Slashdot Mirror

Here is one
It's a bit involved though

It really brings home an appreciation for the human race. For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about environmental damage we really are the only chance for earth based biodiversity to survive.

Don't be so sure.

So long as we use the real physicists definitions and not something out of Stargate SG1, those parallels will always remain undetectable. SF writers tell stories about interacting with other universes - physicists define them in ways that show they can't be interacted with to be verified.

(emphasis added) Your implication is that physicists have invented parallel universes, adding them to their theories. In actuality, parallel realities are predictions of certain modern theories. They are not axioms, they are results. Max Tegmark explains this nicely in a commentary (here or here). Briefly: if unitary quantum mechanics is right (and all available data suggests that it is), then this implies that the other branches of the wavefunction are just as real as the one we experience. Hence, quantum mechanics predicts that these other branches exist. Now, you can frame a philosophical question about whether entities in a theory 'exist' or whether they are just abstractions. But it's worth noting that there are plenty of theoretical entities that we now accept as being real (atoms, quarks, spacetime, etc.). Moreover, there are many times in physics where, once we accept a theory as being right, we accept its predictions about things we can't directly observe. Two examples would be: to the extent that we accept general relativity as correct, we make predictions about the insides of black holes, even though we can't ever observe those areas. To the extent that we accept astrophysics and big-bang models, we make predictions about parts of the universe we cannot ever observe (e.g. beyond the cosmic horizon).

An untestable idea isn't part of science.

Indeed. But while we can't directly observe other branches of the wavefunction, we can, through experiments, theory, and modeling, indirectly learn much about them. We can have a lively philosophical debate about to what extent we are justified in using predictions of theories to say indirect things are 'real' vs. 'abstract only'... but my point is that parallel realities are not alone here. Every measurement we make is an indirect inference based on limited data, extrapolated using a model we have some measure of confidence in.

Occam's Razor ...

Occam's Razor is frequently invoked but is not always as useful as people make it out to be. If you have a theory X and a theory X+Y that both describe the data equally well, then X is better via Occam's Razor. But if you're comparing theories X+Y and X+Z, it's not clear which is "simpler". You're begging the question if you say "Clearly X+Y is simpler than X+Z! Just look at how crazy Z is!" More specifically: unitary quantum mechanics is arguably simpler than quantum mechanics + collapse. The latter involves adding an ad-hoc, unmeasured, non-linear process that has never actually been observed. The former is simpler at least in description (it's just QM without the extra axiom), but as a consequence predicts many parallel branches (it's actually not an infinite number of branches: for a finite volume like our observable universe, the possible quantum states is large but finite). Whether an ad-hoc axiom or a parallal-branch-prediction is 'simpler' is debatable.

Just about any other idea looks preferrable to an idea that postulates an infinite number of unverifiable consequents.

Again, the parallel branches are not a postulate, but a prediction. They are a prediction that bother many people. Yet attempts to find inconsistencies in unitary quantum mechanics so far have failed. Attempts to observe the wavefunction collapse process have also failed (there appears to be no

I also study the Cosmic Microwave Background that seems to have a cold spot in it (Source: Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman). The cold spot is potentially another universe's gravity pulling on our universe.

I should point out that there is significant scientific debate on this point. Roger Penrose and colleagues claim that the rings in the CMBR could be evidence of multiverses, while others (e.g. Hajian, Wehus, Moss, etc.) claim that such rings are found in completely random, simulated CMBR data as well.

Another famous example is Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincaré conjecture - with hundreds and hundreds of pages of mind-numbingly dense mathematics vs computer search.

Perelman's three primary papers ("The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0211159, "Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0303109, and "Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0307245) on modifying Hamilton's Ricci flow program to deal with singularities and proving Thurston's geometrization conjecture only span 68 pages, with the actual proofs/meaningful remarks comprising about 45 pages of that.

Another famous example is Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincaré conjecture - with hundreds and hundreds of pages of mind-numbingly dense mathematics vs computer search.

Perelman's three primary papers ("The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0211159, "Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0303109, and "Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0307245) on modifying Hamilton's Ricci flow program to deal with singularities and proving Thurston's geometrization conjecture only span 68 pages, with the actual proofs/meaningful remarks comprising about 45 pages of that.

Another famous example is Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincaré conjecture - with hundreds and hundreds of pages of mind-numbingly dense mathematics vs computer search.

Perelman's three primary papers ("The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0211159, "Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0303109, and "Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds" http://arxiv.org/abs/math.DG/0307245) on modifying Hamilton's Ricci flow program to deal with singularities and proving Thurston's geometrization conjecture only span 68 pages, with the actual proofs/meaningful remarks comprising about 45 pages of that.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.5285.pdf

Resonance with DNA at the THz level results in potentially destroying DNA. More research appears to be needed, but localized emissions in this frequency range seem to be undesirable.

If resonance does in fact occur, then in laymen terms, it means that DNA acts as an antenna and hence relatively small amount of energy will "boil" your DNA.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.

In the particle physics community it is standard practice to upload preprints to arXiv. In the legalese section they state that most publishers are tolerant of preprints, but many do not want the final version of the paper to be uploaded to the arXiv. In any case, most people do upload the final version anyway. I have never heard of them loosing their copyright goons on anyone in the community for this; I guess they know that we are generally intolerant when it comes to such douchebaggery, so they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they tried to come after us. Personally I fully support any initiative to break the hold that these outdated cartels have over the publishing of science.

IANAQP either. You may find this article interesting. (I found it absolutely fascinating. Devoured all the non-math parts in 4 hours.) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4325.pdf

Hello: The paper in question can be found here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328.pdf Apologies if this has been posted already.

I'm somewhat confused about the timing of this article here on the site. The initial response to the PBR paper a couple of months ago was pretty varied, and mostly confused -- both from the lay public as well as from physicists. And so far this discussion also seems to suffer from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what is the issue here. Frankly, this kind of confusion is unavoidable with an issue as subtle as this, within the constraints of a forum discussion (which is why I won't try to argue my point in detail here), although even some physicist blogs have made a mess of it. Anyway...

The reason I say that the timing is odd is that Slashdot decides to write about the PBR article, coincidental with the appearance of another paper to similar effect (but making different assumptions) on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1439 (by Lucien Hardy at Perimeter)

About a month ago, there was another publication by Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner (at PI and Zurich respectively, although Roger Colbeck has just moved to Switherland too, I think):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6597

The upshot of all of these is, crudely speaking, that reality is at least as "complex" as the quantum state (there have been hints of this also from earlier work by Montina, which I think is referenced in Hardy's paper). It does not say that the quantum state as we describe it mathematically is literally a real thing. The background of a lot of these papers is a recent (last 20 years) trend towards statistical/subjective/operationalist interpretations of the quantum state, mostly brought about (in my opinion, anyway) by people working in quantum information/computing.

I'm somewhat confused about the timing of this article here on the site. The initial response to the PBR paper a couple of months ago was pretty varied, and mostly confused -- both from the lay public as well as from physicists. And so far this discussion also seems to suffer from misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what is the issue here. Frankly, this kind of confusion is unavoidable with an issue as subtle as this, within the constraints of a forum discussion (which is why I won't try to argue my point in detail here), although even some physicist blogs have made a mess of it. Anyway...

The reason I say that the timing is odd is that Slashdot decides to write about the PBR article, coincidental with the appearance of another paper to similar effect (but making different assumptions) on arxiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.1439 (by Lucien Hardy at Perimeter)

About a month ago, there was another publication by Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner (at PI and Zurich respectively, although Roger Colbeck has just moved to Switherland too, I think):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6597

The upshot of all of these is, crudely speaking, that reality is at least as "complex" as the quantum state (there have been hints of this also from earlier work by Montina, which I think is referenced in Hardy's paper). It does not say that the quantum state as we describe it mathematically is literally a real thing. The background of a lot of these papers is a recent (last 20 years) trend towards statistical/subjective/operationalist interpretations of the quantum state, mostly brought about (in my opinion, anyway) by people working in quantum information/computing.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v2

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v2

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.3328v2.pdf

A quick answer is to say that the universe assuredly is expanding faster than the speed of light. Or rather, it's expanding at some rate, and two sufficiently distant points will be receding from one another at the speed of light, or even greater than the speed of light. (You've no doubt heard that "nothing can travel faster than c" but in fact it's really that "energy (hence information) cannot propagate faster than c"... according to relativity spacetime itself can expand at any speed.)

A more detailed explanation can be found by reading this. The take-home message is that it's not so intuitive to think about time and distances when spacetime itself is changing as a function of time. Let's say a star is 1 billion light-years (Gly) from Earth. It emits light, and the light travels towards Earth. But since the space in between is expanding while the light is travelling, it will take more than 1 billion years for the light to reach us. And when it does, the star will no longer be 1 billion light-years away, but will be some further distance.

If you look at Figure 1 in the link above, you'll see that what happened is this:

1. When the universe was 1 billion years old, the protocluster emits some light. At this time, the distance from the cluster to Earth (actually, the position where Earth will one day form) is ~2.5 billion light-years.
2. The light travelled outwards, while the universe was expanding.
3. In the present day (age of universe: 13.7 billion years), the light reaches our location. The protocluster (which has now evolved into something else, no doubt) is now at a distance of ~27 billion light-years from us. (Note that currently the edge of the visible universe is ~46 billion light-years away. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old, but the edge is further than 13.7 billion light-years away since, again, that space is moving away from us for that whole time. C.f. comoving distance.)

Taking the example of physics, the arXiv is a very successful platform for preprint publication. If you look closely, most of the papers there are also being published in high impact journals like Phys. Rev., etc.

People seem to cope with the dual publishing and the publishers don't seem to mind either. In terms of impact, Physical Review is up there with Science and Nature in terms of impact within general physics.

Their article is at PNAS (with an accessible preprint on Arxiv.org and has the following abstract:

Abstract

Life arose on Earth sometime in the first few hundred million years after the young planet had cooled to the point that it could support water-based organisms on its surface. The early emergence of life on Earth has been taken as evidence that the probability of abiogenesis is high, if starting from young Earth-like conditions. We revisit this argument quantitatively in a Bayesian statistical framework. By constructing a simple model of the probability of abiogenesis, we calculate a Bayesian estimate of its posterior probability, given the data that life emerged fairly early in Earth’s history and that, billions of years later, curious creatures noted this fact and considered its implications. We find that, given only this very limited empirical information, the choice of Bayesian prior for the abiogenesis probability parameter has a dominant influence on the computed posterior probability. Although terrestrial life's early emergence provides evidence that life might be abundant in the universe if early-Earth-like conditions are common, the evidence is inconclusive and indeed is consistent with an arbitrarily low intrinsic probability of abiogenesis for plausible uninformative priors. Finding a single case of life arising independently of our lineage (on Earth, elsewhere in the solar system, or on an extrasolar planet) would provide much stronger evidence that abiogenesis is not extremely rare in the universe.

If one views the quantum state as a real physical object, one could get the seemingly paradoxical situation that future actions appear as having an influence on past and already irrevocably recorded events.
However, there is never a paradox if the quantum state is viewed as to be no more than a âoecatalogue of our knowledgeâ. Then the state is a probability list for all possible measurement outcomes, the relative temporal order of the three observerâ(TM)s events is irrelevant and no physical interactions whatsoever between these events, especially into the past, are necessary to explain the delayed-choice entanglement swapping.

The wave-function is nothing but a correlation machinery that organized nature's limited resources to properly fall into place (without upsetting causality as the correlations can only be sorted in hindsight).

This demystified view of QM is still very much overshadowed by the Quantum Hippie version that makes for better headlines. I.e. non of the pop science sites clearly report this tidbit of the authors wisdom. Causality violation draws more web traffic.

14 billion divided by 2 billion would be 7.

Right?

28cycles = (14/1Billion) sec * 2BillionCycles/sec (the paper says 14ns-313ns which is my interpretation)
0.142858rep cycles = (1/14Billion) sec * 2BillionCycles/sec (a possible misinterpretation)
7sec^2/cycles = 14Billion sec * 1sec/2BillionCycles (a very strange interpretation given unit analysis)

So although your statement appears to be mathematically correct, I fail to see how it is applicable to my statement...

The decision that victor makes is predetermined, by the act of measurement undergone by alice and bob. (Meaning victor doesn't really have as much free will as he thinks he does.)

I too find it interesting that people immediately jump on time travel as a more plausible explanation than determinism. de Broglie-Bohm and Many Worlds can both explain these sorts of results because they are deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Also for everyone's information, the paper is available on arxiv.

I think I found a loop hole. They have to discard all the failed attempts of the entanglement swapping (75% of the time). Not to mention a 4.4% efficiency of even getting photons through the long fiber to Victor. I don't have Nature Physics, but from the preprint on arxiv.org:

"The probabilistic nature of the Bell-state projection with linear optics decreases the success probability to 1/4." page 15

Though a more honest way to say this might be, that only when Alice and Bob have correlated photons, would it be possible to get the entanglement swapping to work. If we tried to swap the entanglement based when Alice and Bob did not get correlations its clear it would never happen. Their interpretation relies on a strange post selection of the data. If their experiment checked to see if Alice and Bob first got a correlation, and only then tried to do entanglement swapping, I think the experiment would not appear to violate any sense of causality. Its only because they throw away 75% of the data (the failed attempts at entanglement swapping) that the experiment appears magic. I think those 75% contain most of the uncorrelated results from Alice and Bob as there is a reason those attempts failed. Ie. its not chance if Alice and Bob have already performed the measurement. Its only "chance" if we pretend that we don't know.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.4834v1

There are problems with MOND indeed. Take a look at the predicted power spectrum of matter: http://i.imgur.com/Ouwin.png
Here the Cold Dark Matter model fits experimental results exactly, while MOND is way off.
(Stolen from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1320v1 which is a good review of CDM vs MOND.)

My understanding is that

- there is no completely satisfactory theory of the Bullet Cluster and friends (such as A520 and DLSCL J0916.2+2951, although I am sure there will be a lot more to come) using any model, so I think it is premature to say they are conclusive and

- The vector field in TeVeS may be able to explain the gravitational lensing of these clusters.

What is less clear is whether this can be done without some dark matter or some field that acts like additional Dark Matter (on extra-galactic scales). One of the attractions of MOND is that explains many galactic rotation curves with one free parameter (not one per galaxy, one). Requiring more parameters (or an additional role for some sort of actual dark matter) would be disappointing, but it will not by itself disprove the theory.

See Can Mond take a Bullet and Gravitational Lenses in Generalized Einstein-Aether theory: the Bullet Cluster for more. (That first title is a classic, BTW.)

My understanding is that

- there is no completely satisfactory theory of the Bullet Cluster and friends (such as A520 and DLSCL J0916.2+2951, although I am sure there will be a lot more to come) using any model, so I think it is premature to say they are conclusive and

- The vector field in TeVeS may be able to explain the gravitational lensing of these clusters.

What is less clear is whether this can be done without some dark matter or some field that acts like additional Dark Matter (on extra-galactic scales). One of the attractions of MOND is that explains many galactic rotation curves with one free parameter (not one per galaxy, one). Requiring more parameters (or an additional role for some sort of actual dark matter) would be disappointing, but it will not by itself disprove the theory.

See Can Mond take a Bullet and Gravitational Lenses in Generalized Einstein-Aether theory: the Bullet Cluster for more. (That first title is a classic, BTW.)

Not exactly.

Numerous investigators have been strengthening the case for thermal radiation as the cause for nearly a decade. The work of Bertolami, Francisco, et al in Portugal in 2008-2009 accounted for 67% of the acceleration, a then-new high point in this reckoning. This was a notable result, but they didn't "figure it out" or "solve" it, they strengthened the case that was by then widely believed to be correct. For an account of the whole story up through 2010 see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.3686v2.pdf .

The new study raises the level of confirmation to 80%, using data that they newly recovered, and further shows that the remaining 20% is not statistically significant. It is this study that deserves to be regarded as having "solved" the problem: accounting essentially for the full anomalous acceleration, and leaving no residual anomaly.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162

The Proof of Innocence
Dmitri Krioukov
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2012)
  A way to fight your traffic tickets. The paper was awarded a special prize of $400 that the author did not have to pay to the state of California.

If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.

The entanglement procedure relies on the polarization of the photons. What they do is to apply some light pulse to atom A which prepares its state into either one of two possible states (qubit A 0 or 1). As long as you don't measure it, the atom is in a superposition of those two state (so you cannot even in principle say whether it is 0 or 1). However depending on this state the photon emitted from atom A during the state preparation will have a specific polarization (so before you measure qubit A the photon will be a superposition of two polarizations). This photon after going through the fiber will be absorbed (with 0.5% probability) by atom B and depending on the polarization this will prepare this atom in either of two states as well (this is then qubit B 0 or 1), but as the polarization is not yet determined qubit B will also be in a superposition of 0 and 1 (again you can't even in principal know the state before measuring).
Now qubit A and B are entangled because if you measure either atom A or atom B it will automatically determine the state of the other atom as well.

By the way here is a link to arxiv preprint:
An Elementary Quantum Network of Single Atoms in Optical Cavities

The press releases linked to from the /. summary are pretty thin. The Wikipedia article is a lot better. Here are the two papers: [1], [2].

The press releases linked to from the /. summary are pretty thin. The Wikipedia article is a lot better. Here are the two papers: [1], [2].

The author omitted that the cake is cut from the other end, (i.e. the maximum bid to the current cake size is selected as the cake piece. Not 0 to the maximum bid.) as specified in the paper at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4507

The encrypted auction paper (the whole point of the summary) is at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4507
and not at the arxiv link provided in the summary.

Kepler observes transits of planets. For simplicity's sake, let's just talk about one planet. As the planet passes in front of the star, the shape of the light curve tells you the ratio of the radii of the planet and the star, and some good constraints on the inclination of the system; that's it. If you make some assumptions about the underlying star, you can make a good estimate for the radius of the star and then get the radius of the planet. As AC points out, if you assume a density, you can get a "mass" measurement. That's like asking someone on the internet how tall they are and guessing their weight from it; it can get you an ok answer, but the real range of variation is tremendous and interesting.

In order to then get a real, measured mass of the planet, you need radial velocity measurements which tells you the ratio of the mass of the planet and the star. Again, if you know some things about the star, you can then make a good estimate for it's mass and then get the mass of the planet. NASA buys a share of time from the Keck telescopes, and the vast majority of time has been eaten up by followup observations of Kepler candidates ever since it launched. For the smallest planets, you need precision on a scale that most observatories can not provide at this time; for an Earth-like planet around an Earth-like star the radial velocity precision required is on the order of cm/s, which is fantastically hard to do. I'm not actually sure anyone has produced anything real along those lines, though there are plenty of ideas and plans.

If you're technically minded, there's a decent review from a few years ago available. If you're looking for something simpler, try this.

As Teancum points out, you can detect and infer some other stuff by looking at the variations of the transit times and see if there is something else tugging on the system; that's a whole different ballgame, and David Kipping is the most prominent person I can think of leading that charge.

Read the paper if you don't believe me - it is there in the abstract. They specifically claim than the anomalous timing was consistent with faster-than-light neutrinos. This is NOT the paper you write if you have some data which seem crazy and you are not sure whether they are correct.

I have read the paper, and it looks fine to me. Of course they said in the abstract that their measurement indicates faster-than-light neutrinos: that's what they measured, so that's what they said. Most of the paper is a detailed discussion of the different possible sources of error - and, putting all of those together as best they could, the error isn't enough to explain the result, so they said that too. The key qualification is the final paragraph of the conclusion:

In conclusion, despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the robustness of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results.

In other words, there might be other sources of error, so they're going to keep looking. And they're not going to start screaming "Einstein was wrong!" from the rooftops just yet.

The members of the mainstream press who blew things out of proportion and dumbed down the story...

Sorry but this time the press are most certainly NOT to blame. OPERA was by no means "scientifically fine" and they did not present it as "odd data" they specifically made the claim that neutrinos were travelling faster than light and asked for help to verify this. Read the paper if you don't believe me - it is there in the abstract. They specifically claim than the anomalous timing was consistent with faster-than-light neutrinos. This is NOT the paper you write if you have some data which seem crazy and you are not sure whether they are correct.

Something like "I have odd data but I can't figure out what I did wrong" was the start of many scientific discoveries.

Correct. However this does not mean that the moment you have some odd data you rush to publish. First you talk it over with colleagues and see if they can find fault (and OPERA did this internally which is fine). After that you could publish a paper explaining every single timing correction systematic error you have considered in full gory detail and at the end say that your final measured time of flight "appears to be" inconsistent with relativity. Better yet, for data with massive implications like this, you could invite a pannel of external reviewers to go over the data and experiment to look for mistakes with an agreement that if it is confirmed by them that they will publish their findings after the first paper laying out the full gory details.

What you do NOT do is publish an initial short paper with most of the details left out in a rush which claims the data are due to faster-than-light neutrinos. The mistake OPERA made was not in publishing but in HOW they published.

Strongly disagree. It very much is in the surprising category. Back of the envelope calculations made fifty years ago suggested that life and intelligent life should be much more common than they are. (That's why this is the Fermi question, he did essentially make a Fermi calculation). Since Fermi's time, the situation, if anything has gotten more extreme not less so. We know that planets are common, and planets in the habitable zone are not rare See for example, this estimate that gives that about a third of sun-like stars have planets in the habitable zone http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.4682v1.pdf. While there's some criticism of that estimate http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/29/new-study-13-of-sun-like-stars-might-have-terrestrial-planets-in-their-habitable-zones/ even critics agree that that's about the right order of magnitude. . And that's just sun-like stars. This is part of a much larger pattern where stable, Earth-like conditions are increasingly common. For example, for a long time, it was claimed that an Earth-like planet would need a large moon to stabilize the climate and weather enough for life but we now know that that's probably not the case http://www.universetoday.com/91331/life-on-alien-planets-may-not-require-a-large-moon-after-all/. Recent work suggests that red dwarf stars have much broader habitable zones than previously thought http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228374.400-most-common-stars-are-more-lifefriendly-than-thought.html. And all of this is just for Earth-like, carbon-based life operating at temperatures close to those we are used to.

We also shouldn't expect intelligent life to be at or near our own tech level. As a species we are very young. The probability that other intelligent life if is out there is at our tech level is small. If humans are any indication, species which form civilizations can likely take to the stars in the blink of an eye as far as age of stars are concerned. Let's use a hypothetical examples. Humans as a species have been around for around million years (there are definitional issues but this seems like an ok approximation). Now, even if it took another 3000 years to develop effective interstellar travel, that's still about the same amount of time. Traveling then at about a thousandth the speed of light, that would take around 10 million years to spread through the Milky Way. So if intelligent life even remotely like us is out there, we should expect it to have already spread out. But we don't see that.

At a related level, we see no indication of large scale engineering projects. We see no Dyson spheres, or Matrioshka brains or anything else that would be visible to us through our telescopes. And this applies not just to our own galaxy but to neighboring galaxies such as Andromeda. The entire universe looks to our eyes completely natural. And note that while humans have only come up with a few ideas for stellar engineering and similarly largescale projects, we've only been thinking about it for fifty years. This strongly suggests that there are no old civilizations in our neighboring galaxies. Put all of that together and you get that at a galactic level, there's no signs of intelligent life in our entire local cluster. That should be shocking.

As seems depressingly common in science journalism, they vaguely mentioned the existence of a paper, but don't actually give the title or (dare we hope) a hyperlink to the paper. At least they did mention the name of the journal it was published in.

In any case, the paper is "Solar energy generation in three dimensions." If you're at a university with a subscription the official version (not open-access) is here. There is also an open-access preprint version at the arXiv.

I thought these had been discussed back then.

Back to the god-squaddie baiting!

This may be due to the fact that a lot of observations in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum have been carried out by Hubble, since, for a decade, it has been the instrument with the highest resolution and the highest sensitivity in that range. Ground based telescopes often prefer the infrared spectrum, 1um-30um, since there the atmospheric disturbance ("seeing") is lower and can better be compensated with adaptive optics and laser guide stars. but working through the data takes years, maybe even a decade. additionally, the "hot stuff" like planet finding is easiest with telescopes that have their eyes open 24/7 - which is not possible for ground based observations. have a look at http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph or the VTL / Keck / Subary / CFH / Gemini websites to see what their doing. That's a lot of fascinating stuff, but its also a lot of fundamental research - meaning knowledge, but no pretty pictures.

The only difference between an NMR experiment and an MRI experiment is the use of imaging coils, not the type of magnet. Almost ALL NMRs used today are super-conducting, while there are still plenty of resistive MRIs (many of the "open-scan" types are resistive). If you can make a bore hole large enough, these same imaging coils can be used in modern NMR spectrometers to turn them into an MRI (not for anything large though). The brains of zebra finches are commonly studied (ex-vivo) in high field spectrometers because they are really small and have complex white-matter connections that are of interest to neuroscientists. The pulsed-field-gradients that make the MRI experiment possible were originally developed for NMR experiments and are still common today. Also MRI is a form of spectroscopy. On the very basic level, the image is produced by a deconvolution of the observed nuclear-spin anisotropies (there are many flavors of this) into an image.

Just take the spent fuel and burn it in a newer-gen reactor.

Can you name a single such site ? Could you possibly refer to the generation IV breeder reactors of which no commercial plant was yet built, or is even in the approval phase ?
Most importantly, the authors of generation IV projects planned a 20 years period of basic science research before their projects could become reality, starting with the year 2002. Since little of that research was actually accomplished, it's prudent to say commercial gen IV breeder reactors are decades away.

The Generation IV Roadmap document can be summarized with the statement that the known technological gaps to construct even prototype breeder reactors were enormous at the time when the document was written. These unknowns are addressed with a detailed planning for the required research projects and the associated cost. Only after these problems have been solved a design and construction of expensive prototype breeder reactors can start.
We are now at the end of the year 2009 and almost half the originally planned R&D period is over. Essentially no progress results have been presented and the absence of large funding during the past 8 years gives little condence that even the most basic questions for the entire Generation IV reactors program can be answered during the next few years. Thus, it seems that the Generation IV roadmap is already totally outdated and unrealistic.

At this time, it seems prudent to say that the only reaction likely to ever produce commercially useful energy will involve copious quantities of tritium. Would you please address the main points of tritium self-sufficiency raised by Swiss physicist Michael Dittmar?
The issue is raised in part 4 of his study, page 20, The illusions of tritium self-suciency

More background: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/

Right now I'm trying to figure out which journal to send my manuscript to.

I found this ranking quite helpful. They use something similar to the Google page rank algorithm to measure the overall influence of a journal and unlike Thompson Research, they actually published the algorithm. Also, they base the analysis on the Scopus data base which includes a lot more publications then Thompson Research do in their WoK.

I was talking with a colleague, I mentioned PLoS one. She said that she wouldn't see that as favorably on a CV as she would for a journal that rejects more papers. This is not an old scientist who works for one of the "top tier" journals either and has a vested interest in keeping things how they are, she's a grad student.

It is a very sad state of affairs when even young scientist base their assessment not on what but on where something is published. Well, in the end it always depends on who reads the CV ...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847

The stupid press release left off the most important number which was the communication bit rate: 0.1 bits per second.

Paper abstract: "Beams of neutrinos have been proposed as a vehicle for communications under unusual circumstances, such as direct point-to-point global communication, communication with submarines, secure communications and interstellar communication. We report on the performance of a low-rate communications link established using the NuMI beam line and the MINERvA detector at Fermilab. The link achieved a decoded data rate of 0.1 bits/sec with a bit error rate of 1% over a distance of 1.035 km, including 240 m of earth. "

It's an exciting idea, and it's streaks ahead of 'traditional' microwave transition atomic clocks. These do not represent the state of the art, however, for which one should look at the experimentally demonstrated ~9e-18 accuracy by the Wineland group at NIST http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4527v2 ; http://www.nist.gov/physlab/div847/grp10/ , or the Strontium ion clocks at NPL (Teddington, UK) Essentially, the higher the frequency, the more clicks you get in a certain time, and the more accurate your clock can be (the smaller an error one missed click would represent). The caesium atomic clock is about 10 GHz (1E10 Hz). Strontium is in the optical, so a few 100THz (1E14). Aluminium ions are at about 1PHz (1E15 Hz). This new proposal with Thorium is around 7.6eV, which is about 2PHz, so not a million miles away from the current, demonstrated, state of the art. Also... orbit of the neutron around the nucleus isn't a fair description of a magnetic dipole transition, which would more accurately be describes as a flip in the direction of the neutron's spin axis. :)

A preprint is available on arXiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2490

A nuclear transition in triply-ionized 229Th has been found which is particularly insensitive to external magnetic fields and electron configuration, which gives the potential for a very stable clock,several orders of magnitude better than current clocks if phase comparisons can be made across a scale of days or weeks. The transition energy is at 163nm (in the ultraviolet). To take advantage of this clock an extremely stable laser at this wavelength (using current best clocks) will need to be created.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2490

For context: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." [Heb 11:1] NASB. Conviction may also be translated as evidence (among other words, you'd need a concordance to do a best case word study). NASB tends to be relatively literal.

The chapter then proceeds to outline several "heroes of the faith" who did their thing with the expectation that God would make good on His promises as the heroes saw them, and concludes by pointing out that God did one better and met the promises as He saw them - with an implementation in excess of what man would have been able to understand.

It may be worth noting, for this discussion, that faith is forward looking the while dwelling on creation mechanisms are not. I've found that the underlying fear among literal 6-day Creationists tend to be related to the fundamental validity of scripture (Bible); there are many of the literal 6-day crowd among ID types. I personally find their fears and their interpretation of "long view" consequences to be lacking robustness; and among the better educated, faith. (Fully exploring this topic and my thoughts on it are well outside the scope of this post).

Nevertheless, we do find ourselves with an existence which is rather improbable. There are plenty of cosmological papers which bring this topic up, including some which point out our current universe (as it is understood) needed some outside energy expenditures to wind up the way it seems to be. Ultimately the current state of scientific understanding regarding our origins leaves us in the realm of speculation. David Brin does some interesting thought experiments in his short stories (particularly those in "Otherness") about how universes may evolve to be self propagating with respect to initial conditions and physical laws. I fall on the other side and believe that we exist due to a creator who helped spin up this universe in its current state. Who knows, maybe Einstein would have felt OK about God using loaded dice?

Furthermore, (both for full disclosure as well as establishing a credibility baseline for this particular argument), I do fall into the category of someone who keeps to a fairly literal translation of the Bible where appropriate (poetry is poetry, parables are parables, literal-truth is literal-truth, and complicated-realities-explained-in-a-way-which-convey-their-truthful-essence-without-leading-people-into-confusing-irrelevant-technical-details-beyond-even-modern-science are complicated-realities-explained-in-a-way-which-convey-their-truthful-essence-without-leading-people-into-confusing-irrelevant-technical-details-beyond-even-modern-science).

Science is a tool with which we explore physical realities, Christianity (religion) is a tool in which we explore metaphysical reality - reason and faith are the tools with which we make unified and consistent laws. There is some overlap (such as archeology) but for the most part, the tools reside in separate jurisdictions.