Slashdot Mirror

And the ignorance about dark matter [...] makes creationists look well informed.

Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).

Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results ... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007" Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.

Sigh. Got some reading to do, I guess.

And the ignorance about dark matter [...] makes creationists look well informed.

Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).

Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results ... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007" Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.

Sigh. Got some reading to do, I guess.

FFS the linked article didn't mention the original paper, thank goodness they even mentioned the authors. After tracking down the authors publications, I have located the original paper on arxiv. It's interesting to read, and seems to lend more thought experiment evidence to the many world interpretation.

No, machine learning is not the way it "worked" in the 1960's.

Machine learning and AI is also a distinction without a difference. AI comes in categories not just limited to "general".

And the Copenhagen interpretation is the new "Bohr atom model" - almost no one believes it this century

A 2011 survey of attendees of a conference on quantum physics would disagree with you, with 42% of the respondents (a plurality) listing the Copenhagen interpretation as their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Anyhow, measurement devices collapse the wave state, removing this sort of uncertainty at the point of measurement.

Sorry -- what's your definition of the Copenhagen interpretation? Because, to my understanding, wave function collapse on measurement *is* the Copenhagen interpretation: "Here's the quantum regime. Here's the classic regime. The result of a 'measurement' is always classical. -- How do you go from quantum to classical? It doesn't matter, it just does. We have well defined procedures to extract the empirical (classical) measurement results from a given quantum result. Throw a black box over the 'how', then shut up and calculate."

On GAN's generally, since no actual research is linked to, here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.266...

That was a profoundly influential paper. A must read for anyone interested in modern AI.

Ian Goodfellow, the primary author, also co-authored Deep Learning, the best book available for learning about deep neural nets.

This not as outlandish as it sounds with speculative quantum gravity theories. Notably, past the event horizon, time could actually run backwards. Meaning time doesn't stand asymptotically still, but past there progressively starts running backwards from our perspective. Note that this doesn't imply time travel as the effect would manifest strictly locally. It has however interesting implications regarding possible "radiation" from the black hole. All you need to overcome is the difficulty of being near event horizon and not getting stuck there, but rest of it is essentialy "free ride". From perspective of black hole inhabitant, our universe would be center of black hole in their universe.

The intuition is thus that arrow of time is related to matter and gravity. The field equations for gravity would then point arrow of time as a multi dimensional wave where each cycle into negative half cycle manifested as black holes.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.043...

Figure 1 in the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.102...

Mostly variants (rotations and flips) of L, Z, and 1.

Define soon. To seriously break the ECC that bitcoin relies on to protect private keys you need 1500 quantum bits, and the highest entanglement recorded is 20, and the highest # working as a computer is 5. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph...

The meat of the objections is also on arxiv at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.029... . It would be nice to see the original data, rather than making inferences from graphs, but I guess that'll come out in due course. I will admit to having made similar mistakes myself by mangling data in Excel - which is why I double-check myself on that sort of thing. So I'm not going to sling around interpretations of how this happened. But the pattern does look pretty suspicious.

Putting aside whether it's real, TFP claims superconductivity occurs at 236K = ~35 below zero in whichever temperature scale suits your fancy.

That's a bit nippy for my taste.

I know this is Slashdot and nowadays people don't even read the summary, let alone the article, much less the actual paper to which the article links, but there's an awful lot of straw littering the floor here.

The chaff bugs are inserted by an automated tool, they will not have to be written or worked around by people writing the actual code.

The authors are aware that the chaff bugs must not be exploitable.

The authors are aware that they will face automated tools for finding bugs and determining their exploitability.

The authors are aware that this is just a proof-of-concept and would require refinement to be useful in the real world.

I can't see how to do this without spending a lot of time ensuring that the bugs you are adding are non-exploitable.

Oddly enough, the authors of the paper explain this in section IV-B Ensuring Non-Exploitability

Great non-intuitive idea that clearly came out of academia. Clearly Dolan-Gavitt has never worked for a living.

What's with the hostility toward academia? Lots of great ideas have come out of academia. No academic myself, just decades of writing real-world software, during which I've learned not to judge other people, especially without reading their work.

The chaff bugs would be inserted by an automated tool. No need for programmers to make up anything.

They would not be indistinguishable from the real thing to a skilled hacker; the idea is that they would be so numerous as to make the effort of finding the actual exploitable bugs uneconomical.

The paper says the injected bugs are triggered by comparing an input value to a trigger constant. Dead code elimination cannot remove them because they depend on values that will not be known until run time.

It also explains that they make the chaff bugs unexploitable (or at least, attempt to do so) by limiting what memory locations they overwrite or which values are written.

At least link the source which is the Arxiv paper here.

We don't come to /. to read a summary of a headline which links to a summary on another site summarizing someone elses summary.

Multiple posts, all idiots, and the freaking Article doesn't even link the free, actually readable link to the story.

All I see here anymore are political whining, Team trolling, paid positions, and bullshit.

The first actual science in a while, and no interest.

Wow.

Here's a link to ArXiv, and the original pdf:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.058...

I'm reminded of Oliver Heaviside, who refactored Maxwell's equations into the useful and familiar vector notation that has adorned many tshirts of electrical engineering and physics students. Heaviside took an unwieldy set of twenty field equations, and reduced them to four. I do wonder what insights we can potentially learn if the model itself is refactored into an elegant form.

Her PhD thesis: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.091...

The mathematician John Baez has an engaging writing style, and gave an amusing account of octonian numbers (His blog is very interesting BTW): http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/

"There are exactly four normed division algebras: the real numbers (R), complex numbers (C), quaternions (H), and octonions (O). The real numbers are the dependable breadwinner of the family, the complete ordered field we all rely on. The complex numbers are a slightly flashier but still respectable younger brother: not ordered, but algebraically complete. The quaternions, being noncommutative, are the eccentric cousin who is shunned at important family gatherings. But the octonions are the crazy old uncle nobody lets out of the attic: they are nonassociative."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/...

Besides reliable operation at room temperature, the biggest issue with atomic-scale memories always has been read and (especially) write speed, since they use an atomic force microscope. It will be interesting to see how the technology develops to overcome these limitations.

Your first claim is factually incorrect. They could not detect any more radiation. They didn't even measure it.

The first sentence of paragraph 2 of the arxiv paper: "The technique used is low background gamma spectrometry and measurements are made at the PRISNA facility." Gamma spectrometry is a measurement of the energy spectrum of gamma rays -- in other words, a measurement of radioactivity. (Yes, you have to integrate over all energies to get a total radioactivity, but it's measuring radioactivity just the same.)

What they did was simply to look for presence of any cesium 137 atoms in a spectrometer.

Your claim is factually incorrect. Gamma measurements do not directly measure the number of Cs 137 atoms. Cs137 decays via a beta particle to produce either stable Ba or unstable Ba (~95%), which further decays via the emission of gamma radiation. It is the gamma from Ba decay that is measured, so they are actually measuring, indirectly, the number of unstable Ba atoms.

Your second claim is blatant whitewashing.

Since you are too lazy to quote what you are referring to, I can only guess that you are referring to my statement of fact -- that the article did not claim any harm would come to anyone from this "2X" factor. Sorry, that's a fact. I don't know what you think needs to be whitewashed, unless it's some bizarre idea that all radiation is bad and that people drinking Cali wines should stop because they're now too polluted with that awful radiation stuff.

Specifically, they assumed a baseline range of 5-10 mBqs of background radiation, then measured approx 9mBqs in 2009, 14mBqs in a bottle of 2011 Cabernet Sauvignon, 12 mBqs in 2012, and 11 in 2014 and 2015.
The California rose wines tested measured much lower, at 2 mBqs in 2008, 3 mBqs in 2009, 4 mBqs in 2012, and 2 mBqs in 2013.

It's only 'double' if you assume a low base to begin with, and it is currently indistinguishable from what it was before Fukushima.

Finally, this isn't a real paper - it's a three page (including graphs and bibliography) 'article'. Very little data or methodology. Lots of FUD.

Re: "The current flows predicted by the debunked EU theory have not been observed."

Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.

The column density map, derived from our 70-500 micron Herschel data, reveals a complex network of filaments, and confirms that these filaments are the main birth sites of prestellar cores.

(they infer "turbulence" as the cause of the 27 star forming filaments, which plainly appear to branch off of one another! lol!)

Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitude show that the interstellar gas is filamentary.

Fig. (1) is an adaptation of Verschuur’s Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes [31]. The HI plasma filaments are formed by the scavenging action of interstellar Birkeland currents flowing in our galaxy. Seen from Earth the filament twists gives the misleading impression of a puzzling HI ‘cloud’ seen as an ‘enhanced emission feature’ (EEF) in the 21-cm radio telescope beam. The closed ellipses in the right-hand schematic are EEFs where the filament orientation twists away from the plane of the sky. Verschuur concludes that “...much of what is observed to be ‘cloud’ structure in the interstellar medium is telling us about geometry of filaments and not about the physics of ‘clouds.’”

These long and narrow magnetised filaments were discovered in the 1980s using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico, but their origin has remained a mystery.

Henri Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, 'Hypothéses Cosmogoniques', states:

One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, is a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark.

our results have now yielded firm evidence that many — possibly all — AGN jets have inward currents along their axes and outward currents in a more extended region surrounding the jets. This provides fundamental information about the conditions leading to the formation and launching of the jets, as well as key input to theoretical simulations of astrophysical jets. It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures, which must be borne in mind when interpreting observed features in the distributions of both their intensity and linear polarization.

The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-

Re: "The current flows predicted by the debunked EU theory have not been observed."

Observations with ESA's Herschel space observatory have revealed that our Galaxy is threaded with filamentary structures on every length scale. From nearby clouds hosting tangles of filaments a few light-years long to gigantic structures stretching hundreds of light-years across the Milky Way's spiral arms, they appear to be truly ubiquitous.

The column density map, derived from our 70-500 micron Herschel data, reveals a complex network of filaments, and confirms that these filaments are the main birth sites of prestellar cores.

(they infer "turbulence" as the cause of the 27 star forming filaments, which plainly appear to branch off of one another! lol!)

Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitude show that the interstellar gas is filamentary.

Fig. (1) is an adaptation of Verschuur’s Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes [31]. The HI plasma filaments are formed by the scavenging action of interstellar Birkeland currents flowing in our galaxy. Seen from Earth the filament twists gives the misleading impression of a puzzling HI ‘cloud’ seen as an ‘enhanced emission feature’ (EEF) in the 21-cm radio telescope beam. The closed ellipses in the right-hand schematic are EEFs where the filament orientation twists away from the plane of the sky. Verschuur concludes that “...much of what is observed to be ‘cloud’ structure in the interstellar medium is telling us about geometry of filaments and not about the physics of ‘clouds.’”

These long and narrow magnetised filaments were discovered in the 1980s using the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico, but their origin has remained a mystery.

Henri Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, 'Hypothéses Cosmogoniques', states:

One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, is a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark.

our results have now yielded firm evidence that many — possibly all — AGN jets have inward currents along their axes and outward currents in a more extended region surrounding the jets. This provides fundamental information about the conditions leading to the formation and launching of the jets, as well as key input to theoretical simulations of astrophysical jets. It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures, which must be borne in mind when interpreting observed features in the distributions of both their intensity and linear polarization.

The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles – and after a bit of foot-shuffling and throat-

Re: And yet when we search for these massive fields, they've never been found

It's not clear why you expect to see "massive" fields. Don Scott has published the mathematics for the force-free field-aligned Birkeland current, and it is a Bessel function - a series of concentric cylinders of counter-rotating charge.

To be clear, there is no mathematical basis in the Bessel function for your claim that a massive field would be observable from outside of the filament structure.

If you take a close look at the geometry which is being alleged, you should notice that the existence of these counter-rotating cylinders means that we cannot assume that electric currents will produce large magnetic fields.

It wasn't more than about two years after Dr. Scott published this paper, by the way, that another paper was published, acknowledging the existence of counter-rotation in AGN [active galactic nuclei] jets:

our results have now yielded firm evidence that many — possibly all — AGN jets have inward currents along their axes and outward currents in a more extended region surrounding the jets. This provides fundamental information about the conditions leading to the formation and launching of the jets, as well as key input to theoretical simulations of astrophysical jets. It also indicates that astrophysical jets are fundamentally electromagnetic structures, which must be borne in mind when interpreting observed features in the distributions of both their intensity and linear polarization.

Did you even check the paper at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.041...

The abstract states "We apply basic statistical reasoning to signal reconstruction by machine learning — learning to map corrupted observations to clean signals — with a simple and powerful conclusion: under certain common circumstances, it is possible to learn to restore signals without ever observing clean ones , at performance close or equal to training using clean exemplars."

The results show dramatic improvements that are very close to original image (before random noise is introduced to generate the input)- a level of improvement that is simply not possible with conventional image processing/denoising filters.

If this is not AI, I don't know what else would be.

Sounds like GOAP - goal orientated action planning. You start at the end state then perform actions (in reverse) until you get to the current state. I read the article which doesn't tell you much more about how they did it. It sounds like they brute forced a bunch of moves to build up a tree then used A* on the tree. Then they trained a neural net on the brute-forced solutions. They talk about evaluating how close a cube state is to the goal state, but they don't explain how the AI determined that. It sounds like they hard coded what closeness means, so they're lying when they say the AI worked without human assistance. Without human assistance means they would have needed to use a GA, self-playing, or some other learning method to determine what closeness means. The article's "without human assistance" refers to them not hard-coding any move sequences. I consider that a very far stretch of the word. I'd call hard-coding moves as cheating. If you give it everything it needs, it turns an AI into an algorithm in my mind.

Here's a link to the paper from the article. I don't have the time to read it right now: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.074...

Search is the basic AI problem and thus part of AI. And no, they are not using GOAP here (which is just a type of search). It looks a lot more like Value Iteration which is a type of RL (Reinforcement Learning). The point of this research is that it learns to not blindly try random things but learns to search in a more intelligent fashion. But unfortunately for them, their technique was invented decades ago and so just slapping a new name on it doesn't really impress anyone.

now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

OK, but what are these "non-standard" scientists going to do differently? Do they have experiments that would be a better application of our (collective) money than an upgrade in the standard model?

Even if the standard model is somewhat wrong (it's mostly right, just like Newton's model is mostly right), then what experiments would we do differently to verify it?

these are extremely pertinent and insightful questions that i deliberately didn't ask in the reply that started this thread, as i wanted to keep it to just one (albeit long) point. if it's ok with you i'm going to do a "wandering tour" before directly answering, ok?

first thing: the standard model is "right" because as you can see from those "magic constants" listed in that link to spinor.info https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=... it's *MADE* to be "right" by virtue of the unexplained magic constants being altered and adjusted using statistical analysis to fit the available data. on the basis that there's really not a lot of point to publishing magic constants that made the standard model WRONG, would there?? :)

second thing: if you ever get a chance to meet a particle physicist (theoretical or practical e.g. working at CERN) i invite you to ask them this very simple question: what are particles *actually* made of? they won't be able to give you an answer, and there's a very simple reason why: they've been trained (mind-blinkered), through the Standard Model, to think of particles EXCLUSIVELY at one mathematical step removed i.e. in the FREQUENCY domain.

if you're not familar with this, quantum mechanics is basically about doing an FFT (fourier transform). that's really all there is to it. you move *everything* to the frequency domain, and do all math there. so Yang-Mills theory (which is the fundamental basis of modern particle physics theory) as i understand it is basically Maxwell's Equations moved to the frequency domain. https://www.google.co.uk/searc... and i *think* that perspective is confirmed by this paper here http://inspirehep.net/record/1...

so if everything's moved to a mathematical "hands-off" construct, how the hell is anyone supposed to determine what's actually *inside* particles??

where that went wrong was somewhere around the 1930s, when quantum mechanics got such amazing answers that anyone not formulating theories in quantum mechanics terms was basically left with egg on their faces. the ring model. kaluza-klein theory (which has problems raised by its answers that still haven't been addressed).

so if you want to even *start* formulating a theory that begins to predict actual particles, you need something radically different to start *from*. garrett lisi's "exceptional theory of everything" https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.077... was one paper that showed promise, with some predicted new particles, however lisi himself later worked with a mathematician to *prove* that the theory could not work https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.265...

there was another guy, john williamson, "on the nature of the photon and the electron" http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/11095... who moved Maxwell's Equations to 6D Clifford Algebra, and got some startli

now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

OK, but what are these "non-standard" scientists going to do differently? Do they have experiments that would be a better application of our (collective) money than an upgrade in the standard model?

Even if the standard model is somewhat wrong (it's mostly right, just like Newton's model is mostly right), then what experiments would we do differently to verify it?

these are extremely pertinent and insightful questions that i deliberately didn't ask in the reply that started this thread, as i wanted to keep it to just one (albeit long) point. if it's ok with you i'm going to do a "wandering tour" before directly answering, ok?

first thing: the standard model is "right" because as you can see from those "magic constants" listed in that link to spinor.info https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=... it's *MADE* to be "right" by virtue of the unexplained magic constants being altered and adjusted using statistical analysis to fit the available data. on the basis that there's really not a lot of point to publishing magic constants that made the standard model WRONG, would there?? :)

second thing: if you ever get a chance to meet a particle physicist (theoretical or practical e.g. working at CERN) i invite you to ask them this very simple question: what are particles *actually* made of? they won't be able to give you an answer, and there's a very simple reason why: they've been trained (mind-blinkered), through the Standard Model, to think of particles EXCLUSIVELY at one mathematical step removed i.e. in the FREQUENCY domain.

if you're not familar with this, quantum mechanics is basically about doing an FFT (fourier transform). that's really all there is to it. you move *everything* to the frequency domain, and do all math there. so Yang-Mills theory (which is the fundamental basis of modern particle physics theory) as i understand it is basically Maxwell's Equations moved to the frequency domain. https://www.google.co.uk/searc... and i *think* that perspective is confirmed by this paper here http://inspirehep.net/record/1...

so if everything's moved to a mathematical "hands-off" construct, how the hell is anyone supposed to determine what's actually *inside* particles??

where that went wrong was somewhere around the 1930s, when quantum mechanics got such amazing answers that anyone not formulating theories in quantum mechanics terms was basically left with egg on their faces. the ring model. kaluza-klein theory (which has problems raised by its answers that still haven't been addressed).

so if you want to even *start* formulating a theory that begins to predict actual particles, you need something radically different to start *from*. garrett lisi's "exceptional theory of everything" https://arxiv.org/abs/0711.077... was one paper that showed promise, with some predicted new particles, however lisi himself later worked with a mathematician to *prove* that the theory could not work https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.265...

there was another guy, john williamson, "on the nature of the photon and the electron" http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/11095... who moved Maxwell's Equations to 6D Clifford Algebra, and got some startli

I felt the same reading the OP so I dug up a bit on what it all means and found it quite interesting. We asked where the mass comes from, but we didn't say what we meant by mass. In classical physics, mass just "is" -- it's a fundamental property of matter, that gives things weight in gravity. But in quantum mechanics, mass is a property derived from the energy of a fundamental zero-volume "particle" like photon or electron, or a system like the helium nucleus (which we see it as two neutrons plus two protons, but it's really a "cage" for the 12 point-particles -- quarks -- that make those 4 nucleons.) When the energy of the particle/system changes, its mass changes as well. The E=mc2 captures this relation.

What the OP referred to is that the proton has a "resting" (non-moving) mass of 938 of some units, but the three quarks that make it have the rest mass of 9 of those units. The difference comes from the force that binds those quarks into a proton, and that force is carried by "particles" called "gluons". I put particles in quotes because the diameter of fundamental particles is thought to be exactly zero -- everything that makes the visible world is made of empty, non-material twists in space so to speak. ... Now reading what I wrote it doesn't seem much less complicated from what the OP wrote, and I don't even understand a tenth of the stuff. You may want to read this paper, which is fairly accessible as far as QM papers go:

"What is the physical meaning of mass in view of wave-particle duality? A proposed model" https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/...

For my part, I'd only add that this is just a model -- quarks, electrons, photons etc. aren't "really" out there, those are all unknowable manifestation of nature that we interpret through our model. As that Nazi Werner Heisenberg said, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Nevertheless, it's a very useful model -- for one thing it let us made the bomb to help defeat the Nazis. :-)

This is an extension on GAN (Goodfellow - now at OpenAI, et al, 2014) https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.266... designed to produce publicity...

There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere.

It may not be zero cost, but the cost of running a VPS hosting some static PDFs is negligible. My VPS costs $10 per month.

The hard part is the peer reviews, for which, under the current system, the journals DO NOT PAY.

Before you give more reasons why Open Access is impossible, you should explain why the physics community is already doing it and it is working well.

If research is funded in full or in part with public funds, then the data and results should be available to the public.

Arxiv.org is not peer reviewed. It turns out that is actually costs money to organize journals and the peer review process. Making authors pay to publish offsets the organization costs. Hosting the final papers is cheap. Making sure that papers are typeset correctly, and that the peer review process does not break down is expensive because it requires paid editors.

There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere.

It may not be zero cost, but the cost of running a VPS hosting some static PDFs is negligible. My VPS costs $10 per month.

The hard part is the peer reviews, for which, under the current system, the journals DO NOT PAY.

Before you give more reasons why Open Access is impossible, you should explain why the physics community is already doing it and it is working well.

If research is funded in full or in part with public funds, then the data and results should be available to the public.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.016...

Re: "Proponents for these radical restrictions purport to raise two sets of concerns: reproducibility and transparency. In reality, these are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political interference in science-based decisionmaking, rather than genuinely address either."

Centralized "big science" communities more likely generate non-replicable results

"Abstract: Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel, high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2) centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized, overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized collaboration to promote robust scientific advance."

Introduction:

Concern over reliability (1) and reproducibility (2, 3) in science calls into question the cumulative process of building on prior results published by others. In a publication environment that rewards novel findings over verifications (4, 5), scientists remain uncertain about the published claims they assemble into new research designs and discoveries. In this paper, we demonstrate a claim replication strategy that repurposes high-throughput experiments to evaluate the replication likelihood for tens of thousands of scientific claims curated from a wide range of research articles.

Setting aside the fact that the existence of mathematics does not somehow make it correct, it is absolutely misleading to assert that there is no mathematics associated with either electrical cosmology (for example here) or the Electric Universe (for example here). In fact, understanding both require a deep appreciation for the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's Equations. Mathematics has been a part of electrical cosmology from its inception (for example here).

Math is crucial for understanding the critical ionization velocity effect; it has been used to show how Marklund convection can replace gravitational accretion as a system for forming stars (and unlike the idea of stars accreting gravitationally, the geometry matches observations of actual stars forming all at once in a burst). Don Scott could not have accurately predicted the structure of AGN jets without significant amounts of mathematics. He's a retired EE professor, so he has spent his life immersed in these mathematics which you claim the EU does not include.

Attempts to model space without electrodynamic plasma physics concepts are destined to fail. We know this because it's already been tried, and the approach has failed to explain the nature of the many cosmic plasma structures we observe.

Think about it this way: What is the first plasma we encounter as we leave the Earth? It's the ionosphere. You may not know a whole lot about the ionosphere, but if you've been paying attention at all, you will at least understand that it is layered. You might spend some time thinking about why that is. Why should differing concentrations of charge exist in layers at all? Why not just a smooth gradient of charge that tapers off as one leaves Earth? Why should differing, adjacent regions of charge not neutralize one another?

The math here explains why.

"As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.

A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources ... Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." ("Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics", Hannes Alfven, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec 1986)

In a 1992 paper titled, "Double Layers Do Accelerate Particles in the Auroral Zone," the authors plainly state:

"the direct observational evidence for substantial (multi-kV) electrostatic potential structures in the auroral zone is plentiful [16-27].

The Earth's auroral zone is far from being fully understood, but observations clearly show that electrostatic-potential structures (called double layers or electrostatic shocks) reside in the auroral magnetosphere."

Observations of laboratory plasmas have shown that double layers are what lend plasmas their structure. When you see a plasma filament in a novelty plasma globe, you should be asking: Why is charge confined to this thin filament? Laboratory plasma physicists point to the double layer as the source of this structure.

You should also be asking these same types of questions about the Van Allen Radiation belts: How can it be that these belts have all of this

What makes it even more kludgy is that this dark matter is supposed to make up a significant percentage of the universe. Except there is *NONE* in our solar system or it's immediate vicinity. If there was any dark matter locally then General Relativity would not explain the planets orbits around the Sun with such precision because it's does so using only visible matter.

This is a huge problem for dark matter because it presumes that our solar system is somehow very special, which is frankly too fantastical.

This is just wrong. This paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.193... (which also has a lot of interesting background) collects estimates of the density of dark matter in this part of the galaxy, most of which are around 0.01 solar masses/ cubic parsec (around 10^-21 kilograms/m^3). So even if the solar system was pervaded by dark matter of this density it would make no measurable difference to anything. For example the entire sphere up to Earth's distance from the Sun would contain about a billion tons of dark matter, the same as the mass of a extra 1 km diameter asteroid.

Given that this looks like a small dense globular cluster emerging from a larger cluster, and its extra bright (probably due to gas shock that started up new stars) it could be shaping up to be bullet cluster #2. link to actual non-paywalled source

Hereis a non paywalled source. This is interesting because it is yet another data point that our understanding of gravitational forces on normal baryonic matter (regular stuff) can hold at at least a few kilo parsecs.

While it's true we don't know if dark matter is an effect, or an actual stuff like wimps (weakly interacting massive particles), the evidence of uniform dispersion from gravitational lensing to kinematics while the uniformity still clumps in a gravitational way is starting to be convincing. A great example is the bullet cluster where the friction of the colliding gasses slowed the normal matter but the dark matter was virtually unaffected, the gravitational attraction was too weak and the dark matter stripped from the baryonic matter. But further, computational models consistent with measurement rely on dark matter to have a cooling effect which wouldn't work (or it's not at all clear anyhow) if it wasn't particle like. If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a weakly interacting particle.

There is a very promising theory by a Dutch theoretician (paper here), which can explain the observations without the need for dark energy / matter. I have seen the presentation of his work, and, as far as my understanding, it is based on idea that gravity is an emergent force, so-called entropic gravity Drupal.

First off, why the hell are you directing traffic to a bullshit aggregator when the original paper is RIGHT THERE?

You this to brigade ./ of course.

First off, why the hell are you directing traffic to a bullshit aggregator when the original paper is RIGHT THERE?

Second, wtf are they talking about? Ah: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community." ie, "Brigading" for anyone not in the know.

Third, The paper never mentions "Drama", they're exclusively talking about this sort of conflict that comes from brigading. IE, 1% of reddit communities do the brigading thing. (Because that's what they can track. Of course they can't track all drama in Reddit, it'd just be a list of all posts)

Fourth, The paper says 1% of communities, not 1% of users. Which is, kind of a DUH statement. There are topics which are political and those who are dedicated towards shifting other people's opinions, but most aren't. Nobody in ELI5 is going to be wing-nut extremist educationalist rousing the masses to explain, en-mass, complex topics in simple terms to other communities.

This is why you don't link to a bullshit opinion pieces re-interpreting a paper. Does slashdot even have editors anymore?

Probably because you didn't read TFP.

I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.

The actual paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.036... states:

we classify cross-links based on the sentiment of the source post. Overtly negative intent of the source post towards the post in the target community may signal outgroup derogation [30], which is a fundamental component of intergroup con ict [73, 75]. We collected labels from Mechanical Turk crowdworkers, who were shown source and target posts pairs, and were asked to label the sentiment of the source post towards the target as either negative, neutral, or positive.

Thus: conflict is defined as cases where (crowdsourced) evaluators label a sentiment toward the source post as negative, rather than neutral or positive.

Link to the actual work, instead of an article commenting on it:
abstract
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web

Link to the actual work, instead of an article commenting on it:
abstract
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web

But the headline is still wrong. The real situation is:

If W0720 experienced occasional flares similar to those of the active M8 star SDSS J022116.84+194020.4, then the star may have been rarely visible with the naked eye from Earth or minutes or hours during the flare events. Hence, while the binary system was too dim to see with the naked eye in its quiescent state during its flyby of the solar system 70 kya, flares by the M9.5 primary may have provided visible short-lived transients visble to our ancestors.

So the conclusion is that it is not completely impossible for it to be seen on rare occasions. This is in no way "likely".

Look at how narrow your focus has become. We are literally talking about some of the most complex questions man has ever asked, and you're imagining that you can reduce this very complex discussion to this single paper. In any debate like this, there are going to be winners and losers, but to produce a meaningful assessment, we have to look at the full breadth of all of the individual pieces: the claims, the critiques, the sociological patterns, psychological biases, the history of science, yes the validity of the math (but also whether or not it applies), unexpected vindications, basically the whole fabric of what is happening.

For example, here is an unexpected vindication below from this past January. Rather than simply accepting that galaxy experts don't read IEEE, perhaps we should view that admission as reason to suspect that that practice has an effect upon their ability to replicate (and by extension, self-correct).

Centralized "big science" communities more likely generate non-replicable results

Abstract: Growing concern that most published results, including those widely agreed upon, may be false are rarely examined against rapidly expanding research production. Replications have only occurred on small scales due to prohibitive expense and limited professional incentive. We introduce a novel, high-throughput replication strategy aligning 51,292 published claims about drug-gene interactions with high-throughput experiments performed through the NIH LINCS L1000 program. We show (1) that unique claims replicate 19% more frequently than at random, while those widely agreed upon replicate 45% more frequently, manifesting collective correction mechanisms in science; but (2) centralized scientific communities perpetuate claims that are less likely to replicate even if widely agreed upon, demonstrating how centralized, overlapping collaborations weaken collective understanding. Decentralized research communities involve more independent teams and use more diverse methodologies, generating the most robust, replicable results. Our findings highlight the importance of science policies that foster decentralized collaboration to promote robust scientific advance.

In other words, when a group of electrical engineers launches a critique of mainstream cosmology, the cosmologists can decide to either collaborate with this group to form new sets of questions and lines of investigation; or, they can just ignore or dismiss the critiques. Historically speaking, the pattern in the astrophysics and cosmology domains has been to centralize and ostracize outsiders:

The Death of $cience: A Companion Study to Martin Lopez Corredoira's The Twilight of the Scientific Age
by Andrew Holster

p.73:

Professional opposition to outsiders crossing boundaries of specialisations is one of the defining features of modern science, and one of the most powerful forces against heterodox thinkers. But combining insights from multiple fields is often the essential ingredient for making progress.

p.77:

Because of the number of severe and unexplained anomalies in modern physics and cosmology, foundational physics is open to revolutionary change. Indeed, I believe it would have gone through such a revolution over the last few decades, were it not for the severe repression of ideas in modern physics. And any such revolution will deeply affect other natural sciences, including theories of mind. Yet while I believe a revolution is immanent, I also think it is unlikely to be made through our present scientific institutions. It will be made by outsiders. The new approach required to advance physics will be attacked from within conventional physics, because it has to revolutionize certain foundational concepts of quantum theory and relativity theory, but this goes profoundly against the interests of professional physicists.

So it's OK if stars have their rotation axii aligned together:

http://www.cea.fr/english/Page...

Then galaxies seemed to be aligned with their rotation axii as well:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.281...

Same with quasars billions of light-years apart:

https://futurism.com/rotationa...

Gravity can pull objects together, but it takes electromagnetism to get them to align together.
That would suggest electric fields and currents.

Dear Slashdot Community,

Some 11 years ago, I watched a curious thing happen in the comments of a Slashdot article, and it would forever change my life. I watched on as members of the tech community labeled as pseudoscience the simple idea that electricity can travel through space over plasma (and actually do stuff of importance at the largest observable scales). Since that day, I have systematically tracked this electricity in space debate, and I have come to view the reporting on this topic as the greatest science journalism failure of our time.

To review, a plasma is just a gas with some percentage of unbound charged particles. We call it plasma, rather than gas, because it observably behaves differently. With less than even just 1% ionization, the ionospheric gas is observed to respond to electromagnetic fields. In the laboratory, plasmas can form into very complex structures like filaments. These filaments exhibit a long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with one another, which causes them to pair up without combining. Careful inspection of a novelty plasma globe will reveal that the filaments will tend to separate when they come into contact with the glass. The filaments can also link up with one another into very complex networks. All of this complexity is rather remarkable given that we are just talking about the "fourth" state of matter.

Now, let's review the current state of this electricity in space debate as it should be reported by science journalists.

1. It is not widely known, but definitely a fact that proper galactic rotation curves were simulated in the early 80's on government supercomputers by one of the world's leading plasma physicists, without the need for any dark matter. The reason that the arms appear to rotate as almost fixed plates, in this view, is that they are conducting electrical currents.

Galactic expert, Tim Thompson, has claimed that Peratt's decision to publish in IEEE was an attempt to avoid scrutiny. He admitted that no galactic researcher has ever read IEEE and they wouldn't know that the journal even exists (it's the largest technical organization in the world); and Thompson even went so far as to advise that galactic researchers intentionally avoid reading IEEE. You can see an annotated snapshot of his online forum post here.

2. We have been left with the impression that the CMB can only be explained as a remnant of the Big Bang expansion. This is simply not true:

"High-power microwave generation on earth belongs exclusively to devices using relativistic electron beams ... A relativistic electron beam that does not produce microwave radiation is unknown. These same basic mechanisms are likely to have their natural analogs in cosmic plasmas."

That quote comes from one of the world's leading plasma physicists, Anthony L. Peratt (Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, 2015, p.33-34.) Peratt would go on to publish a paper revealing more than a hundred local hydrogen filament structures which he claimed correlate with structures in the WMAP cosmic microwave background.

It would seem that people are not yet connecting the dots here between these recent admissions by astrophysicists that large-scale electric currents are real, and this faint microwave fog that is apparently coming at us from all directions. There is, without a doubt, more than one way to explain this cosmic microwave background; but you'd never know this from the science