Slashdot Mirror

As a follow up, I'll note that I work in one of the arXiv-heavy fields (astronomy), and I never read any of the journals - nor does anybody I know. Instead we check for new articles ono the arXiv in the morning, where they appear the day after they were uploaded by the authors. There are usually 10-50 such papers per day in my field, depending on how narrow I want to be, and looking for interesting papers based on their titles and abstracts only takes a few minutes per day.

The immediacy this implies is a huge advantage which greatly speeds up the rate at which science is done. For example, a while ago a controversial paper was published on the arXiv claiming evidence for an exotic theory, and after 3 weeks 3 independent teams had attempted to reproduce their results and found no evidence for the claim. This turnaround is completely unprecedented in fields which rely on traditional journals, where one must expect to wait 6 months or so for the paper to be published.

While we don't read journals in my field, we still submit our papers to them, and do our best to have them published, because the journals still provide one important service: They coordinate the process of peer review. Sure, the peers are just other researchers like us, who do not get paid for their reviews, just like the journals do not pay us for our articles (in fact we have to pay quite a lot in page charges when our papers are published), but as it is, journals are the only way peer review is organized. Or put another way, peer review is the thin string in which the life of the traditional journals hangs.

The ideal solution for us in arXiv-dominated fields would be dedicated peer review services which would take over the role of coordinating peer review, but do so for free (after all, that coordination is less work than the free peer review itself), and which would digitally sign papers that have passed review. ArXiv could then display an icon on the pages of these papers, indicating which peer review service has signed the paper.

If this were put into place, and managed to get over the initial hurdle of building up a good reputation, then the traditional journals could be banished completely from our field.

As a follow up, I'll note that I work in one of the arXiv-heavy fields (astronomy), and I never read any of the journals - nor does anybody I know. Instead we check for new articles ono the arXiv in the morning, where they appear the day after they were uploaded by the authors. There are usually 10-50 such papers per day in my field, depending on how narrow I want to be, and looking for interesting papers based on their titles and abstracts only takes a few minutes per day.

The immediacy this implies is a huge advantage which greatly speeds up the rate at which science is done. For example, a while ago a controversial paper was published on the arXiv claiming evidence for an exotic theory, and after 3 weeks 3 independent teams had attempted to reproduce their results and found no evidence for the claim. This turnaround is completely unprecedented in fields which rely on traditional journals, where one must expect to wait 6 months or so for the paper to be published.

While we don't read journals in my field, we still submit our papers to them, and do our best to have them published, because the journals still provide one important service: They coordinate the process of peer review. Sure, the peers are just other researchers like us, who do not get paid for their reviews, just like the journals do not pay us for our articles (in fact we have to pay quite a lot in page charges when our papers are published), but as it is, journals are the only way peer review is organized. Or put another way, peer review is the thin string in which the life of the traditional journals hangs.

The ideal solution for us in arXiv-dominated fields would be dedicated peer review services which would take over the role of coordinating peer review, but do so for free (after all, that coordination is less work than the free peer review itself), and which would digitally sign papers that have passed review. ArXiv could then display an icon on the pages of these papers, indicating which peer review service has signed the paper.

If this were put into place, and managed to get over the initial hurdle of building up a good reputation, then the traditional journals could be banished completely from our field.

As a follow up, I'll note that I work in one of the arXiv-heavy fields (astronomy), and I never read any of the journals - nor does anybody I know. Instead we check for new articles ono the arXiv in the morning, where they appear the day after they were uploaded by the authors. There are usually 10-50 such papers per day in my field, depending on how narrow I want to be, and looking for interesting papers based on their titles and abstracts only takes a few minutes per day.

The immediacy this implies is a huge advantage which greatly speeds up the rate at which science is done. For example, a while ago a controversial paper was published on the arXiv claiming evidence for an exotic theory, and after 3 weeks 3 independent teams had attempted to reproduce their results and found no evidence for the claim. This turnaround is completely unprecedented in fields which rely on traditional journals, where one must expect to wait 6 months or so for the paper to be published.

While we don't read journals in my field, we still submit our papers to them, and do our best to have them published, because the journals still provide one important service: They coordinate the process of peer review. Sure, the peers are just other researchers like us, who do not get paid for their reviews, just like the journals do not pay us for our articles (in fact we have to pay quite a lot in page charges when our papers are published), but as it is, journals are the only way peer review is organized. Or put another way, peer review is the thin string in which the life of the traditional journals hangs.

The ideal solution for us in arXiv-dominated fields would be dedicated peer review services which would take over the role of coordinating peer review, but do so for free (after all, that coordination is less work than the free peer review itself), and which would digitally sign papers that have passed review. ArXiv could then display an icon on the pages of these papers, indicating which peer review service has signed the paper.

If this were put into place, and managed to get over the initial hurdle of building up a good reputation, then the traditional journals could be banished completely from our field.

It would be interesting to see if there is a difference in citation rank between paywalled papers on arxiv, and those that are not.

Ask and ye shall receive.

A quote from the abstract:

The analysis of citation data demonstrates that free and immediate online dissemination of preprints creates an immense citation advantage in HEP, whereas publication in Open Access journals presents no discernible advantage. In addition, the analysis of clickstreams in the leading digital library of the field shows that HEP scientists seldom read journals, preferring preprints instead.

I recommend looking at the figures in the paper too. And also reading it, it is not very techincal, and is easy to read.

Maxout networks are very, very new. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4389.
You could also poke around http://metaoptimize.com./

Those groups generally are getting their numbers from this paper by Hansen et al.

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

This Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) was stronger than a typical GRB, and a typical GRB is much stronger than a typical supernova, at least in the beam. This paper considers the effects of a GRB at 2 kpc, or 6000 light years, or over 100 times further away than the 50 ly supernova limit. I don't know any details of the new GRB, but if it was as bright as they are implying, it could have been dangerous from the galactic center or beyond.

There is one asterisk here - a supernova will be dangerous for some time (possibly months), while a GRB lasts seconds. A GRB, even if it totally roasts one hemisphere of a planet, would miss the other side, while a SN could get both sides. There might be second order effects from the GRB (such as some sort of nuclear winter) that could cause havoc, but a single GRB just might not be able to totally sterilize a planet from 20,000 light years away. (The 50 ly supernova limit is not that firm, either). We don't know for sure in either case, and I for one would not like to find out.

The brightest Gamma ray bursts (GRB) are important for quantum gravity, as the photons have a short enough wavelength and go over long enough distances that spacetime foam should give them dispersion. The best test so far is based mostly on GRB 080916C, and from what I hear this new burst may be able to do better.

A little background.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle predicts "virtual" particles. The time part of the uncertainty principle is delta T delta E > h, where E is energy, T is time and h is Planck's constant (I am ignoring factors of 2 pi). As the time of an event (say, the time for a photon to travel one wavelength) gets shorter, the energy of the virtual particles allowed (delta E) gets bigger. For short enough time periods (i.e., near the Planck time), the energy is enough that the virtual particles are black holes, popping in and out of existence, and severely mangling the spacetime on that time / distance scale. This mangling is called "spacetime foam". The wavelength of the GRB photons is much larger than the Planck distance (roughly, the virtual black holes should live for a Planck time and have an event horizon the size of the Planck distance), but the GRBs are very far away, and the GRB photons pass over many, many, Planck distances along the way, and each adds a little nudge. This effect depends on the photon energy (it is larger for higher energies, as these are smaller photons), thus the "dispersion" mentioned in these papers.

The really cool thing is that the existing dispersion limits seem to be less than many people's expectations. If this is confirmed (and pushed down to a little smaller distance scale), then the conventional spacetime foam ideas I outlined above here may not be correct. This, in fact, may be the first evidence for the "holographic principle," which implies a smoother spacetime than the above ideas. In any case, this is the only way we have at present to say anything experimental about quantum gravity, so the more data the better.

The actual article is much better than the one linked in the story. A version very close to the one published in Science can be found here, at the public preprint archive (arXiv). The article should be relatively easy to read even for non-scientists. Note that our knowledge of the distribution of planets is marred by the biased sample we have access to: It is much easier to observe planets if they are close to their parent star, and heavy. Most of the statistics provided in the article attempts to correct for this bias, so we can say pretty confidently that small planets are much more common than large ones*. But the other claim in the summary, that most planetary systems are much more compact than the solar system, doesn't seem to be supported in the article itself. But perhaps I missed something.

Anyway, the Science article is readable, and if nothing else the figures are quite interesting.

If antimatter is gravitationally repulsed by matter, then it could help explain dark matter. Instead of requiring a huge expansion of the Standard Model, it may simply be that the vacuum is gravitationally polarized.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0847.pdf

(I'm a big fan of Hajdukovic. Whether he's right or wrong, he asks fascination questions).

Say WHAT? There isn't even consensus that these cosmic neutrinos are either neutrinos or cosmic, much less where they come from. Extra-galactic is reasonable, but I would put it more in the 20-30% range, not 99%.

From the ABSTRACT of the actual paper:

Though the two events could be a first indication of an astrophysical neutrino flux, the moderate significance and the uncertainties on the expected atmospheric background from neutrinos produced in the decay of charmed mesons do not allow for a firm conclusion at this point.

For physics, mathematics, and computer science there's the Arxiv.

Humph. Don't insult people you don't know. I am a Fellow of the IEEE, and have been an IEEE member for more than thirty years. (In fact, I was a member of the ACM for more than ten years.) I probably have downloaded a thousand articles from IEEExplore since it was created (my books are very well referenced, I like to think), and there's nothing I like better than using the web to research obscure technical topics on a rainy Sunday afternoon.

Of course the technology to collate information into an easy-to-read list already exists. That's not the point. The issue is determining which information is collated. By telling the software tool what information you want to see, you are inherently determining what information you will not see. This limits what you can learn. How can you be exposed to new areas of interest if your RSS feeds only present you with news from fields in which you already have an interest?

Searching for something on IEEExplore is qualitatively different from getting an issue of JSSC in the mail. The purpose of the search engine is to exclude everything except what I have requested. The paper copy of JSSC, on the other hand, has its Table of Contents on the cover, and it's harder to find a wider distribution of circuit technologies listed in one spot anywhere else. Suddenly, I find myself reading an article on ferroelectric RAM, or distributed amplification, or biasing of Indium Phosphide mixers -- things I never would have realized that I would find interesting. The effect is even stronger when reading the journals Science and Nature.

When I am on the Web, I prefer to peruse sites with a wide variety of subject matter -- arXiv is fun to browse, as is Eurekalert!, although the latter has a pretty high PR content. The "Random article" link on Wikipedia is also a good source of things one doesn't know. But to stay up-to-date, it's far easier to pick up the latest paper copy of Science News on the coffee table.

... the most idiotic paper I have read all year. It's a silly collection of straw-man arguments, with no actual science in it at all.

What they claim is "universally accepted" (actually, they claim it is almost "universally accepted", quotes theirs), isn't. Which is why they have to use the silly quotation marks.

Plateau-like models are not the only ones consistent with Planck. See: the Planck paper on inflationary constraints

Inflation has always had a problem with initial conditions. Guess what? It's still there.

"A challenge for the inflationary paradigm in light of the Planck2013 data is to explain why no significant multiverse effects have been observed" Wuh? Maybe, um, because there might not be a multiverse at all?

I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to be talking without having read TFP, which I did. It is here. (Incidentally, this paper just repeats the arguments first published here, but with a better experimental setup.)

I'm saying this because, as the paper says explicitly, the number 10,000 c has nothing to do with resolution of the clocks, but with their choice of preferred reference frame.

And the experiment I had in mind was quantum teleportation, where it is a little bit less insane talking about the "speed of quantum information".

So what you do is to send a quantum state from Alice to Bob. If you do the calculations, they show that quantum teleportation instantly transfers the state from Alice to Bob. But Bob is only capable of acessing the state after A also sends him some auxiliary classical information (two bits, to be precise). That's why I said that the only scientific thing that you can claim is that the information propagates at lightspeed, because before receiving also the classical information no measurement that Bob can do can say whether he received the state or not.

About the subjectivity, I know this is weird, but there dosn't seem to be any way around it. The state that the calculations show changing instantaneously is Alice's knowledge of the spin, which in fact does change as soon as she makes the measurement. But it makes no sense to say that this is also Bob's knowledge about the state of the particle, since he has no idea about what's going on.

I don't mean to insult you, but you seem to be talking without having read TFP, which I did. It is here. (Incidentally, this paper just repeats the arguments first published here, but with a better experimental setup.)

I'm saying this because, as the paper says explicitly, the number 10,000 c has nothing to do with resolution of the clocks, but with their choice of preferred reference frame.

And the experiment I had in mind was quantum teleportation, where it is a little bit less insane talking about the "speed of quantum information".

So what you do is to send a quantum state from Alice to Bob. If you do the calculations, they show that quantum teleportation instantly transfers the state from Alice to Bob. But Bob is only capable of acessing the state after A also sends him some auxiliary classical information (two bits, to be precise). That's why I said that the only scientific thing that you can claim is that the information propagates at lightspeed, because before receiving also the classical information no measurement that Bob can do can say whether he received the state or not.

About the subjectivity, I know this is weird, but there dosn't seem to be any way around it. The state that the calculations show changing instantaneously is Alice's knowledge of the spin, which in fact does change as soon as she makes the measurement. But it makes no sense to say that this is also Bob's knowledge about the state of the particle, since he has no idea about what's going on.

Even in the classic universe groups of 'things' can have properties that can change at FTL speeds but they like "spooky action at a distance" effects with entangled photons can't transmit information FTL.

For example in Maxwell equations
Induced polarization current P has no constraints about speed.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0405062v1.pdf
http://www.iasf-roma.inaf.it/congress/public_html/Congress/Ardavan%20Rome.pdf

Assuming you're not trolling, that's a nice story, but that's not how science works.

The trouble is that "what we know about black holes" is all theoretical and mathematical.

Usually, the first step in science is to observe something. In the case of black holes, our knowledge of their existence can be traced back to a few experiments, which provided pretty solid evidence against the prevailing theories of aether. The observation that doesn't match the expectation means that the theories aren't right, and must be changed.

In fact, many of today's experiments are simply re-running old trials, but with more precise technology. Rather than dropping rocks off a tower, we can measure how fast individual atoms fall, giving us a more exact understanding of gravity. Usually the results are a perfect match for what's expected, but sometimes they aren't.

Black holes were invented to explain present-day theories about the motion of stars and galaxies.

Next comes the theory. Starting from the results of those experiments, Einstein hypothesized his theories of relativity, which are really little more than a collection of relationships derived from the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. His theories explained the results of previous experiments, and importantly, provided a set of formulas that can be used to make predictions for future experiments.

Mathematics are very useful in describing measured experiments and observations in the physical universe. As soon as mathematics and computer simulations go beyond what is actually observed and measured, it no longer describes the real world were living in.

The relationships in the physical world are described with mathematics. Sometimes, when math is insufficient to easily describe a particular relationship, new mathematical forms are invented to accommodate the real world. Ultimately, though, every physicist knows that the mathematical models do not prescribe reality, but describe our understanding of it. Again, we use those models to predict the outcome of future experiments.

At the center of these hypothetical, theoretical black holes is this mathematical entity that has been called a "singularity". This is another mathematical fiction that can't exist in the known universe.

That depends on the rules of the known universe. in 1915, Karl Schwarzchild transformed Einstein's theories of relativity into a form that would require black holes. This means that Einstein's formulas can only be correct if the universe allows black holes. If the universe does not allow black holes, then Einsteins formulas must be wrong - though less wrong than the aether theory they replaced.

Perhaps it is time to examine some of these widely held theories that require these mathematical fictions.

That's what experiments are for.

No one has ever directly observed a black hole and thereby shown that these things even exist in the real world.

Black holes have been observed many times.

In 1929 an astronomer named Edwin Hubble discovered that "red shift" of distant galaxies. Then he made the assumption (belief, faith) about the cau

I've often wondered if people of the modern age would be as affected by an encounter with these creatures as the people of grandfather's time.

Raised on decades of science fiction, horror, twilight zone and outer limits, such an encounter would be grave and dangerous, but perhaps not quite as sanity-altering as it once was. We have context for comparison, the unusual would seem less... incomprehensible.

We're also starting to unravel the scientific basis of these unfathomable entities. I'll just leave this here.

There is so much talk about how cost are minuscule and any reasonably sized institute could bear the load. If that was true then why has it not been done already? I am sure most institutes would love to get rid of the costs of journal subscriptions. Perhaps it is not as easy or low cost as some people think.

If you want hard number, look no further than here...

According to their FAQ, arXiv's operating costs for 2013-2017 are projected to average of $826,000 per year, including indirect expenses. Cornell (the hosting institution) kicks in about $75K/year. They also get $350K/year from the Simons Foundation***. Other schools/institutions kick in money based on a "shame" funding model (kind of like a museum suggested donation). arXiv publishes a list of the top 200 downloading institutions sorted by orginating IP address and suggests that they become members and donate between $1.5K and $3K/year based on their position on the list. Looking at the top 25 institutions, there appears to be only 3 "dead-beats" (14, 21, and 22 who are unnamed), and a greater than 75% uptake on the top 100.

As more institutions pony-up, it is anticipated that the funding from the Simons Foundation will eventually drop down to a nominal level ($50K/year) as the extra $300K/year it was provided to bootstrap the endeavor so that the suggested donation from institutions could be kept low enough to be "miniscule".

*** The Simons Foundation was started by a Mathemetician turned Hedge-fund manager billionare.

Anyway, regarding off planet telescopes, what we need is basically 2 of them (more is better) and shoot them into an orbit perpendicular to the ecliptic. So basically they circle the sun more or less with the same distance than the earth. But half a year above the plane and half a year below the plane. The effect of this is: the sun is only blocking a part of the view field two times a year. With two such telescopes in 30 degree "distance" behind each other we always had a view from top or from bottom onto the solar system.

OK ; so your scopes would then, during the northern and southern (what's the word ... "apparition"?) of each orbit, they'd need to schedule [calculates] around 2000 square degrees of sky [I know, I should be working in steradians, but it's 23:00 local and I'm up at 05:00 for work at 05:30. Again.] with a field of view of [damn, "vies" is a valid mis-spelling of "view"] Hubble grade ...

Pick a number for the Hubble FoV from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view ; I'll go for a mid-range 1 sq.arc-minute. So, that's 7,200,000 fields of view, which would need completing in 6 months (per apparition) : that's 27+ images per second (allowing 5 days down time a year). The discovery photos for Nix and Hydra (Pluto's second and third-discovered moons took 950s approx. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601018). To mis-quote "Jaws" Quint, "You're going to need a bigger telescope ; or more telescopes ; or both."

With simple long term exposure photos that get analyzed on earth, we would pick up nearly everything.

I am not an astronomer. But I have spent a considerable sum of my own cash on a week-long practical course in observational astronomy using telescopes of the Observatory of Mallorca and run by the Open University (open.ac.uk ; I know that URL by heart.). I know better what I'm talking about than the next 90+people you meet on the street (unless you're living near La Silla, and possibly then too).

i don't agree that we don't have the infrastructure to build such telescopes, two Hubble like scopes would be enough.

Sorry, I disagree with you. My grounds are above.

Incidentally, I've only so-far considered searching for objects in the plane of the ecliptic. Actually, to be more precise, within 6 degrees of the ecliptic. Scale up by a factor of 15 for the whole sky. We are a LONG way from having the necessary infrastructure.

Imagine the dickheads on planet earth wasting the first decade in discussion about funding ...

We're all dead already. It's your children that you should be worried about.

OTOH if those guys who want to mine asteroids are serious, they likely do that for us :D

Both in terms of building the infrastructure for building lots of telescopes ; and for putting them into orbits (various) ; and for providing the high-latency interplanetary network links ; and ,as a side effect, having lots of people living in self-maintained self-sufficient habitats OFF THE EARTH. The important point is the last one : killing a species in one place (Earth) is relatively easy ; killing a species in a hundred places is decidedly harder, particularly if the little buggers keep on moving and breeding. I see that we rendered the Rattus rattus extinct ... when?

Imagine there are perhaps much more asteroids close to earth than we know and lots of them perhaps have so nice orbits (like their year one month longer or shorter than an earth year) that they are easy to capture.

By coincidence, I was reading a paper at lunch about the Earth's (first) Trojan asteroid. Exactly what y

Those indeed are pretty extraordinary claims, thanks for pointing them out.

I wouldn't take anything he said at face value without scrutiny. The discussion section of http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1845.pdf pretty much states the arguments for the samples being meteorites.

There's also quite a few other names on the paper as well. Its not proof, but evidence, maybe.

Who knows, we are definitely still waiting for that extraordinary evidence. In my opinion it'll come from us going to space, digging around on asteroids, comets, and planets, and finding things like this to back it up. Or sending a probe to Europa and taking a picture of a geothermal vent crawling with life.

It stands to reason if fossils survived in meteorites on earth, there might be some in craters on the moon as well, microscopic fossils anyway.

The journals, news articles are not at least claiming this is the extraordinary proof to say, yeah for sure.

“A whole bunch of things that I’ve been working on for 30 years are converging in a very nice way,” he told the audience, before launching into a rather lengthy history of Mathematica’s development. “Given how complicated things in nature are, you might think the programs running them would be very complicated,” he began. As his research progressed, however, he soon found the exact opposite: simple equations and programming could underpin enormously complicated systems.

But then the article says:

It took a lot of Mathematica code to make the Wolfram Alpha system work

It is hard to reconcile "the simplicity of Mathematica" with "it took a lot of code (and presumably a lot of time) to make it work".

IIRC there aren't enough of them and they're too low mass to make up the dark matter. After a bit of searching I found this thesis. It looks like a good introduction to the area.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.2757

It's hard to tell from the summary or article what is going on here. I suspect a decent fraction of these may be people submitting proposals under different programs for similar or overlapping projects. Sometimes a scientific project will kind of fall between programs and people will submit more-or-less the same proposal to two different parts of the NSF, hoping for funding from one. Given the low funding rate and the great deal of uncertainty about funding (thanks, oh-so-functional Congress!) it is pretty common for people to submit to multiple programs or to have several co-Principal Investigators, each with a component of a larger-scale project. And people definitely recycle their earlier proposals, funded or not. There are also often required sections on ``broader impact'' that are important in many fields that may not have much in common with the specific proposal and may be copied from other proposals. To me, there is a huge difference between ``self-plagarism'' or duplication, between recycling a broader impact statement from a colleague, and between outright plagiarism, unknown to the person who is being copied, with genuine scientific theft of ideas. From what is described, it sounds like they aren't yet distinguishing between these cases.

There was a good description on the arXiv about good plagiarism detection methods and tuning parameters for efficient detection of duplication and plagiarism, applied to a good part of the body of arXiv submissions. That algorithm is run now, which is why you see those ``article has significant text overlap'' messages, detailed here.

It's hard to tell from the summary or article what is going on here. I suspect a decent fraction of these may be people submitting proposals under different programs for similar or overlapping projects. Sometimes a scientific project will kind of fall between programs and people will submit more-or-less the same proposal to two different parts of the NSF, hoping for funding from one. Given the low funding rate and the great deal of uncertainty about funding (thanks, oh-so-functional Congress!) it is pretty common for people to submit to multiple programs or to have several co-Principal Investigators, each with a component of a larger-scale project. And people definitely recycle their earlier proposals, funded or not. There are also often required sections on ``broader impact'' that are important in many fields that may not have much in common with the specific proposal and may be copied from other proposals. To me, there is a huge difference between ``self-plagarism'' or duplication, between recycling a broader impact statement from a colleague, and between outright plagiarism, unknown to the person who is being copied, with genuine scientific theft of ideas. From what is described, it sounds like they aren't yet distinguishing between these cases.

There was a good description on the arXiv about good plagiarism detection methods and tuning parameters for efficient detection of duplication and plagiarism, applied to a good part of the body of arXiv submissions. That algorithm is run now, which is why you see those ``article has significant text overlap'' messages, detailed here.

I recognize this story...
I'm on one of the graduate students on this project! Feel free to ask me anything if you're interested!
Since the article didn't post a link to the paper (my #1 pet peeve as a scientist), here it is on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.0909

Actually, you should read up on the topic before you go spouting nonsense.

Transfer of Life-Bearing Meteorites from Earth to Other Planets for example.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be "spooky". :) But there are no cats that are alive and dead at the same time, and no mysterious actions at a distance with no apparent mechanism to cause the action, so that's unspooky in my book.

The only assumption behind special relativity is that the laws of physics (including the speed of light) are the same in all inertial reference frames. I'm not sure what "causality" means in this case (it's a notoriously hard word to define), but there's no requirement that one direction in time be singled out as special. As you say, the equations are completely symmetric with respect to time reversal. Furthermore, relativity tells us that "the present" isn't well defined. What you call "the present" is a particular slice through spacetime, but it's not the same slice I call "the present". There are infinitely many ways you could slice it, and all of them have an equal right to be called "the present".

But while relativity on its own is consistent with retrocausality (information flowing backward in time), it doesn't require it. It's only when you add quantum mechanics (or at least, certain interpretations of it) that time reversibility requires retrocausality. This article discusses why that is true: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0906

Retrocausality is neither a theory nor an interpretation: it's an element that appears in several different models, some of which make novel predictions and others of which merely reproduce the predictions of standard QM. Here's one of my favorites: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4075. It's still at a very early stage, but I love the direction he's going in. It would be amazing if it can be shown to really work for all cases, since it suggests QM is way more complicated than it really needs to be.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be "spooky". :) But there are no cats that are alive and dead at the same time, and no mysterious actions at a distance with no apparent mechanism to cause the action, so that's unspooky in my book.

The only assumption behind special relativity is that the laws of physics (including the speed of light) are the same in all inertial reference frames. I'm not sure what "causality" means in this case (it's a notoriously hard word to define), but there's no requirement that one direction in time be singled out as special. As you say, the equations are completely symmetric with respect to time reversal. Furthermore, relativity tells us that "the present" isn't well defined. What you call "the present" is a particular slice through spacetime, but it's not the same slice I call "the present". There are infinitely many ways you could slice it, and all of them have an equal right to be called "the present".

But while relativity on its own is consistent with retrocausality (information flowing backward in time), it doesn't require it. It's only when you add quantum mechanics (or at least, certain interpretations of it) that time reversibility requires retrocausality. This article discusses why that is true: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0906

Retrocausality is neither a theory nor an interpretation: it's an element that appears in several different models, some of which make novel predictions and others of which merely reproduce the predictions of standard QM. Here's one of my favorites: http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.4075. It's still at a very early stage, but I love the direction he's going in. It would be amazing if it can be shown to really work for all cases, since it suggests QM is way more complicated than it really needs to be.

I have not seen any such reputable article, all I have seen is fool's work,please show me one - if you can.
Forexample, this scenario has errors in their basic math. 1 newton of thrust will quickly move their tug away from the target mass, because the mutual attraction is far smaller.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509595.pdf

But if the government mandated that all research that is even partially funded by the federal government must be in open journals, those journals would become the prestigous ones overnight.

No, you just explained why they would NOT. As soon as the government is mandating that a journal publish "all research that is even partially funded by the federal government", then you make it a lower class medium. Sure, good articles from good researchers will appear there, but so will a plethora of junk from everyone who is fulfilling the government mandate. Respected journals are respected because they don't publish everything they get, they publish what passes peer review and contains content.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I infer from the article that the government mandate is to make all papers that result from government-subsidized research that are published in the existing professional journals publicly available—the mandate is not to publish everything that is submitted regardless of its quality, as you and the guy you're arguing with seem to think. In any case, Bennett Haselton's main concern is to change the way academic articles are published. He wants academics to move away from the traditional journals and publish via new journals (or their electronic equivalent) that allow free access to everything they publish.

It's a bit puzzling that this Haselton person apparently hasn't heard of the Open Access initiative, which has been enjoying some measure of success for a few years now. Open Access can be achieved either by authors of published articles "self-archiving" them, or by publishers making their own publications available on the web (usually after a time lag so that the people who pay for the journals won't feel too bad). I've frequently seen articles self-archived on XarXiv.org discussed on /., but Haselton doesn't mention that, either. (XarXiv is not peer-reviewed, it's just a way to make your paper publicly available. If you want prestige with that, you've got to publish in a "real" journal first.) This is a problem that is in the process of being solved. Let's try to reinforce what progress has been made; it's probably not necessary to come up with daring and brilliant solutions at this point. Nor is it necessary to publish yet another article on /. that seems to contain no news.

As mentioned in the other recent academic publishing story, there has been some progress but it has been slow. One thing that I am hopeful about are "epijournals" which separate the review from the distribution by serving as overlays to the remarkably successful arxiv preprint servers, at least in many areas of math and physics.

There are a number of issues here, many of which have been brought up often before. A few to recap:

1. Prestige: As a fully-promoted researcher who isn't worried much about prestige, I am free to only submit articles to journals which are either open-access or are reasonably-priced (for example, many of those run by universities or professional societies, rather than by for-profit organizations.) Which I choose to do, and have made clear for many years via the Banff Protocol and now the CostOfKnowledge petition. However, when collaborations with junior researchers lead to publications, I am willing to submit to some of the other journals, as for the co-author, the prestige may be important for them getting a job, tenure, promotion, or grant funding.
2. Standards: Oddly, many of the open-access/free electronic journals have standards that are much higher than many of the for-profit journals. The second and lower tiers of for-profit journals will often publish less-than-impressive to just plain terrible articles and have much lower standards than the typical electronic ones. They have economic incentives to publish many articles, and there are sites devoted to exposing various sham journals or editorial failings of journals from Elsevier, etc. I think that many of the electronic free journals are worried about not being prestigious enough and so they tend to have high standards, significantly higher than many for-profit ones. I've had things that were rejected by good electronic journals that were accepted quickly and with high praise to middling traditional journals.
3. Author-pays model: there has been a proliferation of "open-access" publications, some of which are outright scams, see Beall's list of predatory "open-access" publishers. Often, these journals have names very similar to existing prestigious-to-middling journals, which complicates things and has made many authors naturally suspicious of various open-access journals as a whole.
4. Institutional culture: it takes a while for things to change. There have been a few mass resignations of for-profit journal editorial boards to start more-or-less identical less-expensive or free versions which are basically identically, but not nearly as many as I have hoped. Tim Gowers' efforts and the recent White House memo in the USA are progress but of course there is still a long way to go.

I did misread what is there; $80k/year is the total for direct expenses. Those include "Server costs" $41,700/year, and "Network bandwidth & telephony" of $1550/year and the rest is staff computers, staff travel, and advisory board travel. I have no idea about hosting costs in general. My experience with the arXiv has been that they are very cost-efficient compared to many academic institutions. They do have millions of downloads and some of those articles are hundreds of pages long. I suspect they are quite cautious when it comes to secure archiving and so on, but I don't know much about that.

It is interesting to compare those institutions that have paid the $3000: here with the heaviest users listed here and see where the gaps are.

It's not the bandwidth expenses; there is a staff and moderation and a great deal of effort to make it as useful as it it.

There is a very competent staff and a good description of the arXiv expenses in their FAQ. Cornell has been trying to get other institutions to contribute as well; everyone agrees the arXiv is amazingly useful and hopefully the expense will be shared across many institutions. Current institutional contributors are listed here already, to the tune of under $3k/year each institution. The Simons Foundation has given a good amount of money towards expenses as well, $50k/year.

Their operating costs are laid out transparently in this document and come to about $800k a year, with Cornell contributing $300k a year presently. There are 3 full-time-equivalent staff positions which make up most of that. The hosting expenses are about $80k a year presently it seems.

do black holes blend?

The Mixmaster singularity might.

Why Wikimedia, and not say arXiv which already hosts free to read papers in several fields and is already publicly funded? The fields it is relevant for have been slowly expanding, and it wouldn't take much (short of maybe some culture issues in some fields) to expand it too all federally researched topics.

The peer-review part would be much harder though. The difficult part of peer review is not the infrastructure for recording comments, etc., but the management to deal with keeping the process on a timely basis, and to deal with disputes or disagreements, and to encourage people in a relevant field to spend their time on new articles they might not have noticed. That all certainly can be done by volunteers, but from experience, such work is much move involved and difficult than just reviewing a paper. Additionally, getting consistent and high quality reviewing and management there of becomes even more difficult with volunteers. If that part fails, then no one in a field will want to spend as much time paying attention to the articles if a lot of junk gets through.

And this reminds me of the Crowd Quake. Most crowd disasters are not due to Stampedes, where mass panic breaks out and people rush headlong into a choke point and get crushed. Researchers looking into the Love Parade Disaster discovered a hitherto unrecognised crowd dynamical process that can kill people in large crows - the Crowd Quake.

In normal crowds there's personal space between people, room to breath and move even a little bit. This personal space accommodates and cushions mass movement. However, at a critical point of density there's no personal space left and people are in full body contact. In this situation, mass movement efficiently transmits extreme forces through the crowd - the Crowd Quake. It's like changing a compressible gas into an incompressible solid, but people aren't incompressible. This is why crowd disasters happen so suddenly, it's like crystallisation from a gas.

See: Crowd Disasters as Systemic Failures: Analysis of the Love Parade Disaster http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.1886

Those are all very good points. I just spent half an hour going through the articles, press release, and article itself (which is available here http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2158 http://www.caseybennett.com/uploads/Bennett_AI_ClinicalDecisionMaking__Article_in_Press_.pdf ) trying to figure out how they determined that the program diagnosed patients better than doctors. I couldn't do it. And it didn't look like it was worth another hour of trying to figure it out.

I invite anybody to explain that to me. What do they mean by a "30-35% increase in patient outcomes"?

For example, the press release says:

"This was at the same time that the AI approach obtained a 30 to 35 percent increase in patient outcomes," Bennett said. "And we determined that tweaking certain model parameters could enhance the outcome advantage to about 50 percent more improvement at about half the cost."

What does that mean -- "a 30 to 35 percent increase in patient outcomes"? Does that mean the program treated patients with diabetes and got 30% fewer foot ulcers? Or 30% lower blood sugar? Or 30% longer survival? Or did they reduce the weight of overweight patients by 30%? Did they get 30% more patients to stop smoking? Did they diagnose 30% more cases of colon cancer?

They don't seem to have defined their outcomes or endpoints.

This is one of those times when you wish they had to publish in a peer-reviewed journal where an editor would have made them answer some obvious questions.

It looks like an entirely theoretical study. I don't see where they compared their predictions to real-world data. And if they did, how would they decide that they're right and the doctors are wrong?

They're like economists who come up with clever theories that ignore the real world.

This reminds me of the story about the efficiency expert who heard a symphony orchestra. There's nothing here to indicate that they understand anything about medicine.

Well, that's what people have said about the Mach-Woodward experiments, but an opposed piston design is now being tried out to isolate any noise-producing effects for remediation:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6178

Wouldn't those flares also make for large variations in radiative output? Imagine what would happen to us if Sun suddenly decided to increase (or decrease) its output by 50 percent for a few weeks or months.

Apparently, yes: see arXiv.1111.2872.

I was not aware we had imaged or otherwise observed atmospheric circulation on any tidally locked jovians. Not much success with Google, can you document? The only reference I found was under "strongly irradiated conditions" -- clearly not the same as a planet at the outer habitable zone. Since winds are driven by temperature differences, I would think that as you approach the center of the daylight side (or the night side), the winds would diminish.

Bag to differ. If you only rely on Wikipedia's entry to the Ehrenfest Theorem you'd think that it always works just fine. But that isn't always the case as pretty much every textbook on QM will point out (e.g. these lecture notes:)

... according to Ehrenfest's theorem, the expectation values of position for this cubic potential will only agree with the classical behaviour insofar as the dispersion in position is negligible (for all time) in the chosen state.

Weinberg's math deforms the Schroedinger equation in the same sense that you could deform Feynman's path integral back to the classical extramal principle. Hence you can recover Hamiltonian mechanics from it, and then the Ehrenfest's Theorem is of course always fully met. The correspondence principle on the other hand is just that: A principle. This however is a full mathematical description of how to get from the Schroedinger equation back to Hamilton mechanics. I.e. it exemplifies the correspondence principle. Care to show me some papers that can do the same?

Category | Pct.
-----------------
Weed | 13.7%
Drugs | 9.0%
Prescription | 7.3%
Benzos | 4.9%
Books | 3.9%
Cannabis | 3.6%
Hash | 3.4%
Cocaine | 2.6%
Pills | 1.9%
Blotter (LSD) | 1.8%
Money | 1.7%
MDMA (ecstasy) | 1.6%
Erotica | 1.6%
Steroids, PEDs | 1.5%
Seeds | 1.5%
Heroin | 1.5%
DMT | 1.4%
Opioids | 1.4%
Stimulants | 1.2%
Digital goods | 1.1%
Items sold stat from http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7139 (research conducted about SR)

There may be a marginal legit use, but the vast majority of items is illegal, mostly contraband drugs. And if you read the site's wiki it is clear that they aim for "illicit activities".

It is surprising though that the largest market seems to be "soft drugs" and meds (probably pain killer addictions).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096 Many physics papers are also uploaded to the arxiv where they are freely accessible.

All you have to do to access it is to give them the right amount of money (or to be at an institution which does so, as for example an university).

However, these days many physics articles are also found on arXiv so it makes sense to search for the article there. And indeed, this article can be found there. The journal reference given there also makes it clear that it is really the same article.

Note that everything on arXiv is Open Access.

All you have to do to access it is to give them the right amount of money (or to be at an institution which does so, as for example an university).

However, these days many physics articles are also found on arXiv so it makes sense to search for the article there. And indeed, this article can be found there. The journal reference given there also makes it clear that it is really the same article.

Note that everything on arXiv is Open Access.

Paywalls are a problem when it comes to sharing chemical research with a wider audience, but they're a factor in physics, astronomy,

http://arxiv.org/

Free preprints for physics and astronomy (and a lot of other stuff, just no bio). I'd like to see more of those too. I think every time aaronson posts something on his blog it should hit /. for example.

I've seen some truly inscrutable theoretical physics and mathematics stories here where half the comments were "LOLWTF someone explain,"

I can agree with that. From the front page of Nature Chemisty (paywall alert) we've got

"Molecular cages" by Cooper, mistakes in this summary are solely my fault, something like you can now nano-engineer a really tiny pasta strainer to catch certain specific molecular shapes, in this paper some ridiculously small hydrocarbons. Holy cow Cool! This would make a decent /. submission.

vs

"Catalytic Cascades" by Wang which is WTF for me, and I got pretty far along in ochem and quant before I switched to CS. I mean I'm vaguely familiar with his inputs and outputs but whats going on in between is ... I'm guessing this would not make a decent /. submission, at least not by me, at least at my current level of understanding of this paper.

It costs a fair bit of money to create and operate a system as expansive as JSTOR, not to mention the high cost of acquiring the journals themselves.

The publication, archiving and distribution problems are cheap, and getting cheaper. arXiv does this job for a majority of the papers (i.e. more than any single journal aggregator) in physics, astronomy and mathematics, and it's all freely available to everyone, funded by comparatively tiny contributions from institutions.

The only thing the journals contribute is their history of reliability. As new systems establish similar reputations, while being run on donations for a thousandth of the cost, the journals will die out.