Slashdot Mirror

I am an author of the paper in which this discovery was reported. You can find a copy of the paper here.

I hope you don't think that counts as a gloating right - this is over-hyped garbage that could only make you look bad by relation, no matter how cool he original discovery might have been.

I am an author of the paper in which this discovery was reported. You can find a copy of the paper here.

While the planet probably is near the habitable zone, this isn't the first time a giant planet has been found in the habitable zone of a star, and while it could have moons, there isn't any reason to speculate more about this planet than any of the others.

However, this planet is important for two other reasons:
1. It was the first planet discovered using a technique called "astrometry", which is measuring the positions of stars in the sky, as the move up/down and left/right in reaction to a planet orbiting it. This technique has the potential to find earthlike planets in the habitable zones of nearby stars.
2. It is found in a binary system and the second star is close enough that its gravity would have impacted planet formation. The leading theory of planet formation, called "core accretion", requires millions of year for planets to form, as dust in a disk around the star collides together and clings electrostatically (similar to the way dustballs collect on a hardwood floor). Eventually the dustballs grow large enough to be considered rocks, those collide and grow bigger, etc. But the second star's gravity would cause the dust to be swept out of the system in just thousands of years, far too little time for core accretion to occur. Thus, we need a different mechanism to explain planet formation in this system. This isn't the only such binary, but it this study does offer more controlled statistics of how frequently such binaries host planets, and these facts combined show that some had to form in the binary itself---the chances of a binary interacting with another star (that originally hosted the planet), leading to an exchange where the binary picks up the star, are much too small to explain the high rate observed.

Also, here is another press story covering the discovery (by the way, stars have multiple names---don't be confused that this article calls it "HR 7162" and the other one refers to "HD 176051"---they really are the same system). The third figure on the right hand panel is particularly useful.

Any questions? I'll try to answer responses to this post.

Our laws of physics are supposedly only local to our area of space.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

I can tell it's truly News for Nerds because I can barely understand what it's saying and it drops causal references to advanced mathematics

I recommend you start visiting arXiv then.

Are you suggesting the OP, a self-described interested lay person, learns or even mere follow mathematic research by reading arXiv? If so, WTF!?

arXiv is a pre-print archive of original research articles, not exactly a welcoming place for a non-mathematician (or non-subject specialist, e.g. physics, and computer science also use it). Even with an undergrad degree in mathematics, I find it a difficult (and/or useless) place to try to follow progress in the field, without the editorial assistants to filter the wheat from the chaff. And I've been reading original (first source) research papers since the mid-1990s in multiple research disciplines.

You might as well ask him to read Euclid's Elements in its original Greek. Heck, after the translation, it would be more accessible, as it is intended to be a textbook for learning.

I would rather suggest, try reading some of the mathematics journals that are intended to be more accessible, such as from MAA and AMS societies. Some are aimed at students of two-year and four-year "colleges" (aka polytechs / technical colleges and universities), while others are just interesting yet often accessible, such as Journal of Recreational Mathematics and Mathematics Magazine and online columns such as Kevin Devlin's Devlin's Angle.

In the more general sense, I would recommend popular math writers such as Ian Stewart, Simon Singh, Paul J. Nahin, the recently deceased Martin Gardner (slashdot), and many more authors that I cannot recall.

Unfortunately I can't think of any pop-math books or articles on linear algebra, in the vein of "e: The Story of a Number" (Maor), "An Imaginary Tale" (Nahin), "Flatland" (Abbott), "Flatterland" (Stwart), "A Mathematician's Apology" (Hardy), "Fermat's Last Theorm" / "Fermat's Engima" (US) (Singh), "Does God Play Dice?" (Stewart), "Chaos" (Gleick), and many others.

To wit, mathematics is I believe the only discipline where fourth year undergrad students take third or fourth year courses with "introduction" or "elementary" in their course titles. But I digress. My point is that one "problem" is that given mathematics long history, and that is has fascinated people across cultures throughout history, the subject has accumulated such a vast body of knowledge, so it is difficult to get a firm understanding on every field within mathematics. So feeling overwhelmed with all the facts and fields to learn is normal.

I can tell it's truly News for Nerds because I can barely understand what it's saying and it drops causal references to advanced mathematics--the stuff I only wish I'd had the fortitude to study in college.

I'm serious. This is exactly what I want from Slashdot.

I recommend you start visiting arXiv then.

Waiting 40 years isn't necessarily a good idea. According to this guy (James Hansen), by then it will be too late, we'll have had the catastrophic events already. Now, I think he's completely wrong, but then he's the expert, not me.

Near as I can tell, that's because the authors haven't actually published a rendering. Here's their original paper (PDF). It contains lots of graphs of spirals and curves, but no pretty pictures for us illiterates.

To see the plot, read the paper (PDF), not the article. Figure 4 does not look like a square to me. Figure 7 has some squarish shapes drawn over the plot, but it is not highly convincing. Further, these squarish orbits appear in the inner parts of the Galaxy, not the outer shape as one might assume. Orbital shapes change with radius as different gravitational resonances dominate at different distances.

There's yet to be any evidence the universe doesn't run on very specific mathematical rules. For example, there's a very good reason for inflation having to do with the 'pressure' at high energy states. [ShakaUVM]

Huh? Your customarily vague but authoritative comment which doesn't include an "IANAP" disclaimer will just reinforce the disturbingly common impression that physicists are bullshitting about concepts like inflation and dark matter.

The cosmology course I've mentioned was taught by Dr. Nanopoulos using Kolb's The Early Universe. He pointed out that physicists have known for decades that something like inflation is required to explain the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Kolb disusses these topics in chapter 8, though his overview is somewhat dated now. WMAP has since observed temperature fluctuations on the 10^(-5) level, which matches predictions based on modelling quantum fluctuations in the early universe. More precisely, inflation predicts that these fluctuations would deviate slightly from the perfect scale invariance expected in a universe without inflation. After 7 years, WMAP can exclude the possibility of a scale invariant spectrum by more than 3 sigma. The WMAP results also show that the universe is perfectly flat, at least to within the limits of measurement. Inflation isn't necessary for the universe to be perfectly flat, but it's sufficient to explain what may seem like "fine-tuning" at first glance.

That's why physicists think inflation happened, but it's an argument based on how relativistic causality affects the large-scale thermodynamics of the universe, not pressure. Pressure is at least tangentially relevant to almost every physics problem imaginable, though, and inflation is no exception. I've explained that dark energy's negative pressure acts as a kind of anti-gravity. Later, Dr. Stoeger (Jesuit priest, astrophysicist working for the Vatican Observatory) observed that "There is, of course, a much deeper connection between inflation and dark energy. The only way we can really conceive of inflation occurring in the early universe is under the influence of a large amount of vacuum energy, which is a type of dark energy. This dark energy must be quickly transformed into the particles and radiation at the end of inflation. So, it's not at all clear if there is a relationship between the dark energy which drove inflation and the dark energy which we have evidence is driving the gentle acceleration of cosmic expansion now. It may be that the dark energy now may be a remnant of the dark energy left over from the very early universe."

Then there's the problem of heavy exotic particles predicted by most GUT's; the only one I'm familiar with is the magnetic monopole. In my senior year, I took electrodynamics using the standard Griffiths 3rd ed. Page 327 shows how symmetric Maxwell's equations appear in the presence of magnetic monopoles, and Griffiths opines that they "beg for magnetic charge to exist." My fondest memory of that class is problem 8.12 on page 362, along with footnotes 11

The actual "FA" is here, with images. Gigan, et al. say, "opaque materials."

Geim's original paper on the subject ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0410/0410550.pdf ) was a real fascination because it was so simple and yet enabled many people to do real research. The original paper uses scotch tape to peel off monolayers of different bulk materials, but only graphene showed anything interesting (in particular, the so-called "field-effect" which is the principle behind CMOS transistors. To be sure, the quality of graphene produced from this method is complete crap compared to more advanced methods used by groups today (chemical vapor deposition of various organic molecules, carbon gettering from metals, epitaxial growth by silicon sublimation from SiC), but an impressive amount of exotic physical phenomena (e.g., quantum hall effect) was seen in what was essentially crap.

No doubt, Geim has probably indirectly gotten thousands of researchers perhaps a billion dollars in funding in less than a decade, but I don't think Geim's contribution was as much physics as it was successfully marketing his research (outsiders like to think of science as being purely meritocratic, but it scientists are still people, and people are susceptible to hype). In my opinion, there are many better physics researchers in the field than Geim himself, but none of them are nearly as good at communication and generating buzz.

In any case, congratulations to him for winning it so soon.

Here's a link to the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

Well I'm not sure where exactly you want to take this conversation to, but energy remains when interactions occure that we currently know of. However my point was that when messing with the underlying system, if possible, we might bump into being able to mess with that. Possibly by altering or _damanging_ parts of out universe.

You wanted to read up about this new paper about what creates gravity? It's only 29 pages long and realy not that hard. I encourage you to read it, but simply put: the three dimensional fabric of space is devided into, let's call it; voxels that can store a limited amount of information. So when you take the sun for example, that's a lot of mass, thus enegry, thus information. But it doesn't fit in these information voxels. So basicaly; if you don't chop it up into pieces that do fit (like blowing up the sun) it needs more information storage. Luckily the fabric of space is bendable. So the more matter, the more space fabric it needs, thus it is pulliung the fabric of space.

Now imagine you have a blanket on your table. You take a pen and devide it up in equaly large squires. Now put a tennisball at an outer end of the table, this is our earth. Then put a larger ball on the other end of the table, this is our sun. Now twist and pull this blanket; our sun needs more squires. The effects is that the sun (more matter) now puls the earth towards is; "ta-da!"; gravity!

Here's the paper in pdf: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1

For the LHC to create black holes at all would require a whole bunch of very speculative physics to be true, and a whole bunch of very well-established physics to be false.

No, this is incorrect. All it requires is for one very speculative piece of physics to be true: large extra dimensions.

In particular, if the LHC can create black holes then millions of black holes are being created every day by cosmic rays, which can have twenty orders of magnitude more energy than the LHC. No evidence of those black holes is seen anywhere, not in geochemical track analysis, not in the radiation signature of cosmic ray showers, no where. Ergo, either such black holes are not being created, or they are being destroyed with incredible rapidity.

If the only modification to the standard model is large extra dimensions, then it's just like any other particle physics experiment, where decay rates are closely related to formation rates. The black holes decay essentially instantaneously. That is why theories with large extra dimensions are not immediately falsified by the lack of geological evidence, or by the fact that we don't observe white dwarfs and neutron stars being destroyed by cosmic ray impacts.

For the beam dump of the LHC to behave any differently would require physics so arcane as to be basically magic, and anyone who is worried about it should also be terrified that a herd of flying elephants will trample them to death, because that's a far more probable event.

To be *worried* about black hole production at the LHC, i.e., to think that it might be dangerous, is a whole different matter. Your criticisms above are all valid criticisms if someone is saying that the black holes might be produced and not immediately evaporate. That requires some very strange nonstandard physics. Here are some papers on the topic: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402168 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087

For the LHC to create black holes at all would require a whole bunch of very speculative physics to be true, and a whole bunch of very well-established physics to be false.

No, this is incorrect. All it requires is for one very speculative piece of physics to be true: large extra dimensions.

In particular, if the LHC can create black holes then millions of black holes are being created every day by cosmic rays, which can have twenty orders of magnitude more energy than the LHC. No evidence of those black holes is seen anywhere, not in geochemical track analysis, not in the radiation signature of cosmic ray showers, no where. Ergo, either such black holes are not being created, or they are being destroyed with incredible rapidity.

If the only modification to the standard model is large extra dimensions, then it's just like any other particle physics experiment, where decay rates are closely related to formation rates. The black holes decay essentially instantaneously. That is why theories with large extra dimensions are not immediately falsified by the lack of geological evidence, or by the fact that we don't observe white dwarfs and neutron stars being destroyed by cosmic ray impacts.

For the beam dump of the LHC to behave any differently would require physics so arcane as to be basically magic, and anyone who is worried about it should also be terrified that a herd of flying elephants will trample them to death, because that's a far more probable event.

To be *worried* about black hole production at the LHC, i.e., to think that it might be dangerous, is a whole different matter. Your criticisms above are all valid criticisms if someone is saying that the black holes might be produced and not immediately evaporate. That requires some very strange nonstandard physics. Here are some papers on the topic: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402168 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087

The other big problem is that many of these scientific papers are paywalled

Not if it is a physics paper; I don't remember the last time I saw a physics paper that wasn't posted at arXiv.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008) claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates at the 10^-3 level, correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. An independent study found no such link between flares and decay rates (Parkhomov 2010). Jenkins and Fischbach's latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error. Laboratory experiments[Lindstrom 2010] have also placed limits on the sensitivity of radioactive decay to neutron flux that rule out a neutrino-mediated effect at a level orders of magnitude less than what would be required in order to explain the variations claimed in [Jenkins 2008].

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.

YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.

Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1

Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156

Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318

Parkhomov, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295

Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956

Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623

Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

Lindstrom et al. (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5071

Better still:

• Sze's announcement (greater longevity version [possibly])
• Previous 1 quadrillionth (lone-)digit record
• New 5 trillion consecutive digits record (additional details

That's nice, but shows what's wrong with the slashdot approval system, since the pointer to the source arXiv:1008.3171 was already posted here a month ago:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1317438/A-new-record-the-Two-Quadrillionth-Bit-of-Pi-is-0.

Why is it more interesting because the BBC finally got around to covering it?

They used Bellard's formula. Here's the original article.

Danny Rathjens writes "The Economist cutely writes, "Ye cannae change the laws of physics Or can you?" There was already evidence that the fine structure constant -- a measure of the strength of electromagnetic interaction -- became slightly smaller going back billions of years based on observations of light from quasars. Staggering newer observations provided evidence that the value going back in time actually became larger! The crucial difference being that the new observations were take from a telescope in the other hemisphere and so pointing to a different part of the universe. That indicates that the fine structure constant not only changed over time but it also varies based on position in space! physicsworld.com points out some fascinating implications of this observation. The pre-print of the article submitted to PRL is available at arxiv.org."

Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant

An evaluation from a practicing physicist would be appreciated.

I don't think I can blame your for not reading the paper. They just lied and lied and lied in the press release: "Researchers describe how to carry out the first experimental test of string theory"

Come on! I know that press releases are about PR not science but they should at least bear any relation to the paper.

Look in the paper. The word experiment only appears once, and they don't claim to describe an experiment; not even that it is possible or conclusive.

That said, the question is: who is the lier? The scientists or the marketers? If I can take as true the quotes at TFA, Mike Duff.

Well, at least you showed us whose research we should ignore.

among other things, memristive slime mold modeling and synaptic chain behaviours...

is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915.

Something created what exists, otherwise it would not exist. Things don't magically pop in and out of existence; there's something that does it.

Well, yes they sort of do. The theory is that the switching of the overcritical field that causes the spontaneous creation of the universe, is the destruction of the universe before it. Ad infinitum, and it's possible that the previous universe is actually this universe - if time is curved in on itself totally.

It was explained to me much better than I can explain it here, sorry :(

The flare rate variation wasn't confirmed, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295, showed other flares did nothing

---

Neutrinos Feed @ Feed Distiller

The flare rate variation wasn't confirmed, http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2295, showed other flares did nothing

---

Neutrinos Feed @ Feed Distiller

This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

This idea that decay rates depend on environmental factors is well known as a fertile field for crackpots. Here's a FAQ I wrote about it.

FAQ: Do rates of nuclear decay depend on environmental factors?

There is one environmental effect that has been scientifically well established for a long time. In the process of electron capture, a proton in the nucleus combines with an inner-shell electron to produce a neutron and a neutrino. This effect does depend on the electronic environment, and in particular, the process cannot happen if the atom is completely ionized.

Other claims of environmental effects on decay rates are crank science, often quoted by creationists in their attempts to discredit evolutionary and geological time scales.

He et al. (He 2007) claim to have detected a change in rates of beta decay of as much as 11% when samples are rotated in a centrifuge, and say that the effect varies asymmetrically with clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. He believes that there is a mysterious energy field that has both biological and nuclear effects, and that it relates to circadian rhythms. The nuclear effects were not observed when the experimental conditions were reproduced by Ding et al.

Jenkins and Fischbach claim to have observed effects on alpha decay rates correlated with an influence from the sun. They proposed that their results could be tested more dramatically by looking for changes in the rate of alpha decay in radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard space probes. Such an effect turned out not to exist (Cooper 2009). Undeterred by their theory's failure to pass their own proposed test, they have gone on to publish even kookier ideas, such as a neutrino-mediated effect from solar flares, even though solar flares are a surface phenomenon, whereas neutrinos come from the sun's core. Their latest claims, in 2010, are based on experiments done decades ago by other people, so that Jenkins and Fischbach have no first-hand way of investigating possible sources of systematic error.

Cardone et al. claim to have observed variations in the rate of alpha decay of thorium induced by 20 kHz ultrasound, and claim that this alpha decay occurs without the emission of gamma rays. Ericsson et al. have pointed out multiple severe problems with Cardone's experiments.

He YuJian et al., Science China 50 (2007) 170.
YouQian Ding et al., Science China 52 (2009) 690.
Jenkins and Fischbach (2008), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283v1
Jenkins and Fischbach (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
Jenkins and Fischbach (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3318
Cooper (2009), http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248
F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci, Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956
Ericsson et al., Comment on "Piezonuclear decay of thorium," Phys. Lett. A 373 (2009) 1956, http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/abs/0907.0623
Ericsson et al., http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2141

There are several papers posted on the arXiv.org by Jenkins and Fischbach, this one is my favorite. It's about measurements done on samples of a radioactive isotope of gold - the samples are shaped differently and this alters, presumably, some aspect of their interaction with neutrinos.

The astroengine article has a graph from the Jenkins 2008 paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

The graph shows variations of order 0.1%. A +-3% seasonal change in orbital radius would give a 6% change in R^2 so the effect is about 1/30 of the effect of the radius change. A change in radius to 1.6 AU should cause a drop to 40% of "solar particle" flux hence about 1.3% change in radioactive heat and thus RTG output, or about 10W. The power output measurement appears to have sufficient precision to show such a drop. Cooper does a much better job than I have with these back of the envelope estimates.

Coopers paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

Definitely a puzzle nuclear physicists should be looking at.

The astroengine article has a graph from the Jenkins 2008 paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

The graph shows variations of order 0.1%. A +-3% seasonal change in orbital radius would give a 6% change in R^2 so the effect is about 1/30 of the effect of the radius change. A change in radius to 1.6 AU should cause a drop to 40% of "solar particle" flux hence about 1.3% change in radioactive heat and thus RTG output, or about 10W. The power output measurement appears to have sufficient precision to show such a drop. Cooper does a much better job than I have with these back of the envelope estimates.

Coopers paper is http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4248

Definitely a puzzle nuclear physicists should be looking at.

Let me begin by asking you to be less insulting/insulted in your responses. I pity any schoolkids you did teach if this is how you respond. How's about first starting by answering the basics: What is time changing with respect to? If you can't answer that, I'd suggest you don't know what you're talking about. Likewise parabolas, curves etc - you have to give these dimensions: What are they? Your entropy: What is the coarse graining you're using? What are you microscopic and macroscopic variables that allow for the entropy? If you have a foam appear that has zero sum spins, say, of two spin 1/2 particles, there most assuredly IS entropy in this system as there are two configurations for the spins.

I'd also suggest you look up the information loss in black holes - information is indeed thought to be lost (see Preskill: hep-th/9209058), and is the source of quite the paradox in supposedly unitary theories of physics.

"However, when a particle forms in quantum foam, it forms with its opposite pair" Opposite in what? Certainly not mass - unless you're claiming that negative mass particles exist? But if not, how is mass being conserved? (Hint: It isn't). Opposite in Energy like you state? Really? Negative energy particles now exist?

Nice appeal to authority on Hawking AND the Pope. Good grief, if two men so infallible have been heard by you, it must be true. How's about an ad hominem to go with it? Seriously, give me what time is changing with respect to or go home, because terms like 'rate of change of time' don't make sense. Anyone can sit in a Hawking lecture - what are your proven credentials, if you want to act as authority? A PhD in string theory perhaps?

The extrinsic curvature of a three-slice in a homogeneous cosmology can indeed by expressed by a differential equation: It's basically derived from Friedmann's equation which states that H^2 = 8piG \rho/3 relating the expansion of the universe to its energy density. Plug in your favorite equation of state for matter and off you go, but you'll find that curvature (K(t)) follows t^-n for some n dependent on the matter (this is 3 for dust, for example, 4 for radiation IIRC) thus the singularity K -> infinity at FINITE time. t-> 0. For an easy introduction to this, see Wald's book on General Relativity.

Now a reference for you since I will provide mine:

Linde: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503195

The planck mass is 10^19 GeV. Do the math - you'll find that it really is akin to the galaxy in subatomic scale, not what you're claiming in your unreferenced statements.

Some help on your imaginary time: Hawking was referencing using a Wick Rotation - analytically continuing t -> it so that Lorentzian manifolds become Riemannian, which is the preferred setting for his work on path integral formulations of gravity. This allows you to calculate your action now on a finite, simple single-boundary space avoiding issues of cutoffs a la Gibbons-York-Brown. It's a neat trick, if you know how to pull it off right.

PS: Next time you respond to a "Slashdot reader who can't be arsed to do the basic research" you might consider that it could be someone who has a PhD in quantum gravity and is trying to help.

Inflation didn't begin one planck time after the big bang. So far as we can tell, it was more like 10^6 planck times. (See Mukhanov http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503203 or Rindler's book on cosmology). There certainly are useful models for this phase too - various string theories, ekpyrosis, loop gravity are amongst the candidates. Also your statement about 'quantum foam' is gobbledygook - a 'non-zero sum' of what? Energy? Mass? Perhaps you're trying to say that there is matter associated with empty space, a la cosmological constants etc?

I'm afraid I'm also going to have to jump on statements like "As you approach T=0, the rate of change of time also approaches zero."

Rate of change of time with respect to what exactly? dt/dt =1 by definition, so what is time changing with respect to? Hawking most certainly does NOT support the idea that there was no big bang or no time for it to take place - in fact the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems rather prove that GR predicts that not only was there a big bang, but it happened a finite amount of proper time ago. "Likewise time follows a parabolic path" - parabolic with respect to what other parameter? The whole point of GR is that we can change coordinates and reparametrize as necessary (see rindler coordinates for black holes, for example, or proper-time descriptions of cosmology). Therefore the singularity can certainly be placed at a finite point on (the boundary of a) space-time manifold.

Hydrogen bomb per cubic centimeter doesn't even come close to the energy scale you're looking at - it's more akin to all the matter in our galaxy being packed within the size of an atom. I'm afraid your post is mostly wrong - where are you getting your material from?

I should be clear: My experience is with scalar field inflation with a quadratic potential - the simplest models that are most common. Hybrid inflation can do almost anything, it's true.

My references for that statement:

Tegmark: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410281
Steinhardt: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507455

I believe Mukhanov and Turok both talk about it too, though I can't find the references easily at the moment.

I should be clear: My experience is with scalar field inflation with a quadratic potential - the simplest models that are most common. Hybrid inflation can do almost anything, it's true.

My references for that statement:

Tegmark: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410281
Steinhardt: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507455

I believe Mukhanov and Turok both talk about it too, though I can't find the references easily at the moment.

However, inflation does more than just explain existing phenomena - it predicted a spectral index between 0.98 and 0.92, and COBE/WMAP bring it in at around 0.96.

Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Inflation makes no such prediction. For example, Linde's "Hybrid" inflation model predicts a spectral index greater than 1.0, and is pretty much ruled out by WMAP. Similarly, so-called "Natural" inflation models can easily accomodate a spectral index as low as 0.7 or so. See for example this paper for a nice general review, and this paper specifically for the Natural Inflation case. Inflation does robustly predict adiabatic, superhorizon perturbations, and this is borne out by the data. This is powerful enough evidence without having to overstate the predictivity of the theory.

However, inflation does more than just explain existing phenomena - it predicted a spectral index between 0.98 and 0.92, and COBE/WMAP bring it in at around 0.96.

Where on Earth did you ever get that idea? Inflation makes no such prediction. For example, Linde's "Hybrid" inflation model predicts a spectral index greater than 1.0, and is pretty much ruled out by WMAP. Similarly, so-called "Natural" inflation models can easily accomodate a spectral index as low as 0.7 or so. See for example this paper for a nice general review, and this paper specifically for the Natural Inflation case. Inflation does robustly predict adiabatic, superhorizon perturbations, and this is borne out by the data. This is powerful enough evidence without having to overstate the predictivity of the theory.

350ppm isn't arbitrary it's the maximum safe amount of CO2 we can stabilise at in the atmosphere to ensure we don't experience catastrophic global warming. http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

Here is a link to the paper on the arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2390

Reading through the abstract, I see that a significant feature of this cryptosystem is that it cannot be solved by "strong Fourier sampling", which makes the situation more interesting because it is only a slight exaggeration to say that quantum Fourier transforms are the only trick we know of that lets us get exponential speed-ups in quantum algorithms.