Slashdot Mirror

The paper is also available on on arXiv, where you don't need a subscription.

The article is also available on arXiv, where you don't need a subscription.

This article cover the news better: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33926

It also contains a link to the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202

This article cover the news better: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33926

It also contains a link to the original paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2202

I forget the name of the particular rare mineral/ore/whatever that defines the KT boundary, but is there a large amount of it on the moon?

Of course, IANAA (I am not an Astronomer) so I really have no clue.

You used the figure 6400km for Earth, which is its approximate radius, not diameter. The calculation goes a bit more like this, at interesting wavelengths from mid-infrared (say, ~5000nm) to mid-ultraviolet (~200nm). We'll use the approximation you used: wavelength / aperture = radians (resolved).

mid-infrared:
(5e-6)m / 30m = 1.67e-7 radians
optical:
(5e-7)m / 30m = 1.67e-8 radians
mid-ultraviolet:'
(2e-7)m / 30m = 6.67e-9 radians

What is the angular diameter of Earth at 30 light years? (I'm not sure how you figure 6400km / 30ly is 2e-8 radians; that arithmetic is off by 3 orders of magnitude.)

12,700km / 30 ly 4.5e-11 radians

This is too small to be resolved, and by quite a bit. Even Jupiter has only 1/13th the minimum resolvable diameter at this distance. So no, a "normal" 30m aperture could not hope to resolve an Earth-sized feature at 30ly, or even one 100 times larger.

Let's compare this to Betelgeuse, which has been imaged in ultraviolet from Earth (er, very close to it!), well enough to resolve large- and medium-scale photosphere detail:
(4.38e11)m / 430ly = 1.08e-7 radians

But the Hubble's aperture is 2.4 and not 30 meters!

2.4 * 1.08e-7 = 259nm

So with mid-ultraviolet (or shorter), you can image the star and big details from a single 2.4m objective. That's because Betelgeuse has such a HUGE diameter (of the photosphere). Anything that's small enough to avoid stellar fusion is absolutely minuscule by comparison.

They're using a different type of effect: Fresnel diffraction. They're probably using the Fraunhofer approximation because of the large focal length involved, but the article doesn't say and I haven't read their publication.

Speaking of which, this seems to be an earlier paper of theirs on this very subject, published in 2006:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510383

Might be worth a read.

This paper was posted on arXiv, and has not withstood peer review. Say all you want about the wonders of being able to publish freely, but a lot of what you find there is not valid. Wake me up when someone confirms their findings.

I appologize to all /.ers but I did RTFA. (Insert appropriate smiley here.)

The title (which came directly from the New Scientist article) comes from a single, deeply buried paragraph.

The gadget-powering technique works in the near-field, like the lens does, but would need a low frequency (~3 MHz) so the near field can include a whole room. I suspect Grbic spoke without thinking through the frequency issue; microwave techniques rarely scale to hundred-meter wavelengths.

The real news was the development of a material design which could be more easily mass produced. So the New Scientist choice of title suggests the meme "It's not news, it's...."

Also, equation 14 of Near-Field Focusing Plates and Their Design (Grbic and Merlin) means the field strength at the focal point ~ e^-BIGNUM for any application involving orbital distances. This makes a lot of interesting comments OT. If the mods understand the implications and delete all the appropriate OT posts, I expect my karma to drop to ~ e^-USERNUM .

There are various ways of interpreting "multiple universes". Current theories outline four "levels" of possible multiplicity (see multiverse). The level I was just referring to is the first ("multi-domain universes") where an infinite ergodic universe realizes all possible initial conditions. So there are local domains, with the same laws of physics, that realize any physically-reasonable organization of matter. Since we know that life is physically-reasonable (as evidenced by our existence), then this would imply that elsewhere in the universe similar conditions appear (at a minimum, duplicates of Earth... but also any other form of life not contradicted by physical law).

There is also a second level of postulated multiplicity: universes with different physics arising from chaotic inflation. If this theory is true, then alternate universes (disconnected from our own) with totally different physical laws may also exist. (Although one can argue philosophically about the "existence" of causally-disconnected universes...)

Anyone who is really interested in these ideas should consider reading Max Tegmark's paper The Mathematical Universe. Although quite technical, it is surprisingly readable and outlines the four levels of parallel universes that might exist, and whether we have reason to expect them to exist.

Paper. You'll need to wear suitable shades to protect you from the awfulness of the font in which it is written.

The Free Will Theorem basically says that if we have free will, the whole universe has free will, if we don't nothing does. Thus, there must be a relationship if our current understanding of the universe is correct in some very important ways.

... or straight to the PDF:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4387v2

... or straight to the PDF:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4387v2

First article listed here:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+noyola/0/1/0/all/0/1

If that doesn't work type "Noyola" without quotes into the "Search or Article-Id" field at the top right
http://arxiv.org/

First article listed here:
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+noyola/0/1/0/all/0/1

If that doesn't work type "Noyola" without quotes into the "Search or Article-Id" field at the top right
http://arxiv.org/

CERN's web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.

However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042) and contradicts Einstein's highly successful relativity theory.
Collider particles smash head on like a car collision and can be captured by Earth's gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay (Hawking called Einstein doubly wrong, yet it is Einstein who is repeatedly found to have been correct in his theories). There is currently no reasonable proof of LHC safety, LSAG (LHC Safety Assessment Group) has been trying for months to prove safety without success. I hold the minority opinion that it may not be possible because it may in fact not be safe.

If micro black holes are created, we may soon be trying to calculate the growth rate, and in my personal speculation, it might not be too implausible to believe that calculation might need to account for the same quantum effects that Hawking predicts but as an accelerator not as a decay factor.

NewScientist March 22-28 "Stakes get higher in antimatter puzzle": "We can say with greater than 99.7 per cent probability that CP violation is there" says Sivestrini [of Italy's National Institute of Nuclear Physics INFN] (link corrected from article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0659)

Cosmic Rays from the legal complaint. ...any such novel particle created in nature by cosmic ray impacts would be left with a velocity at nearly the speed of light, relative to earth. At such speeds, ..., is believed by most theorists to simply pass harmlessly through our planet with nary an impact, safely exiting on the other side. ... Conversely, any such novel particle that might be created at the LHC would be at slow speed relative to earth, a goodly percentage would then be captured by earth's gravity, and could possibly grow larger [accrete matter] with disastrous consequences of the earth turning into a large black hole.

Sincerely, JTankers LHCConcerns.com

The studies I talked about in the parent make almost no assumption about what the catastrophe might be or how it would work. If you want to get into the physics of the specific things people are worried about, then there are even more reasons to think it's not a significant danger. There was a report about the possible disaster scenarios for RHIC that should mostly apply to the LHC, and here's a paper discussing the possibilities for the LHC. Finally, it looks like Wikipedia has a pretty decent discussion with references.

While this is the first I've heard of lawsuits, the subject of a possible catastrophe due to a new particle accelerator is not a new idea. This has actually been a cycle that's happened a couple of times, IIRC, usually when someone mentions the possibility of black holes (or even AdS-CFT black hole analogues) being created in a new particle accelerator. Scientists have actually thought about this and published a number of papers on the topic. Here are two that came up easily via Google Scholar:

• Will relativistic heavy-ion colliders destroy our planet?
• How unlikely is a doomsday catastrophe?

The latter is freely available on the arXiv. From the conclusion:

We have shown that the relatively late formation time of Earth implies that life on our planet is highly unlikely to be annihilated by an exogenous catastrophes during the next 109 years. In the case of the doomsday scenar- ios studied in the Brookhaven report [2], our bound also applies to hypothetical anthropogenic disasters caused by high-energy particle accelerators (risks 1-3). This holds because the occurrence of exogenous catastrophes, e.g., resulting from cosmic ray collisions, places an upper bound on the frequency of their anthropogenic counter- parts.

In short, similar events occur naturally due to highly energetic cosmic rays, so, even if we assume we know almost nothing about the physics of the hypothetical catastrophic event, we can infer from teh fact we're still here that such a catastrophe is very unlikely. Based on this conclusion, and the fairly wide acceptance of that conclusion amongst experts, I think it's safe to say this lawsuit is without merit.

I agree that it's not clear that this GRB will be that significant of an outlier after a decade or so of observations. Three of the four intrinsically brightest events ever observed occurred in the last 3 years and were discovered by Swift (050904, 061007 and 080319B which is this one). This one is also not an order of magnitude brighter (intrinsically) than any other GRB - more like a factor of 2 (the next brightest was 050904 which in turn was a factor of ~2 brighter than the third most luminous GRB, see figure 4 in http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3215 ). Certainly it's a really cool event, neat to think that you could have seen something 7 billion light years away with the naked eye, but I'd be surprised if we don't see even more luminous ones in the next few decades.

The article has nothing to do with dark energy or dark matter. I wouldn't say anything is circular, but let's just say I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. It's an area I'm actively working on. CP violation, on the other hand, is much better understood and quantified than dark matter/energy. I just went looking for TFA in Nature and can't find it. I think it's not available yet. (damn the media and their failure to cite properly) The article I have been referring to in this discussion I now realize might not be the same. It's this one, in which the dominant source of deviation comes from the D0 experiment, though they are also using a lot of Belle data. I can only address what I've read, and in this paper they have clearly separated the effect of new physics and understood but poorly predicted physics, and they are orthogonal. I think their analysis is convincing, but the most likely source of the significance of their effect is that the errors are not gaussian. In other words the effect is definitely there, but probably less statistically significant than they claim. This is due to certain assumptions they had to make based on the data provided to them by the experiments. Better data (and more consistent means of reporting among different experiments) will clarify the situation and they will not have to make such assumptions.

-- Bob

See by example http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0502042 (http://www.jp-petit.org/science/f300/a301.htm)

I do not have much information, but assuming that the brightest recorded supernova emitted about 10^45 J of energy in about one hundred days (you can fetch a nice paper on this here) and this phenomenon is supposed to be two and half million times brighter for about thirty seconds (here), I ended up with 2.5*10^6 * 10^45 * (30 / (86400 * 100)) = ~9*10^45 W of peak apparent power output of an isotropic radiation source (as in the effective radiated power for a transmitter, not the transmitter power output, in the telecommunication systems parlance - my EE education shows up ;-)).

Given that the solar constant is somewhere around 1370 watts per square meter, the distance for the irradiation to match the one we are receiving from the Sun would be about 23 kpc. This is a ridiculous number! Either I am a way off and missing something important (I am no astronomer, I admit that), or it is just that this thing could be *much* further away than those 2700 ly mentioned by the parent and it would still have enough energy to kill us all. I really do not want to imagine what would happen to us at the distance of just ~1 kpc.

Apart from the referenced paper being some months old, the author has an extended paper with an efficient algorithm. See A Subquadratic Algorithm for Road Coloring.

Link to solution is busted. Find it here.

Since the one in the write-up is borken. Here it is.

The difference between RIAA and scientific journals is the the latter will not battle alternative models of publishing. In fact, arXiv is widely accepted by the scientific publishing community. If something better comes along, it will only be applauded. I think everyone in this business understands its only purpose is to help disseminate quality scientific results.

Maybe the crucial difference between the RIAA and scientific journals is that research is not funded by the journals (in fact quite the opposite, journals are ultimately funded by research money), while music creation is often funded by the labels.

On the other hand, the APS journals are OK with you putting your version of your paper on the Arxiv preprint server; they even allow submission to their journals by Arxiv article number -- they will then download your manuscript from Arxiv and send it to the editors.

I've always been under the impression that the copyright they hold is only to the specific, printed, version they publish, not to any manuscripts you have.

It sounds to me like more people trying to claim intellectual property of something that they did not come up with themselves.

Wrong. The journal is not "claiming" any "intellectual property". The journal is saying that, if you want them to publish your work (which no-one is forcing you to do) then you must assign them the copyright. If you don't like it, publish in a different journal. Since the journal makes money from subscription, they don't want you to benefit from their prestige by getting the paper accepted, and then turning around and posting the content somewhere else so no-one has to subscribe to the journal. Also note that in any case we're only talking about copyright, and hence the text of the paper, not the scientific content.

That said, I think the policy is silly. First of all, APS journals will already accept material that's already been posted on the arXiv (compare with Science and Nature which only take stuff that's never been presented before, even in a seminar talk). All the journal needs is a license from the authors. There's nothing wrong with the authors giving the journal an exclusive license to publish the article journal-style, as long as the authors retain the ability to post works derived from the article in other fora.

Any scientific journal should, imho, understand that they root in the Bazaar, not the Cathedral, and there's no such thing like a Cathedral in the scientific community.

I think it's good to review this speech by Ginsparg in 1996. As long as the well-respected journals as PRL allow authors to upload their works to ArXiv they should also permit similar uses, especially made by the authors themselves. (Many of the papers from ArXiv are preprints, but there are also a lot of them are uploaded after being accepted or published in a journal.)

The story is grossly distorted -- what a surprise. I was going to say that at least it was distorted by author of the linked-to news item, rather than by the /. submitter, but now I see they seem to be the same person ("KFC" and "KentuckyFC").

The abstract that is linked to merely claims "numerical evidence", not "first observation", and to get from that unobjectionable claim to the more sensational false accusation, one must distort the paper itself ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.0507v1 ), which says:

...a recent work [11] has anticipated that the presence of Hawking radiation in this setting can be unambiguosly revealed from a very peculiar feature of the correlation function of density fluctuations.

Here we report numerical experiments that nicely confirm this prediction. Differently from most previous works on analog models [6], our calculations are based on the application of microscopic many-body techniques to an experimentally realistic system and never involve concepts of gravitational physics.

In this way, our observations can be considered as a first independent proof of the existence of Hawking radiation and rule out the frequent concerns on the role of short wavelength, "trans-Planckian" physics on the Hawking emission.

So for one thing, they never claimed "first observation", they said "first independent proof", which is sharply different.

For another thing, they softened even that claim; they said "our observations [of the simulation] can be considered" proof, not that it is proof.

At any rate, it's interesting in general; they're talking about predictions that Hawking-Unruh radiation might be found in many settings unrelated to domains involving gravity or acceleration, and that their simulation might be an independent confirmation of those predictions.

Earlier this year, there was an interesting paper which tried to take things like aisle size into consideration, and devise an optimal algorithm for seating people in a staggered arrangement, on the assumption that maximizing the number of people who can simultaneously be stowing their luggage and taking their seats is the key to minimizing the time to board.

Well, Halton Arp still seems to have a fine career, at the Max Planck Institute.

I suggest you read up on how he was forced into exile by pulling his observation time. Him ending up in Germany was not because he was intent on leaving the US. It was about finding some place where he'd still be allowed to continue his research.

Dayton Miller died in 1941, so I would hardly consider his case relevant to a discussion of the state of modern physics.

Why? His observations stand and are at odds with the constant-lightspeed postulate. And the same goes for a number of later experiments by others. Of course, claims have been made that the non-null aspect of his experiments are because of experimental error and hence are actually consistent with zero lightspeed variation. But then, others have reanalyzed his data and found it consistent: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311054

Mills' theories are inconsistent and do not even predict these hydrino states!

That is why refrained from recommending any theory. The states (which are simply an extension of the Rydberg series) are clearly there in the EUV data I have (at least for the first few fractional states 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4), as well in data by others, but I have not yet seen a convincing theory for them. But then, nature does not need a theory to do what it does.

Getting back to anomalies, the original subject of this thread, it is interesting to point out the anomalously high solar corona temperature (over a million Kelvin). Note that the corona includes atomic hydrogen and singly ionized helium, and as such meets the conditions for catalysis of fractional states. That explains why it can be so hot: the energy to heat it is generated within the corona itself. Observations consistent with this explanation have been done: the solar wind is strongly dependent on the fraction of Helium present in the flux.

By the way, did you read the crackpot index I linked to previously?

Yes, I have read it. If you think me scoring high on it somehow refutes my arguments, I'd like to point out that I have consistently come down on the side of experiment and observation. And nature, not theory, is primary in the scientific method. Experiment and observation should be the final judge. When theory is defended in the face of falsifying data, we are talking religion, not science. So, what are you, a scientist or a believer?

Certainly nobody regards current theories as "sacred". Sorry to burst your anti-establishment bubble, but it just ain't so.

You are ill-informed. Quite a number of scientists have been persecuted (funding pulled, career destroyed, ridicule, the works) for challenging "sacred" theories. In particular those that have challenged relativity (believe it or not, it has been experimentally falsified) or the big-bang model of cosmology (a ludicrous patchwork of band-aids that even so still fails to match observation).

Examples of heretics are Dayton Miller and Halton Arp. Look them up, skip past the ridicule and character assassination and read their actual work. It is solid science, but it was not to the liking of the inquisition.

BTW, you mentioned a PhD. What is it in? What research did you do (for the PhD), and what research are you doing now?

Experimental physics. Heated reaction cells for infrared spectroscopy. I currently research helium/hydrogen plasmas using EUV spectroscopy to elucidate states of atomic hydrogen that are not predicted by quantum mechanics.

So unless you've got something better (in which case I would very much like to see it. That would be quite exciting, if it really is better and works.)

For a start, have a look at the following experiments http://www.epjap.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/epjap/abs/2004/08/ap03047/ap03047.html http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf. As a skeptical experimentalist, I will refrain from recommending theories.

QCDOC finally gets some recognition...
If you're really interested here are some more details:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/0309096
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/0306023

NB: It took some time to produce the groundbreaking science
-- the machine came online in 2003

QCDOC finally gets some recognition...
If you're really interested here are some more details:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/0309096
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-lat/0306023

NB: It took some time to produce the groundbreaking science
-- the machine came online in 2003

in fact here's how: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102126/