Slashdot Mirror

The way I prefer to state this is that "Dark Matter" is a sign that there is something we don't know about the physics of large scale matter. We know that there is missing physics, but we don't know where it is. If it is in some new "Cold Dark Matter," (or CDM) the missing physics is in quantum field theory. If, as in Milgrom's MOND hypothesis, the problem is with gravity on large scales or weak accelerations, the missing physics is in gravitation. Your idea would put the missing physics in extra-dimensions, i.e., brane theory, which I regard as perfectly plausible. The point is, we don't know. All we really do know is that there is a hole in the system. We call that hole "Dark Matter," but at present there is no proof that this is necessarily due to non-interacting particles (i.e., CDM).

Note that this can get tricky. Dark Matter cannot be baryons (i.e., normal matter, like us) because that would violate various constraints from nucleosynthesis. However, there may be some missing baryonic matter, so in some cases evidence for dark matter may not _require_ Dark Matter or CDM. Also, if you are going to explain Dark Matter as some new gravitational type field, that may also require new particles, and so may have a CDM type analogue. And, of course, if you are mucking around with field theories you may conceivably change the nucleosynthesis constraints.

Now, in cases such as this (specifically the original case, the Bullet Cluster), there have been claims that the separation of Dark Matter and visible matter invalidates MOND. Milgrom disagrees.

My personal feeling is that we are too distant and, even more importantly, have much too short an observational history, to be able to do pure physics with galaxy clusters, and that a proof or disproof of CDM or MOND or brane theory will have to come elsewhere, in the lab, in solar system observations, or through observations of gravitational waves. (CDM would have the normal gravitational waves of General Relativity, while the relativistic version of MOND, TeVeS, would not. Brane theories predict different deflection / delay of light due to matter than General Relativity. Both can be tested here, in the solar system.)

While most do. Most consider the sun a "minor" contributor instead of a major contributor.

Sure. But I'll let you hunt for it on your own, but let you read this one instead. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.1954v1.pdf

• this is something new, so by definition this cannot have anything to share with ham radio.
• TFA talks about angular momentum of the EM field. This has nothing to do with polarization, but with another property of the EM field. Since they are emitting waves with an angular momentum, they cannot be plane wave (it can be shown, see for example here for details) that plane waves have the angular momentum of the field equal to zero).
• From the paper it is unclear how do they realize a field with an angular moment different from zero, I guess they used a technique similar to those described in this paper.

In addition Opera received considerable criticism for NOT being sceptical enough and by no means was their paper written in any sort of cautionary tone. If it had it would have claimed an unexplained timing discrepancy not FTL neutrinos which is what it DID claim.

DIDN'T

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.

Suppose, for the sake of argument (I know the chances are between slim and none, I suspect that the speed limit on the universe is to prevent game-breaking exploits of the universe itself) that FTL neutrinos are possible. How fast do they need to travel before you can send messages to the past?

One of the interesting things to come out of this is that you can have bi-metric theories with superluminal motion and not have causality violations (time travel) or tachyons. Basically, these things happen because you are Lorentz transforming something going faster than light. In a bimetric theory, there are actually two conversions between time and distance (i.e., "light" speeds, although light itself only goes at one of them). Matter is sensitive to one metric, the matter metric (thereby avoiding violations of the weak equivalence principle, or WEP, which is tightly constrained for normal matter), while gravitational waves follow the other, gravity metric. It turns out that there are no good WEP limits for neutrinos. so you could imagine neutrino's following the other, gravity, metric. Thus, they get superluminal motion, but without the complications.

So, to answer your question, it may be that no matter how fast they are, you can't send anything into the past.

"Determining dynamical equations is hard" by Toby S Cubitt, Jens Eisert, Michael M Wolf.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0005

An earlier article by same team:
"The Complexity of Relating Quantum Channels to Master Equations" by Toby S. Cubitt, Jens Eisert, Michael M. Wolf
(Submitted on 17 Aug 2009 (v1), last revised 12 Sep 2011 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2128

Here, we give complexity-theoretic solutions to both these open problems which lead to a surprising conclusion: Regardless of how much information one has gained, deducing dynamical equations is in general an intractable problem -- it is NP-hard. More precisely, the task of determining dynamical equations in general is equivalent to solving the (in)famous P versus NP problem [1]. If P != NP, as is widely believed, then there cannot exist an efcient method of deducing dynamical equations.

On the positive side, our work leads to the rst known algorithms for extracting dynamical equations from measurement data that are guaranteed to give the correct answer. For systems with few degrees of freedom, this is immediately applicable to many current experiments. And, indeed, the primary goal of many experiments is to characterize and understand the dynamics of a system.

"Determining dynamical equations is hard" by Toby S Cubitt, Jens Eisert, Michael M Wolf.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.0005

An earlier article by same team:
"The Complexity of Relating Quantum Channels to Master Equations" by Toby S. Cubitt, Jens Eisert, Michael M. Wolf
(Submitted on 17 Aug 2009 (v1), last revised 12 Sep 2011 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2128

Here, we give complexity-theoretic solutions to both these open problems which lead to a surprising conclusion: Regardless of how much information one has gained, deducing dynamical equations is in general an intractable problem -- it is NP-hard. More precisely, the task of determining dynamical equations in general is equivalent to solving the (in)famous P versus NP problem [1]. If P != NP, as is widely believed, then there cannot exist an efcient method of deducing dynamical equations.

On the positive side, our work leads to the rst known algorithms for extracting dynamical equations from measurement data that are guaranteed to give the correct answer. For systems with few degrees of freedom, this is immediately applicable to many current experiments. And, indeed, the primary goal of many experiments is to characterize and understand the dynamics of a system.

I am not an astronomer but here is some info based on some basic understanding and our friend Google. Maybe someone else can contribute more.

Short answer:

1) We can see some things on the moon, especially some mirrors we left there, I think we can see the lunar lander too.

2) Just watch this video it rocks. You can match the light from a telescope against the light seen absorbed or emitted from atoms and molecules in the laboratory to tell what is out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4yg4HTm3uk&feature=related

Long answer:

First of all, we have indeed gone back and taken closeups of the Moon lots of times. You can see the lander. Also, NASA left mirrors called retroreflectors on the moon that reflect light back to you from any angle, and you can bounce a beam of light off them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/04-15MoonLight.asp

Regarding your main question, when light strikes an atom it may be absorbed or reflected. If absorbed, an electron of the atom is boosted into a higher energy state and when that electron drops back down it emits light of a given wavelength that matches the drop in energy of that electron. It works similarly with molecules made of lots of atoms.

If you spread the light you get from the telescope through a prism, you can see the spectrum of the light and it will show lines at wavelengths matching these electron transitions, so you will see lines representing the elements or molecules that are out there.

If you are looking in the microwave part of the spectrum you may see a microwave emission that comes from the vibration and rotation of asymmetric molecules like carbon monoxide.

And there are nebulae out in space that are being irradiated by ultraviolet light from nearby hot stars, which emit their own characteristic wavelengths, these are emission nebulae.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_nebula

So you can do experiments in the lab to see what wavelengths are absorbed and emitted by a given molecule, and try to match that to the wavelengths you see in the telescope.

Anyway, apparently for the buckyball molecules C60 and C70 (that's 60 or 70 carbon atoms in each spherical molecule) there are certain peaks in the spectra seen at energy levels 3.7eV, 4.7eV, and 5.7eV. These actual energy levels are in fact due to physical properties of the molecules, for example the difference between the C60 and C70 spectra has to do with the difference in shapes, one is a soccer ball and the other is a rugby ball.
(Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9401055)

Apparently when they discovered C60 (buckminsterfullerene) in 1991 they were found characteristic emission lines in the infrared part of the spectrum that matched C60 and no other known substance.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0009261491902455

Finally there seems to be a characteristic spectrum you get when these balls start stacking to make ordered arrays like pyramids or what have you. That's what they found. I guess they could see what shape the substance is in the lab with a scanning-tunnelling microscope (hey that's a pyramid) or maybe just theorize what a pyramid of buckyballs should look like, and then they happen to find the same wavelength in a telescope. Maybe the process was just the reverse of what I just described and they finally figured out what that wierd spectrum was.

This page explains a lot about how astronomers can tell what kinds of atoms and molecules are in space:
http://stars.astro.illinois.e

New Hubble observations confirm the atmosphere of the exoplanet is rich in water, comprising up to 50% of the atmosphere's mass.

Actually, they do nothing of the sort. They just make water a more probable explanation for the observations. It says as much in the article.

These abstracts both state that the data indicates an atmosphere high in hydrogen and helium, but (taken from the second abstract):

Our observations disfavour a water-world composition, but such a composition will remain a possibility until observations reconfirm our deeper Ks-band transit depth or detect features at other wavelengths.

And it doesn't mention the most important part: that they have improved a lot in the field of information processing & information theory, just to filter out the information from very noisy measurements. They developed a information Hamiltonian and information field theory, interesting stuff http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3474v3

dupe's here:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/07/1811216/new-all-sky-map-shows-the-magnetic-fields-of-the-milky-way

Well, there's the bomb-pumped X-ray lasers of Project Excalibur.

Then there's the bomb-pumped particle beams of project Casaba-Howitzer, weaponized versions of the Orion Drive's nuclear "pulse units"

Also, I just found the paper I mentioned earlier on fourth-generation (pure-fusion) nuclear weapons. By the way, I suspect they would actually be an excellent choice for launching an Orion-drive starship, or even an interplanetary cruiser, as they may be clean enough for a ground launch without causing a small but noticeable global spike in cancer rates.

"I would love to read physics papers"

Go for it.

the history of the Titius-Bode Law

Perhaps I 'm not the authority on planetary formation, but I got an idea or two about it- especially since I am apparently answering questions about it on a Friday evening. The 'law' (Titius-Bode) mentioned by AC below is for distances, not masses: but AFAIK there have been some attempts to make fits on all those new Kepler data, and it seems promising: knock yourself out here and here. Personally I wouldn't be very surprised to discover a power law distribution, as this is often the case.

I haven't heard anything on the Pascal triangle idea you are describing, though it sounds interesting; most mass "ending up" in the centre of the distribution, its concentration further accelerating accretion, but most minds in the field would argue that the formation of Jupiter was triggered by the presence of the so-called "iceline": that is the distance from the central (heating) object were there is not enough heat for water to remain in vapor, so it condences into ice. Then, the increased mass because of the enhanced ice abundance quickly accretes whatever is near even faster, forming a massive planet rather fast and depleting material around its neighborhood.

Though the iceline trigger theory sounds plausible, there are tens if not hundreds of other issues arising if you believe that story --perhaps a bit too technical to describe here. Nonentheless, it will be really interesting to see if there is indeed a powerlaw at play, and if there is a Jupiter-like planet to be expected to be orbiting (more-or-less) near a given star's iceline.

I think that's part of why the Public Library of Science went with their model -- authors pay to submit their article (which *does* get peer reviewed, but on technical merits, not if it's "interesting" to the edior). And then it's free to read forever.

ArXiv has shown their value to the community, but they currently rely on support from organizations. Many people who use the site don't even know the issues -- it's not like they're running banner ads asking for donations like Wikipedia.

Now, with the pay-up-front model, some people might balk at the PLoS $1500 submission fee, but that's actually cheaper than some of the existing publishers charge for 'making an article open access' (ie, if you're published with them, you can pay a fee so that no one else has to pay a per-article charge ... but that doesn't help the libraries who have subscriptions). And it's not unheard of for peer-reviewed journals to have submission or publishing fees. Some are per page, some add extra charges for color images, etc.

Transparency is generally a good thing, and I agree that many aspects of the publishing process are needlessly opaque. This should be fixed. But anonymous peer review has certain advantages. It provides an opportunity for reviewers to be completely honest. Think about a junior scientist reviewing a paper by a more well-established peer: they may fear that a critical review will seriously hurt their career. Think about scientists not wanting to be critical in a review of a friend's paper, or conversely people punishing papers because 'they rejected my last paper!' And so on. The journal editor serves the role of maintaining the anonymous peer review system. (Note that in anonymous peer review, the reviewer is still free to disclose their identity by signing their review; and indeed many scientists do this.)

Of course there could be ways to do anonymous peer-review in an open forum system (e.g. using trusted editor-like intermediaries, or using verifiable keys that can establish trust without disclosing who posted the review). It could be done; in fact nothing prevents all of this from happening right now (even now, authors could individually post their rejected articles, including all peer-review and editor comments, to their institutional websites; this at least partially happens through arXiv).

My point about efficiency was that for a given final state X, we can either tweak our current journal model until it reaches X, or we can start from scratch building a new initially inefficient system A, and then tweak that until we reach X. Both will have serious growing pains, but it seems to me that it will be easier (in particular, easier to get scientists on-board with the changes) by smoothly transitioning from the current system to the final desired state of X. Doing it smoothly means no downtime; each adjustment can be tested and the community can decide whether they like the change. So, again, I agree that there are many things about the journal system that could be fixed, and which modern Internet technology can help fix (open access, transparency, better logging of opinions/comments/etc., allowing any scientists to comment on any article, creating a space for public debates/discussions, etc.). I just think that the most kinetically favorable path to that new state is a series of changes from the current journal system (for all it's faults, the community is doing a lot of great science these days!).

Don't be stingy with the proof, either. Recent work suggests cartels may be formed without conspiracy, as emergent phenomema:

"No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game" http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798

Given that Tetrahertz is mostly infrared (or visible towards the gigahertz magnitude), you'd be hard pressed to give anything cancer.

Assume much you do.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Full text available on the arXiv, for those without a subscription to PRL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5068

the uncertainty limit isn't a limit on measurements. It's a limit on what the universe is capable of representing.

Only partially true. What many people don't know is that Heisenberg's derivation was slightly wrong because while it modeled the thing being measured with quantum mechanics, it incorrectly modeled the measuring device classically.

A rigorous analysis using qm for both was done Ozawa in 2003 (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1833 which shows the correct uncertainty equations on p. 2).

From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120116095529.htm "In order to describe the fundamental uncertainty and the additional disturbance due to the measuring process, both particle and measurement device have to be treated in the framework of quantum theory,...But the product of error and disturbance can be made arbitrarily small -- even smaller than Heisenberg's original formulation"

I doubt that we're going to be directly imaging the event horizon for the central black hole anytime soon. [...] Now, imagine trying to see something that size, which is perfectly dark, from 27,000 light years away and you'll understand how difficult it would be to directly image it.

Direct imaging of its event horizon is exactly what they're planning to do: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3899

There was a wonderful paper in Nature titled "The Ultimate physical limits to computation" by Seth Seth Lloyd (Yes the guy with the funny laugh), which discussed exactly how small computation and processing can ever get (Short of discovering new physics of course)

Entry page: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043
Direct PDF Link: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9908/9908043v3.pdf

It's a fascinating read, which I highly recommend. I believe it will answer your questions as well.

The summary of the paper:

Computers are physical systems: what they can and cannot do is dictated by the laws of physics. In particular, the speed with which a physical device can process information is limited by its energy and the amount of information that it can process is limited by the number of degrees of freedom it possesses. This paper explores the physical limits of computation as determined by the speed of light $c$, the quantum scale $\hbar$ and the gravitational constant $G$. As an example, quantitative bounds are put to the computational power of an `ultimate laptop' with a mass of one kilogram confined to a volume of one liter.

There was a wonderful paper in Nature titled "The Ultimate physical limits to computation" by Seth Seth Lloyd (Yes the guy with the funny laugh), which discussed exactly how small computation and processing can ever get (Short of discovering new physics of course)

Entry page: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043
Direct PDF Link: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9908/9908043v3.pdf

It's a fascinating read, which I highly recommend. I believe it will answer your questions as well.

The summary of the paper:

Computers are physical systems: what they can and cannot do is dictated by the laws of physics. In particular, the speed with which a physical device can process information is limited by its energy and the amount of information that it can process is limited by the number of degrees of freedom it possesses. This paper explores the physical limits of computation as determined by the speed of light $c$, the quantum scale $\hbar$ and the gravitational constant $G$. As an example, quantitative bounds are put to the computational power of an `ultimate laptop' with a mass of one kilogram confined to a volume of one liter.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9912202 - and I'm sure there's something earlier since when I was doing my phd work (which was before that) it was a common excuse amongst those doing computation work.

If I understand the paper correctly, there are configurations where the zero-velocity surfaces of the sun and a planet coincide at some points, so an object orbiting the sun can transfer to a planetary orbit at one of the intersections without any other energy input, and then transfer back out again at the same or another intersection, again without any other energy input. Figure 1 on page 8 of the PDF has an illustration of some cases.

Ink-jet printed graphene circuits have been demonstrated. .

but not been shown to be useful as CPUs, in part because of the reasons I mentioned. Have any figures for the size and watts of an intel atom made out of graphene?

The incentives for cooperative mesh networking are in their physics. Why waste energy just so you can spoil a "commons"? If you want to see an example of how community resilience can effectively deal with aggression, look up the Swiss military.

If high bandwidth mesh networks arise, someone still has to pay peerage fees to the backbone. Most of the (legal, residential) traffic is Netflix, not sharing files with your neighbors. And If the mesh networks can't provide high bandwidth to each node, then people will stick with fiber/cable/dsl. I'm not sure what the Swiss military would do if a company saturated a community's mesh network with its traffic as opposed to paying for T1 lines. Shoot them?

Before IBNIZ, viznut was using a C compiler to, well, discover minimal music. You should read his paper regarding algorithmic composition using small programs. und check out my repository of formulas for C programs that generate sound.

People without easy access to compilers (I met a gal a few days ago who had old OS X and no 99$ to spare for a dev account) should still check out a track from the repository as wave file to get an impression of the style.

I also wrote a program generating a crude chiptunes version of the IT crowd melody (of course, the melody is not algorithmically generated, but rather encoded in the source, feel free to consider that cheating).

Ink-jet printed graphene circuits have been demonstrated. The incentives for cooperative mesh networking are in their physics. Why waste energy just so you can spoil a "commons"? If you want to see an example of how community resilience can effectively deal with aggression, look up the Swiss military.

The word "Like" is relative. Relative to the past frame of reference. The second time you see a gorilla, you think it looks like the first gorilla. I suspect I would be hard-pressed to tell a male gorilla from a female on casual observation. Jane Goodall, however, probably sees as much visual distinction between individual gorillas as you see between humans.

Same with exoplanets. The first ones we detected were supergiants in close orbits around relatively small stars. Compared to those, Mars is Earth-like. Now we've found enough that "Earth-like" is evolving to mean something more specific. Vague terms in novel and rapidly advancing fields have evolving meanings. That is the nature of language.

As others have said, exoplanet taxonomy is a fine new field to plumb, but that doesn't mean Earth-like is bad -- it's just vague and unscientific. A rough measure that only has meaning in context. Conversational shorthand, useful in casual discourse.

A quick look around finds that there are people working on formal taxonomy.

Here is the scientific paper. It makes no claim whatsoever about the mass of IGR J17091-3624. On p. 6, they say:

Figure 5 implies that if IGR J17091-3624 emits at Eddington, then either it harbors the lowest mass black hole known today (< 3Msolar for distances lower than 17 kpc), or, it is very distant. Such a large distance, together with its b ~2.2deg Galactic latitude, would imply a significant, but not necessarily implausible, altitude above the disk

Here is the NASA press release summarizing the paper for people who aren't scientists. It quotes the lead author as saying:

Just as the heart rate of a mouse is faster than an elephant's, the heartbeat signals from these black holes scale according to their masses

The Forbes article morphs this into "NASA Satellite May Have Found The Smallest Known Black Hole," and says, "An international team of astronomers utilizing NASA's Rossi X-Ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), believe that they've identified a candidate for the smallest known black hole[...]"

The slashdot summary says:

The black hole itself is only about three times the mass of the Sun[...]

This is completely incorrect. It's a candidate for a very low mass black hole. What that means is that they're suggesting that astronomers do follow-up observations on this object and actually determine its mass, which may be unusually low.

It is of very great interest to relativists and astronomers to find the smallest black holes. There is a limit called the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit on the largest mass that a neutron star can have. There are big theoretical uncertainties in this number, but it is probably around three solar masses. However, we don't know for sure whether anything too massive to be a stable neutron star necessarily becomes a black hole. There have been all kinds of goofy objects hypothesized by theorists that might be intermediate between neutron stars and black holes, including black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, and electroweak stars. Observing a low-mass black hole narrows the gap in mass between the heaviest stable neutron star and the lightest black hole, leaving less wiggle room to believe in these exotic objects.

The actual bump on the ATLAS graph was about 126 GeV, and the local sigma was 3.6 which is pretty good

This model of everything predicted a Higgs at 125.992, which is pretty close (with the current error bars). Could be coincidence, of course, but their idea of a well-defined set of rules that predicts each particle's mass correctly is tantalizing.

Unless things have changed since yesterday, the LHC cannot disprove the HB. It can show that it isn't within certain energy ranges, but it does not have the capability of emphatically disproving it's existence over the entire predicted spectrum.

That's literally true but misleading. Here is a paper that explains how non-LHC data constrain the standard-model Higgs to have a mass between 115 and 148 GeV. The LHC can't test whether there's a Higgs with a very high mass, but that's irrelevant because we know it has to be below 148 GeV based on non-LHC data. Based on the combination of non-LHC and LHC data, we know that if there's a standard-model Higgs, then it has a mass of about 115-127 GeV. The LHC is absolutely capable of disproving the existence of a standard-model Higgs within that mass range, if it doesn't actually exist. If there is no SM Higgs, we will know that within a couple of years based on LHC data.

The real reason there may be a lot of uncertainty for years to come is that there are many different ways of making a model with a Higgs in it. The standard model is only one of them. Some of the non-SM Higgses could be very difficult to detect. Here is a nice discussion of that. There are scenarios where the SM Higgs is ruled out by 2014, but by 2022 we still will not have detected or ruled out a non-SM Higgs.

Oh, can I try?

Evangelos Georgiadis of MIT and Doron Zeilberger of Rutgers, along with Zeiberger's computer Shalosh B. Ekhad, have written a paper entitled, "How to Gamble If You're In a Hurry," in which they propose new ways of studying gambling from a mathematical perspective. They criticize previous scholarship following the Kolmogorov measure-theoretic paradigm, including Kelly (1956), Breiman (1961), and Dubins and Savage (1976), on the grounds that the mechanisms they provide for winning do not take into account real-life constraints such as the finite divisibility of money, the finite duration of the game, the finite resources of the opponents, and the possibility of uneven payoff in the game. Rather than proposing a single strategy that provides an optimal outcome to an unrealistic scenario, Georgiadis and Zeilberger provide a Maple package that calculates the best strategy given a set of real-world criteria, including the probability of winning a game, the amount of money you have, and the time within which you must complete your gambling. The paper thus represents a movement from using mathematics to derive single solutions to highly abstract problems to using algorithms that can generate optimal solutions for more concrete problems. Also, Zeiberger advances an attempt at cuteness by putting condescending words about humanity in his computer's mouth, the irony of which is heightened by the realization that Shalosh B. Ekhad is nothing more than Zeiberger's ventriloquist dummy.

Actually the actual article is at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1112/1112.1645v1.pdf

There's recent evidence that a large moon to stabilize may not be necessary. See http://www.universetoday.com/91331/life-on-alien-planets-may-not-require-a-large-moon-after-all/ for a summary and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103511004064 for the actual paper. The issue is that while the lack of a moon will result in less stability in general the level of wobbling will be small and slow. There's also been in general growing evidence that habitable planets are more common than one might think otherwise. One recent study indicates that around a third of all sun-like stars have a planet in the habitable zone. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/29/new-study-13-of-sun-like-stars-might-have-terrestrial-planets-in-their-habitable-zones/ http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1109/1109.4682v1.pdf (keep in mind that being in the habitable zone is not sufficient for life. Our system has three planets in that zone, Earth, Mars and Venus, and only one of them supports complex life.) There's also been recent work which shows that for red dwarf stars there habitable zones are much larger than was previously expected (essentially water ice preferentially absorbs light from just the right wavelengths that red stars emit so that the outer zone is longer).

In general, the Fermi question is a serious concern. It is a concern not just for the deep implications it has but for the practical implications for our survival. In particular, it is possible that there's a lack of intelligent life out there because life finds ways to wipe itself out. Carl Sagan for example was worried that an explanation for the Fermi paradox was that species inevitably kill themselves with nuclear war before they get off their home planets. That particular worry seems less founded right now, but other worries, like exhaustion of resources, bad nanotech and others exist. Worse, if there is such a set of very risky technologies, they have to arise quickly so that species which encounter them don't generally have time to even anticipate the risk enough. Also, if this is a common problem then that means that it needs to arise soon in our future, say the next hundred years. That's because the technology has to arise in general before one stars spreading out to space. I suspect that intelligent life is rare due to the all the difficulties, not due to civilizations destroying themselves. But the possibility that self-elimination is the problem is deeply disturbing. More resources need to be put into dealing with existential risk.

You mean Mathematical models like the theory of gravity? Yup, sounds pretty reasonable.

There are other more complicated but also more plausible and elegant solutions that exist without needing to introduce dark matter. The problem dark matter attempts to solve are curves witnessed in galaxy rotation that are inconsistent with our understanding of gravity and mass. The key hypothesis is that dark matter is a dipolar fluid composed from gravitational dipoles (in analogy with electric dipole, a gravitational dipole is defined as a system composed of two particles, one with positive and one with negative gravitational charge). the galaxy rotation curves can be considered as result of the gravitational polarization of the dipolar fluid by the gravitational field of baryonic matter.

This paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf by D S Hajdukovic at CERN proposes that dark matter does not exist but its measured effect is merely an illusion created by the polarization of the quantum vacuum by the gravitational field of the baryonic matter.

And, only classical mechanical systems can be modeled by cellular automata. I remember reading a few pages from the quantum mechanics and relativity pages when the book first came out. It seemed like he simply side stepped all the discussions in the 1930s to 1960s about the EPR paradox, locality, hidden variable theories etc. Here's someone who took the time to prove it:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206089

Quote: "We show that this proposal cannot be made compatible with both special relativity and Bell inequality violation."

I was a simple graduate student back then so finding flaws in (some of) his arguments can not be considered hard.

What if the neutrino isn't a moving object but an exchange of events?

Then you would have information travelling faster than light. Although that might appear to be more probable than particles, you would still have the problem that a tachyonic force carrier can't affect non-tachyonic particles according to current relativity.

I'm currently pondering this explanation (pdf). Any special relativity physicists care to comment on that? The math appears sound, but I'm not accepting the initial premise:

Suppose that on Earth a massive particle is travelling at velocity v in a circular orbit (or just in an arc) at a fixed radial distance r = R. Calculate the proper time of travel measured by an observer which is fixed at the same radial distance.

In my reading, this assumes there is one observer witnessing both events bound on the same radius as the particle. But the experiment used two observers, using a satellite (bad approximation of infinity) to synchronize them, which should reduce to a single observer at infinity. I would accept the argument that a satellite is not infinite enough to escape the effect, though...

This is addressed in the paper. The 1987a neutrinos have energies in the 1-20 MeV range while the OPERA result is for neutrinos in the 3-100 GeV range. That is around three orders of magnitude higher than the 1987a result. Page 3 section 1 paragraph 3 covers this (for some reason Slashdot won't let me block quote it):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v2
Superluminal neutrinos must have energy dependent velocities.

There also systems based on elliptic curve isogenies, but a new quantum algorithm comes somewhat close to breaking them.

I'm one of the authors of that algorithm. You might be interested in my latest work: an improved cryptosystem based on elliptic curve isognies which seems to be more secure against quantum computers than previous isogeny-based schemes. (In particular, my algorithm for breaking the old isogeny-based schemes doesn't work against this new scheme.) Since posting the paper, we have improved the performance of the new scheme to the point where it is faster than RSA for the same (conjectured) level of security, even against classical computers (never mind quantum computers).

I am obviously biased, but I think my new scheme is the best candidate for quantum-resistant key exchange. It's faster than RSA, it uses shorter keys than RSA, and it's security is based on relatively standard results in elliptic curve theory compared to other systems that involve difficult-to-analyze problems on lattices. It is very much a classical cryptosystem with some nice features, which happens to be quantum-resistant. It's not some kind of cumbersome scheme which you would use only if you cared about quantum computers.

In general, I've given up on replying to Slashdot crypto articles, unless I have a personally relevant reason to do so (your post certainly qualifies). The general level of ignorance in the discussion is so stratospheric that it is painful to read. Even worse, the vast majority of commenters think that they know what they're talking about (they don't), and the vast majority of moderators mod up ignorant (but plausible sounding) drivel while ignoring the comments made by actual cryptographers.

The correct answer to the submitter's question is what you just said: there are plenty of quantum-resistant key-exchange protocols available, among them NTRU, McEliece, learning with errors, and my scheme. The submitter should also have asked about quantum-resistant digital signature schemes. Here the answer is much less reassuring: there is only one, namely, NTRU. This is a huge problem for crypto if we ever build a quantum computer, since authentication is at least as important as encryption. It's a real shame that this entire discussion is based on the wrong question.

Source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5728

They investigated the ownership and control of ALL 43,000 trans-national corporations (TNCs), ie ones with business in more than one country:

"We find that, despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations. A relevant additional fact at this point is that 3/4 of the core are financial intermediaries.

The core is also very densely connected, with members having, on average, ties to 20 other members. As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core
remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other."

This was the first "World Wide Web". The web of corporations that control pieces of each other. The ultimate owners, rich individuals who own stock directly, then control vastly more power through this web than if the companies were truly independent of each other.

The title of Shor's original paper on his algorithm was "Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer.

is a public key system that is resistant to quantum fourier sampling attacks (ie. attacks of the type Shor discovered). That's not to say it's resistant to quantum mechanical attacks, but that if it is, nobody knows what the attack looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McEliece_cryptosystem http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2390

There are several asymmetric protocols with very nice security properties, even against adversaries with quantum computers. My personal favorite is based on the Learning With Errors problem, which is in turn based on some lattice results. Wikipedia has a decent summary, and the original paper is here. The old McEliece cryptosystem might be secure against quantum attack. NTRU is commercialized but its security bounds make me very nervous. There also systems based on elliptic curve isogenies, but a new quantum algorithm comes somewhat close to breaking them. The main problem with these cryptosystems is that the resulting ciphertexts and signatures tend to be fairly long. RSA produces ciphertexts that are about the same length as the original messages and DSA produces nice, short signatures. ECC protocols are even better, but Shor's algorithm breaks them just as easily as RSA and DSA. The fancy post-quantum protocols, on the other hand, tend to produce large messages that are slow to work with.

If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

He is talking specifically about these feedbacks. James Hansen is about as mainstream as it gets.

Densest columnar structures of hard spheres from sequential deposition

Here's the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.0434v1

The AC is basically right. Here are a couple of careful discussions of this topic: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093 , http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract

First off, the slashdot summary is somewhat misleading, because the result is not new. Their result was announced in August 2010: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907 . What is new is that they finally managed to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't judge whether it's right or wrong simply based on whether it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review doesn't judge whether a result is right, or whether it can be reproduced. Peer review just tries to judge whether there are obvious mistakes, and things like whether it properly cites the previous literature. The fact that the journal is a prestigious one also doesn't mean it's right; it just means that *if* it were right, it would be of a high level of scientific importance.

Second, it's not really correct to say that the result is controversial. It's not controversial. It's wrong, and the fact that it's wrong is uncontroversial. Just because there's an overwhelming consensus that a result is wrong, that doesn't mean it can't be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Below is a FAQ entry I wrote about this stuff.

Has the fine structure constant changed over cosmological timescales?

It has been claimed based on astronomical observations that the unitless fine-structure constant alpha=e^2/hbar*c actually varies over time, rather than being fixed.[Webb 2001] This claim is probably wrong, since later attempts to reproduce the observations failed.[Chand 2004] Rosenband et al.[Rosenband 2008] have done laboratory measurements that rule out a linear decrease of alpha with time large enough to be consistent with Webb's results.

Webb et al. have recently made even more extraordinary claims that the fine structure constant varies over the celestial sphere.[Webb 2010] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Webb et al. have not supplied that; their results are at the margins of statistical significance compared to their random and systematic errors.

Even if their claims are correct, this is not evidence that c is changing, as is sometimes stated in the popular press. If an experiment is to test whether a fundamental constant is really constant, the constant must be unitless.[Duff 2002] If the fine-structure constant does vary, there is no empirical way to assign blame to c as opposed to hbar or e. John Baez has a nice web page discussing the unitless constants of nature.

J.K. Webb et al., 2000, "Further Evidence for Cosmological Evolution of the Fine Structure Constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539v3

J.K. Webb et al., 2010, "Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant," http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

H. Chand et al., 2004, Astron. Astrophys. 417: 853, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401094

Srianand et al., 2004, Phys.Rev.Lett.92:121302, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402177

Duff, 2002, "Comment on time-variation of fundamental constants," http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

Baez, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html

Rosenband et al., 2008, 319 (5871): 1808-1812, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5871/1808.abstract