Slashdot Mirror

From the abstract

"We ... suggest there is a need to clean up genomic databases but fear current tools will be inadequate to catch genes which have jumped the silicon barrier. "

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4192

The full paper's here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3356

I skimmed it earlier but I don't know if you'll get a better answer from the paper -- they're cautious and they're presenting their results and suggesting a few models (and pointing out that it's strongly identified with the centre of the host galaxy and most likely a star falling into the central black hole) but they're not doing any firm models.

I believe (though it's not my field so I might be very out-dated; I learned about these at university and that was ten years back... and so it was a model at least fifteen years old) even gamma ray bursts are most likely along collimated beams. We just see so many of them because there's a *massive* number of them.

The 1.5 is a mathematical expectation value: if they could run this experiment a large number of times, there would be 1.5 events detected on average. Of course, all the physicists involved know that they are not actually going to see exactly 1.5 events. Still, it's more informative to write 1.5 than 1-2.

As far as the 99.3%, I'm not familiar with the specific statistical techniques involved, but if you look at the paper they do provide references that (I assume) explain how that 99.3% value can be obtained.

The 1.5 is a mathematical expectation value: if they could run this experiment a large number of times, there would be 1.5 events detected on average. Of course, all the physicists involved know that they are not actually going to see exactly 1.5 events. Still, it's more informative to write 1.5 than 1-2.

As far as the 99.3%, I'm not familiar with the specific statistical techniques involved, but if you look at the paper they do provide references that (I assume) explain how that 99.3% value can be obtained.

The 1.5 is a mathematical expectation value: if they could run this experiment a large number of times, there would be 1.5 events detected on average. Of course, all the physicists involved know that they are not actually going to see exactly 1.5 events. Still, it's more informative to write 1.5 than 1-2.

As far as the 99.3%, I'm not familiar with the specific statistical techniques involved, but if you look at the paper they do provide references that (I assume) explain how that 99.3% value can be obtained.

Yeah -- and an incorrect one, at that. Not all radio telescopes are parabolic. Arecibo, for instance, is spherical. The original paper even notes, "FAST is an Arecibo-type spherical telescope" (p. 3).

More useful literature on CO2 climate forcing: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

This is about a rather specialized type of quantum computer. Or more realistically, a proposed idea for a quantum computer.

One of the problems for quantum computing is the fragility of the quantum states that could be used. Even a tiny disturbance can cause the thing to screw up in a manner called decohering. So, there has been a push to find possible quantum computing elements that are extremely well insulated from the outside world, or that will tolerate a lot of disturbance without decohering.

Certain quantum states of quasi-particles called anyons (no joke. That's what they are called) in 2 dimensions are thought to be extremely stable.

Recently, there have been observations of states similar to these in surfaces of materials called topological insulators. They haven't conclusively shown that the right sort of states (called nonabelian) exist yet.

But, even if these so called "topologically protected" quantum states of the right sort exist, you still need an algorithm for how to compute with them.

What the Texas Advanced Computing Center team did was simulate a proposed algorithm called topological color coding for a specific case. When they did this, they found that it can withstand 10% of the underlying quantum bits screwing up.

So, it's a simulation of a proposed set of rules for computing with a proposed (but not yet demonstrated) set of quantum bits, using special quantum particles (that are composed of more than one normal particles bound together) that have not yet been shown to exist.

Although this is a very interesting area, it's a simulation of a vaporware program to run on a vaporware computer that is based on vaporware physics.

So, to say the least it's a ways off. But for solid state physics geeks it's a very hot topic of research.

Obligatory non-goatse links with useful info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_quantum_computer

Original paper abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.0573 with links to full paper.

This work was done by the computational physics group at Texas A&M: http://comp-phys.tamu.edu/ among others.

See, we can have a reasonable and polite conversation supported by references, right?

Agreed, that is the just the first step, and stay tuned for more! But also, look at the dates of submission and publication of the Nature paper:
Received 30 June 2010; Accepted 15 March 2011; Published online 11 May 2011

The paper that you cite is cool, agreed -- but note the "a spin qubit" in the title. While a great physics experiment, it was not designed to be part of a structure even in principle capable of performing any non-trivial computation, classically, or otherwise!

Of course, the goal of D-Wave's Nature paper was to show that quantum effects are there and persist, despite qubits being incredibly long (skinny loop about 700 um on the side, 1.4 mm round-trip -- still boggles my mind that they behave like a single spin!) and surrounded by all kinds of on-chip "stuff" necessary to control them. If one wants to look at the actual "computation" performed by the same (or very similar, we have a bunch of them running) chip, one needs to look here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1628

Thanks for kind words about my little rendering (you have not seen it in full resolution! ;) )!

Paul B.

I pulled up the IEEE bit since it's written for a very general audience, but Oliver's comment on this paper doesn't sound any more positive that the previous ones: "To be clear, this system was not used to perform any computational algorithm." ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/473164a ). The paper is a good first step, but doesn't come anywhere near to proving the claims that the company has made. It is also way less exciting that things that other groups have done, without all the hype, http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5654 being the most recent example. It's a good illustration through (PoV-ray, wut wut).

I just wish some astrophysicists (or the people who quote/repeat them, not sure who's at fault) would bring humility to their ideas and realize that even after a life-time of thinking and studying they are still no different than an 18 year old just getting out of high school that doesn't know shit about shit.

I think it's more likely you don't know shit about shit. Yes, the word "know" is used loosely, but in general means "all the experimental evidence obtained so far points to this being true within some specified reasonable error margins". Whereas you don't appear even have a basic understanding of the theory being applied (by your own admission) or the experimental evidence available, and yet you feel qualified to comment on whether people "know" things or not.

And you know the temperature of the Universe at the moment of the big bang, how? You're not extrapolating anything or making assumptions about the nature of things before the things ever existed and that similar rules apply? I think you are. I think you'd be arrogant to assume you know anything about the nature of things when the Universe as we know it didn't yet exist.

I think you're being arrogant to presume you have any idea of how such a measurement or prediction is made. There are many theoretical models that describe the state of the early universe and have been verified by observations. It is not that difficult to measure the temperature of the early universe (up to a point), just look really far away. It doesn't involve any assumptions about what existed pre-Big Bang at all.

Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless. No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.

The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
As for your poorly worded invocation of relativity - you clearly have no idea of how relativity actually works (or any idea what the word effect means) - it is perfectly reasonable to quote average lifetimes of particles in their rest frames, and calculate the apparent lifetime for other observers from that. And average particle speeds would have reduced to sub-relativistic levels pretty fast anyway.

As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.

Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background, genius?

Anyway, here's the actual paper on arXiv.

Here's the paper: An estimate of the electron density in filaments of galaxies at z~0.1.

The student got listed as first author, which is cool for her. The paper itself is a follow-up to Pimbblet's (the actual prof with the actual grant) 2004 study of filaments. The major finding seems to be that the press is gullible enough to print anything if you say an undergrad did the work. In this case, the press manages to avoid looking like total idiots, since the study is pretty cool and interesting. Nonetheless, the hype is vastly out of proportion to the significance.

The summary and article are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The student did good work but did not 'find the missing mass' in the universe. Here is a link to the publicly accessible article on arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0711
The abstract does not make any grandiose claims of finding the missing mass of the universe but instead states how the article presents properties of mass in filaments.

Particularly interesting? Not as much as an opposing view http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

It's an old fallacy, and the refutations are old as well http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

You write "This is hard to dispute, given the seemingly important role of the conscious observer in the act of measurement." In fact, it is quite easy to dispute http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Not only do people use this nonsense of invoking QM to explain consciousness, but they even do the worse--invoke consciousness in their interpretation of QM. Thankfully a good refutation is not hard to find http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

First, your estimate of brain raw processing power is off by several orders of magnitude--each neuron has 7000 synapses, and each synapse has 100s of channels, and it is those channels that are analogous to transistors. You seriously need to reconsider your shit with this in mind.

Second, there is absolutely no reason to invoke QM to deal with consciousness, or the other way around: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

There's no reason to pick simulation as any more likely the situation than any of many other competing interpretations. Applying Ockham's razor (the validity of this action being to reduce overfitting, as justified by information theoretical considerations), this is simpler and makes more sense http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Fuck off. Mohrhoff refuted Stapp so well that Stapp must still be changing the bandages on his ass from the whip marks. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

The only interpretation I've come across that doesn't leave me thinking something's amiss: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Read it carefully and think about it carefully, and it plainly makes sense. But then, I'm a software guy so what do I know...

I've been reading of this QM/mind shit since Henry Stapp's nonsense publications about it and its history is even older. As are the refutations http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

If you actually do want to learn something about the issue (and specifically why it is a non-issue), take a look here: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

A quick scan of the arXiv shows a fair bit of research on this topic. I'm by no means an expert but a lot looks like serious work.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1

This one looks particularly interesting.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1651

There appears to be a lot more to this than "QM is mysterious" "Consciousness is mysterious" therefore QM is related to consciousness.

A quick scan of the arXiv shows a fair bit of research on this topic. I'm by no means an expert but a lot looks like serious work.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1

This one looks particularly interesting.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.1651

There appears to be a lot more to this than "QM is mysterious" "Consciousness is mysterious" therefore QM is related to consciousness.

It's a well known fallacy. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105097

Here you go/
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1134
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4898

Here you go/
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1134
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4898

Here you go/
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+will+AND+quantum+free/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1134
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4898

So hopefully others can find it
From my submission last week (the 19th), http://slashdot.org/journal/265330/Dark-energy---real

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.2948
""We present precise measurements of the growth rate of cosmic structure for the redshift range 0.1 z 0.9, using redshift-space distortions in the galaxy power spectrum of the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey. Our results, which have a precision of around 10% in four independent redshift bins, are well-fit by a flat LCDM cosmological model with matter density parameter Omega_m = 0.27."
Comments: 17 pages, 11 figures, accepted for publication by MNRAS"

Here's a link (paywall) to the research paper and a free preprint, if anyone cares to read. These *** news sites are never able to publish a link to the original paper.

They both reference the exact same study from 02. may: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242 Look at the end of the Techreview article:

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242: Deciphering The Measured Ratios Of Iodine-131 To Cesium-137 At The Fukushima Reactors

And the beginning of the Nature article (*cough*blogpost*cough*):

A new analysis posted to the popular physics preprint server ArXiv.org suggests...

Furthermore, the Nature blogpost says clearly : " The work is not peer-reviewed, and like all speculation about Fukushima, it is based on sketchy and sometimes incorrect readings from the plant".

They both reference the exact same study from 02. may: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242 Look at the end of the Techreview article:

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242: Deciphering The Measured Ratios Of Iodine-131 To Cesium-137 At The Fukushima Reactors

And the beginning of the Nature article (*cough*blogpost*cough*):

A new analysis posted to the popular physics preprint server ArXiv.org suggests...

Furthermore, the Nature blogpost says clearly : " The work is not peer-reviewed, and like all speculation about Fukushima, it is based on sketchy and sometimes incorrect readings from the plant".

They both reference the exact same study from 02. may: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242
Look at the end of the Techreview article:

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242: Deciphering The Measured Ratios Of Iodine-131 To Cesium-137 At The Fukushima Reactors

And the beginning of the Nature article (*cough*blogpost*cough*):

A new analysis posted to the popular physics preprint server ArXiv.org suggests...

They both reference the exact same study from 02. may: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242
Look at the end of the Techreview article:

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1105.0242: Deciphering The Measured Ratios Of Iodine-131 To Cesium-137 At The Fukushima Reactors

And the beginning of the Nature article (*cough*blogpost*cough*):

A new analysis posted to the popular physics preprint server ArXiv.org suggests...

I've looked through the paper this report is based on http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.0242v1.pdf and I don't see much discussion of the amount of power generated by the proposed post-shutdown criticality. It seems to me that standard operating power is assumed but I don't see how that could work without other signs such as a glowing reactor building.

We propose a new Cassini state model for Titan in which we assume the presence of a liquid water ocean beneath an ice shell

Agreed. Looking at the paper they noticed the moon's axial tilt doesn't match current theories. So they assumed the moon had a water ocean, calculated what the characteristics of that water ocean would need to be to explain the discrepancy and said, "see, it's possible".

The problem with big bang/big crunch is that really what we're saying is the physical equivalent of "Here there be dragons". We simply don't know what physics looks like at the Planck scale yet. Big bang/crunch are what happens if we trust GR way into the regime where we expect quantum gravity effects to be strong.

Now there are various ideas about how a collapsing universe can transition into an expanding one - conformal cyclic cosmology, loop quantum cosmology, etc etc, and certainly within at least one of them (LQC) the connection - a bounce - would be survivable to a well built probe - see http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2750 for example.

However, I must stress that we have no data anywhere near the Planck scale, so we cannot yet test any of these models. The best we can do is look at things like the cosmic microwave background and try to see if there are any artifacts of quantum gravity there, but so far nothing is proven.

Leaving to the reader the details of how to drop Mercury into the sun,

I like this Carrigan person's style.

All very nice good stuff - I see one of the authors is at Edinburgh Observatory, so I'll keep my ears peeled in case he ever does any public lectures.

Most science papers are put on free preprint servers such as the arXiv anyway. I think it is safe to say that never before in the history of mankind such a large fraction of the population had access to the latest research results.

Dyson spheres (or swarms) would probably be the best way to detect an advanced civilization, especially a Kardashev Type II or Type III civilization.

In a Dyson sphere (or swarm) a civilization surrounds an entire star to capture most or all of its luminosity; severely cutting down on its optical luminosity but accentuating the IR luminosity. (The physics of a rigid sphere surrounding a star are pretty challenging, and some sort of swarm or cloud seems more likely, at least to our limited technological understanding.) So, to hunt for a Dyson sphere, you look for objects with an unusual excess of IR, and a lack of optical light. The IRAS IR satellite was used to search for Dyson spheres within ~ 1000 light years of the Earth (producing a handful of so-so candidates). Carrigan calls these sorts of searches "Interstellar Archaeology." They have one great advantage in that they don't require any cooperation from the other end (i.e., no beacons or other signals).

As it happens, I have recently speculated that "Object X" in M33 (the Triangulum Galaxy) could represent the signature of a Dyson sphere / swarm from 3 million light years away. If this (unlikely) possibility were to be true, it would represent the signature of a Kardashev Type III or near Type III civilization. Interstellar Archaeology is the only possible form of SETI across such vast distances.

Dyson spheres (or swarms) would probably be the best way to detect an advanced civilization, especially a Kardashev Type II or Type III civilization.

In a Dyson sphere (or swarm) a civilization surrounds an entire star to capture most or all of its luminosity; severely cutting down on its optical luminosity but accentuating the IR luminosity. (The physics of a rigid sphere surrounding a star are pretty challenging, and some sort of swarm or cloud seems more likely, at least to our limited technological understanding.) So, to hunt for a Dyson sphere, you look for objects with an unusual excess of IR, and a lack of optical light. The IRAS IR satellite was used to search for Dyson spheres within ~ 1000 light years of the Earth (producing a handful of so-so candidates). Carrigan calls these sorts of searches "Interstellar Archaeology." They have one great advantage in that they don't require any cooperation from the other end (i.e., no beacons or other signals).

As it happens, I have recently speculated that "Object X" in M33 (the Triangulum Galaxy) could represent the signature of a Dyson sphere / swarm from 3 million light years away. If this (unlikely) possibility were to be true, it would represent the signature of a Kardashev Type III or near Type III civilization. Interstellar Archaeology is the only possible form of SETI across such vast distances.

Dyson spheres (or swarms) would probably be the best way to detect an advanced civilization, especially a Kardashev Type II or Type III civilization.

In a Dyson sphere (or swarm) a civilization surrounds an entire star to capture most or all of its luminosity; severely cutting down on its optical luminosity but accentuating the IR luminosity. (The physics of a rigid sphere surrounding a star are pretty challenging, and some sort of swarm or cloud seems more likely, at least to our limited technological understanding.) So, to hunt for a Dyson sphere, you look for objects with an unusual excess of IR, and a lack of optical light. The IRAS IR satellite was used to search for Dyson spheres within ~ 1000 light years of the Earth (producing a handful of so-so candidates). Carrigan calls these sorts of searches "Interstellar Archaeology." They have one great advantage in that they don't require any cooperation from the other end (i.e., no beacons or other signals).

As it happens, I have recently speculated that "Object X" in M33 (the Triangulum Galaxy) could represent the signature of a Dyson sphere / swarm from 3 million light years away. If this (unlikely) possibility were to be true, it would represent the signature of a Kardashev Type III or near Type III civilization. Interstellar Archaeology is the only possible form of SETI across such vast distances.

Your position is perfectly valid. We don't have a direct access to physical reality itself. Current physics theories are successful but known to be incomplete.

At first view, quantum physic theory (because of the observer role) seems incompatible to physical realism. That is the philosophical stance that there is a reality independent from human mind.

What I wanted to point out earlier is that you can't expect a new, better theory, that supplant current quantum physic and where everything can be explained in a way compatible with common sense.

My feeling is that quantum physic is "true" in a sense that it help us to understand the world. So I tend to think that wave function may have a counterpart in reality itself. This means my preference goes to Everett interpretation.

This article of Tegmark and Wheeler is very good on the subject:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0101/0101077v1.pdf

It's one of the theories of inflationary cosmology. You can read more about it here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/guth02/guth02_print.html

or a paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0001011

...to the paper, as opposed to the commentary by PopSci on the article written by NYT by someone who really didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

From TFA:

In addition, the physicists of the University of Innsbruck have found out that the decay rate of the atoms is not linear, as usually expected, but is proportional to the square of the number of the qubits. When several particles are entangled, the sensitivity of the system increases significantly.

This is somewhat troubling, isn't it? If the decay rate is quadratic in the number of qubits, and this turns out to be due to some fundamental physical law as opposed to limitations of the current technology, does that mean we can never have quantum computers with any significant amount of memory?

Not really. The researchers trapped and entangled 14 ions in a single ion trap. Quantum computers based on ion traps will have thousands of traps, with never more than one or two ions per trap. (Machines with hundreds of traps have been tested, ions moved between traps, etc.; see, e.g., [1]) It has been known since at least 1997 [2] that you can't have a scalable system with only a single ion trap (that would be true even were the decay rate quadratic in the number of ions per trap).

[1] Home, J. P. et al. Complete methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information
processing. Science 325, 1227–1230 (2009). arXiv:0907.1865 [quant-ph]
[2] Wineland, D.J. et al. Experimental issues in coherent quantum state manipulation
of trapped atomic ions. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259–328 (1998). arXiv:quant-ph/9710025

By the way, an arXiv link for this article is arXiv:1009.6126 [quant-ph].

From TFA:

In addition, the physicists of the University of Innsbruck have found out that the decay rate of the atoms is not linear, as usually expected, but is proportional to the square of the number of the qubits. When several particles are entangled, the sensitivity of the system increases significantly.

This is somewhat troubling, isn't it? If the decay rate is quadratic in the number of qubits, and this turns out to be due to some fundamental physical law as opposed to limitations of the current technology, does that mean we can never have quantum computers with any significant amount of memory?

Not really. The researchers trapped and entangled 14 ions in a single ion trap. Quantum computers based on ion traps will have thousands of traps, with never more than one or two ions per trap. (Machines with hundreds of traps have been tested, ions moved between traps, etc.; see, e.g., [1]) It has been known since at least 1997 [2] that you can't have a scalable system with only a single ion trap (that would be true even were the decay rate quadratic in the number of ions per trap).

[1] Home, J. P. et al. Complete methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information
processing. Science 325, 1227–1230 (2009). arXiv:0907.1865 [quant-ph]
[2] Wineland, D.J. et al. Experimental issues in coherent quantum state manipulation
of trapped atomic ions. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259–328 (1998). arXiv:quant-ph/9710025

By the way, an arXiv link for this article is arXiv:1009.6126 [quant-ph].