Slashdot Mirror

Here's a link to the original paper.

A quick scan shows that they... apparently use every type of data representation. You'll find a scatter plot with non-linear regression, a joint distribution image, a histogram, line charts, diffusion networks, and a triangular distribution thingy where color indicates the log of the number of articles (what the heck is that called?).

It plots the Gini coefficient of the various tweets. (I'll save you the trouble.)

The paper goes from the introduction directly to the results, then the discussion, then talks about the methods afterwards. Is that typical? I always thought the methods section comes before the results.

As near as I can tell, there is no supplemental data that indicates what their data is. Their entire paper relies on the correctness of "hoaxy" and "botometer".

Taking "botometer" as an example, looking for an estimate of accuracy, I could find no papers in established journals about this service. There are a couple of conference papers though - will those do? None has an indication of how accurate the service is.

So if "botometer" has an accuracy of 80%, which would be pretty good, and "hoaxy" had an accuracy of 80%, which would also be pretty good, then the results of the cited paper would be... how good?

Looking at the paper, I have to wonder if it's an elaborate hoax.

There's a *lot* of... um... surprising things about this paper.

After viewing it first hand, there are a lot of people going through "degree factories", getting degrees that are getting only the basics of statistical knowledge. And a little knowledge is very dangerous. The p-value is a useful measure, but it's been simplified to (p less than 0.05 = good) in biomedical circles. And if you read the other upvoted threads, or read some of the linked articles, you'll understand why this is a big problem.

There are a few tensions here that I think may be causing this: (a) publish or perish - if it looks reasonable enough, publish because that's where your next job comes from, (b) poor statistical training - can be from both the authors and reviewers side, (c) unwillingness to fund or publish work that is reproducing previous results - there is a publisher created publication bias, (d) the general high cost of patient centred biomedical research, so meaning your have low sample numbers generally, (e) the unwillingness in some disciplines to get formal statistical input.

What are the potential solutions? If there was an unrestricted money pool you can recruit adequately (n>10000) to each study, but the money is not there, and there are some very rare diseases around. Better statistical training would be ideal, and there has been a push towards Bayesian analysis: I would think that as in most statistical tools someone will eventually find a way to inappropriately use them. Self-publish as an option - could be possible: I've seen some horrifically bad peer reviewed articles (& predatory journals!) but there is an ethical tension between publishing without review which could just flood the literature with absolute garbage which is difficult to sort through, and actual proper peer review. Maybe something like Arxiv for biomedical science, although there would be a lot of resistance to it I suspect.

I don't hold too many hopes for a quick solution to this as there are a lot of vested interests, and people using the best new fangled statistical methods they've learned. I've even reviewed a paper recently, with multiple authors from a big university, where I just shook my head at the amount of statistical fudging that took place: the authors had imputed about 80% of their primary predictor variable for an outcome, and then came up with a conclusion based on the imputed data. I just shook my head that this was actually allowed nowadays. While this article is good, some of the authors have been banging on about it for some time without much change.

No not technically. Did particle A starting in position X end up at position Y? Was any information transferred or able to be transferred? Is faster than light communication possible? The answer to all these are no. Describing entanglement with teleportation is dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actually, quantum information was transferred. Of course there wasn't faster than light communication as quantum teleportation relies on entanglement *and* a classical communication channel.

For each qubit of information that wants to be sent, one of a pair of entangled photons needs to be conveyed to the destination (which can be done at nearly lightspeed for photons in free-space). After this is conveyance is done, then anytime later, a qubit from a third photon can be "teleported" to the destination by use of a conventional communication channel (which obviously isn't faster than light speed).

The way this works is you jointly measure the 3rd photon and your local singleton of the previously entangled photon which yields one of 4 joint states. This doesn't tell you the original state of the 3rd photon, only the joint state relative to the entangled photon, (but in the process collapses the state of these photons).

You then send this description of the measurement (basically two bits of information) across a classical channel to the destination (at whatever speed you want).

To replicate the quantum state at the destination, you manipulate the phase of the previously conveyed/entangled photon (without measuring it) according to on the results of the relative (2-bit) state description. After this manipulation, this previously conveyed entangled-photon has a non-collapsed replicated quantum state of the original 3rd photon, but the state was transmitted/teleported to its destination over a classical channel.

You can read the details from their paper paper. Over 32 days, they managed 911 four-photon events and achieved an estimated accuracy of about 80% of conveying the quantum state (the theoretical limit accuracy of a conventional channel was about 66% w/o using information obtained using measurements of previously conveyed entangled photons).

Remember you can't simply pre-measure a quantum state w/o collapsing it to determine the accuracy rate, so accuracy was determined statistically using two entangled pairs (which is why they needed to create a four-photon-event and for which it was hard to create a process for).

Baby steps.

The odds it's just random chance is about 1 in 80 or so of at least one in a universe like ours. So I wouldn't hold my breath, but it is intriguing.

I seem to remember something about this kind of thing about 8 years or so ago, where the schwinger limit was postulated to be unreachable due to self-interactions of the beam...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.430...

and that due to these self-interactions, there was a theoretical fixed limit to photon flux in vacuum before the limit that would cause vacuum decay.

Did this work somehow exceed that prior work?

Not surprising. Police still need a warrant.

Androids have become a lot more secure. IPhones are crackable but it takes a special rig, https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.043... .

So you read some slashdot story on a scientific topic until you get to a poorly-written rant which promotes "skepticism", which is a dog whistle for various anti-science types. Complaining about the scientific establishment, questioning the value of research and astronomy in general, and talking up "free thinkers" are the hallmarks of the physics crank. This person does not ask what the significance of the research is, they instead write paragraphs about how the useless the research is. This is not a person seeking to remedy their ignorance.

I'll retract most of my criticism of your scholarship. I do think that your style of writing is poor, and that you might want to get that young-person prejudice looked at. I'm in my 30s and was raised in rural Alaska; whatever qualities you imagine I have are unlikely to be applicable. And yes, I often belittle the intelligence of others on this forum. I'll consider your criticism on that score.

The paper, if you haven't read it, is available on the arxiv. (You may also want some background on echelle spectrometers). It does not go into great detail about the formation of star systems generally; it's focused on the subset of star systems with these "hot Jupiters". These systems are interesting because [1] they're big compared to rocky planets and therefore more easily found and studied, and [2] they're almost the 'default' result of excess stellar material. We would expect Jupiter to form more or less where it is, and then migrate inwards closer to the Sun, gobbling up or ejecting the inner planets as it went. One theory is that it actually started to do so, but then was pulled back by Saturn. It's not extremely well supported as yet, but it's one of the more interesting developments in astronomy in recent years. A critical review from the arxiv.

Generally speaking, the solar system doesn't look like how our models think it should. We ask: why? How much did the peculiar configuration affect the origin of life on Earth? Where else in the universe might we find conditions similarly hospitable for life? This discovery is a very small step towards answering these questions. They are, of course, of no practical use, now or in the future, but there's nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

So you read some slashdot story on a scientific topic until you get to a poorly-written rant which promotes "skepticism", which is a dog whistle for various anti-science types. Complaining about the scientific establishment, questioning the value of research and astronomy in general, and talking up "free thinkers" are the hallmarks of the physics crank. This person does not ask what the significance of the research is, they instead write paragraphs about how the useless the research is. This is not a person seeking to remedy their ignorance.

I'll retract most of my criticism of your scholarship. I do think that your style of writing is poor, and that you might want to get that young-person prejudice looked at. I'm in my 30s and was raised in rural Alaska; whatever qualities you imagine I have are unlikely to be applicable. And yes, I often belittle the intelligence of others on this forum. I'll consider your criticism on that score.

The paper, if you haven't read it, is available on the arxiv. (You may also want some background on echelle spectrometers). It does not go into great detail about the formation of star systems generally; it's focused on the subset of star systems with these "hot Jupiters". These systems are interesting because [1] they're big compared to rocky planets and therefore more easily found and studied, and [2] they're almost the 'default' result of excess stellar material. We would expect Jupiter to form more or less where it is, and then migrate inwards closer to the Sun, gobbling up or ejecting the inner planets as it went. One theory is that it actually started to do so, but then was pulled back by Saturn. It's not extremely well supported as yet, but it's one of the more interesting developments in astronomy in recent years. A critical review from the arxiv.

Generally speaking, the solar system doesn't look like how our models think it should. We ask: why? How much did the peculiar configuration affect the origin of life on Earth? Where else in the universe might we find conditions similarly hospitable for life? This discovery is a very small step towards answering these questions. They are, of course, of no practical use, now or in the future, but there's nothing wrong with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Asteroid belt. But that's fairly uniform. How about a large body (say a small planet or moon) coming close to a much larger body and getting ripped apart?

Interestingly (amusingly), just as this dimming was happening, a paper was being published proposing a mild periodicity in the dimmings which was interpreted as an occultation by a planet, then a dimming due to the planet's trailing Trojan cloud (do I need to explain Trojans in an astronomical sense? No? good.) then the secondary eclipse of the planet (planet occulted by star, from our PoV). At which point, they were predicting a Trojan secondary eclipse in about 2021.

Bzzzt! Sorry guys. Beautiful hypothesis slaughtered by an ugly fact in the very days of it's birth.

But I was just doing some back-of-a-thumbnail calculations on the amount of "Trojan" material (some tens of Jupiter masses), and the planet itself (some hundreds of Jupiter masses. Neither is credible to me, but the hundreds of Jupiter mass "planet" would be comfortably (x2, x3) above the thermonuclear turn-on mass, so wouldn't be a "cold" planet but a small star. Bzzzt! Sorry guys. Dead idea.

The paper is on Arxiv.

Yes, and every single detected photon in the universe is a counterfactual to all the other paths the photon could have taken. Normally, these paths are numerous and unknowable, but if you build a machine just right, you can restrict the paths so much that there are just a few, and witnessing one path can eliminate some others as possibilities, and also prove the existence of a separate but coherent path.

Although restricting the paths is one way to do this (with the quantum bomb detector), I believe the proposed quantum counterfactual communicaton technique actually uses the Quantum Zeno Effect. Instead of restricting the paths of a photon, the Quantum Zeno effect restricts the time-evolution of the photon temporarily preventing quantum decoherence.

Basically a watched pot never boils on (quantum) steroids.

This Quantum Zeno effect has also been proposed as the mechanism for long spin coherence lifetimes of radical-ion pairs that birds likely use for Magnetoreception

Paper preprint...
Wikipage about boson sampling...

In principle, a large-scale boson-sampling machine would constitute an effective disproof against a foundational tenet in computer science: the Extended Church-Turing Thesis, which postulates that all realistic physical systems can be efficiently simulated with a (classical) probabilistic Turing machine.

The machine may not have any practical use, but it still is an interesting theoretical advance that might serve to challenge our understanding of computablity... Part of the theoretical importance of this area of research is the understanding of #P-complete problems.

The wikipedia articlenotes the theoretical significance of this...

A polynomial-time algorithm for solving a #P-complete problem, if it existed, would imply P = NP, and thus P = PH. No such algorithm is currently known.

Now we're faced with a 2 sigma anomaly and the shouts of new physics are once again repeated. This is even more likely to be noise.

From what I understand the main difference between the 750GeV bump and this anomaly is that the 750GeV was a single bump which did not have a nice-fitting theoretical explanation while still being compatible with existing measurements.

This anomaly might only ~2 sigma so far, but it is ~2 sigma in several channels, so not just "one bump", and it seems one can rather easily and naturally extend the theory to match observations.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09189

Yes, there was. According to TFS, they used more precise computational models which caused the need for dark matter to go away. Note that while the story was published on slashdot on April 1st, the article is from March 30th and the paper is from February 12th.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.073...

I just wanted to know what the actual outcome was of Nvidia's approach vs other human developed self driving software simply using ANNs for pattern recognition. Did it work better or worse than Tesla et al? The paper doesn't seem to say.

All I was able to extract was 98% figure relating to percentage of time in self-driving mode. Full self driving in all conditions is a problem with an extremely long tail rendering figures like these mostly worthless. It's not hard to create a system that works right the vast majority of the time but until you can demonstrate all the time or at least on par with skilled humans these figures are not all that useful.

If you can establish better outcomes then personally I don't much care what's in the box. It's indecipherable gibberish to most users of the technology anyway.

The only thing I would have a problem with is allowing learning on the job vs a controlled training environment. Viral propagation of clever driving style memes aside the system still executes code deterministically. Even if you don't know how it works you can still replay inputs against a factory trained network and reproduce the same failures. You can still beat down failure rates and improve reliability over time using the same trial and error techniques crackpot developers the world over are already intimately familiar.

arXiv:1703.08544, D. TRUMP: Data-mining Textual Responses to Uncover Misconception Patterns

In other words, "the universe is a simulation" is an unevidenced assertion, much like the multiverse. Yes, there may be some extrapolations of the underlying math that might point in such a direction, but at the moment, it's simply a cool-sounding idea with absolutely no experimental evidence at all.

You are wrong about there being no evidence for "the multiverse." There's actually more evidence for the existence of level 1 multiverses than there is for just our one being the only: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph...

Microwave ovens do generate microwaves. Using the waves, we can:

• - see through walls: http://people.csail.mit.edu/fadel/wivi/
• - identify people: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03430
• - monitor heart rate and breathing patterns: http://witrack.csail.mit.edu/vitalradio
• - identify key strokes: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2790109

Don't be so naive.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.383...

Time is just the sequence of events. And events on the smallest scale are particle interactions.

What if there is an unknown quantum field which creates a barrier between particles? And particles have to "tunnel" through it in order to interact?

When this quantum field is more disturbed (warped, etc) this barrier will be greater and it would be harder to particles to interact with each other. The end result is "time" slows down since the number of interactions drops.

Note that an observer (in its own reference frame) will not notice anything (in the same way as in general relativity) since the observer just counts the number of interactions. To that observer the same number of interactions means the same amount of "time" passes.

And yes, this means this quantum field would be a distinguished reference frame.

Because if I understand quantum theory correctly, it both works, and doesn't. There is no measurement for a half binary state in a binary world of absolute on and off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" here, but pretty much every interpretation of this is wrong. In fact, measurement of quantum superpositions do return specific classical states, with a probability based on the superpositions.

I think pursuing analogue supercomputers might be a better place to start.

We have specific theorems about what analogue classical computers can do. See for example http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0196885888900048 and https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502072. In general, analog computers cannot do error correction and can when used to do optimization get easily stuck in local minima.

A more reasonable argument would be "We need more money to continue milking this quantum cow that never produces anything."

Quantum computing is still in its infancy and is best thought of as still in the basic research category. But even given that, there's been massive improvement in the last few years, both in terms of physical implementations (how many entangled qubits one can process) and in terms of understanding the broader theory. One major aspect where both the experimental and theoretical ends have seen major improvement is quantum error correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction.

The point I was making was that game devs of the time weren't even trying to build a intelligent, learning system that would adapt to player behavior or environmental changes, but they simply took the lazy/easy path of just peeking at player input and using asymmetrical information to appear to be smarter than they actually were.

In other words, when you slightly change the rules about how AI is supposed to work, the problems turned out so easy that the developer didn't need to bother with any formal AI approaches.

It's also worth noting that the developer solved the problem. Excessive problem description and feature creation is a notorious killer of many academic projects not just in the AI world. The business world occasionally falls prey to that as well, but as we see here, not always.

I am a little confused though, on how either of these points leads you to the conclusion that 'Academic Techniques' aren't adequate for real world problems. Some of the best and most exiting work in the 'real world' being done by big companies is built solidly on academic techniques. Go read about Google's machine translate work, for example. It is built on a neural net model, and is making some pretty amazing progress.

First, on your machine translation example, "amazing progress" compared to what? Both neural nets and machine translation have been around for decades. The "wow" factor of Google's efforts comes from the infrastructure that has been built up (being able to copy/paste something something to be translated over the internet effortlessly and throw orders of magnitude more CPU cycles at it) rather than the algorithm.

What I consider a more relevant case of doing something new with neural networks is Google's Deep Dream where one uses a neural network trained on finding certain images (say like images of buildings) to iteratively perturb images (like a mundane landscape photo) to bring out those patterns (ending up with a weird, psychedelic image with lots of buildings crammed into every part of the image).

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of academic precedent for that. The related research articles heavily emphasize classification and detection improvements not the wow of turning a boring image into piles of buildings or whatever. Going to the games genre, this would be an excellent way for a neural network to create on the fly themed maps and art for a game. Train a neural net to spot the desired sort of maps or artwork and then starting with a sufficiently simulating pile of mush, bring out the desired patterns iteratively in the mush.

Finally, if you hope that using my own opinions about the state of AI will somehow shore up your opinion of academic AI techniques, I will be the first to claim that I am a talented amateur at best. Build your arguments on my thoughs on the topic, and you are truly building a house on sand!

You made the claim that academics are at least a century out from building anything resembling human or higher level AI. That says right there that you don't think they have much to say about the subject now. This brings up my second point, Your beliefs are inconsistent. We don't need to care about any validation of my beliefs when the conflicts in your beliefs are more than ample to defeat your assertions.

The most obvious source of any AI development is completely missed here. It's not academics, CEOs, or secretive government agencies. It's computers. Once you've completely automated the creation of human or better level AI, then it's not going to need a century to get there. You might not even need a day.

Bootstrapping more sophisticated algorithms from existing one that have sufficient power to improve themselves is the great missing step here, I think. And modern AI research simply isn't going that way at present. I think at some point that will change, then we'll come up with more relevant concerns than how many more centuries we'll wait till humanity does this thing.

Strong XUV irradiation of the Earth-sized exoplanets orbiting the ultracool dwarf TRAPPIST-1

https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.015...

GPUs are problematic because there's not a good way to compute matrix factorizations on them.

Have you looked at this paper on large matrix factorization?

Use JS cache timing attacks. Story from /.

I guess you find statistics on the net for that quite easy.

There doesn't seem to be that much out there.I googled for "comparative productivity of programming languages", and looked for fairly recent results that aren't paywalled or blocked by the company firewall. There wasn't that much..

Dr. Dobb's gives Java about a 20% advantage over C++. this arxiv paper essentially says Java is better for web development and C++ for systems programming, with no numbers given.

but as you hate Java you never will figure why the productivity is so much higher in it, so I give you a few hints:

This applies to you and C++. You clearly don't know C++ well enough to make your judgments. Also, I don't hate Java. I'm kinda meh on it.

First: the huge amount of open source libraries and frameworks

There's a lot for C++ also, but Java and the JVM have the advantage.

f) refactoring, Java is easier to parse due to lack of header files and macros, so refactoring on big projects can be done with the IDE

Also because C has some parse problems. Definitely an advantage for Java. There are some C++ refactoring tools out there, but they will continue to lag behind Java and C#.

g) "forward code engineering" due to f) I simply write code as a SmallTalk programmer would. Non existing method calls I purposefully write get red underlined. The IDE asks if I want to fix that to an existing method name or if I want to introduce a new method in the affected class.

In other words, you save a few seconds now and then in the development process. Switching between files is not a major time sink in development.

Database access, concurrency, networking: all those things are super simple in Java and require manual work in C++

C++ has concurrency support that works great for simple concurrency (since clearly you were talking about simple cases, since the harder stuff is not simple in any C-type language (I have to learn more about Erlang sometime)). The other two are matters of libraries, which exist for C++ also.

Python has many of the benefits of Java, too, but no byte code morphing and I'm not sure how much introspection/reflection can be done in python but on the other hand you can do a lot of meta programming in it, too.

Python has simple syntax, unlike Java or C++, and when you need performance it's easy to embed C or C++ routines. I'm not a real Python guy, but for fairly simple stuff I find Perl faster to develop in than Java or C++.

Ah yes, and meta programming in C++ does not exist besides the decades old "open C++" compiler.

You're fifteen or twenty years behind on that.

You simply don't know enough about C++ and C++ development to make the tenfold productivity claim. You clearly know significantly more about Java development than I do, so I'm not really qualified to make productivity claims,

You will get smacked down if you try to feign knowledge in those domains because those of us who know our shit have zero tolerance for bullshit

No, once information has been lost it's gone. No amount of time or frequency domain analysis will restore it.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.007...

Are you talking about something like https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.147... ?

Variants of this problem have been along for a very long time. It was popular as a recreational game in the 1930s and is now used more with Middle School students as a way of getting them more familiar with different operations.

If one uses instead of 4 uses 1 and has a restricted operation set or the like then you can get some actually non-trivial math by asking how many 1s you need. For example, one can define the integer complexity of a number n, denoted by ||n|| as the minimum number of 1s needed to write n as a product or sum of 1s with any number of parentheses. Thus for example, 6=(1+1)(1+1+1) shows that ||n|| 1 one has 3log_3 n - a better result is actually known that what is in that post, and I'm writing it up now. The other person mentioned there is Harry Altman who probably has thought more about different notions of complexity of numbers than anyone else at this point (his dissertation was on the subject). We had a joint paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4841 that is mostly readable.

Another neat variant of this is again looking at 1s and allowing just addition, but allow that once you have made a number you can use it again, and now you count how many operations you have used. So for example, in this framework, you can use 3 additions to get 6 because 3=1+1+1 and 6=3+3. This is the addition chain complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition_chain and is closely related to how to quickly exponentiate objects (such as matrices, or specific numbers mod another group) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition-chain_exponentiation which is very important for doing a lot of practical algorithms efficiently (such as RSA and Diffie-Hellman).

The problem in the original post is essentially silly but it connects to a lot of neat, serious math. (Also, Numberphile is in general great.)

The way it seems to be for games AI is generally:

- Minimax type AI has spectacularly good micro, but sucks at macro. E.g. chess AIs, or see minimax used on RTSes - quote: " RTMM plays perfect short term micro-scale game, but plays a very bad high-level (long term) strategy ..."
- UCT type AI has somewhere between consistently poor and consistently average play on both macro and micro, see e.g. Go programs prior to AlphaGo.
- Neural net AI has good macro but suck at micro. See AlphaGo: as long as it could do a death of a thousand cuts type play against Sedol, it won; but when Sedol forced it into a tactical trap in game 4, it failed badly. And from the TD-Gammon article on Wikipedia: "TD-Gammon's strengths and weaknesses were the opposite of symbolic artificial intelligence programs and most computer software in general: it was good at matters that require an intuitive "feel", but bad at systematic analysis." A problem with neural net AI is that it has to be designed to fit the problem. AlphaGo used a UCT hybrid with convolutional neural networks while TD-Gammon used temporal difference learning.

Humans are also much better at figuring out a game without being told how it works, or at constructing models for situations where trial and error is out of the question; this probably contributes to why we're not seeing fire-and-forget AI for say, governance or management. There's no rulebook for that kind of "game", and a neural net AI can't train itself by self-play unless it knows what the rules are to begin with.

Actually no. Inflation is an attracter - generic initial conditions produce it within even the simplest models - see https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.021...

The fine-tuning problem is normally cited for lambda is so small in energy density, but that has nothing to do with inflation.

What exactly are the observations you're claiming that lambda-CDM doesn't fit with? The Planck satellite appears to be showing it to fit almost perfectly...

There are a number of issues with this paper: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa... . The first is that the achieved pressure beyond 335 GPa are seat-of-the-pants estimates. The second is that they did not publish the mass of the "grain of ruby" and they did not account for what happened to this grain of ruby during the experiment. A one-atom layer of Al and Cr from the Al2:O3:Cr Ruby on the outside of their compressed 30 micron in diameter mass could account for their physical observations. My largest issue with the paper is they did not describe the depressurizing process. Metastability is a key indicator of metallic hydrogen and yet the paper omits any good or bad observations related to metastability. What happened at the end of the experiment? Why wasn't this reported?

The paper (preprint in arxiv ) is regarded with serious doubts by many physicists.

1) The speed of light is constant, everywhere and everywhen.

Variable Speed of Light theories, around for 20-30 years. Investigated in cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
Current observations put very very very tight bounds on dc/dt.

2) The gravitational constant is the same, everywhere and everywhen.

Jordan-Brans-Dicke theories. Hundreds of papers, dating back to Dirac's large number hypothesis. See http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar...

3) The shape of space is uniformly flat, everywhere and everywhen.

No. Space-time is a curved manifold. Not only in the cosmological (isotropic+homogeneous limit) with limiting spaces of three-spheres or hyperbolic spaces, but also across huge perturbations on them. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.038... for tests of homogeneity and isotropy, for example.

4) Please don't get me started about standard candles.

OK, I won't. They conform with observations, match the fine-stucture constant and Lyman forest predictions incredibly well, vast literature that exists on these matches cosmic helium and hydrogen observations, matches with galactic rotations etc.

5) Or cosmological inflation.

Producing effects as predicted. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.165... for an in depth probability test of cosmological parameters including the spectral tilt and scalar to tensor ratio of perturbations (CMB) predicted by inflation.

6) Or the (luminiferous) aether. Sorry, the Higgs field/particle/whatever.

Predicted, observed, behaving exactly as predicted at 5 sigma significance in the mass.

Just because YOU don't know about it, doesn't mean that we haven't investigated it. But of course, feel free to keep having a reckon without looking stuff up first.

1) The speed of light is constant, everywhere and everywhen.

Variable Speed of Light theories, around for 20-30 years. Investigated in cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
Current observations put very very very tight bounds on dc/dt.

2) The gravitational constant is the same, everywhere and everywhen.

Jordan-Brans-Dicke theories. Hundreds of papers, dating back to Dirac's large number hypothesis. See http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar...

3) The shape of space is uniformly flat, everywhere and everywhen.

No. Space-time is a curved manifold. Not only in the cosmological (isotropic+homogeneous limit) with limiting spaces of three-spheres or hyperbolic spaces, but also across huge perturbations on them. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.038... for tests of homogeneity and isotropy, for example.

4) Please don't get me started about standard candles.

OK, I won't. They conform with observations, match the fine-stucture constant and Lyman forest predictions incredibly well, vast literature that exists on these matches cosmic helium and hydrogen observations, matches with galactic rotations etc.

5) Or cosmological inflation.

Producing effects as predicted. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.165... for an in depth probability test of cosmological parameters including the spectral tilt and scalar to tensor ratio of perturbations (CMB) predicted by inflation.

6) Or the (luminiferous) aether. Sorry, the Higgs field/particle/whatever.

Predicted, observed, behaving exactly as predicted at 5 sigma significance in the mass.

Just because YOU don't know about it, doesn't mean that we haven't investigated it. But of course, feel free to keep having a reckon without looking stuff up first.

So, will Libratus play against DeepStack (from the University of Alberta etc.), which also claims to be able to beat professional level humans...?

DeepStack: Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence in No-Limit Poker

DeepStack becomes the first computer program to beat professional poker players in heads-up no-limit Texas hold'em

https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.017...

This is patently false. The machine has been confirmed to perform quantum annealing by independent researchers.

And actual non-locality is every day reality in experimental quantum physics, for instance for quantum encryption.

I'm not saying that they haven't made real progress in running the algorithms quantum computers are claimed to do so well, I'm just saying there's no proof that any "quantum computing" is actually going on.

Not true. Pretty much everyone who researches quantum computing is now convinced that the D-Wave machine does something that can reasonably called "quantum computation" because it matched a theoretical prediction. To a physicist, that's the best kind of evidence.

It's still not really that useful, of course.

I'm not saying that they haven't made real progress in running the algorithms quantum computers are claimed to do so well, I'm just saying there's no proof that any "quantum computing" is actually going on.

Not true. Pretty much everyone who researches quantum computing is now convinced that the D-Wave machine does something that can reasonably called "quantum computation" because it matched a theoretical prediction. To a physicist, that's the best kind of evidence.

It's still not really that useful, of course.

Summary's links are fact-free ads. I found this one, that has the merit to link to the arXiv article about the process.

Fromarticle at TheStack:

It seems here that RAISR has added fur detail – and it invites speculation as to what the algorithm would consider an accurate reconstruction of a person’s skin or other significant details.

I suspect the result is the addition of fur tothe photo of a humanforehead.

Summary's links are fact-free ads.
I found this one, that has the merit to link to the arXiv article about the process.

Sentinel, NEOCAM, etc. are a waste of money given the completion of LSST. Drain the swamp is the correct philosophy in this case even if the symptom that results i.e. Trump is not wanted. These projects demonstrate the terrible lack of accountability with the current tax deductible donation laws.

I was never really feeling NEOCam. It's not looking for earth-killers, just Tunguska-sized impactors. We've got LSST coming online in the early 2020s which will greatly increase our detection rate, and there will be more in the future. If anything, LSST is significantly better than NEOCam (p.38). A 5-10 years setback (counting for the complimentary nature of the two approaches - NEOCam is IR, LSST visible) is extremely unlikely to equate to "losing New York city" or anything of that nature. A Tunguska-scale impactor is a roughly one-in-400 year event, and overwhelmingly likely to impact few to no people. The odds of one hitting a major metropolitan area in that timeframe, which we could have stopped had we known about it, are one in millions. NeoCAM costs $500m. The delay seems acceptable to me, in an area where space budgets are tight.

If there is an imminent earth-killer out there, it's not in the inner solar system. It's a comet. And neither NEOCam nor LSST would likely see it until it was well on its way toward us. Smaller but still devastating comets? Even later. Hence, defense against large impactors has to be nuclear - as large of warhead(s) as possible, mounted to a storable rocket that can achieve significant delta-V. Nothing else but nuclear has the energy density to deflect in such a short time period, and you don't have the time to engineer your deflection craft from scratch and integrate it onto a stack when time is that short. So if we're serious about planetary defense, that's an approach we need to take.

All of this said: I do kind of look forward to the day when we know the orbits of a large chunk of the ~30-40m impactors and a fair minority of the ~20m (Chelyabinsk-sized) impactors. Because those hit often enough somewhere on the planet (generally very remote) that people could actually travel to see them, like people do with eclipses. And that would be a really neat experience :) And I can totally imagine meteorite hunters prepositioning hardware near the likely strewn field.

Here's a much more direct example. They trained a neural network to design neural networks, and it promptly produced networks that matched or exceeded the best human designed ones.

Someone recently did revise estimates of the number of galaxies by an order of magnitude.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-ten-galaxies-previously-thought.html

No, they didn't. You cannot read the popular summary written by someone who did not read the actual paper to understand what the finding was. What they found was ten times more galaxies that had been seen to date in the early Universe, due to the limitations of the data collection methods used thus far, but this matches the expected value that is predicted by current theoretical models!

The number of galaxies in the Universe declines with time, as their average mass increases due to processes of galactic coalescence. This paper detected the galaxy density at an earlier time than hitherto been observed, but this closely matches the expected value predicted for example by the theoretical model cited in the paper (Torrey, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2770).

So instead of "revising estimates" it instead confirmed predictions an almost diametrically opposite result.

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe, by Erik P. Verlinde, hypothesizes that the dark-matter gravitational effect is a result of an elastic effect within the universe.

The possibility that it is neutrinos (Nobody ever takes the suggestion of pointing the damn thing at the neutrino detector in Japan and asking if they get a measurable increase in neutrino flux seriously, and everyone just summarily rules them out as "totally not the thing we are looking for" for this device) has some merit, (despite the above.)

See section 2 of this paper for instance, on converting neutrino flavor, using a high Q resonant cavity with strong RF signal (sound familiar?) . The paper has a different goal in mind (conversion of neutrino flavor, vs simply interacting with neutrinos) and so it has different requirements for the cavity.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/9...

If the cavity is selectively interacting with ambient neutrinos, and imparting them with a slight change in momentum in a preferred direction, the conservation law requires the device's momentum to change accordingly. Unlike a photon, a neutrino has REAL mass. As such, significantly more momentum could be transferred to one than one gets with a photon.

For real. Take the test article to Japan, point it at the detector, and see if a small spike in neutrino flux happens. It does not need to measure thrust, or any other such stuff. Just see if there is a change in neutrino background corresponding to device activation. The device is small, so it needs to be right on top of the detector. (The detector is huge and underground, and cant be moved. The test article is much more portable.)

An instance of how the bookkeeping can quickly become problematic: when an observer on earth surface sees a falling charge, does the observer see radiation? What does that say about conservation of momentum and energy? Since the observer sees an accelerating charge, is there reaction radiation slowing down the charge? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/00... )

Well, they debunked the luminiferous ether, but there are other aether theories out there. A 'popular' one is the Superfluid vacuum theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Also, Erik Verlinde talks about 'elastic back pressure' in his recent paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.022... concerning 'emergent gravity'.

Personally I do not think gravity is emergent, but I wonder if elasticity could be applied to space itself. That could explain observations without dark matter.

Even dark energy can be explained. In this case dark energy would be the elastic energy of space. So, it's no wonder the universe is expanding.

It has also implications to the fate of the universe. I mean it may not depend on how much matter is in the universe, but rather what kind of properties space has.

He wrote, quote, "coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on our planet." He said, "The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. They need to be shut down." He wants to reduce the CO2, not stop its increase.

My thoughts too.

This in particular got me:

The Widom-Larsen theory offers a plausible explanation—localized conversion of gamma radiation to infrared radiation.

Huh? Now how is that supposed to happen?

Looking up the theory I found this article, where they describe the theory: intense electromagnetic fields at the surface dress electrons with extra mass, which allows electron capture to form a cold neutron and a neutrino. Cold neutrons are pretty much immediately captured causing a transmutation reaction. That's all pretty basic physics, if you accept the premise that you're getting heavy electrons from intense electromagnetic field effects (which they argue for). But what about the gamma? No explanation there.

I see this page tries to offer a plain-english description of the theory for the gamma:

W-L alleges that gamma emissions are anisotropic and selective in their directionality. Meaning they, for some mysterious reason, direct themselves toward the heavy electron SPP patches. These transient SPP patches are also imagined to have precisely tuned, energy specific absorptivity capabilities which seems like a stretch as well. Also the persistence of gamma absorption during the "life after death" phase is equally perplexing, as the SPP shields are thought to disappear during this phase. Not to mention delayed gammas caused by neutron absorption also create issues for this heavy electron gamma shield hypothesis

If that's accurate, that's very weak indeed...

Read. I'm not here to lecture to you. It's basic knowlede in evolutionary anthropology and anatomy.