Slashdot Mirror

"What's the alternative?"

The alternative is not that Einstein was wrong, but that neutrinos have imaginary mass rather than real mass. This is consistent with observations. We can't measure neutrino mass in experiments, only mass squared, and the error bars on those measurements persistently include some small negative numbers. (And some of these measurements virtually exclude any positive mass^2 values. Other measurements purporting to exclude negative mass^2 values may be the result of over-correction and wishful thinking.)

Imaginary-mass particles are consistent with relativity and were first theorized in the 1960s and given the name "tachyons". High-energy tachyons move near the speed of light; low-energy tachyons move at unlimited velocities. This accounts for the fact that the neutrinos from the 1987A supernova were only 18 hours ahead of the light from the explosion, despite the distance -- they were extremely high energy tachyons.

If neutrinos are tachyons, this could account for a couple of odd things about them - the exceptionally low cross section (likelihood of interaction) and their oscillating between different flavors (electron, muon, tau). Exactly how is a job for the theoreticians, but it seems to me that a neutral particle moving effectively backward in time and at unlimited velocities coupled with low energies is not often going to interact, and imaginary mass could be likened to a rotation or oscillation, much like many other things involving imaginary numbers in physics.

Physicist John Cramer talked about the idea back in 1992 in his Analog column: Neutrino Physics: Curiouser and Curiouser (Alternate View Column AV-54)

of the six most recent experimental determinations of neutrino mass, all have given negative values of the mass-squared to within the statics of the measurements. The experimental observation is that in the vicinity of the end point the yield of electrons lies above the zero-mass line, while for neutrinos with non-zero real mass, the electron yield should lie below this line. The measured mass-squared values are negative to an accuracy of several standard deviations in the most recent of these experiments.

These experimenters have been strangely quiet about mass-squared measurements with negative values. If the results had been positive by the same amount, the literature would be filled with claims that a non-zero value for the neutrino mass had been established. But a negative mass-squared is not something that can be easily publicized.

You obtain the measured mass value from a mass-squared measurement by taking the square root of the measured value. However, the square root of a negative number is an imaginary number. Thus the measurements could, in principle, be taken as an indication that the electron neutrino has an imaginary mass.

What are the physical implications of a particle with an imaginary rest mass? Gerald Feinberg of Columbia University has suggested hypothetical imaginary-mass particles which he has christened "tachyons". Tachyons are particles that always travel at velocities greater than the speed of light. Instead of speeding up when they are given more kinetic energy, they slow down so that their speed moves closer to the velocity of light from the high side as they become more energetic. Feinberg argued that since there are no physical laws forbidding the existence of tachyons, they may well exist and should be looked for.

Here's a link to another, slightly more technical look at the idea: Neutrinos Must be Tachyons by Eue Jin Jeong. Googling "neutrino tachyon" also turns up several previous discussions.

On the page you find the preprint (arxiv.org) you can also fins news articles and blogs mentioning the preprint:
http://arxiv.org/tb/recent
Could be good to browse through if you want to know more.

The paper itself is now available and it confirms that the relevant speed is the speed of light in vacuum.

PS: If I had mod points, I'd upvote damas reply.

from TFA at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1 regarding the time and distance measurements:

time: "A key feature of the neutrino velocity measurement is the accuracy of the relative time tagging at CERN and at the OPERA detector. The standard GPS receivers formerly installed at CERN and LNGS would feature an insufficient ~100 ns accuracy for the TOF measurement. Thus, in 2008, two identical systems, composed of a GPS receiver for time-transfer applications Septentrio PolaRx2e [16] operating in “common-view” mode [17] and a Cs atomic clock Symmetricom Cs4000 [18], were installed at CERN and LNGS (see Figs. 3, 5 and 6)."

and "The difference between the time base of the CERN and OPERA PolaRx2e receivers was measured to be (2.3 ± 0.9) ns [22]. This correction was taken into account in the application of the time link."

So time measurements at the emission and detection sites seem to be correlated to within a few nanoseconds, at most.

distance: "The other fundamental ingredient for the neutrino velocity measurement is the knowledge of the distance between the point where the proton time-structure is measured at CERN and the origin of the underground OPERA detector reference frame at LNGS. The relative positions of the elements of the CNGS beam line are known with millimetre accuracy. When these coordinates are transformed into the global geodesy reference frame ETRF2000 [24] by relating them to external GPS benchmarks, they are known within 2 cm accuracy."

Distance measurements between the emitter and detector appear to be known to within an uncertainty that would be sub-nanosecond at c.

TFA gives the clear impression that a lot of skull sweat has gone into "checking the measurements", and there's a residual anomaly. Props to these folks for putting their work out where the world can see and criticize.

If you take a look at the original article (pdf), you can see their analysis of the errors. Take a look at table 2. They've listed 12 different sources of error, of which the uncertainty in the baseline (the distance from OPERA to CERN) is one of the smallest. The total uncertainty is 7.4 nanoseconds in travel time, equivalent to about 2.5 metres in distance.

So they've gone to a lot of effort to analyse the errors correctly. It's still possible that they've made a mistake, of course. They acknowledge this in the last paragraph of the paper (before the acknowledgements) which, translated from physicist-speak, says: "This all looks solid, but it's still pretty crazy. We're not going to say that Einstein was wrong until we've done some more checking."

And, unspoken: "Could someone else try this out, and see if you see the same thing?"

If you take a look at the original article (pdf), you can see their analysis of the errors. Take a look at table 2. They've listed 12 different sources of error, of which the uncertainty in the baseline (the distance from OPERA to CERN) is one of the smallest. The total uncertainty is 7.4 nanoseconds in travel time, equivalent to about 2.5 metres in distance.

So they've gone to a lot of effort to analyse the errors correctly. It's still possible that they've made a mistake, of course. They acknowledge this in the last paragraph of the paper (before the acknowledgements) which, translated from physicist-speak, says: "This all looks solid, but it's still pretty crazy. We're not going to say that Einstein was wrong until we've done some more checking."

And, unspoken: "Could someone else try this out, and see if you see the same thing?"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1

Paper is here.

Well, that is a good catch and very interesting.

Minos found an estimate of

(v c)/c = 5.1 ± 1.2 (statistical) ± 2.6 (systematic) / 10**5

where statistical and systematic are their estimates of these two different types of errors. Compare this to the current estimate of

(v c)/c = 2.5 ± 0.4 / 10**5

Note that both experiments found v > c. While I still think this is a systematic error, the fact that two groups found similar v > c for neutrinos make it seem a little more likely.

There is no proof obviously, that's what "as far as we can tell" means. It is what General Relativity predicts.

There hasn't been a universally accepted doable experiment proposed.

There's http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 - though they may have just measured the speed of light and shock horror found that it is the speed of light (+/- 20%)

RTFA (A=abstract, since the article is behind a paywall)

Never fear, arXiv delivers: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.1489

IANAA (astronomer), but it seems that the thrust of the article is on the homogeneous formation of protoplanets from gas and dust and their migration to stable positions rather than the stripping of atmospheres from gas giants. In fact, "stripped" gas giants have been theorized for quite some time and are referred to as "chthonian planets."

(For example, Roger Penrose has caused biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers to boggle, with his consciousness-by-quantum-nanotube-therefore-free-will spiel he's been pushing. He's great at astrophysics, but this stuff he's been writing lately is weird and wrong on many levels.)

Actually, his astrophysics has been getting pretty damned insane lately too.

Yeah, SETI@home found 114 sources of pulsed emission, possibly a new form of pulsar. But you don't wanna hear about that. You want to hear about the what the telescope that doesn't exist yet might find.

So I highly doubt a 30km/s rotation around our sun will impact our interaction with the CMB when our relative motion to it around the center of the milky way seams to be 390 KM/s.

You're right, it isn't the velocity relative to the CMB that's relevant, it's basically the velocity relative to the galactic halo. The dark matter particles they claim to be detecting would be gravitationally bound to the galaxy. I think the rest of what I wrote is correct. Check out the link I gave in the GP post, and also this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3076 , where they predicted the yearly modulation before they started the experiment. They measure a yearly modulation of about 16%, and that is apparently consistent with theory.

Will 8.9 sigma do? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1002/1002.1028v1.pdf It's not that easy of course. DAMA/LIBRA, CoGEnT and now CRESS are getting hits while XENON100 isn't. I'm interested in how this will eventually turn out.

There are lots of experiments of this type running right now. This team, CRESST-II, has announced that they have more events than can be explained by their background. However, that's not really the most convincing evidence you could ask for, since the background could have been underestimated. A more convincing thing to see is that some of the experiments are reporting signals that are modulated by the expected amount on a yearly basis by the earth's motion relative to the frame of the cosmic microwave background. Here is a paper that includes a survey of the the results as of June. There are some apparent contradictions between some groups' positive results and others' negative results.

All the links from TFA lead to full papers (caveat, I'm on a University network, but arxiv should be accessible anywhere):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0607v1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1276v1
http://warp.rice.edu/trac/attachment/wiki/Asilomar2010_FullDuplex/MDAsilomar2010.pdf
http://warp.rice.edu/trac/attachment/wiki/Asilomar2011_FullDuplex/Everett11FullDuplexDirectionalDiveristy.pdf

All the links from TFA lead to full papers (caveat, I'm on a University network, but arxiv should be accessible anywhere):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.0607v1
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1276v1
http://warp.rice.edu/trac/attachment/wiki/Asilomar2010_FullDuplex/MDAsilomar2010.pdf
http://warp.rice.edu/trac/attachment/wiki/Asilomar2011_FullDuplex/Everett11FullDuplexDirectionalDiveristy.pdf

and thus, the circle is complete...

So:
1. Rice University had (and has) WARP - a sophisticated research platform of software controlled radios, build from the ground up using open source software
2. Stanford has the idea of using self-interference and demoes single-channel full-duplex wireless in 2010 at mobicon
3. Microsoft Research UK had some other ideas (May 2011) on self-interference and meshing for medium access control (check the citations: Stanford is mentioned)
4. Rice University takes a step further and establishes a math model and (this is the actual novelty) a way of doing it using an unexpensive setup.

Can't stop but wonder: in all the above there's no patent? Is it the promotion of "the progress of science and useful arts" possible outside "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right"? And this is not communism?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1276

There was a presentation a few weeks ago by G. Ganguli from Naval Research Laboratory where he suggested placing a layer of very fine dust in an LEO band. The dust should be too fine to cause any impact damage but thick enough that it increases drag, decaying the orbit of debris. A satellite would be unharmed, although its orbit would also decay slightly. You can even tune the dust's own decay rate to match that of the debris size you're targeting.

Couldn't find that original paper online, but here's another: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.1401

An important thing to recognize is that most of this experiment was done with a single qubit. Practical quantum computing will need to have this sort of error rate for thousands of qubits.

I'd take any quantum computer with 50 qubits and get a Nobel prize for beating the shit out of all current supercomputers simulating quantum systems like high-temperature superconductors, quark bound states such as proton and neutrons, or quantum magnets. Also, keep in mind that Rainer Blatt's group recently succeeded in demonstrating entanglement between 14 qubits in a similar setup. And for quantum simulations, the error rates probably don't have to be crazily low anyway, it turns out that such errors typically correspond to a nonzero temperature for the simulated system. So if this effective temperature is low enough that you can see interesting quantum physics, you are still in business.

Five years ago Kip Thorne recommended Hartle's book "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", and it is a wonderful introduction to General Relativity. (I took calculus, linear algebra, advanced linear algebra, differential equations, real analysis, complex analysis, differential geometry, and Fourier analysis before taking the graduate course on General Relativity at UC Davis)

We used Carroll's book on General Relativity, which is more or less his lecture notes which are freely available online at http://preposterousuniverse.com/grnotes/

As far as understanding Einstein's field equations, a wonderful reference by John C. Baez and Emory F. Bunn: The Meaning of Einstein's Equation on Baez's webpage.

Dr Carlip recommended R. A. D'Inverno's Introducing Einstein's Relativity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992) to the graduate physics class.

Dr. Joseph Biello recommended B. F. Schutz's A First Course in General Relativity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985) as an introductory text, then follow it up with Robert Wald's General Relativity (University Of Chicago Press, First Edition edition, 1984). I don't know about this, because Wald himself admitted that he didn't give justice to the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism for General Relativity.

When thinking about black holes, or any singularity, the standard reference on this subject is Hawking and Ellis' The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, 1975).

Everyone says "Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler" and I am inclined to agree. If you are serious about studying General Relativity, you have to read through this at least once. It is the Bible of General Relativity, although there are two opinions people have about it: they love it, or hate it. Those that hate it would object to my opinions...

When you want to start getting into quantum gravity or numerical relativity (i.e., using the computer to solve Einstein's field equations), you need to learn the ADM formalism. There are a few books on this.

Peter Peldan wrote a review article, "Actions for Gravity, with Generalizations" arXiv:gr-qc/9305011v1 which is a great review of all the many different types of variational ways to obtain General Relativity.

Bojowald just wrote a great book, Canonical Gravity and Applications, which is a fabulous introduction.

Poisson wrote a book on a lot of folklore topics in general relativity, which is based on his lecture notes (freely available online at http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/agr.pdf). In fact, the only difference I can find is that the pdf doesn't have the index or table of contents, but everything else seems identical.

For numerical relativity, Baumgarte and Shapiro's Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein Equations on the Computer is another fantastic reference. The only disadvantage is their index system is confusing.

As far as the mathematics, there are many books out there on differential geometry. The graduate course sequence on differential geometry at UC Davis used Manfredo P. do Carmo's Riemannian Geometry

However, many of them kind of ignore the intricacies of Lorentzian manifolds. Arthur L Besse's Einstein Manifolds (Springer, 2007) is a wonderful reference for this subject. (Arthur L Besse is a pseudonym for a group of mathematicians inspired by the Bourbaki group, and works primarily on differential geometry.)

I think Geometric Algebra (GA) has a better formulation than the traditional tensor way of doing relativity. It's not only easier to understand, but it's easier to use and the same math can also be far more easily applied in other areas of physics.

A capsule: There are 4 basic dimensions, (usually denoted "e_n" with n from 0 to 3) but let's call them: x,y,z and t. The squares of the first 3 are negative, but the square of t is positive. These basis vectors can be combined to create bivectors: the regular planes of rotation xy, xz, yz, as well as xt, yt, zt. The latter three are still planes of rotation, but due to the mixed sign of the squares, the rotation is hyperbolic rather than circular - calculations use sinh and cosh instead of sin and cos. The interesting thing is that these planes of rotation involving t are velocities (Lorentz boosts). Velocities are hyperbolic rotations, and the speed of light is a 90 degree rotation. GA has a simple way of handing multiple rotations which allows easy solution of problems that are seldom even attempted using the conventional approach.

"A Survey of Geometric Algebra and Geometric Calculus" by Alan Macdonald
Gives a good introduction to the basics and applications of GA, including relativity. You would need to at least get through the section on rotations before skipping down to the section on Spacetime Algebra. Also see "General Relativity in a Nutshell"from the same author, which gives a mathematical but not dense introduction to General Relativity in 100 pages, not using GA.

"Gravity, Gauge Theories and Geometric Algebra" by Anthony Lasenby, Chris Doran, Stephen Gull
General Relativity using GA - interestingly, curved space-time is not required using GA.

"Primer on Geometric Algebra for introductory mathematics and physics" by David Hestenes
Another good intro, much less dense than Macdonald's, with more diagrams and basic applications.

"Geometric Algebra Primer" by Jaap Suter
Gives a gentle introduction and reference for the basic GA operations.

"3D Euclidean Geometry through Conformal Geometric Algebra (a GAViewer tutorial)" by Leo Dorst & Daniel Fontijne
Gives a hands-on, step-by-step tutorial using the free open-source GA visualization software GA Viewer. This tutorial uses the conformal model which is more advanced than the regular 3-D model. Other tutorials are available at the same site. Their book Geometric Algebra for Computer Science, an Object Oriented Approach to Geometry" is also highly recommended, and can be previewed at Scribd.

I think Geometric Algebra (GA) has a better formulation than the traditional tensor way of doing General Relativity. It's not only easier to understand, but it's easier to use and the same math can also be far more easily applied in other areas of physics.

A capsule: There are 4 basic dimensions, (usually denoted "e_n" with n from 0 to 3) but let's call them: x,y,z and t. The squares of the first 3 are negative, but the square of t is positive. These basis vectors can be combined to create bivectors: the regular planes of rotation xy, xz, yz, as well as xt, yt, zt. The latter three are still planes of rotation, but due to the mixed sign of the squares, the rotation is hyperbolic rather than circular - calculations use sinh and cosh instead of sin and cos. The interesting thing is that these planes of rotation involving t are velocities (Lorentz boosts). Velocities are hyperbolic rotations, and the speed of light is a 90 degree rotation. GA has a simple way of handing multiple rotations which allows easy solution of problems that are seldom even attempted using the conventional approach.

"A Survey of Geometric Algebra and Geometric Calculus" by Alan Macdonald
Gives a good introduction to the basics and applications of GA, including relativity. You would need to at least get through the section on rotations before skipping down to the section on Spacetime Algebra. Also see "General Relativity in a Nutshell"from the same author, which gives a mathematical but not dense introduction to General Relativity in 100 pages, not using GA.

"Gravity, Gauge Theories and Geometric Algebra" by Anthony Lasenby, Chris Doran, Stephen Gull
General Relativity using GA - interestingly, curved space-time is not required using GA.

"Primer on Geometric Algebra for introductory mathematics and physics" by David Hestenes
Another good intro, much less dense than Macdonald's, with more diagrams and basic applications.

"Geometric Algebra Primer" by Jaap Suter
Gives a more gentle introduction and reference for the basic GA operations.

"3D Euclidean Geometry through Conformal Geometric Algebra (a GAViewer tutorial)" by Leo Dorst & Daniel Fontijne
Gives a hands-on, step-by-step tutorial using their free open-source GA visualization software, "GAViewer". This tutorial uses the conformal model which is more advanced than the regular 3-D model. (2 extra dimensions, of a very odd but useful type) Other tutorials are available at the same site. Their book Geometric Algebra for Computer Science, an Object Oriented Approach to Geometry" is also highly recommended, and can be previewed at Scribd. (The 2nd edition is worth getting on paper. It has some very useful reference pages not available online, and many corrected errata.)

Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit? This is a non-peer-reviewed article, fresh on the arXiv. It's a followup to an earlier article which was widely criticized within the community as being full of holes, and the arguments in this article are very very weak. At best it's an argument against entropic gravity, but it is a LONG way from a proof that entropic gravity is wrong.

The way that neutron states are treated here is questionable - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4650 for a summary of what's wrong with them.

Disclaimer: I am a gravitational theorist. I think gravity ISN'T entropic. However this paper is nowhere near sufficient to show that. I'd wait a LOT longer for the dust to settle on this one before making a strong statement one way or the other.

Mars rocks have been found on Earth, and it has been a standard assumption in planetary science for some time now that Earth rocks have also been going to Mars by the same mechanism. You wouldn't know it from the summary, but the actual paper also predicts a significant rate of mass exchange Earth -> Mars -

Gladman et al. (2005) estimated the collision rate with Mars to be about 2 orders of magnitude lower that found on the basis of our simulations. However, as also noted in their paper, our results for Mars are within the known typical errors of such probability estimations. ... Both results, definite collisions with Mars and Jupiter, are of astrobiological significance,...

TFA is wrong, the planet was discovered from a ground-based observatory back in 2006: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609335

According to Hansen et al., we not only have to stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we have to start removing it immediately because there is already too much.

Your solution is talking about 'running on energy not derived from fossil fuels in several decades,' but that isn't soon enough. We need a solution that will work now.

In other words, if Hansen is right, we're screwed. Because we aren't going to implement a solution right now.

Here's a link to the actual PDF (arxiv version) and not the pay version

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay."

Disprove this - by making it nonrandom - and you as a starting point have just got a nice shiny Nobel prize.

"Concerning the Phases of Annual Variations of Nuclear Decay Rates"
Sturrock, P. A., et al., 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 737, 65
"Recent analyses of data sets acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt both show evidence of pronounced annual variations, suggestive of a solar influence.[...]"
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2374

You actually don't have to be a complete kook to doubt that solar-mass bodies like Cygnus X-1 are black holes. There are all kinds of other hypothesized objects that they could be, including black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, and electroweak stars. These are all long-shots, but they exist in certain reasonably well-motivated physical theories.

For skeptics, I believe the evidence is stronger that Sagittarius A* is a black hole than that Cygnus X-1 is. Sag A* is the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Sag A* has been proved by indirect but very strong evidence to have an event horizon, which is essentially the defining characteristic of a black hole. (A singularity without an event horizon would be something different; the big bang singularity is an example of that.) It may become possible in the near future to do direct imaging of Sag A*'s event horizon, which would be direct proof that it's a black hole. There are fundamental reasons why we will never be able to do anything like that with any other black hole besides Sag A*, using foreseeable technology.

You actually don't have to be a complete kook to doubt that solar-mass bodies like Cygnus X-1 are black holes. There are all kinds of other hypothesized objects that they could be, including black stars, gravastars, fuzzballs, quark stars, boson stars, and electroweak stars. These are all long-shots, but they exist in certain reasonably well-motivated physical theories.

For skeptics, I believe the evidence is stronger that Sagittarius A* is a black hole than that Cygnus X-1 is. Sag A* is the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Sag A* has been proved by indirect but very strong evidence to have an event horizon, which is essentially the defining characteristic of a black hole. (A singularity without an event horizon would be something different; the big bang singularity is an example of that.) It may become possible in the near future to do direct imaging of Sag A*'s event horizon, which would be direct proof that it's a black hole. There are fundamental reasons why we will never be able to do anything like that with any other black hole besides Sag A*, using foreseeable technology.

Unless the summary is talking about the journal instead of the arXiv article it's not paywalled, I don't think I've ever seen anything on arXiv that is. It's kind of the point. Anyway, if you can't be bothered looking for the PDF link (top right) this will take you straight to the paper.

Others have told me that the financial gain of publishing an academic book may be up to 700 USD. In comparison to current Scandinavian wages that really means very little, so I don’t think that earning another 700 USD should be a motive to restrict the access to one’s thoughts.

First of all I would like to commend you and thank you for this sentiment.

Is the open source community boycotting ebook formats, as Richard Stallman has proposed?

I don't understand, Stallman decries e-book formats that aren't open. There are many open e-book formats--including ePub. Granted, there are tools out there that allow you (to varying degrees of success like Calibre) to crack and convert to these formats but why bother? As you can see in that table, most everyone supports PDF. You are misunderstanding Stallman's gripe. It's not that we are boycotting e-books, it's that e-book makers are trying to carve out their own proprietary section of the electronic market, reader and creators included. So let them take their ball and play elsewhere. As you noted in your blog, this isn't the only problem:

Most ebook-readers out there so not implement the Epub-standard perfectly. That means that although one has an Epub that follows all the standards, one can be quite sure that it will not display properly on all the readers. Kovid Goyal, the creator of the Calibre ebook management software has done a good job in creating conversion scripts that create Epubs for all the different readers. Unfortunately they do this by breaking compatibility with the standard, and many distribution sites will only check whether your Epub complies to the standards and not whether the book will actually look good in the reader.

Most readers handle PDF, I would just stick to the output of LaTeX. I might suggest that your expectations are misdirected at the open source community and might be better directed at the makers of readers that apparently force you to break standards. It's the IE6 conundrum all over again.

Stallman didn't suggest boycotting ebook formats, just the DRM associated with them (big surprise there). The problem you are experiencing is that sometimes it's difficult to go from one open standard to another. The tools are lacking in maturity and I'm guessing that since my Android phone can easily display PDFs for me that there's not a lot of people demanding this ePub support that apparently needs multiple flavors for each device (and Calibre helps you with this). The tools exist but they'll only get you so far and I think the really special stuff that LaTeX does well is what you'll find yourself needing to fine tune in the end product. Look at how long it's taken LaTeX to get that beautiful and I think you'll discover that making a magical cure-all converter to ${random format} can be a non-trivial task.

If you start a kickstarter and get your university to donate hosting to making an open free market for any academic papers in any open format, I'd definitely throw in $20 (I've spent about $200 on kickstarter in the past two years). Either that or maybe throw your lot in with arxiv and work with them to fund more format support?

Probably because the papers are very technical. But here you go, this is the PRL article off the arXiv, you can get the longer PRD paper there too. Good luck!

I've thrown all the feeds from each of these sites into Google Reader. In no particular order:

wired.com
slashdot.org
spectrum.ieee.org
scientistscanvas.com
arxiv.org
techcrunch.com
techdirt.com
news.discovery.com
physicsworld.com
newscientist.com
physorg.com
nationalgeographic.com
scienceblog.com

I have plenty more. Any RSS feeder app works. You get some repeats but there's a constant stream of science news.

I'm in the same boat. My first degree is physics, but now I'm doing my PhD is computer science. My particular interests are in particle physics, dark matter and astronomy/cosmology. The best place to scratch my itch I find is http://www.arxiv.org./ It's a preprint archive for physics, math, computer science and so-on. http://www.science20.com/ has some interesting blogs, but you have to be careful as there are a number of people there who use it as a platform to advance their own ideas. For more general science reading I have http://www.sciencedaily.com/ and http://www.astronomynow.com/ bookmarked. On the educational side I have Leonard Susskind's general education courses in physics bookmarked. They can be found at http://newpackettech.com/Resources/Susskind/.

By the way, don't forget arXiv, if you're really interested in the actual research. It is where people upload the preprint versions of their papers so that they can be accessed by the public. However the articles are (mostly) unedited, raw material not yet passed peer review. It does contain some noise and rubbish, but you can get a pretty good impression of what the scientists are doing by having a look at it.

The proper thing to do is launch another spin-stabilized probe on an extragalactic trajectory. I wonder how much that would cost.

I think you mean interstellar, not extragalactic.

The cost of Pioneer 10 was about $430 million in 2010 dollars. Since the Pioneer anomaly turned out to be a mistake, it is doubtful that it would be sensible to spend a similar sum on a follow-up. Furthermore, many of the systematic errors involved in measuring a spacecraft's trajectory come from parts of the tracking systems that are not aboard the spacecraft.

If the goal is simply to confirm by some independent technique that the effect is not gravitational, then that's already been done, and it didn't require spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Iorio has shown that if the Pioneer anomaly obeyed the equivalence principle, then we would see effects in the outer solar system that are not in fact observed.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3931

Not really, I see just a broken link from TFA to the actual paper of 14 July. Here it is

(that happens when you mess with slashes and dots...)

A Mathematical Model of Social Group Competition with Application to the Growth of Religious non-Affiliation, is listed at Cornell University Library, and was last revised in January 2011. The study noted that there is a steady increase in the numbers of those who claim to belong to no religious group in nine countries, and its mathematical formula showed religion will be extinct in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland, according to Discover Magazine. The study also commented on the U.S. noting that Americans without religious affiliation comprise the only religious group growing in all 50 states; in 2008 those claiming no religion rose to 15 percent nationwide, with a maximum in Vermont at 34 percent,Ã according to God Discussion. http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1375

No. As much as it seems fashionable to bash (non-baryonic) dark matter here on Slashdot, our current astrophysical theories put constraints on how much baryonic dark matter (MACHOs) is possible. Our current theories on Big Bang nucleosynthesis place bounds on how much baryonic matter can remain dark. If there really were enough baryonic matter to account for all the dark matter that should be there based on indirect observations, then the abundances of various isotopes produced by Big Bang nucleosynthesis would be quite different from what we observe. That could also mean that our current theory of the Big Bang is completely wrong, but that seems unlikely to say the least. These theoretical considerations imply that even if more MACHOs are found, non-baryonic WIMPs will still have to make up a large fraction of dark matter.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3141v1

If you want to read it for yourself: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.3141v1

Quoting the last line: "Will deliberations at the ITU-R Radiocommunication Assembly in January 2012 resolve or cloud these issues?"

This is a committee to review the standard. Nothing is going to change without proposals. Those come long AFTER the review. Then there's the discussion process. Eventually it may make it to being a standard. Then people have time to implement it.

Cheers,

Ehud

The Download: PDF Only link on the right hand side of the first linked page (Cornell) gives you a PDF of the same article.

Here's the full PDF version.

People are making assumptions that planets outside of our solar system are composed of 118 elements, and that is all. (Just another hunk of rock/gas)... This is a dumb assumption to make.

We've done spectroscopy on extrasolar planets and found that they have lines that match up with known elements and molecules (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702507 for example, but there's been quite a few more publications since then on the subject). Not a dumb assumption at all.

In fact, just about all the work that has been done on the spectra of objects outside of our immediate neighborhood lines up very, very nicely with the assumption that it's all made of the same stuff. Outside of the more extreme objects (neutron stars, black holes, and to a lesser extent, white dwarfs), everything is made of the elements up through uranium or so (with stuff below iron more common, and hydrogen by far the most common). All in line with theory.

There's dark matter, too, and it isn't completely crazy to say that it could clump up and form "planets," but that a bit unlikely - the fact that DM doesn't interact other than via gravity means there's no way for clumps of DM to stick together like normal matter can.