Slashdot Mirror

It would make sense that Theia would have a composition very similar to earth if it formed in the same orbit at one of the Lagrangian points. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...

For some purposes, you need a lot less time than that. See for instance http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2646

This is all a lot of fun with lots of counter-intuitive results. One of my favorites is observed speed of regression.. how is it that we can see stuff moving away from us at hundreds or thousands of times c. Relationship between redshift and these "FTL" velocities a bit counter-intuitive as is difference between hubble sphere/volume and distance at which universe can actually be observed...expanding space sapping energy from the universe.

For anyone really interested recommend this paper which thankfully is more explanation than math http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...

And at the atomic and subatomic level, quantum entanglement does allow for information (in this case information about the atom's state) to be transferred superluminally. It seems nature has been doing that since at least the beginning of the universe. That mankind can't figure out how to use it to transmit information FTL isn't relevant.

Eventually though we'll figure out how to do it and our understanding of physics will be broadened beyond its currently primitive state.

And on the subject it appears that the speed of light, c, only exists because photons are absorbed and remitted as light passes through the quantum vacuum where virtual particles come into and go out of existence. Recent research indicates that here

Furthermore based on such research it appears that without the "traffic" of virtual particles as light travels from point A to point B there wouldn't be any delay in transmission at all, that one would have instantaneous transmission of information. Which is exactly what one sees with quantum entanglement.

Thanks for the story

You may also point the the original article (PDF version), there is an handful of examples more.

The scales on the figures in the article, for example, don't actually go down to 100 GeV -- the left hand edge (log scale) appears to be 1 TeV.

Sorry, my third link was to the wrong article. It should have been this one. That's the one that covers the whole energy range, and which shows the magnitude and location of the W-boson resonance.

SLAC is apparently capable of generating 1/2 an ampere of beam current. That's basically 10^19 electrons/second, which knocks five orders of magnitude off your estimate of 1 event per 300000 years to one per 3 years.

Wow, I was off by a lot! I don't know how noisy environments accelerators are, but I think one would need many times more events per year to be able to detect this. It would be really nice.. But I'm skeptical.

That seems as though it is low enough that IF there were any sort of actual resonance, it might knock another order of magnitude off and get one at least several events per year, maybe more.

From the figure on page 3 in the article, it seems like the W resonance is at 6 PeV/c^2 for a stationary neutrino being impacted by a moving electron, or vice versa. I think that makes sense from a momentum convervation point of view. I haven't done relativistic kinematics in a long while, but the available energy in a collision is E_a^2 = 2 E_1 E_2 + (m_1c^2)^2 + (m_2c^2)^2, so for a massless impactor (m_1=0) hitting an stationary electron (m_2 = m_e, E_2 = m_e c^2) to have 80 GeV/c^2 (W mass) of available energy, we need E_1 = sqrt((E_a^2-E_2^2)/(2E_2)) = 6.3 PeV/c^2. If you go significantly below that energy, there isn't enough available energy to produce a W without violating momentum conservation. So I don't think there's much hope for an accelerator electron getting this resonance with the cosmic neutrino background. :/
Unless I've missed something crucial here. But perhaps we'll have a breaktrough in accelerator technology that will let us reach these levels at some point. If we hit the resonance, the scattering rate will be of the order 1e-31, 13 orders of magnitude higher than what I used in my back-of-the-envelope calculation. But we aren't likely to hit those energies soon, I think.

My Ph.D. advisor (Larry Biedenharn) spent a decade or so looking hard at muon catalyzed fusion so I learned a lot about it then even though my research was in completely different stuff). The primary block point was the huge cost per muon to create muons via e.g. nuclear cross sections and pion decay.

Yes, I've been interested in muon catalyzed fusion myself. It's such a nice idea. A way to reduce the cost of muon production would be very nice.

Oops, I mistakenly used the same link twice. The last link was supposed to be this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.7513v1
It is well worth a look through.

Yes, the accelerated beam is a rapidly moving detector. My point is that it is a rapidly moving detector with a woefully tiny volume. I'm no expert on this - I used this page for neutrino cross sections. Both inelastic and elastic scattering seems to be proportional to collision energy.

Neutrinos of several PeV/c^2 are regularly observed in neutrino observatories. At these energies, the Earth is able to act as a somewhat effective neutrino shield, resulting in a significant deficiency in high-enery (>60 TeV) neutrino flux from the direction of the ground (i.e. the direction shielded by the Earth). That says something about how difficult even extremely high energy neutrinos are to detect: Even a detector the size of the Earth lets through quite a bit of them.

It seems you're right that having enough energy to create W-bosons in the collision frame does give the cross section a huge boost, though. There is a really nice figure showing this on page 3 of the article From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross-Sections Across Energy Scales (note: That figure only shows one of several possible scattering processes - see page 40 for more details). But as the other poster pointed out, to get 100 GeV/c^2 in the collision frame, you need much higher energy when only one particle is moving. In this figure, that point seems to be about 6 PeV. So extragalactic ultra-high-energy neutrinos aren't that far away from that point. But particles in our accelerators have far too low energy.

Yes, the accelerated beam is a rapidly moving detector. My point is that it is a rapidly moving detector with a woefully tiny volume. I'm no expert on this - I used this page for neutrino cross sections. Both inelastic and elastic scattering seems to be proportional to collision energy.

Neutrinos of several PeV/c^2 are regularly observed in neutrino observatories. At these energies, the Earth is able to act as a somewhat effective neutrino shield, resulting in a significant deficiency in high-enery (>60 TeV) neutrino flux from the direction of the ground (i.e. the direction shielded by the Earth). That says something about how difficult even extremely high energy neutrinos are to detect: Even a detector the size of the Earth lets through quite a bit of them.

It seems you're right that having enough energy to create W-bosons in the collision frame does give the cross section a huge boost, though. There is a really nice figure showing this on page 3 of the article From eV to EeV: Neutrino Cross-Sections Across Energy Scales (note: That figure only shows one of several possible scattering processes - see page 40 for more details). But as the other poster pointed out, to get 100 GeV/c^2 in the collision frame, you need much higher energy when only one particle is moving. In this figure, that point seems to be about 6 PeV. So extragalactic ultra-high-energy neutrinos aren't that far away from that point. But particles in our accelerators have far too low energy.

...the only interaction they can conceivably have with normal matter is via a nuclear recoil.

No, not quite. These neutrinos also interact gravitationally with ordinary matter, which, of course, the author knows, but just doesn't think of. That introduces two possible means of detecting them, either gravitationally, or by using the Sun or other bodies to focus them on a detector, thereby greatly amplifying their signal.

...the only interaction they can conceivably have with normal matter is via a nuclear recoil.

No, not quite. These neutrinos also interact gravitationally with ordinary matter, which, of course, the author knows, but just doesn't think of. That introduces two possible means of detecting them, either gravitationally, or by using the Sun or other bodies to focus them on a detector, thereby greatly amplifying their signal.

How do they work around this ?

By reading the fucking article? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0712/0712.1105.pdf

I can't read the article behind Springer's paywall past the first couple of pages, but it appears to be the published version of this 2013 preprint which, if I'm not mistaken, was already slashdotted last year.

There would seem to be basically no chance of making this strategy work over the finite field with p elements, which is what it would take to break Diffie-Hellman and DSA as currently implemented; such fields are never going to have sparse medium subfield representations beause they don't have, you know, any subfields.

It's true that similar sieving strategies often apply to factoring as to the DLP - but again, the analogy is to prime field DLPs, so there' s no way that this is going to help break RSA directly. so I don't see any reason for the FUD. We're still a couple of major research ideas away from that.

Many number theorists believe the problem of discrete logarithms and factoring are somehow linked, and historically advance in one has led to advance in other. However, this particular breakhrough was first published nearly a year ago, and also currently only relevant for small to medium prime fields...

TFA links to the published version on SpringerLink, which is paywalled. A free preprint is available on the arXiv.

Here's a a critique. (It's on arxiv; no need to sign up for "Medium")

The paper isn't impressive. It make the assumption that human (other mammals, too?) memory isn't compressed, and is somehow "integrated" with all other information. We've been through this before. Last time, the buzzword was "holographic". We've been here before.

The observation that damage to part of the brain may not result in the loss of specific memories still seems to confuse many philosophers and neurologists. That shouldn't be mysterious at this point. A compact disk has the same property. You can obscure a sizeable area on a CD without making it unreadable. There's redundancy in the data, but it's a lot less than 2x redundant. The combination of error correction and spreading codes allows any small part of the disk to be unreadable without losing any data. (Read up on how CDs work if you don't know this. It's quite clever. First mass-market application of really good error correction.)

He strikes me as being more like David Helfgott and less like Rachmaninoff.

To a large degree in mathematics, infinity is used to invoke the limiting configuration of an unbounded process (where there is always a next step). This isn't precisely the same thing as believing in infinity itself, or any of its many discrete fragments.

Meaning in Classical Mathematics: Is it at Odds with Intuitionism

I found this a better analysis
 
  Are Black Hole Starships Possible?

Pardon me, but the ideology of "Anthropogenic CO2-caused Global Warming" is not based on the "insulation" properties of CO2. Instead it is based on a physics-challenged notion of "trapping radiation", which is not how thermal insulation works.

Pardon me, but the ideology of deniers is based on trying to debate things they know nothing about.

Next, let's debate whether gravity exists or it is actually electric! Why isn't this revelation taught from the rooftops? Where is the balance in the discussion?

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/...

http://blackholeformulas.com/f...

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/...

PS. Yes, I'm sarcastic.

Here is a non-paywalled version (any time you see a paywalled astronomy article, you can always find a free version on arxiv.org).

I've only skimmed the article, but I did not see any mention of doppler shifts in it. I would imagine that a planet+moon system would exhibit a time-dependent doppler shift of the moon atmosphere relative to the planet atmosphere, which would make it possible to disentangle the two. However, for an Earth-Moon situation, with a relative velocity of 1 km/s, the doppler shift will only be lambda/(delta lambda) of about 3e5, which is much smaller than the spectral resolution they are assuming (1600), so perhaps it doesn't work.

this 2010 preprint suggests two types of dark matter.

We shall follow an approach with two types of dark matter, “Oort” DM in galaxies, composed of baryons, and “Zwicky” DM in galaxy clusters, the true DM.

suggesting that micro brown dwarfs can't explain everything. The authors posit that Oort DM is composed of MBDs, and Zwicky DM is composed of massive neutrinos.

But the paper appears not to have been published, so I'm not sure what to think.

Where, exactly?

[citation here] http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1759

Finding black holes in quiescent galaxies is difficult because there are no gas clouds feeding the black holes, so the cores of these galaxies are truly dark. It can be only detected by this 'tidal disruption event'."

The dark cores have been observed in light curves http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5310

Now where can we get it... Or purchase it.
Is it patented, is it Open Source.
Where is the link to the actual algorithm.

No need to purchase it. You can find the algorithm here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.3840...

Just read the original paper.

(Yes, I know it was one of the links in the OP, but...)

So chronologically ...

2012-06-?? Video filmed
2014-03-05 arXiv.org submission
2012-03-07 Video published on TED
2014-03-07 wired.com article
2014-03-08 pipedot.org story
2014-03-10 slashdot.org first story
2014-03-14 economist.com article
2014-03-15 slashdot.org second story

So, someone may have filmed the video a few years ago, but the video was only posted online recently. Afterwards the story made the rounds on various news sites over the next few weeks. Hardly that old of news...

Another indication that supports the ether: Yves Couder's work with silicone droplets.

Abstract of the Physical Review Letters paper:

A droplet bouncing on a vertically vibrated bath can become coupled to the surfacewave it generates.It
thus becomes a "walker" moving at constant velocity on the interface. Here the motion ofthese walkersis
investigated when they passthrough one or two slitslimiting the transverse extent of their wave. In both
cases a given single walker seems randomly scattered. However, diffraction or interference patterns are
recovered in the histogram of the deviations of many successive walkers. The similarities and differences
of these results with those obtained with single particles at the quantum scale are discussed.

Brady and Anderson further discuss the implications:

In 2005, Couder, Protiere, Fort and Badouad showed that oil droplets bouncing on a vibrating
tray of oil can display nonlocal interactions reminiscent of the particle-wave associations in
quantum mechanics; in particular they can move, attract, repel and orbit each other. Subsequent
experimental work by Couder, Fort, Protiere, Eddi, Sultan, Moukhtar, Rossi, Molacek,
Bush and Sbitnev has established that bouncing drops exhibit single-slit and double-slit diraction,
tunnelling, quantised energy levels, Anderson localisation and the creation/annihilation of
droplet/bubble pairs.
In this paper we explain why. We show rst that the surface waves guiding the droplets
are Lorentz covariant with the characteristic speed c of the surface waves; second, that pairs of
bouncing droplets experience an inverse-square force of attraction or repulsion according to their
relative phase, and an analogue of the magnetic force; third, that bouncing droplets are governed
by an analogue of Schrodinger's equation where Planck's constant is replaced by an appropriate
constant of the motion; and fourth, that orbiting droplet pairs exhibit spin-half symmetry and
align antisymmetrically as in the Pauli exclusion principle. Our analysis explains the similarities
between bouncing-droplet experiments and the behaviour of quantum-mechanical particles. It
also enables us to highlight some dierences, and to predict some surprising phenomena that
can be tested in feasible experiments.

The problem is, Couder's bouncing droplets require an ether, a substrate. But they are such a good model.

The summary is actually accurate! This was quite a surprise to me, since as many other posters have correctly commented here, these claims are absurd. The Universe is not inconvenienced by the difficulty of computing something about its properties.

Perhaps this paper should have been released two days ago.

Hmm... the Incomputatibility of the Universe, maybe this is an avenue for proving the the Universe is not a simulation?

Unlikely to be the cause of the vast majority of the claimed 'lost' coins, that is.

Bitcoin Transaction Malleability and MtGox
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6676

In Bitcoin, transaction malleability describes the fact that the signatures that prove the ownership of bitcoins being transferred in a transaction do not provide any integrity guarantee for the signatures themselves. This allows an attacker to mount a malleability attack in which it intercepts, modifies, and rebroadcasts a transaction, causing the transaction issuer to believe that the original transaction was not confirmed. In February 2014 MtGox, once the largest Bitcoin exchange, closed and filed for bankruptcy claiming that attackers used malleability attacks to drain its accounts. In this work we use traces of the Bitcoin network for over a year preceding the filing to show that, while the problem is real, there was no widespread use of malleability attacks before the closure of MtGox.

When the Borexino experiment was being built (under the Appenines in Italy), they calculated that if a nuclear sub parked for more than a couple weeks in the same spot in the Adriatic, they'd be able to see it using neutrinos.

Not sure if anyone's redone that calculation now that the experiment works, but the preliminary one attracted some interest from the defense side of things.

There is a reasonably well thought out set of specs for "if DoD wants to use neutrino detectors to monitor nuke activity in, say North Korea, what would they have to build". Done from the perspective of the particle physics guys saying "if we can get DoD to spend some of its semi-infinite pile of cash on some neutrino detectors we're interested in, how would we do it?". The answer turns out to be almost feasible, actually. Here's only the most recent paper I bumped across, there are many others.

Researchers don't "know" squat. They have lots of theories, none of which have supporting data. That's what makes the heat of the Earth's core a mystery. By all rights it should not be this hot. It should be dead cold like the moon.

How about "scientists have a pretty good idea". Here's a recent review article on geoneutrinos, which does compare direct neutrino observations and the overall heat budget.

Don't know everything, but the more tools you can turn on the problem, the more clear things become. Adds up to something a bit more than "squat".

I read the arxiv.org article, and it says there that they are buying optical lenses:

Ball Lenses. The ball lenses used in constructing Foldscopes included material types borosilicate, BK7
borosilicate, sapphire, ruby, and S-LAH79. The vendors included Swiss Jewel Co, Edmund Optics, and
Winsted Precision Ball. Part numbers for some select lenses include: 300 [micrometer] sapphire lens from Swiss
Jewel Co. (Model B0.30S), 200 [micrometer] sapphire lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.20S), 2.4mm
borosilicate lenses from Winsted Precision Ball (P/N 3200940F1ZZ00A0), 300 [micrometer] BK7 borosilicate lenses
from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-0.30S), and 1.0mm BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co.
(Model BK7-1.00). Note that half-ball lenses from both Edmund Optics and Swiss Jewel Co. were also
tested for use as condenser lenses for the LEDs.

Note: I had to replace their abbreviation for micrometers because Slashdot support for Unicode totally sucks. I put square brackets around my change.

These sound like they are totally worth the $0.17 they cost... better than just "reasonably spherical". If you want a usable microscope at 2000x, you will need precision lenses.

These are not pinhole cameras. Whoever said that was mistaken.

If you go to arxiv.org and download their paper, you can read about the actual lenses. Here's the most relevant paragraph:

Ball Lenses. The ball lenses used in constructing Foldscopes included material types borosilicate, BK7
borosilicate, sapphire, ruby, and S-LAH79. The vendors included Swiss Jewel Co, Edmund Optics, and
Winsted Precision Ball. Part numbers for some select lenses include: 300 [micrometer] sapphire lens from Swiss
Jewel Co. (Model B0.30S), 200 [micrometer] sapphire lenses from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model B0.20S), 2.4mm
borosilicate lenses from Winsted Precision Ball (P/N 3200940F1ZZ00A0), 300 [micrometer] BK7 borosilicate lenses
from Swiss Jewel Co. (Model BK7-0.30S), and 1.0mm BK7 borosilicate lenses from Swiss Jewel Co.
(Model BK7-1.00). Note that half-ball lenses from both Edmund Optics and Swiss Jewel Co. were also
tested for use as condenser lenses for the LEDs.

Note: I had to replace their abbreviation for micrometers because Slashdot support for Unicode totally sucks. I put square brackets around my change.

> 1300 times as massive.

No. Original paper says ~39 Msun. Radius is ~1300. A star massing 1300 Msun couldn't hold itself together, both in terms of gravitational and outward radiation pressure.
Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.2628...

If you're interested in the current state of the art, read this article from the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (April 2013). It describes the hardware and software used by the Pan-STARRS team to detect asteroids automatically in data taken with their 1.8-meter telescope on Hawaii and its 1.4-gigapixel CCD camera.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7281

Page 24 of their paper shows an even worse capacity vs temp curve that they arrived at experimentally. They determined that they'd have to provide battery heaters to maintain sufficient battery capacity for their needs.

The Higgs field would have put a smile on his face. It amazes me that his first wife never got any recognition. It is impossible to do what Einstein did alone. Wondering if Max Plank saw that.

She got the proceeds from his nobel prize as part of a divorce settlement. However, there is little evidence that she was instrumental in any real discoveries. Here is an overview: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.3551...

" In fact, I'm not quite sure whether the dark energy research that got the Nobel was strictly limited to type Ia supernovae..."

No, they were definitely intended to be SN1a.

Riess et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
"We present observations of 10 type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)..."

Perlmutter et al.: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-...
"...All SN peak magnitudes are standardized using a SN Ia lightcurve width-luminosity relation..."

The reason is that SN1a can be standardised -- although that's an empirical (i.e. phenomenological) relationship rather than a theoretical one, it seems to be basically robust, as this paper has demonstrated -- and therefore used as standard candles. Other types of supernovae can not be used in the same way; one cannot necessarily correlate a (corrected) brightness against a (corrected) redshift.

This doesn't say that samples aren't contaminated by supernovae that aren't actually Type 1a (and a few years back an explanation for tension between the so-called "Gold sample" and other datasets was that it may have been more contaminated), but the intention is to only look at Type 1as.

I'd also argue that they weren't particularly high redshift, but then for me a redshift of 3 or 4 is very much low redshift. Come to that, redshifts of 300 are low redshift.

" In fact, I'm not quite sure whether the dark energy research that got the Nobel was strictly limited to type Ia supernovae..."

No, they were definitely intended to be SN1a.

Riess et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...
"We present observations of 10 type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia)..."

Perlmutter et al.: http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-...
"...All SN peak magnitudes are standardized using a SN Ia lightcurve width-luminosity relation..."

The reason is that SN1a can be standardised -- although that's an empirical (i.e. phenomenological) relationship rather than a theoretical one, it seems to be basically robust, as this paper has demonstrated -- and therefore used as standard candles. Other types of supernovae can not be used in the same way; one cannot necessarily correlate a (corrected) brightness against a (corrected) redshift.

This doesn't say that samples aren't contaminated by supernovae that aren't actually Type 1a (and a few years back an explanation for tension between the so-called "Gold sample" and other datasets was that it may have been more contaminated), but the intention is to only look at Type 1as.

I'd also argue that they weren't particularly high redshift, but then for me a redshift of 3 or 4 is very much low redshift. Come to that, redshifts of 300 are low redshift.

If you believe Figure 5 in this paper, I have a bitcoin exchange I would like to sell you.

The paper says they are using a computer from Gumstix.
The "minicomputer" confusion is from the paper calling them "miniature on-board computers".

Nonsequitor much?
Self-immolation isn't a riot either, in any sense. It is, however, a form of protest.

TFA refers to food riots, in particular. If you flip off the driver for cutting into your lane, your protestations don't fall under the subject of the model.

Well that's something. I was hoping you were going to reference this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

Hansen makes a good attempt at it in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

Give that to his credit, he wasn't afraid to make clear predictions. So that's the kind of thing you're looking for when defining a cliff. Unfortunately the paper itself isn't particularly strong.......

You're right, looks like most video services use a form of TCP with different strategies for chunking and ack'ing. Not sure why I thought video streaming was done using UDP. [pdf source]

Thanks for the correction.

A lepton machine accelerates leptons, meaning electrons, muons, or taus (and technically speaking, I guess a neutrino-accelerator would also be a lepton machine...). A machine being a lepton machine doesn't say much about for what purpose someone built it.

Other than that, one doesn't accelerate "tons" of atoms in particle accelerators - try nanograms. Also, good luck trying to point such a high energy particle beam in any reasonable radius - they're pretty stiff. But they're probably not stiff enough not to be redirected by the earths magnetic field and miss the target.

The pointing problem may have a sort of (but very unrealistic I think) solution, have a look at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/03...
appendix B "Possible accelerator scheme"

Sorry, without the typo

Yes, I have now read the article, and they were indeed talking about small primordial black holes. The trouble with that is

- there is no evidence that any black hole with a mass less than 2 solar masses exists.
- there is no mechanism to form small black holes except primordially
- there is good evidence that smaller primordial black holes do not exist

I stand by my statement. There is no harm in pointing out the theoretical possibility, but in reality this is not going to be found buried in some the data for some astronomical explosion.

Other than the fact that paper's like this would have been peer reviewed, I am not aware of any review of their architecture. But this paper is certainly key, because it all comes down to the spin coupling in order to decide if true quantum annealing happens on the chip.

Or rather; there are no objects that have exactly the properties, of what we have been calling black holes.

Remember the article in Nature? : according to Hawking's paper : Notion of an 'event horizon', from which nothing can escape, is incompatible with quantum theory, physicist claims.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”. A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that is a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.” ...

You sure know how to make a fool of yourself. Why do you have to go talking about what you don't know/understand?

Begin here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
Then here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.1148
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca...
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/...