Slashdot Mirror

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].

Does the new answer +/- error bars overlap with the detected phenomena within the error bars of it's value?

If you read the paper itself, there's a graph on page 10 showing exactly that. The error bars on the measured size of the effect overlap almost completely with the error bars on this new calculation.

Direct thermal radiation off the front of the craft explains most of the effect. The "Pioneer anomaly" vanishes completely once you factor in radiation reflected off the antenna dish. It still warrants some more investigation and more papers pinning it down better, but in my opinion this issue can now be pretty solidly categorized as resolved.

-

Here's a suggestion: certify academics as editors, and give them absolute power over the domain of their expertise (supplanting Wikipedia editors). Certify contributors too, make them subordinate to the editor, but superior to non-expert Wikipedia editors. That would solve the idiot-editor problem, and would also give the academic something to put on their CV: "Certified Wikipedia Editor/Contributor responsible for X pages and contributed to Y pages". You won't get senior professors to do it, but I bet this path would get lots of junior Ph.D.'s. Academics anyway often have unpaid positions as journal editors, and always as referees. This is very similar, and we all put that free work on our CV's. I'd also get rid of the "no original research clause". You'll have academics clamoring to write about their latest theory. Take a look at how the arXiv endorsement system works. It's not a full certification but halfway there. Copying the list of endorsed arXiv authors would be a great starting point for certified expert Wikipedia contributors.

I often find myself landing on Wikipedia when looking up research topics. They're under-cited and often poorly explained, but often can be better than navigating 1000 un-ranked results returned on a journal search (the majority of which use a concept, but don't explain it). There's a real need for Wikipedia here, but it desperately needs improvement.

The PhD level quote you gave was from "clinical neurophysiologist Carl S. Hale". To outsiders, graduate/PhD level and undergraduate level math look pretty much equally inscrutable (eg. this vs. this). None of the information in the two articles (TFA's or The Indianapolis Star's) or in the video suggests to me that this assessment is accurate. Perhaps they just left it out, but in the video Jacob doesn't give me the sense of "this is incredibly basic; my goodness this is basic; I've gone so much further than this" that I'd expect if he were really at the graduate/PhD level.

He also made more mistakes than I would expect--messing up dx's, messing up constants, and messing with notation. I didn't get the sense that he understood the underlying real analysis backing up his calculus, or that he was as familiar with formal proofs as he would need to be to actually be at the graduate/PhD level. He seemed to be performing the usual algorithmic manipulations and modifying part of a lecture he was given. Certainly he understood the basic calculus he was describing, but it's unclear to me how deep it goes. Relatively few people are qualified to judge his ability, so it would be easy to overstate when faced with lots of magic symbols. I wish I could talk to him for 5 minutes and just determine his general ability level myself.

For those who don't know, the University of Washington has one of the best nuclear physics programs in the US.

Turns out they do detect trace amounts of iodine-131 in the air, but nowhere near Chernobyl levels.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4853v1

Here's a link to the article in Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434.

Go to sites like nature.com/news , let the students read the latest and most interesting papers or blog entries and discuss them afterwards!

http://arxiv.org/

can result in good comedy value.

Seriously though you have to decide if you're trying to make them learn, in which case tossing them in the deep end at arxiv is appropriate, or just filling time and trying to be cool, in which case its youtube video time.

The article says:

In 2007, the researchers, along with Vanderbilt graduate fellow James Dent, posted a paper titled "Neutrino time travel" on the preprint server that generated a considerable amount of buzz.

They did indeed post it in 2007. But where was the buzz generated? As far as I can tell, that paper has never been cited, not even in another arXiv preprint. I can't even find evidence of it being discussed on mailing lists or blogs, at least anything Google knows about, prior to the current bit of publicity due to this article. Did it generate a bunch of hallway buzz that never made it onto the internet in any form?

My understanding is that this is an old idea, and the core method is definitely ablation not the negligible force of radiation pressure.

This system is intended to stop particles that are between 1 and 10 cm in diameter. Currently deployed technology allows for reliable ground tracking of debris that is approximately (supposedly) 10 cm, though proposed laser based tracking systems would detect debris in the 1 cm range. Presuming a 5x5x5 cube of solid steel, that's more like 1kg. Individual hobbyists are creating handheld personal laser strong enough to liquify bits of metal already. It's not too much of a stretch to think of a ground based laser in a housing the size of a building could be strong enough to get through the various atmospheres on a clear day and transfer that much energy to an object in LEO. And while the atmosphere is going to be fighting you every step of the way, at least the change in angle for refraction will tend to place the laser target at the front of the object. And aiming lasers and optical telescopes through atmospheric distortions is something that NASA has faced before, on their ground-based telescope initiatives. Lasers are how we aim things, and we're pretty good at it.

The goal is to get the perigree of the orbit low enough that it skims the upper atmosphere and loses energy on its own. A small change in velocity can lead to significant orbital eccentricity, and greater eccentricity generally leads to a lower perigree.

Obviously, I'm too tired to do the math right now. But it seems like you are dismissing the idea a little prematurely.

Article is short on details, but at least they include a link to the paper on the arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0403069

I was waiting for something to happen after hearing about the massive solar flare yesterday, but nothing this big.

And how is that supposed to work?

Well, I thought this was a more accepted concept than it is, but I guess not.
For your reading pleasure:
Change in magnetic field: an early warning system to understand seismotectonics
Universality in solar flare and earthquake occurrence
Earthquakes, Solar Flares, and Solar Wind Anaylsis
Whether solar flares can trigger earthquakes

Hopefully, that'll shed a bit more light on this growing theory for you. I don't think anyone is saying that every earthquake is caused by CME's, but when you have massive ejections like yesterdays they can certainly contribute to instability in the Earth's magnetic field, which leads to tectonic shifting.
Cheers!

The original paper makes it clear that this, like every other wormhole solution in General Relativity, requires "strange matter" - in their case, "as exotic matter, a massless ghost scalar field has been chosen". The interesting thing is that it links two stars together in a way that may have observable consequences (material would flow from one star to the other to keep the pressure in the cores equal, which would change how the star would evolve from one in isolation).

Note that these wormholes require the "exotic matter" to exist, so it's a mistake to say that this proves they can exist or whatever, as there is no actual evidence for any of the strange or exotic matter possibilities required to support them.

Now, suppose that such exotic matter does exist. Could this be used for transportation by an advanced civilization ? Maybe. You would have to find a wormhole end point in orbit about a black hole, and wait (or engineer) for the star to expand and for the black hole to "eat" the star's gas. If that process could go to completion, voila !, a naked wormhole would be left, and, if that were stable, you could use it for transportation.

Figuring out the necessary black hole engineering to do this is left as an exercise for the reader.

You seem to be confused. You need at least twelve top quarks.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3639

Here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6142

"It is shown by kinematic estimates and three-dimensional plasma-neutral gas simulations that the solar wind can induce very fast a magnetic field in the previously completely unmagnetized Earth's ionosphere that is strong enough to protect Earth from cosmic radiations comparable to the case of an intact magnetic dynamo.

Consequently, even in the case of a complete breakdown of the Earth’s dynamo, the biosphere is still shielded against cosmic rays, in particular coming from the sun, by the magnetic field induced by the solar wind. "

The paper you want to read is Max Tegmark, "Parallel Universes," 2003. Available here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131v1

"Abstract: I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, which form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity. Level I: A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions — including an identical copy of you about 101029 m away. Level II: In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content. Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial. Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. The key question is not whether parallel universes exist (Level I is the uncontroversial cosmological concordance model), but how many levels there are. I discuss how multiverse models can be falsified and argue that there is a severe “measure problem” that must be solved to make testable predictions at levels II-IV."

My problem is The FA was short on details, so I'm assuming that they have mutually exclusive models that predict values that differ by a few orders of magnitude.

They have exclusive models, but the problem is that you can't really rule some of them out. A flat space model is theoretically distinct from a curved space model, but observationally similar to a curved space model with very little curvature.

If I were running a casino and I were taking bets on the true size of the universe, I could use an analysis based on Bayesian statistics to set my odds, but that doesn't mean that I should consider this number a true age of the universe.

Sure you should. If you're interested in "the true age of the universe", Bayesian statistics will give you a better answer, because it accounts for all the models under consideration. It's a way of logically and quantitatively combining information. Indeed, as the paper discusses, it gives tighter constraints on the curvature parameter than non-model averaged constraints, since it has a consistent way of assessing which models give more plausible estimates.

Sure, you can through up our hands and say it's Cosmology so we're uncertain about everything, but that doesn't make this good science.

It's the epitome of good science. Good science is about assessing the strengths of hypotheses, and providing estimates with credible error bounds. If you're asking the question "what is the true age of the universe", arguably the only credible way of assessing the uncertainty in the answer is by model averaging.

I would much rather see the numbers from the different models plotted on a log scale with marker sizes varying with the relative uncertainty or credibility of the models along with limits from any hard data that we actually have.

You're perfectly welcome to do that, but it (1) doesn't answer the question (what is the age of the universe) and (2) doesn't assess the relative credibility of different models.

It only answers a bunch of different questions: what is the age of the universe according to model X, Y, or Z? That's fine, but the next step is to combine the information we have about different models to synthesize an answer to the question we're ultimately asking: how old is the universe, according to everything that we know?

Frankly, it's absurd to claim that looking at models in isolation is "good science" but that looking at what the totality of theory and evidence tells us is "bad science".

I could do a similar analysis on models for the nEDM and use this value if I were taking bets on the nEDM. But to say that I know the value of the nEDM would be bogus.

It's no more bogus than saying you know the value of the nEDM, based on what the Standard Model predicts.

Of course, we don't know the value of the nEDM. That's the point. We can't trust the Standard Model estimate, because the Standard Model might be wrong. We can't trust competing estimates either, for the same reasons. Nor can we trust all the estimates combined (in a model averaging sense). But all the estimates combined are less wrong than is any individual estimate.

I thought decoherence was the proposed resolution to the measurement->collapsing wave function approach of interpreting QM. Has this been derailed?

No, actually in retrospect I see now that quantum decoherance exactly corresponds to the model that I described, its just that it had never been explained clearly to me so I thought it was referring to something else. (Ironically the wikipedia article I just looked at now was in many ways clearer than the explanation I'd received in my classes, though in fairness it might just be that I have a few more years of experience under my belt so that it makes more sense to me now!)

Anyway, so in short you are absolutely right, and I appreciate you asking this question because it caused me to learn something. :-)

Alternatively, I've seen a proposal that QM is just a probability algorithm correlating various observables, as in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

Hmm, interesting, I am not familiar with that result, but it might answer a question that is left-open by the many-world interpretation: why is it that the square of the amplitude of a component in the wave function corresponds to the probability of measuring it in that state?

I thought decoherence was the proposed resolution to the measurement->collapsing wave function approach of interpreting QM. Has this been derailed?
Alternatively, I've seen a proposal that QM is just a probability algorithm correlating various observables, as in http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

1. Have you read the paper by Forbes and Kroupa accepted for publication in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia entitled "What is a galaxy? Cast your vote here..." (its available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.3309)

If you read the actual this press release describes ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2327v2 ), it explains that the "Top Publishers" usually try to promote the URLs of their own websites. This can be done by adding the URL to the filenames in the torrents (such as HarryPotter-slashdot.org.avi ) or in the metadata on the portal. The publisher makes profit from ads or subscriptions to the site they own, not from ads on the indexing sites.

People actually go to those sites? I mean, I haven't clicked on a link inside those .NFO files or typed in the addresses contained in the filename, and never needed it. If the file is what I want, great, if not, delete and move on.

I can't see selling ads to a site that's hard to get to as being very popular unless people somehow expect lots of new stuff to be posted there... heck, I think the index sites would make more money.

Or is there some part of this culture I'm not aware of?

If you read the actual this press release describes ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2327v2 ), it explains that the "Top Publishers" usually try to promote the URLs of their own websites. This can be done by adding the URL to the filenames in the torrents (such as HarryPotter-slashdot.org.avi ) or in the metadata on the portal. The publisher makes profit from ads or subscriptions to the site they own, not from ads on the indexing sites.

The 100 p2p users basically refers to 100 unique IPs that were responsible for creating and initially seeding the torrents; they aren't necessarily related to the people who actually first provide the content.

They acknowledge that some of the publishers were altruistic people who published legitimate files without trying to promote other sites, but these individuals were less prolific than the ones promoting other sites or distributing fake content.

YourI take your point that arXiv.org is not peer reviewed and the PLoS journal are. However, arXiv.org is definitely "open access". Besides obviously meeting the definition, even their web page advertises it as open access. Also, not all journals are peer-reviewed.

Maybe you are arguing that "open access journal" means something different than "open access"+"journal", but who is muddying the waters at that point? It's easier just to say that arXiv.org is not peer-reviewed while some other open access sites are.

PRISM may be wrong that open access = no peer review, but it's also a mistake to assume open access = peer review. Open access and peer review are just two different things.

At least in the fields I pay attention to (mainly statistics) the best open access journal is arXiv.org. I thought it was also the highest profile free computer science journal.

Most people use it for publishing articles while they get them published in a peer reviewed journal, but they have been the main publisher for some very high profile work, such as Perelman's papers proving the Poincare conjecture.

At least in the fields I pay attention to (mainly statistics) the best open access journal is arXiv.org. I thought it was also the highest profile free computer science journal.

Most people use it for publishing articles while they get them published in a peer reviewed journal, but they have been the main publisher for some very high profile work, such as Perelman's papers proving the Poincare conjecture.

Character Stats:

Name: Vladimir S. Mashkevich
Institution: Queens College, New York
Status: Postdoctoral Fellow

Special Skills: Tries to run a gravity collaboration website http://gravitygeek.com/

In short, you're actually this guy http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Mashkevich_V/0/1/0/all/0/1 right?

Romanov's algorithm strongly resembles an algorithm from a debunked paper published around 2004.

Sergey Gubin wrote a series of similarly designed proofs around 2004. Instead of Romanov's notion of "concretization," Gubin used the term "depletion." Gubin's paper was debunked by some students at the University of Rochester.

Both reduction algorithms throw out key information about the original truth tables that cause the final solutions to be incorrect.

Constructive and exhaustive proofs that P != NP should never be trusted. I'm not a huge fan of formality in proofs, but sometimes you really need it.

Romanov's algorithm strongly resembles an algorithm from a debunked paper published around 2004.

Sergey Gubin wrote a series of similarly designed proofs around 2004. Instead of Romanov's notion of "concretization," Gubin used the term "depletion." Gubin's paper was debunked by some students at the University of Rochester.

Both reduction algorithms throw out key information about the original truth tables that cause the final solutions to be incorrect.

Constructive and exhaustive proofs that P != NP should never be trusted. I'm not a huge fan of formality in proofs, but sometimes you really need it.

here is the paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3944
Title: Non-Orthodox Combinatorial Models Based on Discordant Structures
Authors: V. F. Romanov

reduce our dependency on foreign oil and other such drastic, uncomfortable measures.

Every president, democrat or republican, since Carter has talked about reducing dependency on foreign oil. It's one of those things that is easier to say than do. And we are doing it: little-by-little we've started to move towards electric cars. They aren't quite ready to replace traditional cars, but they're getting closer.

We've also tried things that have failed, like ethanol. But it seems reasonable to believe that soon we'll be able to escape our oil dependency. Of course, if you listen to James Hansen, it'll already be too late. Let's hope he's wrong.

At the end of TFA they give the original reference, a paper preprinted in 2007. One way to tell if this holds water is to see if other research groups have done follow-ups in the intervening three years.

Rather than trusting a political organization or whoever wrote that in Wikipedia, I prefer to look at the data myself. A zip file containing speleotherm data has thoughtfully been provided here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/in-which-i-go-spelunking/

When I look at his graph, it sure looks like it's getting colder to me.

In addition, the following paper makes it clear that the warming since 1800 is a "rebound" from the little ice age with a multi-decadal oscillation superposed, and that we have now entered a downward swing in said oscillation, yet the underlying linear "rebound" continues.

(PDF)
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=NS20101100004_10739704.pdf&paperID=3217

And this paper has an explanation for the power spectra of the temperature oscillations which fit the data better than CO2 based models:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

Absolutely right. And when someone who actually knows math and statistics (as opposed to climate "scientists"), and who are knowledgeable enough to consider influences outside the earth's atmosphere (as opposed to climate "scientists"), find that the planetary and lunar orbits fit the temperature cycles better than the climate "scientists'" models do, why does anyone (except media whores) even bother to listen to them any more? http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4639

Why, oh why can't people posting science stories on slashdot post links to the actual papers when they're publicly available? http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2399

The paper is also available at the arXiv if you don't have a subscription to Phys. Rev. Lett.

In articles about science always follow at least to the original article or the preprint and state that explicitly. I am sick and tired of "i am only citing the blog where i found it and not bothering to tell (or check?) if its published, preprint, or just buzz".

This one seems to relate to a preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6510

I am by no means expert on mass spectrometry by some thing they are doing seem strange. I will look at it when a referee examined it for PRL (to which its obviously submitted)

arXiv article by Penrose:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

Comment from Lee Smolin in a Nature review of coming Penrose book on the topic:

No living physicist has yet made a discovery as great as those of Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, but Roger Penrose is in a better position to do so than most.

Further sample of Smolin's review in Nature:

We should pay attention because Penrose has repeatedly been far ahead of his time. The most influential person to develop the general theory of relativity since Einstein, Penrose established the generalized behaviour of space-time geometry, pushing that theory beyond special cases. Our current understanding of black holes, singularities and gravitational radiation is built with his tools.

His work in the 1960s on quantum gravity has borne dramatic fruit within the past five years. Penrose introduced two influential concepts: spin networks, which in 1988 seeded an approach called loop quantum gravity; and twistor theory, a recasting of space-time geometry that has generated a recent breakthrough in our understanding of gauge theories, the basic ingredients of the standard model of particle physics.

Penrose pulls one more trick out of his hat: the insight that physics in both the early and late regimes is insensitive to scale. Briefly, this is because massless particles move at the speed of light, at which point time stands still for them. Because there is no clock ticking, there is no reference against which they can measure a scale of length or time.

So if the only difference between the very early and late Universe is scale, and physics in both of these extremes is insensitive to changes of scale, then it is possible that our early Universe is the late Universe of a previous era. This is Penrose's big idea: deliciously absurd, but just possibly true. Moreover, it doesn't matter if such a transition took an eternity — photons are insensitive to the passage of time.

Penrose's concept joins several other proposals, such as loop quantum cosmology, that replace the Big Bang singularity and allow time to run before the Big Bang occurred, suggesting our Universe is the progeny of a previous one. Other ingenious mechanisms for making the history of the Universe cyclic — so that it repeatedly swells and contracts — have been proposed by physicists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok and their colleagues. But these exotic proposals involve theories of quantum gravity, which Penrose has no need for in his hypothesis.

I gave a talk on this for students at my school recently. Penrose has a popular-level book out on the topic, which came out a few months before the publication of this claimed observation. The paper describing the observation is here. Here is a talk Penrose gave at Cambridge in 2005 on the topic.

If this is right, then it's certainly a huge discovery. There are at least two pretty big problems, however.

(1) Penrose's model requires some mechanism by which 100% of the massive particles in the universe get recycled into photons or other massless radiation. Black holes can do a lot of this, but there will inevitably be a few lonely hydrogen molecules that never fall into a black hole. Therefore one of the predictions of the model is that there is some novel particle physics going on. In the video of the 2005 talk, you can see that he posits the existence of charged particles lighter than an electron. Various particle physicists pointed out to him that this really isn't possible. (E.g., low-energy photons would interact with matter by pair production, and we observe that that doesn't happen.) By the time he published the popular book, he'd change this to a prediction that all massive particles simply lose their rest mass very, very slowly. This is disappointing, because it means he's stepped back from making testable predictions. "Very, very slowly" can be as slowly as you like, i.e., too slowly to measure, and therefore this aspect of the theory isn't falsifiable.

(2) The other problem is that it's not clear whether the claimed circular patterns are real. Penrose's co-author, the experimentalist on the new paper, is Gurzadyan. Gurzadyan got the WMAP and Boomerang collaborations to give him data. He is not part of those collaborations, but he has a ton of papers on CMB on arxiv, seems to be a heavy hitter in the field. The thing that makes me cautious is that the WMAP and Boomerang collaborations have not jumped on the bandwagon. If they really believed the statistical significance of the result, presumably they'd want their names on this extremely exciting result. Penrose's book also describes a grad student who worked on searching for such patterns in the data, and the book makes it sound like that search was inconclusive. If that grad student (and his advisor) believed in the patterns presently being claimed by Gurzadyan and Penrose, then there's no way in hell that this paper would go out without the grad student's name on them as a co-author; he definitely contributed to the work, and if he believed in the result, his name would be on there.

To be fair, there are a lot of fudges in ekpyrosis. They just might be more acceptable than are in inflationary cosmology, depending on your point of view. (My view is that both are just phenomenology.) In inflation you have to postulate the existence of one or more inflationary fields (typically scalar fields, as yet unobserved in nature which is a problem since the Higg's is a scalar field) and a specific form of potential. In ekpyrosis you have to postulate two *perfectly parallel* 5D branes, and a very specific form of potential governing their interaction.

I've been a follower of the Ekpyrotic Universe Hypothesis since the late 90's, because it elegantly sidesteps the massive inflation needed at the beginning of a singularity universe. More recently, however, I've been looking into Laura Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis of a pair of entangled universes. Since there has been some observational "evidence" that supports her theory (Dark Flow; Sigma8; and the Supervoids), it's something to watch closely. Although, to be fair, she postulates a 12 degree cold spot, whereas the Eridanus Supervoid is only 5 degrees and it's unclear whether the void has to be contiguous or if they're cumulative. If the hypothesis has merit, it would easily side-step the need for "perfectly parallel" higher-dimensional branes.

Some of her papers are relatively light reading and are worth a look, IMO.

To be fair, there are a lot of fudges in ekpyrosis. They just might be more acceptable than are in inflationary cosmology, depending on your point of view. (My view is that both are just phenomenology.) In inflation you have to postulate the existence of one or more inflationary fields (typically scalar fields, as yet unobserved in nature which is a problem since the Higg's is a scalar field) and a specific form of potential. In ekpyrosis you have to postulate two *perfectly parallel* 5D branes, and a very specific form of potential governing their interaction.

I've been a follower of the Ekpyrotic Universe Hypothesis since the late 90's, because it elegantly sidesteps the massive inflation needed at the beginning of a singularity universe. More recently, however, I've been looking into Laura Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis of a pair of entangled universes. Since there has been some observational "evidence" that supports her theory (Dark Flow; Sigma8; and the Supervoids), it's something to watch closely. Although, to be fair, she postulates a 12 degree cold spot, whereas the Eridanus Supervoid is only 5 degrees and it's unclear whether the void has to be contiguous or if they're cumulative. If the hypothesis has merit, it would easily side-step the need for "perfectly parallel" higher-dimensional branes.

Some of her papers are relatively light reading and are worth a look, IMO.

To be fair, there are a lot of fudges in ekpyrosis. They just might be more acceptable than are in inflationary cosmology, depending on your point of view. (My view is that both are just phenomenology.) In inflation you have to postulate the existence of one or more inflationary fields (typically scalar fields, as yet unobserved in nature which is a problem since the Higg's is a scalar field) and a specific form of potential. In ekpyrosis you have to postulate two *perfectly parallel* 5D branes, and a very specific form of potential governing their interaction.

I've been a follower of the Ekpyrotic Universe Hypothesis since the late 90's, because it elegantly sidesteps the massive inflation needed at the beginning of a singularity universe. More recently, however, I've been looking into Laura Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis of a pair of entangled universes. Since there has been some observational "evidence" that supports her theory (Dark Flow; Sigma8; and the Supervoids), it's something to watch closely. Although, to be fair, she postulates a 12 degree cold spot, whereas the Eridanus Supervoid is only 5 degrees and it's unclear whether the void has to be contiguous or if they're cumulative. If the hypothesis has merit, it would easily side-step the need for "perfectly parallel" higher-dimensional branes.

Some of her papers are relatively light reading and are worth a look, IMO.

The "magic" in this case is not graphene, but rather good old Silicon Oxide. And that's why de Heer's work on SiC is not recognized and he is not credited for being first to isolate graphene. Let me explain

People make graphene all the time as long as they are working with carbon. Trouble is, it is impossible to distinguish a single layer from a double layer from a triple layer when they are so tiny. You can probably use an expensive AFM to map the topography, but that's a pricy and time consuming proporsition. On SiC, you chemically etch away a some Si atoms on the surface layers, leaving you with one, two, or probably three layers of graphene. But it is difficult to control chemistry. How do you know WHERE your 1, 2, 3 layers are even if you have made them?

That's where SiO2 comes in. In the case of prize winner, they were working with SiO2 substrate. Due to certain dielectric property turn out to have an interference effect with VISIBLE light that the reflected light from 0, 1, 2, 3 layers of graphene on top of it become distinguishable enough in color that the naked eye that a train graduate student can just look under an inexpensive microscopy and says here's a monolayer, here's a bilayer, and so on. (Beyond 4 layers it's hard to tell from bulk graphite). You cannot do that with SiC. Yes, the "scotch tape" method produced crappy graphene as far as electronic properties is concern (yet they still observer QHE at room temperature. That tells you how good a conductor graphene is), but that's why this method is not used any more pass 2006. But the discovery here is not graphene per se, but how to cheaply and easily identify it and as a result, the explosion of researches following their work.

So I suppose you can say these guys got lucky caz they were working with the right substrate. But that's science discovery for ya

REF: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0705.0091

Here is the paper, free access on arxiv as usual: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2507

I like to think of it as the particle (or system) being measured becoming classical-like during the measurement before going on its own merry quantum way again.

Sorry, wrong URL for the Moffat paper on the Bullet Cluster; see http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702146/.

Is that true of Moffat's STV Gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar-tensor-vector_gravity/)? Moffat claims that SVT Gravity is consistent with the Bullet Cluster data (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606216/).

Arxiv link

The Paper on arXiv, for the most of us who don't have PRL access: Event Excess in the MiniBooNE Search for Vu -> Ve Oscillations

Respectfully, I disagree.

1. You can screen your doctor for trustworthiness.
2. You can choose to visit a doctor of a gender you prefer.
3. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath: I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
4. Doctors rarely take, much less retain, nude photographs of your body.

Collection and use of personal information, including digital photographs, paves a road for government with inscrutable purposes: using information about people while denying them the ability to choose how that information is used. This is a severe tilt in balance between the power of the people and the power of the state. A tilt, to emphasize, that is unfavourable to the people.

In Smith v. City of Artesia, 1989, the court said, "Privacy is inherently personal. The right to privacy recognises the sovereignty of the individual." What is more private than our private parts? What can the general public be subjected to, en masse, that is more personally invasive than a pat-down or nude photo?

More blunt? Can do.

The choice: allow an anonymous agent to take nude photographs of your child, or let strangers grope your child until their hands meet "resistance": a euphemistic way to say, "touch their testicles, penis, or vulva."

Any job that forces someone to feel a child's crotch so as to encourage parents to usher their children through a machine that takes nude photographs--without probable cause of having committed a crime--is a job that aught not to exist.

Systematic violations of our private areas must be countered with outrage and utmost resistance (!) against corporations and governments alike. The TSA are not police and North America has no Police States, yet.

Add to this the uncertain health risks. Terahertz waves have resonant effects that can unzip double-stranded DNA, which, ultimately, could significantly interfere with gene expression and DNA replication. Think children, pregnant women, or sperm. And guess what wave frequency x-ray backscatter machines use? Hint: THz. http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

My emotions surge at the thought of people speaking or acting out against tyranny. People must express themselves vehemently and eloquently against the infractions that governments permit to be made on our freedoms. Sometimes one voice, or one courageous action, is enough to inspire a nation. http://i.imgur.com/cfifB.jpg

Martin Niemöller foretells of what happens when people--even those who prefer to drive than fly--keep quiet: They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

John Dewey stated, "We cannot separate the idea of ourselves and our own good from our idea of others and of their good." When we protect the rights of individuals by forcing Corporations and Governments to sit at the same table as Respect, Dignity, and Decency, we protect all of our society.

I implore you to read: http://davidjarvis.ca/dave/letters/nothing-to-hide.pdf