Slashdot Mirror

In January 1961, on a snowy and unusually cold day in New York City, J. Murray Mitchell, Jr. of the U.S. Weather Bureau's Office of Climatology told a meeting of meteorologists that the world's temperature was falling.

[...]Around 1980 two groups undertook to work through the numbers in all their grubby details, rejecting sets of uncertain data and tidying up the rest. One group was in New York, funded by NASA and led by James Hansen. They understood that the work by Mitchell and others mainly described the Northern Hemisphere, since that was where the great majority of reliable observations lay. Sorting through the more limited temperature observations from the other half of the world, they got reasonable averages by applying the same mathematical methods that they had used to get average numbers in their computer models of climate. (After all, Hansen remarked, when he studied other planets he might judge the entire planet by the single station where a probe had landed.) In 1981, the group reported that "the common misconception that the world is cooling is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970." Just around the time that meteorologists had noticed the cooling trend, such as it was, it had apparently reversed. From a low point in the mid 1960s, by 1980 the world had warmed some 0.2C.

Hansen's group looked into the causes of the fluctuations, and they got a rather good match for the temperature record using volcanic eruptions plus solar variations. Greenhouse warming by CO2 had not been a major factor (at least, not yet). More sophisticated analyses in the 1990s would eventually confirm these findings. From the 1940s to the early 1960s, the Northern Hemisphere had indeed cooled while temperatures had held roughly steady in the south. This was largely because of normal variations in natural forces, although industrial aerosol pollution had helped. Then the warming had resumed in both hemispheres.

The temporary northern cooling had been bad luck for climate science. By feeding skepticism about the greenhouse effect, while provoking some scientists and many journalists to speculate publicly about the coming of a new ice age, the cool spell gave the field a reputation for fecklessness that it would not soon live down.

Any greenhouse warming had been masked by chance fluctuations in solar activity, by pulses of volcanic aerosols, and by increased haze from pollution. Furthermore, as a few scientists pointed out, the upper layer of the oceans must have been absorbing heat. These effects could only delay atmospheric warming by a few decades. Hansen's group boldly predicted that considering how fast CO2 was accumulating, by the end of the 20th century "carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climatic variability." Around the same time, a few other scientists using different calculations came to the same conclusion -- the warming would show itself clearly sometime around 2000.

It is http://content.aip.org/PHPAEN/v10/i5/1992_1.html

The largest objects in universe are hot plasma in clusters of galaxies
http://content.aip.org/PHPAEN/v10/i5/1992_1.html/

I always am skeptical when I see articles about new exciting energy sources in the popular press, but this looks exciting. I wonder what the material's physical properties are -- how it stands up to wear, radiation, etc., and especially, how much it costs to make and apply.

You are correct - pangenesis was proposed by Darwin as a possible means of heredity, and is semi-Lamarkian. Mendel filled in that crucial piece of the puzzle. I had forgotten that aspect, it's been a while since I learned it.

However, pangenesis is NOT part of the venerable biology of Darwin, it's a theory of his that was proven wrong, is of interest only to historians of science and would rarely get more than a sentence or two in your average biology textbook. One he himself regarded as provisional. Choosing that long-discredited provisional theory as representative sample of his work is disingeneous. You think Einstein and Heisenberg never vetted a wrong idea? The present incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity means at least one of them is oversimplified, incomplete, or flawed. Those two men didn't even agree with each other - Einstein flat-out rejected Heisenberg's interpretations of the quantum. Future generations of scientists may yet look back on Einstein and his cosmological constant in the exact fashion you are regarding Darwin now.

Einstein and Heisenberg, I might add, were developing theories that were neither accessible nor threatening to the sensibilities of the layman in the 20th century. Darwin, on the other hand, and all the later students of evolution have had to constantly defend against entrenched religious and political authorities that regard evolution as a mortal threat to their existence since the 19th century. And while you'll find plenty of inspirational posters of Einstein, ask a thousand random people and you'll find hardly anyone who has ANY idea what he actually worked on (good luck finding people who have even heard of Heisenberg). The basic theory of evolution is taught at the high school level everywhere, and and even the people that have forgotten/ignored the basic mechanisms know quite well what the implication is - diverse and complex creatures and systems can arise without any direct intervention. Darwin also did quite a bit of fieldwork to develop and back up his theory - and sailing around the Earth in those times definitely took some balls. Einstein mostly worked on paper. Heisenberg probably got his hands dirty - leading the German atomic bomb project during WWII.

So, who again is supposed to be the inspiration?

And as you have indirectly pointed out, the theory of evolution goes well beyond Charles Darwin even if the core insights and original evidence did originate with him and the voyage of the Beagle. I don't know what PhDs you hang out with but I've while I hear plenty of debate over the minutia of the process I've yet to meet a single biologist who had any objections to the central tenets. I've met quite a few - I am a biologist. Hell, I work upstairs from a guy that evolves novel enzymes from only random sequence and selective pressure on a regular basis. Pray tell, if the PhDs you know think evolution as a theory has a long way to go, just how much further do they think it needs to go and what alternative hypotheses are they proposing?

I see two distinct possibilities here: A) you're Yet Another Intelligent Design Guy parroting faulty arguments you pulled off of sites like this or B) you're a pure physics/math/engineering snob who regards the relatively messy field of biology with unwarranted disdain. Please enlighten me in this regard.

Dear Editor,

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.

In Physics Today 57(12), Crabtree, Dresselhaus, and Buchanan write, "Hydrogen, like electricity, is a carrier of energy, and like electricity, it must be produced from a natural resource." The authors point out that "it does not occur in nature as the fuel H2," yet contradict themselves by describing hydrogen as a "promising alternative to fossil fuels".

Until fusion becomes practical, hydrogen is not a naturally occurring energy source. It therefore cannot replace fossil fuels, which are a naturally occurring energy source.

Although hydrogen has promise as a compact energy storage medium, to call hydrogen a replacement for fossil fuels is inaccurate and irresponsible.

Ka-Ping Yee
University of California, Berkeley

Yes this is a rejected story from slashdot.

If Leibinz is right and time and space don't exist, AND if there are other, possible realities... the whole thermodynamic thing is moot because causality is not inviolable.

If causality is not inviolable, then simultaneous (as in photon simultanaeity) transmittal of information, or that "spooky action at a distance" Einstein talked about, as well as paralell computation is possible (maybe).

So yes, as long as you limit your argument to the confines of our 4 dimensional reality, I concede the point. However... if there is more out there and QBits can exist in multiple dimensions simultaneously, then perhaps cracking a PERFECT 256bit algorithm is possible (ie: one which isn't susceptible to statistical, birthday, or other mathematical shortcutting attack)

We are a long way off, I think they just got a quantum computer to factor the number 15 and had a party about it. See This Link

Whoooopeee!

The term "quantum darwinism" is really an unnecessary buzzword. There is a certain analogy about states which create many records of themselves surviving a robust pointer states where others are "selected against", but the analogy is really pretty limited and not very useful. It's better to stay away from using terms like darwinism for effect. I should note that I didn't see the word "quantum darwinism" in the title or abstract of either of the actual journal articles this news item references. For the lazy, the two papers in question seem to be this preprint and this article from the Nov 26 issue of Physical Review Letters.

This sounds like an interesting result and Zurek is a premenent figure in the field of quantum decoherence, but this looks like the tying up of some (important) details rather than the revolutionary developement the news article makes it out to be. Even as far back as the work of Everett we had an idea of why two observers who compared notes would always agree on the objective facts. In the many worlds interpretation, this comes down to the fact that if observer A measures system S, there will be many different possible results. So there will be many branches of the wavefunction with A observing each possible result. When observer B measures system S, he becomes entangled with S and A, and there are many possible outcomes, but in each branch of the wave function A and B agree on the outcome. Not sure if that clears anything up. :-) If you're talking about purely quantum systems, the same thing happens in the Copenhagen interpretation. The only tricky part is how to think about it when A and B are "classical observers". Still, I haven't read these papers yet and now I'm eager to.

However there was never any question that (if it happened) it would be due to anthropogenic factors. Since the early 80s climatology and paleoclimatology has come a long way. For one thing, consider how far computing's come in that time,and contemplate how much better the models must therefore be. Factor in that there has been an enormaous project over pretty much the same period to investigate what effects the (unquestioned) massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans in the last 200 years is likely to have had. (Ask yourself: how could any rational person think that almost doubling CO2 could NOT have an effect?)

Finally, the solid world-wide consensus amongst reputable climatologists, backed by vast quantities of data and peer reviewed studies in reputable journals (they don't get much more definitive than 'Science' and 'Nature') wasn't there 20 years ago. Neither were any climatologists so... consistently, persistently, and emphatically urging thatwe have got to do something about it, NOW .

Good background with details about the theory of global cooling, can be found here

If your point is simply: 'science has moved on in the last twenty years, therefore we can never trust science' then, fine, enjoy your early 80s lifestyle without the benefit of computers, networks, medicine, etc etc.

it was clear that the oceans would die by the turn of the century, the ozone hole would be so large it would cover parts of Africa, people would be dieing of radiation poisoning from the sun... etc etc etc.

Weren't the ice caps supposed to be all gone soon?

Proof has been constantly cited since the 70s and yet all the dire predictions have come to naught.

A few good volcanoes provide visible effect that the public can see and in some cases experience.

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

And the reason you think this, in spite of the evidence gathered by thousands of scientists and decades of research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals is... what, exactly?

> A volcano can dump more greenhouse gasses in an hour than man can
> produce in a year.
>

This is completely incorrect. It's just > WRONG. Human CO2 emissions are many, many times larger than the largest volcanic eruptions. I don't know where you think you're getting your information from...

> We can little affect the global climate fir good or bad.
>

You're so badly misinformed it hurts. Go get yourself a hot steaming cup of clue:

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Hey, fella, guess what? You're in luck!The consensus on human CO2 emissions causing climate change is about as solid as you can get - despite what the oil-lobby, uninformed trolls and assorted net.kooks would have you believe.

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Only in the sense that 'no-one really knows how gravity works'. Strictly speaking it's correct, but it doesn't mean you want to go jumping off a tall building.

Please educate yourself.

• RealClimate.org
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

I remember how they kept telling us kids in the 70s how there would be a new ice age before the turn of the century. Boy we were gullible back then

This is actually a good point. Strangely enough, a vast amount ofnew research has been done in the last thirty years, and the computer power running the (much much more accurate) computer models, plus vastly improved knowledge of paleoclimatology from proxy temperature records such as ice cores, sediments from the sea bed etc, has now put that findnig into context.

This is an excellent review of the history of climate change theory showing how the 'new ice age' idea fits into current understanding of where we're at, and what this handbasket is doing here.

Thanks to all those who responded. It now turns out that some much more authoritative and better-informed people than I are already doing this! Please, if you're posting some pet theory about why all this peer-reviewed science is baloney to this story, do yourself a favour and check one of these sites out before you make a fool of yourself in front of your peers.

• RealClimate.org/a>
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Thank you.

Some references to further information. Google can supply nonsensical 'sceptic' links if you really want to see what the oil lobby and AM radio types want you to think. Personally I'll take the likes of Science and Nature journals, thirty years of research by peer-reviewed scientists over Rush Limbaugh any day.

• RealClimate.org/a>
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Oh and by the way: the world's fastest moving glacier, in Greenland, doubled it's speed according to NASA research. If the Greenland ice-shelf slides into the sea you'd better be living in the Rockies with a large stash of tinned goods.

There's a good article on the '02 Bell Labs scandal at http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-8/iss-6/p12.html . One of the researchers working there made up experimental data for at least 16 published (and peer reviewed) papers. He got caught because he didn't make up enough stuff, and used the same fake data to support two completely different experiments. The Schon incident is at the extreme end of the spectrum, but it's not an isolated event. IMO, around 30% of the journal papers in my field are intentionally misleading (or worse) with their experiments.

There's a lot of "publish or perish" pressure on academics, as well as the need to generate funding. My policy--if the experimental data is all favorable, it's faked. At least we can trust the news media and politicians to tell us the truth.

The best site on this I'm aware of is Spencer Weart's history:

The Discovery of Global Warming.

A quarter-million words on why scientists know that the climate is changing, and how they know that we humans are the main cause.

Generate the electricity on the moon, then send it back to Earth in a microwave beam. Solar energy can be another great source of moon energy because the moon almost always has a view of the sun, and doesn't have atmosphere to get in the way. At least according to an article written by David Criswell for The Industrial Physicist. Both types of energy production could probably use the same delivery system to return the energy to Earth.

I believe that transformers tend to hum at harmonics of the AC frequency (60 Hz in America, 50 Hz in Europe) because the magnetic domains in the core of the transformer change in size slightly with the fields. Read this for an explanation.

Solar -- Woefully inefficient, one of the most expensive methods of generating electricity, although prices are dropping.

Not with tripple band absorption solar cells , here

Geothermal -- I've heard this is (or has been) a maintenance nightmare, and is only practical in certain geological locations anyway.

My parents have geothermal heating in central Canada for a number of years now. Cheaper than using gas heating. And as for air conditionaning in summer, well, geothermal systems are THE best. Drops a few degrees in less than five minutes!

Apparently you can build the largest (100 meter) steerable radio telescope for 75M$. Arecibo is not steerable and is build in a valley, so it will probably cost less than that. Add in a few dozen smaller dishes all over the world, probably costing less than 30M$ each for a small one. Add some bandwith costs, supercomputers and other fancy equipment. Grand total for all hardware worldwide won't be much more than 1B dollar, or about 1 or 2 shuttle launches without the cost of a hubble.

However, that does not mean that you could ditch Hubble and its colleagues: Hubble observes at visible wavelenths (~500 nm), radio telescopes operate at wavelengths of some centimeters. This lets you observe totally different physical properties of stars. The two techniques are thus complementary, for good science you need both.

It is also important to understand why you need big telescopes spread all over the world to obtain roughly the same resolution as hubble's two meter dish: resolution scales with (wavelength/diameter). To obtain a better (smaller) resolution, you need a smaller wavelength or a larger diameter dish. Instead of building one really large disk, you can also build several smaller and place them far apart.

We've been storing antimatter for decades in Penning traps.

Heisenberg said you cannot know both the position and momentum. But, you can tinker with more minor attributes with complete accuracy?

I'm also hoping someone will explain this.

--
Bush: Spending money the U.S. doesn't have to make his administration look good.

Patents by Alvin Marks

The carbon nanotube guys didn't produce DC electricity because they don't have a super-fast rectifier. Alvin Marks has patented a design for one. Dunno if it's actually been tested, though.

Hmmm, it looks like the femto-diode patent has expired (search for 4,720,642).

Interesting. I think there are two usages of the word grid being thrown about. The first is a case like what you describe: a closely coupled processing center which can scale based on demand.

However, I have also seen the word grid used to describe SETI@Home type endevors, except in a more dynamic way where idle devices can be enlisted to assist overloaded devices. Obviously the second form can use large application hosting facilities, but it could also use workstations to colaborate on a task.

These people seem to be attempting to do both with one framework.

I was not familiar with microgravimetry. The Federal Highway Administration has an article on using it to find old mines

It looks like basicaly you use Newton's law of gravatation to measure the local density of the earth, and just look around for a dip.

Microgravimetry is also used in the study of thin films

Police Officer: Can you tell me how fast you were going?

Heisenberg: No, but I can tell you exactly where I am!

Police Officer: Can you tell me how fast you were going?

Heisenberg: No, but I can tell you exactly where I am!

So due to the Heisenberg / Uncertainty Principle it would have hit us if we had not measured its trajectory, right?

You can't hide behind any cloak of so-called anonymity -- I have measured your comment, and found that it could only come from Heisenberg ... but wait, I measured it, so now I'm Uncertain ...

However I agree that windows glass does not flow within a timescale of a thousand years. If you like physics and you have access to a scientific library, then I recommend the following article, which is coauthored by PK Gupta who is a master in the field: American Journal of Physics -- March 1999 -- Volume 67, Issue 3, pp. 260-262

When used properly, One Time Pad is impossible to break. Of course, carrying around enough truely random characters/bytes for all of your encrypting needs without getting caught is another story

Yes, the OTP is the way to go -- sequence of random bytes, which you simply XOR with your message. Dump out /dev/random to a CD-R or DVD-R, make a copy for your friend, and you've both got nice one-time-pads that will probably last you quite some time.

What's interesting is that quantum physics offers several new things that will help implement excellent OTP systems... over existing fiberoptic telecom systems, no less! This is really exciting stuff.

First, quantum physics offers us a new way to generate truly random numbers for your OTP. Your rand() function sucks, I guarantee you. /dev/random is very good, but slow... /dev/urandom uses hash mixing so isn't nearly as random. Both rely on physical events, time intervals, and possibly thermal noise. In comparison, a quantum random number generator in theory gives you random bits that are totally un-influencable.

So now you've got your random bitstream... what do you do with it? Well, you hook up the OTP stream to a laser-based system that sends essentially single photons down an optical fiber. The idea being that single photons are either received by your friend or intercepted (absorbed) by your enemy. They can't be copied. Anyway several factors complicate this process but the basic idea remains. It's for real.

So your computer can generate a random OTP, securely send it to your friend (without fear of interception), and now you can both exchange classical data encrypted with your OTP. Repeat as necessary. If the physics behind this is sound, we shouldn't have to worry about algorithmic attacks in the future. Here's a rather complete article describing everything.

See Physics Today -- the site is down right now and I cannot get the articles's URL. Just one example which I remember from the article. To supply 10% of the current US energy consumption from solar cells, one would need enough collectors with an area equal to the state of Massachusetts.

if you mean http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html

- new solar cells will have efficiency 40 - 60 percents not 10 -20 as mentioned in the article ( these are already working technologies tested this year or that are in development for use (but are developed theoretically)) ( seen references on the cite devoted for power from space conference (SPS 2004)on working test of 40 percent efficient solar cells) and also see link http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fu ll-spectrum-solar-cell.html

- the article has also contradict statements on nuclear energy

----- the estimated US uranium resources2 would be exhausted in about 3558 years--less than a human lifespan. -----

while later

Advanced fission technologies that involve breeder methodologies and the use of thorium, as envisioned by Edward Teller,15 could extend that timeline to many hundreds of years. Controlled nuclear fusion remains a unique energy alternative of vast magnitude. Moreover, nuclear technologies are not dependent on location and land area. At the moment, public concern over potential risks has virtually stopped the pursuit of this energy source.

And taking into account that advanced technologies would use much wider available uranium isotopes and will not require enrichment then the first statement is just wrong.

And again though it is OK to agree with - advanced nuclear energy could provide earth population with energy for hundred of years

it is incorrect that advanced nuclear stations are as dangerous as current one nuclear stations . They are not. They could times safer that current nuclear stations and new nuclear station projects with passive safety include that safety improvements which make Chernobyl like catastrophes just impossible - there are no fluid elements at stations to vaporize.

So basically - even reading such honorable magazine one should have an eye open ;)

Well, that's why he's talking about loops. Motion becomes a topological property of space-time. The loop just "sits there", so that's how time travel would look like in a static space-time. He's just wondering if General Relativity allows for such a structure to exist, and examining the consequences.

I'd be wary of calling scientists cranks just taking a good critical look at questions like that. Einstein himself, who often criticized quantum theory (c.f. the EPR paradox) and often debated Bohr well into the night, was able to put his feelings about the theory aside and worry about the logical consequences that would follow should the theory be correct (looking for a contradiction, I'll admit). Hell, even his Nobel Prize was awarded for his contributions to QM, namely in explaining the photoelectric effect.

In all, he's just entertaining the notion of time travel to see if General Relativity allows it. If you're looking for a crank, you'll probably have better luck looking at this guy and his device.

You know, I've never worked in NYC, but I've visited, and one thing I recall is the following: the yellows go to red, and then there's another couple seconds of pause, and then the reds on the other side flip to green. Also, many members of ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers, the traffic engineer equivalent to IEEE) have been bitching about NYC's idiotic 3 second yellow standard for a long time now. Let's also note that NYC's drive to a 3 second yellow was spearheaded by an insurance industry group that also pushes red light cameras (and that the far too short 3 second yellow has been proven to cause higher numbers of entry-on-red, which results in higher ticket revenue). Something that causes higher numbers of crashes and tickets, being pushed by an insurance industry lobbying group? Gee, you don't think they might want to be able to jack up their rates for drivers, do you?

My aggressiveness comes from the fact that I spent most of my high school summer jobs working as a surveyor's assistant, meaning that I dealt with more than a few road engineers. I'm not dumb, and I picked up quite a bit. Having a civil engineer for a father probably helped too. Oh, and knowing of the existence of the Highway Safety Act (1966) and the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Which used to lay out exactly the principles I talk about, until it was modified in 2000 to remove the "based on formal site engineering studies" for politically motivated reasons (specifically, the lobbying by red light camera and insurance industry people, and also the desire by most cities for increased revenue from red light cameras). However, even the watered down version states the reason for a yellow light to be (paraphrasing) "to allow motorists adequate time to stop prior to the intersection and to clear the intersection." ITE/ASCE's most recent publication setting forth the method of determination would be Determination of Left-Turn Yellow Change and Red Clearance Interval, published in JTE. Specifically it deals with those issues for left-turn intersections. Unfortunately, the paper is not free, unless you have access to JTE through work or school or membership. Another non-free reference is ITE's #JDB04A20

Be less aggressive when you try to talk back to someone who knows what they're talking about, okay? NYC is hardly the typical example for road safety, by the way - you freaks don't even obey your lane lines, much less your traffic signals.

SWITCHABLE NANOTUBE DIODES made by scientists at the research arm of General Electric combine the practical electrical properties ofcarbon nanotubes (ability to carry high currents; ability to emit light) with the flexibility of being changed over from a p-n type of diode (allowing current to flow in one direction only) to an n-p diode type (allowing current only in the opposite direction). Most solid state transistors are three-terminal devices: current comes in at one terminal (the source) and exits at a second terminal (the drain) if a third terminal (the gate) carries a certain voltage, which has the effect of electrostatically clearing out a realm for charge carriers to flow through. In the GE device, the "realm" is a single-walled carbon nanotube (NT), while the "gate" is actually two separate gates located beneath the NT. These split gates can electrostatically dope the two ends of the NT in such a way that current will flow in only one direction or only in the other depending on the gate voltages. If you count the source, drain, two gate electrodes, and another electrode attached to an underlying silicon substrate, the device overall has five terminals. Diodes are intrinsically simpler than transistors, but up till now more work has gone into developing NT transistors than for NT diodes. The GE researchers (contact Ji-Ung Lee, leeji@research.ge.com) expect their device to function as both a field effect transistor (FET) or as a light emitting diode (LED). Because of its ability to carry high currents, and because the company in question is GE, it might also find applications in power electronics, where huge currents and voltages are to be found. (Lee et al., Applied Physics Letters, 5 July 2004, cover story; text at www.aip.org/physnews/select)

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE is a digest of physics news items arising from physics meetings, physics journals, newspapers and magazines, and other news sources. It is provided free of charge as a way of broadly disseminating information about physics and physicists. For that reason, you are free to post it, if you like, where others can read it, providing only that you credit AIP. Physics News Update appears approximately once a week.

Unfortunately, the link in the article is for subscribers only.

There's a news item at GE's site, but it only says about as much as the article linked in the original posting.

I found these references at AeroSpace Architecture Publications:

Cohen, Marc M. (2003 September). Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures (AIAA 2003-6280). AIAA Space 2003 Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, California, USA, 23-25 September 2003. Reston, Virginia, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Link to on-line order forms

Cohen, Marc M. (2004 February). "Mobile Lunar Base Concepts." In M. S. El-Genk (Ed.), Space Technology and Applications International Forum - STAIF 2004: Conference on Thermophysics in Microgravity; Conference on Commercial/Civil Next Generation Space Transportation; 21st Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion; Conference on Human Space Exploration; 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization; 1st Symposium on New Frontiers and Future Concepts (p. 845-853). Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 8-11 February 2004. College Park, Maryland, USA: American Institute of Physics. Link to on-line order forms

The article was a little thin, so I mosied on down to Wikipedia.

You can also find an abstract and a PDF of the whole article on the physical review letters site (a few links in from the article Slashdot linked).

These are letters, so they haven't been through rigorous peer review, but the authors take great pains to cite related work and describe their experiment in excruciating detail, so their results are almost certainly perfectly valid.

Capsule summary: Adding about 1.5% ytterbium to steel alloys makes it *far* easier to get amorphous phases of them, which is normally a royal PITA for metals (you tend to get very fine grains instead). This has been shown before, but they map out a range of alloy compositions and show where alloys with good properties lie within that range, and do a large number of tests to a) prove that they really have produced amorphous steel and b) measure the materials properties of the steel they've produced.

The article was a little thin, so I mosied on down to Wikipedia.

You can also find an abstract and a PDF of the whole article on the physical review letters site (a few links in from the article Slashdot linked).

These are letters, so they haven't been through rigorous peer review, but the authors take great pains to cite related work and describe their experiment in excruciating detail, so their results are almost certainly perfectly valid.

Capsule summary: Adding about 1.5% ytterbium to steel alloys makes it *far* easier to get amorphous phases of them, which is normally a royal PITA for metals (you tend to get very fine grains instead). This has been shown before, but they map out a range of alloy compositions and show where alloys with good properties lie within that range, and do a large number of tests to a) prove that they really have produced amorphous steel and b) measure the materials properties of the steel they've produced.

Here at the American Institute of Physics, we love baseball. More specifically, our science writer Ben Stein loves the game, and has written several articles on it, including a statistical analysis of the chance of going to seven games, why AL batters get beaned more often, and a new way to determine under- and over-achieving teams.

Here at the American Institute of Physics, we love baseball. More specifically, our science writer Ben Stein loves the game, and has written several articles on it, including a statistical analysis of the chance of going to seven games, why AL batters get beaned more often, and a new way to determine under- and over-achieving teams.

Here at the American Institute of Physics, we love baseball. More specifically, our science writer Ben Stein loves the game, and has written several articles on it, including a statistical analysis of the chance of going to seven games, why AL batters get beaned more often, and a new way to determine under- and over-achieving teams.

Leaving aside the question of whether such a thing is possible

Possible? It has been done.

I think the poster is confusing using quantum codes (first demostrated in 1991, currently commercially available) with breaking codes with quantum computers (still hugely theoretical).

NASA's whole budget request for 2004 was 15.5 billion.

At that rate, it'd take them oh, say 40 years to save up 500+ billion.

Something does not compute.

Check it here.

I was going to say something about the editing, but what's the point? Like it's going to change at this late date.

Still, the original post has merit. They haven't detected a WIMP particle within the sensitivity of the original experimental device, and now they want to make it bigger. What if they still don't register WIMP events? Why didn't they make detector big enough in the first place? One could easily say 'they couldn't know how big it needed to be until they built it', but you can't endlessly get grants for 'bigger', you also need 'smarter'. They should also be looking at different experimental methods. An example of great experimental physics is the Neutrino Detection Facility at Kamiokande(Nobel Prize 2002)

So who pays for all this?
KAY

Oh, we hold a few patents on gadgets we confiscated from our out-of-state visitors.

Velcro. Microwave Ovens. Liposuction.
----------

Anyone more enlightened?

Can't quite find the previous Slashdot story though this one is close.

But Tango and Cash dangling from electric cables as part of a physics course? This is kinda old news.