Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, those peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific conferences really keep those details secret. Same with the collaborative research projects. It is a great big conspiracy to keep Fox News and The Moonie, er, I mean The Washington Times in the dark. Take for instance this article on climate modeling by him and 46 other authors. Fucking secretive bastards; they probably all belong to the Masons or something. And at least half of those authors look like they are foreigners! That paper must be shit because you know what Rush and Hannity et al. tell us to think about foreigners.

...that was partly responsible for this whole mini media frenzy, I just wanted to add a couple things. First off, the media coverage has been (I suppose not surprisingly) all about reporting Guenter Nimtz's sensational claims without hearing from the other side. The other side, in this case, is definitely the mainstream point of view... and Aephraim Steinberg at the Univ. of Toronto makes a very compelling counter-argument. The train analogy he uses is helpful.

But if you want to get more geeky, you don't even need to use any quantum mechanics or even relativity to explain what Nimtz is observing. You can also explain it using good old classical physics. What Steinberg is saying is that the microwave, which is a packet of some finite size, gets slightly delayed as it hits the edge of the prism. There's a component of the wavefront that continues propagating into the gap past the reflective surface. (Technically, this is called the wavefront's "evanescent mode" -- meaning it has a wavelength measured in imaginary numbers... so there's no physical wave in this region of space.) And if there's a small gap separating the two prisms, the wavefront returns to the physical world, with a real wavelength again, back inside the second prism. That's what quantum physics would call "photon tunneling." The seemingly faster-than-light transmission speed is just the consequence of the wavefront's being slowed down at the boundary between prism and air. So the sum-total of time the wavefront spent in transit seems faster-than-light when you only look at one portion of its overall trip. But other portions of its trip (i.e. at that boundary between prism and air) were being slowed down.

Of course to explain this in all its gory detail -- and I've kind of done a butcher job here -- requires a lot more words than we had room for in this piece. So the train analogy had to do.

The other thing, to get even more geeky -- and extra-credit is definitely awarded to anyone who picked this up in the story -- there is no such thing as 33 cm microwaves. (Wavelength too long.) That's a typo. It's 33 mm.

Consider this a big ol' nerdy D'OH!

*sigh* Discoveries like these are all to often over sensationalized by the media.

The actual paper by Nimtz and Stahlhofen is available in the arXiv, a physics preprint server: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.0681, I'm surprised it wasn't linked to in the article.

a really HOT cup of tea. Meanwhile, at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.0681.p df we learn that quantum tunneling really is FTL. I'm feeling very depressed.

And "far apart", insofar as the dark energy component of the Hubble constant is concerned, may not be all that far apart after all. This paper, "Local dark energy: HST evidence from the expansion flow around Cen A/M83 galaxy group" (pdf), is particularly exciting with regard to antigravity effects in/near the Local Group and Cen A/M83.

I am not an astronomer -- yet,
-l

And "far apart", insofar as the dark energy component of the Hubble constant is concerned, may not be all that far apart after all. This paper, "Local dark energy: HST evidence from the expansion flow around Cen A/M83 galaxy group" (pdf), is particularly exciting with regard to antigravity effects in/near the Local Group and Cen A/M83.

I am not an astronomer -- yet,
-l

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608115

Here's the paper, courtesy of arXiv:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0608115

It should be noted that this work is purely theoretical. What they have done is show that there is a much more physically realizable way to way a repulsive Casimir effect than the previous schemes, using a material with negative refraction over some range of important frequencies (this is a similar problem as making a cloaking device, but with a harder range of the spectrum). In practice, the effect would be small and the material hard to make, but the idea is interesting.

Osame Kinouchi in Persistence solves Fermi Paradox but challenges SETI projects has proposed a model of colonization that does not assume that colonization follows a uniform diffusion process. A uniform diffusion process is often tacitly assumed in back-of-the-envelope, extra-terrestrial-free solutions to the Fermi Paradox. Instead of a uniform diffusion process, Kinouchi proposes a model for intergalactic colonization closer to the distribution of cities on the Earth. This is not a simple uniform diffusion process, as shown by the non-uniform distribution of cities, and by the presence of exotic "lost" tribes, whose provincial worldview might prompt them to conclude that there is no global civilization.

Kinouchi points out that for a wide class of diffusion processes, including simple processes other than uniform diffusion (in which colonization would occur uniformly in every direction), the number of non-visited sites need not decay exponentially with time. Instead, the probability that some site remains uncolonized might follow a power law.

(He gives the probability that a site might not be visited by time t as P(t) = P_\infty + Ct^{-\theta}.)

I'll jump to the conclusion: if the colonization of space follows something like a non-uniform, persistent diffusion process, then there will be large regions of space that won't be colonized, away from the colonized areas. Since we haven't heard from extraterrestrials, we can assume we are in one of the large, unvisited regions, and so the nearby candidates for SETI searches are also unlikely to have been visited. (Kinouchi asserts that the Fermi Paradox is "locally" true.) So SETI has to look further than the immediate stellar neighborhood for likely candidates.

Link that works.

Unfortunately, the academic world I grew up believing in no longer really exists;

I am not bitter. I should probably know better by now and not expect much more than `arguments' based on personal attacks (with the added fun that it is quite impossible to make a personal attackon someone you do not know at all, like you do not know me!) around here :(

Mathematics is a cooperative enterprise and no one would be able to do anything without being able to make copious use of the work of others. This has always been like that, but nowadays, the economic aspect of copying and distribution being essentially done with (I met a guy who, we can say, is two mathematician-generations before me, who, in his youth, went to Paris for a while and he spent there most of his time making handwritten copies of papers in the library of the Paris University!) this is much more so. Looking at the arXiv makes that apparent. This is better for all involved and it is better for society as a whole. Globally, too.

Literature, music and other artistic activities used to be pretty much the same, but in contrast with what's happened in maths, this has not become more so. Not at all. While it is true that good literature, good music and so on are still being done, there is a coherent argument that points to the fact that it could be much better. That society not only has not benefited as much as it could, but that is has actually lost.

Essentially eternal copyrights do not benefit society.

And pretending that Hendrix, Paganini or other great people did what they did because the cared for being able to hold copyrights for their work 50 years after they would die is, well, silly.

Because the Schroedinger Wave Equation predicts that it will, and the SWE is all there is. The Copenhagen Interpretation (collapse of the wavefunction) is dead. The MWI is the only decent interpretation left that makes sense; Cramer's Transactional Interpretation is interesting, but poses too many new effects, like backwards causality. The MWI says the SWE is all there is; it implies (no, demands) that worlds split whenever anything happens. In one world, the laser "behaves as a particle" (handwaving, but it's from TFA) and in the other as a wave. Deutsch has a good paper on the EPR experiment and how the MWI explanation works (see section 4).

In this experiment (basically garden variety EPR with some small twists), experimenter EA performs a measurement on beam A. EB performs a measurement on EB. Now what the MWI says happened is this: as soon as the entangled beams left the laser, there were already two worlds. One of each polarization, let's say (for simplicity -- the current experiment is more complicated but the theory is the same). In one world both beams are polarized vertically, in the other they're polarized horizontally. Now when EA does her measurement, the Copenhagenists say this "collapses the wavefunction". MWI says nothing special happens; in those worlds where the beam was vertically polarized and EA's polarizer what vertical, the beam gets through. In other worlds, not. All the measurement tells EA is, which world is she in. Now EB does the same thing; so far nothing superluminal has happened. There are now (at least) two versions of EA and EB each. Now, at regular subluminal speeds, they take their rockets back to earth and communicate their results to each other. When they meet, "magically" their results match all the time! Why? Superluminal signaling? No; just because the ones who can meet to match results are (obviously) the ones who were in compatible worlds to begin with. The incompatible ones decohere rapidly, and can't be detected by the others within picoseconds. In other worlds, the alternate EA and EB meet and also confirm their results (opposite to the original pair) also match.

Oh well, that's way too much for a quick slashdot article. Read e.g. Tegmark at Arxiv for a nice readable overview of the current state of the world.

Because the Schroedinger Wave Equation predicts that it will, and the SWE is all there is. The Copenhagen Interpretation (collapse of the wavefunction) is dead. The MWI is the only decent interpretation left that makes sense; Cramer's Transactional Interpretation is interesting, but poses too many new effects, like backwards causality. The MWI says the SWE is all there is; it implies (no, demands) that worlds split whenever anything happens. In one world, the laser "behaves as a particle" (handwaving, but it's from TFA) and in the other as a wave. Deutsch has a good paper on the EPR experiment and how the MWI explanation works (see section 4).

In this experiment (basically garden variety EPR with some small twists), experimenter EA performs a measurement on beam A. EB performs a measurement on EB. Now what the MWI says happened is this: as soon as the entangled beams left the laser, there were already two worlds. One of each polarization, let's say (for simplicity -- the current experiment is more complicated but the theory is the same). In one world both beams are polarized vertically, in the other they're polarized horizontally. Now when EA does her measurement, the Copenhagenists say this "collapses the wavefunction". MWI says nothing special happens; in those worlds where the beam was vertically polarized and EA's polarizer what vertical, the beam gets through. In other worlds, not. All the measurement tells EA is, which world is she in. Now EB does the same thing; so far nothing superluminal has happened. There are now (at least) two versions of EA and EB each. Now, at regular subluminal speeds, they take their rockets back to earth and communicate their results to each other. When they meet, "magically" their results match all the time! Why? Superluminal signaling? No; just because the ones who can meet to match results are (obviously) the ones who were in compatible worlds to begin with. The incompatible ones decohere rapidly, and can't be detected by the others within picoseconds. In other worlds, the alternate EA and EB meet and also confirm their results (opposite to the original pair) also match.

Oh well, that's way too much for a quick slashdot article. Read e.g. Tegmark at Arxiv for a nice readable overview of the current state of the world.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1062

Longo favours a more radical theory proposed by Paolo Cea of the University of Bari, in Italy, and Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara, Italy, which suggests that magnetic fields stretched across the universe could be responsible (New Scientist, 2 September 2006, p 2. "A magnetic field would naturally orient the spiral galaxies," says Longo.

Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear: the axis of evil won't be written off any time soon. "Interest keeps growing as people find more weirdly connected observations that can't all be put down to coincidence," says Land. "And hey, everybody loves a conspiracy."

But thats ok because if the majority think its okay then it must be! Thats the beauty of democracy.

My guess is that the idea of 'democracy' is based on the presupposition that people are 'equal' (within a 'reasonable' range).

With exponential distributions everywhere (income the most obvious) the model gets as flawed as 'communism' was in the Soviet Union.

CC.

If you were a professional astronomer I'd say it sounds like you'd be better off finding a different organization to work for.

Try looking at cited sources on published papers for starters. http://arxiv.org/ will give you plenty of pre-publications. Here too http://sesame.stsci.edu/library.html

I'm well out of touch but here's what you get just from Google:

Skyview is a must. Images in any wavelength (multiple instruments)
http://skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Learn about the FITS data format. Not just pretty pictures by any means.
http://fits.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Chandra data
http://cxc.harvard.edu/cda/public.html

You want Hubble data? (and software to process it)
http://archive.stsci.edu/

More software to process astro data:
http://www.stsci.edu/resources/

SOHO use to publish their images in real time and if you want data...and apparently still do.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/data.html

There's lots more out there if you look at the major space instrument's web pages. I'm sure some of it is paid and a lot of it is held back for a year or so, but there's a LOT out there.

This result is interesting within the context of loop quantum gravity, because it offers an approximation within which the Big Bang can be modeled directly. However, it's worth not losing sight of the fact that the LQG theory upon which it is based has serious issues with consistency. It is based on a non-standard quantization technique with no experimentally supported basis, its Hamiltonian constraint has never been solved (which renders any approximation based on that constraint suspect), and it suffers from potentially infinitely many quantization ambiguities (again, with no known and maybe no possible experimental method for singling out the correct quantization. Some of these concerns are summarized here. (Yes, it's written by string theorists, and yes, string theory has its own set of problems with experimentally selecting the "correct" solution. But the correctness of string theory aside, the objections raised in that article against LQG are valid.) It's very premature to suggest that LQG's picture of the Big Bang may be correct when the fundamental theory itself has serious unresolved problems.

Areal view of what was believed to be the original impact site and Lake Cheko.

I'm no geologist so I can't comment on whether or not this lake looks typical but I will say that, judging by the coloration of the foliage around it, this is probable the same land as the river/stream that winds to the west of it. Interesting is that if you follow it northwest for miles it looks smooth cut. Once it passes Lake Cheko, it seems to become more speckled and pock marked. Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

I would guess this is quite feasible indeed to be part of whatever happened nearly 100 years ago. Check out the last page of this PDF which seems to show the comet/asteroid approaching at an angle (thus the strange blast pattern). At that trajectory, you'd think there'd be a chance for whatever hit to break apart and skip. Maybe the other abnormal marks in the stream are from other pieces/debris?

Probably fueled by the sci-fi stories written about the same topic (like the 1946 one by Alexander Kazantsev), I find it interesting to read about things like the Tunguska Genetic Anomaly whether they be true or not. Maybe these are the scientist's tabloids? :)

You are an ordered collection of cells, molecules, and atoms. If you were blown apart into pieces, we would have the original cells, molecules, and atoms, but not into an ordered state - we would have lost the organised collection, ie you. Now, had we had a way to reconstruct that ordered collection, I believe that we should be able bring you back in life, and if we could alter some of your components maybe we could even implant memories of your destruction and reconstruction into your mind. Now we face the question whether you are a collection of specific cells, molecules, and atoms, but I think the answer is that you can be made up of any kind of components as long as the interactions between these components yields the same results externally. Cells die and regenerate every day. You lose molecules and atoms every day as well, but you replenish them by eating. Could we replace carbon with another hypothetical element that has the same chemical behaviour in its interactions with your other components? I believe so, as the important thing is the properties of an element and not the element itself. It is the set of interactions between your basic components and the way they are interlinked that makes up you. If you lose an organ, you can get a transplant, even an artificial one, but you are still you. This brings us to another question, whether you are just a piece of information. I think so. You may just be the information that describes what properties your components have and how they are interlinked. If we could extract this information, then we could copy you and create a new you (in the end we could create a computer file whenever a new human is born and be able to manage its material existance with simple copy/delete operations, and this also yields the interesting idea that your relatives could bring you back to life after your death, or that you could be re-created as a child and then again as an adult by keeping two or three files with your information at different ages, but now we slip into science fiction). This also brings us to the interesting idea of whether the universe is just an information processing system. It may be. If it is, then we should be able to understand it with mathematics, and there is a scientific paper out there that says that the universe is a set of mathematical relations and that these mathematical objects would think that they really exist into a material world. Similar ideas were also expressed by Zuse and others in the past. In the end we may just live inside a big computer. I just hope it runs a real OS like GNU/Linux and not MS Windows!

The process of black hole formation is generally discussed from the viewpoint of an infalling observer. However, in all physical settings it is the viewpoint of the asymptotic observer that is relevant. More concretely, if a black hole is formed in the Large Hadron Collider, it has to be observed by physicists sitting on the CERN campus.

In Sec. III we verify the standard result that the formation of an event horizon takes an infinite (Schwarzschild)time if we consider classical collapse. This is not surprising and is often viewed as a limitation of the Schwarzschild coordinate system. To see if this result changes when quantum effects are taken into account, we address the problem of quantum collapse using a minisuperspace version of the functional Schrodinger equation [2] in Sec. IV. We find that even in this case the black hole takes an infinite time to form, contrary to some speculations in the literature [3].

the shell, even as it collapses, radiates away its energy in a finite amount of time... we conclude that the evaporation time is shorter than what would be taken by objects to fall through a black hole horizon.

I looked at the abstract of the actual paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609024 and it looks like they discuss a case where the black hole does not really form, the domain wall that collapses in their model evaporates and a singularity does not form. This does not quite address the case of dropping an object into an already-formed black hole, but it sounds good for a press release, especially since the neighbors at Fermilab have made a habit of it.

Here's the preprint.

Seriously though, they managed to get the author information to fit on three pages. Here's the preprint. Usually it's bad when your paper has 10 times as many authors as references, but in this case I guess one can make an exception.

Not all authors are bad.

Try some of Greg Egan. Of course, he does fiction, but he also visits arXiv.

No, its not! CO2 Lags temperature not the other way around, solar activity on the other hadn *leads* temperature.

Some self-doubt never hurt nobody ...

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2462 v1.pdf

From their paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611063.p df one can find this little detail: To transfer a couple of watts the device generates an rf magnetic field of the order of 100 microteslas. This is way over the INCPR recommendations for rf field exposures.

In a MRI system the rf fields are of the order of 30 microteslas. These are considered to be worth caution. An rf field of 100 uT at 10 MHz will be really bad trouble for any electronic devices and it can also cause serious heating of biological tissues. This was the rf field for just a couple of watts...

: No, neither the BBC article nor the MIT article are correct. It does not at all work like a transformer, despite what they are feeding the public, a transformer like that would not have strong enough magnetic coupling and would waste energy. The actual mechanism behind their 'wireless energy transfer' uses two short circuited resonant radio (although it can work with any light) waveguides. The waveguides produce evanescent waves which do not carry energy, but can affect other nearby waveguides allowing the EM radiation to tunnel from one waveguide to the other (from the base station to the wireless receiver) which can then be rectified into DC electricity. See the wiki article on superlenses, evanescent waves, and evanescent wave coupling (I believe) for more specific information and links to better resources. Note that a negative refractive index material could massively boost the range and coupling for such a system. See the articles for the reason for that as well. --Haplo 24.98.124.237 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it works exactly like a transformer. Evanescent fields are the electric and magnetic fields of the nearfield region surrounding any material or substance which interacts with electromagnetism. Evanescent waves are non-propagating in that they are "emitted" during 1/4 cycle by an electric current or a charge-separation, and are then re-absorbed during the next 1/4 cycle, only to be emitted again. Partial reflection can accomplish this, but so can coils or capacitors. If you apply AC to a simple loop inductor, the evanescent wave is the expanding and contracting b-field surrounding the inductor. One simple example of evanescent wave coupling is seen whenever EM energy is transferred between the two plates of a capacitor. Note well that light and radio waves are the same thing. You say that evanescent waves don't apply to transformers? That's exactly the same as saying that Maxwell's Equations apply to transformers but do not apply to the EM fields involved with total internal reflection! When we say that evanescent waves do not carry energy, we actually mean that the EM energy vector is oscillating, with no overall energy flow. The effect is identical to "imaginary power" in AC circuitry. But evanescent waves can easily be made to carry energy. After all, that's what the 2006 MIT paper is all about. But usually such topics are called "capacitive coupling" or "inductive coupling." However, the MIT article contains one difference between simple capacitor/coil coupling versus "wireless power transfer." They are using high-Q resonators. This is identical to a tuned-primary, tuned-secondary transformer. In this type of transformer, the coupling between the coils is proportional to the "Q" of the resonant circuits, and with high Q, even an air-core transformer will exhibit tight coupling. Which high enough "Q", the coupling remains significant even when the primary and secondary are separated by fairly large distance. --Wjbeaty 21:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am a bit miffed at the MIT folks for not giving credit where credit is due. This is the second article I have seen in the last month or two on this topic and they hardly even mention the fact that this is a key Tesla invention that was in fact accomplished by him and repeatably demonstrated. To read the articles one would think that the folks at MIT just sat down last week and invented this all by themselves when it is simply not true.

The opening paragraph of their earlier paper:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0611/0611063.p df

In the early days of electromagnetism, before the electrical-wire grid was deployed, serious interest and effort was devoted (most notably by Nikola Tesla [1]) towards the development of schemes to transport energy over long distances without any carrier medium (e.g. wirelessly). These efforts appear to have met with little success. Radiative modes of omni-directional antennas (which work very well for information transfer) are not suitable for such energy transfer, because a vast majority of energy is wasted into free space. Directed radiation modes, using lasers or highly-directional antennas, can be efficiently used for energy transfer, even for long distances (transfer distance LTRANSLDEV, where LDEV is the characteristic size of the device), but require existence of an uninterruptible line-of-sight and a complicated tracking system in the case of mobile objects. Rapid development of autonomous electronics of recent years (e.g. laptops, cell-phones, house-hold robots, that all typically rely on chemical energy storage) justifies revisiting investigation of this issue. Today, we face a different challenge than Tesla: since the existing electrical-wire grid carries energy almost everywhere, even a medium-range (LTRANS fewLDEV) wireless energy transfer would be quite useful for many applications. There are several currently used schemes, which rely on non-radiative modes (magnetic induction), but they are restricted to very close-range (LTRANSLDEV) or very low-power (~mW) energy transfers [2,3,4,5,6].

You're a scientist and a researcher working at a (public??) university but can't speak about what you do.

That's an overstatement. The poster was referring to a specific study that has been submitted to a journal. Journals consider their mission to publish original data and findings, and won't accept stuff that has been previously published. Some interpret "prior publication" quite broadly to include many forms of dissemination of findings, including stuff posted on the web. (This is prevalent in psychology, where there is no equivalent to arXiv.org for preprints.) It's not right, and it's changing slowly, but until it gets better researchers have to play along.

Moreover, there are potential ethical issues with disseminating findings that have not yet been subjected to peer review. Many scientists consider peer review to be an integral part of the scientific process, because it provides a form of quality control and ensures a minimum standard for findings and conclusions that the scientific community will communicate the the public. Some publicity-hungry researchers violate this, but many others do care about it.

Once the study in question has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication, I'm sure the poster will be happy to tell you all about it.

I continued with the gravitophoton and the fact that a non-Newtonian gravitaitional force, heretofore unmentioned by any other theory, had been measured

Interestingly it's not really hard to see that there's no superluminal information transfer. All you have to do is to look at the system in the Heisenberg picture. See http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906007 for details.

Read the paper here!

Disregard the norm for a moment. There is at least one case of a Quasar with a redshift two orders of magnitude greater than that of the galaxy which it occludes, NGC 7319. (Link is an article of Pasquale Galianni, E.M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti.) The conclusion being obvious, I eagerly await your refutation, which is not.

Halton Arp's idea that "many high-energy, high-redshift quasars appear to be located in close proximity to, and interacting with, low-redshift, low-energy galaxies" has been proven incorrect.

1) Its impossible to explain quasar absorption lines, which must be due to foreground objects

2) Magification due to gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies neatly explains any excess of quasars near galaxies as seen on the sky and requires them to be at high redshift. See e.g. Detection of Cosmic Magnification with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

Unfortunately, Arp and few others conveniently ignore the irrefutable evidence against their ideas. Luckily the rest of the astrophysical community understands scientific evidence. That's the reason that no one pays attention to Arp and colleagues.

Equally unfortunately there is always a group of people (especially on Slashdot) quick to embrace the romantic notion of the outsider "kicked off the telescope for his heretical views". After all, in the movies that's the guy that turns out to be right in the end ...

We already have commercial quantum cryptography systems http://www.idquantique.com/ http://www.magiqtech.com/. And yes, those implementations are probably breakable in theory (they have no security proof covering the particuar implementations and they may be vulnerable to certain side channel attacks). However, by identifying side channels and bounding the information leaked through them and carefully monitoring that the devices are behaving as expected it should be possible to implement quantum cryptography which is unbreakable by any adversary bounded by the laws of quantum mechanics.

The Kish scheme on the other hand is secure against an adversary bounded by the circuit model. Now, the circuit model is not a fundamental theory of nature -- quantum mechancs is.

Forget Schneier, there's an extensive mathematical rebuttal to the technique showing it's complete and utter garbage: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601022

That proposed attack is rebutted by Kish in Response to Scheuer-Yariv: "A Classical Key-Distribution System based on Johnson (like) noise -How Secure?" and Response to Feng Hao's paper "Kish's key exchange scheme is insecure".

Basically he specifies that the frequency one switches the resistors has to be kept below a certain limit and low pass filters used at each end to prevent attacks using injection of high frequency signals. He shows that below threshold frequencies, the eavesdropper gets statistically worse information from the sniffing devices than do Alice and Bob to a significant enough degree that the information leakage is less than you get from a practical quantum cryptographic system.

A small amount of information leakage is tolerable... Quantum crypto systems in practice have some. Privacy enhancing algorithms are used to achieve practical security from a slightly leaky system at the expense of bandwidth, and those would work the same way for this system as for quantum crypto.

That proposed attack is rebutted by Kish in Response to Scheuer-Yariv: "A Classical Key-Distribution System based on Johnson (like) noise -How Secure?" and Response to Feng Hao's paper "Kish's key exchange scheme is insecure".

Basically he specifies that the frequency one switches the resistors has to be kept below a certain limit and low pass filters used at each end to prevent attacks using injection of high frequency signals. He shows that below threshold frequencies, the eavesdropper gets statistically worse information from the sniffing devices than do Alice and Bob to a significant enough degree that the information leakage is less than you get from a practical quantum cryptographic system.

A small amount of information leakage is tolerable... Quantum crypto systems in practice have some. Privacy enhancing algorithms are used to achieve practical security from a slightly leaky system at the expense of bandwidth, and those would work the same way for this system as for quantum crypto.

The original article was published (and talked about in /., see Related Article link) back in 2005. The paper you cited claiming a break was replied to by the original author, and there have been a number of other papers back and forth since. The technique has credibility. As Bruce Schneier pointed out this technique if it works is no worse than quantum cryptography and is a lot simpler and cheaper, but it has all the other deficiencies of quantum cryptography. The author claims no more than that. He rebuts the arguments in the paper you linked to by showing that the amount of information leakage is less than that from a practical (as opposed to theoretically ideal) quantum cryptography system, and so can be dealt with using the same privacy-enhancing post-processing that has to be used with quantum crypto.

I agree with Schneier's assessment of quantum crypto as a solution in search of a problem, and this appears the same, although much cheaper to implement.

The most recent paper on the topic was a plenary talk given by the author last week at a conference in Italy. The references in that paper will give you the complete list of papers arguing with his results and his responses to those arguments.

Can someone who understands this better than me make a Wikipedia article on electrical noise encryption and one on Laszlo Kish?

Here is a 2005 paper by Kish the topic:

Totally Secure Classical Communication Utilizing Johnson (-like) Noise and Kirchoff's Law

It can be attacked passively: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601022

There is a good explaination in this reference. Although that paper mostly treats the case of quantum networks (which is ubber cool) it gives the background. The standard example (not explained well in TFA) is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_coding>butter fly network and the wikipedia article does a reasonable job explaining it. Basically, even with the three different routes, there is still a bottleneck if you just reroute information. But by coding the information, you get it all through. The example of the butterfly network is very simple and worth learning -- just google it if the wikipedia entry or the arxiv paper doesn't help.

Now a bit of a tangent, while not straying from the subject: I remember in the mid-nineties there was a strange snafu in the world of astrophysics, as the apparent age of globular clusters made them older than the Universe itself! As it turned out, of course, the star dating technique was wrong and off by a couple of billion years. Just how fined-tuned is this new dating technique?

From the paper, it looks like this age measurement has O(10%) uncertainties. The authors don't even try to create an overall error on the measurement, instead giving a large table of various uncertainties. (Note: I'm not an astrophysicist, so I'm not used to looking at this style of paper.) From the paper: "Despite their large uncertainties the age limits provided by HE 1523-0901 and CS 31082-001 are in good agreement with the WMAP result of 13.7 Gyr for the age of the Universe." I would have phrased it replacing "Despite" with "Within", but that's just semantics.

You can read a preprint of the published paper for free. (The published version is here, but full text access requires a Nature subscription.)

That's correct. The star is metal-poor -- it's has an iron abundance (the standard measure of how much metals a star has) of [Fe/H] = -2.95. This is a lograthmic scale, and means that, on a scale where the sun is 0.0, HE1523 has about 1/1000th the amount of iron. The bracket notation means [Fe/H] = log10{N(Fe}/N(H)} - log10{N(Fe)/N(H)}_sun...i.e. the logarithmic difference of the number of atoms of Fe, compared to hydrogen, normalised to the solar ratio.

But the kicker is that HE1523 is very heavily r-process enhanced too...which means that it has a lot r-process, neutron-capture elements (think Uranium and thorium), compared to how much iron it has. HE1523 has [r/Fe] = 1.8....which means it has a 100 times more r-process heavy metals compared to iron, than does the sun.

BOTH of these factors are very important for this measurement, because you need to have very few metals, very high signal-to-noise data, very high resolution, and very strong r-process abundance, in order to be able to observe the uranium line. Anna needed 7.5hrs of VLT time to get a signal-to-noise ratio of about 350 or so...much higher than the S/N ~ 50-75 that we got from Magellan.

You can get a pdf of the paper here. Check out Fig 2, which shows the relevant part of the spectrum, with the Uranium line. See how it's right next to the booming Fe line...that's why we need a low iron abundance to do this work.