Slashdot Mirror

Damn i'm getting modded funny but i'm serious. There's a paper on negative quantum channels by Horodecki who's earlier work is referenced in this current paper.
link: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505062
Basically a channel that doesn't exist can be thought of as both a channel of 0 positive information capacity and as a channel of 0 negative information capacity.
The negative channel can be treated in the exact same way as the positive channel. Once you have worked out the net capacity of each the total capacity is the positive channel - the negative channel.
So when this paper says that you can use a 0 capacity channel for information transfer, there is a paradox as a 0 capacity channel can be thought of as a channel that doesn't exist.
In this case the positive information capacity of 2 channels can be increased, but i beleive that the negative information capacity would also increase in exactly the same way.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.4935v1.pdf

    Interesting, but the paper seems to have a nasty habit of simply redefining what "capacity" means in a quantum context, to basically, "Well, if we have two interacting channels, one changes the other to have non-zero capacity." And if I interpret it that way, it simply rewords the problem to be different from the original interpretation. Also, there's a significant amount (even for an arxiv paper) of speculation present (which is interesting!). From the paper: Nonetheless, each channel has
the potential to \activate" the other, effectively cancel-
ing the other's reason for having no capacity. We know
of no analog of this effect in the classical theory. Per-
haps each channel transfers some different, but comple-
mentary kind of quantum information. If so, can these
kinds of information be quantfied in an operationally
meaningful way? Are there other pairs of zero-capacity
channels displaying this effect? Are there triples? Does
the private capacity also display superactivation? What
new insights does this yield for computing the quantum
capacity in general?

    One "classical" analogy is that of orthogonally-crossed polarizers, which, upon insertion of another polarizer with principle axis somewhere between that of the originals, will allow light to shine through where none was before.

It's just easier to use LaTeX (or TeX) for certain things. Here's a short, random article from the ArXiv: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.0275v1.
You should look at every page, and imagine how you would typeset it in MS Word.

TFA is a bit short on details, as expected for a general-audience press release. In particular, they throw the word "Viterbi" out there without ever explaining what the heck it means; probably an artifact of USC containing the *Viterbi* School of Engineering. The juicy technical bits can be found in his thesis here:

Title: Quantum Coding with Entanglement
Authors: Mark M. Wilde
Thesis PDF ... and for a basic overview of the underlying concepts, of course the Wikipedia page on the Viterbi algorithm is helpful.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.4969v3.pdf

Thanks. I'm surprised that this work has been published before - the article you mention is basically identical. I always thought Nature was striving to publish new results...?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.4969v3.pdf

mod this shit up. TFA makes it sound like they discovered CPT violation or Brendan Fraser in the earth's c0re. For fuck's sake, the paper was only accepted two days ago. Here's the preprint.

For anyone who wants to read the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2781

Well it seems like Prof Nocera has chosen to keep his paper off the internet, or at least his research group's publications list. His invention has already been patented, so that's not the reason. Why is that while academics in physics, maths, and engineering are busily posting copies of their papers or preprints on their websites or arxiv, chemistry academics almost never put up online copies of their papers? It seems like a poor way to go about communicating cutting edge science to me.

- we are the first

Improbable enough to dismiss out of hand.

According to http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012399, the average earth in the universe is just 1.8 +/- 0.9 billion years older than our earth, which means that other earth-like planets have just a few billion years more to evolve, and while it took five billion years to create intelligent life on our earth, we can not tell whether this is a long or short time compared to other planets. There may be some special factors like our moon that could have accelerated this process, so it might be possible that planets without massive moons take 10 billion years to develop intelligent life.

I am not saying that this is very probable, but I think it is not "improbable enough to dismiss out of hand". If we were first in our galaxy, it would be indeed surprising, but it would be also a funny explanation for our situation.

You can also not take for granted that even if there is intelligent life, an industrial revolution will take place, and we do not know yet whether it is sustainable long enough to evolve sustainable space colonization.

- interstellar distances are simply to big to be overcome, or no one wants to pay for the energy

Doesn't seem likely. We can do some temporary cost analysis, and the cost isn't prohibitive in any way. Well, not for a civilization a little more advanced than ours any way. It seems reasonable that we will advance just a little more, and that if we are left alone we will probably conquer interstellar space. And then the black hole at the center of our galaxy wakes up. Does a minor Hiccup and goes back to bed. That hiccup sterilizes or galaxy though, tearing all organic molecules apart. Oooops. Sorry. Indigestion. Just swallowed a couple of neutron stars and didn't have any antacid close by. Sorry.

According to my own calculations, to accelerate a 600.000 ton spaceship (including fuel) to near light speed and decelerate, you need to turn about 400.000 tons of its mass into kinetic energy. A small robotic probe of course might be much cheaper, and travelling in a small craft in a hibernated state also might be the better option, but I would not want to travel in a conscient state for years in a structure that is smaller than a large ocean cruiser.

I agree that the cost is not prohibitive if we find a more efficient way to turn mass into energy than fusion or fission, like antimatter annihilation, but without the need of putting 400.000 tons of antimatter into our gas tank. (I think there would be a law against bringing substantial amounts of antimatter into a solar system.) However, I can envision a process where matter is heated to early big-bang temperatures and turned into a quark-gluon plasma, that will exhibit almost total matter-antimatter annihilation on cool-down. (Baryogenesis and Leptogenesis) We may however have some containment problems with our "reaction chamber" here, requiring some more "breakthrough technology".

Although this might be possible in theory, we do not know if this ever will be possible in practice, here or in any other solar system.

Btw, I do not believe that FTL-travel ever will be possible, all our knowledge speaks against it.

- evil alien predators are already on their way to blow us out of the sky before we become serious competitors

Improbable. All experience show that competitive cooperation is more profitable then warfare. It seems unreasonable to assume that a space faring civilization with interstellar capabilities has not discovered this.

I wish this would be true, but my experience and knowledge of history indicates otherwise. The industrial revolution happened in Europe not because of competitive cooperation, it was driven by four hundred year

Wikileaks posted the wrong paper, realized it, and took it down. The paper they had was published quite openly on the arxiv.org archives:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2285

Read wikileaks own discussion of the event:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Censored_Milfaire_Classic_Oyster_Card_break_paper_2008

For all the details, hit this PDF

NAOs head is equipped with an x86 AMD GEODE 500 MHz CPU motherboard with 256 Mb SDRAM. An additional 1Gb Flash memory is available. Communication with the robot is possible through WiFi 802.11g protocol and through Ethernet port. The CPU manages audio, video, and WiFi and other advanced modules. One ARM7-60MHz microcontroller located in the torso distributes information to all the actuator module microcontrollers (Microchip 16 bit dsPICS) through a RS485 bus (throughput of 460[Kbits=s]). There are two RS485 buses, one that connects the ARM7 microcontroller to the dsPICS modules of the upper part of the body, and the other that connects the ARM7 to the dsPICS modules of the lower part of the body. This bus partition permits to increase the data throughput.

The ARM-7 microcontroller communicates with the CPU board through a USB-2 bus with a theoretical throughput of 11[Mbits=s]. It can be used to control the robots stabilityusing the inertial unit. The operating system is based on Linux, but the whole system can be modified.

Sensors:

30 FPS CMOS videocamera 1
Gyrometer 2
Accelerometer 3
Magnetic rotary encoder (MRE) 34
FSR 8
Infrared sensor (emitter/receiver) 2
Ultrasonic sensor 2
Loudspeaker 2
Microphone 4

Actually, there's already a fair amount of research going on using doped silica (the main constituent of sand) as the substrate for fabricating photonic silica-based quantum circuits.

Quantum computing is on its way!

In this paper there are theoretical relations between planet radius and mass for a wide range of possible planet compositions. These are computed using equations of state that are largely determined from laboratory experiments.

Anyway, for an Earth-like composition (~67% rock, 33% iron), a 5 M_earth planet would have a radius of ~1.5 R_earth yielding a surface gravity that is ~2.2 times greater than that of the Earth (such a planet is not incompressible, so the density is slightly higher for a greater mass).

For a pure iron planet, the radius would be only 1.2 times that of the Earth and the surface gravity would be quite high (3.6 times the Earth's).

For a pure rock planet, the radius would be 1.7 times that of the Earth and the surface gravity would be 1.75 times that of the Earth.

For a pure "water-world" (say a scaled up version of some of the icy satellites orbiting the outer planets), the radius would be ~2.5 times that of the Earth and the surface gravity would be 0.8 times that of the Earth (i.e. less surface gravity than the Earth!).

Point is there is a fairly significant range in possible radii and thus a significant range in the possible surface gravity.

The earlier work was completely theoretical - the paper in question here is an experimental result.

Why do we care? A lot of reasons - the casimir effect is deeply rooted in quantum physics, but is observable without having to cool things to quantum temperatures. This sort of research is also potentially very important in nanotechnology - if we want our nanosurfaces to not stick, we should make them corrugated - the opposite of the macroworld!

Many times, people have calculated these casimir forces by assuming that the quantum force between two plates by just adding up the forces between particles (pairwise additivity). This is the first (I believe) research that shows this failing experimentally - there are large-scale geometrical effects. This is exciting, as it means that there may be many ways to tune casimir forces, making them do whatever we want - theoretical predictions on piston-like geometries have forces that are attractive at one distance, and repulsive at another!

If anyone's interested, the actual paper is at http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3776 and better summaries (Moore's law wtf?) are at http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11402849 and http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6827

Very fast solar events can happen and have happened. It has already taken as few as about 15 minutes from the start of an event to the time fast protons reach earth. I wouldn't be too comfortable with this.

I wish it weren't so (and I submit all my papers to http://www.arxiv.org/ as well to the journals), but the fact is, closed journals provide significant value both to the reader and to the submitting author. I'm not really trying to defend the system here, by the way, I'm just trying to explain what purpose it serves (and what an open alternative would have to match).

I think you're talking about "open" in a completely different way to the parent. You seem to be using it in the sense of "accepts articles from anybody without any kind of review", whilst the parent was clearly talking about making the journals open "for others to read".

Referees and Peer-Review

Peer review is great, but you don't have to charge the readers of your journal to be able to review papers before they are published.

Prestige and Selection

Charging people to read the journal creates only a false sense of prestige. Genuine prestige arises from the quality of the articles in the journal. If Nature was made freely available tomorrow, do you think many scientists would stop submitting articles to it because of that?

Review Articles

Nothing prevents an editor writing a review article for a journal you don't have to pay to read.

Editing

Yes, editing is very useful, but just because people don't have to pay to read a paper, that doesn't mean it can't be edited.

Access

I think a paper you can read for free can just about match the accessibility of a paper you have to pay to read.

Brutal honesty, we don't really care about the access restrictions. Every university has license to pretty much all the major journals. We can get them from wherever with a quick login and so can everyone we know. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Ah, here's your real argument. You don't care that almost everyone can't read many journals for free, because you can.

You say that you're "just trying to explain what purpose it serves". So what are you saying here? The purpose of closed journals is to ensure that only the élite can read them?

Referees and Peer-Review Referees are invaluable because someone has to objectively assess articles for basic scientific merit and rigor. The better journals can recruit referees for each submission that truly grok the subject matter and can often work very productively with an author. Quite a number of important advances are made and pitfalls avoided because a referee insisted that a researcher cover her bases before submission. Of course, nobody claims that PR journals are bullshit-free, but they are certainly far better than un-reviewed sources like arxiv.

This function is especially important for readers in multidisciplinary fields (myself included) that often read papers on subjects in which we are not expert enough to know what constitutes sound science. When I read about some group that has extracted and crystallized some protein, I'd like to know that someone competent at the relevant techniques has scrutinized their methods because I haven't the faintest clue (I'm a physicist by training, a biophysicist by necessity).

Prestige and Selection Another important function of the journals is to select articles by importance. If a paper makes Nature or Science, that's usually a good indicator that they've made an important advance. The benefits of this selection are twofold: first, readers can keep tabs on work at the forefront without wading through lots of papers. It sounds lazy, but most of us cannot read every paper that is published and are quite glad to outsource some filtering to the journals.

Secondly, it allows authors to demonstrate to people outside their immediate field what caliber work they've done. Even among people in the same department, it's not immediately clear what qualifies as a breakthrough work (as opposed to incremental work, which I don't trash in the least bit, but it's not really the same hat) -- prestigious journal cites are a good substitute, especially when the alternative is to either become an expert in the field or find one and ask.

Review Articles Most journals have an in-house staff to write articles reviewing the state of a particular field/technique/whatever. This is also an invaluable services because sometimes one needs a broad, textbook-level summary instead of a large number of discrete, deep papers on a topic. Given that science is done in small, insular little bits, it's natural that there is room for someone to aggregate and summarize those bits and put them into a larger perspective.

Editing Another thankless job (the snarky comments about the /. eds belie the fact that editing is hard work). Dupes are weeded out and researchers with poor language skills (especially when writing in an adopted language) are given help communicating their ideas. Confusing or unclear language is massaged back into form, figures are well-presented and well-labeled, text is formatted to be easy on the eyes, references are given in a standard form. These things count more than most /.ers realize (Knuth was on to something guys . . )

Access Brutal honesty, we don't really care about the access restrictions. Every university has license to pretty much all the major journals. We can get them from wherever with a quick login and so can everyone we know. Sorry, but that's the truth.

... missing matter? Per reviewed: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/588582 Fulltext: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4164

Prof. Li has posted a fourth version of his proof on arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.0090v4. According to this comment on Connes's blog http://noncommutativegeometry.blogspot.com/2008/06/fun-day-two.html?showComment=1215144000000#c3090911722072092520, Li has made changes to the equations that Tao and Connes identified as problematic. The saga continues.

Yeah, because no mathematician EVER reads arXiv!

I mean it isn't like someone recently posted a paper there never published it and turned out to be correct. Oh wait that's exactly where Perelman posted his proofs and never got them published, yet they are probably one of the most reviewed documents on the site! Certainly more reviewed than they would have been if he had submitted it to ANY journal.

I'm not saying this proof is correct, but it isn't fair to assume that because it isn't in a journal that it isn't. If you know it is incorrect then post a proof accordingly. Otherwise all we can do is wait and see.

Well Arxiv isn't the wikipedia not everyone can post to it at their leisure. Based on this list just from Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Li_X/0/1/0/all/0/1
I'd say he has to be reasonably legitimate, even if he's wrong he's breaking new ground with what is apparently at the very least a solid attempt.

The Riemann Hypothesis and RSA encryption both have to do with prime numbers, but the relationship between the two pretty much ends there. To break RSA you need to know how to factor large numbers quickly. RH, on the other hand, pretains to the distribution of prime numbers. It's pretty unlikely that a proof would make computers any faster at factorizing.

So this begs the question that a lot of people have been asking on this thread: why should you care? There tongue-in-cheek answer is that a solution is worth $1,000,000. While that response may suffice for non-mathematicians, mathematicians would have another, more important reason to celebrate. RH and its generalization, the Grand Riemann Hypothesis, have an absolutely enormous number of profound impliations in number theory, and it is difficult to overstate how critical a proof of either would be. (The implications are too technical to write about here, but you can read about them in most good survey books on analytic number theory; for example, see section 5.8 of Iwaniec & Kowalski). A successful proof probably won't affect your life in any meaningful way (unless you work with analytic number theory for a living), but it would be monumental in the world of math - indeed, this is precisely why there's a reward for solving it. If that's not enough for you, just remember that many mathematicians are motivated not by fame or money but by the beauty and elegance of mathematics, and any proof of RH would establish a truly beautiful and amazing result.

Of course, there's also the question: is Li's proof correct? I certainily don't know, and I doubt anyone will for quite some time, but there's an interesting story. Li's Ph.D. adviser was Louis de Branges who, as noted on this very website, claimed to prove RH in 2004. His proof has not been accepted by the mathematical community and is widely considered to be incorrect, in large part because the method he wclaims to use was shown, in a 2000 paper co-authored by none other than Xian-Jin Li, to have holes in it.

Peer-reviewed papers do commonly have errors. The cool thing about the ArXiv is you can make revisions anytime you want. The best thing about the ArXiv, from a researchers perspective, is that you don't have to wait 2-3 years to see publications on the state of the art.

Even though anybody can put a paper on the ArXiv, there is an incentive to get things right. Take a look at this retraction of a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0109072

Notice that a link to the original article is given at the bottom. You can't remove submissions from the ArXiv, so whenever you submit an article, you risk having your errors online forever, which may be a good or bad thing, but it certainly makes people more careful.

For those who get excited about Millennium problem "solutions" on arXiv.org, there's also what I interpret as an attempt to solve Navier-Stokes posted recently: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4902 Have fun finding the first error!

You mean this?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.0090v2.pdf

The links are right on the side for downloading in various formats.

There's no 'article' as far as I see, only the paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.0090v2.pdf

Sound is the propagation of a wave within a medium,

Well it's a little more complicated than that. Sound is MICROSCOPIC VIBRATIONAL modes propagated within a medium without any bulk motion. Matter waves of other kinds propagate through vacuum just fine.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512047

Also, the rotating double-spiral structure of our own galaxy is believed by astrophysicists to be a soliton (a special kind of wave).

and in space, there is no medium with the density required to propagate a wave of any kind

not quite, since not all waves require media to propagate. Radiation doesn't, and it propagates through space just fine.

There are even suggestions by serious and respect theorists that in some sense it is consciousness all the way down

Yes, by physicists thinking they're qualified in metaphysics and psychology.

The more sensible view: consciousness has nothing to do with basic physics (other than reducing to it through the usual theoretical reductionism psychology->neurology->biology->chemistry->physics). http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182

The article states that "we know quantum mechanics is wrong on some level". Oh really? That's news to me. Any serious proposed theories of everything have been quantum in nature. It's amusingly hypocritical that the Arstechnica article refers to the Wired author as unscientific, yet makes such a claim itself.

The only thing "wrong" with quantum theory is that doesn't fit human intuitions. But this is only because people ignore the psychology of perception and are not careful about interpretations; it's easy to create a very reasonable interpretation of QM that doesn't invoke weird stuff like saying QM must have something wrong with it, or strange consciousness stuff, etc. An example is Mohrhoff's http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0412182 (also check Marchildon's review of this class of interpretations, it's in the arxiv somewhere linked to this).

These are not the same at all. The "Black holes are the ultimate destructive force" is a strange public misunderstanding. Really, supernovae are the ultimate destructive force -- and create black holes. But we won't be creating supernovae in the lab. In fact there's an interesting theory that nearby supernovae have been responsible for major extinction events on Earth. Astrophysical black holes are cold, very cold. In fact they're colder than the Cosmic Microwave Background. As black holes get smaller, they get hotter, down to the threshold at which they can be created, at which point their temperature equals their mass (in natural units) which is 10^17 Kelvin for these theories. Hot things radiate particles lighter than their temperature. Everything stable is lighter than 10^17 Kelvin.

We're remotely surprised because it's a ridiculous set of assumptions that leads one to the conclusion that creating black holes in the lab are dangerous. Read TFA or the non-technical summary for the guts, but briefly,
If you can create a black hole by p+p->BH, then the p-p-BH interaction exists, and the BH can also decay into p+p, since they are lighter. Violation of this requires violation of Quantum Mechanics and/or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

That is the point, it HAS been explored trillions of time already.

Cosmic rays travel through the Universe with enough energies to boil a cup of water (in one single proton). That's up to 100 000 000 times more energy than the LHC. Those particles collide with everything, at a rate of a few per square kilometer per millenium. It might seem small, but consider the size and lifetime of the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, etc; combined. Particles whose interactions with the atmosphere would have the same energy as the LHC's collisions hit us more than 100 times per day per square kilometer. Over the lifetime of the Earth, every event that can happen in 10 years of LHC operation would already have happened hundreds of thousands of times on the Earth alone. Since we're here, there's clearly no need to worry.

These are not the same at all. The "Black holes are the ultimate destructive force" is a strange public misunderstanding. Really, supernovae are the ultimate destructive force -- and create black holes. But we won't be creating supernovae in the lab. In fact there's an interesting theory that nearby supernovae have been responsible for major extinction events on Earth. Astrophysical black holes are cold, very cold. In fact they're colder than the Cosmic Microwave Background. As black holes get smaller, they get hotter, down to the threshold at which they can be created, at which point their temperature equals their mass (in natural units) which is 10^17 Kelvin for these theories. Hot things radiate particles lighter than their temperature. Everything stable is lighter than 10^17 Kelvin.

We're remotely surprised because it's a ridiculous set of assumptions that leads one to the conclusion that creating black holes in the lab are dangerous. Read TFA or the non-technical summary for the guts, but briefly, If you can create a black hole by p+p->BH, then the p-p-BH interaction exists, and the BH can also decay into p+p, since they are lighter. Violation of this requires violation of Quantum Mechanics and/or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

See also the Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions which also appeared today, and is a more non-technical summary of the safety review.

Actually the notion that AES or any other quality cipher can be broken via brute-force rather than a clever mathematical attack is wrong. There is a great paper on this topic called "Ultimate physical limits to computation". You can grab a copy from http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043
The basic idea is this: moving from one state to another in a brute force algorithm requires some (small) amount of energy. Assuming in the future we reduce this energy to a small factor of Planck's constant, just cycling a 2^128 bit counter would require so much energy that we'd have to boil the oceans. 2^256 would require us to convert the matter in the universe directly into energy.

The article the slashdot summary links to is basically a drastically shortened version of this recent article in Scientific American, plus a nutshell presentation of this paper.

Another junior academic here.

I feel like the original submitter question slightly confuses the issues of "paper vs. online", "pay access vs. open access" and "journal vs. something else." The fact is that the "paper vs. online" question is already nearly completely settled: journals have shifted aggressively over the last decade towards being online. Many of them still release paper versions--but nearly all academics access journals online nowadays. The business model has shifted from selling print subscriptions to libraries, to selling online subscriptions to institutions. Any decent journal nowadays is online, and searcheable both from the journal site and due to integration with other search services (e.g. Web of Science).

Journals are adapting, and online systems have helped them streamline their operations. "Two or more years" is no longer the norm. Good journals (with online submission) turn around papers in a few months. The paper is usually available online as soon as it has been accepted and typeset--so the publication is available to anyone interested long before the delayed dead-tree copy is shipped. Also, preprint servers (arXiv being the most famous) help academics get their results out quickly, while still publishing things in more official/traditional sources.

With respect to the "pay access vs. open access" question--this is a more difficult thing to change. Journals are very accustomed to their ability to charge for the spread of information. Many academics (myself included) consider this unfair (as they seem to do very little, relying on volunteer reviewers, and requiring authors to do quite a lot of editing and formatting themselves), and even detrimental to the free spread of information that is crucial to science. Despite the inertia of the entrenched players, things are changing. For instance, the Public Library of Science journals are all open-access, and are doing quite well at attracting high-profile science. The list of open access journals is growing all the time. The pressure has even induced many traditional journals to sponsor preprint servers (e.g. Nature Precedings), or to give authors the option of making their contribution open-access (usually through a page charge).

With respect to the "journal vs. something else" question... it's unclear why we should switch away from journals if they suit our needs. The current journal process (rigorous publication requirements, peer review, editorial oversight) is very important to modern science. It helps maintain the rigor and transparency, while reducing fraud and sub-standard work.

All of that to say that I'm a little confused by the initial submission. The situation is changing. Nearly everything is online. Open access is gaining traction. Modern journals bear little resemblance to the printed versions of a few decades ago... so the suggestion that they are "obsolete" somewhat misses the mark.

Many of these journals take two or more years to print an article after it has been submitted,

Peer review, peer review, peer review. It takes months or years for an article to be properly refereed and revised and revised again until it is properly ready for publication.

There already exists arxiv.org for many sciences, where people can publish results before they have been printed. However, many people that read their appropriate newsfeed will only read the articles on their that have already been published or accepted for publication. A lot of drivel gets posted on there since it is not required to be peer reviewed. Journals are a way of filtering for content that is notable and peer-reviewed.

There are enough loopholes in the general theory of relativity to allow antimatter to fall up rather than down in a gravitational field.

Uh, no there are not. Gravity (or geometry, same thing in the theory) depends on mass energy in General Relativity. Stuff (with mass energy) follows the metric (the local geodesic). Even photons (which are their own anti-particles) follow the geodesic - and that has certainly been tested. Equivalence principle tests also show that different sorts of nuclear matter (including neutrons) individually follow the geodesic. Anti-matter certainly has mass energy, and (with matter) can be converted to photons and is no different in the theory. In other words "there is only one type of geodesics and there are no antigeodesics for antimatter."

The original article talks about "flavors" of General Relativity. Ain't so such beasties. Period. If you go to the real original article, you find a proposal for a 1% test of the equivalence principle for antimatter, and no such claims of flavors. Now, the equivalence principle has been tested to better than parts per trillion, and part of the mass energy in ordinary matter is made up of antimatter (in virtual particle pairs), so (based on the experimental evidence) I would claim that this test will be negative and is not actually that interesting as new physics. (The articles say that these older tests are "model dependent," but they are not model dependent enough to matter for this.)

That doesn't mean that this shouldn't be done (everything should be tested in physics, and different tests are always useful), but the prediction of General Relativity is clear : if anti-matter has anti-gravity, then General Relativity is wrong. The experimental evidence is also clear : this isn't going to be accurate enough to matter. Will make for some good public relations, though.

Here is the actual paper as a clean PDF. This is the good version.

The linked Technology Marketing Corporation page mentioned in the parent post has only the beginning of the article. It also has 24/7 Media ads in the middle of the article, Google ads on the right, TMC ads at the top, bottom, and in boxes within the article, buttons for more promoted services at the left, a Flash banner at the top, ads from OAS at the lower right, a Digg button, and an email signup box. Oh, and the page refreshes itself every two minutes to change the ads.

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0803.1838

FWIW, here's the preprint.

If you're referring to MOND, read this plz.

If gravity doesn't scale the way we think it does, it's hiding that very well, and we still need dark matter.

If you're referring to MOND, you may want to read this.

If you're not referring to MOND, then realize that people have had this idea of yours before, examined it, and we still have the theory of dark matter as the one that best explains our observations.

You're mistaken in what you think the whole dark matter argument is about. Go read the wikipedia article. Dark matter is the best explanation we have right now; it agrees with many observations quite nicely. None of the alternate explanations hold water.

Dark matter must be extremely counter intuitive; the masses of intellectually lazy people around here dismiss it out of hand. Seriously, people! If you have any doubt, go read the wikipedia article on Dark matter and/or the Bullet Cluster. MOND is the only halfway rational alternate explanation, so go read this article and maybe some others on arXiv. Your sound and fury is irritating; try to have an intelligent debate.

I'm not sure latency has anything to do with the current situation, but here's one scenario where latency might have a huge deal to do with it.

If the commandset necessary to initialize the b&w pan-cam is one command, it will take 40 mins + $equipmentruntime + $downloadtime to grab a black and white photo.

If the commandset necesary to initialize it into color mode and snap the photo requires an acknowlegement by mission control as an intermediary step, the time becomes (40 mins *2) + $equipmentruntime + $downloadtime.

Now, I'm not familiar with phoenix so I don't know in what order commands can be parsed, equipment powers up, etc -- but I do know that for remote robots on mars, latency is a huge deal and a LOT of work has gone into minimizing the effect on operations.

For example, check out this article (warning: PDF) which discusses some of the challenges involved in implementing automatic obstacle avoidance.

AOA is a discipline devoted to helping unmanned rovers (like MER) pick a path from point A to B and avoid obstacles on the way. With this technology mission control has to only issue one order (go from X to Y) instead of a dozen (Go from A to B, then B to C, then C to D. Stop. Analyze path. Go from D to E. Go from E to F. Stop......)

With AOA you hit your 40 minute latency and then wait for the bots to report "done". With manual avoidance you have to have the mission controllers in the loop, and a 40 minute data round-trip each time they have to make a call themselves.

But back to the original point as I indicated above, I generally point out the latency to people not because it's the specific variable involved, but because getting an idea of the latency the trip incurs is a good way of getting the point across that it's not exactly a DSL link to google; there are bandwidth, data storage, latency, CPU, Memory, Power and all kinds of other constraints involved which might make someone uninformed poke fun (Ha, black and white photos? What is with that!) but which make a LOT of sense in the context of those constraints.

I found a rather interesting arXiv post you should read. Apparently people have verified that F = ma for accelerations several orders of magnitude below the point where Milgrom's a_{0} should have reared its ugly head. The linked article apparently shows that MOND "could not avoid introducing dark matter."

The 'article' I read was probably a post here on /. :) One of those people who put IAAAP at the beginning of their post. I think that while MOND cannot be ruled out entirely, the possibility of it being true is becoming increasingly slim.

Here is the preprint on arxiv.

Distance improves steadily. The current record for a point-to-point link is over 200 km in fiber (albeit not installed but spools in a lab) and 144 km of free space (between two mountains on islands in the Pacific). Never mind that the 144 km experiment uses passively-quenched single-photon detectors which I think I have successfully broken. Also, I think at least one group is seriously working on a link with some sort of quantum repeaters in middle nodes.