Slashdot Mirror

Actually having strong coupling is not necessary to see these effects http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0610172 . It may be necessary to reduce losses. Actually both papers operate in strong coupling, because both observe spectral splitting, and the given regime in the second paper also puts it into strong coupling - there is just not a full oscillation of the photon between the cavity and quantum dot.

A free version of the other article (using microdisks instead of photonic crystals) is available on the arXiv:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3311
Reading the two papers careful, it turns out the photonic crystal paper is only at the "onset" of strong coupling (the decay rate is still about 2x faster than the coherent light-matter coupling rate) while the microdisk paper is actually strongly coupled (the coherent coupling rate is faster than any decay or dephasing).

...and while the astronomers fiddle with gear you and I can only dream of having access to, take your camera and a tripod outside, and with no more than a portrait lens, you can take shots like these.

Disclaimer: I have a masters in Astronomy but I've never worked in the field. I did the degree "for fun", because I never got the opportunity to study in highschool, and because I wanted to know how we know what we know about the universe. I'm very much an amateur in every respect.

Defintely worth fiddling with camera gear, but at some point if you're taking your own shots you're going to want to use a telescope. Starting with binoculars is definitely the best way. Moving to a dobsonian for viewing (but terrible for photography) is a good next step. (Don't buy anything with a small aperture unless all you're interested in is moon and planets). Next good step would be a Newtonian on EQ mount or SCT. It gets very expensive very quickly. I pretty much gave up on astrophotography. (I live in a large city and when I do get away far enough, I'm usually exhausted from the drive, and there are other priorities (family). Also a 10" scope takes up a hell of a lot of room even in a station wagon).

An alternative to the above is to get hold of sky survey data that's already available and captured by the pro images. There's a lot out there that gets released usually after a year (to give the professional scientists time to work with it). Hubble data, Chandra X-Ray data, SOHO images. It's not all pretty composite colour pictures - you often have to learn to manipulate the images with image software or with more complex data there's specialized software that's not always for the faint of heart (often free, often Linux based). "Amateurs" have done amazing things with some of the images and data. In astronomy there is an "image" (FITS) file format that is actually more than just a simple JPEG etc. You have a background in photography so while it's not strictly RAW data in the sense that it's not coming straight off a sensor, you can think of this format as containing more information the way RAW contains more than JPEG (stuff like calibration information). More information here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits.html

Please understand I'm not trying to discourage you from backyard astronomy. I just thought you might be interested in this too. These days the guys that take the images/capture data and the guys that analyse them are not always the same. ie. you often have technicians that specialise in running the machines.

Here are some links for you:

FITS data from lots of missions/instruments
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/archive.html

Digitized Sky Survey
http://archive.eso.org/dss/dss
http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form

Hubble
http://hubblesite.org/

SOHO
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Chandra
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/

If you want more detail and are prepared to try to work out science speak, you can get access to draft papers on:
http://arxiv.org/
Look under astrophysics

I don't have time to go into any more. Hope you're interested.

You won't get any useful information by reading a Slashdot summary of a Telegraph summary of a New Scientist summary of a paper by Krauss and Dent on arxiv.org. Why not read the original paper, and decide for yourself?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1821

Here's a thread on physicsforms.com about the paper, with 2 posts by Krauss (one of the authors):

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=199811

Doug Moen.

There's a growing trend in math (and maybe other disciplines, for all I know) away from non-free publishing.

Prominent mathematicians have been complaining for years (more links here) about overpriced journals, and entire editorial boards of some journals have resigned in protest (see a list of mass resignations and similar changes here). There are now plenty of entirely free journals in combinatorics, topology, and other fields, and pretty much everything that gets published these days is either available on the author's website or on the arXiv.

So modern research tends to be free, but what about all the books you need to read before you understand this research? Sure, a copy of Rudin may be expensive and there's not much we can do about that, but maybe you can learn from the free analysis course notes at MIT's OCW site. You complain that EGA is out of print, but basically everything Grothendieck wrote is available for free, and you can even get them along with tons of other old French publications through NUMDAM. (There's even a project to transcribe SGA into LaTeX.) Lots of other books are free to download legally (and this is by no means a complete list), even though many are commercially published as well.

Finally, you can complain all you want about university tuition, but I really doubt that free tuition is going to open up mathematics to the masses. Ultimately the very top students who can't afford it are getting scholarships and grants to cover their education (and I do know some people who got free rides at Princeton because they couldn't afford it -- that school is definitely more generous than most), and since most other people couldn't get into Princeton anyway the tuition is never even an issue for them. The best way to make mathematics more accessible is to give everyone access to free textbooks and current research, and the "marxist university professors" you deride have been gradually moving in that direction for years now.

By the way, what do you think has been done to damage the Princeton math department's reputation? Whatever you think Shapiro and Tilghman have done to the university, nobody in their right mind would deny that it's one of the top few in the world and I doubt most people would openly proclaim any one department to be the best anyway.

And that the graphic of the E8 model reminds me very much of certain mandala's.. perhaps I should check out the Sacred Geometry field. :)

Published in PDF: An Exceptionally Obtuse Format for Everything.

(Or you can grab the tar.gz bundle with a bunch of other formats, all at one time.)

Abstract: All fields of the standard model and gravity are unified as an E8 principal bundle
connection. A non-compact real form of the E8 Lie algebra has G2 and F4 subalgebras which
break down to strong su(3), electroweak su(2) x u(1), gravitational so(3,1), the frame-Higgs,
and three generations of fermions related by triality. The interactions and dynamics of these
1-form and Grassmann valued parts of an E8 superconnection are described by the curvature
and action over a four dimensional base manifold.

In physics, it's now standard practice to digitally publish preprints on arxiv.org, which is where everyone gets their new results. It serves as an informal peer-review process, since people peruse and comment on new results as they come out. By the time something hits a journal, most people doing relevant work have already seen the preprint, so the journal is basically just a way of archiving the no-longer-new results. Or at least that's especially true in some parts of physics.

In many areas of computer science, conferences are now the standard publication venue, and journals are again mainly an archival depository, though this varies a bit by sub-area. In some sub-areas journals almost don't even exist, or have much lower prestige than the top conferences. And in any case, authors invariably post PDFs of their papers on their personal websites, and many publishers have given in to this de facto practice and officially allow it (it would be unseemly to sue your own authors).

Digging up more research on it is indeed a good idea. The chap who runs metaresearch.org reckons that the GPS satellites don't actually correct for gravitational time dilation, because there's no such thing; this is news to everyone else. There's some interesting commentary on the matter here, an article on the fascinating subculture of relativity deniers (who seem an even odder bunch than the creationists).

And in a totally gratuitous ad hominem, it appears he also thinks the Mars Face is artificial.

So far as I can see, his chief complaint with general relativity's predicted speed of c for propagation of gravitational changes is that gravitational aberration ought to destabilise orbits, producing a net torque and a change in angular momentum. As a matter of fact this is what relativity predicts - hence all the investment in experiments to detect gravitational waves carrying away angular momentum from binary pulsars or what have you. However, the effect is small, since most of it cancels out thanks to some more subtle effects, leaving it only really detectable in cases of high gravity or high acceleration.

1. Electrons are negatively charged. How do you inject a massive charge into this gas without messing up the models big time? You still need the heavy protons to balance the charges.
2. If the gas accounted for 10% of the total mass, how can getting rid of that component change the mass of the universe by 20%?

So if this component was thought to contribute 10% to the overall cluster mass (as postulated in this guy's previous paper A massive warm baryonic halo in the Coma cluster), then this knocks that down to 5%. The paper doesn't even bother mention this, but instead focuses on the change to models of chemical abundances. Apparently, their new model pushes heavy abundances up to Solar levels; they had been lower using the old model.

As best I can tell, baryonic mass for the universe should be about 30%. The warm gas was thought to be 30% of that, or around 10% of universal mass. So knocking this down is really a problem (though garbled in the press release). Perhaps this lends support to a MaCHO component of galaxies?

1. Electrons are negatively charged. How do you inject a massive charge into this gas without messing up the models big time? You still need the heavy protons to balance the charges.
2. If the gas accounted for 10% of the total mass, how can getting rid of that component change the mass of the universe by 20%?

So if this component was thought to contribute 10% to the overall cluster mass (as postulated in this guy's previous paper A massive warm baryonic halo in the Coma cluster), then this knocks that down to 5%. The paper doesn't even bother mention this, but instead focuses on the change to models of chemical abundances. Apparently, their new model pushes heavy abundances up to Solar levels; they had been lower using the old model.

As best I can tell, baryonic mass for the universe should be about 30%. The warm gas was thought to be 30% of that, or around 10% of universal mass. So knocking this down is really a problem (though garbled in the press release). Perhaps this lends support to a MaCHO component of galaxies?

This is a really interesting topic called the GZK cutoff. Basically, you expect that a particle with sufficiently high energy could scatter off of the microwave photons in the cosmic microwave background that permeate the entire universe, left over from the Big Bang billions of years ago. The particles have so much energy that when they hit the little photon, they pop off an entire pion (mass about a 15% of the proton). Since the universe is dense with such photons, you'd think these high-energy particles would just continuously pop off pions until their energies are below the GZK cutoff.

And recent high-statistics experiments verify the existence of the cutoff, refuting earlier suggestions that there were anomalously high-energy cosmic rays: Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

Some of them apparently violate a theoretical limit on the energy of a particle that has traveled a long way across the universe... leading to the question of where exactly they come from.

This is a really interesting topic called the GZK cutoff. Basically, you expect that a particle with sufficiently high energy could scatter off of the microwave photons in the cosmic microwave background that permeate the entire universe, left over from the Big Bang billions of years ago. The particles have so much energy that when they hit the little photon, they pop off an entire pion (mass about a 15% of the proton). Since the universe is dense with such photons, you'd think these high-energy particles would just continuously pop off pions until their energies are below the GZK cutoff.

And recent high-statistics experiments verify the existence of the cutoff, refuting earlier suggestions that there were anomalously high-energy cosmic rays: Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

The thing is, the high temperatures occur in spots that are _microns_ in dimension. (Lerner's symposium paper, not peer reviewed) Plus power generation assumes that you can pulse the thing at thousand of times per second without destroying the device or poisoning following pulses with the reaction products. Even if the physics holds up, the engineering problems are significant.

1. EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator
2. Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
3. Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar. During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
   • ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html and some other news.
   • M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
   • Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf
     This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
4. Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law.
5. EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter concept.
6. EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf.
   These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
7. Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf was awarded by AIAA in 2004.

1. EHT (Extended Heim Theory) allows to easily calculate particle masses using only some physical constants. You can check this Heim Mass Calculator: http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/HeimCalculator
2. Succesful prediction of masses of neutrinos.
3. Prediction of Heim-Lorentz force which most likely is being observed in ESA experiments performed by Dr. Martin Tajmar. During these experiments artificial gravity is being created.
   • ESA news about Tajmar experiments http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html and some other news.
   • M.Tajmar recent papper which references EHT (Droscher&Hausner): http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
   • Theoretical explanation of Tajmar Gravito-Magnetic experiments by Droscher&Hausner: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf
     This paper also contains proposal of modified experiment which will allow to verify if EHT is true and also allow to build very effective propulsion engine for spaceships. See this article: http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
4. Reasonable explanation why CMB Cold Spot appears to be cold without mumbling about Dark Matter/Dark Energy, thanks to Heim's corrected gravitional law.
5. EHT explains why it appears that there is not enough mass observable in the Universe without using Dark Matter concept.
6. EHT most likely explains weird effects measured during Gravity Probe B experiment, see: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/FieldPropulsion.pdf.
   These effects are in agreement with Martin Tajmar findings, see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.3806
7. Droscher&Hausner paper about space propulsion based on Heim theory http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf was awarded by AIAA in 2004.

Not true. As a numerical relativitist, I can tell you that no decent 3D simulations of supernovae currently exist.

Half the problem is that the physics is simply unknown - is it sufficient for your model to contain rotation, magnetic fields, and what about the equation of state of the plasma? Neutrinos are also thought to play an incredibly important role in the supernova explosion mechanism, and subsequent nucleosynthesis (and other processes) that go on during the supernova event itself. The other half is the sheer computing power to evolve your equations over decent time scales with enough resolution, not to mention making sure the numerical methods you employ work.

There are plenty of groups who are currently working towards 3D evolutions without any neutrino transport, and I think some people have done neutrinos in 1D. Try checking out some of the work by Leibendorfer, for example.

A quick run down of the supernova event though, since the article skims over it very lightly: heavy elements gradually build up at the core (nickel and iron especially), and nuclear fusion shuts down due to their high binding energies. As a result, outwards pressure ("thermal support") is lost, and at some critical moment the core will rapidly collapse onto itself (on a timescale of less than a second) as gravity becomes the dominant force. The outer layers will also in-fall onto this collapsing core.

Depending on the mass of the star, we'd expect the core to collapse into some kind of 'proto' neutron star, or straight into a black hole, if it's massive enough. In the case of the former, neutrinos escaping from the cooling central proto neutron star deposit energy into the outer layers, and drive the actual supernova explosion-event. In the case of the latter, I'm not sure that you'd actually see much of a supernova since neutrinos wouldn't be able to escape from a black hole - or at least the explosion mechanism would be different. There is an 'intermediate' option though: a proto neutron star that later on collapses into a black hole, from the still in-falling outer layers. If this happens you'd expect both a black hole, and pretty violent supernova to boot.

I'm not sure about the numbers presented in the article either. Typically, stars above 8 solar masses will collapse and create a supernova and neutron star remnant. Stars over 20 solar masses should form a neutron star which later collapses into a black hole (as is the case here). Stars over 50 solar masses or so will probably just collapse straight into a black hole, with unknown supernova mechanisms.

it is exactly the same quantum cryptosystem that has recently been broken (by an attack exploiting a component imperfection)?

In fact, I would love to see a statement from id Quantique that this security issue discovered in their equipment has been addressed. There hasn't been such a statement, to my knowledge.

You may proceed secure in the knowledge that you are correct about a point of nomenclature on which no one else's argument or discourse rests, or you may open your mind to any one of the more sophisticated views of our environment expressed in this thread, which, unlike your contribution, enlighten the reader about the topic of this story.

If you choose the latter course, have a look at any of the sexy papers on low-dimensional molecular metals from the various groups around Osaka in the last year or so, or at least read Boldyrev's (not unrelated) papers from around 2001 on aluminum-copper (and later -lithium) molecules.

Here's a nice Indian paper from 2005 with diagrams about aromatic metal molecules, along with some tables of values about their properties: http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0511/0511441.pdf

English is wiping other languages out

This paper (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0006032), by Xerox Research Center Europe says non-English language presesence on the Web is growing at a faster pace than English. Surprising data: Esperanto beats Welsh, Lithuainian and Latvian (amongst others).

English as a lingua franca is a losing proposition. I know no one truly fluent and with good command in English that has learned it from a school. They all lived abroad. OTOH, I know francophones and speakers of Italian that are fluent and indeed learned them at foreign language schools (including myself). Of course, this observation is biased.

I mean, it's absolutely amazing how some very smart people with over a decade of contact with English have absolutely terrible command of the spoken language (while being able to write pretty good English). This phenomenom happens because English is highly irregular(*). Of course, increasingly we will resort to automated tools when we could simply reach out to a language tool. I feel this problem will only grow in the field of documentation for free and open source software (ideally, we would document in an auxlang and machine-translated it to native). We tend to think that English is acceptable. But it is not. English is too difficult. Additionally, it is not fair. The UK saves 100 Euros/year/inhabitant just by speaking English, whereas other countries have to spend a huge amount on coaching students in a language most will inexorably fail in, despite the cultural invasion of US American music and films. Anyone who's a native English speaker and has ventured out of his bubble knows that the idea you can just go to any corner of the world and communicate in English is false. Ex-colonies give you a false impression, too.

BTW, I know this is going to sound crazy, but Esperanto is the most cost-effective solution http://www.lernu.net/. I'm saying rational, optimized, here. I have some fluency in Spanish, French, English, Italian, Portuguese (native), and intermediate German, beginning Japanese and Russian - oh, and Esperanto (just started this last week and half, due to my reading on it), so you can imagine I have at least some ground to sustain an opinion like that. When you get to Level II, III, or IV languages - as defined by the USA's Defense Language Institute coming from a Level I standpoint you begin to appreciate what the difficulty for non-English/Romance language speakers must be. For instance, Russian verbal aspect is very poor compared to Portuguese, which has the most intricate verbal aspects of Indo-European languages, probably (and this is not an idea of my own, BTW). OTOH, the 6-case declension system of Russian can be really hard for those who speak a Romance tongue. One thesis I have as to why Linus Torvalds is such a smart guy is because speakers of Finnish must keep 16 cases of declension in their heads. That alone ought to make a child have a few more IQ points! :-))

For more on "the language problem", YouTube has a fascinating 9-part series by a gentleman who whas a UN translator for many years, Mr. Claude Piron (he has become an Esperanto proponent, due to the many problems he witnessed (**) and based also on his extensive knowledge and proficiency)(***)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=claude+piron&search=Search (Spoken in French).

(*) "Query does not rhyme with very,
neither does fury sound like bury,
dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth,
job, Job, bo

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2593

If you really want your mind blown try reading this paper by Tegmark:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

The Mathematical Universe

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2593

If you really want your mind blown try reading this paper by Tegmark:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

The Mathematical Universe

Here is the New Scientist article being cited:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19526223.700-parallel-universes-make-quantum-sense.html
However it is behind a paywall. See Google Groups for the whole thing.

There is a great quote by physicist Max Tegmark: "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'."

As far as the meat of it, traditionally the Many-Worlds Interpretation has had two technical objections raised. The first is called the basis problem, and the second is deriving correct probabilities. The basis problem is that when the universe "splits" it's not clear how it should split. The math allows for infinite different ways to split, but we only see one way. This has been solved in recent years by the study of decoherence, which in MWI terms is like looking at the splitting process up close. Turns out it can only happen one way in practice. So that one's done.

The article is more about the other one, deriving probabilities. Actually it's easy to derive probabilities in the MWI, but they're wrong. The right probabilities are what is called the Born rule, and it's been hard to get those. David Deutsch came up with a new idea in 1999 where he proposed tying it in to decision theory. He said that we really care about probabilities because they influence how we make decisions about what to do. If we can derive a reasonable decision theory within the MWI, then we've essentially explained probabilities. His work had some shortcomings but subsequent efforts have largely resolved those.

So now for the first time, the two traditional technical problems with the MWI have reasonably good solutions. Hence we are back to, as Tegmark says, "I hate it" as the main objection to the theory. Since that's not really a good argument, it can be said that the MWI should be considered the most compelling candidate for an interpretation of QM.

One final link, here is one of the papers that extends Deutsch's idea about decision theory and pretty much closes the holes: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312157. It's pretty technical but still a lot more readable than most physics papers.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0104033 (i think?)

I'm not sure if this is the same article that you saw previously, but this paper discusses that topic:
Seth Lloyd, "Ultimate physical limits to computation" Nature 406, 1047-1054 (31 August 2000) | doi: 10.1038/35023282 (for those without access to Nature articles, this arXiv preprint appears to be the same article).

The article reviews the absolute maximum limits for computation, based on current understanding of thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.

The basic conclusion of the paper is that a theoretical 1 kg computer (confined to a volume of 1 liter), operating perfectly at the edge of what is physically possible could compute 10^51 operations/second on 10^31 bits of information (as compared to our current computers: 10^10 operations/second on 10^10 bits). Naively scaling Moore's law from current sizes, this suggests that we will reach such limits in 250 years. Of course the paper repeatedly points out that this is for an unrealistically 'perfect' computer, that is somehow able to perfectly organize all its internal matter solely for performing the computation at hand. For instance when running a computation it effectively has a temperature of ~10^9 Kelvin, which is considerably hotter than any known material could withstand.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to see what the fundamental principles of relativity and quantum mechanics indicate as a boundary for any sort of computation. The article is an interesting read.

Well, I wouldn't call it obscure, but then again, I'm a mathematician at heart ;-) For the most part though, the problems with understanding LQG arise from the fact that there aren't popular texts explaining the basics. I'm guessing the "obscure formulation" is the first order (Ashtekar) variables? You can just think of the tetrad as being a way to pull vectors in a curved space-time back to flat minkowski space so you can do math on them more easily. Kinda like Mercator's projection allows you to pull vectors on the surface of the earth back to a flat map and still find angles between them. The connection is just like in electrodynamics (ie derivatives have "an extra bit") or GR. It's not actually hard to get used to this formulation. In fact, GR in these variables isn't hard at all, and should be possible with just a sophomore GR class (I'm not from the US, but I assume that's when the physics majors start their GR for real).

In some sense LQG is the natural quantization of GR - you take basic variables and try to quantize them. It turns out that you can't quantize connection, so you do the next best thing - quantize the parallel transport of connection around a small loop. This is really how we're first taught what curvature is: You take an arrow, run around the surface of your object (eg the earth) keeping it as straight as possible and see whether it still points the same way when you get back where you started.

Of course, I'm giving the watered down version, but that's a large part of what's done, particularly in quantum cosmology (which is an easy way in for those who know cosmology). A nice version of this is at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702030 - don't worry too much about the formalities, just try to get the gist.

Anyway, as to your last comment, you are of course right. LQG actually tends to be fairly explicit about the fact that it's not a theory of everything. Indeed, I tend toward the opinion that physics will never be 100% correct, we'll just get better and better approximations to the truth.

Lastly, not all public key crypto is shafted, only things that rely on factorisation as a problem. ECC will be quite safe until (if?) somebody develops a quantum algorithm for discrete logs

See Shor's paper Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer

Here's his stuff on "inflation and its discontents." Sean -- of course, he's not sitting here, so really "Sean according to Simon" -- doesn't want to dump inflation, but rather considers the standard story about how it works to be flawed. He wraps this up in a much larger thesis on the origin of the arrow of time. But you're right that Sean is not claiming that all inflation stories are wrong, and I was wrong to suggest that.

You have a really bizarre picture of science. You don't have to predict everything in advance when doing science. When you do fundamental research you are defining the arena in which you think other phenomena take place. You don't expect to predict the existence of every single little thing that appears in that arena, you merely have to make sure that there is room in your arena to contain everything that you find. Similarly in biology, you can have a really good understanding of how genetics is explained by DNA, but you don't expect that model to predict what new species you'll find next time you go exploring in the Amazon. You only start worrying about your DNA theory when you find that the next species you find in the Amazon doesn't have any DNA. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - but that there might be matter out there that is hard to detect (but not impossible, and it even appears to be mappable) is hardly an extraordinary claim.

> Dark matter, dark energy, black holes, and other things that have never been directly observed are added after the fact

Black holes were never added after the fact, they are extrapolated from known and well tested physical models. Dark energy arises in a natural way from general relativity as soon as you add in a cosmological constant term. As Einstein had no justification for removing that term in the first place, it's entirely reasonable to work with this hypothesis. The existence of dark matter is being deduced using the same method that has been used through the centuries to detect things like the planets Neptune and Uranus - modifications to the expected path of gravitating bodies explicable through the postulation of other, as yet unseen, matter. What's being "added after the fact"? This is normal everyday science.

> Perhaps different approaches to the Standard Model get plenty of funding, but this is still a monoculture.

Pick up and read some physics papers. The Standard Model is barely even discussed in the majority. Consider the vast number of papers on supersymmetry, a symmetry that isn't even present in the Standard Model. I suspect that you don't even know what the "standard model" is. Not just the details of it. I suspect you don't even know what broad category of thing it is. There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff, we all have to start out that way, but most of us have the sense to find out what we're talking about before we criticize the work of others.

> dare to question your sacred viewpoint

Please spare me the cliches about scientists defending sacred physical beliefs. I am defending no particular physical model here. I'm merely pointing out your ignorance about current trends in physics and stating that if you bother to read current research you'll find that (1) there is an incredible proliferation of papers on fundamental physics with a wide variety of different ideas and (2) what you call "bolting on" is simply ordinary physics as it's been practiced for centuries. I'm not using the word 'ignorance' as a form of insult. It's merely a statement of fact.

> content-free statements like "... turned upside down ..."

Doesn't look content-free to me. There have been amazing advances in physics over the last 20 years. I've no idea what this has to do with indignation. It's a suggestion to you to get out of your armchair and have a look at what's been going on in physics recently. Dip into arxiv.org to see the diversity of work going on all over the world - whether it's the unification of disparate String Theories into a unified M-theory or the way the wackiest predictions of quantum mechanics have been borne out by the subtlest of mesoscopic experiments. That way, you can stop your own content-free blathering and make a contribution yourself rather than simply moaning about other people.

And sure - there are all kinds of problems in the physics world right now. But you'll need to do some more work before you understand what they are.

Very smart people (e.g., Sean Carroll, now at CalTech) have made convincing cases that inflation is actually incoherent in important ways. ... since when?

As late as 2005, he was proposing to explain why "a universe like ours is likely to have begun via a period of inflation". I don't remember reading any papers of his demonstrating that "inflation is incoherent".

While you can teach writing pop science, I think it would more useful to teach formal math/scientific writing like on http://www.arxiv.org/, or on http://scholar.google.com/ for any topic in economics, physics, computer science or even social sciences. These sorts of papers generally combine math, logical argument, and scientific experiments.

These papers generally review the current literature, explain/extend the math/jargon, and possibly justify some things with experiments. I think the ability to successfully write and understand papers like this can be very valuable.

I'm not sure that even electronic publishing could ever be free, just keeping the disks spinning and bandwidth paid for the usefull life of an article has an monitary expense. I will admit that the monitary expense is minor compared to the costs of editorial and peer review, yet these cost are not exclusively a monitary expense, the initial editorial and peer review could easily be payment in kind for publication credit. I would explain what I'm thinking about as a chimera of Slashdot and arXiv.org. The editors would be editors and be resonsible for maintence of the actually sections and their continuity, there would be an advisory board and advisory boards for the subject sections like at arXiv.org and the whole thing could be karma based. So an article would be submitted, when the editorial board signns off, it goes to the advisory board who would either veto it for errors or vote on it it to establish a ranking for science and topical interest, if the ranking is high enough it gets published on the main page or the subject pages, failing that in stays in the firehose for a while then gets archived. Because topicality is considered for display position and it's web-based all of the mundane things like hardware/software/sysadmin expenses could easily be advertiser sponsored. The "related stories" feature would be very inteesting especially if it could be weighted to provide both agreeing and disagreeing related articles.

Traditional academic publishing works like this:

- Research money (typically from the government, ie your money) is used to fund research and scientists write articles about it.

- Those articles are sent to periodicals (journals) to be published. The journals are corporate, and carry different amounts of prestige. For a researcher, getting papers in prestigious journals is extremely important, so they send them off willingly, and the journals do not pay a dime (in fact, sometimes the researcher has to pay).

- The article gets to sent to an editor at the journal, who is typically a well established senior researcher working for free because being an editor is prestigious (that is, he is working on time paid for by your money).

- The editor chooses researchers to do "peer review" on the article, that is anonymously write judge its merit. These peer reviewers work for free.

- If the article is accepted, the researcher is very happy, and gleefully signs over the copyright on the article he has written (which you paid for) to the corporate publisher.

- The corporate publisher, which now owns the article, won't let anybody access it unless they pay for a subscription to the journal. Large universities typically pay millions of dollars a year (again, largely your money) for journal subscriptions.

So to recap: researchers write the article for free (or pay), editors work for free, reviewers work for free, the publishers get the copyright and loads of money. In some fields you are even expected to typeset the article yourself, leaving the publisher only with the arduous task of visiting the bank to check on its ever increasing balance, and laughing at the sucker who finances all this (you). Because there is prestige in publishing in the "right" journal, and the money being spent doesn't belong to the people spending it, there is no market pressure to drive the prices down nor to make the system more sane. A number of companies, notably Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer, make incredible amounts of money off this.

Lately, however, something has finally started happening. The open access movement has been started to try to make scientific work freely available on the Internet, through open journals (like PLoS) and through researchers retaining copyright so they can put their articles on their own homepages and on sites like arXiv and aforementioned PubMed Central. This movement has gained a lot of momentum, and what is just starting to happen is that the people holding the pursestrap (like the National Institue of Health) want to start requiring that research they pay for published open access. Obviously, the publishers will do anything not to lose their sweet gig, hence the lobbyists all over capitol hill screaming censorship and government interference (both of which are completely ridiculous - I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but if the government pays for the science, it can say where you publish it).

Any universe in which particles appear at random and with a lot of time on its hands will eventually produce large numbers of Boltzmann Brains (randomly appearing objects capable of observation). The observations that the universe's expansion is accelerating and that there may be no end of time allows this. This article states that if we (ie. evolved sentience) are typical observers then the universe is more likely than not to end within 19 billion years. This is a bit like the theory that if I am a typical human, then the human race doesn't have much of a future, because if there are many more billions of humans in the future it makes me special, not typical.

But it doesn't take a cosmologist to look at me and fear for the human race.

There are a lot of great free journal sites, for example "the archives" http://arxiv.org/. The problem lies in the fact that anyone can submit to them, making filtering out the junk almost as hard as if you googled the topic. What a peer reviewed journal does is force a standard on the articles quality.

Also, kind of sad, but most journals also charge you for the privilege to get published. Your grants are often determined by your research, and your research is assessed by your publications. Open source publications won't cut it, because the grant committee won't be bothered to consider much of your non-peer reviewed stuff.

Absolutely, have you seen the stuff on Arxiv? It's so different from what gets... oh wait, no. No it isn't. Your 'professional editing' is just making it fit on dead trees, and you often screw that up.

Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access.

Or, you can use an existing, free, Cornell/NSF-supported e-print repository, arXiv.org.

http://www.arxiv.org/?

The frame selection algorithm, implemented (currently) as
a post-processing step, is summarised below:
1. A Point Spread Function (PSF) guide star is selected as a
reference to the turbulence induced blurring of each frame.
2. The guide star image in each frame is sinc-resampled by a
factor of 4 to give a sub-pixel estimate of the position of the
brightest speckle.
3. A quality factor (currently the fraction of light concentrated
in the brightest pixel of the PSF) is calculated for each
frame.
4. A fraction of the frames are then selected according to their
quality factors. The fraction is chosen to optimise the tradeoff
between the resolution and the target signal-to-noise ratio
required.
5. The selected frames are shifted-and-added to align their
brightest speckle positions.

The trouble with saying that "anyone who wants to can look at the pictures..." is that there's far more to astronomical data analysis than just downloading the raw data and running your favorite tests on them. The ellipticities in this sample, for example, are calculated in the data pipeline from a very simple geometrical measurement. To actually use them to find an effect this small requires additional reduction. For an idea of what's involved with this particular data set, take a look at this paper, which uses the same data towards a different end, but likewise requiring precise measurements of the ellipticity and position angles. As you can tell by a glance at section 2.2.2 (and references therein), there are a whole host of instrumental calibrations that have to be done and selection effects to be investigated, and which Dr. Longo ignores. (Someone upthread also mentioned some of these.)

So the issue is not that Dr. Longo dares to work outside his field. It's that he doesn't seem to know how to go about doing what he wants to, and doesn't want to get his work checked by the people who are experienced in doing this kind of stuff and dealing with the nastiness that is modern astronomical instrument calibration. There are actually quite a few high energy folks who have made the switch from high energy to astrophysics (one is on my committee), and they learn that you can't take a list of raw numbers from a astronomical data catalog, run some binning and simple curve fitting on them, and expect to get a meaningful result any more than you could easily discover the top quark from the raw events list of a particle detector. Also, as I say, there is some dubious use of statistics, but the main point is that he's starting from data that simply isn't yet usable for his task.

As far as your naked-eye hunches, I suspect that it's an unintentional selection bias (by you) or something. The idea of checking for galaxy alignments is not new--indeed, it's a fundamental test of cosmic isotropy--and an effect large enough to be noticed by the naked eye would've been measured by now. I don't doubt what you think you saw, but I do doubt that you could see a real effect that easily.

We present a pedagogical review of neutrino physics. In the first lecture we describe the theoretical motivation for neutrino masses, and explain how neutrino flavor oscillation experiments can probe neutrino masses. In the second lecture we review the experimental data, and show that it is best explained if neutrinos are massive. In the third lecture we explain what are the theoretical implications of the data, in particular, what are the challenges they impose on models of physics beyond the SM. We give examples of theoretical models that cop e with some of these challenges.

In the present lectures the following topics are considered: general properties of neutrinos, neutrino mass phenomenology (Dirac and Majorana masses), neutrino masses in the simplest extensions of the standard model (including the seesaw mechanism), neutrino oscillations in vacuum, neutrino oscillations in matter (the MSW effect) in 2- and 3-flavour schemes, implications of CP, T and CPT symmetries for neutrino oscillations, double beta decay, solar neutrino oscillations and the solar neutrino problem, and atmospheric neutrinos. We also give a short overview of the results of the accelerator and reactor neutrino experiments and of future projects. Finally, we discuss how the available experimental data on neutrino masses and lepton mixing can be summarized in the phenomenologically allowed forms of the neutrino mass matrix.

We present a pedagogical review of neutrino physics. In the first lecture we describe the theoretical motivation for neutrino masses, and explain how neutrino flavor oscillation experiments can probe neutrino masses. In the second lecture we review the experimental data, and show that it is best explained if neutrinos are massive. In the third lecture we explain what are the theoretical implications of the data, in particular, what are the challenges they impose on models of physics beyond the SM. We give examples of theoretical models that cop e with some of these challenges.

In the present lectures the following topics are considered: general properties of neutrinos, neutrino mass phenomenology (Dirac and Majorana masses), neutrino masses in the simplest extensions of the standard model (including the seesaw mechanism), neutrino oscillations in vacuum, neutrino oscillations in matter (the MSW effect) in 2- and 3-flavour schemes, implications of CP, T and CPT symmetries for neutrino oscillations, double beta decay, solar neutrino oscillations and the solar neutrino problem, and atmospheric neutrinos. We also give a short overview of the results of the accelerator and reactor neutrino experiments and of future projects. Finally, we discuss how the available experimental data on neutrino masses and lepton mixing can be summarized in the phenomenologically allowed forms of the neutrino mass matrix.

For those interested, the paper itself can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2251v1. The team is detecting neutrinos from Be 7 at the rate of 47 per day.

Ooops.... no it's here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2889

If my understanding is right, though, string theories usually predict an infinite spectrum of increasingly massive particles. What is equivalent to the standard model is the low-energy limit, where we can ignore all but a finite number of low-mass particles. Thus string theories do make predictions that are testable - namely, that we'll keep finding new particles.

Some physicists have taken certain physical laws as axioms for something like a first-order logic.

The great part about loop quantum gravity is that it takes tried and true principles of physics (specifically background independence) and works from there. Thus loop quantum gravity can be thought of as a somewhat "minimal" theory of quantum gravity: it takes Einstein's GR, which is well tested, based on solid principles, and has a wonderful economy in the sense that it is roughly the simplest nontrivial theory that fits those principles. This is a trait shared in many ways with LQG; this paper seems to be saying that under weak assumptions, the fundamental basis of LQG is in fact unique.

String theory, on the other hand, keeps seeming like it has the opposite properties. It throws out the principle of background independence, instead making ad hoc assumptions about the shape of spacetime. In addition to the string particles it hypothesizes, it must add an additional object (D-branes) to give a reasonable low energy limit. In addition, the specific assumptions about the shape of spacetime give wildly different low-energy limits, and the restriction that this must match up with our experience (which is a terrible principle to base physics on) doesn't even give us a unique theory, so the "theory" is even more resistant to falsifiability, as a slightly different configuration can be pulled out to explain why the previous test failed.

In short, LQG has going for it:
- mathematical elegance and economy
- strong, tested founding principles

Whereas string theory has:
- slightly less ugly than the standard model

The entire final version of the article is here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0908