Slashdot Mirror

Ummm ... have nuetrinos actually been detected yet?

I seem to remember a LOT of attempts in a number of deep dark places around the planet, but can't remember any instance where anybody maintained that they'd actually detected a puppy.

Yes they have. Were you thinking of dark matter? If so, the latest results show nothing. A review paper from this summer discussing the hunt can be found here.

Error. The original paper [arxiv.org] on the very first page of the introduction, says atmospheric CO2 drawdown will reduce CO2 concentration in the oceans, not increase absorption. The latter doesn't make sense anyway, because the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up. [Jane Q. Public]

Presumably you're referring to these sentences:

"Rising temperatures cause silicate weathering rates to increase, increasing CO2 draw-down, lowering CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This results in conditions that are increasingly unsuited to (higher) plant life (Lovelock & Whitfield 1982; Caldeira & Kasting 1992). During the CO2 decline, rapid ocean evaporation would not yet have begun. From Henry's Law, a reduction in atmospheric CO2 would lead to a reduction in the CO2 levels in the surface ocean, while increased silicate weathering could potentially lead to increased carbonate deposition."

There's no error here. As the Earth warms, more ice melts which exposes more silicate rocks. As the temperature increases, these rocks react faster with CO2. This sequesters carbon in the rocks, decreasing the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2, which decreases CO2 in the ocean via Henry's Law, as the text mentions.

Lgw correctly pointed out that on geological timescales, rock weathering is Earth's thermostat:

Warm the Earth and rock weathering speeds up, reducing atmospheric CO2 which slows the warming. (Of course, the end-Permian shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)

Cool the Earth and rock weathering slows down, eventually stopping when Earth turns into a snowball where all rocks are covered by ice. Eventually, enough CO2 builds up to thaw the snowball. (Of course, Snowball Earth shows that this feedback takes millions of years to kick in.)

The original paper on the very first page of the introduction, says atmospheric CO2 drawdown will reduce CO2 concentration in the oceans, not increase absorption. The latter doesn't make sense anyway, because the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up.

I can't speak of the article because it's paywalled

How do people not know about arXiv?

As usual, the devil's in the details. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf

A momentary web search for the title immediately returns the free preprint version: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6738v1.pdf

Scott Aaronson (of quantum computing fame) wrote a great paper on the implications of computational complexity theory for for philosophy, and he addresses a related issue, about "why should science work at all", specifically Occam's Razor.

He relates it to Valiant's PAC-learning model, which says that the more complexity your model allows (higher VC dimension), the lower the probability that any theory you match to the observe data will correctly generalize, hence why less complex theories tend to be more correct when going outside the sample data.

> Can anyone find a free copy that we can examine?

Archive link

in the paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6738

...that maybe they're not seeing it because it's just not there?

Just a suggestion.

Although dark matter is a leading explanation for the universe we see, there are others. Modified theories of gravity are a contender. One of them that I find interesting is MoND and its TeVeS offshoot. There aren't a lot of people working on it, so when a perceived roadblock appears it sometimes takes time to work around it.

Tensor-vector-scalar-modified gravity: from small scale to cosmology

Physics is not immune to parasitic and mercenary research phenomena either, especially in more exotic areas with great funding potential, such as quantum computing & crypto where exaggerations and self-puffery are common. One might say the whole field is of that kind, since their whole theorizing (which is all they got) rests on the speculative aspects of quantum measurement theory, the foundations of which are still awaiting unambiguous experimental demonstration (such as the "loophoole free" violations of Bell inequalities), for over half century already. Should the experimental failure to confirm the fundamental conjectures persist, the whole field will be recognized as fancily relabeled analog computing (such as D-Wave system).

I'm going to assume some things that are pretty well accepted by the physics community. Of course, one can always find people with opposing viewpoints.

I attended a talk on the firewall issue by Leonard Susskind last week, and he started with some interesting comments on the whole "what do theoretical physicists do?" question.

He gave four cases:

• "Discovery" where someone makes an observation and then the theorists have to figure it out. There are plenty of these. Atomic spectra comes to mind.
• The theorists come up with something, tell the experimentalists about it, and they go off and their observations either do or don't support the theory. A lot of this happens in particle physics.
• A set of theories suggest an underlying common theory, and the theorist seeks a resolution using mathematical elegance as a guide. Susskind's example was Dirac putting together special relativity and quantum mechanics to come up with the relativistic wave equation. He wasn't even specifically talking about electrons, but when applied to electrons, antimatter popped out.
• A set of theories present a glaring conceptual conflict, and concerned theorists seek to resolve the situation. Susskind's example of this was Boltzmann taking on the conflict between Newtonian mechanics with its time-reversibility, and thermodynamics, which is irreversible.

The conflict with firewalls is that quantum entanglement (which has held up very well so far) shouldn't cause the equivalence principal to be violated (this, too, has done very well experimentally). The equivalence principal states that an accelerated observer, absent other information, can't tell if their in a rocket or standing on a surface in a gravitational field. Implied by this is the "no drama" notion that says that nothing interesting should happen when one falls through an event horizon, which itself is a smooth bit of space-time. (I'm assuming here, for the sake of a macroscopic observer, that it's a big enough black hole that tides don't come into play until well towards the central singularity and that the surroundings aren't full of super heated, radiating matter.) The firewall hypothesis arises as a possible solution to what happens (very) late in the evolution of a black hole when most of the matter still inside the horizon is entangled with matter that's been emitted as Hawking radiation. The equivalence principal says that a firewall, being very dramatic, shouldn't happen. This firewall isn't the same as the very, very late stage of a black hole when the Hawking radiation is so intense that nothing is likely to get past and make its way into the hole. Maldacena and Susskind seek to resolve this and have come up with the notion that EPR bridges (entanglement) and wormholes (general relativity) are the same thing. (Now before everyone gets going about wormholes, these aren't expected to be anything more than a sort of identity mapping between entangled particles.) I don't claim to follow everything about how the initial entanglement described in the paper actually comes about, but the overall argument has a feeling of making sense, and a room full of gray haired physicists didn't tear it down. Susskind also pointed out that if black hole horizons become messy, so do other kinds of horizon such as cosmological ones, adding further inelegant complications for the theorists.

The

Fortunately, in physics, nearly everyone posts a manuscript version on arxiv.org (i.e. the same article but with the authors' own formatting, rather than the journal's layout). And indeed that is the case here.

Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.

And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked at this and come to alternate conclusions.

I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.

* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.

Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.

And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked at this and come to alternate conclusions.

I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.

* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.

Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.

And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked at this and come to alternate conclusions.

I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons directly we will find that some crucial fact was missed which invalidates all of this theoretical work, but I could just be in a grumpy mood.

* There is plenty of evidence that there are very dense collections of matter in the centers of galaxies and other locations in the universe, dense enough that at least some of them have to be black holes in general relativity, but that is not proof that the black holes predicted by General Relativity actually do exist, even though it is very reasonable and convenient to label these objects "black holes" for most purposes, . (The issue is that other theories of gravity have different types of black holes, or none at all, and G.R. cannot be regarded as experimentally proven in this regime.) Only recently has there been any direct evidence for an event horizon, one of the key predictions for a general relativistic type black hole, and we are still waiting on the detection of gravitational radiation from a newly formed black hole, which is what it will take for this issue to really be nailed down.

Black hole firewalls don't really exist.

Here's a summary:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6334

and the long paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6335

Resolving the issue.

In short, the black hole paradox doesn't exist and can be explained.

Motl has a really nice summary as well:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/raju-papadodimas-isolate-reasons-why.html

Black hole firewalls don't really exist.

Here's a summary:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6334

and the long paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6335

Resolving the issue.

In short, the black hole paradox doesn't exist and can be explained.

Motl has a really nice summary as well:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/raju-papadodimas-isolate-reasons-why.html

From the arxiv: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.4706.pdf

Guess it's all a matter of the equipment used and various other parameters; better known as wait for a second opinion.

The emergent gravity (Induced gravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity) captured my attention, and I came across this reference
The bottom line being:
"The effect can be viewed as sampling noise due to the limited degrees of freedom of such a theory, consistent with covariant bounds on entropy."
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4153

If I read the article correctly, this would allow supercap batteries to be placed on the chip die. This doesn't sound like much, but it would be useful in keeping DRAM refreshed if there is a power outage for a brief bit, or enough juice to dump the DRAM to permanent storage (a small SSD.) If the processor state can be saved as well, this would allow a computer to start right back up almost exactly where it was before.

Of course, this wouldn't be enough power to keep a modern day CPU like a POWER7 running at full tilt for any significant length of time, but it might be enough to get the machine's components to save its state and shut down cleanly.

Then, there are the obvious uses for supercap batteries. A buffer for solar cells that can charge the regular batteries at exactly the power they need is one example, especially if combined with a MPPT controller. If the supercap cells are good enough with energy density, they could even be the primary batteries, although there was a patent application with working prototypes I read mentioned a bit ago [1] about high temperature batteries with a large energy density, and these would be a great candidate as primaries, while the supercaps would be additional storage, a buffer for optimal charging, and giving the ability to continue charging for a little bit of time once the solar panels stop receiving usable light.

[1]: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1305.pdf

The paper doesn't suggest you could fit these on the same slab as an IC; I'm not sure we'd want to either -- there are times when it's useful to be able to pull the plug; letting chips have control over their own power sounds like the beginning of the singularity.

If I read the article correctly, this would allow supercap batteries to be placed on the chip die. This doesn't sound like much, but it would be useful in keeping DRAM refreshed if there is a power outage for a brief bit, or enough juice to dump the DRAM to permanent storage (a small SSD.) If the processor state can be saved as well, this would allow a computer to start right back up almost exactly where it was before.

Of course, this wouldn't be enough power to keep a modern day CPU like a POWER7 running at full tilt for any significant length of time, but it might be enough to get the machine's components to save its state and shut down cleanly.

Then, there are the obvious uses for supercap batteries. A buffer for solar cells that can charge the regular batteries at exactly the power they need is one example, especially if combined with a MPPT controller. If the supercap cells are good enough with energy density, they could even be the primary batteries, although there was a patent application with working prototypes I read mentioned a bit ago [1] about high temperature batteries with a large energy density, and these would be a great candidate as primaries, while the supercaps would be additional storage, a buffer for optimal charging, and giving the ability to continue charging for a little bit of time once the solar panels stop receiving usable light.

[1]: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1305.pdf

"Even the compiler can be compromised. Ken Thompson showed that."

Well, double compiling techniques can be used to certify a compiler. (Though it actually assume that you have access to an other safe compiler, which is a little bit complicated, but doable)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.5534

Your musings are explicitly addressed in the paper. As usual, the journalist reporting on the research, and worse, the slashdot summary, manage to completely misrepresent and sensationalize. Go to primary sources: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225

"someone" in this case refers to a respected physicist and quantum information theorist who at least deserves that you at least bother to criticize what's in the actual paper rather than a lousy slashdot summary, rather than putting up a strawman completely unrelated to anything the author actually claims. http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225

As usual, everything is about context. I suggest you refer to the primary reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

The only thing sloppy here is the slashdot summary and poor journalistic reporting. This is not what the original paper reasons at all. A usual, go to the primary reference: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

No, he doesn't assume that. This is what you get for reading a slashdot summary rather than the original paper, which contains sentences such as

The indeterminate nature of a decision to the decider persists even if a neuroscientist monitoring her neural signals accurately predicts that decision before the decider herself knows what it will be.
Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

Nope. The author actually cites Dennett's book and the argument made is completely different. Instead of reading third-hand reporting written by a journalist, try the original paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

That's what happens when the slashdot summary is based on a third-hand reporting of the original paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

Oh come on, this is already answered in TFP:

It is important to note that satisifying the criteria for ass igning oneself free will does not imply that one possesses consciousness. Having the capacity for self-reference is a far cry from full self-consciousness."

Source: the horse's mouth http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3225v1.pdf

Ahem ... the central claim that their chip is a true quantum chip leveraging qubit entanglement has been demonstrated i.e. this paper.

Matthias Troyer, one of the co-authors, expressed in an email to me, that he was surprised to see this evidence, but that the chip seems indeed to perform some sort of quantum annealing.

They put the paper on arXiv before publication, so I guess exclusive is not as restrictive as it may sound.

You're thinking of Solar PV. Solar thermal can use molten salt for storage and provide power for hours after dark ( e.g. Crescent Dunes near Tonopah ) or even around-the-clock ( Gemasolar, Seville )

As for energy-dense batteries, there's hope. I have a pending submission to Slashdot about molten-air batteries from George Washtingon U, demo'ed with anodes of either iron, carbon or vanadium boride where the energy density by weight is about 10-70% that of gasoline.
Lots more work to be done, I'm sure, battery-cycling and all that but this is a big step forward.
There's also made towards lithium-air and sodium-air.
I expect we'll reach peak oil or even peak coal long before peak oxygen.

Phys.org story: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-molten-air-battery-storage-capacity-highest.html
Arxiv.org paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1307/1307.1305.pdf"

Political correctness has no place in science, and neither does 'dumbing down'.

Neither does rampant misogyny.

It's interesting that you point all the fault of the paper at one "brainless female," when the paper had 11 authors, 7 of which were male, including her post-doctoral adviser, Dr. Ronald Oremland, who is a noted expert on the metabolization of toxic elements. Dr. Wolfe-Simon was the lead author on the paper, but it could not (or at least should not) have gone forward with those 10 other names without each of them approving. And if any of them were so much smarter and better than someone "only employed for reasons of political correctness, then why did all of them sign onto the "rebuttal" paper in response to criticisms of the original paper? Why does only she get the blame for this and none of them, and where do you get the notion that all of these people worked under her (much less were forced to do so for political reasons)?

One would also suspect, given her list of published papers on biochemistry, that she knows a wee bit more about chemistry than some AC blowhard on Slashdot, despite having been very wrong about GFAJ-1. The ability of arsenic to substitute imperfectly for phosphorus is in fact the very reason it's toxic. It's not impossible that there would be some biological use for arsenic, though it seems highly unlikely given the relative abundance of the two elements and the havoc that arsenic causes because of its similarity. The follow-up research in the wake of this is proving fascinating. At the very least, she's kicked off a whole new interest in arsenic biochemistry.

So, while you pat yourself on the back on your true "scientific understanding," it's clear that you haven't done ANY real research on this subject matter and are just relying on snap judgments -- not surprising considering the sheer hatred you seem to be able to call up for an entire gender. Speaking of which...

It turns out that the liquid state of carbon is mostly an unknown due to the temperatures and pressures required, but there's been a recent consensus that it acts very differently at "low" and high pressures. Computer simulations and experiments have suggested that under high pressures, carbon orders itself into an irregular but still recognizably diamond-like structure with four neighbors for each atom. In fact, high pressures make the formation of solid diamond when the liquid cools more likely as a result. At low pressures, it's more like graphene or strings of carbon, with bonding to neighbors in 2's & 3's instead of 4's. At even higher pressures it develops into a metallic structure. So the term "liquid diamond" actually has significant meaning and isn't just media buzzwords.

Try this one http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 Point made about interpretations being equally wrong, but to borrow the phrasing of Animal Farm, some are more equally wrong than others...

Try this one http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 Point made about interpretations being equally wrong, but to borrow the phrasing of Animal Farm, some are more equally wrong than others...

Here's another good interpretation that avoids mixing up consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Here's another good interpretation that avoids mixing up consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Many worlds is just one way to resolve the problem. There are others one that do effectively, without resorting to consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Many worlds is just one way to resolve the problem. There are others one that do effectively, without resorting to consciousness: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

I guess everyone has their pet interpretation. But there are some especially good ones, even if most people are particularly familiar with Copenhagen and many worlds. Here's one and a few other people fancy: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 and associated back-and-forth between the author and critics (also available on arXiv).

I guess everyone has their pet interpretation. But there are some especially good ones, even if most people are particularly familiar with Copenhagen and many worlds. Here's one and a few other people fancy: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 and associated back-and-forth between the author and critics (also available on arXiv).

As usual with physics articles, a non-paywalled version can be found at the arXiv. The intorduction is quite readable.

This is an interesting result, but this is very far away from realistic power generation. They do not mention the efficiency (or I missed it), and I think this isn't at the stage where one even cares much about it.

As usual with physics articles, a non-paywalled version can be found at the arXiv. The intorduction is quite readable.

This is an interesting result, but this is very far away from realistic power generation. They do not mention the efficiency (or I missed it), and I think this isn't at the stage where one even cares much about it.

It's kind of retrograde, limited, and descriptively inadequate to insist on defining men and women first by gender. An alternative would be to cluster people by using a common vocabulary. You'll still get lots of gender stuff coming out but you can reflect the fact that there are lots of different ways to "do" gender. This is something we all know--there's not just one type of guy, nor one type of woman and gender--while often relevant--isn't always.

Here's a paper on the matter. "Computational sociolinguistics": http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.4567

The abstract:
We present a study of the relationship between gender, linguistic style, and social networks, using a novel corpus of 14,000 users of Twitter. Prior quantitative work on gender often treats this social variable as a binary; we argue for a more nuanced approach. By clustering Twitter feeds, we find a range of styles and interests that reflects the multifaceted interaction between gender and language. Some styles mirror the aggregated language-gender statistics, while others contradict them. Next, we investigate individuals whose language better matches the other gender. We find that such individuals have social networks that include significantly more individuals from the other gender, and that in general, social network homophily is correlated with the use of same-gender language markers. Pairing computational methods and social theory thus offers a new perspective on how gender emerges as individuals position themselves relative to audiences, topics, and mainstream gender norms.

Good thing there's a workaround to that as well.

I think your summary is right. Skimming the article
http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.0005
I get the same impression. In the paper they say that you have to be careful to design your tests to catch all the errors that would affect the answer. The summary doesn't say it, but one significant aspect of the work is that it is the first experimental demonstration of verification of a quantum computation.

Actually a neutrino beam could make the trip faster than photons can in practice. One, because neutrinos could travel through the crust of the earth and thus avoid having to go around the curvature. Two, they would be traveling much closer to the speed of light than the photon-based signal, because that signal will be slowed by the index of refraction of the medium in which it travels, be it fiber optic cable or air (for radio waves).

Here's a link to an actual demonstration of an ASCII message sent via neutrino over 1035 meters