Slashdot Mirror

Related work:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1179

surprisingly no references between Adami and England.

"Self-replication is a capacity common to every species of living thing, and simple physical intuition dictates that such a process must invariably be fueled by the production of entropy. Here, we undertake to make this intuition rigorous and quantitative by deriving a lower bound for the amount of heat that is produced during a process of self-replication in a system coupled to a thermal bath. We find that the minimum value for the physically allowed rate of heat production is determined by the growth rate, internal entropy, and durability of the replicator, and we discuss the implications of this finding for bacterial cell division, as well as for the pre-biotic emergence of self-replicating nucleic acids."

Almost had me there article! Until you said the most evil words known to man... "statistical technique". AKA "bullshit"

Bayesian statistics is far from bullshit.

I suggest you read up on it.

You can do some really cool stuff with it.
Testing if a coin flip is fair.
Correct images.
Filter spam
 

For the baseline case in the linked article, we assumed 1000 hours total, with the complete SKA telescope. That would be enough to exceed the exposure of all existing cosmic ray detectors, and to identify a nearby ultra-high-energy cosmic-ray source, in a mildly-optimistic scenario. For example, if Centaurus A is a source, as hinted by current data, we should be able to confirm it.

There are significant uncertainties remaining in our sensitivity calculations, though, which is largely why we plan to do some preliminary observations with the partial (Phase 1 of the) SKA. That would be enough to detect a handful of cosmic rays - maybe not enough to do real science with them, but enough to confirm that this technique works, and to find out if it's more or less sensitive than we expect.

What would be really cool, in the long run, is if we could run a second beamformer in parallel on the back end of the instrument. That would allow us to operate commensally: observing the moon whenever it's up, simultaneously with whatever other survey it's running at the time. We may have to wait a few more iterations of Moore's law before that becomes practical, though.

And it's probably cheaper to aim a detector at the moon than it is to put one in orbit and look at the earth.

In this case, the detector on the ground (the Square Kilometre Array, a radio telescope) is being built anyway - so we're just planning to use it part-time. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the people involved with the project.)

Putting a detector in orbit to look down at the earth has been proposed too, though. There's the JEM-EUSO proposal, for an ultraviolet detector mounted on the international space station; and the SWORD proposal, for a free-orbiting radio detector. There are pros and cons to using different bands (ultraviolet, radio) to detect the particle cascades started by cosmic rays.

There's even a proposal to use Jupiter as the detector volume, which is even bigger. Jupiter's a long, long way away, so we'd need an unreasonably-high-energy cosmic ray to be detectable from that distance. (Rather than baseball, think artillery shell.) But it's worth keeping in mind as an auxiliary instrument on a future probe to Jupiter.

And it's probably cheaper to aim a detector at the moon than it is to put one in orbit and look at the earth.

In this case, the detector on the ground (the Square Kilometre Array, a radio telescope) is being built anyway - so we're just planning to use it part-time. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the people involved with the project.)

Putting a detector in orbit to look down at the earth has been proposed too, though. There's the JEM-EUSO proposal, for an ultraviolet detector mounted on the international space station; and the SWORD proposal, for a free-orbiting radio detector. There are pros and cons to using different bands (ultraviolet, radio) to detect the particle cascades started by cosmic rays.

There's even a proposal to use Jupiter as the detector volume, which is even bigger. Jupiter's a long, long way away, so we'd need an unreasonably-high-energy cosmic ray to be detectable from that distance. (Rather than baseball, think artillery shell.) But it's worth keeping in mind as an auxiliary instrument on a future probe to Jupiter.

And it's probably cheaper to aim a detector at the moon than it is to put one in orbit and look at the earth.

In this case, the detector on the ground (the Square Kilometre Array, a radio telescope) is being built anyway - so we're just planning to use it part-time. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the people involved with the project.)

Putting a detector in orbit to look down at the earth has been proposed too, though. There's the JEM-EUSO proposal, for an ultraviolet detector mounted on the international space station; and the SWORD proposal, for a free-orbiting radio detector. There are pros and cons to using different bands (ultraviolet, radio) to detect the particle cascades started by cosmic rays.

There's even a proposal to use Jupiter as the detector volume, which is even bigger. Jupiter's a long, long way away, so we'd need an unreasonably-high-energy cosmic ray to be detectable from that distance. (Rather than baseball, think artillery shell.) But it's worth keeping in mind as an auxiliary instrument on a future probe to Jupiter.

You're not the only one to start thinking along these lines. You might be interested in this somewhat random and unrepresentative set of papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0552
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4688
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5554

I know very little about this area myself but it seems relatively settled that the fractal dimension of the universe - if such can be defined and has a meaningful interpretation - is between 2.5 and 3.

You're not the only one to start thinking along these lines. You might be interested in this somewhat random and unrepresentative set of papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0552
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4688
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5554

I know very little about this area myself but it seems relatively settled that the fractal dimension of the universe - if such can be defined and has a meaningful interpretation - is between 2.5 and 3.

You're not the only one to start thinking along these lines. You might be interested in this somewhat random and unrepresentative set of papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0552
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4688
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5554

I know very little about this area myself but it seems relatively settled that the fractal dimension of the universe - if such can be defined and has a meaningful interpretation - is between 2.5 and 3.

You're not the only one to start thinking along these lines. You might be interested in this somewhat random and unrepresentative set of papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0552
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4688
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5554

I know very little about this area myself but it seems relatively settled that the fractal dimension of the universe - if such can be defined and has a meaningful interpretation - is between 2.5 and 3.

You're not the only one to start thinking along these lines. You might be interested in this somewhat random and unrepresentative set of papers:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0552
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4688
http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.5554

I know very little about this area myself but it seems relatively settled that the fractal dimension of the universe - if such can be defined and has a meaningful interpretation - is between 2.5 and 3.

Hmm, interesting. It might be worth pointing out that Skype was originally based on a decentralized service pushed through the Kazaa network:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/041201...

Like its file sharing predecessor KaZaa, Skype is an overlay peer-to-peer network. There are two types of nodes in this overlay network, ordinary hosts and super nodes (SN). An ordinary host is a Skype application that can be used to place voice calls and send text messages. A super node is an ordinary host’s end-point on the Skype network

Of course, the problem with the Skype system (as it was when that paper was written) is that the decentralised nature of the network means that your video call could be routed through any number of Skype network nodes (i.e. computers) before it arrives at its destination. I think now Microsoft has replaced most of the supernodes with microsoft servers, so replace "any number of Skype network nodes" with "any number of Microsoft servers".

Presumably Tox is doing something similar to going back to the roots of Skype, with maybe a bit more encryption thrown in.

Here's a better article from ESA which also links to the arXiv copy of the paper and an actual image of the galaxy (full size JPEG). (The image at the beginning of TFA is just an illustration, by the way.)

Energy used efficiently is still energy used. There is always waste heat. The paper addresses what would be an o[optimal waste heat temperature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134... If you want your waste heat half as warm, your Dyson Sphere has to have four time the radius so you material use becomes excessive.

They are usually putting gamma equal to alpha in the paper so Dyson spheres, cubes or pyramids is pretty much what they have in mind. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134...

It comes down to fig. 3 in their paper. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.1134... Natural source don't have the expected colors for waste heat from a solid surface. But that is the case when perhaps half the starlight in a galaxy is being used for power (their gamma=0.5). So, the civilization has to be pretty much like locusts for it the be easy to discern. There may be some civilization lifetime issues to worry about in that case.

Most major GPS chip sets now actively filter pulsar noise.

Got a link for that? I know that most pulsar observers filter out GPS and other satnavs (GLONASS sidebands are especially annoying) but I have not heard of GPS receivers having pulsar ephemerides.

The thing about pulsars is they are better clocks than what is being launched and they transmit on all frequencies. The ephemeris calculations are much harder but it has be used to 2 meter accuracy and it isn't even limited to working just around earth. I wonder why they spent so much money to duplicate two existing systems that weren't even state of the art when they started. Maybe it was because you can't license pulsar transmissions.

Or maybe because observing pulsars requires a substantially bigger antenna than a hand-held smart-phone - 170 m^2 (and 500 Watts!) for a phased-array radio dipole and 0.1 m^2 for an X-ray Pulsar Nav system in Becker et al. (and the latter could only be used in space, outside the Earth's atmosphere).

With regards to the Polywell design you clearly either have not read this paper, or must think they made up their results.

When any idiot can post what ever they want to arxiv it might as well be made up.

These are real journals

http://iopscience.iop.org/0029-5515
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop

With regards to the Polywell design you clearly either have not read this paper, or must think they made up their results.

As to General Fusion, they are hardly the only ones looking into magnetized target fusion (just the most ambitious ones) - so I fail to see how you comment even applies there.

the whole thing flew off as one piece from some supernova explosion

I didn't read TFA but is it's in the elliptic plane, cruising along in the same general direction as everything, it originated in this solar system.

Presumably, you meant the ecliptic not the elliptic plane .

That said, you are likely correct that the asteroid formed via accretion in the protoplanetary disk, rather than being ejected from a supernova.

Regardless, it's quite an interesting conundrum. I suppose it's possible that high-energy collisions melted the material which would become the asteroid and it coalesced into solid chunk(s) which are unaffected by the high rotation rate.

I skimmed TFA to find the actual math she earned it for. The summary they give is actually pretty interesting, even though they don't go into much detail on the math. Definitely doesn't seem like a bullshit hey-look-we're-giving-awards-to-minorities-too-now award.

This seems to be the actual paper, although to be honest it's so far above my knowledge that it could be about something completely different and I wouldn't be able to tell.

Indeed, QED is the most successful theory that man has ever formulated

No, actually that would be special relativity which has been tested to around 20+ orders of magnitude by cosmic rays as well as (arguably) tests of CPT symmetry which last time I checked (quite a while ago) was at about 18 orders of magnitude.

QED is 'only' at about 12-14 order of magnitude of accuracy (which is extremely impressive!). Indeed since QED incorporates Special Relativity it would be hard for it to be tested more accurately that SR since any test of QED is, by definition, a test of SR as well.

I thought that this take was pretty appropriate when all we had to go on was the conference abstract. Now, however, the full paper (still not peer reviewed) is out, and it is much better. I still think it is wrong, but I do not think it is bad science, and it will have to be refuted experimentally.

Comments

* the "null thruster" is something of a red herring from the abstract. Reading the paper, they have a true "null load," which shows no thrust, while the "null thruster" was a mod of a Cannae drive, and so more of a test of drive theory than the experimental setup, and, in any event, they tested several types of drives.

* they did pretty much all of the things you would like to see (such as reversing the direction and making sure the thrust reverses).

* they seem to have done a thoughtful and careful job, including testing in vacuum.

So, I still think they are likely wrong, but this ups the ante. In my opinion, you can't just say "this is obviously wrong." I bet there will be a bunch of attempts to replicate it in labs all over the place.

I find the theories here (and I have now read several in some depth) to be bad, either wrong, or handwavy, or both*. I would discount them entirely. In the unlikely event that this effect is real (and I mean, some non-standard physics effect), then the theory is likely to be something different than any of the proposals, The experiment's the thing, and the game now has to be disproving the Eagleworks results. Only once a bunch of people have failed to do that (or one person has done it) is there much else to say.

* On pushing on virtual particles or quantum spacetime or whatever. These are 1 GHz photons, more or less. Such pushing would cause a _vacuum_ dispersion. Vacuum dispersion limits are set by timing of high energy photons from Gamma ray bursts across cosmic distances. These tests use ~ 100 MeV photons over ~10^10 light years, and so are many orders of magnitude tighter than the NASA Eagleworks results. This in my opinion rules out any photon - vacuum interaction as the cause of these anomalous thrusts.

The scientific model is quite simply:
1) Develop testable hypothesis (aka theory)
2) Develop experiments/observations to test hypothesis
3) Perform experiment/observations
4) Repeat
Anyone who participates in any of these steps is performing science. It took a while to find practical tests of String theory given it's extreme generality, but several have been suggested and a few have even been performed, ranging from the scale of planetary motion to LHC data.

Gravity is a mutual attraction

Not in General Relativity; gravity is a deformation of geodesics made by concatenating infinitesimal regions of flat spacetime. Curvature is in effect emergent from how sets of locally uncurved spacetime neighbour one another.

That is, objects in free-fall move uniformly along locally straight lines, and the configuration of mass-energy determines the extent of "local".

"Attraction" is a feature of the coordinate system, and there is general coordinate freedom in General Relativity. What is described as mutual attraction in one set of coordinates can be seen, via a change of coordinates, as attraction of one body to another. This is one of the features of General Relativity as a mathematical toolset.

for black holes that requires an exchange of energy and information

The _local_ conservation of energy-momentum takes care of this at every point in the universe, including at and on either side of an event horizon.

across an FTL boundary

There is no FTL _locally_, satisfying the flat space condition.

In GR FTL is only relevant if one wants to preserve flat space in the limit of the local section of the fibre bundle (or equivalently in the limit as spacetime intervals go to zero). While it would be deeply inconvenient to have to develop an extension or replacement of SR as the local everywhere theory (although it is would likely be preserved as "extra special relativity" valid only in inertial frames of reference in which there are no FTL observers), GR itself has no problem with a democratization of causal cones with radically different null slopes. (See Geroch, http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614 )

"c" is the only free parameter of the symmetry group of flat space (the Lorentz group with boosts), and is the velocity of a massless particle. Special Relativity is special in that it is valid only in flat space and where light is defined to be massless.

GR was developed with the explicit goal of retaining _local_ flat space at every point for every observer, but the mathematics work even where that goal is not met. That goal *is* met locally at every point in and near a black hole, and that is why there is an event horizon at all.

Your points above assume that there is a local violation of Lorentz symmetry at the horizon, which is not the case in GR. There are certainly Lorentz-violating theories of gravity, and some of these have been looked at seriously by various relativists. Almost all of such theories are generically expected to have modes that can propagate arbitrarily fast in the UV limit, which means that there is strictly speaking no event horizon as extremely high energy modes will probe even the central singularity. Observations of black hole candidates have put extremely strict limits on such theories.

This was on here 6 months ago when the preprint hit arxiv.

Perhaps a quantum dupe, caused by the effects of Beta? >:)

This was on here 6 months ago when the preprint hit arxiv.

While I am there I cannot resist promoting my own paper on TLS hardening, for the administrator and the developer, or to anyone missing the basics to understand security problems like the one reported here. From the summary:

This document presents TLS and how to make it secure enough as of 2014 Spring. Of course all the information given here will rot with time. Protocols known as secure will be cracked and will be replaced with better versions. Fortunately we will see that there are ways to assess the current security of your setup, but this explains why you may have to read further from this document to get the up to date knowledge on TLS security.

We will first introduce the TLS protocol and its underlying components: X.509 certificates, ciphers, and protocol versions. Next we will have a look at TLS hardening for web servers, and how to plug various vulnerabilities: CRIME, BREACH, BEAST, session renegotiation, Heartbleed, and others. We will finally see how the know-how acquired on hardening web servers can be used for other protocols and tools such as Dovecot, Sendmail, SquirrelMail, RoundCube, and OpenVPN.

We assume you already maintain services that use TLS, and have basic TCP/IP network knowledge. Some information will also be useful for the application developer.

Additional links: A big discussion has taken place on PubPeer following a pre-publication arXiv release of a paper (full disclosure: I'm a co-author on the second version of this paper). The paper is well worth a read, and should be coming out soon in PLoS One.

ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6812
Pubpeer: https://pubpeer.com/publicatio...

First, if this is 80 meters in diameter, or 40 meters in radius, and say at a minimum 40 meters deep, that’ s not quite 10^9 kg of soil moved up order 40 meters, requiring (very roughly) the equivalent of 60 tons of TNT, at a minimum, and thus an equivalent magnitude of ~ 3.2 (again, roughly). Such an explosion should be detectable on seismological networks, such as the ones looking for nuclear testing.

Second, there is another mystery crater in Siberia - the Patomskiy crater. This one is in rock, not sediment, is about 160 meters in diameter, and is maybe 300 years old, but I have to wonder if they have a similar cause.

Third, I am interested in quark nuggets and other types of condensed matter, such as Q-Balls, generically called Compact UltraDense Objects (CUDOs) by Jan Rafelski of U. Arizona. If these things exist in the appropriate masses, they could cause holes such as this and the Patomskiy crater. Even better, if this were to be caused by transiting CUDO, it would cause a "linear earthquake, which should be easily recognizable in the seismic record.

The observable universe is observable because there has been time for the light to travel that far, which can not exceed the age of the universe. Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.
So why does the summary say it's 46 billion L.Y. across and only 14 billion Y. old?

The universe is expanding all while light is in transit to our bug-eyed telescopes.

For details: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/...

As usual with astronomy articles, it can be found on the arXiv, freely available to all. It goes into much more detail than the article linked in the summary. Here is the abstract:

Recent work has exploited pulsar survey data to identify temporally isolated, millisecond-duration radio bursts with large dispersion measures (DMs). These bursts have been interpreted as arising from a population of extragalactic sources, in which case they would provide unprecedented opportunities for probing the intergalactic medium; they may also be linked to new source classes. Until now, however, all so-called fast radio bursts (FRBs) have been detected with the Parkes radio telescope and its 13-beam receiver, casting some concern about the astrophysical nature of these signals. Here we present FRB 121102, the first FRB discovery from a geographic location other than Parkes. FRB 121102 was found in the Galactic anti-center region in the 1.4-GHz Pulsar ALFA survey with the Arecibo Observatory with a DM = 557.4 \pm 3 pc cm^{-3}, pulse width of 3\; \pm 0.5 ms, and no evidence of interstellar scattering. The observed delay of the signal arrival time with frequency agrees precisely with the expectation of dispersion through an ionized medium. Despite its low Galactic latitude (b = -0.2^{\circ}), the burst has three times the maximum Galactic DM expected along this particular line-of-sight, suggesting an extragalactic origin. A peculiar aspect of the signal is an inverted spectrum; we interpret this as a consequence of being detected in a sidelobe of the ALFA receiver. FRB 121102's brightness, duration, and the inferred event rate are all consistent with the properties of the previously detected Parkes bursts.

The 150 ms / 300 ms round trip was the "simulated" ping time. They ran real ping tests over 24 hours to the most remote coverage location at the Cook Islands.

One was from Surrey, England to the Cook Islands and averaged 570-800ms round trip -- the other was from California, US to the Cook Islands and averaged 420-620ms round trip. These were performed once per second for 24 hours and can be found in Figure 5 of the research paper.

This is simple economics. If the demand for programmers can not be met then there is more opportunity and money for me. Why should I reduce my personal money making capability?

That's true for mathematics as well. Why do kids have to learn long division algorithms which are useless for them as well as for they future employers? The hourglass-shaped division of labor is nicely recounted in Calling a spade a spade: Mathematics in the new pattern of division of labour. Unlike programming, mathematics education can be compared with how it was in 1897, when Post Office entrance tests included exctracting the square root of 331930385956.

FWIW, this paper talks about doing this with light (in the context of micro-manipulation). Doesn't look like we will be using this for any star-ship sized objects in the near future...

The basic idea is that you use a light with a specific profile to stimulate the object you want to attract in a way that causes a scattering field such that there is a net force backward to the emitter (it only works if the amount of net forward momentum of the light is relatively small compared to the scattering).

The water stuff referenced by this article works on a completely different principle, though as described here.

They are similar in that they originate with a wave generator, also hitting the target at a glancing angle is a way to achieve the necessary conditions and both provide a net attractive force (aka tractor beam), but the physics is totally different.

FWIW, this paper talks about doing this with light (in the context of micro-manipulation). Doesn't look like we will be using this for any star-ship sized objects in the near future...

The basic idea is that you use a light with a specific profile to stimulate the object you want to attract in a way that causes a scattering field such that there is a net force backward to the emitter (it only works if the amount of net forward momentum of the light is relatively small compared to the scattering).

The water stuff referenced by this article works on a completely different principle, though as described here.

They are similar in that they originate with a wave generator, also hitting the target at a glancing angle is a way to achieve the necessary conditions and both provide a net attractive force (aka tractor beam), but the physics is totally different.

I see no evidence of any programming that "learns" or is the slightest bit adaptive.

Therein, you would be wrong. There is such a technology. Computing is going to shift drastically in the next few years.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.0931

Having read the article, I think that "With a Bang" sort of waffled on this. It is hard to see how SuperMassive Black holes (SMB) form in the time available for them to form. (There is a large literature on this, but basically there are problems of the seeds - are the seeds Pop III stars, or something more exotic - and time - how can the mass move around enough to form SMB by z ~ 6?).

I don't really feel you can safely answer the "which came first" question until you know how the SMB actually formed.

A one hour video lecture, Supermassive Black Holes and the Problem of Galaxy Formation, might be interesting to people interested in these problems, but it deals with the galaxy problem more than the SMB problem.

Here is a similar recent article analyzing the sound made by a bouncing basketball:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.3278...

yes but have you written it down? have you done the math behind it?
here is the original paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4907...

All evidence we have to date suggests that C is a constant and has not changed.

All evidence we have to date suggests that the earliest moments of the big bang everything expanded faster than C, therefore light itself would have been faster than C, therefore we have evidence to support that the speed of C *has* changed since the universes inception.

No. The rate at which space expands has nothing to do with the speed of light because the speed of light refers to the *local* speed of a photon, i.e. the speed an observer would measure it to have just as it passes him. What you are thinking of are recessional velocities, which is the rate at which the coordinates of a separate object changes. In general relativity, the (local) speed of light is a constant, while recessional velocities can be anything - in fact a single object can have multiple different recession velocities if there are multiple lines of sight towards the same object due to complicated spacetime topologies.

Also, the expansion itself doesn't correspond to any particular recession velocity by itself. The expansion is simply a measurement of how long it takes the universe to grow bigger by some factor. For a given rate of expansion, there will be different recession velocities for different objects depending on the distance to each object. Those recession velocities can be higher than the local speed of light, but that doesn't mean that it's meaningful to say that space is expanding superluminally.

I recommend this review article for a discussion of these issues.

They have strong indications that the particle is spin-0.
In the plot, blue is the expected data for spin-0, red for spin-2. The black line is derived from measurements and nicely corresponds with the peak of spin-0.
See also here.

You need show that time travel is impossible, you need to exclude the null.

You think the null hypothesis is that time travel is possible!? Really?

Are you actually arguing against the 2nd law? :)

Precious!

1) A peer reviewed study showing time travel is completely impossible

Here: http://blogs.scientificamerica...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513

"How would you know it was a legitimate fossil?"

Frankly, your question "how would you know it was a legitimate fossil" is misguided - it's like asking "how would you know that an experiment showing gravity is constant wasn't faked?" You're asking for a hypothetical on top of a hypothetical, as if the limitations of our ability to observe the world around us mean that nothing at all is indeed falsifiable - a clever argument, but not a convincing one.

Your Gish Gallop of a list is farcical, and I'll bet when you're honest with yourself you'll admit that as well :)

If you want to make the metaphysical argument that falsifiability isn't required, please, feel free - but insisting that time travel or aliens are appropriate objections to observations is just silly! :)

These BICEP2 guys didn't back-pedal of their own accord, friends---how about citing the much more senior and respected people, such as WMAP guru Spergel, who already DID the joint Planck analysis and showed them how hasty they had been? This is pretty poor reporting on NS's part.

BICEP2 were a bunch of young upstarts riding into town with guns a-blazing. The sheriff came down and told them to calm down, boys, calm down.

Buddy, I have a physics degree too, so does Matthias Troyer and Geordie Rose.

Eight qubit entanglement has been demonstrated.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3500...

It is not gate based universal quantum computing but special purpose quantum annealing.

If you accept this as a valid approach to quantum computing has certainly been the subject of much debate.

Researchers have been able to experimentally prove the existence of quantum entanglement in a quantum annealing processor which is supposedly a subset of the design that D-Wave employs

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3500...

There's a preprint of what seems to be a more complete paper on the work hosted on arxiv. There's a bit more math in it, but it's still somewhat understandable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.3160.pdf.

It seems like it's based on dynamically allocating spectrum between GSM and LTE

http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

However, using a technology called GL DSS (GSM-LTE Dynamic Spectrum Sharing) Vodafone and Huawei have shown a way to allow GSM and LTE to coexist.

In a traditional mobile network, operators allocate each technology an exclusive set of frequencies. For example, many operators, including Vodafone, currently hold 20MHz of spectrum at 1.8GHz, of which 10MHz is used for LTE and the rest for GSM traffic.

GL DSS lets Huawei's SRC (Single Radio Controller) give GSM a higher priority during periods of heavy traffic, ensuring that voice calls get though unharmed. But the SRC can also provide more room for LTE when users aren't making calls, allowing for better throughput, the vendor said on Tuesday.

There's a paper on it (or at least a similar idea) here

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0320...

It's interesting because it seems like GSM will live on for low bandwidth machine to machine applications even though most of the spectrum has been converted to LTE. So if you've got an embedded system with a GSM modem, there's no need to worry that the carriers will cut off the signal in order to get more LTE bandwidth.

Link to actual paper

Seems like total bullshit to me. Madonna #3 on one of the lists? For fundamental impact on today's world, Woodrow Wilson probably has had a helluva lot more impact than Madonna's pop fluff. And if you don't know why, you really need to look at how Wilson shaped both international relations and organizations right at the beginnings of global society along with his impact on early progressive policies.