Slashdot Mirror

What are you talking about?

Probably something like this, for the first complaint:

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:39:22-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2009-10-15 08:39:23 ERROR 403: Forbidden.

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.9.0.2) Gecko/20121223 Ubuntu/9.25 (jaunty) Firefox/3.8" http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:42:20-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Denying access to web browsers that don't hand you a UserAgent header matching some pattern is a kind of dickish thing to do. Pointless, too. Anyone who wants to crawl your site with a robot and knows to tell it to ignore robots.txt will also know how to use a fake UserAgent. So the only people you're going to deny access to are those people who are using web browsers that you forgot to add to your whitelist.

I'm not entirely sure what the "mangles the file extension info" complaint is about, though. Maybe it's that arxiv, although returning the right MIME type, doesn't return a file with a .pdf extension for the PDF article? This is less upsetting. It's fine to use a browser/OS that isn't popular enough to make someone's whitelist, but everybody should at least use one that can handle long-established HTTP standards.

What are you talking about?

Probably something like this, for the first complaint:

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:39:22-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2009-10-15 08:39:23 ERROR 403: Forbidden.

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.9.0.2) Gecko/20121223 Ubuntu/9.25 (jaunty) Firefox/3.8" http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:42:20-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Denying access to web browsers that don't hand you a UserAgent header matching some pattern is a kind of dickish thing to do. Pointless, too. Anyone who wants to crawl your site with a robot and knows to tell it to ignore robots.txt will also know how to use a fake UserAgent. So the only people you're going to deny access to are those people who are using web browsers that you forgot to add to your whitelist.

I'm not entirely sure what the "mangles the file extension info" complaint is about, though. Maybe it's that arxiv, although returning the right MIME type, doesn't return a file with a .pdf extension for the PDF article? This is less upsetting. It's fine to use a browser/OS that isn't popular enough to make someone's whitelist, but everybody should at least use one that can handle long-established HTTP standards.

What are you talking about?

Probably something like this, for the first complaint:

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:39:22-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2009-10-15 08:39:23 ERROR 403: Forbidden.

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.9.0.2) Gecko/20121223 Ubuntu/9.25 (jaunty) Firefox/3.8" http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:42:20-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Denying access to web browsers that don't hand you a UserAgent header matching some pattern is a kind of dickish thing to do. Pointless, too. Anyone who wants to crawl your site with a robot and knows to tell it to ignore robots.txt will also know how to use a fake UserAgent. So the only people you're going to deny access to are those people who are using web browsers that you forgot to add to your whitelist.

I'm not entirely sure what the "mangles the file extension info" complaint is about, though. Maybe it's that arxiv, although returning the right MIME type, doesn't return a file with a .pdf extension for the PDF article? This is less upsetting. It's fine to use a browser/OS that isn't popular enough to make someone's whitelist, but everybody should at least use one that can handle long-established HTTP standards.

What are you talking about?

Probably something like this, for the first complaint:

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:39:22-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2009-10-15 08:39:23 ERROR 403: Forbidden.

roystgnr@mycroft:~$ wget --user-agent="Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.9.0.2) Gecko/20121223 Ubuntu/9.25 (jaunty) Firefox/3.8" http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
--2009-10-15 08:42:20-- http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0956
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.114
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.114|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK

Denying access to web browsers that don't hand you a UserAgent header matching some pattern is a kind of dickish thing to do. Pointless, too. Anyone who wants to crawl your site with a robot and knows to tell it to ignore robots.txt will also know how to use a fake UserAgent. So the only people you're going to deny access to are those people who are using web browsers that you forgot to add to your whitelist.

I'm not entirely sure what the "mangles the file extension info" complaint is about, though. Maybe it's that arxiv, although returning the right MIME type, doesn't return a file with a .pdf extension for the PDF article? This is less upsetting. It's fine to use a browser/OS that isn't popular enough to make someone's whitelist, but everybody should at least use one that can handle long-established HTTP standards.

Why not link directly to arXiv in all scientific posts? Maybe a divulgative link AND a link to the paper in the arXiv. I am crazy?

There is a newer paper I found when looking for this one by the same authors
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0905.3417&qid=null&qs=Lev+B.+Levitin+and+Tommaso+Toffoli&byDate=1
The fundamental limit on the rate of quantum dynamics: the unified bound is tight
"The question of how fast a quantum state can evolve has attracted a considerable attention in connection with quantum measurement, metrology, and information processing. Since only orthogonal states can be unambiguously distinguished, a transition from a state to an orthogonal one can be taken as the elementary step of a computational process. "

arxiv is your friend

http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=0905.3417&qid=null&qs=Lev+B.+Levitin+and+Tommaso+Toffoli&byDate=1

most released papers have a pre-print arxiv version.

Search by lots of different things

Doesn't anyone read the articles? It says that the article in Phys. Rev. Lett. was published _today_, October 13, 2009. The article that was linked to is two years old and not really relevant. This is the one they're talking about: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.160502 There's a preprint at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3417 The gist of it is that one can consider a fundamental step of a computation to be the evolution of a quantum system from a state to an orthogonal state (cause if they aren't orthogonal, you're going to get the answer wrong). They figure out the maximum rate at which the system can evolve between orthogonal states, which sets a maximum to the speed of the computation. Turns out that the rate is proportional to the difference in energy of the two states -- which means that you can drive the computation faster by choosing two states that have very different energies. But if you do that, since you need to have a power source driving the system between the two energy levels, you have to spend a lot of energy to keep the rate up. Sort of obvious, but they work out the details with explicit lower bounds for the first time

---

Personally I think, Moore's Law will run out somewhere the early 2020s, and have blogged about what such a computer might be specced as.

The article is from 2007 but I guess it's news to most nerds.
Arxiv link: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701237

Now we just need to figure out if this has any impact on Ultimate Physical Limits of Computation as linked to in LWN: http://lwn.net/Articles/286233/

Thermodynamic cost of reversible computing
thermo-arxiv
February 1, 2008
Lev B. Levitin and Tommaso Toffoli

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701237v2

Not sure it is the same as in the Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110502 (2007) -- linked from the article -- which is from 2007

Stephan

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

I looked some of the papers which include animations but am not a physicist. Would much appreciate if a competent one could check them out.

Test of relativistic gravity for propulsion at the Large Hadron Collider (the Oct. 9, 2009 paper)
and 'Antigravity' Propulsion and Relativistic Hyperdrive
presented at 25th International Space Development Conference, Los Angeles, 4-7 May 2006 (2006b as referenced on page 2 of the above paper).

What I get from it:
- He's been working on it for at least 3 years actually. And it matches with results others have found so far. Hilbert saw a hint of this in the 1920s. It comes from Einstein's work but until about 2005 it had only been solved for a slow driver source, and then only to first order approximation, so it looked like there was not much effect. For relativistic, time-dependent sources, even a weak gravitational field can be repulsive.
- According to the 2005 paper, any mass moving faster than 0.58c will repel any mass ahead of it. Under that speed and the ship gets sucked in towards the driver. (Oops!) I don't see this as a drive mounted on a ship myself yet but maybe I misunderstand it. Seems you could shoot a particle beam at the ship to accelerate it in roughly the same direction though.
- Such a relativistic driver would accelerate a ship standing in front of it through a gravitational repulsion field acting in a narrow cone within which the ship is found. Occupants would seem not to feel inertia. (This cone is not apparent from the older animations which seem to be more talking about passing a black hole.) From 2006b:

In the "antigravity beam" of a speeding star or compact
object, however, a payload would draw its energy for propulsion
from the repulsive force of the much more massive driver.
Moreover, since it would be moving along a geodesic, a payload
would "float weightlessly" in the "antigravity beam" even
as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

- The limit of acceleration can be calculated using equations of motion in a Schwarzschild field (like you are near a black hole). The repulsion field will be evident to a distant observer if the driver is a mass moving faster than 0.58c.
- If you look at Felber's 2005 paper Exact relativistic "antigravity" propulsion and download from that page the tar-gzip archive there are some cool video clips. The driver is similar to a black hole. You can see in v58 that if the driver is a black hole moving towards the ship at near the speed of light, the ship gets pushed ahead of it. (the animations don't show the kick to higher speed that is discussed in 2006b).
- I read the driver as a relativistic particle beam aimed at a ship but maybe not so, there is speculation that an appropriate driver might be found in space. The idea (from 2005 paper below) is to discover an approaching relativistic black hole and maneuver near its trajectory while not too close to be hurt by its tidal forces. Sounds tricky, and depends on how broad that cone is.
- Reference [11] in the recent paper is here (Apr 18, 2006) and animations in the source seem to describe the ship's possible trajectories.
- You need a driver with a pretty strong field to be able to kick the ship way up toward light speed, otherwise not as much bang (can only then accelerate the ship from rest to the speed of the driver).
- Much stronger effects may be possible if you use a rotating compact driver mass, which would generate a strong Kerr field and could impart energy via inertial frame dragging.

My question: Are there any events that could be hypothesized that are likely to generate a signature easily detectable by radio or X-ray telescopes?

I though

Link. (pdf)

The website actually provides the full article in multiple formats on the sidebar. I almost missed it myself. It's sad that we live in a world where one sees an abstract (of an academic paper!!) and assumes that they won't be able to access it without paying money.

Indeed, there may even be a way how information may leave a black hole. At least the author of this preprint claims so.

Yes. All my work you can find on arXiv.org. When you submit there, you have to choose the license under which the arXiv can distribute, and two of the options are Creative Commons licenses. We submit our articles to the arXiv first, and then to journals. This means that when the journals receive it, they know the content is already out, and they're not going to get an exclusive distribution deal in any case. There used to be a "preprint" system in which major labs would physically mail around recent articles. The WWW started at CERN and is an outgrowth of this idea.

Everyone should use the arXiv. There are sections for many scientific disciplines, but far from all of them (all it would take is a request to start a new one). In many other fields, the journals exercise draconian control over the scientists (Medicine, Computer Science) and that needs to stop. They work for us, not the other way around.

But, I'm talking about journal articles -- I haven't written any books, and don't really intend to. For scientific journals I agree copyright is a useless hindrance. It was a nice tool when distribution is expensive, but now that the marginal cost of distribution has gone to zero, it's better done with a central government grant, and open access. Now we're just missing a peer-review/referee system attached to the arXiv. When that happens, the journals will die for good.

Yes. All my work you can find on arXiv.org. When you submit there, you have to choose the license under which the arXiv can distribute, and two of the options are Creative Commons licenses. We submit our articles to the arXiv first, and then to journals. This means that when the journals receive it, they know the content is already out, and they're not going to get an exclusive distribution deal in any case. There used to be a "preprint" system in which major labs would physically mail around recent articles. The WWW started at CERN and is an outgrowth of this idea.

Everyone should use the arXiv. There are sections for many scientific disciplines, but far from all of them (all it would take is a request to start a new one). In many other fields, the journals exercise draconian control over the scientists (Medicine, Computer Science) and that needs to stop. They work for us, not the other way around.

But, I'm talking about journal articles -- I haven't written any books, and don't really intend to. For scientific journals I agree copyright is a useless hindrance. It was a nice tool when distribution is expensive, but now that the marginal cost of distribution has gone to zero, it's better done with a central government grant, and open access. Now we're just missing a peer-review/referee system attached to the arXiv. When that happens, the journals will die for good.

As far as a know it not yet known if a quantum computer can turn NP complete problems, in polynomial problems at all, or for what problems this is possible.

Of course, as of yet it isn't even known if a classical computer can calculate NP complete problems in polynomial time. P!=NP is still a conjecture.

BTW, the correct arXiv reference is arXiv:quant-ph/0601151. After all, there's also astro-ph/0601151, cond-mat/0601151, hep-ph/0601151, hep-th/0601151, math/0601151 and physics/0601151, none of which are relevant here.

Keep in mind that until last week, we had no direct evidence of something so basic to modern physics as the Bohr model

We still have no direct evidence of the Bohr model, because the Bohr model is basically wrong. This has been know for over 80 years. I don't know what you are referring to that happened last week, but as far as the quantum theory of electronic structure, we have had vast quantities of direct evidence for decades.

e have numerous alternative theories that explain, without resorting to saying the universe consists of 96% invisible voodoo, various anomalies such as gravitational rotation and the implied anisotropy of the CMB.

Competing theories have been proposed, vetted and discarded. For a relatively recent data-oriented paper, see: N. Spergel et al 2007 ApJS 170 377-408 10.1086/513700, arXiv.
Selected quote:

1. Cold dark matter serves as a signiïcant forcing term that
changes the acoustic peak structure. Alternative gravity models
(e.g., MOND), and all baryons-only models, lack this forcing
term so they predict a much lower third peak than is observed by
WMAP and small-scale CMB experiments (McGaugh 2004;
Skordis et al. 2006). Models without dark matter (even if we
allow for a cosmological constant) are very poor ïts to the data.

For a more far ranging, theoretical discussion: Bertone,Hooper,Silk. Physics Reports. 405 2005 279-390, arXiv.
As well as a comparison of alternative theories, this includes a few sections that concern efforts to determine the precise identity of dark matter, as well as future attempts to detect it directly.

Somewhere you got the idea that scientists sort of waved their hands, said "It must be dark matter," and then stopped thinking about it. Scientists have eliminated well known explanations, and so are exploring the unknown explanations, trying to make them known. This is not as scandalous as everyone seems to think.

Theories come and go, and without reproducible, experimental evidence, we have at best a model that fits the data - NOT, as far too many people seem to believe, a necessarily accurate description of objective reality.

Strictly speaking, all science can do is provide models that fit the data. All "reproducible, experimental evidence" is but more data. The argument that science actually reveals and describes objective reality is largely a philosophical one
(and to certain extent a semantic one). For an excellent discussion (unfortunately only for those who have access to Physics Today), see:

N. David Mermin, Phys. Today 62, 8 (2009). What's bad about this habit

Keep in mind that until last week, we had no direct evidence of something so basic to modern physics as the Bohr model

We still have no direct evidence of the Bohr model, because the Bohr model is basically wrong. This has been know for over 80 years. I don't know what you are referring to that happened last week, but as far as the quantum theory of electronic structure, we have had vast quantities of direct evidence for decades.

e have numerous alternative theories that explain, without resorting to saying the universe consists of 96% invisible voodoo, various anomalies such as gravitational rotation and the implied anisotropy of the CMB.

Competing theories have been proposed, vetted and discarded. For a relatively recent data-oriented paper, see: N. Spergel et al 2007 ApJS 170 377-408 10.1086/513700, arXiv.
Selected quote:

1. Cold dark matter serves as a signiïcant forcing term that
changes the acoustic peak structure. Alternative gravity models
(e.g., MOND), and all baryons-only models, lack this forcing
term so they predict a much lower third peak than is observed by
WMAP and small-scale CMB experiments (McGaugh 2004;
Skordis et al. 2006). Models without dark matter (even if we
allow for a cosmological constant) are very poor ïts to the data.

For a more far ranging, theoretical discussion: Bertone,Hooper,Silk. Physics Reports. 405 2005 279-390, arXiv.
As well as a comparison of alternative theories, this includes a few sections that concern efforts to determine the precise identity of dark matter, as well as future attempts to detect it directly.

Somewhere you got the idea that scientists sort of waved their hands, said "It must be dark matter," and then stopped thinking about it. Scientists have eliminated well known explanations, and so are exploring the unknown explanations, trying to make them known. This is not as scandalous as everyone seems to think.

Theories come and go, and without reproducible, experimental evidence, we have at best a model that fits the data - NOT, as far too many people seem to believe, a necessarily accurate description of objective reality.

Strictly speaking, all science can do is provide models that fit the data. All "reproducible, experimental evidence" is but more data. The argument that science actually reveals and describes objective reality is largely a philosophical one
(and to certain extent a semantic one). For an excellent discussion (unfortunately only for those who have access to Physics Today), see:

N. David Mermin, Phys. Today 62, 8 (2009). What's bad about this habit

Here is a link to the paper that discusses this. It's an interesting read for anyone who cares about physics and theoretical motors. Article here
Happy physics reading. PS: The links are in the top right.

And this one for a discussion about its possible composition and origin: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3067

Here's a scientific paper describing how the period/mass/size/etc of the planet was deduced from observation data: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0241

According to the paper, this planet's orbital semimajor axis (or in plain English, the "average" distance from the planet to the sun) is about 0.0172 astronomical units. Since its sun's temperature is roughly at the level of our Sun (also in the paper), it means the planet is probably a hell much hotter than the Earth...

Thank you for your interpretation of the meaning behind today's article. It was a revelation for me to consider gravity waves as an analogue of electromagnetic waves. On the The North American Nanohertz Observatory for Gravitational Waves web site there is more information. They say "The timing precision of today's best measured pulsars is less than 100 ns. With improved instrumentation and signal-to-noise it is widely believed that the next decade could see a pulsar timing network of 100 pulsars each with better than 100 ns timing precision." I thought it interesting that they only get 100. Then if you did a long term integration of these signals, you may get down to pico-second timing. Such a timing base may be used to correct atomic clocks in GPS satellites and have many other uses. This is all just pure speculation by a non-physicist, so take it with a grain of salt.

What does "that's simply because the electrons follow wave trajectories" mean?

Well, in classical motion, trajectories are straight lines. Add in gravity, and the lines become curves. At the quantum level, though, that doesn't apply (or rather, isn't dominant), but neither does the notion that particles *become* waves. Instead, they follow wave trajectories, rather than straight lines. Check out this article in arXiv: Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue, good for newcomers asking these sorts of questions. This site has some good illustrations of the trajectories, which were copied from an illustration on the site I first linked you to. Here's a paper from Physics Letters A will a better illustration of the trajectories (page 209).

That's precisely what "collapsing the wave function" means mathematically. We don't have a handle on what it means physically.

That arXiv article covers exactly that. Check it out.

I cannot speak to the polarizing label experiments. I'd be interested in Prof. Norsen's take on it. I'll send him a question and see if he answers. He's been quick with responses before, so I'm hopeful.

What predictions does Bohmian mechanics make that traditional (Copenhagen) QM does not?

The right question to ask. Check out this paper on arXiv: Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue. The whole paper is a good introduction, but the "Second Day" section should answer your question. What it really comes down to is which should we accept: a theory tied to reality, which is understandable, or a theory that is not understandable, and is divorced from reality, but whose equations work just the same? The former is the Bohmian interpretation, the latter is the traditional QM interpretation.

Interestingly, hidden variable theories have made a bit of a comeback, though they have a long way to go (as acknowledged in the article).

-l

afaik elliptical encryption, which is also usable for asymmetric encryption, isn't impacted.

It is impacted. There are also quantum algorithms to break elliptic curve cryptography.
See, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0301141

It's been too long since I've gone into a historical analysis of the EPR experiment and how it relates to the tensions between QM and relativity. So instead of giving an inadequate response I'll defer to someone much more capable: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9406028

Maybe not: see for example this paper. Indirect observation of gravitational waves proves nothing. We shouldn't forget that aether was supposed to exist by indirect proof...

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a big amateur at this stuff, but what you're saying differs from my understanding of the principles involved, including Carnot's law and Newton's laws of thermodynamics. What you're suggesting would result in a closed system which has a higher energy state as it progresses through time (thus be grounds for a perpetual motion machine).

If the photon leaves the surface of the mirror with the same energy as it had when it collided with it, then how can the sail be in a higher energy state after the fact?

This article was extremely useful to me, talking deeply about the actual physics involved, and covering the common misconceptions regarding solar sails: http://arxiv.org/html/physics/0306050.

In order to accelerate a body, you need thrust. Thrust requires energy. Radiation or particles of any sort which leave a surface at the same energy level as they arrived have not imparted any energy, thus no thrust, and therefore no acceleration. So yes, you are trying to absorb energy in a very real sense.

Radiative momentum is not like Newtonian momentum. It is a scalar defined as E/c (E being scalar and c being a constant) and not a vector.

From the article I linked above: "If the body is a perfect mirror or reflector of all incident energy, instead of a black body, then the energy absorbed is zero and so the radiation pressure is zero also. The same is true for any body, when it has reached temperature equilibrium with the radiation to which it is exposed."

The energy of a closed system is fixed. If you consider the closed system to be the light over a certain time period plus the solar craft, then it's clear that this system by itself cannot produce thrust on the craft except that you have converted energy from the light into thrust in some way. If there is thrust, and the solar energy which interacted with the craft has not changed in energy state, then the system was not closed, and the thrust came from somewhere else.

Hello, I am Anh Le, the second author of the work.
I responded to the concern about false positives in one of the replies above. In brief, investigating the false positives is not the main focus of our work, and it is an area of active research in the intrusion detection system community.
Link to our paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2007 [arxiv.org]

Hello, I am Anh Le, the second author of the work.

First, investigating the false positive is not the main focus of our work. We did our analysis on the log entries generated by the intrusion detection systems (IDS) deployed at various sites. Granted that there are false positives in the dataset, these false positives, however, are from the IDSs because of, for example, bad signatures and configuration errors. This is itself an area of active research.

Furthermore, the entries included in the blacklist appeared at least one time in the past. In other word, they are flagged as attackers at least once. Hence, they are not really innocent although, again, it's very possible that some of them are false positives.

Link to our paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2007

Hello, I am Anh Le, the second author of the work. We analyzed the corpus of security logs that were collected by Dshield.org: "Dshield is a repository of firewall and intrusion detection logs collected at hundreds of different networks all over Internet. The participating networks contribute their logs, which are then converted into a common format that includes the following fields: time stamp, contributor ID, source IP address, destination IP address, source port number, destination port number, and protocol number." For more details, please take a look at our paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2007

The "explanation" shifts the blame to "nanoflares". Why? Well, because "These temperatures can only be produced by impulsive energy bursts". But just because that is the only mechanism James Klimchuk can think of does not mean that there is no other mechanism. Indeed, anomalous extreme temperatures have been observed in coronal-alike plasmas under laboratory conditions: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf. No "nanoflares" in that 0.4 Torr Pyrex cylinder.

This is typical overconfidence in theory. The reasoning is: nature must obey our currently accepted theories, and within the context of those theories I see only one possible cause, so that must be it. Such hubris. The accepted theories are likely to be incomplete, and might be downright wrong in places.

Then there is the title of the post: "Mystery of Sun's Outer Atmosphere Solved" Finely tuned to plant the mistaken belief in the mind of the Slashdot crowd that it has been figured out. Nothing more to see here. Please move along. After all, we don't want people to get a clue as to what is actually producing all that energy needed to keep the corona piping hot, do we?

It's on arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.0878

On the contrary. The Higgs is discoverable at a 5 sigma significance level (PhysRev standard for "discovery") with about 1 year's worth of data at design energy and luminosity.[1] Furthermore, since people have already worked on analyses, it will only take probably about 6 months to run the analyses on the data and get the results approved by the collaboration. So, with the current startup schedule, barring any more problems, we should expect to see a Higgs discovery paper from CMS and ATLAS in time for the Winter 2011-12 conference cycle.

[1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1458

I'm still not convinced that this allows information to travel faster than light.

It is beyond my level of competence to evaluate this, and the topic seems controversial among physicists (e.g.). But I think it is plausible (and somehow fits into my current frame of reference, if there is any).

CC.

Many other researchers adopt a similar policy themselves- post their work on the arxiv preprint server immediately before submitting to a journal. That way at least one version of the paper is available forever for free. I've never heard of a journal (math or CS) that has had any difficulty with that, or even with putting the current version (post-refereeing and revising) on your own web page. But other disciplines, particularly medicine, control things much more tightly and I don't know as much about the standard things there.

Pretend, for just one second, that I'm not a complete idiot. Pretend that I can stumble through my day without getting hit by a car. Pretend, in that mighty, condescending brain of yours, that I type things on my computer that doesn't make it explode, I don't end up drowning if I'm left alone in a shower, and I can chew food without choking myself to death. Pretend I am capable of the rational thinking. Also, pretend that when an expert says the word "Unknown" they don't mean "unknown to everyone but me, the expert"

For starters, read the definitive report that black holes probably won't destroy the planet that CERN is banking on. I'm sure you already have, however, since it's what you've based your entire ego on. Perhaps the most important is the conclusion: "We conclude that, for the RS scenario and black holes described ... the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible. Nonetheless, it remains true that the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly > 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models, as was first shown [in 2001]" When you read the rest of it, you see just how "out of control" this would be if these black hole particles DID manifest and then dissipate.

Discuss the importance of real life vs. computer simulations. I may not be an expert on what happens when we smash billions of protons at energy of 14 trillion volts, but I am well-experienced with Murphy's Law. Computer data and simulations showed NASA that Apollo 14 was landing next to a volcano. All the data agreed. They landed where they were supposed to, but there was no volcano! I know that equipment leaks, breaks, malfunctions, punctures, kinks, lies, and shears. I know that literally, shooting hundreds of thousands of protons, through a leak, around the lab isn't what a neutron bomb does -- but the effect will be similar.

And I know a bullshitter when I see one. You care to criticize, but you offer no plausible counterpoints. If you'll bother to notice, I actually post qualifiers to my claims. You set yourself up to be some future-seeing mighty prince of physics and the damned inventor of the LHC himself. In truth, you've shown yourself incapable of questioning the men in white who admittedly don't know what they're getting themselves into.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1919v3.pdf

Here is the original paper : http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2870 . Note that HST detected about 3500 of these, so this is an advance, not an overturning, of older work. These knots are pretty strange.

The Helix Nebulae is a sphere of gas expelled by a dying star, probably in multiple episodes, with. many thousands of these "comet-like objects." Typical theoretical speculation is that they are gas instabilities as old gas is overtaken by new gas expulsions, possibly with dusty cores. In addition, the knots are expanding (away from the central star) significantly slower than the gas of the nebulae. If you Google or go to Arxiv.org, you can find lots of speculation on these knots.

For myself, I have to wonder if these could be "planetary comets" - i.e., giant comets resulting from the heating of bodies in the Oort cloud of the star. The mass is about right, and that would explain their longevity, but it is not clear why they would be expanding away from the central star.

Here is the original paper : http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2870 . Note that HST detected about 3500 of these, so this is an advance, not an overturning, of older work. These knots are pretty strange.

The Helix Nebulae is a sphere of gas expelled by a dying star, probably in multiple episodes, with. many thousands of these "comet-like objects." Typical theoretical speculation is that they are gas instabilities as old gas is overtaken by new gas expulsions, possibly with dusty cores. In addition, the knots are expanding (away from the central star) significantly slower than the gas of the nebulae. If you Google or go to Arxiv.org, you can find lots of speculation on these knots.

For myself, I have to wonder if these could be "planetary comets" - i.e., giant comets resulting from the heating of bodies in the Oort cloud of the star. The mass is about right, and that would explain their longevity, but it is not clear why they would be expanding away from the central star.

Who cares about some junky old probe?

A bunch of people, at least in the Lunar and planetary science community. Here is a review paper, and another on the physics return from LLR. We know where the Moon is at the sub-cm level without Lunakhod 1, but recovering this array would help determine Lunar rotation. Even though the Moon is commonly regarded as a dead body, it isn't, and these data might help to resolve this. There is a free libration of the Moon of unknown origin, so it would be good to have data from yet another point on the surface.

Link to PDF version for those without access to Nature. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.2030

Whereas the instability of ordinary liquid columns is driven by molecular surface tension, possible mechanisms for droplet formation in granular systems include hydrodynamic interactions with the surrounding gas, inelastic grain-grain collisions, and cohesive forces. Hydrodynamic interactions have indeed recently been associated with fluctuations in the profile of streams falling in air 9; however, from experiments across a wide range of ambient pressures down to 0.03 kPa we find that grain-gas interactions do not drive clustering (Supplementary Fig. S1), in agreement with earlier work 6.

(Emphasis added.)

For anyone curious, reference 6 is:
Mobius, M. E. Clustering instability in a freely falling granular jet. Phys. Rev. E 74, 051304 (2006). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.051304

If you don't have access to Phys. Rev. E., you can read a preprint of the same paper on ArXiv here.

That paper does measurements down to 0.03 kPa (1/5000 atmospheric pressure), and concludes:

Clustering is observed down to the lowest pressure and the presence of air leads to larger clusters but does not initiate the cluster formation.