Slashdot Mirror

of the wireless power, you can download the paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611063.

Here's the LANL preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1724v2

The proposals and attempts at quantum computing are based on predictions made using quantum theory. But how well does quantum theory reflect reality? There is good reason to seriously question that, and by implication, question the fundamental feasibility of quantum computing.

The first problem with quantum theory is that the mathematical formalism leaves a lot of leeway in how to interpret it. There are many interpretations of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics. These mostly do not yield different predictions for the domain in which the theory has been matched with experiment. But they imply very different realities, and sometimes do yield different predictions for less basic phenomena, including the phenomena that are supposed to make quantum computing feasible.

The second problem is that quantum theory has made basic predictions that have been experimentally falsified. Specifically, quantum theory has yielded a very definite description of the ground state of atomic hydrogen. It is called the ground state because no lower energy levels are possible, within the framework of quantum theory. But such lower energy levels are exactly what has been observed experimentally in the past 15 years, in many different experiments. This one, for example: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf

Given these problems, I view quantum computing with great skepticism.

Another user in this thread has posted several interesting references which deserve some attention. It seems what they have created is a cavity made of light which is behaving analogously to a black _body_ (not hole) by effectively not permitting other light pulses to escape. Then this "cavity of light" is radiating with some effective temperature which has some superficial analogies with Hawking radiation. This is very interesting, especially since it is made of light, and there may be great utility, but as far as I can tell they are no more creating an "event horizon" than the interface of any other black body like the surface of pinhole on a closed box.

As a follow up to my own comment, arXiv has what looks like the (a?) preprint for this current optical-fibre work arXiv:0711.4796v2 [gr-qc]?

I'm going to respond to this because even though I completely disagree with you, I also disagree with your post being marked flamebait (although adding some evidence to support your point would've been useful). I'm going to presume you're referencing the claims of Cooperstock & Tieu. Unfortunately, their model ultimately requires an unphysical mass distribution (Vogt or Korzynski). It is a good point that for a long time people didn't do full GR simulations, but the end result is just that you need about 30% less dark matter than Newtonian dynamics predicts to explain the observations.

The other major problem of Cooperstock & Tieu's work is while it does address galactic rotation curves, it still fails to address the other observations supporting the existence of dark matter (namely certain galaxy clusters).

Given that your UID/email imply you work in medical research rather than astronomy I'll forgive you for not keeping current on the research, especially given how much press Copperstock & Tieu received. However, you should have learned by now that a single paper is rarely the definitive word in a field of research.

I'm going to respond to this because even though I completely disagree with you, I also disagree with your post being marked flamebait (although adding some evidence to support your point would've been useful). I'm going to presume you're referencing the claims of Cooperstock & Tieu. Unfortunately, their model ultimately requires an unphysical mass distribution (Vogt or Korzynski). It is a good point that for a long time people didn't do full GR simulations, but the end result is just that you need about 30% less dark matter than Newtonian dynamics predicts to explain the observations.

The other major problem of Cooperstock & Tieu's work is while it does address galactic rotation curves, it still fails to address the other observations supporting the existence of dark matter (namely certain galaxy clusters).

Given that your UID/email imply you work in medical research rather than astronomy I'll forgive you for not keeping current on the research, especially given how much press Copperstock & Tieu received. However, you should have learned by now that a single paper is rarely the definitive word in a field of research.

I'm going to respond to this because even though I completely disagree with you, I also disagree with your post being marked flamebait (although adding some evidence to support your point would've been useful). I'm going to presume you're referencing the claims of Cooperstock & Tieu. Unfortunately, their model ultimately requires an unphysical mass distribution (Vogt or Korzynski). It is a good point that for a long time people didn't do full GR simulations, but the end result is just that you need about 30% less dark matter than Newtonian dynamics predicts to explain the observations.

The other major problem of Cooperstock & Tieu's work is while it does address galactic rotation curves, it still fails to address the other observations supporting the existence of dark matter (namely certain galaxy clusters).

Given that your UID/email imply you work in medical research rather than astronomy I'll forgive you for not keeping current on the research, especially given how much press Copperstock & Tieu received. However, you should have learned by now that a single paper is rarely the definitive word in a field of research.

Here's a paper trying to explain (mathematically) the existence and behavior of phantom matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0226 Quite an interesting article, even if you don't care about the formulae in there.

I have not performed any experiments on exploding double layers. Acutally, I am not aware of any having been done at all. The idea of exploding DLs by Alfven was to describe the substorm process in the Earth's magnetotail.

To be sure, double layers explode not only in the magnetotail. Alfven himself observed it en vivo, for example, when he was invited to investigate certain large-scale accidents at the Swedish power company. Moreover, double layers are heavily involved in the process deceptively called "magnetic" reconnection.

J.F. Drake. Collisionless Magnetic Reconnection.

However, this tenet is not usable any more, because this double layer has not been found to exist in the Earth's magnetotail.

Really? Not found to exist? Please point me to the sources for your statement. In the meantime, allow me to remind the readers of the most elementary properties of plasma. Double layers always form at the boundaries between plasma regions of different physical conditions. As an example, consider the stable double layer in the magnetopause. They even form under the conditions of relativistic Weibel instability; in lab, point a relativistic electron-positron or electron-ion beam at a slightly magnetized plasma; in space, a gamma ray burst will do:

Milosavljevic M., et. al. Steady-State Electrostatic Layers from Weibel Instability in Relativistic Collisionless Shocks. Astrophys. J. 637 (2006)

Double layers also form in current-carrying plasmas; in general, wherever there exists a voltage differential in plasma. Their formation leads to and/or is result of various plasma instabilities. Therefore, among other things, double layers are very common in multi-ion-species plasmas (typical in space). The cross-field current instability, that plays such an important part in the current disruption model, is one; see, for example:

G. Zimbardo, et. al. Magnetic turbulence and particle dynamics in the Earth's magnetotail. Annales Geophysicae 21 (2003)

R. L. Stenzel, et. al. Double layer formation during current sheet disruptions in a reconnection experiment. Geophysical Research Letter 9 (1982)

J. E. Borovsky. Double layers do accelerate particles in the auroral zone. Physical Review Letters 69, 7 (1992)

Reddy R.V., Lakhina G.S. Ion acoustic double layers and solitons in auroral plasma. Planetary and Space Science 39, 10 (1991)

El-Taibany, W. F.; Sabry, R. Dust-acoustic solitary waves and double layers in a magnetized dusty plasma with nonthermal ions and dust charge variation. Physics of Plasmas 12, 8 (2005)

Xiao C., et. al. Cluster Observation of Wave Excitation in the Magnetopause Caused by Interplanetary Shocks. 2006 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting

Quoting the abstract: "Intense geomagnetic storms are usually caused by the CME-magnetosphere interaction. Up to now there are only very few in situ measurements with respect to the details of interactions of CME with the front shock and magnetosphere. In this paper we report such a fortuitous observation made by Cluster four spacecraft. At 16:35 UT on Nov. 4, 2001 LASCO/SOHO observed an Earth-direction halo CME. Associated with the CME were a front shock and a magnetic cloud, which caused an intense magnetic storm with $DstI could keep citing articles ad nauseum; there are too many to list here. Jus

The state of modern astrophysics is very healthy, thank you.

There are some "skeptics" (as you call them), and they have no difficulty getting their works published; however the so-called skeptics you have been so vocal in promoting elsewhere in Slashdot are only marginalised by their continued inability to put together a coherent presentation, much less a consistent, quantitative one.

It's a little hard to tell from this very brief article, but what he calls "phantom matter" is what other physicists call "exotic matter" or sometimes "negative matter," which violates one of the positive energy-conditions, and thus has negative energy (in some reference frame). Matt Visser's book Lorentzian Wormholes has a lot more technical details about the various formulations of the positive-energy conditions.

According to the SFGate diagram, the distance from the edge of the grotto to the top of the "new" safety wall is 33 feet over and 9 feet up.

According go the calculations in the arXiv article, the tiger can theoretically jump 33 feet over and 12.5 feet up--clearing the "new" safety wall by an easy 3.5 feet vertical.

That might be theoretical, but you still won't find me standing there . . .

• http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/01/03/mn_grotto.jpg
• http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4407

Gotta love the credit line: http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4183

> Mark Walker (Manly Astrophysics)

No, the actual article is here:

Interaction Ruling Animal Collective Behaviour Depends on Topological rather than Metric Distance: Evidence from a Field Study

Numerical models indicate that collective animal behaviour may emerge from simple local rules of interaction among the individuals. However, very little is known about the nature of such interaction, so that models and theories mostly rely on aprioristic assumptions. By reconstructing the three-dimensional position of individual birds in airborne flocks of few thousands members, we prove that the interaction does not depend on the metric distance, as most current models and theories assume, but rather on the topological distance. In fact, we discover that each bird interacts on average with a fixed number of neighbours (six-seven), rather than with all neighbours within a fixed metric distance. We argue that a topological interaction is indispensable to maintain flock's cohesion against the large density changes caused by external perturbations, typically predation. We support this hypothesis by numerical simulations, showing that a topological interaction grants significantly higher cohesion of the aggregation compared to a standard metric one.

Do good ideas in HEP really take 16 months to get published/recognized? The paper linked from TFA is from September 2006.

This is a failure neither of LIGO nor of theories of GRBs. The error box on the sky position of GRB070201 included one of the arms of Andromeda, but it also included a lot of sky behind Andromeda. Possible explanations for not seeing GWs associated with the burst include 1) the source, whatever it was, was not in Andromeda, but farther away, or 2) the source of the GRB was in Andromeda, but it was produced by something other than a compact binary merger. This would also not be inexplicable; the abstract of the article submitted to the Astrophysical Journal says "This upper limit does not exclude current models of SGRs [soft gamma-ray repeaters] at the M31 distance." What is excluded, at >99% confidence, is a neutron star/neutron star or black hole/neutron star merger in M31 (Andromeda).

It's been a while since I immersed myself in TVF's 'exploding planet hypothesis', but what I recall is that he has his own ideas about gravity.

Nothing wrong with that of course, the more seriously testable hypotheses on what gravity is, the better!

However, if he is (or was; that webpage hasn't been changed for quite a while) serious about this idea, he'd get more traction showing that it passes the same direct experimental and observational tests the General Theory of Relativity (GR) does*, rather than exploring some esoteric implications.

Just as the Auger observatory recently announced results that open a new window on the universe (crudely, cosmic ray astronomy), so LIGO and other gravitational wave radiation detectors may soon open one more (crudely, GWR astronomy). Now if TVF were to make some testable predictions concerning the GWR signals LIGO (etc) will (or won't) detect ...

* Here's a recent compilation: The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072)

pln2bz, I went looking for this "in-depth review of magnetic reconnection for the past couple of months" at the site you named, but the only thing I could find that vaguely resembled this was a thread started by MM on 21 December, 2007 (barely a month ago, not two), and that concentrates on this arXiv preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3452*.

Not once, anywhere in that thread, are any papers on the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas (i.e. lab experiments) mentioned.

In fact, the thread resembles a scripture study class - what did Alfvén have to say about X? are the words written in this wikipedia page an accurate reflection of what Alfvén wrote?

There are no equations, no theory, no models, no analyses, and none of the participants seems to have even tried to find papers reporting the study of magnetic reconnection in lab plasmas, much less read them and try to understand them!

But perhaps I got the wrong thread?

* You will see, of course, that this preprint is not about presenting the results from lab studies, but rather interpreting observations of solar phenomena.

...perhaps "Classical Teleportation" is :

http://www.acqao.org/news/readMore_TeleportationofMassiveParticles.html

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.0062


jdb2

I believe there is a paper covering this on arxiv.

P.S. Here's a paper detailing van Flandern's error — one which, nearly a decade after it was disproven, he is still relying upon.

The article mentions "Einstein Ring" but that's just the visual effect. The actual gravitational lens pair is a "Solan Lens", and was found by a group looking for the single lensing pair variety. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511453 . Looks like they've found quite a few of the regular ones so far. I suppose you'd call this find a "double Solan Lens"?

Most physics publications are posted for free on what we in the community call simply "The Archive" (said with extra gravitas). Down side: it's not a journal, hence anyone can post sans peer review. Up side: it usually says if the paper has been accepted by a journal for publication, and the database is extensive.

But if what you read is bogus, it's more likely to be from a crackpot rather than a crank site (one is misinformation due to ignorance, the other is deliberate). But in the case of Mercury's orbit, one of the reasons Einstein's GR was celebrated as rapidly as it was is because it closed the gap between observation and prediction of the orbital precession, to within statistical uncertainty. It's possible there are some very small discrepancies still, but if they do exist then they are, well, small, and would likely not take a scientific revolution to resolve.

"You might want to be a little more careful with your wording. There is certainly some missing matter (aka dark matter) that is normal matter we just haven't found"

Matter that supposedly permeates this galaxy and solar system, is undetectable, that acts gravitationally on normal matter, but doesn't itself clump, the evidence being how galaxies keep their shape. Alternatives being the braneworld scenario, or Rotational Drag Forces. Maybe the gravitational constant isn't so constant after all .. :)

'I've read slashdot for a long time. And the one thing that irritates me the most is the hatred everyone has towards religion and god. Post after post moderated to +5 insightful for saying "it's stupid to believe in god". What happened to open-minded?'

What people object to is the basic irrationality of all religlous belief systems, in order to be a member of the club, you have to be certifiably insane.

"Now imagine the beginning of time, empty universe or what have you and God begins creation .."

How did 'God' come into existence, if you say 'God' existed forever, then why not say the same for the material universe.

"He puts his finger to the empty 'canvas' and pours out his energy, and matter 'explodes' from his fingertips outward"

Where's the evidence for such an occurrence, can we measure it. If not then it isn't science. Observation, speculation, theory and testing with experiment - that's science. Religion says believe what I say because I say so.

Actually the current scientific thinking puts it as the Universe being created by two multi dimentional branes colliding.

Of course there is only the one true religion the church of Pastafarianism. All hail his immensity the Flying Spaghetti Monster ..

Another interesting read is MUH (mathematical universe hypothesis).

To those who *assume* that if universe is a virtual reality simulation then there should be *someone* running or creating the simulation: I do *not* think that it is necessary for a simulation to be *created* by an *external* entity. Of course it's a good question for philosophy, but I believe that nature could perfectly simulate itself without an external entity telling it what to simulate. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary to assume that someone simulates us, it could very well be that we are just being simulated by some kind of emergent holographic natural phenomenon, without anyone directing or even initiating the process.

It is suggested that whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve.

This article argues that the idea that our physical world is a virtual reality, which is normally a topic of science fiction, religion or philosophy, should be considered as a possible theory of physics. Whether this is true or not, the reader is asked to keep an open mind, as one has to at least consider a theory to reject it. ... The paper asks if a world that behaves just like the world we live in could arise from a VR simulation, and whether physical data from this world supports (or denies) this possibility. The first considers if VR theory is logically possible, and the second if it explains known facts better than other theories.

a VR processor cannot logically exist within the virtual reality its processing creates. It is logically impossible for a processor to create itself because the virtual world creation could not start if a processor did not initially exist outside it.

It is suggested that whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve.

This article argues that the idea that our physical world is a virtual reality, which is normally a topic of science fiction, religion or philosophy, should be considered as a possible theory of physics. Whether this is true or not, the reader is asked to keep an open mind, as one has to at least consider a theory to reject it. ... The paper asks if a world that behaves just like the world we live in could arise from a VR simulation, and whether physical data from this world supports (or denies) this possibility. The first considers if VR theory is logically possible, and the second if it explains known facts better than other theories.

a VR processor cannot logically exist within the virtual reality its processing creates. It is logically impossible for a processor to create itself because the virtual world creation could not start if a processor did not initially exist outside it.

from the article

A central question for this approach is whether the feedback of non-linearities into the evolution equations can significantly modify the background, volume-averaged FRW universe and explain the accelerated expansion without the introduction of new matter, or a cosmological constant [13]. Key to this issue is that interpreting observations made on a particular scale tacitly also requires the smoothing of theoretical predictions on that scale, and the smoothing operation does not commute with time evolution [14]. The Einstein equations are non-linear, and this non-commutivity means that the FRW equations, for which quantities have been averaged prior to inclusion, will not be the same as the equations and then averaging the equations.

This defines exactly the questions Wiltshire seems to be addressing. His most recent paper on arXiv posted on 24 Dec (from a yet unpublished confrerence contribution) is here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3984

It seems like a good review. He may be right, but then again he might not. Only careful testing against the observational data will tell. He proposes to outline the differences in observational predictions between his "Fractal Bubble" model and the current Lamba CDM model in a forthcoming paper.

from the article

A central question for this approach is whether the feedback of non-linearities into the evolution equations can significantly modify the background, volume-averaged FRW universe and explain the accelerated expansion without the introduction of new matter, or a cosmological constant [13]. Key to this issue is that interpreting observations made on a particular scale tacitly also requires the smoothing of theoretical predictions on that scale, and the smoothing operation does not commute with time evolution [14]. The Einstein equations are non-linear, and this non-commutivity means that the FRW equations, for which quantities have been averaged prior to inclusion, will not be the same as the equations and then averaging the equations.

This defines exactly the questions Wiltshire seems to be addressing. His most recent paper on arXiv posted on 24 Dec (from a yet unpublished confrerence contribution) is here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3984

It seems like a good review. He may be right, but then again he might not. Only careful testing against the observational data will tell. He proposes to outline the differences in observational predictions between his "Fractal Bubble" model and the current Lamba CDM model in a forthcoming paper.

... can be accessed here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510059 . A bit less recent (but even more readable) account is http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0310342 . The first linked article also mentions the approaches featured in the slashdot post (this is an ongoing business for a while). For starters the flow diagrams in the front pages describing the options might be particularly useful.

This is a tremendous asset to researchers

It is, but is it only to them?

The assumption that research is useful only or primarily for researchers must stop: This assumption undermines the open access idea (it goes like this: "since research is read only by researchers, and most of them probably get access from their institutions or have the money to buy access if this is their job, there are no strong drivers for the adoption of open access"). This is wrong. Everyone can, should, and in many cases does read research.

Apart from researchers in the same field, there are other professional researchers from other fields who may be interested to read, for example a physicist may want to broad their horizons by reading some of the latest finds in archaeology. There are also the amateur researchers and gentleman scientists who may not have an official position in academia but nevertheless they also do research. But research can, should, and sometimes is being read by students as well. Moreover, even the general public should, and sometimes may, read some research if there is easy access to it.

Research must be democratised and ideally everything should be done publicly on a wiki (by the way I recently started CosmosWiki to support this idea). If research was more easily accessible and approachable, perhaps more people would take the steps to learn more about the world and become amateur or even professional researchers, and people's kids would perhaps feel more inclined to study science instead of becoming supermodels or office employees.

One could say that the public should read books instead of research, but the problem is that there are not enough authors who are capable of translating science in simple terms, therefore books often do not fully capture the available research in a meaningful way, and books quickly become outdated, and most importantly it usually takes a few years until the newest trends in research start appearing in book form. Therefore, if you only read books, you get maybe only 10-20% of what you could get by reading research papers (and when I say papers I mean real papers with actual results, not papers written simply to put one's name in a conference or spend a grant - you usually can distinguish betweenthe two categories of papers by checking whether the conclusions are testable or repeatable and whether the author makes extremely broad claims about the importance of their paper). I believe everyone should spend some time every week to skim through the most interesting papers on arxiv and similar sites where papers can be downloaded for free. Even though you may not understand everything, usually you can get the basic idea and keep yourself updated on the newest scientific findings.

We need to make people more inclined to integrate science in their daily lives. Open access can help with this. But another danger comes from the researchers themselves: They often assume that what they write is read only by people who are in their field. Papers authors should write keping in mind that interdisciplinary researchers or even students (and when I say students I also mean high school nerds, not only those in university) and the general public may read their paper, and they should do so without compromising the quality of their papers. For example, they could explain the various shorthands or abbreviations they use, rather than assume that every reader is familiar with them. So, please, when you write your next paper include a brief list of abbreviations to help people who need to search in order to understand some words or symbols they are unfamiliar with.

I really wonder why people generally don't understand these ideas... How can one in their right mind be more interested to learn the most uninteresting trivia about their favourite basketball player but not this? (by the way this guy is real

This is a tremendous asset to researchers

It is, but is it only to them?

The assumption that research is useful only or primarily for researchers must stop: This assumption undermines the open access idea (it goes like this: "since research is read only by researchers, and most of them probably get access from their institutions or have the money to buy access if this is their job, there are no strong drivers for the adoption of open access"). This is wrong. Everyone can, should, and in many cases does read research.

Apart from researchers in the same field, there are other professional researchers from other fields who may be interested to read, for example a physicist may want to broad their horizons by reading some of the latest finds in archaeology. There are also the amateur researchers and gentleman scientists who may not have an official position in academia but nevertheless they also do research. But research can, should, and sometimes is being read by students as well. Moreover, even the general public should, and sometimes may, read some research if there is easy access to it.

Research must be democratised and ideally everything should be done publicly on a wiki (by the way I recently started CosmosWiki to support this idea). If research was more easily accessible and approachable, perhaps more people would take the steps to learn more about the world and become amateur or even professional researchers, and people's kids would perhaps feel more inclined to study science instead of becoming supermodels or office employees.

One could say that the public should read books instead of research, but the problem is that there are not enough authors who are capable of translating science in simple terms, therefore books often do not fully capture the available research in a meaningful way, and books quickly become outdated, and most importantly it usually takes a few years until the newest trends in research start appearing in book form. Therefore, if you only read books, you get maybe only 10-20% of what you could get by reading research papers (and when I say papers I mean real papers with actual results, not papers written simply to put one's name in a conference or spend a grant - you usually can distinguish betweenthe two categories of papers by checking whether the conclusions are testable or repeatable and whether the author makes extremely broad claims about the importance of their paper). I believe everyone should spend some time every week to skim through the most interesting papers on arxiv and similar sites where papers can be downloaded for free. Even though you may not understand everything, usually you can get the basic idea and keep yourself updated on the newest scientific findings.

We need to make people more inclined to integrate science in their daily lives. Open access can help with this. But another danger comes from the researchers themselves: They often assume that what they write is read only by people who are in their field. Papers authors should write keping in mind that interdisciplinary researchers or even students (and when I say students I also mean high school nerds, not only those in university) and the general public may read their paper, and they should do so without compromising the quality of their papers. For example, they could explain the various shorthands or abbreviations they use, rather than assume that every reader is familiar with them. So, please, when you write your next paper include a brief list of abbreviations to help people who need to search in order to understand some words or symbols they are unfamiliar with.

I really wonder why people generally don't understand these ideas... How can one in their right mind be more interested to learn the most uninteresting trivia about their favourite basketball player but not this? (by the way this guy is real

Some people have mentioned that relativity does not impose a maximum temperature, since although it has a maximum particle speed, kinetic energy and therefore temperature is infinite.

However, when you bring thermodynamics into it, things become more complicated.

Thermodynamics is derived from the statistical behavior of large collections of particles. The thermodynamic laws are derived from the partition function, which is a sum of the form exp(-beta E), where beta ~ 1/T is inverse temperature and E is the energy of a state of the system. The sum is over all the possible states.

In some systems, the number of states increases exponentially with energy, so the sum eventually diverges even though each term is an exponentially decaying function. The temperature at which this happens is the Hagedorn temperature mentioned in TFA. You can think of this situation as "entropy winning over energy", as the number of states determines the system's entropy.

In particular, in relativistic quantum field theory, relativity requires that it be possible to create particles matter-antimatter pairs if you put enough energy in the system.

One thing that can happen in some relativistic systems (though it doesn't have to happen) is that when you put enough energy into a system, it mostly goes into creating new particles instead of making existing particles go faster. Thus, the Hagedorn temperature: as you reach it, all the energy you're putting in to heat the system goes into particle production, and nothing goes into raising their temperature. (This is not the only way in which a system can have a Hagedorn limit, nor do all relativistic systems have this limit, but it can happen.)

TFA implies that this limit only exists in string theory. But it exists in other theories as well. For instance, quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong nuclear force, has a Hagedorn limit. But in QCD, it is thought that it's not a true maximum temperature. Rather, the divergence of the partition function there signals the presence of a phase transition, from quarks confined in hadrons to a free quark-gluon plasma. Perhaps in string gas cosmology it's a true limit; I don't know much about that.

If the entropy increases even faster than exponentially, you can get weird situations like negative heat capacities, i.e., where adding more energy to a system lowers its temperature! There, you actually take kinetic energy from existing particles and put it into particle creation, creating so many new particles that the overall temperature of the system decreases.

Incidentally, the beta factor mentioned above in the partition function explains another point in TFA, about negative temperatures. In statistical thermodynamics, you can see that the key parameter is not temperature T, but inverse temperature beta ~ 1/T. As you increase temperature towards infinity, beta decreases to towards zero from above, so hotter temperatures correspond to smaller betas. You can imagine how a negative beta, then, corresponds to an even hotter temperature than any positive beta. In other words, negative temperatures are hotter than positive temperatures. As beta is decreased smoothly through zero from above, temperature increases to positive infinity, jumps discontinuously to negative infinity, and then approaches zero temperature from the other side. The hottest temperature, then, is -0 K — or rather, the limit as you approach 0 K from below, instead of above (which is a different limit from the perspective of the more fundamental parameter beta).

For a little more about the Hagedorn temperature, read this historical essay and this paper (section 2). Wikipedia has a good discussion of negative temperature.

This seems to fit into the theory that time will become a space like dimension. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0820 "The Universe is about to flip from having three dimensions of space and one of time to having four dimensions of space"

A preprint of the paper is available from arxiv.org.

The general idea seems to be this. We observe that distant galaxies have an anomalously low redshift relative to the expectations of the linear Hubble relation, and we interpret this as evidence that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating. General relativity allows you to interpret a redshift as a difference in the rate of passage of time, so then an anomalously low redshift correponds to an anomalously low rate of passage of time, for us, compared to the distant galaxies, which were in the ancient universe where time was passing more quickly.

A couple of things leave me scratching my head:

1. In general, if there's going to be a change from Lorentzian to Euclidean spacetime, you would think there would have to be some pretty dramatic event that marked the end of time. This is not just a change in the global properties of the universe (which might not be obvious to a local observer), it's a change in the local properies of spacetime. An observer who's sitting around at the moment of the changeover would have to have his worldline terminate. But in this paper, they don't seem to discuss any dramatic future event, such as a Big Crunch. The caption of Fig. 1 refers to something called a "little bang," but I don't know what they mean by that.
2. It's not clear to me whether they're proposing an unrealistic model that has interesting mathematical properties, or a realistic model of our own universe. Our universe has a repulsive cosmological constant, but they're talking about anti-de Sitter spaces, where it's attractive. I think they may be saying that the bulk of the brane is anti-de Sitter, but observers on the brane who believe in general relativity misinterpret their universe as de Sitter.

If the universe is mathematical, then everything can be explained with maths, so I'm not surprised :)

NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.

The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.

And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):

Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.

Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten

NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory observed G11.2-0.3 at two epochs, the first (Sequence Number 50076) on 2000 August 6, and the second (Sequence Number 50077) on 2000 October 15. The exposure for the first epoch was 20 ks. The second epoch consisted of two exposures, one of 10 ks and the other of 5 ks. In all observations, the remnant was positioned on the back-illuminated CCD chip S3 of the ACIS instrument in standard exposure mode. In this mode, the time resolution (3.2 s) is too coarse to resolve the pulsations from the pulsar.

The data were analyzed using the CIAO 2.02 and MIRIAD software packages. Following the energy binning scheme of Hughes et al. (2000), we added together the individual count maps from the three different observing epochs in the 0.6-1.65 keV, 1.65-2.25 keV, and 2.25-7.5 keV energy bands. Spectrally weighted exposure maps were created for each observation and energy band, and were summed over the three observations, creating a total count map and exposure map for each energy band. The count maps were divided by the exposure maps, and the result convolved with a 5" FWHM Gaussian to enhance the nebular structure given the low count rate. The three individual maps were then combined into a 3-color image, with red, green, and blue assigned to the low, medium, and high energy bands respectively.

And the radio image (source http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0202262):

Radio observations of G11.2-0.3 were made with the VLA at 20 and 6 cm (L- and C-bands, respectively), between 1984 April and 1985 May. Details of these observations are summarized in Table 1.

Data reduction and analysis were performed using standard procedures within the miriad package (Sault & Killeen 1999). The data were flux-density and anten

But how do you know this?

And do you think that you are not a machine and that you have feelings? And if so how do you know this?

How can you be so sure that the mathematical entities inside your beige box computer are not self-aware? How can you know that they don't scream when you shut the computer off and are not reborn when you grant them electrical current the next morning?

Do you really know that you are anything different than a little sim in a simulated world, or a self-aware mathematical entity in a mathematical universe?

You don't really know this for absolutely sure, do you? Then how can you claim so easily that something is only a machine and has no feelings when you don't even known whether you are a machine, and whether what you call your feelings are nothing more than simulated or mathematical constructs that you perceive as feelings?