Slashdot Mirror

They're jumping to conclusions. It will be 140 million years before we have enough data to decide.

Here's his paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v6.pdf Besides discussing a mechanism, he also does some quick calculations about how much energy would be required to use this method to fly at light-speed. "Let us consider a spacecraft of dimensions 10 m x 10 m x 10 m ... The total amount of energy 'injected' locally would equal 10^45 J ... roughly the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter."

That's because journalists are idiots ... so is anyone who thinks a journalist has the whole story on anything science-related. Check out the peer-reviewed paper at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.1649v6.pdf, which some other posters have helpfully pointed out.

There are a lot of very difficult theoretical problems involved in trying to describe the structure of neutron stars. The classic picture of a star made of nothing but neutrons is probably not quite right, and is possibly qualitatively wrong in important ways. There's supposed to be an upper limit on the mass of a neutron star, and the theoretical uncertainties get greater as you get closer to this mass limit. E.g., it's possible that you get quark stars. We just don't know, because we don't know the behavior of the strong and weak nuclear forces with sufficient precision to be able to extrapolate to these extreme conditions.

Given all that uncertainty, which has existed for many decades, it's not at all surprising to me that there's a corresponding uncertainty about the conditions under which a neutron star is or isn't unstable with respect to collapse into a black hole. The paper, which is linked to from the end of the Technology Review article, is pretty heavy going. My field is nuclear physics, not relativistic astrophysics, and I had a hard time understanding it. The author's English is also pretty hard to understand, so it's hard to tell exactly what he's saying his conclusions are. But if you look at the end, he seems to be suggesting that black holes actually do not form.

I wonder to what extent existing observations constrain this idea. For instance, we know that the Sagittarius A* object at the center of our galaxy has a mass of at least 3.7 million solar masses and a radius of less than 6.25 light-hours. It would be interesting to know what he proposes this object is, if he says it's not a black hole.

Here is an interesting paper that tries to analyze the potential consequences of neutrino irradiation.

We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound. And just as you can't go fast enough to come back through an event horizon, information can't propagate fast enough in the experiment to go back across the subsonic/supersonic boundary. This shows us what it looks like to be in a situation like that of a black hole.

That's exactly right. What they have done is create an acoustic event horizon. It doesn't hold all the same properties as a real black hole, but as Korn says, there is a chance that you can see Hawking Radiation and possibly BH evaporation from this experiment. There has already been a paper suggesting that you can see Hawking radiation by looking at the density correlation functions of the BEC.

Maldacena duality is discussed for more then ten years already, "dual black holes" on the RHIC is of 2005 and application to the superconductors is of 2007. So why now ? Are there any new development? Or it's just slashdot catching up on the tow years old news?

Maldacena duality is discussed for more then ten years already, "dual black holes" on the RHIC is of 2005 and application to the superconductors is of 2007. So why now ? Are there any new development? Or it's just slashdot catching up on the tow years old news?

The competing theory is right here. AND it will be testable as soon as CERN is up and running.

Whether it pans out or not, I exceptionally like this part of the introduction to his paper, which I believe highlights the weakness of string theory.

Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world. The standard model of particles and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence. General relativity, a theory of gravity built from pure geometry, is exceedingly elegant and effective in its domain of applicability. Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational level must reproduce these successful theories, and the most sensible course towards unification is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary.

The further we drift from these experimentally verified foundations, the less likely our mathematics is to correspond with reality. In the absence of new experimental data, we should be very careful, accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear simplification.

And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible.

I don't think that's quite right. You are describing small-scale fluctuations in the "surface" of the termination shock. But the main effect being considered in the scientific paper is a large-scale anisotropy in the termination shock.

The termination shock (TS) is usually assumed to be spherical: the sun emits supersonic solar wind in all directions; the point at which this solar wind is slowed by the interstellar medium should be the same in all directions. But what if it's not? The paper considers what effect a termination shock shaped like a "prolate ellipsoid of revolution" would have on an otherwise isotropic (at large scales) cosmic-microwave-background (CMB).

They quickly calculate that a prolate TS could lead to the observed quadrupole in the CMB. The authors suggest that the coupling between TS and CMB may be due to refractive index effects (basically as if the solar system is inside a gigantic lens), or possibly differences in scattering at different parts of the TS. Either way, some types of light reaching us should have a corresponding signature of the anisotropy.

Note that this isn't the first time the CMB had to be corrected. A very significant dipole in the full-sky map has to be removed to account for the relative motion of our planet in the galaxy, the motion of our galaxy with respect to the rest frame of the CMB, etc.

The authors end their paper by mentioning that if this effect is real, then small-scale fluctuations in the surface of the TS may also affect the smaller-scale fluctuations we see in a map of the CMB. Those fluctuations are normally thought to be an imprint of the randomness in the early universe. The authors suggest that the fluctuation spectrum may be altered by, or possibly even totally an artifact of, ripples in the TS. But as the authors note this is very, very speculative at this point. (We've been mapping the CMB for many years and the maps seem roughly consistent, so any time-varying rippling in effect would have to be subtle and/or slow...)

Because cosmologists read the news and have a sense of humor.

Some of the basic Axis of Evil papers are

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502237

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611518

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604410

Note the date on the first one.

Because cosmologists read the news and have a sense of humor.

Some of the basic Axis of Evil papers are

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502237

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611518

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604410

Note the date on the first one.

Because cosmologists read the news and have a sense of humor.

Some of the basic Axis of Evil papers are

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502237

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0611518

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604410

Note the date on the first one.

No, but there is in the paper.

I hate it when science stories - in any media or site, not just /. - don't like to the original paper. There's really no excuse when the paper is freely available, either.

So basically anybody that uses e-mail outside of working hours is an "emailholic"? Doesn't that include pretty much every person who has a computer at home?

Well, from the PDF linked on arxiv:

The cascading non-homogeneous Poisson process we present is motivated by two key observations: first, individuals send e-mail during "sessions" of relatively high activity that are separated by periods of inactivity during which no emails are sent; and second, the likelihood of commencing an active session is modulated by daily and weekly cycles. For convenience, we define the start and end of a session by the first and last e-mails sent in that session respectively. We define an individual as "active" if they are in an e-mail session, where the time between consecutive e-mails within each session is modeled as a homogeneous Poisson process with intra-session rate p_a. Correspondingly, we define an individual as "passive" if they are between e-mail sessions, where the time between sessions is modeled as a non-homogeneous Poisson process with inter-session rate p(t), which explicitly accounts for daily and weekly cycles of activity.

The paper seems to identify when you're in a session and when you're not and also extrapolates these cycles not only to days but also to times of the week.

While it's not very useful, it my be interesting to behaviorists or some field I know nothing about. It's always dangerous to grab a graph from a paper with no explanation at all of what it is showing.

You can find the mathematicians' article at http://www.citeulike.org/group/3214/article/3664693 or http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3302 (pdf warning).

I find it interesting that the article doesn't prove any theorems. At least searching for the word "theorem" in the pdf only gives references to other theorems. Searching for "proof" gives no hits.

That leaves me thinking: what does this article tell us that we couldn't find out ourselves by ripping through some prime numbers? I thought the real power of math was to say something 100% certain about some infinitude of stuff, so we don't have to go and check every case by hand.

Oh well, I guess every open question needs some results on the form "this holds for all n <= bignum"; say, like the Goldbach Conjecture (every even number n > 2 is the sum of two primes).

The paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608059 And it includes some other topics as well (e.g. Ghosts, Zombies).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1957

Yo dawg i herd u liek warp drives so i put a warp drive into your warp drive so u can do ftl travel while u do ftl travel.

jebus you're right. unbelievable.

Has string theory truly helped us understand anything better? If it has improved our understanding, what predictions of physical phenomena have come of this increased understanding of the physical universe?

I'm not a physicist, so my understanding is very limited, but the answer to you question is "probably yes".
The thing is the phenomenon string theory help understand and predict is not related to quantum gravity, for which string theory is developed. This thing called Maldacena duality and state that certain quark-gluon interaction have the same mathematical description as stringy black hole. Surprising thing is, that it seems such quark-gluon object - "dual black hole" was observed at RHIC collider. Why "seems" in that statement ? Because calculations, which fit to observed data, were very imprecise - they were made for different, though similar quantum theory. So now physicists puzzled, why so imprecise calculations fit experiment so perfectly.

String theory to me is like those search algorithms that you run into that are utterly unique yet confounding to parse but get the job done somehow and no one feels smart enough to question half the time. A modified standard model works for me, with some of the new phenomenologies emerging based on it.

The National Forensic Association is an intercollegiate debating organization. I doubt they have anything particularly important to say about the JFK assassination. There was a report by the National Academy of Sciences based on acoustical analysis of crime scene recordings, but it concluded that the multiple-shooter theory was not supported by the available acoustic evidence.

Perhaps you are thinking of a report by a Texas A&M professor of statistics and a retired FBI forensic scientist from 2007 who "conducted a chemical and forensic analysis of bullets reportedly derived from the same batch as those used by suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald." Their conclusion was that the bullet fragments aren't particularly rare and that the matching fragments could have come from three or more separate bullets, and that previous analysis based on bullet fragments "used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed."

The important thing to note here, conspiracy buffs, is that those two reports don't contradict one another. There could be a second shooter that wasn't captured by the acoustic evidence -- but likewise, matching fragments could have come from three or more separate bullets is not an equivalent statement to "matching fragments did come from three or more separate bullets."

It's also worth noting that, in fact, the report was not done by a "national association," it never made the sweeping claim that "the official story was impossible," and the report has been criticized for naive use of statistics and generally poor writing. According to critic John Fiorentino, the paper as finally presented in 2008 was revised to address his rebuttal linked above, and "by making the revisions, the authors have effectively negated their findings just as stated in [Fiorentino's] rebuttal."

There are many criticisms to be made of the Warren Commission's handling of the investigation, and I suspect that because of that there will be people arguing about this two hundred years from now. The problem is the same here as with nearly all Grand Government Conspiracy Stories, though: even if the official story (about whatever event we're talking about) is incomplete and imperfect, that doesn't ipso facto make the official story wrong in either overall scope or final conclusion. It's worthy to question authority and to be skeptical of any official story--but there is a point where skepticism becomes gullibility: someone who automatically dismisses anything The Government says is thinking no more critically than someone who automatically accepts anything The Government says, and is ultimately just as easy to manipulate.

If anybody knew of (or planned for) an adaptation to physics (with interfaces to arXiv.org, the APS journals and ideally other journals), I would be very interested (even as a paying customer).

Actually, "Warp Drive" is already used, e.g. here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.1649

Nevermind, nevermind, TFA was posted on Apr 1. It's just an april's fool joke with Slashdot lag.

Please note the submission date:
Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives

who can read the real summary on arxiv? http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1148

From the author's abstract at http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1148

The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and the Role Played by Gravity

T.N.Palmer

"Combining these, an entirely analysis is given of the standard "mysteries" of quantum theory: superposition, nonlocality, measurement, emergence of classicality, the ontology of uncertainty and so on."

My current favorite thought experiment replaces the big bang with a big coalescence.

Read up on Turok and Steinhardt's "ekpyrotic universe" theory. Not exactly the thoughts that you're expressing, but close enough to (probably) grab your attention.

Arxiv has plenty of papers on the subject, and it's a sufficiently unusual word that it makes for easy searching. Your reading list, should you choose to accept it.

A college level quantum physics class has nothing to do with General Relativity. Gravity waves are a seriously studied (though as yet undetected) phenomenon. We have probes in space and ground-based interferometers miles long to try and detect them.

I think TFA explained the phenomenon pretty well for an article of a few hundred words. If you want some more info, try looking at the paper that Ciao submitted.

42 happens. Get used to it.

Here is correct link to ariv paper of Dr Martin Tajmar:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3806

/Joss

We show that this result is robust, and deduce that neither hidden variable theories nor mechanisms of the GRW type for wave function collapse can be made relativistic. We also establish the consistency of our axioms and discuss the philosophical implications.

Nothing can be made relativistic eh? Whoa.. Might this mean that while immortality may not be possible a lifespan of infinity - 1 (insert any unit of time measurement here), at worse, is definitely possible? Okay. Who's up for proving that immortality is possible now?

We're practically re-enacting this dialogue from arXiv:quant-ph. Rather than make all the same mistakes, you'd be better off just reading that piece.

There's fairly recent paper on the physical limits of inference. The author proves that even a classical deterministic universe can't be predicted. I can't find the article I read that explained the paper, but here's the link to the summary (and the paper itself).

Do these have useful properties at all? Where's the (wild and unfounded) speculation?

paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2080

One of the papers is available on the arXiv, and it confirms that they were looking for top/anti-bottom pairs instead of the top/anti-top pairs produced by strong processes.

This is just absurd. Tons of people can see and use the R&D that Microsoft produces. Go into virtually any CS conference, from PLDI to SIGGRAPH, and you'll see tons of papers that build on and cite research published by Microsoft. And where was some of the most important research on quantum computing done... well another industry lab, Bell Labs. BTW, Microsoft has also done some great work in quantum computing as well. Here's an example of some of their interesting work in topological quantum computing: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.0279v2.pdf

Now what you probably mean is why can't I just copy their research and sell it as my own product. Well like many colleges and universities (and other research groups like HP, IBM, and Sun's) Microsoft will patent ideas that they think have commercial viability. That is really no different than the hundred+ patents that MIT or Caltech does each year. Or the 500+ patents done by the UC system.

I get that slashdot people are supposed to be gung ho about "freedom", but don't be naive about how the real world works.

Look here, I'm not saying the planet is not somewhat warmer today than it was a century ago. I'm just saying that I doubt that CO2 is the cause of that because even in these last 100 years there is not a good correlation between CO2 and temperature.
If you're interested in some of the deeper thinkers that think the sun is the more important player in climate, have a look at Nir Shaviv and especially On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget

Second, the possible effects of a slight increase in solar intensity have been noted. They are too small to account for the increase in atmospheric temperature if they exist. And even the largest potential effect could only account for about a quarter of the warming that has been observed.

Now it's exactly here where the science is not settled. See for instance this very recent article by Nir Shaviv, where he calculates the effect of the sun on the total ocean heat content. Quote:

Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47+-0.19 K, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 +- 0.04 K.

Considering the global temperature rise in the 20th century of roughly 0.7K (+- observation errors) it seems that most (if not all) of the temperature change could be explained by the sun. All in all this is still very much active science, only the politics seems to be settled. Also, for all of us who doubt all the global warming CO2 spoonfeeding, that would like do have some DIY experience; do these steps;

• download sunspot data for the previous century from somewhere
• sum those data over 30 years
• compare those to any of the global temperature datasets

Did you know that there were about twice as many sunspots in the last decades of the previous century as in the early 1900s? And three times as many as in 1830?
Bart

P.S. did you know that the Global Circulation Models outputs that are being used to predict the future don't actually have confidence intervals in them? The modellers do a lot of different runs, with different outputs (say between 1.5K and 6K increase in one century) and then confidently claim the 1.5-6K as a confidence interval, as if that means that the future is going to be within that range with that unspecified confidence. Whereas if these models are even 1% off in total albedo, they'll be so wildly wrong it's not funny anymore.

I haven't yet looked at the video, so I can't say for sure. I was speaking of the quote on this page: http://arxivblog.com/?p=401 which says, "At one point they divide their cell into nine smaller ones and the liquid in each cell rotates in exactly the same way."

      The fact that the rotation goes one way and then another says that the rotational symmetry is broken spatially, and temporally, so *something* is not in steady-state (despite their claims). Something isn't consistent (it may just be an error in the slashdot submission -- heaven knows THAT's never happened before), especially as it says, "The puzzle is this: the electric fields are static, so what's driving the motor?". The paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3733 doesn't especially address it, and, in fact, a claim that _static_ fields (carrying no angular momentum) can lead to this sort of rotation stinks of kookiness. Either I'm missing something big (it's entirely possible) or this *really* needs to be looked into (as I suspect will happen).

Well, I don't see it in the pictures, but the original article does make this clear - one of the two electric fields is done by putting copper electrodes in the water, so a current is flowing and you are correct.

OK, having read the "real" article, the best response is that this may explain the observed effects. The major differences

- the depth of the film is an important parameter, but that isn't known for the original experiments, so they can't compare results to theory in a detailed fashion.

- the theoretical work leads to at most one steady vortex in a container, but the experimental results show both one and two. The two vortex results may, of course, be transient.

- the theoretical results have flow speeds largest at the outer boundary. The experimental results have it increasing towards the center. This may be explainable by other effects, such as surface tension, but it is a discrepancy.

And the article says nothing directly about where the energy is coming from, but, reading it, it must be the electric field.

I hope I won't get whooshed for this, but the !etacarinae tag is because the popular science articles said it was in the direction of the constellation Carina. There is a famous hypergiant in that direction, about 7.5Kly away from us called Eta Carinae, which is expected to supernova in the near future (astronomically near, anyway) and produce a GRB.

GP's post is fine and all, but the determination of the distance of this is just as interesting as its extreme intensity. The host galaxy was too faint to be detectable. That they can determine the distance is due to the predictive power of the current models for GRBs and the network of instruments on earth and in space that can quickly focus on an event.

The determination of the distance and intensity is the actual accomplishment here. http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0761

The host or counterpart galaxy was too faint (the GRB was 12.8Gly away, and models predict that the host galaxy wouldn't be detectable). But apparently, there is now enough confidence in the models for GRBs to get a good fix on the distance anyway. It's awesome that they can do this without observing a host galaxy now.

The same team that measured this also confirmed the most distant GRB to date last September, and this is within the most distant 5% of observed GRBs.

Arxiv paper

The spectrum shape and afterglow over time are predicted by models. Here's one cited by the J. Grenier et al. paper on arxiv: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/518996.

Here's the J. Grenier (the GROND leader) paper on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0761

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0761

Submitted by the leader of the team working with GROND.

Here are a doublet of papers for an undergraduate laboratory demonstrating Bell's Inequality and and entangled photons. The whole apparatus (detailed in the second paper) is estimated to cost USD 15k circa 2002, so the optical elements have probably come down in price since then.

1. Entangled photons, nonlocality, and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory. [American Journal of Physics 70, 903 (2002)], Dietrich Dehlinger, MW Mitchell. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205171/

2. Entangled photon apparatus for the undergraduate laboratory. [American Journal of Physics 70, 898 (2002)], Dietrich Dehlinger, MW Mitchell. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205172/

Here are a doublet of papers for an undergraduate laboratory demonstrating Bell's Inequality and and entangled photons. The whole apparatus (detailed in the second paper) is estimated to cost USD 15k circa 2002, so the optical elements have probably come down in price since then.

1. Entangled photons, nonlocality, and Bell inequalities in the undergraduate laboratory. [American Journal of Physics 70, 903 (2002)], Dietrich Dehlinger, MW Mitchell. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205171/

2. Entangled photon apparatus for the undergraduate laboratory. [American Journal of Physics 70, 898 (2002)], Dietrich Dehlinger, MW Mitchell. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205172/

arXiv, the pioneering online preprint archive, already does something like this, though not as sophisticated. They have an endorsement system, wherein more established users endorse newer ones. It's fairly rudimentary and ad-hoc, but seems to keep out crackpots and spam fairly well in practice.