Slashdot Mirror

Ok, so say you are not a physicist, you can still read the article. It may have equations, but it is still English: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0521 v1.pdf

The authors say: "The nature of the cold dark matter in the universe is as yet unknown. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) are possibly the strongest candidates, as WIMPs that were in thermodynamic equilibrium in the early universe automatically provide the appropriate relic abundance to give the observed matter density. More- over, WIMPs have a natural origin in particle physics, e.g. neutralinos in supersymmetric models are excellent DM candidates. [..]T he details of the interactions and masses of the neutralinos depend on a large number of model parameters. In the minimal supergravity model, experimental and observational bounds restrict the neutralino mass m to 50 GeV-2 TeV, while the annihilation cross section v lies within an order of magnitude of h vi = 3 × 10^-26cm3/sec (except at the low end of the mass range where it could be several orders of magnitude smaller). "

So the authors make it clear that they are working under a set of assumptions, which are now fairly well accepted in the astrophysics community. Yes, maybe, these set of assumptions are wrong and if they are, their nice constructed dark stars would not exist.... If the annihilation cross section was very very high, then all dark matter would have self-annihilated by now. So there are bounds on that. Yes, it is theoretically possible still, I suppose, that dark matter may not self-annihilate! That makes it harder to detect! Most favored particle physics phenomenology would suggest that there should be some annihilation cross-section, on the order of magnitude suggested by the measured strength of the weak-forces. It turns out that this annihilation cross section is low enough that most dark matter would have survived to this day after the ~14billion history of the universe.

Ok, so say you are not a physicist, you can still read the article. It may have equations, but it is still English: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.0521 v1.pdf

The authors say: "The nature of the cold dark matter in the universe is as yet unknown. Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) are possibly the strongest candidates, as WIMPs that were in thermodynamic equilibrium in the early universe automatically provide the appropriate relic abundance to give the observed matter density. More- over, WIMPs have a natural origin in particle physics, e.g. neutralinos in supersymmetric models are excellent DM candidates. [..]T he details of the interactions and masses of the neutralinos depend on a large number of model parameters. In the minimal supergravity model, experimental and observational bounds restrict the neutralino mass m to 50 GeV-2 TeV, while the annihilation cross section v lies within an order of magnitude of h vi = 3 × 10^-26cm3/sec (except at the low end of the mass range where it could be several orders of magnitude smaller). "

So the authors make it clear that they are working under a set of assumptions, which are now fairly well accepted in the astrophysics community. Yes, maybe, these set of assumptions are wrong and if they are, their nice constructed dark stars would not exist.... If the annihilation cross section was very very high, then all dark matter would have self-annihilated by now. So there are bounds on that. Yes, it is theoretically possible still, I suppose, that dark matter may not self-annihilate! That makes it harder to detect! Most favored particle physics phenomenology would suggest that there should be some annihilation cross-section, on the order of magnitude suggested by the measured strength of the weak-forces. It turns out that this annihilation cross section is low enough that most dark matter would have survived to this day after the ~14billion history of the universe.

If anyone can link the actual research done I'd love to see it

Here is the PDF: Dark matter and the first stars: a new phase of stellar evolution

Here is the abstract:

Douglas Spolyar1, Katherine Freese2,3, and Paolo Gondolo4
1 Physics Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
2 Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics, Dept. of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
3 Visiting Miller Professor, Miller Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
4 Physics Dept., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
dspolyar@physics.ucsc.edu, ktfreese@umich.edu, paolo@physics.utah.edu

A mechanism is identified whereby dark matter (DM) in protostellar halos dramatically alters the current theoretical framework for the formation of the first stars. Heat from neutralino DM annihilation is shown to overwhelm any cooling mechanism, consequently impeding the star formation process and possibly leading to a new stellar phase. A "dark star" may result: a giant (> 1 AU) hydrogen-helium star powered by DM annihilation instead of nuclear fusion, and detectable via annihilation products (gamma-rays, neutrinos, antimatter) possibly in combination with hydrogen lines. (emphasis added)

Here's the paper about it.

From the abstract:
We report our discovery and early observations of the peculiar Type IIn supernova SN 2006gy... It is not yet clear what powers the enormous luminosity ... but we argue that any known mechanism ... requires a very massive progenitor star... SN 2006gy is the first supernova for which we have good reason to suspect a pair-instability explosion... SN 2006gy also suggests that the most massive stars can create brilliant supernovae instead of dying ignominious deaths through direct collapse to a black hole. If such a fate is common among the most massive stars, then supernovae from Population III stars in the early universe will be more numerous than previously believed.

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 [chicagotribune.com] 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 [chicagotribune.com] 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 [chicagotribune.com] 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed as follows: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 [arxiv.org] "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 [arxiv.org] "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 [arxiv.org] Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed [chicagotribune.com] L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune last Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune last Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

Contrary to most of the existing "cold fusion" scientists, our privately held company, Lattice Energy LLC, believes that certain well-established anomalous experimental results (e.g. He-4 production, excess heat, transmutations) that have frequently been reported by researchers in the field since 1989 are best explained by invoking the weak interaction, not strong interaction fusion or fission. Our theoretical model of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions is outlined in four readily available papers listed below: "Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces" Eur. Phys. J. C 46, 107-111 (2006) "Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0509269 "Nuclear Abundances in Metallic Hydride Electrodes of Electrolytic Chemical Cells" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0602472 "Theoretical standard model rates of proton to neutron conversions near metallic hydride surfaces" http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0608059 Importantly, no "new physics" is involved here, merely an extension of collective effects to electroweak theory within the context of the Standard Model. Thus, the phenomenon is not strong interaction "cold fusion" and never was! More papers are in preparation and will be uploaded to the Cornell physics arXiv server when they are ready. More recently, a short article by veteran science reporter Jon Van titled, "Nuclear reactions may produce phones' power," published in the Chicago Tribune last Monday, April 16. It can be found on the web at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704140 065apr16,0,1831279.story?coll=chi-business-hed L. Larsen, CEO of Lattice Energy LLC and Prof. A. Widom, Dept. of Physics, Northeastern University

If you want to read about the wormholes currently being working on, check out some papers on arXiv.org

Because I love you all:

http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0703059

complete bullshit. This has nothing to do with dark matter, or the amount of visible mass. It merely tells you what percentage of the sun is comprised of oxygen. It is a very tiny amount. For every oxygen atom, there are about a 1000 hydrogen atoms and a hundred helium atoms.

The evidence for dark matter is based on other observations, like the way disk galaxy's rotate. In order to reproduce those observations, dark matter is required.

The estimate of the total amount of mass in various phases (e.g. stars, cold gas, hot gas, etc etc) in the universe has been done. You can read the paper here. Look at table 1. This is the contribution of all the different things to the total energy-density of the universe. What is amazing is the *tiny* fraction of the total energy-density that is made from baryons (visible, observable stuff). It's only about 4% or so. 23% is dark matter, and the rest is "dark energy".

This is not a new issue in astrophysics, and has been floating since 2004. There are two basic ways to measure the abundances. One is by looking at hte oscillations in the sun, and using those to probe the solar interior. This is called "helioseismology", since it is very similar to the way seismologists figure out the structure and composition of hte earth, by observing seismic waves.

The other way is to take a spectrum of the sun (which is really just the solar photosphere -- the outer layers, or "atmosphere"). To interpret the spectra, one needs a model, which is used to derive the abundance (how much oxygen there is).

Now...until recently the models used for deriving abundances were simple 1-dimensional models, which made some assumptions (such as "local thermodynamic equilibrium") and include some fudge factors to account for the fact that you're solving a 3-d problem in 1-d.

The oxygen problem arises when you use accurate, 3-D models, which don't make the LTE assumption mentioned above -- called non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE). When one compares the abundances from the 3d NLTE models with what is expected from the helioseismology predictions, the discrepancy arises.

Others have posted the link to the full journal article on the pre-print server (here). The introduction of this paper is a pretty good summary of the problem, albeit intended for a scientific audience.

The paper. (TFA has a link to the ApJ version, but it tells me that I have an institutional subscription, which presumably means that those outside of academia do not.)

You can find the full article of this at the Astrophysics Preprint server. See here.

There is a cosmological event horizon beyond which no events will be able to influence us, as they expand away from us so much that light from them will never reach us. This is quite different from the event horizon of a black hole, however. The location of a cosmological event horizon is observer-dependent: different observers can receive information from different places. The location of a black hole is observer independnt, because it is defined as a region from which light cannot escape to infinity: a concept that does not depend where you are observing the black hole from.

This article clarifies some of these concepts.

New Scientist has a link to the paper, which is small and off to the side and easily overlooked (and does not make clear that the whole paper can be accessed, not just the abstract). The paper is here for anyone who may have missed it.

Has anyone found their real science paper on the matter? I searched the usual suspects to no avail and I'm getting mildly annoyed that they'd make a press release without also releasing the scientific paper at the same time or earlier....

I don't doubt that they've done it, I'm just curious to find out how they came about it...

You can read the article for free here.

As per the tradition in new-school quantum physics, the original article is of course available for everyone at arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529. (Nature articles are a bit special -- they are submitted to the "preprint archive" after they are published...)

No need for Nature, you can read the preprint at: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529

you can find here http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529.

Old Nature article about the periodicity: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7030/fu ll/434147a.html
ArXiv preprint proposing the galactic hypothesis: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602092

astrophysics link

as the title alone is the perfect companion to the worldview of the cosmological link clicker.

Cosmology predicted that quite some time ago as myself and collaborators show in this PRL paper from over a year ago. And there were many other papers with similar conclusions as well... The only problem is that particle physicists never believe cosmologists! :)

The paper can be downloaded for free on arxiv.org: Optical Cloaking with Non-Magnetic Metamaterials

I see a lot of comments along the lines of "One wavelength cloaking will never be useful because of ____ and ____." Firstly, the vast majority of research is done incrementally, and this is a good first step. Secondly, funding is a necessary evil, and towards that end nothing beats a working demonstration that smells like fresh progress.

I currently manage my non-science (physics grad student here) PDFs with Yep, but it is clearly aimed more generically, and includes scanner support for doing things like scanning receipts and other paper documents. Papers looks good, though I wish there was integration with the arXiv, which is the "PubMed" of physics. Hopefully the Papers authors will make good on their intention to add a plugin API for importers, exporters and search engines.

I guess I'd better not respond, but can't resist.

1. I'm just saying that if your in music for the money, then shut up and let your record company make that money for you, because their good at it. If not, then show it to us by sharing your music.
2. Free music is not crazy, just google "copyleft mp3" or whatever, lots of things to find and hear.
3. I gave you an example.
4. I'm not in music but in science, I make enough to eat and drink the occassional beer, and when I have found something interesting, I put it on arXiv, so others can read and use it when they want, thank you very much.

In the traditional Landau paradigm, phases of matter arise as broken symmetries of the Hamiltonian, with different phases corresponding to different symmetries and described by a "local order parameter" (e.g. magnetization).

With the advent of developments in high-temperature superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect, new phases were found that exist completely outside the Landau paradigm: topological order, in which there is no local symmetry, yet the topology of the system can globally distinguish one phase from another.

Excitations of these systems with topological order were once thought to be necessarily "gapped", that is, the quasiparticle excitations have an effective mass. However, Wen has proposed a more general notion of "quantum order", in which gapless (massless) quasiparticles, analogous to photons or other gauge vector bosons, can appear.

The mechanism by which this occurs, in Wen's paradigm, is through "string net condensation". In quantum field theory, from the work of Polyakov and others, it is possible to think of the field lines connecting particles as "strings", with the particles residing at the endpoints of the strings. The fields are gauge fields, so the "stringy" field lines correspond to the massless gauge bosons, as opposed to the massive matter particles that serve as the string endpoints. Wen's quantum order has excitations in a spin lattice correspond effectively to strings (massless "force field" quasiparticles), which are open, i.e., have endpoints (massive "matter" quasiparticles).

There are actually strong analogies between these ideas and actual string theory (as noted by my reference to Polyakov's work). In fact, Wen did his Ph.D. in string theory under Edward Witten before switching to condensed matter.

The work discussed in this story is an experimental demonstration of a system with gapless excitations that do not obey Landau's local order paradigm, and thus relate to Wen's work on quantum order. (I am fuzzy on the details so I don't know to what extent this work is a confirmation of Wen's theories. I also don't know how novel gapless excitations are without symmetry breaking.)

You can read more about this from his work, such as this. Wen has even proposed that perhaps the actual photons and electrons we think are real are really just quasiparticle excitations arising from a low energy (large scale) effective field theory of some underlying submicroscopic lattice that we can't see — see here: he can recover many (but not all) of the aspects of the particle physics this way, and argues that it unifies light and matter (since open strings always have endpoints). I think he has problems with chiral fermions, IIRC. The big stumbling block is of course gravity, although he has made efforts in that direction too (here). He has written a graduate textbook on these ideas; he also has some talks up on his web page.

In the traditional Landau paradigm, phases of matter arise as broken symmetries of the Hamiltonian, with different phases corresponding to different symmetries and described by a "local order parameter" (e.g. magnetization).

With the advent of developments in high-temperature superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect, new phases were found that exist completely outside the Landau paradigm: topological order, in which there is no local symmetry, yet the topology of the system can globally distinguish one phase from another.

Excitations of these systems with topological order were once thought to be necessarily "gapped", that is, the quasiparticle excitations have an effective mass. However, Wen has proposed a more general notion of "quantum order", in which gapless (massless) quasiparticles, analogous to photons or other gauge vector bosons, can appear.

The mechanism by which this occurs, in Wen's paradigm, is through "string net condensation". In quantum field theory, from the work of Polyakov and others, it is possible to think of the field lines connecting particles as "strings", with the particles residing at the endpoints of the strings. The fields are gauge fields, so the "stringy" field lines correspond to the massless gauge bosons, as opposed to the massive matter particles that serve as the string endpoints. Wen's quantum order has excitations in a spin lattice correspond effectively to strings (massless "force field" quasiparticles), which are open, i.e., have endpoints (massive "matter" quasiparticles).

There are actually strong analogies between these ideas and actual string theory (as noted by my reference to Polyakov's work). In fact, Wen did his Ph.D. in string theory under Edward Witten before switching to condensed matter.

The work discussed in this story is an experimental demonstration of a system with gapless excitations that do not obey Landau's local order paradigm, and thus relate to Wen's work on quantum order. (I am fuzzy on the details so I don't know to what extent this work is a confirmation of Wen's theories. I also don't know how novel gapless excitations are without symmetry breaking.)

You can read more about this from his work, such as this. Wen has even proposed that perhaps the actual photons and electrons we think are real are really just quasiparticle excitations arising from a low energy (large scale) effective field theory of some underlying submicroscopic lattice that we can't see — see here: he can recover many (but not all) of the aspects of the particle physics this way, and argues that it unifies light and matter (since open strings always have endpoints). I think he has problems with chiral fermions, IIRC. The big stumbling block is of course gravity, although he has made efforts in that direction too (here). He has written a graduate textbook on these ideas; he also has some talks up on his web page.

In the traditional Landau paradigm, phases of matter arise as broken symmetries of the Hamiltonian, with different phases corresponding to different symmetries and described by a "local order parameter" (e.g. magnetization).

With the advent of developments in high-temperature superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect, new phases were found that exist completely outside the Landau paradigm: topological order, in which there is no local symmetry, yet the topology of the system can globally distinguish one phase from another.

Excitations of these systems with topological order were once thought to be necessarily "gapped", that is, the quasiparticle excitations have an effective mass. However, Wen has proposed a more general notion of "quantum order", in which gapless (massless) quasiparticles, analogous to photons or other gauge vector bosons, can appear.

The mechanism by which this occurs, in Wen's paradigm, is through "string net condensation". In quantum field theory, from the work of Polyakov and others, it is possible to think of the field lines connecting particles as "strings", with the particles residing at the endpoints of the strings. The fields are gauge fields, so the "stringy" field lines correspond to the massless gauge bosons, as opposed to the massive matter particles that serve as the string endpoints. Wen's quantum order has excitations in a spin lattice correspond effectively to strings (massless "force field" quasiparticles), which are open, i.e., have endpoints (massive "matter" quasiparticles).

There are actually strong analogies between these ideas and actual string theory (as noted by my reference to Polyakov's work). In fact, Wen did his Ph.D. in string theory under Edward Witten before switching to condensed matter.

The work discussed in this story is an experimental demonstration of a system with gapless excitations that do not obey Landau's local order paradigm, and thus relate to Wen's work on quantum order. (I am fuzzy on the details so I don't know to what extent this work is a confirmation of Wen's theories. I also don't know how novel gapless excitations are without symmetry breaking.)

You can read more about this from his work, such as this. Wen has even proposed that perhaps the actual photons and electrons we think are real are really just quasiparticle excitations arising from a low energy (large scale) effective field theory of some underlying submicroscopic lattice that we can't see — see here: he can recover many (but not all) of the aspects of the particle physics this way, and argues that it unifies light and matter (since open strings always have endpoints). I think he has problems with chiral fermions, IIRC. The big stumbling block is of course gravity, although he has made efforts in that direction too (here). He has written a graduate textbook on these ideas; he also has some talks up on his web page.

In the traditional Landau paradigm, phases of matter arise as broken symmetries of the Hamiltonian, with different phases corresponding to different symmetries and described by a "local order parameter" (e.g. magnetization).

With the advent of developments in high-temperature superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect, new phases were found that exist completely outside the Landau paradigm: topological order, in which there is no local symmetry, yet the topology of the system can globally distinguish one phase from another.

Excitations of these systems with topological order were once thought to be necessarily "gapped", that is, the quasiparticle excitations have an effective mass. However, Wen has proposed a more general notion of "quantum order", in which gapless (massless) quasiparticles, analogous to photons or other gauge vector bosons, can appear.

The mechanism by which this occurs, in Wen's paradigm, is through "string net condensation". In quantum field theory, from the work of Polyakov and others, it is possible to think of the field lines connecting particles as "strings", with the particles residing at the endpoints of the strings. The fields are gauge fields, so the "stringy" field lines correspond to the massless gauge bosons, as opposed to the massive matter particles that serve as the string endpoints. Wen's quantum order has excitations in a spin lattice correspond effectively to strings (massless "force field" quasiparticles), which are open, i.e., have endpoints (massive "matter" quasiparticles).

There are actually strong analogies between these ideas and actual string theory (as noted by my reference to Polyakov's work). In fact, Wen did his Ph.D. in string theory under Edward Witten before switching to condensed matter.

The work discussed in this story is an experimental demonstration of a system with gapless excitations that do not obey Landau's local order paradigm, and thus relate to Wen's work on quantum order. (I am fuzzy on the details so I don't know to what extent this work is a confirmation of Wen's theories. I also don't know how novel gapless excitations are without symmetry breaking.)

You can read more about this from his work, such as this. Wen has even proposed that perhaps the actual photons and electrons we think are real are really just quasiparticle excitations arising from a low energy (large scale) effective field theory of some underlying submicroscopic lattice that we can't see — see here: he can recover many (but not all) of the aspects of the particle physics this way, and argues that it unifies light and matter (since open strings always have endpoints). I think he has problems with chiral fermions, IIRC. The big stumbling block is of course gravity, although he has made efforts in that direction too (here). He has written a graduate textbook on these ideas; he also has some talks up on his web page.

In the traditional Landau paradigm, phases of matter arise as broken symmetries of the Hamiltonian, with different phases corresponding to different symmetries and described by a "local order parameter" (e.g. magnetization).

With the advent of developments in high-temperature superconductivity and the quantum Hall effect, new phases were found that exist completely outside the Landau paradigm: topological order, in which there is no local symmetry, yet the topology of the system can globally distinguish one phase from another.

Excitations of these systems with topological order were once thought to be necessarily "gapped", that is, the quasiparticle excitations have an effective mass. However, Wen has proposed a more general notion of "quantum order", in which gapless (massless) quasiparticles, analogous to photons or other gauge vector bosons, can appear.

The mechanism by which this occurs, in Wen's paradigm, is through "string net condensation". In quantum field theory, from the work of Polyakov and others, it is possible to think of the field lines connecting particles as "strings", with the particles residing at the endpoints of the strings. The fields are gauge fields, so the "stringy" field lines correspond to the massless gauge bosons, as opposed to the massive matter particles that serve as the string endpoints. Wen's quantum order has excitations in a spin lattice correspond effectively to strings (massless "force field" quasiparticles), which are open, i.e., have endpoints (massive "matter" quasiparticles).

There are actually strong analogies between these ideas and actual string theory (as noted by my reference to Polyakov's work). In fact, Wen did his Ph.D. in string theory under Edward Witten before switching to condensed matter.

The work discussed in this story is an experimental demonstration of a system with gapless excitations that do not obey Landau's local order paradigm, and thus relate to Wen's work on quantum order. (I am fuzzy on the details so I don't know to what extent this work is a confirmation of Wen's theories. I also don't know how novel gapless excitations are without symmetry breaking.)

You can read more about this from his work, such as this. Wen has even proposed that perhaps the actual photons and electrons we think are real are really just quasiparticle excitations arising from a low energy (large scale) effective field theory of some underlying submicroscopic lattice that we can't see — see here: he can recover many (but not all) of the aspects of the particle physics this way, and argues that it unifies light and matter (since open strings always have endpoints). I think he has problems with chiral fermions, IIRC. The big stumbling block is of course gravity, although he has made efforts in that direction too (here). He has written a graduate textbook on these ideas; he also has some talks up on his web page.

The preprint.

The evince document reader has had a problem of displaying pdf file with small writing. Try to open a random physics article with evince and xpdf: http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0203118. Has problem this been solved in the latest version?

My link vanished from my previous comment.

The astronomy community does exactly what you're asking for, you're just not listening:

* The data is made available to everyone after a short time delay

* The software to reduce the data is given away for free

* Our papers are generally available for free at http://lanl.arxiv.org/

The point of the short delay is that the person who made the effort to write the proposal to get the telescope time deserves a reward: a short time to write the first paper about the results.

If you look at other branches of science, they aren't nearly as good. But you're flaming your friends.

For those interested in more details, it looks like the preprint is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702643.

Originally TF was just a relationship between rotational speed and luminosity. Since luminosity is some measurement of stellar mass, it was proposed a few years ago that the true physical relationship was not with luminosity but with the total cooled baryonic mass (most of which is in the form of stars in most galaxies). So the Baryonic Tully Fisher relation was proposed, where they substituted the total mass of stars and gas instead of the luminosity. The relationship was tighter, indicating that this is closer to the fundamental relationship.

This work now takes it one more step and uses a more physical measurement for the other variable. Rotational speed of a disk galaxy tells you how deep the potential well is, assuming that all of the motion is in the form of rotation. But if there are also disordered motions, then it's really a combination of the disordered and ordered motion that tell you how deep the potential is. So they've replaced the rotation velocity with a combination of rotational velocity and velocity dispersion - and voila, the relationship is even tighter!

Very nice work.

[TMB]

The "TeraScale SneakerNet" paper posted earlier anticipates and answers that. They ship a fully assembled computer with processor, RAM, OS and network interface. Plug it in to the wall, plug it in to the network and assuming you had previously agreed on a networking protocol, you're rolling as soon as it boots! No restoration, no decompressing, immediate access to the data.

Does anyone have a Linux distro for this specific purpose? Preferably tiny enough to fit onto a USB key and optimized for bandwidth, preferably with a web server interface for configuring the discs and network?

Yup. There was a paper a few years back entitled "terascale sneakernet", by jim gray and a couple of guys at MSFT research division on this. You can find it in the arxiv.

This concept has also been applied to such things as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Astronomers do tend to generate a lot of data with large surveys such as this.

Here's a link to the cannonical paper on the issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064

Also, if you're interested, and in the New York area, some of the scientists who've been working on this are speaking at the Hayden planetarium in a few weeks: http://haydenplanetarium.org/programs/asimov/

Just to give a feel for what obsessive level of detail we're dealing with, here's a list of the possible causes considered in the paper above. The numbers after each listing are the bias and uncertainty in units of 10^-8 cm/sec^2. Listings with only one number only have an uncertainity, not a bias.

1 Systematics generated external to the spacecraft:
  a) Solar radiation pressure and mass +0.03 ±0.01
  b) Solar wind ± 10^-5
  c) Solar corona ±0.02
  d) Electro-magnetic Lorentz forces ± 10^-4
  e) Influence of the Kuiper belt's gravity ±0.03
  f) Influence of the Earth orientation ±0.001
  g) Mechanical and phase stability of DSN antennae ± 0.001
  h) Phase stability and clocks ± 0.001
  i) DSN station location ± 10^-5
  j) Troposphere and ionosphere ± 0.001
2 On-board generated systematics:
  a) Radio beam reaction force +1.10 ±0.11
  b) RTG heat reflected off the craft -0.55 ±0.55
  c) Differential emissivity of the RTGs ±0.85
  d) Non-isotropic radiative cooling of the spacecraft ±0.48
  e) Expelled Helium produced within the RTGs +0.15 ±0.16
  f) Gas leakage ±0.56
  g) Variation between spacecraft determinations +0.17 ±0.17
3 Computational systematics:
  a) Numerical stability of least-squares estimation ±0.02
  b) Accuracy of consistency/model tests ±0.13
  c) Mismodeling of maneuvers ±0.01
  d) Mismodeling of the solar corona ±0.02
  e) Annual/diurnal terms ±0.32

Arxiv doesn't appear to carry the paper, and only two papers in it relate to mock theta functions at all. One of them is a transformation formula for second-order mock theta functions and the other talks about mock theta functions as quantum invariants, whatever that means. A glance at the paper suggests that mock theta functions relate to a key element in topology, but my maths isn't nearly good enough to tell you exactly what is being described.

Arxiv doesn't appear to carry the paper, and only two papers in it relate to mock theta functions at all. One of them is a transformation formula for second-order mock theta functions and the other talks about mock theta functions as quantum invariants, whatever that means. A glance at the paper suggests that mock theta functions relate to a key element in topology, but my maths isn't nearly good enough to tell you exactly what is being described.