Slashdot Mirror

And on page 8 of the arXiv PDF, "Composite steganalyzers", it says explicitly that the capacity of the composite channel (using multiple steganalyzers) is less than that of channels using any one of the analyzers alone.

KFC at the arXiv blog got it wrong and the /. eds passed it on.

Maybe there's a hidden message in the mistake?

Probably not.

The New Scientist article points to a paper at arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5357

with the rather less sensational title:

Study of multi-muon events produced in p-pbar collisions at sqrt(s)=1.96 TeV

I'm amused to note that the author list stretches over three pages, which I gather is common for this sort of paper.

Lunkhod (or Lunakhod) 1 and 2 roved around on the Moon in the 1970's, with the second rover covering over 40 km (more than the current Mars Rovers combined).

Here are some pictures from the mission.

Lunkhod 2 has a laser retroreflector package that is used for laser laser ranging (LLR) along with 3 Apollo LLR retroreflector packages; these 4 sites together determine the Moon's orbit to the order of centimeters and are thus crucial in a number of scientific investigations ranging from pure physics to Lunar dynamics.

As a PS, I would strongly urge any exploration of the Apollo 11 site to stay well away from its LLR retroreflectors, as moving them by even a mm could cause problems interpreting that data.

This one actually gives some information on how they detected the belts (short version: it's based on infrared emissions that could only come from rocky debris).

And here is the actual paper on arXiv, if you want the full technical details of their methods.

I'm sure I'm basing this on some bad sci fi movie or other, but can't two of these maxed out black holes merge together (in theory at least) to form a larger one?

Actually this is a very good question and was the first thought I had too. (And I am an astrophysicist.)

It looks like the answer that the paper offers is that to have two extremely massive black holes in the same galaxy would require that galaxy to be more massive than any we have found. There's a close correlation between the mass of the central black hole and the mass of the galaxy.

I consider this a slightly weaker explanation though, compared with the argument that the black hole can't continue to grow because gas can't accrete to it.

It is not clear wether antimatter reacts to gravity in the same way as matter does.
http://arxivblog.com/?p=450
The force of gravity on antimatter has never been directly measured but a growing number of physicists believe that such an experiment is within their grasp. Today, a group attempting to design an experiment called AEGIS (Antimatter Experiment: Gravity, Interferometry, Spectroscopy) outline their plans to measure this force.
In some ways itâ(TM)s an ambitious plan. The team wants to build AEGIS at CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, where the building blocks of antihydrogen, low energy antiprotons and positrons, are in relatively good supply.
more in the paper about AEGIS

I certainly take exception to the conclusion that "flat universe = infinite mass"

By "flat" I mean space has no curvature and is thus effectively Euclidean. This means (as far as I understand it), that space continues on forever in each direction. It doesn't wrap back upon itself and reconnect (which is what would happen for a curved geometry like spherical space). So "flat universe" = "infinite space." Now, if the matter density of the universe is roughly homogeneous on large scales (which it is within our Hubble volume), then every region of space has some mass. So "flat universe" + "homogeneous matter" = "infinite mass".

Our best measurements have not detected any curvature to the universe at large scales. It looks flat. The current consensus in cosmology, as far as I can tell, is that the universe is thus probably infinite in volume and mass. (Of course, it could be a spherical geometry with a very, very small curvature... in which case it would not be infinite, but just very, very large.) Quoting from an expert in the field, Max Tegmark:

A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions

In this paper he's discussing the implications in terms of "copies" of Hubble volumes, but the basic conclusion of "infinite universe" appears robust:

..the simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that [there are copies of our galaxy] about 10^(10^29) meters from here. This does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly filled with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations. Your alter ego is simply a prediction of the so-called concordance model of cosmology, which agrees with all current observational evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences. In contrast, alternatives such as a fractal universe, a closed universe and a multiply connected universe have been seriously challenged by observations.

(Emphasis added.)

And:

Although the implications may seem crazy and counter-intuitive, this spatially infinite cosmological model is in fact the simplest and most popular one on the market today. It is part of the cosmological concordance model, which agrees with all current observational evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations and simulations presented at cosmology conferences.

I believe you are correct that (absent dark energy) a flat universe should expand forever but with a continually decreasing rate. Of course dark energy modifies this, causing a negative pressure that accelerates the expansion at later times. Modern measurements indicate that the mass density of the universe is very close to the critical value, and that space is flat, but that dark energy is accelerating the expansion.

The cosmological models relate not to the total mass of the universe, but to the density. If the density of the universe is at the critical value, then it is flat and expands forever (absent dark energy). If the density is above the critical value, the universe has positive curvature, is closed and will collapse. If the density is below the critical value then space has negative curvature, is open, and expands forever. The universe can have infinite volume and infinite mass while still having finite density.

An infinite amount of mass would require an infinite amount of energy during the Big Bang. That's just absurd.

Counter-intuitive, yes. But that's what the data suggest. (Strictly, the data simply don't rule out an infinite universe. A very, very large universe with curvature too small to measure is also consistent with observation. So I suppose on aesthetic grounds you could prefer one over the other. But the data so far do not rule out either.)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2188

publishers as bidders at an auction, authors as sellers, and the community at large as consumers

Hmmm, there's some term I'm thinking of that deals with people in the middle of the source and the destination that take money for acting as men in the middle when they're not doing anything or providing any service except being in the middle of the transaction. Also, it's beneficial to the sellers & the consumers to eliminate these people. I think they're called 'rich greedy bastards.'

Seriously, hosting a document for me to view doesn't cost $100/mo. so why are you trying to charge me that? I know it's primarily physics but if any other field wanted to pull their heads out of their asses, they would leave the journals to the professors and start up something like arxiv for the rest of humanity that can't afford an outrageous premium!

I guess it's too much to ask for the article to give a link to the actual paper... http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1026

Selecting universities: personal preference and rankings

>that comma is in the wrong place

Right. The correct number is 500,000 (not "50,0000").

arxiv.org actually says 497,649 as of a moment ago).

But the question we are all asking ourselves is

Who got the first post?

The answer is Exact Black String Solutions in Three Dimensions by James H. Horne and Gary T. Horowitz

Slightly better than the "Fkrst Pist" attempts on Slashdot!

Here's the link to the manuscript, though.

You mean like this?

Did anyone even read the actual article (not the bad blog post)? Or at *least* the abstract? http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4004

In essence: He4 has no Feshbach resonance -> no possibility of tuning interaction -> no bose-nova

True. But I see lots of folks at my university who are addicted to EndNote's buggy "Cite While You Write" functions that provide MS-Word integration. RefWorks has an analogous "Write while you cite" function, but still lots of people have accumulated libraries in EndNote and still have a love/hate addiction to CWYW.A lot of products provide "cite while you write"-like functionality. Zotero has CWYW-like functionality that can round-trip between MS Word and OO.o Writer. Bibus, another free/open source reference manager, also supports both word processors. Word processor support in other reference managers is detailed on Wikipedia.

Our library provides ISI Web of Science on-line....more open alternative will require freeing up all elements of the stack to include citation repositories.

Zotero plans to have a citation database that runs on a web server & plans to collaborate with the internet archive to provide storage of "open" publications (unfortunately, this excludes quite a bit of traditional content). Preprint/reprint servers, such as arXiv are a step in the right direction. Google scholar, PubMed Central, and other large repositories may help break the monopoly. If you'd like to help make your papers and citation information available to others, I encourage you to try out refbase or some other institutional repository software.

There are a wealth of APIs and standards to support this. I'm happy to say that refbase+zotero have adopted many of them. In addition to the citation style language, linked to above & which can create formatted citations form rich metadata, there is MODS XML, developed by the LoC, is a rich bibliographic format for exchange, unAPI makes it easy for websites to point to machine-readable metadata. SRW, also by the LoC, provides a uniform query language.

There are many places to follow this development, including OSS4lib, One Big Library, GCS-PCS, and many others.

Both of those are assumptions. If they were true, there wouldn't be a logical explaination for tachyons.

Who cares if there's a logical explanation for tachyons, since we don't have evidence for any?

Anyway, even if tachyons existed you'd never actually observe anything traveling faster than light; see this FAQ.

In other dimensions things DO move faster then light.

Says who? In any relativistic quantum field theory or string theory, c is the limit in any dimension.

Furthermore, the speed of gravity is much greater then c.

van Flandern's website is a bunch of crackpot nonsense. He was pretty notorious on Usenet for years. He misapplies perturbation theory; if you apply his same arguments to electromagnetism, you "conclude" that light travels faster than light too (see here). In fact, you can rigorously prove in general relativity that the speed of gravity cannot exceed c (see here, assuming that the gravitational waves aren't produced by weird things like negative mass). The 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded, in part, for an observational determination of the speed of gravity. (You can deduce it by the rate at which gravitational energy is radiated by orbiting bodies.) The measurements indicate that the speed of gravity is c, to within a few percent accuracy.

The speed of light limit has some caveats. Wormholes, which Relativity predicts, offer a way out. You dont need to actually travel faster than light, if you can find shortcuts through other dimensions. The physicist Kip Thorne formulated the mathematics of transversable wormholes. Just because its something beyond out current physics, doesnt mean that FTL cant exist. After all, do any of you really think that the current theories are entirely correct? Just like Newton was supplanted by Einstein, so Einstein will be supplanted one day. The fact is, if you take brane theory into account there could be other universes where our laws of physics dont even apply, and if a wormhole bridge can exist between them, not only FTL but time travel is a real possibility. As a matter of fact, Theoretical physicists like Kaku state that, with cosmic censorship in place, that FTL and time travel are a real possibility.

Both of those are assumptions. If they were true, there wouldn't be a logical explaination for tachyons.

Who cares if there's a logical explanation for tachyons, since we don't have evidence for any?

Anyway, even if tachyons existed you'd never actually observe anything traveling faster than light; see this FAQ.

In other dimensions things DO move faster then light.

Says who? In any relativistic quantum field theory or string theory, c is the limit in any dimension.

Furthermore, the speed of gravity is much greater then c.

van Flandern's website is a bunch of crackpot nonsense. He was pretty notorious on Usenet for years. He misapplies perturbation theory; if you apply his same arguments to electromagnetism, you "conclude" that light travels faster than light too (see here). In fact, you can rigorously prove in general relativity that the speed of gravity cannot exceed c (see here, assuming that the gravitational waves aren't produced by weird things like negative mass). The 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded, in part, for an observational determination of the speed of gravity. (You can deduce it by the rate at which gravitational energy is radiated by orbiting bodies.) The measurements indicate that the speed of gravity is c, to within a few percent accuracy.

The speed of light limit has some caveats. Wormholes, which Relativity predicts, offer a way out. You dont need to actually travel faster than light, if you can find shortcuts through other dimensions. The physicist Kip Thorne formulated the mathematics of transversable wormholes. Just because its something beyond out current physics, doesnt mean that FTL cant exist. After all, do any of you really think that the current theories are entirely correct? Just like Newton was supplanted by Einstein, so Einstein will be supplanted one day. The fact is, if you take brane theory into account there could be other universes where our laws of physics dont even apply, and if a wormhole bridge can exist between them, not only FTL but time travel is a real possibility. As a matter of fact, Theoretical physicists like Kaku state that, with cosmic censorship in place, that FTL and time travel are a real possibility.

The "observable universe" is everything we can see right now. The key point is, depending on how the universe expands, something that is now part of the observable universe may not have been so in the past, and may not be so in the future. (Similarly, something that was not once part of the observable universe could be so today.) What is "observable" depends on whether light can reach us at a given time, and that depends on what the geometry of space itself does. There is a nice paper which discusses various misconceptions about "the observable universe", particularly as it pertains to FTL expansion, although it's aimed at a physicist audience. I don't think it addresses this particular point, but it may still be worth reading.

I think you are still wrong. Inflation happened very early on in the universe - between 1x10-36 seconds and 1x10-32 seconds, which is a very, very short time span. There were no galaxies present to influence at that time. No atoms of any sort as well.

Yes, that's what the authors here are proposing. Differential inflation introduced relative velocities between the particles in the very early universe, which later in turn seeded the primordial density perturbations that formed galaxies. Go read their paper. They state that their theory is about the influence of pre-inflationary inhomogeneities on the motion of current matter. The "dark flow" occurs prior to and during inflation, and persists to this day.

In an earlier paper, the lead author states this more explicitly: "In this scenario, the observed Universe (roughly, the present Hubble volume) represents part of a homogeneous inflated region embedded in an inhomogeneous space-time. On scales beyond the size of this homogeneous patch, the initially inhomogeneous distribution of energy-momentum that existed prior to inflation is preserved, the scale of the inhomogeneities merely being stretched by the expansion".

The point of inflationary theory is not that there were huge parts of the universe causally connected.

Yes, that is the point of inflationary theory (or rather, one of the points): to solve the horizon problem (why was the early universe so uniform on super-horizon scales)? Inflation's answer: because opposite ends of the universe, although they cannot now interact with each other directly, were once in close causal contact. Guth's book is a nice history of this idea. (His original motivation was to solve the monopole problem, but he quickly realized it also solved the horizon, homogeneity, and flatness problems.)

Well, there's this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919

Both of those are assumptions. If they were true, there wouldn't be a logical explaination for tachyons.

Who cares if there's a logical explanation for tachyons, since we don't have evidence for any?

Anyway, even if tachyons existed you'd never actually observe anything traveling faster than light; see this FAQ.

In other dimensions things DO move faster then light.

Says who? In any relativistic quantum field theory or string theory, c is the limit in any dimension.

Furthermore, the speed of gravity is much greater then c.

van Flandern's website is a bunch of crackpot nonsense. He was pretty notorious on Usenet for years. He misapplies perturbation theory; if you apply his same arguments to electromagnetism, you "conclude" that light travels faster than light too (see here). In fact, you can rigorously prove in general relativity that the speed of gravity cannot exceed c (see here, assuming that the gravitational waves aren't produced by weird things like negative mass). The 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded, in part, for an observational determination of the speed of gravity. (You can deduce it by the rate at which gravitational energy is radiated by orbiting bodies.) The measurements indicate that the speed of gravity is c, to within a few percent accuracy.

Both of those are assumptions. If they were true, there wouldn't be a logical explaination for tachyons.

Who cares if there's a logical explanation for tachyons, since we don't have evidence for any?

Anyway, even if tachyons existed you'd never actually observe anything traveling faster than light; see this FAQ.

In other dimensions things DO move faster then light.

Says who? In any relativistic quantum field theory or string theory, c is the limit in any dimension.

Furthermore, the speed of gravity is much greater then c.

van Flandern's website is a bunch of crackpot nonsense. He was pretty notorious on Usenet for years. He misapplies perturbation theory; if you apply his same arguments to electromagnetism, you "conclude" that light travels faster than light too (see here). In fact, you can rigorously prove in general relativity that the speed of gravity cannot exceed c (see here, assuming that the gravitational waves aren't produced by weird things like negative mass). The 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded, in part, for an observational determination of the speed of gravity. (You can deduce it by the rate at which gravitational energy is radiated by orbiting bodies.) The measurements indicate that the speed of gravity is c, to within a few percent accuracy.

I don't think that would be sufficient to explain the hugely exponential expansion necessary to explain inflation. Something similar has been proposed to explain the much slower accelerating expansion currently produced by dark energy (here), but my recollection is that it was promptly disproven by several rebuttal papers for reasons I can no longer remember (but see here).

Quasi-ballistic spin torque magnetization reversal S. Serrano-Guisan, K. Rott, G. Reiss, J. Langer, B. Ocker, and H. W. Schumacher Physical Review Letters 33 (2008)

Then a trip to scholar finds:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.4840

Biased quasi ballistic spin torque magnetization reversal S. Serrano-Guisan, K. Rott, G. Reiss, J. Langer, B. Ocker and H. W. Schumacher

Papers authored by me on the physics arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+McCulloch_I/0/1/0/all/0/1
Papers authored by my dad on the physics arxiv (he is retired now, most of his papers pre-date the internet): http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+McCulloch_P/0/1/0/all/0/1

Papers authored by me on the physics arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/cond-mat/1/au:+McCulloch_I/0/1/0/all/0/1
Papers authored by my dad on the physics arxiv (he is retired now, most of his papers pre-date the internet): http://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+McCulloch_P/0/1/0/all/0/1

Speaking as someone with an astrophysics background, I can say with great certainty that I have no idea what it is. And likely no one else will unless and until a decent spectrum of the object can be taken. Because, whereas a picture is worth a thousand words (and, if you are diligent, a light curve), a spectrum is worth a thousand pictures.

I guess it depends on your definition of decent but here you go:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1648v1.pdf

"Multiple spectra show five broad absorption bands between 4100 A and 6500 A and
a mostly featureless continuum longward of 6500 A."

The problem is not a lack of spectra. They don't fit what's known. (However if by "decent spectra" you meanabsorption bands over the entire gamut of wavelengths, don't hold your breath)

But there's nothing insightful, informative, or interesting to say. The summary covered that: "they don't have a single clue about where or what the heck this thing is."

OK, here's something informative: Slashdot linked to a Gizmodo article, which made fun of a Sky and Telescope article, which reports about a scientific paper and then 95% of those commenting the Slashdot article never even read the Gizmodo article, 95% of those looking at the Gizmodo article never got as far as looking at the Sky and Telescope article and only about 3 Persons read the actual paper.

Here's a link to another, slightly more serious article, which also links the paper itself.

Here you go: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1648v1.pdf

Is this blog post for real, or is it just a way to grab some traffic and ad revenue?

I can't find a likely looking original article on the astro-ph preprint server, nor on the Astrophysics Journal site [subscription required?]. Furthermore, the researchers who made this alleged disocovery aren't credited or even mentioned in the blog post, so there's no names to Google for ("hubble AND unknown" only comes up with the original article). Does anyone know the original source, or this just some blogger's idea of a joke?

-JS

The Sky and Telescope article is much better than the Gizmodo blog. The article explains why it can't be closer than 130 ly due to no parallax, though IDK why they didn't use a more sensitive satellite for measuring parallax of objects up to 1600 ly away. Maybe it was only seen after the fact, or the other satellite was not sensitive enough? The thing could not be farther than 11 billion ly either, since otherwise the light would be distorted as it passed through interstellar hydrogen clouds (i.e. "cosmic hydrogen absorption in its spectrum"). The Sky and Telescope article even includes a reference to the original paper describing the phenomenon. I suggest you read that article instead. It is much more interesting!

Well, it was observed with multiple telescopes, so it's not an artifact. The full paper can be found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.1648v1.pdf

Slashdot should have ran the more interesting story pertaining to nuclear decay rates that came up this week, which my nuclear physicist associate (Oliver Manuel) forwarded to me ...

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance

Seach the Firehose for "decay rate" and you'll find my submission, which was rejected (not complaining actually, just a bit confused).

And it's not even that this result is the first time it's been noticed. Russian researcher Simon Schnoll has performed *thousands* of simple geiger counter isotope decay rate experiments and noticed the same exact thing -- that there is an astrophysical influence to decay rates ...

Russian Discovery Challenges Existence of 'Absolute Time'

The idea that nuclear decay rates might not be random is pretty paradigm-changing. We can doubt the results, but shouldn't we at least be talking about it? It seems to me like a very important finding.

Isn't this even more pertinent to the concept of anthropogenic warming than the absolute dating article Slashdot went with???

I'll take your money! I'll put up $100 to your $2000 that the world DOES get sucked into a black hole. You may ask for your payment, should I lose, right after the Big Rip unless the Big Crunch comes first. Should the Big Crunch come first, you owe me.

Citations:

• the particular big hole I expect to swallow our planet
• really?
• swallowed by the sun first
• I'm betting against the Big Rip
• in favor of the Big Crunch (Which would be a good idea for an ice cream flavor)

And no cheezy trying to squirm out of it by claiming the definition of the earth was to a more or less big single rock not a bunch of shredded atoms, our bet is on the fate of the majority of the sum of energy and matter that make up said big rock.

The fear is that the LHC is doing one thing differently - any black holes created in the upper atmosphere would have a velocity approaching that of light, and pass harmlessly through the earth, grabbing a proton or two on the way. At the LHC, it's possible that some of the holes created would have a much lower velocity - less than escape velocity. Those holes wouldn't just leave earth, they'd stick around.

First, we actually have to be in the right range to create the black holes. This is very, very unlikely - it requires large extra dimensions, something allowed for but not expected in theory.

Then there's Hawking radiation. While there's no reason to believe it doesn't exist (and several to believe it does), it hasn't been experimentally verified. If it doesn't exist, or if a black hole radiates much slower than expected, any created holes could survive long enough to actually absorb more matter.

This PDF has the interesting math behind all of this.

Note: No, I'm not even saying they're right. I'm simply stating what their argument is for it. There's a lot of problems with those arguments, and I'm on the "destroy the world? Yeah, right?" side. I'm actually having an LHC get-together tomorrow night, and plan to have an Mad Scientist "End of the World" party on October 21, when they're having the first high-energy collisions.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0110/0110253v2.pdf

very interesting site, and layman friendly; it contains a link to a peer reviewed paper that is a good read and very understandable:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0511/0511379.pdf
The papers states:
a) The Sun and other stars act as plasma diffusers, sorting lighter atoms to their surfaces.

b) The interior of the Sun is made of common elements in rocky planets and meteorites â" Fe, Ni, O, Si, and S â" although the lightest elements (H and He) cover its surface.

c) Neutron-emission from the solar core, a neutron star, is the first step in a series of reactions that has steadily generated luminosity, neutrinos, solar mass fractionation, and an out-pouring of solar-wind hydrogen from the Sun over the past 4-5 Gy.

And this (pdf warning) might be of interest as well, as it is from S Doeleman July 2008.

Solar Systems Like Ours Are Likely To Be Rare

KentuckyFC writes
"Astronomers have discovered some 250 planetary systems beyond our own, many of them with curious properties. In particular, our theories of planet formation are challenged by 'hot Jupiters,' gas giants that orbit close to their parent stars. Current thinking is that gas giants can only form far away from stars because gas and dust simply gets blown away from the inner regions. Now astronomers have used computer simulations of the way planetary systems form to understand what is going on (abstract). It looks as if gas giants often form a long way from stars and then migrate inwards. That has implications for us: a migrating gas giant sweeps away all in its path, including rocky planets in the habitable zone. And that means that solar systems like ours are likely to be rare."

No, it shows that bloggers and reporters (and slashdot editors) need to sensationalize preliminary results or possible explanations to get readers.

Of course they need to sensationalize. Otherwise these reports are just, well, preprints! And preprints that aren't in your field probably won't be of interest to you.

The arXiv blog is cool, and it's nice to see some interesting preprints from outside my field pointed out, but I only take this to mean that this could possibly be a bit more interesting to me than the other ten-thousand-odd astro-ph preprints I won't be reading this year.

The actual arxiv paper contains no references to the term 'wino'. And they clearly states that their candidate is neutral. I've seen mentions of a 'wino-like neutralino' as a candidate for dark matter in different papers, but I'm unsure of what exactly makes it 'wino-like'. It is certainly not charge.

Sedna is supposed to have resulted from an interaction between the Oort cloud and a distant passage of another Star in the past. That means that there is a good chance (30% or so) that it belonged to the OTHER stars Oort cloud.

2006 SQ372 has an even more irregular orbit which is unstable to boot. The same sort of arguments will apply to this object, and so there is a decent chance that it, too, will prove to come from another solar system.

Also from a more abstract point of view, read Increased security through open source.

The Intel system is based on this. It's nothing like anything Tesla is known to have worked on.

"A universe without weak interactions is constructed that undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation. The stars in this universe are able to burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions, dispersing heavy elements into the interstellar medium.

There's no evidence such universes exist. But it is still a good exercise to help keep some perspective on what is possible, even in principle, given what we know about physical law. It also highlights that people who make "anthropic principle-like" claims based on fine-tuning haven't bothered to go back to the underlying laws of physics and actually look for other stable configurations, even in theory.

I read some interesting theory some time ago that our Sun instead of having 22 year activity cycle got also other type of fluctuations with periods of tens or hundreds of thousand years.
Read about "Diffusion Wave" theory of Robert Ehrlich (paper on arvix).

it made it into Physics World, the mag of the IoP (body for professional UK physicists) - http://physicsworldarchive.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=6%2F9%2Fphwv6i9a26%40pwa-xml&qt= and the NewScientist - http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918902.000----with-a-boson-at-the-tories-cocktail-party-.html and is cited at least once at arxiv.org - http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0103023v2