Slashdot Mirror

Oops, I actually gave the wrong reference. The correct one is this:

Vieira, An Introduction to the Theory of Tachyons, 2011, http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4187

If you want to have an observer, you have to have a frame of reference for that observer. Having such a frame of reference means that you have to be able to define some way of converting from that frame into other frames, such as frames that are not FTL relative to the stars. Various people, going back at least as far as 1986, have worked out a way of extending the usual Lorentz transformations so that they connect frames that have relative velocities greater than c. Suppose you have two frames A and B that are moving relative to one another at a speed greater than c. Alice is an observer in frame A, Bob in B. What ends up happening is that Alice says she's made of bradyons (particles that go slower than c), and she sees Bob as being made out of tachyons. But Bob sees himself as being made of bradyons and Alice of tachyons. Also, what Alice perceives to be a time axis Bob says is a spatial one, and what Alice says is space Bob says is time. This final part is the one that makes it not work in 3+1 dimensions. There is no mathematically consistent way to carry the whole thing through if the number of time and space dimensions isn't equal.

Weird. Given that our vantage point is the Milky Way, that means that those dwarf galaxies would appear to be on a line...

That's right. See here for a nice visualization.

which would have been so obvious that it would not have been missed by the earlier searchers... ==> I guess something must have been lost in translation here.

Earlier work had shown hints of this plane of galaxies, but these researchers used new techniques to more accurately locate more galaxies.

Well I do happen to know something of the topic, but thank you for your snide remarks. "Look it up" is the classic defense of a sectarian, not a scientist.

Quoting from an article you can read here : http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0204346.pdf

[page 4]

"Two major mechanisms of impact-related meteorite ejection from Mars have been proposed: (1) acceleration of fragments by a shock wave in the solid rock... and (2) acceleration of fragments by the gas produced in a strong impact (which can be oblique).

One should bear in mind that the initial size of the body determined by the time of exposure of its fragments to cosmic rays should be 15 m. Another limitation consists in that the mass of the impact-created lunar meteorites should be 2500 times that of the Martian ones and the mass of the latter, reach ~10^14 kg. In actual fact, of the SNC meteorites exceeds by a factor ~40 that of lunar ones. Taking into account the crystallization age (1.3 Gyr), it becomes very difficult to satisfy all these requirements for the case of Mars, since they call for ejection from a comparitively young (~200 Myr old) crater of diameter D=150-200 km. Such craters do not appear to exist on Mars, and there is no certainty in the presence of sufficiently young craters with D=100-150 km."

tl;dr : it is not at all certain that the SNC meteors came from Mars as there are phenomena that do not support this thesis. Another thesis is that they came from earth ejecta, and the observed data actually fits this model very well.

The WP article says the physics case is the following:

        "1. Measure the mass, spin, and interaction strengths of the Higgs boson

        "2. If existing, measure the number, size, and shape of any TeV-scale extra dimensions

        "3. Investigate the lightest supersymmetric particles, possible candidates for dark matter"

This is very weak.

#2 is pretty much dead, since the LHC's observations don't look very compatible with large extra dimensions -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5830 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4683

#3 is also pretty weak, since the LHC has disappointed the many people who were sure it would find supersymmetry. The strongest physical motivation for supersymmetry is at the electroweak unification energy scale, so it's looking less and less likely that it exists, based on LHC data at that scale. If the LHC can't even see it, then it's unlikely that the ILC, operating at an energy an order of magnitude lower, would be able to see it.

So the only justification would seem to be to thoroughly characterize the Higgs. Is the LHC really incapable of doing this?

In general, the LHC results are turning out to be every particle physicist's worst nightmare. So far, it's confirmed the standard model and failed to turn up any new physics.

I suspect the reason Japan is such a good candidate is that the Japanese government's main vehicle for pork-barrel politics is construction projects.

The WP article says the physics case is the following:

        "1. Measure the mass, spin, and interaction strengths of the Higgs boson

        "2. If existing, measure the number, size, and shape of any TeV-scale extra dimensions

        "3. Investigate the lightest supersymmetric particles, possible candidates for dark matter"

This is very weak.

#2 is pretty much dead, since the LHC's observations don't look very compatible with large extra dimensions -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5830 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4683

#3 is also pretty weak, since the LHC has disappointed the many people who were sure it would find supersymmetry. The strongest physical motivation for supersymmetry is at the electroweak unification energy scale, so it's looking less and less likely that it exists, based on LHC data at that scale. If the LHC can't even see it, then it's unlikely that the ILC, operating at an energy an order of magnitude lower, would be able to see it.

So the only justification would seem to be to thoroughly characterize the Higgs. Is the LHC really incapable of doing this?

In general, the LHC results are turning out to be every particle physicist's worst nightmare. So far, it's confirmed the standard model and failed to turn up any new physics.

I suspect the reason Japan is such a good candidate is that the Japanese government's main vehicle for pork-barrel politics is construction projects.

The WP article says the physics case is the following:

        "1. Measure the mass, spin, and interaction strengths of the Higgs boson

        "2. If existing, measure the number, size, and shape of any TeV-scale extra dimensions

        "3. Investigate the lightest supersymmetric particles, possible candidates for dark matter"

This is very weak.

#2 is pretty much dead, since the LHC's observations don't look very compatible with large extra dimensions -- http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3375 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5830 , http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4683

#3 is also pretty weak, since the LHC has disappointed the many people who were sure it would find supersymmetry. The strongest physical motivation for supersymmetry is at the electroweak unification energy scale, so it's looking less and less likely that it exists, based on LHC data at that scale. If the LHC can't even see it, then it's unlikely that the ILC, operating at an energy an order of magnitude lower, would be able to see it.

So the only justification would seem to be to thoroughly characterize the Higgs. Is the LHC really incapable of doing this?

In general, the LHC results are turning out to be every particle physicist's worst nightmare. So far, it's confirmed the standard model and failed to turn up any new physics.

I suspect the reason Japan is such a good candidate is that the Japanese government's main vehicle for pork-barrel politics is construction projects.

Topological Insulators (2D and 3D) are strange, but definitely not an "IF". Check this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3895 from 2010. Several have been predicted and confirmed experimentally previous to this.

SmB6 is great because it's not based on weak interactions (like other topological insulators) but on strongly-correlated electrons, and the new relation of the Kondo insulator to the Topological Insulator.

It's thermal recall force from heat generated by components on Pioneer.

Right. and the headline is a little misleading, it's a "new" explanation only if you weren't following; since it was announced in late 2010. The "anomaly" is solved.

Popular Science article about Toth and Turyshev's work here: http://www.popsci.com/pioneeranomaly

More detailed calculations supporting the explanation:
Phys Rev Letters paper by Toth and Turyshev here: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i24/e241101
ArXIV paper confirming the work with more details: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222v1

JPL press release: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-209&cid=release_2012-209&msource=12209
Centauri Dreams article: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=23720

Still, it's a nice article to read about how the work is done.

Yeah, this is asking for a lot, and it probably won't meet its goals, but it's not as crazy as it sounds. Take the example of thermoelectrics -- solid state devices that can turn a heat difference in to electricity or vice versa. Efficient thermoelectric devices could be super useful, either for efficient, light weight refrigerators that never break (since they have no moving parts) or for a way to turn any source of heat -- including waste heat from your car -- in to electricity. The reason you don't see them everywhere is because they're currently not efficient enough to be worth it.

I realize the following is gated, but access it if you can and see the first plot. (Coincidentally, the author was Chu's deputy and is an excellent researcher.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5659/777.full

Otherwise, see figure 3 here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.0888.pdf

The effectiveness of a material for thermoelectric devices is captured in one parameter called ZT -- the figure of merit. For about three decades, bismuth telluride was the best know material, with a ZT of a bit under 1 -- corresponding to about 10% of the Carnot efficiency (the theoretical maximum efficiency). To be competitive with conventional refrigerators, ZT has to be about 3 or larger.

In the early 90s, the DOD decided they wanted better thermoelectrics, so they started throwing money at the problem. You can see the result in the linked figure. Within a decade, ZT for the best materials shot up to about 2.5 at room temperature and 3.5 at higher temperatures -- to the point where they're starting to be useful.

More work is still needed before you'll see these commercially, but this is an example where government spending is and will be paying dividends; these are devices that will be generally useful, but languished for decades before the government gave research a kick. Battery funding could produce similar results.

To then be overtaken by the next generation radio telescopes, which will store TB/h as they test technologies for the SKA, which will store TB/second.

Seriously, no one has any idea how the fuck we're going to analyze all the data quite yet. A completely untrained n00b beats the pants off of any image classifying algorithm hands down, but how do you classify billions of objects that way?

Is here.

Krioukov should stick to relevant science. This other paper he wrote was much more useful. Apparently it got him out of a speeding ticket.

Photons interact with each other and other things. The idea of photons and CP violation is being explored:

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v79/i6/e065020
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9405203

Come on people, how hard is it to include the arXiv link? Just google the title, it's usually the first hit.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5832

The LHC data are beginning to impinge on the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. One of the attractions of the MSSM is its "naturalness," which is beginning to seem less natural. The the lightest superparticle (LSP) of the MSSM is a dark matter candidate of the WIMP (Weakly interacting massive particle) variety, and WIMP searches are beginning to impinge on the "naturalness" of that explanation too.

Of course, after the confirmation of a non-zero cosmological constant, the arguments from naturalness seem less compelling to me...

Well, assuming that something is found that is not consistent with the standard model. There is actually something from the LHC that is not consistent with the standard model, the LHCb discovery of CP violation in charm decays. This is "only" 3.5 sigma, and needs some serious theoretical work to be sure the SM prediction is even right, but as things stand it is evidence for new physics.

There are hundreds of free college textbooks out there on the web -- see my sig for a catalog.

There are basically two models that have been proved to work. (1) Do it yourself. (2) Set up nonprofit online collaborations so people can cooperate on producing high-quality free books.

#1 is actually the most successful model by far. Just do it. Bite the bullet. Write the damn book and put it online for free. Here are some very high quality examples of DIY textbook projects: Hefferon, Linear Algebra, Carroll, Lecture Notes on General Relativity, Petkovsek et al., A=B.

The best example of an organization doing #2 is the Connexions project, which is run by Rice University. Other examples are Curriki and CK-12. These folks all use permissive licenses such as CC-BY, which encourages people to cooperate and view their work as contributing to a commons.

I first heard about Flat World Knowledge in 2008. What was never clear to me was what they were bringing to the table that was worthwhile or interesting. I doubt that they can afford to provide any of the services a traditional publisher would provide, such as professional copyediting or professional illustrations. Flat World Knowledge uses CC-BY-NC licensing, which is not free. That means that their authors know they're not contributing to a commons. At most they may hope to make some insignificant amount of money. What's the point?

Update: Actually, the stimulated photon has non-unit fidelity with the original photon due to the no-cloning theorem. But stimulated emission is a "natural candidate for a practical realization of a quantum copier."

It's only arrogance if you're wrong. If you are correct, it's knowledge. If you're wrong, it's arrogance. Sadly, many employers do not understand this little bit of wisdom. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-25]

Jane, are you sure you want to use that criterion? Let's reminisce...

How do they know they were the same neutrinos they launched out? [Dr Max]

... they know the beginning ratio and ending ratio of the different types. If they are not the same, then some must have flipped (or rotated, or whatever language the neutrino guys use these days). [global_diffusion]

Not necessarily. They could be different neutrinos, caused by atoms in the way absorbing some neutrinos and emitting others. I am not sure but I suspect that is what GP [DrMax] was getting at. Rather than evidence of neutrinos actually changing from one type to another, it seems just as likely (more likely?) that intervening matter performed a conversion. Just as, say, a crystal or a gas can "change" a laser's color by absorbing photons and then emitting others of a different frequency, maybe matter is absorbing these neutrinos and emitting others with different properties. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-06-17]

Nonlinear crystals can change a laser's color by absorbing photons and then emitting others of a different frequency because photons are mediators of the electromagnetic force, so they interact with comparatively large (~10^(-10) m) electron clouds. But neutrinos only interact via gravity (irrelevant here) and the weak force which has a comparable range of ~10^(-18) m. Since the cross section determines how likely interactions are, neutrinos are roughly ten thousand trillion times less likely to interact with matter than photons. This is just an approximation, but experiments yield similarly tiny cross sections.

If neutrinos have to interact with intervening matter before hitting the detector, an extra interaction is involved. That's why Chris Burke pointed out that detecting neutrino flavor change due to an interaction with intervening matter would depend on the square of the interaction probability. Detection in the conventional flavor oscillation theory just depends on the interaction probability because it only involves a single interaction, so it's trillions of times more likely to explain the observed electron neutrino events.

In fact, that T2K paper acknowledged a much bigger source of noise on page 8: the muon neutrino beam was slightly contaminated by electron neutrinos. This contamination doesn't invalidate their results because it only explains ~1.5 out of 6 observed electron neutrino events.

Anyway, the processes that change a laser's color are given names like "second-harmonic generation" (where a crystal combines two photons into one, commonly used in green laser pointers) and

Yes, Raptor Codes are the specific ones used by NASA on their newest deep space missions link. Raptor codes are a type of fountain code.

Fountain codes are worth looking at if you haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest Comp Sci developments in the last 15 years. With fountain codes you can break up a chunk of data into any number of unique packets. Any subset of those packets that add up to the size of the original packet can be used to reform the original file.

So say i had a 1MB file to send to Mars. I run a fountain encoder on that and i tell the encoder to make me 10,000,000 packets 1KB in size out of that 1MB file. So the fountain coder gives me 10GB of generated packets from that 1MB file. Now i spam those 10,000,000 packets across a really noisy connection. As soon as the receiver successfully receives any 1,001 of those packets (totalling up to just over 1MB worth of received packets) it can rebuild that file. I don't need to wait for retransmission requests or anything and it doesn't matter what packets make it or not. Just as long as the receiver can eventually successfully receive slightly over X bytes of data it can rebuild an X byte file.

Traditional error correction codes are great for correcting bit errors in a message that mostly gets there. Fountain codes on the other hand are great in situations where entire chunks of the desired message can be lost, they can avoid the retransmission of these lost packets entirely. The only issue is that they require redundancy in transmission in the first place.

It seems here they are grouping 50 packets of data together into 1 lot and making 50+R coded packets out of it where R is some number that's variable depending on how much loss they see. So they might send 60 coded packets. If any 50 of the 60 coded packets make it there they should have enough to rebuild the original 50 packets using fountain codes.

Note that quantum computers have already been used to factor larger numbers. As TFA discusses and this preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3726 from about a year ago reports, there has been success factoring 143. But they didn't use Shore's algorithm but rather used an adiabatic algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_quantum_computation. TFA makes a slightly incorrect claim that the adiabatic quantum algorithm "unlike Shore's algorithm, is not mathematically guaranteed to provide faster performance for larger numbers." This is misleading: Shore's is known to provide a polynomial time solution to factoring, but this is only known to be faster than the best known classical algorithms. In this context, we still can't prove that factoring is hard in the sense of taking more than polynomial time on a classical computer. Such a result is strictly stronger than P != NP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem which is one of the biggest unsolved problems of mathematics today.

Biological material has been interchanged back and forth between the Earth and Mars for billions of years. Based on that, I would bet that there is Martian life, and that it and terrestrial life evolved together.

That is incredibly unlikely. Biological material != life, and by all accounts actually making that transition requires very specific environmental conditions which it isn't clear were ever present on Mars (though we can't know that for sure, as we don't even know what the original conditions were, it's almost certain Earth-like life could never live there: oxygen content is too low, radiation is too high, planet is too cold, etc).

Biological material has been interchanged back and forth between the Earth and Mars for billions of years. Based on that, I would bet that there is Martian life, and that it and terrestrial life evolved together.

Maxwell's equations force E=0 inside perfect conductors, which means that vacuum fluctuations with a half-wavelength longer than the separation between the plates can't exist between the plates.

By the way: If you are going to refer to Maxwell's equations, you should use caution. Because often what are referred to as "Maxwell's Equations" are actually just Maxwell's simplifications of Heaviside's and Hamilton's quaternion equations, with introductions of arbitrary "constants" to cancel out inconveniences, much like Einstein's "cosmological constant". There is a good deal of modern evidence that Maxwell's attempt to simplify things may have been wishful thinking, and that Heaviside and Hamilton had it right all along. We rely much on Maxwell, but his conclusions are assumptions. Not only are they not proven, there is significant counter-evidence. [Jane Q. Public]

Good grief. Electric fields are zero in perfect conductors. I explain this fact to freshman physics students by asking: what would happen if we tried to place an electric field across a conductor? Electrons would move opposite the field, and positive electron holes would move with the electric field, exactly enough to cancel out the original field inside the conductor. Better conductors cancel out faster, so electric fields are zero in perfect conductors.

Mentioning that this fact can be derived from Maxwell's equations is meant to be helpful, because all physics students should be familiar with the first theory that emerged in a Lorentz-invariant form. In other words, Maxwell's equations were consistent with special relativity before relativity even existed. They're the basis of all radio equipment, and the correspondence principle checks that quantum electrodynamics (one of the most accurate theories in history) is identical to Maxwell's equations for large systems. If your reaction to hearing "Maxwell's equations" is to spray chaff about quaternions, you'll be disappointed to find that core classes based on junior-level Griffiths and graduate-level Jackson are almost exclusively about Maxwell's equations.

Quaternion notation is useful when desribing 3D rotations, but it's not used in electrodynamics because vector notation is more intuitive. That doesn't stop crackpots from insisting that Maxwell's equations are wishful thinking.

Physicists use Maxwell's vector equations despite the fact that we're well aware of quaternion notation. John Baez even wrote a paper on octonians. As Baez quips, if the noncommutative quaternions are like a shunned eccentric cousin, then the nonassociative octonians are like the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic.

In fact, look at p542 of Griffiths 3rd edition: "Equation 12.136 combines our previous results into a single 4-vector equation-- it represents the most elegant (and the simplest) formulation of Maxwell's equations."

Page 555 of

... "zero point" energy is NOT in fact zero (it is actually pretty huge)... [Jane Q. Public]

While talking with my first research advisor around 2003, I mused that it's unfortunate how the Casimir effect only supresses vacuum fluctuations with wavelengths larger than twice the spacing between the plates. Since fluctuations with shorter wavelengths have more energy, the Casimir effect only depletes a vanishingly small fraction of the vacuum energy between the plates. So I agree that a naive quantum calculation leads to a huge vacuum energy. But as I've just explained, the same theory of general relativity [1] that implies stable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive also seems to renormalize the vacuum energy to zero. So this just means that depleting vacuum energy could potentially lead to very negative energy densities.

In fact I thought it was pretty obvious to most people that the fact that "zero point" energy is NOT in fact zero (it is actually pretty huge), has been the motivation for finding ways to "Maxwell's Demon" the quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is nothing theoretically preventing it; one team this year found a possible means of exploiting it. We shall see. [Jane Q. Public]

I asked which team and you replied:

I looked again, and didn't find anything from this year. So my memory could be incorrect. [Jane Q. Public]

Agreed:

What I am curious about is: assume you get the virtual particles which then tunnel: what is the probability that they will tunnel with the same probability, then recombine properly? It seems to me (without having done the math), that there is some possibility here of ending up with a quantum Goretex, or, in other words, a Maxwell's Demon of sorts, no matter how small its effect might be. [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-21]

Not having done the math often does lead to quantum Goretex and ironic references to Maxwell's (broken) Demon.

But there's Maclay and Forward, from 2004. There are more recent examples but I will not have time to hunt them up today. [Jane Q. Public]

Maclay and Forward 2004 [2] imagined accelerating a mirror fast enough that the dynamic Casimir effect creates real photons. A more recent example was in 2009, which imagined spinning magneto-electric nanoparticles fast enough that the centripetal acceleration created real photons. At the time, I called this device a photon drive. On page 2 of their 2004 paper, Maclay and Forward point out that more conventional photon drives would arguably be better than their propulsion system.

Granted, it's only a thought experiment,

... "zero point" energy is NOT in fact zero (it is actually pretty huge)... [Jane Q. Public]

While talking with my first research advisor around 2003, I mused that it's unfortunate how the Casimir effect only supresses vacuum fluctuations with wavelengths larger than twice the spacing between the plates. Since fluctuations with shorter wavelengths have more energy, the Casimir effect only depletes a vanishingly small fraction of the vacuum energy between the plates. So I agree that a naive quantum calculation leads to a huge vacuum energy. But as I've just explained, the same theory of general relativity [1] that implies stable wormholes and the Alcubierre drive also seems to renormalize the vacuum energy to zero. So this just means that depleting vacuum energy could potentially lead to very negative energy densities.

In fact I thought it was pretty obvious to most people that the fact that "zero point" energy is NOT in fact zero (it is actually pretty huge), has been the motivation for finding ways to "Maxwell's Demon" the quantum vacuum fluctuations. There is nothing theoretically preventing it; one team this year found a possible means of exploiting it. We shall see. [Jane Q. Public]

I asked which team and you replied:

I looked again, and didn't find anything from this year. So my memory could be incorrect. [Jane Q. Public]

Agreed:

What I am curious about is: assume you get the virtual particles which then tunnel: what is the probability that they will tunnel with the same probability, then recombine properly? It seems to me (without having done the math), that there is some possibility here of ending up with a quantum Goretex, or, in other words, a Maxwell's Demon of sorts, no matter how small its effect might be. [Jane Q. Public, 2009-04-21]

Not having done the math often does lead to quantum Goretex and ironic references to Maxwell's (broken) Demon.

But there's Maclay and Forward, from 2004. There are more recent examples but I will not have time to hunt them up today. [Jane Q. Public]

Maclay and Forward 2004 [2] imagined accelerating a mirror fast enough that the dynamic Casimir effect creates real photons. A more recent example was in 2009, which imagined spinning magneto-electric nanoparticles fast enough that the centripetal acceleration created real photons. At the time, I called this device a photon drive. On page 2 of their 2004 paper, Maclay and Forward point out that more conventional photon drives would arguably be better than their propulsion system.

Granted, it's only a thought experiment,

I will add a tidbit that I picked up last night shortly after I wrote the above. You mentioned that since the ground state (not your exact words) of the vacuum is "defined" to be 0, then the energy must be negative. I understand that logic. The problem is that the premise is incorrect. Planck's equations, as refined by Einstein et al. in 1913, show that in fact the vacuum energy of a quantum system must always be above its "potential well", or the theoretical zero state. Thus, "zero-point" energy is NOT "defined" to be zero, but in fact is always positive, and the Casimir effect then, even using your own framework, is not "negative energy". [Jane Q. Public]

If you really did "understand that logic" then you wouldn't have written all that nonsense about vectors. Instead, you'd have skipped immediately to this point, which now implicitly acknowledges that the Casimir vacuum has lower energy than the standard vacuum.

Remember that spacetime is curved near large masses, but ~flat far away from masses where only vacuum energy is present. This implies that vacuum energy exerts ~zero gravitational force, so its stress-energy tensor must be ~zero, so the standard vacuum has ~zero energy.

If you're interested in the details, John Baez summarizes several vacuum energy density calculations. A naive quantum field theory calculation yields a vacuum energy with a mass density of +10^96 kg/m^3, which would've ripped the universe apart [1] before galaxies could form. On the other hand, general relativity and observations of our nearly-flat universe place a more rigorous upper bound at +10^(-26) kg/m^3. It seems like [2] gravity renormalizes vacuum energy to zero, within about one part in 10^122. Even though renormalization was harshly criticized at first, it's necessary to explain why galaxies (and thus humans!) exist.

Here's another, purely quantum-based, argument [3] for renormalization:

"As there is no lower energy state than the ground state, there is no energy level transition available to release the ZPE. Therefore, it can be argued that hf/2 should be dropped before integration of the quantum expression. This procedure is an example of renormalization, which basically redefines the zero of energy." [Abbott et al. 1996]

Footnotes

[1] One might assume that a large positive vacuum energy would collapse the universe just like a large amount of positive mass-energy would. This doesn't happen because in general relativity gravity depends on energy and pressure. In natural units, vacuum energy has pressure equal and opposite to its energy density. Because the stress-energy tensor has three pressure terms (for x,y,z) and only one energy density term, the negative pressure of positive vacuum energy dominates, causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. back

[2] It's also vaguely possible that zero point energy doesn't gravitate at all

Because those fluctuations do exist in the vacuum outside the plates (which is defined to have zero energy), the energy inside the plates is actually negative. The attractive force implies negative energy between the plates because force is the negative gradient of potential energy.

A force being applied in the context of the Casimir effect is definitely a vector. It has direction. Neither a positive or negative vector implies "negative energy": it simply defines the physical direction in which the energy is directed. The coordinates are arbitrary according to vector calculus. There are circumstances in which energy can also be considered a vector, but this is not one of them. The Casimir effect is definitely a measurable vector in a particular direction, and he clear implication then is positive energy. [Jane Q. Public]

Good grief, you're arguing with the definition of potential energy. I was referring to the fact that all conservative forces can be described as the negative vector gradient of a potential energy function. Many of your statements on this topic are confusing:

A force being applied in the context of the Casimir effect is definitely a vector. It has direction. [Jane Q. Public]

Yeah, forces are vectors...

Neither a positive or negative vector implies "negative energy": it simply defines the physical direction in which the energy is directed. [Jane Q. Public]

The force vector points from a region with high potential energy to a region with lower potential energy. That's why an attractive force implies that the Casimir vacuum has less energy than the standard vacuum. No energy is "directed" anywhere because we're talking about potential energy, not calculating Poynting vectors.

"Because those fluctuations do exist in the vacuum outside the plates (which is defined to have zero energy), the energy inside the plates is actually negative."

You're trying to get my goat. Haha. That isn't what it says. According to the article, the force is negative, in relation to the chosen physical framework, which (as it clearly says in the article) merely implies that the energy is lowered when the physical substrates come together. [Jane Q. Public]

The Casimir force between two parallel conducting plates is negative/attractive. Period. More complicated geometries can have repulsive Casimir forces, but that doesn't affect the attractive force between parallel plates any more than your meaningless caveat does. Perhaps you meant to say "According to the article, the energy is negative..."

The same phenomenon can be demonstrated with magnets. No "negative energy" is implied. [Jane Q. Public]

In my

I don't think there is much new here, several tachyon papers have trodden down this road before (e.g., http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4187v2.pdf).
If they somehow have figure out how to extend the lorentz transform for v > c in 4 dimensional space (vs 6 dimensional space as asserted in the above reference paper to void imaginary distances), that would be something.

Unfortunatly, I haven't found a way around their paywall (yet) to see what they are up to...

Nice. Never heard of these advances: http://phys.org/news93882787.html
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-36-6-1014
http://lib.semi.ac.cn:8080/tsh/dzzy/wsqk/science/vol315/315-47.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.1177 (see last page in this paper for transmission spectra)
Last thing i heard of was NIR. And I'm still not convinced these approaches could be used for broad spectrum applications, like across the whole visible spectrum. That you use only blue and red light seems to suggest that as well. :)
Also, the Science and arxiv articles suggest it can only be used for cases where you can crank the illumination way up to compensate for metamaterial losses (like, in microscopy).

It's an apparently wholly new and unique method for doing something in the physical world. Why would it make them evil to patent that?

Because It's not really all that unique

Why are the links so recent? Because after that collision 2 years ago they put out a request for people to think about this problem.

It is cool. Might turn a satellite into a cloud of debris, not a slower solid satellite.
But is it obvious, if you know astronomy, read manga, or just live in space for a while and try to stop debris with what you have on hand?

1. From the DARPA zero robotics challenge, "RetroSPHERES satellites launched into a polar orbit to deploy micro dust clouds that can deorbit small pieces of space debris with high velocity collisions (ablation)."
   A "micro dust cloud" sounds similar to Boeing's cloud of heavy gas (a "nano dust cloud").
   http://zerorobotics.mit.edu/ZRHS2012/RetroSPHERES.pdf
2. 
   Also recent news, but "The US Naval Research Laboratory is proposing to encircle the Earth with tungsten dust in an attempt to bring down dangerous space junk"
   http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423629/orbiting-dust-storm-could-remove-space-junk/
   IANAP but "Their scheme is to release some 20 tons of tungsten dust at an altitude of 1100km, creating a thin shell of particles that will entirely envelop the Earth," that sounds like a baaaad idea!
3. 
   ARXIV black hole paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9512101.pdf
   In 1995 these researchers modelled collisions of supersonic gas streams and found they are efficient at circularizing debris orbits.
4. Coronal Ejection. Basically a gas cloud, IIRC it is known to affect satellites but not sure if effect is primarily electrical or is here also a physical deflection of orbital path?
5. In PLANETES a space debris cleanup team deorbits junk in LEO, not by shooting it with gas but by pushing, sometimes with a gloved hand, onto a terminal vector. But their guns and bikes are gas propelled.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
6. In Moonlight Mile, which covers exploitation of the Moon, there are a number of scenes in which clouds of debris moving at orbital speeds cause tremendous damage. Not exactly the Boeing invention though.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_Mile_(manga)

Edwin Hubble was very sceptical about, so called "Big Bang" theory and claimed that there might be different explanation of redshift effect which he observed.

``Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble says that after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory, according to the Associated Press. “The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.''''

Check this paper too:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.2485v2.pdf

Android malware creates 3D maps of rooms

02 October 2012, 20:28

http://h-online.com/-1722353

Researchers have created a proof-of-concept Android malware app that is able to use the phone's sensors and camera to gather data that can be used to surreptitiously create a 3D model of a room. The research paper[1] from Robert Templeman of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indiana and Zahid Rahman, David Crandall and Apu Kapadia of the School of Informatics and Computing at Indiana University discusses an Android app they created called PlaceRaider.

The PlaceRaider app makes opportunistic use of an Android device's camera to take photographs of a target's location. This information is complemented by data from the GPS, gyroscope and accelerometers to provide information on where the phone is in space. Then using that data, the researchers could reconstruct the target room as a three dimensional model. They emphasise that the taking of the photographs was entirely opportunistic so ideally would not be noticed by the target phone user.

The researchers found that one challenge in obtaining the data was to ensure that the phone's communications were not overwhelmed when providing imagery to their remote system. To take on that problem, they use the positional data to reduce the number of photographs they have to send upstream. They also used different image resolutions in their sampling depending upon opportunities available.

The project went on to use algorithms, based on computer vision systems that could convert the large unstructured collections of images, complete with "noisey" images and filter them down into coherent 3D models. The challenge there was that this software was normally used where there was a steady, consistent stream of high quality imagery, but they had to adapt these algorithms to handle a much more limited selection of imagery. Another tool was also developed which could allow a user to navigate through the imagery collected and be shown views created from all imagery that contributed to that view. In an example, they show how they navigated to a clear view of account numbers on a cheque on a desk.

To evaluate the technique, a HTC Amaze running Android 2.3.3 was used by the researchers to test the gathering of data using the app; twenty different users were recruited to go into the office and engage in typical office activities in the prepared room. From the results, they offer ideas for further optimisations of the process, how the 3D models generated could be improved and suggest a number of defences against what they call "Visual malware".

[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5982v1.pdf

djwm@h-online.com

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Android-malware-creates-3D-maps-of-rooms-1722353.html?view=zoom;zoom=1

On the other hand Temperature (e.g., in Kelvin) is only marginally useful in describing the distribution of a phenomena that isn't in thermal equilibrium (say non-blackbody radiation)...

For example, people used to grade lightbulbs by their color Temperature, but that didn't say much about the quality of illumination from said lightbulb. Now they use CRI (color rendering index) for lightbulbs which give some information about the actual distribution instead of the really poor assumption that the illumination was comparable to black-body radiation distribution.

It's not clear (to me) that a galactic halo would necessarily be in thermal equilibrium, except only approximatly over a long time horizon. The real interesting observable phenomena is likely a result of this not being true (e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4816 )

When a physicist talks about "temperature" in this context it's just short-hand for "average velocity"... it doesn't necessarily imply thermal equilibrium, even. So 1e6K means a high average velocity. Now, if it were a dense gas there might be collisions that would do things like excite electrons into higher states, which would then decay by emitting photons (light), and so the gas would lose thermal-kinetic energy over time. In a sufficiently diffuse gas, loss processes like this are very slow because the chances of collision are very slow, so it can stay "hot" (that is, have a high average velocity) for a long, long time.

Uh, no. If the collision rate weren't high enough to excite electrons into higher states, it wouldn't be radiating X-rays, which is how Chandra detects the gas. Not a whole lot is known about gas in halos like the Milky Way's, but clusters have been extensively studied, and the gas is pretty close to thermal equilibrium, but not exactly. Hot cluster halos are ubiquitous, and it's not terribly surprising that more isolated galaxies have hot halos as well. The gas heats from loss of gravitational potential when it falls into the halo, and it stays hot because there are few cooling mechanisms, and because subsequent infall repleneshes it.

1) Your information is owned by the publisher, you can't reprint or send copies to friends.

This is a sweeping generalization at best and wrong in most cases. It is perfectly possible to publish in a 'gold' open acess journal like the ones owned by PLoS, in which case your information is published under, for instance, some CC license. Even most 'traditional' journals nowadays allow self-archiving preprint and/or postprints in an institutional repository like Harvard's or in ArXiv ('green' open access).

3) The work gets restricted to a small audience - the ones who can afford the access fees

Not necessarily true, for the reasons outlined above.

4) It's rife with politics and petty, spiteful people

The same goes for Slashdot, Wikipedia, the local philately club and most communities I can think of. More seriously, it also happens that a paper is vastly improved thanks to constructive and insightful comments by genuinely concerned reviewers.

5) The standard format is cripplingly small, confining, and constrained.

I can sort of see what you mean by this, although most journals allow authors to post supplementary information (or just add a link to one's web page). Is this really such a problem in practice?

6) The standard format requires jargonized cant to promote exclusion.

There is a reason why jargon exists: it helps specialists communicate. The reason is not to exclude non-specialists, which may be an unfortunate side-effect from time to time. There are other media for that purpose (communicating the results of important research to a wider audience).

Here is the link to the paper on arxiv without paywall:
Quantum teleportation using active feed-forward between two Canary Islands

By the way nowadays almost all physics papers can be found as a preprint on arxiv, the difference to the puplished version is usually not significant for the layman.

Anyway, the main application of this is that you can use it to prepare entangled pairs of qubits to be used in various quantum secure communication schemes.
   

Here is the paper pre-print on the Arxiv.

Free to read.

I have tried to get some people at NASA Advanced Concepts interested in a voyage to Sedna (now near perihelion at ~ 89 AU). Sedna is especially interesting because of its orbit - there is a chance it is an interloper from another solar system. It's so far away that a trip in a reasonable time would require a higher velocity than Voyager.

Note, by the way, that the next double Jupiter - Saturn orbital assist would require Jupiter passage ~ 2018 and Saturn passage in ~ 2019. These only repeat every 19.87 years, so we better get to it. With a double gravity assist and ion propulsion, we could get to Sedna in a reasonable time.

It's not exactly the same, but it is the same kookery warmed over. Here's a summary.
Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al. [Ding 2009]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008]. Despite this, Jenkins and Fischbach continue to speculate about a neutrino effect in [Sturrock 2012]; refusal to deal with contrary evidence is a hallmark of kook science. They admit that variations shown in their 2012 work "may be due in part to environmental influences," but don't seem to want to acknowledge that if the strength of these influences in unknown, they may explain the entire claimed effect, not just part of it.
Jenkins and Fischbach made further claims in 2010 based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
In agreement with theory, high-precision experimental tests show no detectable temperature-dependence in the rates of electron capture[Goodwin 2009] and alpha decay.[Gurevich 2008]
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1, Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156, Astropart.Phys.31:407-411,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

It's not exactly the same, but it is the same kookery warmed over. Here's a summary.
Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al. [Ding 2009]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008]. Despite this, Jenkins and Fischbach continue to speculate about a neutrino effect in [Sturrock 2012]; refusal to deal with contrary evidence is a hallmark of kook science. They admit that variations shown in their 2012 work "may be due in part to environmental influences," but don't seem to want to acknowledge that if the strength of these influences in unknown, they may explain the entire claimed effect, not just part of it.
Jenkins and Fischbach made further claims in 2010 based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
In agreement with theory, high-precision experimental tests show no detectable temperature-dependence in the rates of electron capture[Goodwin 2009] and alpha decay.[Gurevich 2008]
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1, Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156, Astropart.Phys.31:407-411,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

It's not exactly the same, but it is the same kookery warmed over. Here's a summary.
Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?
There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.
Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.
He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al. [Ding 2009]
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010a). Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008]. Despite this, Jenkins and Fischbach continue to speculate about a neutrino effect in [Sturrock 2012]; refusal to deal with contrary evidence is a hallmark of kook science. They admit that variations shown in their 2012 work "may be due in part to environmental influences," but don't seem to want to acknowledge that if the strength of these influences in unknown, they may explain the entire claimed effect, not just part of it.
Jenkins and Fischbach made further claims in 2010 based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Other attempts to reproduce the result are also plagued by systematic errors of the same size as the claimed effect. For example, an experiment by Parkhomov (2010b) shows a Fourier power spectrum in which a dozen other peaks are nearly as prominent as the claimed yearly variation.
Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.
In agreement with theory, high-precision experimental tests show no detectable temperature-dependence in the rates of electron capture[Goodwin 2009] and alpha decay.[Gurevich 2008]
He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1, Astropart.Phys.32:42-46,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156, Astropart.Phys.31:407-411,2009
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Yes, something very similar to this has been done:

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, 622 (2010) 93-96

It puts limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutrino flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed by Jenkins and Fischbach in 2008. And yet Jenkins and Fischbach are still speculating that the effect they claim has something to do with neutrinos.

One of the hallmarks of kooks is that they ignore contrary evidence.

It seems to me there is enough accumulated oddity to follow up with some space based measurements in order to get a better signal to noise ration and eliminate some possible systematic error sources.

Already done. No statistically significant deviations from exponential delay detected.

If yours was the way science operates we'd still operate out of caves.

But Sir: Some of the measurements used in this study were taken deep under ground. Follow the first link in TFA.

Some of us do our best work from our basement bunkers, you insensitive clod!

This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.

A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:

"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf

"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074

"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662

"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107

This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.

This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.

A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:

"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf

"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074

"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662

"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107

This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.

This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.

A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:

"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf

"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074

"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662

"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107

This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.

This argument about solar influence on nuclear decay rates has been going on for a few years now. The experimental issues are hard to interpret, because you have to be able to rule out external influences on your counting apparatus. It is extremely hard when the period of your signal matches the orbit of the Earth, which aliases all sorts periodic behavior that has nothing to do with new physics. There are seasonal variations in temperature, cosmic rays, the voltage delivered by the power company, foot traffic near your lab, etc, etc. Verifying that none of these things can possibly influence your results is what takes all the time.

A semi-random selection of earlier papers on the subject:

"Experimental investigation of changes in beta-decay count rate of radioactive elements" (1999):
Claiming 24 hour and 27 day periodicities in the decay rates of cobalt-60 and cesium-137
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9907008v1.pdf

"Power Spectrum Analyses of Nuclear Decay Rates" (2010):
Reports of an annual periodicity in the decay rates of chlorine-36, silicon-32, manganese-56, and radium-226.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0924

"Solar Influence on Nuclear Decay Rates: Constraints from the MESSENGER Mission" (2011)
A study of cesium-137 decay rates on a spacecraft going to Mercury show no change as the spacecraft travelled closer to the Sun.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4074

"Search for the time dependence of the 137Cs decay constant" (2012)
Cesium-137 decays in a detector underground (shielding it from most cosmic rays) show no significant periodicity, with limits much lower than claimed signals.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3662

"Power Spectrum Analysis of LMSU (Lomonosov Moscow State University) Nuclear Decay-Rate Data: Further Indication of r-Mode Oscillations in an Inner Solar Tachocline" (2012)
Studies of strontium-90 decays show a variety of periodic variations, ranging from 0.26 per year to 3.96 per year.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3107

This list goes on and on. There is hardly any consensus on the issue.