Slashdot Mirror

General relativity has been verified countless times, from the existence of black holes, to gravitational lensing, to even time dilation. General relativity effects are even needed to be compensated for in GPS clock calculations. Are there aspects of general relativity left to be tested?

Sure. Of course you have to distinguish between falsifying Newtonian mechanics and verifying general relativity. It only takes one observation to disprove a theory, but proving a theory correct is a whole different matter.

A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level description of this kind of thing is "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will.

Some examples of things that are still left to test about GR:

1. Nobody has been able to directly verify Einstein's century-old prediction that low-amplitude disturbances in the gravitational field propagate at c. A claim was made that it had been done in 2003, but it was wrong: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
2. Nobody knows whether gravitational torsion exists. Einstein and Cartan played around with it as a way of making a GUT. String theory requires it to exist. The experimental evidence so far has put an upper limit on it.
3. There are various theories of gravity that are consistent with GR in a certain limit, but differ from it in ways that should be empirically detectable. Two examples are the Brans-Dicke theory and Oestvang's quasi-metric relativity. The selling points of the Brans-Dicke theory are that it's supposedly more "Machian" than GR, and at one time it was thought to reproduce certain solar-system measurements that GR couldn't reproduce, although that turned out to be wrong. Oestvang claims that he can reproduce the Pioneer anomaly. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it's important to have them as "test theories." If you don't have any alternative theoretical framework, then it's impossible to decide what experiments to do to test GR, and it's impossible to interpret results of experiments unambiguously. This is basically the reason that it's been impossible to test propagation of gravitational effects at c; we don't have a viable test theory that predicts that they don't propagate at c, so there's no way to interpret the results of experiments.
4. There are various open theoretical problems in classical GR (cosmic censorship, chronology protection conjecture), which may have some bearing on whether the theory is even self-consistent as a classical theory of gravity. There's a strong argument that if cosmic censorship fails, GR fails as a classical theory.
5. There are significant questions, which could be resolved by observation, about the extent to which quantum effects alter the classical picture of the formation and structure of black holes. See, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0346

General relativity has been verified countless times, from the existence of black holes, to gravitational lensing, to even time dilation. General relativity effects are even needed to be compensated for in GPS clock calculations. Are there aspects of general relativity left to be tested?

Sure. Of course you have to distinguish between falsifying Newtonian mechanics and verifying general relativity. It only takes one observation to disprove a theory, but proving a theory correct is a whole different matter.

A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level description of this kind of thing is "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will.

Some examples of things that are still left to test about GR:

1. Nobody has been able to directly verify Einstein's century-old prediction that low-amplitude disturbances in the gravitational field propagate at c. A claim was made that it had been done in 2003, but it was wrong: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
2. Nobody knows whether gravitational torsion exists. Einstein and Cartan played around with it as a way of making a GUT. String theory requires it to exist. The experimental evidence so far has put an upper limit on it.
3. There are various theories of gravity that are consistent with GR in a certain limit, but differ from it in ways that should be empirically detectable. Two examples are the Brans-Dicke theory and Oestvang's quasi-metric relativity. The selling points of the Brans-Dicke theory are that it's supposedly more "Machian" than GR, and at one time it was thought to reproduce certain solar-system measurements that GR couldn't reproduce, although that turned out to be wrong. Oestvang claims that he can reproduce the Pioneer anomaly. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it's important to have them as "test theories." If you don't have any alternative theoretical framework, then it's impossible to decide what experiments to do to test GR, and it's impossible to interpret results of experiments unambiguously. This is basically the reason that it's been impossible to test propagation of gravitational effects at c; we don't have a viable test theory that predicts that they don't propagate at c, so there's no way to interpret the results of experiments.
4. There are various open theoretical problems in classical GR (cosmic censorship, chronology protection conjecture), which may have some bearing on whether the theory is even self-consistent as a classical theory of gravity. There's a strong argument that if cosmic censorship fails, GR fails as a classical theory.
5. There are significant questions, which could be resolved by observation, about the extent to which quantum effects alter the classical picture of the formation and structure of black holes. See, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0346

General relativity has been verified countless times, from the existence of black holes, to gravitational lensing, to even time dilation. General relativity effects are even needed to be compensated for in GPS clock calculations. Are there aspects of general relativity left to be tested?

Sure. Of course you have to distinguish between falsifying Newtonian mechanics and verifying general relativity. It only takes one observation to disprove a theory, but proving a theory correct is a whole different matter.

A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level description of this kind of thing is "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will.

Some examples of things that are still left to test about GR:

1. Nobody has been able to directly verify Einstein's century-old prediction that low-amplitude disturbances in the gravitational field propagate at c. A claim was made that it had been done in 2003, but it was wrong: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
2. Nobody knows whether gravitational torsion exists. Einstein and Cartan played around with it as a way of making a GUT. String theory requires it to exist. The experimental evidence so far has put an upper limit on it.
3. There are various theories of gravity that are consistent with GR in a certain limit, but differ from it in ways that should be empirically detectable. Two examples are the Brans-Dicke theory and Oestvang's quasi-metric relativity. The selling points of the Brans-Dicke theory are that it's supposedly more "Machian" than GR, and at one time it was thought to reproduce certain solar-system measurements that GR couldn't reproduce, although that turned out to be wrong. Oestvang claims that he can reproduce the Pioneer anomaly. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it's important to have them as "test theories." If you don't have any alternative theoretical framework, then it's impossible to decide what experiments to do to test GR, and it's impossible to interpret results of experiments unambiguously. This is basically the reason that it's been impossible to test propagation of gravitational effects at c; we don't have a viable test theory that predicts that they don't propagate at c, so there's no way to interpret the results of experiments.
4. There are various open theoretical problems in classical GR (cosmic censorship, chronology protection conjecture), which may have some bearing on whether the theory is even self-consistent as a classical theory of gravity. There's a strong argument that if cosmic censorship fails, GR fails as a classical theory.
5. There are significant questions, which could be resolved by observation, about the extent to which quantum effects alter the classical picture of the formation and structure of black holes. See, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0346

General relativity has been verified countless times, from the existence of black holes, to gravitational lensing, to even time dilation. General relativity effects are even needed to be compensated for in GPS clock calculations. Are there aspects of general relativity left to be tested?

Sure. Of course you have to distinguish between falsifying Newtonian mechanics and verifying general relativity. It only takes one observation to disprove a theory, but proving a theory correct is a whole different matter.

A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level description of this kind of thing is "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will.

Some examples of things that are still left to test about GR:

1. Nobody has been able to directly verify Einstein's century-old prediction that low-amplitude disturbances in the gravitational field propagate at c. A claim was made that it had been done in 2003, but it was wrong: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
2. Nobody knows whether gravitational torsion exists. Einstein and Cartan played around with it as a way of making a GUT. String theory requires it to exist. The experimental evidence so far has put an upper limit on it.
3. There are various theories of gravity that are consistent with GR in a certain limit, but differ from it in ways that should be empirically detectable. Two examples are the Brans-Dicke theory and Oestvang's quasi-metric relativity. The selling points of the Brans-Dicke theory are that it's supposedly more "Machian" than GR, and at one time it was thought to reproduce certain solar-system measurements that GR couldn't reproduce, although that turned out to be wrong. Oestvang claims that he can reproduce the Pioneer anomaly. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it's important to have them as "test theories." If you don't have any alternative theoretical framework, then it's impossible to decide what experiments to do to test GR, and it's impossible to interpret results of experiments unambiguously. This is basically the reason that it's been impossible to test propagation of gravitational effects at c; we don't have a viable test theory that predicts that they don't propagate at c, so there's no way to interpret the results of experiments.
4. There are various open theoretical problems in classical GR (cosmic censorship, chronology protection conjecture), which may have some bearing on whether the theory is even self-consistent as a classical theory of gravity. There's a strong argument that if cosmic censorship fails, GR fails as a classical theory.
5. There are significant questions, which could be resolved by observation, about the extent to which quantum effects alter the classical picture of the formation and structure of black holes. See, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0346

General relativity has been verified countless times, from the existence of black holes, to gravitational lensing, to even time dilation. General relativity effects are even needed to be compensated for in GPS clock calculations. Are there aspects of general relativity left to be tested?

Sure. Of course you have to distinguish between falsifying Newtonian mechanics and verifying general relativity. It only takes one observation to disprove a theory, but proving a theory correct is a whole different matter.

A good (but somewhat out of date) popular-level description of this kind of thing is "Was Einstein Right?" by Clifford Will.

Some examples of things that are still left to test about GR:

1. Nobody has been able to directly verify Einstein's century-old prediction that low-amplitude disturbances in the gravitational field propagate at c. A claim was made that it had been done in 2003, but it was wrong: [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302294 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006 [3] http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301145
2. Nobody knows whether gravitational torsion exists. Einstein and Cartan played around with it as a way of making a GUT. String theory requires it to exist. The experimental evidence so far has put an upper limit on it.
3. There are various theories of gravity that are consistent with GR in a certain limit, but differ from it in ways that should be empirically detectable. Two examples are the Brans-Dicke theory and Oestvang's quasi-metric relativity. The selling points of the Brans-Dicke theory are that it's supposedly more "Machian" than GR, and at one time it was thought to reproduce certain solar-system measurements that GR couldn't reproduce, although that turned out to be wrong. Oestvang claims that he can reproduce the Pioneer anomaly. Even if they turn out to be wrong, it's important to have them as "test theories." If you don't have any alternative theoretical framework, then it's impossible to decide what experiments to do to test GR, and it's impossible to interpret results of experiments unambiguously. This is basically the reason that it's been impossible to test propagation of gravitational effects at c; we don't have a viable test theory that predicts that they don't propagate at c, so there's no way to interpret the results of experiments.
4. There are various open theoretical problems in classical GR (cosmic censorship, chronology protection conjecture), which may have some bearing on whether the theory is even self-consistent as a classical theory of gravity. There's a strong argument that if cosmic censorship fails, GR fails as a classical theory.
5. There are significant questions, which could be resolved by observation, about the extent to which quantum effects alter the classical picture of the formation and structure of black holes. See, e.g.: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0346

There is no known formula or algorithm for calculating the n-th decimal digit directly.

What about this?

I present here a way of computing the nth decimal digit of pi (or any other base) by using more time than the [BBP] algorithm but still with very little memory.

The algorithm you linked to requires cubic time in n. It hardly qualifies as "calculating the n-th decimal digit directly" given that the naive approach (calculating every single digit between 1 and n, and throwing away all but the last digit) is faster than cubic time.

The only advantage of the algorithm you linked to is that it requires constant space.

I still have the impression you think I was embracing alternative theories of gravity...oh well.

No, I pointed out that you'd misunderstood those alternative theories of gravity.

But as for Mercury; well, the fact stands that even with all other factors, with tiny mass of the planet, we were seeing it in different orbit than it "should" be [...]

Both in your original post and in this one, you seem to be displaying a misconception that the mass of the object is what matters. That's incorrect. What makes a black hole a black hole isn't its mass, it's the fact that the mass is compressed into such a small space. When an ordinary, main-sequence star collapses into a black hole, it actually loses mass in the process. Likewise the mass of Mercury is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to think that Mercury's small mass reduces the relativistic effect on its orbit. That's incorrect. The relativistic precession of Mercury's perihelion is 43 seconds of arc. If Mercury's mass was half what it is, or double what it is, the precession would still be 43 seconds of arc.

Never mind even that this effect would be only slightly stronger - it's there. Newton isn't the choreographer.

Similarly, you could analyze the motion of two human bodies doing a literal waltz, and say that Newton isn't the choreographer. You'd be absolutely right. There would be relativistic effects on the motion of their bodies. That would be absolutely irrelevant, however, because the effects would be too small to measure compared to other effects that you couldn't even quantify, like air currents. Similarly, the relativistic effects on the orbits of these black holes are far too small to measure. The gamma factor for an object moving at 100 km/s is 1.00000006. The difference from 1, which is 5x10^-8, quantifies the size of the relativistic effects. If you take a look at the paper, they weren't even able to resolve the black holes well enough to determine their distances from one another. That means that their orbits are not known at all, much less to a precision of parts per billion. Also, if we assume that their order-of-magnitude estimate of 1 kpc for the orbital separation is roughly correct, each one is swimming in the gravitational field of a whole bunch of other densely packed stars near the galactic core. That effect, which is impossible to measure or calculate with any precision, is going to completely swamp the relativistic effect.

It would be interesting to study the distribution of active second-life users with time. I guess that some kind of well-known pattern will appear. Be ready to see the same fate to apply for twitter, facebook, linkedin, etc.

There is no known formula or algorithm for calculating the n-th decimal digit directly.

What about this?

I present here a way of computing the nth decimal digit of pi (or any other base) by using more time than the [BBP] algorithm but still with very little memory.

At those masses, the choreographer is most likely Einstein

That's incorrect. The paper gives the orbital velocities as being ~100 km/s. If the black holes were close enough to one another for their orbits around their mutual center of mass to be significantly affected by relativity, their distance from one another would have to be comparable to the radii of their event horizons. But at a distance that's comparable to the radius of the event horizon, orbital velocities are a significant fraction of the speed of light. Since we observe that their orbital velocities are very small compared to the speed of light, it follows that their orbits are Newtonian to a good approximation.

that dark matter might be not the underlying cause of some discrepancy between how we think gravity works and what we are observing at galactic scales; we might as well have a different choreographer yet

I assume you're referring to something like MOND, in which case this is also incorrect. MOND gives significant corrections for objects with very small accelerations. These black holes actually have very big accelerations compared to the accelerations of ordinary disk stars, which are what MOND was invented to explain. Therefore even if MOND were right (which seems increasingly unlikely), it wouldn't be relevant for understanding these binary black holes' orbits.

The same thing occurred to me. Here is what appears to be the paper describing the observations. It's remarkably silent on whether any of this has implications for gravitational wave astronomy or tests of general relativity. They basically seem to see it as purely a way of finding out about evolution of galaxies. I guess the fact that these pairs are reasonably frequent implies that you can make reasonable estimates, probably for the first time, of the rate at which black hole collisions should be expected. I wonder to what extent these black hole pairs can be used as laboratories for testing general relativity in the same sense as the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, even before they merge. I guess the orbital periods would be very long, though.

Feyerabend and many other philosophers of science take a complementary stand to this by stressing the theory-ladenness of "facts."

Yep, they're totally right. For example, this 2003 paper claimed to have empirically verified the prediction of general relativity that gravitational forces propagate at the speed of light. The authors made some technical errors, which were rapidly pointed out by others in the field. The final answer is that actually nobody has the faintest clue how to test this specific, century-old prediction by Einstein. The reason is that nobody has figured out any alternative theory of gravity that (a) fits presently known experiments, and (b) predicts that gravitational forces propagate at some other velocity than the speed of light. There are other theories of gravity that satisfy a, and are inconsistent with general relativity, but they are all consistent with general relativity on b. Since there is no alternative theoretical framework, there is no way to design or analyze an experiment to test the question.

Well, it's all relative.

    From This report

    "SGR 180620 was 5.25 from the Sun at the time of these observations"

    From This report

    "The times of the flares were 21:28:03.5 and 21:30:26.6 UTC"

    So, if you could see our Sun at those times (+- 5.25), or you could see the moon, you could see it. Other reports indicated that it was clearly reflected off the moon also, which would be expected.

    Check the star chart for that time. If Sagittarius was visible, it's likely the flash was too.

    Your repeated question of where are we looking is kind of redundant. We have a full view of the sky at all times. The location of the observer is key to this though. I have no idea where you are, so we may be standing on opposite sides of the planet looking up. For the galactic center, check the star charts for your location and local time, for visibility of Sagittarius A. From my location, I'll be able to see it on Dec 21, 2012, around 2pm, low to the south. It'll be kinda bright, so unless the sun happens to burn out I won't be seeing much other than blue skies.

A "waterworld" would actually have a fairly shallow ocean, on the order of 75 to 100 km deep for an Earth size planet, as other ice phases would form at the bottom of the ocean at depth.

It's my understanding that people in congress have considered before the question of expanding open access requirements to other disciplines. Obviously publishers will oppose such a move because it cuts into their bottom line. How far it eats into the bottom line depends on the reasons people subscribe and just how the opening of access works: You can make new papers closed and older papers open, or you can do the reverse. Additionally, you can make papers totally open or you can institute some half-way measure, like something similar to Google Books or Amazon book previews, which are designed with the aim that you can read the content but not easily save a copy of it.

In Physics, the APS (the professional organization for physicists) publishes the Physical Review journals, which are some of the most influential in the field besides Nature and Science. Apparently the APS relies on subscription fees from the journals in part to subsidize many of their other (worthwhile) activities, e.g. scientific conferences. As a result, it's my understanding that they opposed open access requirements (though they might have been willing to accept them in some form). This is especially interesting because the Physical Review journals have relatively friendly policies that allow one to post a pre-print to the ArXiv (which physicists generally do) and host a copy of the paper on your own website, so most of the papers they publish (at least more recently) are already available for free one way or another.

I generally have a very favorable opinion of the APS, but I would very much like to see more openness in scientific journals, at the least for taxpayer funded research. If this means that the APS will have to raise dues and conference fees to more accurately reflect the cost of their activities, I think that's something we'll just have to accept.

While I have no doubt that the first part of the statement will come true, with regards to journals trying to ramp up publishing costs, I have doubts that the scientific community will bear that much more extortion. As it stands, we're practically at the breaking point, where scientists would almost rather not publish than do so, but have no other choice as you have stated, their livelihoods depend on it. As it stands, you already have to pay, give up an irrevocable copyright license... you just about have to give over your first born child to get any notoriety at all.

Once the government grant money for publishing is increased, you'll likely see scientists push to keep some of that money for themselves and their research, and more alternative services such as arXiv will being to pop up and grow and replace the stodgy old journals. The fact is, scientific journals are just as close to becoming obsolete with the invention of the internet as newspapers are, and it's very likely they'll try the same exact tactics as newspapers to hold on: increasing fees on both sides of the equation, going to governments and schools to try to ill-legitimize other services, form exclusive contracts with various schools, etc.

You can argue about journals being more peer reviewed and such, but even the internet serves as a better tool for those purposes as well: being able to instantly expose anyone in your field to your work and have anyone criticize or improve upon it immediately rather than going through various journal's information back-channels or blackbox review committees will vastly speed up science.

So, while things may look more bleak in the short-run with such a plan, in the mid- to long-term, it should help restore the US's place in science.

The orbit of Phobos, particularly, has an oddity that has attracted a lot of interest, and more data is always welcomed.

The orbit of Phobos is decaying, presumably due to tidal friction - the work required for Phobos to raise a small tidal bugle in the part of Mars below it. There is nothing surprising in that, per se (Moons inside a geostationary orbit will decay inwards due to tidal friction, Moons outside a geostationary orbit will "decay" outwards), but what is surprising is the "Q" required to match the observations. (The Q is total energy in the bulge divided by the rate of energy lost per orbit.) The Q inferred from observations of Phobos's orbital decay, and the rigidity of the Martian surface found from observations of the Martian Solar tide, is about 90. The corresponding Q for the Earth is about 12, but that is mostly due to ocean tides, and the Q inferred for the Earth's mantle is about 280.

So, the Mars-Phobos system has a higher solid-body dissipation than the Earth-Moon system, which is surprising. In nailing this down, all sorts of data have been acquired for Phobos (including eclipse data from the Mars Rovers), but there is always room for more. What the current data should do is provide a tie for the relative longitudes of Phobos and Deimos which (especially if this can be repeated) will help make sure that there are no drifts between the orbits of the two Moons.

By the way, with the current orbital decay, the expected lifetime of the orbits is somewhere in the 20 to 40 million year range - it seems unlikely that we just happen to catch Phobos at its end-of-life, which has raised speculation about its decay being time variable.

But it looks like from the abstract that it will only cause rotational forces. Based off of that it will work similar to a magnetic torque rod or a momentum wheel and not actually be used for moving us about the galaxy.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1031v1/

See Halton Arp's observations of the redshifts and angular correlations of quasars. Since he started this work, it has been corroborated by a vast body of additional observations. A good overview is given in his book [amazon.com] "Seeing Red".

And an even greater body of evidence against or possibly for? The point is that science which is contentious is at the limit of our understanding. To say that Dr Halton Arp's observations falsify the big bang is almost absurd. That is because there are many lines of evidence for the big bang. Yet despite this it is still not certain and maybe a better theory will come about.

In discussions like this, a considered opinion would present both sides, weigh the evidence and possibly come down on the side which seems most likely. In the debates on the Internet and in the media we get one side and then the other simply shouting the other is wrong.

In the ALICE Technical Proposal [32], the collaboration estimated that a bandwidth of 1.25 GB/s to mass storage would provide adequate physics statistics. As seen from Table 2.3 the expected data rate from the detector exceeds this number by an order of magnitude. This has lead to the proposal and inclusion of the ALICE High Level Trigger (HLT) system. The task of this system is to reduce the data rate to an acceptable level in terms of DAQ bandwidth and mass storage costs, and at the same time provide the necessary event statistics.

While I personally agree that in retrospect it was a bad plan to dispose of the original data, the reasons are analogous with the ones used presently at the LHC. They did not have room to keep the raw data, and it was not needed for adequate statistics.

Now the nay-sayers can get a word in edgeways, now they are not being edged out by "non-conspiracists" who "aren't faking data" we can read a bit more:

This document from some German scientists attempts to shed new light on where some of the 'global warming' scientific conclusions may not be substantiated.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

If it's too much for you, start at page 92 and don't whine until you've read at least 92-94

As someone else pointed out, there is some evidence to suggest that you are simply wrong.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.5294v1

Tell me when it actually does something interesting, like, say, particle collision.

Already has - AND the first paper has been published.
Fixed that for you.

So, by not taking data now, the LHC staff are really saving themselves some time

Which is an excellent example of the value of slacking.

The cited article is indeded locked behind a pay site but it is availble on arxiv just try this link http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2299

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0812.2299 is a better (free) link to the preprint.

Whoops - should have linked to the paper at arxiv.org:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2299

I just finished reading this article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2579v2 "Strong coupling in Horava gravity" And in one short sentence, there is a lot of problems with theory, and as a theorist, I don't think it's a viable one!

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775

PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.

I blame MySQL. AFAIK slashdot uses a cluster of mysql servers, in a master/slave setup where only one server handles updates/inserts, which are then propogated to the other servers so any server can handle a DB reads (probably 95%+ of the queries)

My theory is an insert is much slower than an update. A preview actually inserts a record, a submit only updates the record to "active". I haven't actually looked at slashcode to check, perl makes my brain hurt.

Of course, /. is one of the busier sites on teh interwebs so I shouldn't complain to much.

Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3775 PS Slashdot has the slowest comment preview of any website I know.

If you consider the sun in conventional terms, that is, energized by fusion in the core with a 6000K surface temperature then yeah, it is hard to believe. But observations indicate that the sun is rather different.

Take for example the factor-of-three variation in the 260-330 Angstrom window during the solar cycle (see the graph I linked earlier in this thread). The conventional model says nothing about that.

And why the 1-2M degree hot solar corona? It cannot be thermal heating from the surface as heat flows from warm to cold. There are some hand-waving hypotheses about ions surfing magnetic waves, but these models cannot provide for the high energy flux needed to deliver compensation for the massive coronal emissions.

Then there are the relatively dark sunspot umbra. They are 1000-2000K cooler than the rest of the surface. How can that be if all the energy is supposed to come from the inside?

If you consider the x-ray image I linked earlier, you'll notice that it looks as if energy is being produced in the corona. And anomalous energy production is exactly what is being found in laboratory experiments of hydrogen/helium plasmas. The catalytic mechanism referred to in the referenced paper lacks a good theoretical description, but it definitely explains the hot corona, the variability of the coronal emissions, and some other oddities such as the strong dependence of the solar wind on Helium

.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0794 Unlike in the original article, this one (the paper itself) cites the names of the authors...

This is simply not something that can be kept secret or which isn't studied.

It is surprisingly tricky to study these short wavelengths. You must be in space, and you cannot use normal mirrors or lenses to focus this radiation onto a detector since those will absorb it. But in recent years a smattering of satellites have been sent up that contain the special optics (grazing angle reflectors etc.) needed.

But there is a very good reason for the fact that the results have not been given much exposure. It has to with the mechanism that keeps the solar corona so hot. The corona is mostly a hydrogen/helium plasma. If you study those under laboratory conditions, strange things happen.

The images don't say anything about the Sun's energy output at various wavelengths.

Actually, the 171A image allows you to make a guesstimate. You can calculate the black body flux at that wavelength from Planck's law and the surface temperature. That should give you a number for the output of the surface at that wavelength. It should be uniform across the surface. From the image you can estimate how many times larger the non-uniform corona-based intensity is. The energy output at that wavelength will then roughly be that many times the 6000K black body body output at 171A.

Whatever the answer is, it's either simple and elegant or complex beyond imagination.

Actually, if you believe this guy, it's not only complex beyond imagination, it's complex beyond any possible finite representation, that is, it's unprovable.

Julius Shaneson and Sylvain Cappell claimed to have solve a famous problem about counting the lattice points in a circle. It's been out for years, even earlier than this arxiv paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0702613

Thing is, even though it is a famous problem, no one cares enough to check. So this notion of "famous" is shaky.

They are not trying to test Pioneer anomaly, but the flyby anomaly. These are totally separate things, and either could be real or due to systematic errors without affecting the other. This paper by Anderson and Nieto describes both anomalies.

The flyby anomaly is an step-function like change in spacecraft velocity that occurs at the moment of closest approach of a Earth gravity assist. (There is not sufficient tracking data to say whether or not it occurs for gravity assists at other planets. There are enough VHF relays around Mars that it might be possible to test this for Mars, if some future mission to Venus or the asteroids wants to carry along a Mars VHF transponder.)

While the Pioneer anomaly has long seemed dubious to me (the required acceleration is small compared to the potential acceleration of the spacecraft from waste heat, and of course has only been seen in one model of spacecraft), the flyby anomaly is more robust, and is seen in many spacecraft flybys. On the other hand, the anomaly is not obviously related to the physics of the situation. Anderson has developed a phenomenological model for the size of the anomaly, but makes no attempt to derive this from first principles. Another thing arguing against the reality of this effect is that it is large enough to be seen as a perturbation in the orbit of in highly elliptical Earth orbiters, and it has never been reported there.

They are not trying to test Pioneer anomaly, but the flyby anomaly. These are totally separate things, and either could be real or due to systematic errors without affecting the other. This paper by Anderson and Nieto describes both anomalies.

The flyby anomaly is an step-function like change in spacecraft velocity that occurs at the moment of closest approach of a Earth gravity assist. (There is not sufficient tracking data to say whether or not it occurs for gravity assists at other planets. There are enough VHF relays around Mars that it might be possible to test this for Mars, if some future mission to Venus or the asteroids wants to carry along a Mars VHF transponder.)

While the Pioneer anomaly has long seemed dubious to me (the required acceleration is small compared to the potential acceleration of the spacecraft from waste heat, and of course has only been seen in one model of spacecraft), the flyby anomaly is more robust, and is seen in many spacecraft flybys. On the other hand, the anomaly is not obviously related to the physics of the situation. Anderson has developed a phenomenological model for the size of the anomaly, but makes no attempt to derive this from first principles. Another thing arguing against the reality of this effect is that it is large enough to be seen as a perturbation in the orbit of in highly elliptical Earth orbiters, and it has never been reported there.

I think quantum effects are largely irrelevant for the brain and mind and the issue of free will. Have you looked at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009?

Also, for an example of a process where the state "changes merely based on time", see the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction, but I think noone talks about quantum mechanics or non.determinism as parts of the model if you would read an explanation.

It’s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm, Briggs said.

No, it's not.

There is a long history of observations and theorizing about gamma ray flashes from lightning strikes and ball lightning, starting in the early 1970's :

Is Ball Lightning caused by Antimatter Meteorites?
D. E. T. F. ASHBY, C. WHITEHEAD, Nature 230, 180-182 (19 March 1971).

This has also been observed in connection with "sprites".

And from thunderclouds without lightning.

Oh, and it's also been observed from space before :

RHESSI Observations of Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes

Now, not all of these reports include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV. But, 511 KeV emissions were explicitly reported from lightning in the 1970's. And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range).
 

It’s a surprise to have found the signature of positrons during a lightning storm, Briggs said.

No, it's not.

There is a long history of observations and theorizing about gamma ray flashes from lightning strikes and ball lightning, starting in the early 1970's :

Is Ball Lightning caused by Antimatter Meteorites?
D. E. T. F. ASHBY, C. WHITEHEAD, Nature 230, 180-182 (19 March 1971).

This has also been observed in connection with "sprites".

And from thunderclouds without lightning.

Oh, and it's also been observed from space before :

RHESSI Observations of Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes

Now, not all of these reports include a positron annihilation signature at 511 KeV. But, 511 KeV emissions were explicitly reported from lightning in the 1970's. And, considering that lightning / thunderstorm related gamma rays are routinely observed with energies up to 10 MeV, there is plenty of energy to create positrons, and so I wouldn't be surprised if all of these reports included the positron annihilation line (or, at least the ones with sensitivity in that energy range).
 

The bad news is that artificial intelligence has yet to fully deliver on its promises.

Only idiots, marketers, businessmen and outsiders ever thought we would be completely replaced by artificially intelligent machines. The people actually putting artificial intelligence into practice knew that AI, like so many other things, would benefit us in small steps. So many forms of automation are technically basic artificial intelligence, it's just very simple artificial intelligence. While you might want to argue that the things we benefit from are heuristics, statistics and messes of if/then decision trees, successful AI is nothing more than that. Everyone reading this enjoys benefits of AI but you probably don't know it. For instance, your hand written mail is most likely read by a machine that uses optical character recognition to decide where it goes with a pretty good success rate and confidence factor to fail over to humans. Recommendation systems are often based on AI algorithms. I mean, the article even says this:

The ability of your bank's financial software to detect potentially fraudulent activity on your accounts or alter your credit score when you miss a mortgage payment are just two of many common examples of AI at work, says Mow. Speech and handwriting recognition, business process management, data mining, and medical diagnostics -- they all owe a debt to AI.

Having taken several courses on AI, I never found a contributor to the field that promised it to be the silver bullet -- or even remotely comparable to the human mind. I don't ever recall reading anything other than fiction claiming that humans would soon be replaced completely by thinking machines.

In short, I don't think it's fair to put it in this list as it has had success. It's easy to dismiss AI if the only person you hear talking about it is the cult-like Ray Kurzweil but I assure you the field is a valid one (unlike CASE or ERP). In short, AI will never die because the list of applications -- though small -- slowly but surely grows. It has not gone 'bunk' (whatever the hell that means). You can say expert systems have failed to keep their promises but not AI on the whole. The only thing that's left a sour taste in your mouth is salesmen and businessmen promising you something they simply cannot deliver on. And that's nothing new nor anything specific to AI.

This is actually just the latest in a series of measurements of this type. Since the Nature paper isn't free online, people may want to look at this similar paper from earlier this year that is available.

The article talks about testing "some theories" of quantum gravity. AFAIK the only theory of quantum gravity that makes anything like a prediction that could be tested in this way is loop quantum gravity (LQG). The two leading contenders for a theory of quantum gravity are LQG and string theory. String theory essentially assumes a background of flat spacetime (plus an xtra 6 rolled-up dimensions), so I don't think it's capable of addressing the issue of whether spacetime is frothy at the Planck scale. LQG doesn't assume a background of flat spacetime, and in fact one of the main research programs in LQG is focused on showing that flat spacetime can emerge as a solution to LQG in the appropriate limit. LQG unambiguously predicts that the vacuum is dispersive, i.e., that the speed of light depends on the energy of the photon. However, LQG does not unambiguously predict the exact form of the energy-dependence. The possible form that is usually assumed in order to evaluate observational tests is |v/c-1|~(E/E_P)^n, where v is the speed of the photon, c is the speed of cause and effect in relativity (often referred to as the speed of light), E is the energy of the photon, E_P is the Planck energy, and n=1 or 2. Previous observations, such as the one in the arxiv paper I linked to above, have pretty much ruled out n=1, so if LQG is right, we'd presumably have to have n=2. Some people have been saying that LQG is ruled out by these measurements, but I don't think that's really correct, it's just constrained by them. Here is a paper by LQG researchers discussing the empirical tests, and they don't seem to be saying "OK, we give up." It's actually very exciting for people in quantum gravity to have observations that even have some chance of disproving a theory (or some version of a theory); the whole field is a dead end if it can never be tested by experiment.

In a broader sense, the holographic principle gives strong, model-independent reasons for believing that spacetime is probably discrete, not continuous, at the Planck scale. Otherwise it's hard to imagine how there could be an upper bound on the information content of a given region of space. And any theory in which spacetime is discrete at the Planck scale will naturally give a dispersive vacuum. Therefore I'd say that either (a) we should eventually observe dispersion of the vacuum once the observations get sensitive enough, or (b) the holographic principle is telling us something that we don't yet understand.

Two good popular-level books that get into this kind of thing are Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Smolen, and The Black Hole War by Susskind. Because Smolen and Susskind represent very different points of view on quantum gravity, anything that both books agree on is probably correct.

This is actually just the latest in a series of measurements of this type. Since the Nature paper isn't free online, people may want to look at this similar paper from earlier this year that is available.

The article talks about testing "some theories" of quantum gravity. AFAIK the only theory of quantum gravity that makes anything like a prediction that could be tested in this way is loop quantum gravity (LQG). The two leading contenders for a theory of quantum gravity are LQG and string theory. String theory essentially assumes a background of flat spacetime (plus an xtra 6 rolled-up dimensions), so I don't think it's capable of addressing the issue of whether spacetime is frothy at the Planck scale. LQG doesn't assume a background of flat spacetime, and in fact one of the main research programs in LQG is focused on showing that flat spacetime can emerge as a solution to LQG in the appropriate limit. LQG unambiguously predicts that the vacuum is dispersive, i.e., that the speed of light depends on the energy of the photon. However, LQG does not unambiguously predict the exact form of the energy-dependence. The possible form that is usually assumed in order to evaluate observational tests is |v/c-1|~(E/E_P)^n, where v is the speed of the photon, c is the speed of cause and effect in relativity (often referred to as the speed of light), E is the energy of the photon, E_P is the Planck energy, and n=1 or 2. Previous observations, such as the one in the arxiv paper I linked to above, have pretty much ruled out n=1, so if LQG is right, we'd presumably have to have n=2. Some people have been saying that LQG is ruled out by these measurements, but I don't think that's really correct, it's just constrained by them. Here is a paper by LQG researchers discussing the empirical tests, and they don't seem to be saying "OK, we give up." It's actually very exciting for people in quantum gravity to have observations that even have some chance of disproving a theory (or some version of a theory); the whole field is a dead end if it can never be tested by experiment.

In a broader sense, the holographic principle gives strong, model-independent reasons for believing that spacetime is probably discrete, not continuous, at the Planck scale. Otherwise it's hard to imagine how there could be an upper bound on the information content of a given region of space. And any theory in which spacetime is discrete at the Planck scale will naturally give a dispersive vacuum. Therefore I'd say that either (a) we should eventually observe dispersion of the vacuum once the observations get sensitive enough, or (b) the holographic principle is telling us something that we don't yet understand.

Two good popular-level books that get into this kind of thing are Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Smolen, and The Black Hole War by Susskind. Because Smolen and Susskind represent very different points of view on quantum gravity, anything that both books agree on is probably correct.

This was proposed by G. Amelino-Camelia et al. back in 1998; here is a review from 2004. Even though the wavelengths of even the most energetic gamma rays are much, much, longer than the Planck length, roughness in space time at the Planck length adds up over cosmological distances, and could be in principle detectable. (The Planck length can be thought of heuristically as the length at which the gravitational effects of virtual particles should be strong enough to create virtual black holes; general relativity cannot be ignored in quantum mechanics at that scale, and vice versa.) What this current test is ruling out is a particular violation of Lorentz invariance - a variation of photon speed with energy. There were similarly negative results using radiation from the Crab nebula in 2003.

It should be noted that this does not rule out quantum gravity - it seems pretty clear that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics cannot both apply at the Planck scale. What this work is doing is beginning to constrain models of quantum gravity (there is as yet no general theory that makes precise predictions). What would be really cool is to detect some effects, which would maybe help nudge the theorists along.

...that the arXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal. The article that started this has not survived peer-review and is not reflective of the opinions of every physicist on the planet. If you read the article it's also clear that the author is only being half-serious about the whole thing and his collaborators have left their names off the paper.

Apart from the part where the physicist actually published a paper with their arguments for peer review.

Right now the ratio between stars to planets in the milky way is about 1 billion to 1.

That's a ridiculous statistic. By that measure, the ratio between Diet Coke drinkers and humans is 3.5 billion to 1, because my wife and I are the only people in my group of friends who drink the stuff, and there are 7 billion people on the planet.

And yet somehow the Coca Cola company keeps making it, just for us...

A better statistic is the ratio of the number of planets discovered and the NUMBER OF STARS SEARCHED FOR PLANETS. As of 2003, this fraction was at least 10%, and given observational limits may prove to be as high as 100% -- it could well be that ALL sunlike stars have planets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306524

I have no problem with people who's faith doesn't collide with science, but:

I have always believed that Faith is simply the believe in a hypothesis that currently lacks the ability to reach any conclusions.

The problem is, why chose _that_ particular hypothesis, if there is no ground to sustain it? On the other hand, we have respected scientist calling for hipothesis like the future changing the present, so it's doesn't t

That's one thing I like in the Dalai Lama:

"My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation."

"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

Please post more arcane papers. For examples, I highly
recommend arXiv.org:

from the home page: Open access to 565,038 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics.

Yours In Yaznogorsk,
K. Trout