Slashdot Mirror

http://arxiv.org/format/quant-ph/0607178

If you'd like to see the whole article, as published in the Astrophysical Journal, you can find it on the astro-ph journal pre-print server. It's not the "official" journal version, but it should be identical to it (and was submitted to the preprint server by the authors).

The astrophysics arXiv preprint from June.

arXiv link is below.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606076

Here's something fun to read: The Free Will Theorem.

I frankly don't see how -information- can be sent via entanglement; once you measure a particle's spin, that tells you what the spin of the -other- particle is [ignoring where that other particle may be---maybe light years away] (but the measurer of that -other- particle has no idea what -your- particle's spin is when they're doing their measurement; unless of course they're close by, which defeats the whole magic).

(ie: their experiment is funny... first they'll measure the ``past'' particle (ie: now), then they'll measure the ``future'' particle (a bit later), and confirm that the past particle spin matches the future one (except they've measured the past one first, so technically, it could be the future particle matching the past particle!)).

It would be cool to see it actually happen, since previous entanglement experiments have never put the particles outside of each other's light cone

Huh? Zeilinger's group did just that some years ago.

Here's the actual paper the article is about.

Seems to me to be little more than a clever way to couple oscillators using higher order moments (that confine the majority of the energy around the device to be very close as they drop off much faster than inverse squared). The paper contains some interesting preturbation methods for determining how badly other objects in the nearby area would affect such a system, however I haven't had time to go through the math in detail.

Disclaimer: IANAP (but I do have a degree in physics) - any actual physicists like to comment on the mechanism here?

Well, I tried submitting a paper which claimed to have solved P=NP (via traveling salesman). Dunno if the editors read it, analyzed it, and came to the same conclusions as the follow-up, but I thought it was damn interesting nerd material.

Well, I tried submitting a paper which claimed to have solved P=NP (via traveling salesman). Dunno if the editors read it, analyzed it, and came to the same conclusions as the follow-up, but I thought it was damn interesting nerd material.

Flares from other stars will not have any effect on us. The sun flares all the time, but most flares are small.

If you want to know more about the II Pegasi flare, the paper is called Nonthermal Hard X-ray Emission and Iron Kalpha Emission from a Superflare on II Pegasi

What you need to learn about quantum computation is a function of what you know. If you know some mathematics, these are good: Kindergarten Quantum Mechanics and A Concise Introduction.... If you don't, I strongly suggest studying linear algebra, at least until you're 100% happy with tensor products of complex vector spaces, learning basic probability theory and then trying the second paper above.

I'm working on covering this for the Museum of Science, Boston on our podcast. I tracked down a PDF of the actual paper, if anyone is interested.

John Wheeler had this idea circa 1955; he called it "matter without matter". His first idea was "gravitational geons", self-gravitating lumps of curved spacetime. It turns out they are unstable and dissipate, unlike real matter. His next idea was that particles are wormhole mouths. There are stability issues there, too, plus it's very difficult to use them to describe the half-integer spin particles which obey the Pauli exclusion principle (fermions). So far, nobody has made the idea work, although it gets brought up from time to time; see this paper by Crane, or this older one by Smolin. There is also an old trick by Sorkin, and one by Witten in the Skyrme model, but they didn't really work out as full particle theories and I forget how they work.

John Wheeler had this idea circa 1955; he called it "matter without matter". His first idea was "gravitational geons", self-gravitating lumps of curved spacetime. It turns out they are unstable and dissipate, unlike real matter. His next idea was that particles are wormhole mouths. There are stability issues there, too, plus it's very difficult to use them to describe the half-integer spin particles which obey the Pauli exclusion principle (fermions). So far, nobody has made the idea work, although it gets brought up from time to time; see this paper by Crane, or this older one by Smolin. There is also an old trick by Sorkin, and one by Witten in the Skyrme model, but they didn't really work out as full particle theories and I forget how they work.

That first link shouldn't have the e on the end - sorry. Arxiv.org.

By "it strikes me as odd that students must leave campus to learn", I think the submitter meant "to learn in the most efficient way". Nobody thinks learning is impossible without the Internet, but in some fields it can be very difficult to keep up on the latest research without the Internet. For example, http://arxiv.org/ has changed the way research in physics is shared among institutions. OK, so the university in question isn't blocking arxiv.org, but in general there is going to be additional information on the Internet that your university doesn't have.

"...So on top of worrying about global warming, it seems we should also worry about the physics that govern the orbit of Earth around the sun. Too bad we don't have a way of keeping the Earth in the same orbit/on the same axis of rotation."

Yes, we have! And it's very interesting indeed!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ earth_move_010207.html

A link to the paper: Korycansky, D. G.; Laughlin, Gregory; Adams, Fred C. Astronomical engineering: a strategy for modifying planetary orbits. Astrophys.Space Sci. 275 (2001) 349-366
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0102126
Abstract:
"The Sun's gradual brightening will seriously compromise the Earth's biosphere within ~ 1E9 years. If Earth's orbit migrates outward, however, the biosphere could remain intact over the entire main-sequence lifetime of the Sun. In this paper, we explore the feasibility of engineering such a migration over a long time period. The basic mechanism uses gravitational assists to (in effect) transfer orbital energy from Jupiter to the Earth, and thereby enlarges the orbital radius of Earth. This transfer is accomplished by a suitable intermediate body, either a Kuiper Belt object or a main belt asteroid. The object first encounters Earth during an inward pass on its initial highly elliptical orbit of large (~ 300 AU) semimajor axis. The encounter transfers energy from the object to the Earth in standard gravity-assist fashion by passing close to the leading limb of the planet. The resulting outbound trajectory of the object must cross the orbit of Jupiter; with proper timing, the outbound object encounters Jupiter and picks up the energy it lost to Earth. With small corrections to the trajectory, or additional planetary encounters (e.g., with Saturn), the object can repeat this process over many encounters. To maintain its present flux of solar energy, the Earth must experience roughly one encounter every 6000 years (for an object mass of 1E22 g). We develop the details of this scheme and discuss its ramifications."

Folks at UCSC have done similar research with this paper found on the arXiv....I remembered reading it when it first came out and it's still a pretty neat concept.

The MCG -6-30-15 paper referred to in the press release. I don't think the MCG -5-23-16 paper has been made public yet.

The most interesting thing about the paper is that Suzaku's Hard X-ray Detector (which operates in a comparatively poorly studied waveband) is consistent (based on the model of an accretion disc around a spinning black hole) with what's happening in the softer X-ray band.

In case you're interested in what the K-Iron broad line is check out http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212065 and http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/spacetime.html

Relativity places restrictions on how fast matter and energy can travel through space, but it places no restrictions on how fast space itself can expand. You can write down solutions of the Einstein field equation that expand at any arbitrarily high rate, even so high that matter itself gets ripped apart.

Because ID10T's can install it. Its cross platform and easy to use. We use it to talk to my Cousin in Thailand or Korea. My Aunt and Uncle have it in Oregon. It is also able to punch through firewalls and NAT problems extremely well BECAUSE THEY USE SUPERNODES to connect the call.

Also here is a good "Whitepaper" on the skype protocall
http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0412/0412017.pdf

Disclaimer: I've worked with Lee Smolin before. That being said, I would like to provide a few pro-string theory arguments. Incidentally, please note that Lee himself still does string theory research as well as loop quantum gravity (LQG).

On testability: string theory could certainly be tested if we could probe the Planck scale. We will never be able to build an accelerator to do that directly. There is some chance we might eventually do it indirectly by measuring fluctuations in the cosmic gravitational wave background. In addition, string theory encompasses many scenarios in which the string scale could be probed at much lower energies, but nobody is very confident that those scenarios are likely to be correct.

The problem is that very basic arguments suggest that quantum gravity effects only show up at extremely small distance scales or extremely large energy scales (the Planck scale). This is going to be a huge obstacle to any attempt to quantize gravity, including Lee Smolin's loop quantum gravity. If we can test a theory of quantum gravity in the near future we will be lucky (e.g. the aforementioned low-energy string scale scenarios). Until then, any theory of quantum gravity is necessarily going to be mostly mathematics — but there has to be such a theory, because gravity and quantum theory are inconsistent as they stand today. So we are forced to look for quantum gravity theories to reconcile this conflict, but without experimental evidence. Accordingly, the main way to proceed is via logical consistency with known physics, which has been very successful in the past. (It is essentially how Einstein arrived at relativity before there was any strong experimental evidence in its favor.)

There is a serious possibility that string theory might be testable. I don't believe that puts string theory outside the realm of science altogether, however. String theory does at least make predictions, even if we can't test them. Moreover, it is motivated by reason of consistency with known physics. Gravity has to be reconciled with quantum theory somehow. It can't be proven, but there are strong reasons to believe that string theory overcomes obstacles to quantizing gravity in a unique way that all other approaches can't duplicate.

Here are a couple of arguments in favor of string theory put forth by string theorists:

In particle physics, it has been possible to write down theories of the non-gravitational forces while being ignorant of high energy
Planck scale physics. This is essentially due to the Applequist-Carrazone "decoupling" theorem, which uses renormalization group arguments to show that low-energy physics can be made independent of high energy physics, because at sufficiently low energies you can't excite the higher-energy modes; therefore, their contribution is irrelevant.

This decoupling breaks down for gravity. Because gravity is a universal interaction, it couples to everything (because everything has mass-energy); the low energy effects of quantum gravity are never independent of high-energy physics. So you can't write down a theory of quantum gravity unless you purport to know everything about particle physics up to arbitrarily high energies — which of course you can't possibly say, unless you can do experiments at the Planck scale.

This is a criticism that string theorists level against loop quantum gravity. LQG is usually attempted ignoring all realistic particle
physics, and even if that approach succeeded, you'd have to write down a different LQG theory to take into account real particles, which might work completely differently than a vacuum LQG theory. LQGers respond by saying that they want to start by just proving it's possible to quantize *any* kind of gravity using this approach, and then worry about "realistic gravity". (For some of these criticisms of LQG, see here and here;

Disclaimer: I've worked with Lee Smolin before. That being said, I would like to provide a few pro-string theory arguments. Incidentally, please note that Lee himself still does string theory research as well as loop quantum gravity (LQG).

On testability: string theory could certainly be tested if we could probe the Planck scale. We will never be able to build an accelerator to do that directly. There is some chance we might eventually do it indirectly by measuring fluctuations in the cosmic gravitational wave background. In addition, string theory encompasses many scenarios in which the string scale could be probed at much lower energies, but nobody is very confident that those scenarios are likely to be correct.

The problem is that very basic arguments suggest that quantum gravity effects only show up at extremely small distance scales or extremely large energy scales (the Planck scale). This is going to be a huge obstacle to any attempt to quantize gravity, including Lee Smolin's loop quantum gravity. If we can test a theory of quantum gravity in the near future we will be lucky (e.g. the aforementioned low-energy string scale scenarios). Until then, any theory of quantum gravity is necessarily going to be mostly mathematics — but there has to be such a theory, because gravity and quantum theory are inconsistent as they stand today. So we are forced to look for quantum gravity theories to reconcile this conflict, but without experimental evidence. Accordingly, the main way to proceed is via logical consistency with known physics, which has been very successful in the past. (It is essentially how Einstein arrived at relativity before there was any strong experimental evidence in its favor.)

There is a serious possibility that string theory might be testable. I don't believe that puts string theory outside the realm of science altogether, however. String theory does at least make predictions, even if we can't test them. Moreover, it is motivated by reason of consistency with known physics. Gravity has to be reconciled with quantum theory somehow. It can't be proven, but there are strong reasons to believe that string theory overcomes obstacles to quantizing gravity in a unique way that all other approaches can't duplicate.

Here are a couple of arguments in favor of string theory put forth by string theorists:

In particle physics, it has been possible to write down theories of the non-gravitational forces while being ignorant of high energy
Planck scale physics. This is essentially due to the Applequist-Carrazone "decoupling" theorem, which uses renormalization group arguments to show that low-energy physics can be made independent of high energy physics, because at sufficiently low energies you can't excite the higher-energy modes; therefore, their contribution is irrelevant.

This decoupling breaks down for gravity. Because gravity is a universal interaction, it couples to everything (because everything has mass-energy); the low energy effects of quantum gravity are never independent of high-energy physics. So you can't write down a theory of quantum gravity unless you purport to know everything about particle physics up to arbitrarily high energies — which of course you can't possibly say, unless you can do experiments at the Planck scale.

This is a criticism that string theorists level against loop quantum gravity. LQG is usually attempted ignoring all realistic particle
physics, and even if that approach succeeded, you'd have to write down a different LQG theory to take into account real particles, which might work completely differently than a vacuum LQG theory. LQGers respond by saying that they want to start by just proving it's possible to quantize *any* kind of gravity using this approach, and then worry about "realistic gravity". (For some of these criticisms of LQG, see here and here;

We have referred to those notes countless times as we came to grips with Perelman's ideas. In late August and early September of 2004, Kleiner, Lott and the two of us ran a workshop at Princeton University, supported by the Clay Math Institute, going through Perelman's second paper (the one of Ricci flow with surgery) in detail. This workshop played a significant role in convincing us that Perelman's arguments were complete and correct and also in convincing us to write this book.

Economics is dependent on physics?

This I gotta hear.

Economics is an end, and uses every tool available to that end. Physics is no exception.

Maybe a paper on arXiv will convince you?

No, it's de Sitter: dS describes accelerating expansion. AdS describes accelerating collapse. You may be thinking of the anti-de Sitter space that was so important in string theory, the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence. While mathematically important, AdS space is unrealistic in our universe (not to mention that it was originally 5-dimensional AdS space which was important). The realistic dS space actually presents problems for string theory.

No, it's de Sitter: dS describes accelerating expansion. AdS describes accelerating collapse. You may be thinking of the anti-de Sitter space that was so important in string theory, the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence. While mathematically important, AdS space is unrealistic in our universe (not to mention that it was originally 5-dimensional AdS space which was important). The realistic dS space actually presents problems for string theory.

Let's see. Here's three references from 1997-1998: here, here, and here.

Let's see. Here's three references from 1997-1998: here, here, and here.

Let's see. Here's three references from 1997-1998: here, here, and here.

Many people are pointing out that we really do not know what is going on at these sort of energies, and should we be playing with this if it hsa even the smallest chance of destroying the planet, etc. etc.

    What they are not pointing out is that collisions at the TeV scale are happening in our atmosphere, and if the theory about microscopic black holes are correct then they are being produced now. The flux of them is simply not great enough to be detected yet, but people keen on extra dimensions are hoping that they will be soon as more detectors come online (in particular, neutrino detectors at the poles).

The possibilities:
1) We can get black holes on this scale => no problem, nature does it anyway
2) Gravity is modified at this scale, and none are produced/obey the usual assumptions. As cosmic rays are colliding at TeV energies with the atmosphere with no ill-effect, we should be able to do it too.

For a readable interview:
http://www.esi-topics.com/blackholes/interviews/Jo nathanLFeng.html

For a paper on the subject:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112247

(This shows that the limits on extra dimensions being the solution to the Heirarchy problem are becoming quite stringent).

See Doomsday Fears at RHIC in particular the reference Review of Speculative "Disaster Scenarios" at RHIC

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement".

For those of you who want to read more on it. I'm currently ploguhing through his paper and and a few others but if anyone of the top knows whether Lieu used sigma8 from the WMAP 3yr results and how he selected clusters and estimated cluster mass... Skimming Lieu's paper his conclusion already claims that it is not inconsistent with previous SZE data for individual clusters. Anyways back to digesting papers.
 
Linkys

A primer on the SZE

[PDF WARNING]
Their paper on astro-ph

The WMAP 3 year results paper

[/PDF WARNING]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

At least that's the conclusion of Nicola M. Pugno:

the megacable strength will be reduced by a factor at least of ~70% with respect to the theoretical nanotube strength, today (erroneously) assumed in the cable design.

For this reason I've become quite skeptical. But please, prove me wrong, boy would that be cool.

While we're talking B-Movie monsters, it's worth mentioning the recent paper(PDF warning) by a couple of physicists proving the nonexistence of vampires and ghosts. Interestingly they didn't show zombies couldn't exist - although they at least came up with a more plausible explanation.

I had a tenured position at a university as well, but I left the system anyway, and it was partly due to issues of the kind described.

Academia hinges almost entirely on your research karma, your success at obtaining grants, and the funds you can bring in to your department. In computing, it has very little to do with how effectively your work extends understanding in your area, even less to do with using honest scientific methods, and absolutely nothing to do with teaching.

And since your research karma is in the hands of the high priests in the field and has relatively little to do with your own technical abilities, I can fully understand the frustrations of other research academics. It's a dead-man's-shoes area, and not a good field to be in unless you're good at cultivating your profile through social engineering.

Fortunately I left early because of the compelling attraction of fat paycheques in freelance contracting, an order of magnitude better than academic payscales. But even without that, I think the social problems within academia might have made me leave in disgust at some point too.

I don't know anything specific to SIGGRAPH, but that kind of malaise is quite widespread in the academic sector.

PS. The current publication/conference-based approach in peer review needs change. The author of TFA actually gave one possible avenue, arXiv, which fits in well with today's greater interest in open systems. I support that.

Of course, there's no major weapons work going on at BNL.

Except for destroying the universe.

(I kid, I kid.)

Jupiter is not a planet, because it has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit - it has asteroids at the Trojan points.
Earth is not a planet, because it has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit -- there exist Near-Earth asteroids and Earth-crossing asteroids. (One might argue that this is getting worse, what with all the space debris we keep flinging into near-Earth solar orbit).

To quote a response from Wikipedia: Even if you don't neglect the Trojan asteroids and other such objects, all the gas giants have cleared their orbits. The Trojans are at very specific points along Jupiters orbit that are defined by Jupiter's gravity. If Jupiter hadn't cleared its orbit they would not be restricted to those points. A massive body collects all bodies near it either into itself, its orbit, its L4 and L5 points with the sun, into resonant orbits, or it ejects them. Its just like cleaning your room. It doesn't mean nothing is in your room, but simply that it's all neatly put away.

Also, I highly recommend that you read this paper.

Currently some journals (especially the very prestigious ones like Nature) want to have complete control of the paper. At the start this means they won't take anything the public has seen before -- that's part of their take on only publishing "original research" [hence the reasonable six-month delay in the proposed law]. But they also insist on having the copyright in the article assigned to them [they mostly need some form of this so they can disseminate the article in new ways that didn't exist when it was written]. Unfortunately, sometime they take these ideas too far (as in preventing people from publishing the papers on their own websites).

The internet is slowly forcing the journals to change. This law will make them chagne faster. They will have to accept that their function will be limited to providing reputation (via peer-review and editorial policy), and in some cases providing the first view of a paper. However, they will no longer be the only way to get the paper so the value of a journal subscription will go down.

In math and physics the researches are already annoyed by the system. Essentially it works like this: we do the research, often being paid by the public via a government grant. Then we write the papers. Then we referee papers for journals for free, and serve as journal editors for free -- no scientist gets paid by the journal for either writing the paper or checking that it's correct. Then the journal turns around and charges the community money to read the papers. Of course this is untenable and open-access journals are beginning to flourish. Moreover all journals live with people posting the paper to their website (either the preprint or the journal version) as well as having preprints freely available from the arXiV. Still some journals are expensive beyond belief (given that they get the content for free and all the editing is done for free and all they are giving is reputation). Many researchers will have nothign to do with an Elsevier journal because of this kind of behaviour.

That's a good question - this is termed the "cooling flow problem". We expect to see lots of gas cooling in relaxed clusters (not the colliding one discussed here) as the gas is dense in the central regions. However there's a lack of evidence of cool gas, so most people think something is heating it (although there are many solutions possible http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0010509). The ideal candidate is the central supermassive black hole (AGN), however it is difficult to understand how this process works. One idea is that sound waves can transport the energy from the black hole into the cluster, heating it (see e.g. http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press _120105.html)

Take a gander at the published paper. A large part of the reason that this galaxy cluster in particular was chosen was because it is one of the cases known where we have a clear-cut idea of what's going on.

Their initial assumption (page 1 right column): "During a collision of two clusters, galaxies behave as collisionless particles, while the fluid-like X-ray emitting intracluster plasma experiences ram pressure. Therefore, in the course of a cluster collision, galaxies spatially decouple from the plasma." Since the area occupied by dense matter (stars) is more than 10^11 times smaller than that of the whole cluster, literally one or two stars might impact each other. Meanwhile, the intracluster gas is, however diffuse, GAS - it can't pass through itself, and is observed to contain ~80-90% of a cluster's visible mass.

I don't know the specifics of how this is done, but they used a gradient of the change in a background galaxy's size and related it to the curvature of space (and hence amount of mass). By plotting a lot of background galaxies, they were able to integrate the gradient to find the center of mass (warning: not 100% sure of this explanation) that was causing the lensing (green gradient lines on page 2).

When this is compared with an x-ray image of the gas which is known to comprise most of the visible mass of clusters, the two mismatch by about 6 arc seconds. On page 4, they discuss the probability of other clusters creating the apparent mass (1/10 million chance) or entire filaments of intergalactic mass creating it (1 in 100 million). The only remaining conclusion from this is that something which fits the description of dark matter (in that it has mass but no other measurable property) makes up the great majority of the cluster's mass and the two clouds of it passed through each other like the galaxies.

So, they expected the stars/dark matter and the gas of colliding clusters to separate in a collision, and this is exactly what was observed

Show me why dark matter has to exist.

We've set off fifty megaton nukes for crying out loud without a single sign of anything amiss that would suggest we have a giant hole in physics requiring dark matter. We've done experiments on electromagnetic fundamentals, nuclear forces, and so on and along the way, we didn't hear of a need to invent dark matter.

But some people look at the cosmos and decide that despite not truly understanding the whole picture of physics at every scale yet, we can claim that dark matter exists and here's proof. Where in the Nine Hells does this stuff fit with the physics theories they already promulgate as accepted science to be taught in universities?

The preprint relevent to this article is http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407.

At first glance it seems like a nice paper.

TRealFA: here (the dark matter bragging) and here (details on the lensing observations). Perhaps certain folks will take the time to read and understand them before blathering about "fudge factors" and "modern ether". But probably not.

TRealFA: here (the dark matter bragging) and here (details on the lensing observations). Perhaps certain folks will take the time to read and understand them before blathering about "fudge factors" and "modern ether". But probably not.

Check out the sidebar under "Published Stuff", especially this link... Next objection, please...

Paul B.

An example is the Travelling Salesman Problem, although there are literally thousands of them. This category is a particularly interesting target from a commercial perspective because most real-life business problems are in it. ... Quantum computers can be used to get approximate solutions to large NP-complete optimization problems much more quickly than the best known methods running on any supercomputer.