체할 수 있는 대안으로서, 효과 크기, 신뢰구간, 베이지안 통계 등이 있다. 【There are many problems in evaluating study results by p value in null hypothesis testing for dental research. It is a Logical Fallacy to conclude that the null hypothesis is true when the it is not rejected. There are much serious misunderstanding about p value, and researchers should be cautious about interpreting p value in writing papers. As alternatives to complement or replace the null hypothesis significance testing, effect size, confidence interval, and Bayesian statistics are introduced.】
Inigo De Miguel Beriain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
human dignity and gene editing using human dignity as an argument against modifying the human genome and germline is a Logical Fallacy
EMBO Reports, 2018Co-Authors: Inigo De Miguel BeriainAbstract:EMBO Reports (2018) 19: e46789[OpenUrl][1][FREE Full Text][2] Human germline editing raises a number of essential ethical issues that have spawned intense debate. According to some bioethical arguments and legal documents, germline modification would threaten human dignity, since they consider the human genome as the physical representation [of human dignity]. This article will highlight the inherent contradictions of these arguments and argue that claims that germline editing would violate human dignity are invalid. > … respect for human dignity should actually support arguments to continue with genetic editing of embryos. The emergence of gene editing technology—particularly CRISPR‐Cas9—and the first experiments to modify the genome of human embryos have given rise to an intense ethical debate. Such an in‐depth discussion of the potential ethical, societal and medical implications is indeed highly relevant as modifications of the germline would not only affect individual patients or humans but the human species as a whole. In fact, the debate began even before the availability of the CRISPS/Cas system when the first gene therapies were developed to cure a few select pathologies. Time has not brought any general agreement, and a universal consensus on whether or not to allow human germline editing is still remote. ### The debate While some commentators call for a total ban on any form of gene editing that affects the human germline [1], others advocate for a moratorium until the risks have been sufficiently addressed and resolved [2]. Other authors even claim that germline editing should be considered a moral imperative to improve the human species [3]. Similar disagreements exist about the ends to which these techniques should be applied. Some consider that only therapeutic purposes are acceptable; others support their use for human enhancement, a view that many bioethicists and most international declarations and conventions consider as a form … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEMBO%2BReports%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.15252%252Fembr.201846789%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F30237156%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=embor&resid=19/10/e46789&atom=%2Fembor%2F19%2F10%2Fe46789.atom
