Slashdot Mirror

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.

Yeah. There were also come claims with Cl-36, but multiple measurements have the effect in opposite directions and different magnitudes (http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4357, so they seem more likely to be due to instrumentation effects than real differences

This is one of those "extraordinary evidence" things, and we aren't there yet. Annual variation is always suspect because experimental conditions can change subtly with the weather.

The original claim dates from 2008 and 2009. (Original paper here- http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283). While TFA claims that this has been confirmed, the group confirming this shares many of the same authors http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205. This still has not yet been confirmed by a genuinely independent group. Also the claims still only focus on two specific isotopes Si-32 and Ra-226. One thing worth emphasizing is that this has no bearing on things like the age of the Earth or other uses of radiometric dating. The isotopes are not used generally for radiometric dating and the percentage change in decay rates being observed is tiny. Moreover, for many of the sorts of things we do radiometric dating we have multiple distinct methods that cross-check each other. For example, when doing zircon dating, one can date from both the decay of U-238 and that of U-235 which use distinct decay changes. This may turn out to be some very interesting thing going on, but as of right now the impact is limited even if it is correct.

The original claim dates from 2008 and 2009. (Original paper here- http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283). While TFA claims that this has been confirmed, the group confirming this shares many of the same authors http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205. This still has not yet been confirmed by a genuinely independent group. Also the claims still only focus on two specific isotopes Si-32 and Ra-226. One thing worth emphasizing is that this has no bearing on things like the age of the Earth or other uses of radiometric dating. The isotopes are not used generally for radiometric dating and the percentage change in decay rates being observed is tiny. Moreover, for many of the sorts of things we do radiometric dating we have multiple distinct methods that cross-check each other. For example, when doing zircon dating, one can date from both the decay of U-238 and that of U-235 which use distinct decay changes. This may turn out to be some very interesting thing going on, but as of right now the impact is limited even if it is correct.

As an FYI, many articles that are pay walled can be found on the arxiv pre-print server for free.

Dr. Agee et al.. If you want people to read it, submit your paper to Arxiv. Publishing via Slashdot is just not the same.

A lack of planet on a nearby star does not mean there is nothing around the star

And, even more to the point, a lack of a planet larger than ten times the Earth's mass in an Earth-like orbit, or two times Earth's mass in a close-in (ten day) orbit says nothing about the presence or absence of Earth- mass planets, unless you have a well-accepted theory showing that systems with Earthlike planets must also have Jupiter-like planets, which is a theory we don't have.

That's according to what the actual article says-- ignore the Slashdot summary, it's wrong. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2273

And, worse, the mass detection limits are limits on m*sin(i)-- if the orbits are inclined, the planet masses that couldn't be detected would be even larger. (in the limit, if the orbit is face on, it wouldn't have detected planets regardless of how massive they are)

Overall conclusion: This puts limits on planets around Barnard's star, but did not have the ability to detect, and thus did not rule out, Earth-mass planets.

+1 wiki

With inspriration like that, maybe one day we'll get an Alcubierre drive device to link Earth with Mars. If the travel time is under 30 minutes, that would really open it up for colonization/tourism. This citation is an interesting read as well.

The greatest discoveries don't come from a "Eureka!", but from a "Huh, that's odd..." (Be careful though, the young earthers are already jumping on this to try and disprove carbon dating.)

That's pretty much what it was...."Huh, that's odd" when I saw the change associated with the flare. That's when we went and looked at the oscillations we'd seen in published data, and looked for possible causes.... As to the question of age of the Earth, if you look at the published data...it's generally decaying faster in the winter and slower in the summer, the net effect is the standard decay curve for long-lived nuclides. Some estimates for the effects on C-14 were presented by A. Sanders here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3986 It's all very interesting science, whatever it turns out to be. --JJ

I only see the term "maser" in popular accounts of science.

There are 2000 references to masers in arXiv alone.

Analysis of Gamma Radiation from a Radon Source: Indications of a Solar Influence is the source paper.

Just FYI: Nearly all physics articles from the last 15 years are posted in "preprint" form on the arXiv before submission to a journal. The arXiv is completely free, and is where nearly all physicists read papers from, rather than from the journals themselves.

Just Google the title of the paper you are interested in, and you usually find the preprint version:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205

PS - the arxiv equivalent of a rickroll:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1618.pdf

There are many nonsupporting papers for this.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071 (there are many more but you can find yourself if you are interested)

If it was replicated easily then it would be a cause for a rethink but its not. It would also require new physics to explain and that by itself requires the strongest rigor before being accepted.

oh and another good one.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.7015

Once again, its a cool paper all by itself, and slightly (only slightly) off your topic, but the real gold mine, for you, will probably be the reference list at the end of the paper.

Its an interesting topic because its fun to think of how to build the experimental apparatus, possible sources of error and how to work around... Its almost as much fun as that "anomalous gravitational force" that ended up not existing. I'm just barely not old enough to have lived thru the polywater era which probably would have been equally entertaining.

So has there been any research done outside of this JH Jenkins guy and his crew at Purdue? Has this hypothesis been tested and proven elsewhere in this world? I can't find any other publishers...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265

(no this isn't an arxiv equivalent of a rickroll on my honor as a 5 digit /. uid. However, if someone can find the arxiv equivalent of a rickroll I'll be indebted to them.)

Aside from this individual example, obviously see the references at the end of the paper.

Actually according to http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3986, it might.

The NYTimes experiment has a probability of being a fluke that is 1 in 150, whereas the Comic Sans experiment (measured the same way) is 2 in a billion: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214

How about a direct link to the PDF? W3C Web site

Actually, that's easy, and has been done: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847

(Full disclosure: I'm an author on that paper)

Modulation (strictly speaking) isn't required. To make the system work, you only need semi-reliable one-bit fast communication, and slow communication otherwise. On the slow channel:
"I'll be ready to send a neutrino pulse at 12:00:00.000000"
"Send me a neutrino bunch at 12:00:00.000000 if it would be profitable to buy "
Then the beamline simply pulses or doesn't-pulse the beam at that time, depending on the financial data of that instant. It's basically a matter of firing or not-firing the extraction kicker magnet that pulls the protons onto the target that makes neutrinos.

Of course, the article under discussion about financial communication is a complete parody, obviously written to suck in gullible financial types. It doesn't actually lie - the system could be made to work, no problem - it just conveniently discusses only the cost of the receiving unit, not the 'sending' unit. The sending unit costs rather a lot more, which isn't mentioned in the article, and can't be aimed.

Basically, it's a cynical and amusing attempt for the neutrino physicists to try to get the bankers to buy us the beamline we want for purely scientific purposes. A more nobel cause cannot be imagined. ;)

I should have linked to this in the submission, but here is the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.6872v1.pdf From their abstract: "entangled states require less measurement cost because we can perform feedback control without decreasing the entropy of the system, and hence the memory does not need entropy production to compensate for the feedback gain."

The Mars idea claims that increased solar irradiance is the cause for warming on both Earth and Mars, hence warming is unrelated to human activity. However we've had SoHo measuring the Sun from outside the Earth's atmosphere and it does not show increased irradiance. In fact when I looked at the data we seem to be close to a minimum.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.4524&ei=7IMVUOWhJqTg0QGDoIGACQ&usg=AFQjCNH4sheVAbaAZfcaDDY6LVKdg-MM8A&sig2=4CmVW9NY1BXtoGQrHnyG4w

While ice cream makers have probably done lots of experimentation, simulations like this (in addition to being cool physics for other reasons) can give us new directions to look in - e.g how should we change the emulsifier used. More fundamentally, what are the controlling factors for the failure of ice cream? Since TFA is a press release, you can get a better taste for the work the Edinburgh group does from their papers - a related one is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0410

I should also pitch this group's work more generally - Michael Cates' group does a lot of cool simulation work on the dynamics of liquid crystals, as well as active fluids, such as swarming tanks of bacteria. Most of it is on the arxiv, http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Stratford_K/0/1/0/all/0/1 and http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Cates_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Some of the behaviors of fluids with active objects (bacteria or molecular motors) are quite unintuitive - if you try to push a sphere through one of these active fluids, it will sometimes go in the opposite direction of the force you apply to it! http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1279

(I am a soft matter physicist, but not from this group.)

While ice cream makers have probably done lots of experimentation, simulations like this (in addition to being cool physics for other reasons) can give us new directions to look in - e.g how should we change the emulsifier used. More fundamentally, what are the controlling factors for the failure of ice cream? Since TFA is a press release, you can get a better taste for the work the Edinburgh group does from their papers - a related one is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0410

I should also pitch this group's work more generally - Michael Cates' group does a lot of cool simulation work on the dynamics of liquid crystals, as well as active fluids, such as swarming tanks of bacteria. Most of it is on the arxiv, http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Stratford_K/0/1/0/all/0/1 and http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Cates_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Some of the behaviors of fluids with active objects (bacteria or molecular motors) are quite unintuitive - if you try to push a sphere through one of these active fluids, it will sometimes go in the opposite direction of the force you apply to it! http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1279

(I am a soft matter physicist, but not from this group.)

While ice cream makers have probably done lots of experimentation, simulations like this (in addition to being cool physics for other reasons) can give us new directions to look in - e.g how should we change the emulsifier used. More fundamentally, what are the controlling factors for the failure of ice cream? Since TFA is a press release, you can get a better taste for the work the Edinburgh group does from their papers - a related one is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0410

I should also pitch this group's work more generally - Michael Cates' group does a lot of cool simulation work on the dynamics of liquid crystals, as well as active fluids, such as swarming tanks of bacteria. Most of it is on the arxiv, http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Stratford_K/0/1/0/all/0/1 and http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Cates_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Some of the behaviors of fluids with active objects (bacteria or molecular motors) are quite unintuitive - if you try to push a sphere through one of these active fluids, it will sometimes go in the opposite direction of the force you apply to it! http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1279

(I am a soft matter physicist, but not from this group.)

While ice cream makers have probably done lots of experimentation, simulations like this (in addition to being cool physics for other reasons) can give us new directions to look in - e.g how should we change the emulsifier used. More fundamentally, what are the controlling factors for the failure of ice cream? Since TFA is a press release, you can get a better taste for the work the Edinburgh group does from their papers - a related one is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0410

I should also pitch this group's work more generally - Michael Cates' group does a lot of cool simulation work on the dynamics of liquid crystals, as well as active fluids, such as swarming tanks of bacteria. Most of it is on the arxiv, http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Stratford_K/0/1/0/all/0/1 and http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+Cates_M/0/1/0/all/0/1

Some of the behaviors of fluids with active objects (bacteria or molecular motors) are quite unintuitive - if you try to push a sphere through one of these active fluids, it will sometimes go in the opposite direction of the force you apply to it! http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1279

(I am a soft matter physicist, but not from this group.)

Yes, there have always been occasional extreme weather events. But modern statistical analysis supports the general impression that weather extremes are becoming more frequent, consistent with the predictions of climate science.

30 million years is a long time. Speciation is a slow process, based on what we know about evolution, but that is plenty of time for species to recover. It is clear that there have been mass extinctions in the distant past, and species have diverged subsequently. So I imagine that 30 million years from now, species diversity will have recovered from the impact of CO2 induced global warming.

I suppose the fact that the earth is now "the coldest in 30 million years" would be of comfort to us if our species were 30 million years old. But in fact, it is not. So from our admittedly limited human perspective, we tend to be more concerned about divergence of temperatures from the range that is consistent with our modern life style, with huge numbers of people living on the coast, and with much of the globe dependent upon food produced by a few highly productive regions that up until now have enjoyed a climate consistent with highly productive agriculture.

Also new studies show that temperatures in the mideivel warming period and the roman era were 1C warmer than today with no SUVs around.

I always find it amusing that people who consider themselves to be "skeptics" of global warming become utterly credulous when it comes to anything that might seem to challenge global warming. Estimates of temperatures prior to temperature measurements are very difficult, and are based upon indirect measures of things like tree ring width and density, which are subject to a number of sources of error that are not fully understood, and which provide rather poor coverage of global temperatures. So a genuine skeptic would tell you that we really don't know whether temperatures in the medieval period were as high as today (much less as high as they are projected to become if CO2 release continues unabated), and whether the warming was global or regional to northern europe. But a climate science "skeptic" will happily acclaim third party accounts of agricultural practices in northern Europe as an indisputably accurate measure of global temperature, accurate down to a single degree.

Of course, if there really were a global medieval warming period that was not due to CO2 or to any of the other known causes of climate change, such as orbital shifts or changes in level of volcanic activity, a genuine skeptic would be even more worried. The evidence that the modern warming is due to CO2 is incontrovertible, and the degree of warming is pretty much what is expected from CO2 alone. What if there actually were some other, unknown, mechanism that could produce comparable warming? Then we have to worry that that other unknown mechanism might kick in suddenly to add to (or worse, amplify) the warming predicted from CO2. Modern projections of the consequences of global warming are very disturbing, but not what most people would regard as apocalyptic. But if there is some other unknown mechanism that could add substantially warming to that, then all bets are off, and the apocalyptic scenarios are back on the table. Of course, real climate scientists don't believe that. The "skeptics" apparently do believe it--but they don't understand what it would mean.

Texas Hold'Em is a game of statistics. In any short-term run, luck might triumph over skill. But if you play long enough, there are a variety of strategies that consistently prove to be better than naive play. The simplest one to model is deciding whether to go all-in pre-flop. That's straightforward enough that papers like Universal statistical properties of poker tournaments have worked on distilling it down to a simple function.

My favorite example of odds-based play involves completing a flush. If the 3-card flop comes out, and you have 4 cards to a flush, the chance you will complete that flush is 35%. Many new players think "I have a 1/4 chance of getting a card of any one suit each time, so the odds I'll finish this flush are 50/50". That's wrong; it doesn't take into account that you already have 4 of the 13 cards in the suit. You have to play a fairly large number of hands to distinguish that the odds are really closer to 1/3 than 1/2 though. That's why someone who is betting based on an incorrect assessment of odds will bleed money over time to someone who bets appropriately, the edge of skills over luck here. It is a long-term edge though, and luck dominates the short-term game.

David Sklansky's writing is a good starting place filled with statistics based poker observations. The Theory of Poker is the standard text on odds-based play. Sklanky's career training was as an actuary, which is one reason his numberic analysis of the game is so strong.

I know everyone on /. loves being a critic, but here's some info about M-Carbon for the people who were interested in more than pointing out how lame the linked article was.

Why the hell is the only link in the summary to that rather useless "I Programmer" website? The summary here at Slashdot is basically the content of the entire linked "article"!

Here is a much more useful link for anyone interested in reading the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6389v1

This so frustrates me. We do not have to get CO2 levels down to 350ppm to be safe as you put it.

When I said that, I meant 'safe' as a way to mean, "at 350ppm we will be in a range that will safely (and surely) let us avoid the negative effects of adding CO2." I was trying to summarize this paper, though perhaps I did so poorly.

As for actual safety, the way one of the world's top climatologists (James Hansen) describes it doesn't sound very safe. Quote "Civilization would be at risk.....If this sounds apocalyptic, it is."

Hansen's 'opinion' has been cited a lot

The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption. [dudpixel]

... how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied. [dudpixel]

That's incorrect. Scientists don't just assume that nuclear decay rates have been constant over billions of years. Just to be clear, we can't be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:

1. Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
2. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics' predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it's also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 million over that timespan.
3. The increase in nuclear decay rates necessary to increase the "apparent age" of rocks from thousands to billions of years is enormous. This decay rate would make all the mildly radioactive elements in the Earth decay faster, releasing enough heat to melt the crust. It would still be molten to this day unless God made a cosmically sized refrigerator to cool it down fast enough to fit into the creationist timeline.
4. Any change in nuclear decay rates would have to affect all types of nuclear decay identically, otherwise isotopes that decay by different mechanisms (alpha, beta, neutron emission, etc) would've decayed at different rates. If these rates changed differently, it would cause isochron dates of the same object but using different isotopes to disagree. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened.
5. If nuclear decay rates have changed, then why do ice cores like the one taken at Vostok, Antarctica show agreement between annual layer counts and isochron age? A change in nuclear decay rates wouldn't affect the annual temperature fluctuations that form the basis of the annual layer counts, so the two different methods of dating the same (~400,000 year old) ice core should be different. They aren't.

The Bible isn't the only thing that requires faith. There are more pieces that science doesn't know, than those it does know. Most origins science is not testable, which is why assumptions are made. The assumption that all radioactive decay rates have always been constant, is not testable. Many fields of science are based on that assumption. [dudpixel]

... how could you know what the decay rates of radioactive isotopes were 4 billion years ago? The fact is, no one knows, and so we just assume that because our measurements over the past couple hundred years show very little variation, it must have never varied. [dudpixel]

That's incorrect. Scientists don't just assume that nuclear decay rates have been constant over billions of years. Just to be clear, we can't be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:

1. Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
2. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics' predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it's also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 million over that timespan.
3. The increase in nuclear decay rates necessary to increase the "apparent age" of rocks from thousands to billions of years is enormous. This decay rate would make all the mildly radioactive elements in the Earth decay faster, releasing enough heat to melt the crust. It would still be molten to this day unless God made a cosmically sized refrigerator to cool it down fast enough to fit into the creationist timeline.
4. Any change in nuclear decay rates would have to affect all types of nuclear decay identically, otherwise isotopes that decay by different mechanisms (alpha, beta, neutron emission, etc) would've decayed at different rates. If these rates changed differently, it would cause isochron dates of the same object but using different isotopes to disagree. To the best of my knowledge, that's never happened.
5. If nuclear decay rates have changed, then why do ice cores like the one taken at Vostok, Antarctica show agreement between annual layer counts and isochron age? A change in nuclear decay rates wouldn't affect the annual temperature fluctuations that form the basis of the annual layer counts, so the two different methods of dating the same (~400,000 year old) ice core should be different. They aren't.

"We interpret the new particle at the Large Hadron Collider as a CP-even scalar and investigate its electroweak quantum number. Assuming an unbroken custodial invariance as suggested by precision electroweak measurements, only four possibilities are allowed if the scalar decays to pairs of gauge bosons, as exemplified by a dilaton/radion, a non-dilatonic electroweak singlet scalar, an electroweak doublet scalar, and electroweak triplet scalars. We show that current LHC data already strongly disfavor both the dilatonic and non-dilatonic singlet imposters. On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance, although a Standard Model Higgs boson gives a slightly better overall fit. The global fit indicates the enhancement in the diphoton channel could be attributed to an enhanced partial decay width, while the production rates are consistent with the Standard Model expectations. We emphasize that more precise measurements of the ratio of event rates in the WW over ZZ channels, as well as the event rates in bb and tau tau channels, are needed to distinguish the Higgs doublet from the triplet imposter. "

http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1093

It's called Google. Here's a whole bunch of places where you can see a similar article:
http://www.science-news.eu/astronomy-news/cluster142794/

And here's the actual paper:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173v1.pdf

No, just a straightforward use of the GR equations of gravity rather than the known-flawed Newtonian ones. The Newtonian ones don't even describe the motion of Mercury accurately, and the velocities involved in galactic rotation are considerably higher (~225km/s versus Mercury's 48km/s).

I believe this was the article: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619/

String theory isn't testable using current technology, but it's largely unrelated to dark matter. On the other hand, we've already discussed some of the actual evidence for dark matter. This new paper seems (to my non-cosmologist eyes) to be very rigorous. Among other checks, they extensively searched parameter space to exclude the possibility that standard NFW dark matter halos were being mistaken as a filament. The nearly head-on alignment of these two galaxies is fortunate, and the authors deserve credit for noting that it improves the signal-to-noise ratio of the gravitational lensing signal.

Strangely there's no citation of the paper in that article. Here's the arXiv preprint.

It would have helped if the summary had pointed at the actual Nature article or the ArXiv preprint.

We do know some of its properties already. We know that it has integer spin, hence is a boson, or we wouldn't see it decay in two photons. We have good evidence that it is the first spin zero, so scaler, fundamental particle ever observed, from the way the signal builds up in the WW decay channel, where the analysis uses the 0-spin property to enhance sensitivity. We also know that the production x decay probabilities are close to what one would expect from a standard-model Higgs boson. Especially the latter is something strong: we set out to detect something very peculiar, and looked on a big sand beach for just a few very peculiar grains of sand - and it turned out we found something. You are correct, that we have to understand the properties, but it is not so much that we need to see if it is a Higgs boson, or something totally different, but rather whether it could possibly be a Higgs boson, or an imposter that looks very much like it and induces the same effects on nature. Theorists have already started to speculate: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1093

how about this? From the conclusion:
"The alternate hypothesis that there was fraud is consistent with our results, which is why we are unable to reject it." I read the summary of the link you provided. It seems that they were merely observing the implementation of the electronic voting system to ensure it was fair, as opposed to looking for voter suppression, intimidation, multiple voting, etc. All your document says is the electronic system implemented didn't present an inherent bias when the voter showed up to vote.

In 2011, a further study was done that indicated that under normal circumstances, this theoretical danger shouldn't be an issue, but recommended rigorous experimentation to confirm this:

Modelling DNA Response to THz Radiation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4153

The long and short of it is, it's probably ok but if we're going to start putting them in cell phones, further studying should be done.

FWIW, the available research is pretty clear that terahertz radiation poses little or no threat to the body under biological conditions. There's lingering concern that it may have a small ability to affect lipid bilayer permeability (which could imbalance how cells pass messages, receive nutrients, and eliminate waste), but over all, a THz exposure is a lot like being bombarded with visible or infrared light: it will warm you up if left on for too long, but it's not really dangerous on its own. The radiation is too high-frequency to excite any of the electrons orbiting the atoms in the human body (which is how UV causes damage), and much, much too low-energy to knock an electron onto a different atom (which is how X-rays and gamma radiation cause damage.) Any effects it does have must be extremely subtle—and the body is very good at handling subtle problems, since we replace almost every cell every ten years on average.

Well as it turns out, for the US, War spending is the driver of the economy.

Not a dumb question at all. If you're actually interested in discussing this sort of thing, one place to go is PhysicsForums. Here's a thread and paper on this topic. The general consensus is that annihilation events should be visible if a lot of the universe were made out of antimatter, but we don't seem to find any. (My very very unpolished view is that matter and antimatter were produced in slightly differing amounts for some reason during the universe's formation and the vast majority of both annihilated each other over time, leaving only a sliver of leftover, regular matter.)

Yes and no. Your link refers to mirror matter based only on parity symmetry while I believe the paper at hand is more general. The arXiv preprint discusses this at the start:

Concerns about parity are irrelevant for our following discussions: they extend to a parallel sector (or sectors) of any chirality. Nevertheless, in the following we shall name the twin particles from the `primed' parallel sector as mirror particles.

To set things up, imagine stepping through a mirror and doing some physics experiments. You would expect everything to work out the same as before so long as "left" and "right" were reversed (...along the axis normal to the mirror...). That turns out not to be the case, which was surprising--some decades ago a few experiments with relatively exotic particles didn't work out as expected (brief history here). Thus matter "through the mirror" and "before the mirror" are distinguishable. It's possible that matter through the mirror exists in our before-the-mirror universe, though it shouldn't interact much with the matter we're used to because the force-carrying particles need to be mirrored as well which ends up leaving only gravitational interactions. As you may have guessed, this is a potential candidate for dark matter. The lack of electromagnetic interactions would prevent distant mirror matter from being seen, and the lack of strong or weak interactions would nix many lab tests (like those that detect neutrinos, which are detected by their weak interactions).

My (poor) understanding of the paper is that they consider an essentially arbitrary parallel universe with wimpy interactions with our own universe (except gravitationally), not necessarily just one created by parity changes. In particular they focus on transitions of neutrons from our universe to the parallel one and use such transitions to explain an anomalous dependence on magnetic field direction in a previous experiment.

As usual, caution is the best plan. The authors call for more experiments, and I'm sure there are numerous explanations for their results that don't require (IMO) spooky transitions between parallel universes.

As someone pointed out, this was on Slashdot 7 years ago. Here's the referenced paper.

The idea is simple. At both ends of the wire, random data modulated with content is being emitted. At any point on the wire, you see the sum of two random sources. But each end knows their own random data, and can subtract it out.

To break the system, you need two taps on the wire, some distance apart. Now you get to see the sums of the signals from each end, but with different time shifts between them due to propagation delay. With that data, you can separate out what's coming from each end. This allows recovering the original signals.

"No new encryption system is worth looking at unless it comes from someone who has already broken a very hard one." - Friedman.

In my field (astrophysics), absolutely everything gets released for free on arxiv.org. Getting the paper accepted by a journal is a formality you go through in order to establish the authenticity of the free copy. I barely notice the journal names any more: if there's a trashy paper, I'm confident that I'll recognise it as such myself.

Please link to the actual journal submission, not some article from the Yahoo! Contributor Network...