In light of the racist remarks attributed to Donald Sterling, the Los Angeles Clippers owner, on Monday we looked at the demographics of the NBA’s owners and players. Finding demographic information on NBA fans turns out to be more difficult.In 2013, 47 percent of NBA head coaches and 81 percent of players were non-white. It’s likely that the majority of NBA fans are racial or ethnic minorities as well, according to our analysis. And the Clippers, which play in the cosmopolitan Los Angeles market, likely have among the most diverse fan bases in the league.There’s no definitive resource for the demographics of the NBA fan base. Nor is there any one definition of a fan. Those who attend NBA games are undoubtedly different from those who watch the NBA on TV, or who follow the NBA on the Internet, or who buy NBA merchandise, or who emulate their favorite NBA stars in pick-up games.But I did the best I could by averaging data from five sources: a Nielsen report on the demographics of NBA TV viewership; polls from Pew Research and the Public Religion Research Institute on Americans’ favorite sports; a Scarborough Research report on avid NBA fans, and a YouGov poll on which sports Americans follow regularly.These sources provide estimates of how many Americans of different racial and ethnic groups follow the NBA as compared to the country as a whole. These tendencies can be expressed in the form of a multiplier. For example, the various surveys estimate that African-Americans follow the NBA at a multiple of somewhere between 2.2 and 3.3 times the national average. White Americans, by contrast, follow the NBA at rates between 0.6 and 0.9 times the national average, depending on the survey.Estimates of NBA avidity among Hispanic Americans vary (perhaps, in part, because of the failure of some polling and research firms to conduct polls in Spanish). Hispanics overperform the rest of the U.S. population in NBA interest in some surveys, and underperform it in others. The consensus of the evidence, however, points toward Hispanics’ NBA avidity being about the same as the country as a whole. (For purposes of this analysis, I’ve taken “Hispanic” to be a non-overlapping category with both “white” and “black,” as most polls do. The U.S. Census Bureau, by contrast, treats Hispanic status as an ethnicity rather than a race — so in the census, someone can be both Hispanic and white, black or Asian.)Only the Scarborough Research study contained a breakout for Asian-Americans. That study found that Asian-Americans are about 40 percent more likely to be avid NBA fans than the country as a whole.We can estimate the racial and ethnic distribution of NBA fans by averaging the multiplier across the five studies, and then applying it to the overall U.S. population. I estimate — excluding those who identify themselves as Native American, or as belonging to “mixed” or “other” races — that about 46 percent of NBA fans are white, 31 percent are black, 7 percent are Asian-American and 16 percent are Hispanic. In other words, the league’s fan base appears to be majority-minority.It’s also possible to come up with some crude estimates of the racial composition of fans for individual NBA teams. My process for doing this was as follows:I used Nielsen estimates of the racial composition of the population in each of the United States’ 210 media markets;I used the frequency of Google searches for each NBA team in each media market as a proxy for its per-capita popularity;I multiplied each team’s Google search frequency in each media market by the population by race there, then summed the totals to produce an overall estimate of the racial distribution of its fans;I recalibrated the estimates to ensure that the whole matched the sum of the parts. In other words, I added or subtracted from the fans assigned from each racial group to each team such that the sum total matched my estimate of the overall distribution of NBA fandom throughout the country (e.g. 46 percent white, 31 percent black, and so forth). The estimates were weighted by the overall popularity of NBA teams, according to their number of Google searches.I estimate that the team with the whitest fan base, at 65 percent white, is the Minnesota Timberwolves. The Minneapolis-St. Paul media market is 85 percent non-Hispanic white, according to our estimates. So Wolves’ fans are white relative to those elsewhere in the NBA. But they’re not so white compared to the media market the team calls home.What about the Clippers? They aren’t all that popular in Los Angeles. But they hadn’t been all that popular anywhere in the country until they began to play well recently. So LA, and surrounding metropolitan areas, represent the bulk of the Clippers’ fan base. The Los Angeles media market is among the most diverse in the country: It’s only 36 percent non-Hispanic white, according to our estimates. I estimate the Clippers’ fan base to be 40 percent non-Hispanic white, 27 percent African-American, 22 percent Hispanic and 11 percent Asian-American. This implies that the Clippers have among the lowest proportions of white fans of any team in the NBA.However, this estimate is crude. It’s based on the overall racial composition of NBA fans and the overall racial composition of various media markets. It won’t account for the historical relationship that each NBA franchise has with its fan base, or the different demographic groups that comprise that fan base.
The Chargers have to be one of the NFL’s most frustrated franchises. In 2013, they led the league in average drive distance on offense — gaining an average of 37.6 yards per drive. They also had the lowest three-and-out rate, with only 25.6 percent of their drives failing to gain a first down. And overall they scored 2.32 points per drive, good for second in the league behind Denver’s 2.83. Their defense was mediocre, ranking 22nd in average points allowed per drive, but their net point differential between their drives and their opponents’ drives was ninth in the league. Despite all that, they finished only 9-7. The Chargers haven’t had a 10-win season since LaDanian Tomlinson’s departure in 2009.Since Philip Rivers took over as starting QB in 2006, the statistical darling and regular Pro Bowler has made the Chargers an offensive powerhouse, scoring 2.20 points per drive, the fourth-highest in the period, behind only the Patriots, Peytons,12i.e. the Indianapolis Colts and Denver Broncos with Peyton Manning at quarterback. and Saints. This has put them in very good company among NFL franchises.Every team in the Chargers’ neighborhood has won a Super Bowl, and the only team with greater success to fail to win one over that period is the Patriots.Like Manning, Rivers has his detractors: He can’t win in the playoffs! He can’t win big games! He makes mistakes at key moments! These are the classic arguments against statistically sound quarterbacks who perform well year in and year out but then fail to perform well in a few games (or even a few parts of a few games) in January.But in this case, there may be something to it. At a cursory level, Rivers’s teams have not performed well in close games — which you see more of in the playoffs:Since good teams are less likely to get blown out, they will naturally lose closer games much more often than blowouts. For example, Tom Brady has won 92 percent of his games decided by eight or more points, but “only” 58 percent of those decided by seven or fewer. But even considering this, Rivers has been terrible: He has won 77 percent of his larger-margin games, but just 38 percent of close ones. And as far as football goes, this isn’t a very small sample: Rivers is 19-31 in those games.13This is another area where criticisms of Peyton Manning are turned on their heads: Manning is a whopping 30-16 in close games.The only quarterback who has won more blowouts and lost more close games is Aaron Rodgers. As a Super Bowl-winner and one of the highest-rated quarterbacks of all time, he may sound like good company, but as I discussed earlier, while Rodgers’s skills aren’t in doubt, his win-maximizing tactics are.With that in mind, I used a similar method to look more closely at when Rivers throws interceptions and touchdowns14This is also similar to the analysis I did with Matthew Stafford (I’ve been doing this a lot lately). The full report looks like this., and a few things stuck out:Like Rodgers, Rivers’s interception rate is lowest relative to expectation when his team is trailing by two or more scores. This is typically the best time to be “aggressive” in the passing game.Rivers is good at not throwing interceptions when his team is way ahead. While fine, that habit inflates his statistics. Not throwing interceptions in those situations will help things like his passer rating or his team’s points-per-drive stats, but it won’t improve the team’s chances of winning games by much.Rivers throws 26.0 percent of his interceptions in the first quarter, compared to a league average 18.4 percent (the only quarter in which he throws more interceptions per attempt than average). I have nothing against gambling early, but this is a symptom of a common syndrome, wherein a QB will gamble early, or when it comes down to the wire, but will be overly cautious in between.Rivers actually does appear to play worse than his usual self in close situations. For example, he throws 71.2 percent of his interceptions when the two teams are separated by one score or fewer, compared to a league average of 60.2 percent. Meanwhile, he throws 59.3 percent of his touchdowns in those situations, compared to a league average of 63.1 percent.So overall it appears that there are markers of Rivers being a bit too conservative in some of the wrong places. On top of that, it’s likely that his stats are a bit inflated, and he has played worse than normal in the highest-leverage situations.But good news, Chargers fans! This is preferable to consistency across scenarios. As I said with Rodgers, strategic shortcomings are fixable. And while playing the worst in the most important spots may get a quarterback a reputation as a choker, those are the most likely spots for his play to improve (as he regresses toward his own personal mean).Oakland RaidersExpected wins: 5.4Playoff probability: 10 percent (4 percent to win the AFC West)Super Bowl win probability: 0 percent FiveThirtyEight is running a series of eight NFL previews, one division at a time, to highlight the numbers that may influence each team’s season. America’s favorite weekly soap opera is about to begin; get prepped.Denver BroncosExpected wins (using implied power ratings from Las Vegas point spreads): 10.3Playoff probability: 73 percent (56 percent to win the AFC West)Super Bowl win probability: 11 percent Last year, Kansas City went 11-5 despite a significant regression in QB Alex Smith’s statistics from the year before. How did they do so well (aside from having a highly favorable turnover differential)?Largely because of Alex Smith.5And, by extension, Andy Reid. He may not be the QB Chiefs fans wanted, but he’s the QB Chiefs fans needed. While Smith’s passer rating of 89.1 represented a 15-point drop from his 2012 season with San Francisco,6Fueled in part by Randy Moss. it’s still 25.3 points higher than Kansas City’s 2012 quarterbacks.7They also saw a huge improvement on the defensive side of the ball (going from -3.7 defensive SRS to +4.3), though part of that may be a result of the Chiefs’ offensive improvement.But Alex Smith isn’t even close to being the Chiefs’ best player.8At least relatively. Smith being “kind of OK” at QB might be more valuable than some non-QB being the best at his position, but that doesn’t make him the best QB. That would be all-star running back Jamaal Charles, who led the Chiefs in both rushing and receiving last year, and who has averaged 5.6 yards per carry over his career.While Fantasy Football players have been intimately familiar with Charles since his breakout 2009 season, the three-time Pro-Bowler has flown a little under the radar playing for a Kansas City team that hasn’t won a playoff game since 1993.In my NFC North season preview, I mildly criticized Adrian Peterson9Or at least the running game he spearheads. for being better at the kinds of things the passing game already has covered (breaking long plays), and worse at the kinds of things that help keep the running game relevant (gaining yardage consistently, setting up high-leverage second downs). So with another star running back on my plate, I thought I should check to see if Charles has similar problems.The simple answer is “no.” The slightly more complicated answer is “no, and this is a silly comparison because Jamaal Charles is way better than Adrian Peterson.”Let’s start with what kinds of outcomes each back produces on first-and-10 runs from outside the red zone10I used slightly different filters from the ones I used in the NFC North article, so Peterson’s numbers may not match perfectly.:Charles runs for losses or no yards less often than Peterson does, has more quality (4-6 yard) and high-leverage (7-9 yard) gains, runs for first downs more often, and has more yards per carry on those first down runs.OK, fine. But there’s more to being a running back than just running on first down, right? For a more comprehensive comparison, I looked at a number of different scenarios11Still filtered to exclude red-zone possessions.:This is a bit of a split decision. AP is a little better on second-and-mid-distance (which is one of the more common running situations) and a little bit better on third-and-1 (though Charles isn’t used that way very often). On the other hand, Charles appears to be better at second-and-short-distance as well as third-and-medium to third-and-long (which Peterson is not asked to do very often, either).To try to boil it down in a way that’s neutral to team circumstances, I took each RB’s performance for all scenarios (including those above and rarer ones) and applied it to the frequency of those scenarios league wide. The result of that calculation is pretty lopsided: On a common set of runs, Charles would likely pick up first downs 5.7 percentage points more often and would gain 1.6 yards more per carry than an average running back, compared to 3.2 percentage points and 1.0 extra yards per carry for Peterson. In other words, per carry, Charles gains about 0.6 more yards and is 2.5 percentage points more likely to pick up a first down than Peterson.Meanwhile, Charles is also more of a threat to catch passes, wrangling in 222 receptions for 1,975 yards and 14 touchdowns in 80 games, compared to Peterson’s 206 catches, 1,697 yards and 5 TDs in 103 games. When throwing to Charles, QBs have a passer rating of 101.1, compared to 77.3 normally. QBs have a passer rating of 89.7 when targeting Peterson, versus 80.6 normally.In other words, not only does Charles catch more passes, but targeting him has led to better outcomes for worse quarterbacks. Also, he has had worse quarterbacks! This makes his performance less likely to be a product of his team’s offense.All in all, the Chiefs should probably expect to regress somewhat after such a dramatic improvement (and such a favorable turnover margin) last year, but they definitely have some weapons to keep them competitive.San Diego ChargersExpected wins: 7.9Playoff probability: 35 percent (17 percent to win the AFC West)Super Bowl win probability: 2 percent The Denver Broncos are coming off a second straight 13-3 season and their first Super Bowl appearance in the post-Elway era. It was MVP quarterback Peyton Manning’s 10th time winning 12 or more games in a season — nobody else has done it more than eight times (Tom Brady holds that mark).Yet there are “whispers” that the Seattle Seahawks defense may have finally exposed Manning’s limitations. Doubting Manning is an ancient sport, and though it has changed somewhat over time, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon.The last time Manning failed to win at least 10 games was 2001 (when Russell Wilson was still in middle school) yet Manning is only 11-12 in the postseason. Critics often say Manning is a good “regular season quarterback,” but not a great “playoff quarterback.” The theory is that there’s something about Manning’s game that makes him great at beating up on weak opponents, but that can’t handle the tougher, more complex defenses found commonly in playoff opponents.I’ll confess, before looking into this myself, I thought it was a plausible-sounding theory.1The best example of this phenomenon is very fast-paced offenses in the NBA that win a lot of games against weaker opponents by trading lots of possessions but with a tiny edge on each exchange; that strategy can backfire in the playoffs, when they face better opponents who have the edge on them. But for the most part, the reason Manning has had a harder time winning games in the playoffs is the same as it is for virtually everyone else: He has faced tougher opponents and tougher defenses. While it’s true that his teams haven’t won quite as many games as expected, and that he performs a little worse in the playoffs than in the regular season, he has actually performed better against playoff defenses that we would expect given the strength of those defenses.To examine this, I looked at ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) from 2006 to the present.2QBR is a bit less production-oriented and a bit more win-oriented than most QB metrics — this has its drawbacks, but seemed appropriate for the subject. I also tried a similar approach using adjusted yards per attempt to make sure the results were crudely similar prior to 2006. They were. In the regular season, Manning’s average QBR per game3I averaged across games weighting by number of dropbacks, which leads to slightly different numbers from each QB’s overall yearly QBR but makes it easier to combine quarterbacks. was 74.8, while the average QBR for other quarterbacks who faced the same teams in the same season was 50.8. In the playoffs, Manning’s average QBR was 68.4, for a decline of 6.4 points. But the average QBR for other quarterbacks who played his playoff opponents was 41.9, an average decline of 8.9 points.The chart below shows all of Manning’s games since 2006. Every dot above the line is a Manning performance that exceeded that of other quarterbacks against the same defense.Yes, Manning had a pretty terrible game against a terrific Seattle defense, but he has a long history of lighting up similarly accomplished opponents.4In case you’re wondering, the toughest defense Manning has faced in this data set was the 2008 Baltimore Ravens, against whom he went 19-27 for 271 yards and 3 touchdowns.Kansas City ChiefsExpected wins: 8.3Playoff probability: 42 percent (22 percent to win the AFC West)Super Bowl win probability: 3 percent Last year, the Oakland Raiders went 4-12 for the second year in a row. Aside from two 8-8 seasons in 2010 and 2011, for more than a decade the Raiders have been the New England Patriots of stinking. Since 2003 their loss totals are 14, 12 (five times), 11 (three times) and 8 (twice).Over that period, their defense has given up the most points per drive, and their offense has scored the second-fewest, leading to a net difference of -0.56 points. This is the worst net difference in football; on the opposite extreme are the Patriots (+.79) and the Peytons (+.77).So do the Raiders have any reason for hope?Yes!Following a (single) great preseason outing against the Seattle Seahawks, the Raiders have announced that they’ll be starting second-round draft pick Derek Carr on opening weekend. Carr is perhaps best known for being former No. 1 pick David Carr’s younger brother, though he also threw for a nation-leading 5,083 yards and 50 touchdowns in Fresno State’s 2013 Mountain West Conference campaign.15Full disclosure: My wife is from Fresno, and a number of her family members went to Fresno State, so I’ve been hearing about Carr for years.It would be quite reasonable to doubt the Raiders’ judgment after their recent history of high-profile coaching and quarterbacking disasters. But in a vacuum, having a QB drafted 36th starting on opening night should be good news to Raiders fans. I’ve modeled career success for rookie QBs based on a number of factors (such as weight and stature), including draft position. Combining this with data on how much each rookie played, we can estimate the expected number of wins following his rookie season for a QB drafted with the 36th pick like so16Technical stuff: This data represents QBs selected between 1970 and 2009 in the regular (non-supplemental) draft, taken between No. 2 overall and the seventh round (No. 1 picks severely skew the data), who recorded at least one game played (in whatever capacity) in the year they were drafted. I created linear models for each category using as predictor variables the logarithm of each player’s draft position and whether or not he played at least X games. I then plugged 36 and “yes” into each to get the Y values.:Without knowing how many games he’ll start, the expected number of post-rookie wins for a No. 36 pick is about 21. Knowing that Carr will start at least one game boosts him up to about 25 wins, and if he makes it to four games his wins go up to about 30. You can use other metrics as the predicted variable and the results are similar: His odds of “success” (which I defined as Career Approximate Value greater than 32.0) jump to 51 percent from 33 percent with four games started, and his average non-rookie AV jumps to 44.4 from 32.7.Four games seems to be about the inflection point — beyond that, as the number of rookie QBs in the data set who started that many games shrinks, it gets very noisy with a flatter trend.Note that I am absolutely not saying that it’s better to start rookie quarterbacks rather than let them develop. It’s likely that most (if not all) of the effect we’re seeing is merely a result of better quarterbacks being more likely to earn a starting nod than worse ones, independent of where they were drafted.All else being equal, the odds that Carr is the real deal are looking better.Read more of FiveThirtyEight’s NFL season previews. read more
In Ohio State’s loss to Purdue last Wednesday, junior Jon Diebler missed what would have been a game-tying 3-pointer as time expired. Sunday, with just a three-point lead at Michigan State and less than two minutes remaining, the Buckeyes again called on Diebler.This time, he didn’t disappoint. Diebler hit what proved to be a game-clinching 3-point shot in the Buckeyes 74-67 win over the Spartans on Sunday.“I think when you get to this stage and you got two great basketball teams playing, a lot of it comes down to someone making a big play,” OSU coach Thad Matta said. “Jon did a great job of spotting up and that was a big shot for us.”Unlike Wednesday night, it was OSU that came out of the gates fast. A 15-0 first-half run gave the Buckeyes an early 23-12 lead, but even with a 13-point lead at halftime, the second half brought exactly what Matta expected. “As I told our guys at halftime, you’re playing one of the best teams in the country, and they are going to make a run at you,” Matta said. “Sure enough they did.”Michigan State came roaring back and took the lead with four minutes to go — the Spartans’ first lead since 12-10 early in the first half. It was short-lived, however, as sophomore William Buford made both ends of a one-and-one with 3:45 remaining, and with the help of Diebler’s 3-pointer, the Buckeyes took back the lead for good. Buford finished the game with 17 points and 10 rebounds, but it was junior Evan Turner that again led the way for the Buckeyes. Turner, who came into the game battling flu-like symptoms, shook off any sickness and scored a game-high 20 points to go with his 10 rebounds and six assists. His performance Sunday was yet another example of why he is considered a serious contender for National Player of the Year. Though Matta said he doesn’t spend much time worrying about his potential award-winner, he knows how much Turner means to his basketball team. “I know this: Evan Turner is a great basketball player, he’s a great kid, he’s a great competitor and he’s a great ambassador for the Ohio State University,” Matta said. “Where he stacks up against everyone else I don’t know, but he’s really damn important to me.”The Buckeyes and Spartans, both 21-7 overall, now sit in a tie for second place in the BigTen standings with an 11-4 conference record, one half-game behind Purdue (23-3, 11-3).OSU travels to State College, Pa., to face Penn State Wednesday. read more
Twitter via @visithoustonFour-month-old jaguar cubs, Fitz and Emma, made their debut at the Houston Zoo.There’s something new to spot at the Houston Zoo: two jaguar cubs.The nearly 4-month-old male and female cats made their first public appearances on Thursday. Named Fitz and Emma, the cubs are the first jaguars born at the Houston Zoo in more than a decade.The Houston Zoo says the jaguar siblings were born on July 20 and have spent the past few months behind-the-scenes bonding with their mother, Maya. The cubs’ father, Tesoro, also is housed at the zoo.Jaguars are known for having dark spots on their light-color coats.Zoo officials say the cubs can be seen most mornings exploring their habitat with their mom. Fitz and Emma can also be out of public view in their night houses or caves.There’s something new to spot at the Houston Zoo: two jaguar cubs!! WATCH! https://t.co/2kCAQ7Cjs3 pic.twitter.com/E23QhmoOXw— WDBJ7 (@WDBJ7) November 10, 2017 Share read more
“There is quite a large community of physicists that speculates on possible connections between quantum gravity and the measurement problem,” coauthor Hugo Zbinden told PhysOrg.com. “The advantage of the Penrose-Diosi model is that it is testable using today’s technology.” In the physicists’ experiment, the detection of each photon by a single-photon detector triggers a voltage to a piezoelectric actuator. The actuator expands, which in turn causes a tiny gold-surfaced mirror to move. By measuring the mirror displacement, the researchers could confirm by the gravity-quantum connection that the quantum measurement had been successfully finished.All of the steps – from photon detection to mirror movement – take about 7.1 microseconds, which is significantly less than the 60 microseconds it would take a photon to cover the 18 km between interferometers. So measurements made simultaneously at each of the interferometers could not be been influenced by anything traveling at – or even a few times more than – the speed of light.“The significance of our experiment lies entirely in achieving space-like separation, even under the assumption that a quantum measurement is only finished after a macroscopic mass has moved, as in the Penrose-Diosi model,” Zbinden explained.Altogether, the experiment serves to fill a loophole by ruling out any kind of communication between two entangled particles separated by a distance, provided the collapse happens only after a mass has moved. By spatially separating the entangled photons, the test once again confirms the nonlocal nature of quantum correlations. More information: Salart, D.; Baas, A.; van Houwelingen, J. A. W.; Gisin, N.; and Zbinden, H. “Spacelike Separation in a Bell Test Assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses.” Physical Review Letters 100, 220404 (2008).Copyright 2008 PhysOrg.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com. In an attempt to rule out any kind of communication between entangled particles, physicists from the University of Geneva have sent two entangled photons traveling to different towns located 18 km apart – the longest distance for this type of quantum measurement. The distance enabled the physicists to completely finish performing their quantum measurements at each detector before any information could have time to travel between the two towns. This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Many other experiments have observed quantum nonlocality – the “spooky interaction at a distance” that occurs between two entangled particles – and also known as a violation of Bell inequalities. But, as physicists Daniel Salart, et al., explain in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters, these Bell tests might not have gone far enough. If quantum measurements aren’t finished until after a mass has moved (as the team assumes here), then the Bell violations in previous tests might merely have been due to some type of classical communication between particles unknown to today’s physics.In their experiment, the physicists sent pairs of entangled photons from Geneva through optical fibers leading to interferometers in two other Swiss towns: Satigny and Jussy, located 8.2 and 10.7 km away, respectively. The distance between the interferometers in Satigny and Jussy was 18 km. With this large distance between the interferometers, the physicists could perform a more complete quantum measurement than has previously been done. Somewhat surprisingly, physicists have never decided exactly when a quantum measurement is finished (when the “collapse” occurs, if there is any). Different interpretations of quantum mechanics lead to different answers. The most common view is that a quantum measurement is finished as soon as the photons are absorbed by detectors. Previous experiments have been set up to allow enough distance between particle detectors to prohibit communication under this view. But there are also other views of when the measurement is finished, including “when the result is secured in a classical system,” “when the information is in the environment,” or even that it is never over – a view that leads to the many worlds interpretation.The Swiss team followed a view proposed independently by Penrose and Diosi, which assumes a connection between quantum measurements and gravity, and requires a macroscopic mass to be moved. In this view, the measurement takes more time than it does for a photon to be absorbed by a detector. The significance of the Swiss test is that it is the first “space-like separated” Bell test under the Penrose-Diosi assumption. Explore further Measuring light and vacuum fluctuations from a time flow perspective Citation: World’s Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns (2008, June 16) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2008-06-world-largest-quantum-bell-spans.html In the Bell test, two photons from an entangled pair were sent from Geneva to Satigny and Jussy, two small towns located 18 km apart. This distance enabled the space-like separation necessary for finishing a quantum measurement in each town, which required a macroscopic mass to move. Detection of the mass’ movement was completed before information could have traveled between the two towns. Credit: D. Salart, et al. read more
“We have identified 6 CBM blocks for offering in the next round of CBM block auction,” the official said. The blocks are GJ(1)-CBM-2013/V, GJ(2)-CBM-2013/V, GJ(3)-CBM-2013/V, GJ(4)-CBM-2013/V, GJ(5)-CBM-2013/V and GJ(6)-CBM-2013/V, all in Gujarat.In the previous rounds, a total of 33 CBM blocks spread over 16,613 square kilometers had been awarded. The blocks awarded hold 62.4 Trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of
Telefónica’s Movistar+ is launching a new flagship channel brand today. Canal #0, replacing the former Canal+.The channel, which will be available exclusively to Movistar+ customers, will launch at 20:30 local time today and will carry a mix of exclusive entertainment programming, series and factual programmes, produced by Telefónica.Canal #0, aimed at a general audience between 18 and 54 years old, will include a new flagship show Late Motiv, fewith interviews and humour, hosted by Andreu Buneafuente.Other shows on the channel will include Likes, Diario Vice and sports-focused show Movistar Arena.The launch of Canal #0 is Telefónica’s latest move to drive forward its dominance of the pay TV space. last week the company began offering free access to Mediapro’s beIN Sport channel to its Movistar Fusión+ customers, following its recent deal with the Catalan broadcaster. read more
European movie channel Eurochannel has launched in Croatia on Telekom Austria-owned pay TV service Vip TV, part of Vipnet. Eurochannel is available in the operator’s basic package. All Eurochannel programs are presented with Croatian subtitles.Eurochannel is offering Vip TV subscribers a selection of 75 premium European movies and TV series to kick off the launch, the company said. In November, Croatian viewers will also ber able to view action series Strike Force.Gustavo Vainstein, Eurochannel’s CEO said: “As part of our constant expansion across Europe, we are thrilled to start offering Eurochannel in Croatia thanks to Vipnet. Now, all Croatians can enjoy the exclusive and premium movies and TV Series of Eurochannel in a Croatian localised version. We are also immensely proud to be the first broadcaster of Croatian production in foreign markets.”Nikola Francetic, head of content, media and broadcasting at Telekom Austria Group,said: “We are very proud to announce Eurochannel is now part of Vipnet’s new convergent ‘SVE’ Everything offer – for the first time offered and fully localised for the Croatian market. Vipnet, as a part of Telekom Austria Group, is focused on providing our subscribers the best of TV experience – and our cooperation with Eurochannel, the award winning worldwide leading European cinema TV channel, is uniquely suited to provide our subscribers with the best of entertainment.” read more