Slashdot Mirror

They've put up a paper on their techniques. And judging from the pictures, they do something that looks like serious research. Interesting. Apparently they're after quantum chemical computations.

This smells vaguely like vaporware. At least none of the speakers at this years or last years Spin and Qubit conference seemed nearly as optimistic as these guys, even though there were several top notch people (and last year the focus was VERY much quantum computing).

In any case, the technology that comes to mind when I hear "very cold superconducting niobium quantum computer" is Josephson junctions. There's an article on it here.

What people does DWave have? What have they published previously?

This seems to be another one in a string of papers by Fortunato et.al.; the previous ones were The egalitarian effect of search engines (from arXiv, which never seems to have been published properly), and Googlarchy or Googlocracy (from IEEE spectrum.)

It was even featured on slashdot before: Search Engine Results Relatively Fair, posted by Zonk on Sat Nov 19, '05 04:29 AM.

But they seem to have improved their reasoning this time: They finally cite Donato et.al.'s work (Large scale properties of the Webgraph), which explicitly contradicts their claim that there is a correlation between in-degree and pagerank.

Regards, Sebastian.

See now you have me answering from work, and I don't have the article in front of me, but didn't his collaborator Bekenstein define TeVeS, which is founded in MOND and potentially explains lensing? It was a lynchpin to the credibility of MOND.

Talking about 1 million prizes from the Clay Institute, these two people claim they deserve one with 13 pages (>$63k/page)
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0608265
but of course many of us are a bit suspicious.

If you want the 'real deal' for free, then you should definitely comb through the Arxiv , which are real articles written by real researchers, usually the same article that gets sent to a specific subscription-only journal later. If you want real stuff, you should have no problem weeding out any crap from real scientists. Ie, find what university or facility the scientist works in to find out if they're legit, look at references and those references, etc. There's quite alot of stuff there.

Probably not. This related work by one of the same researchers found direct evidence for dark matter, independent of MOND. (That is, even if MOND is true, there is evidence that dark matter exist anyway.)

Thanks for the explanation. I just looked at arXiv, and there are several relevant papers to be found.

The most relevant is probably http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309303 .

Thanks for the explanation. I just looked at arXiv, and there are several relevant papers to be found.

The most relevant is probably http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309303 .

Chances are very good that it's an update to the results published by the same authors in the Astrophysical Journal in 2004, but using newer and much improved data. Pre-prints of the earlier papers are on astro-ph at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309303 and http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312273. The papers from a few years ago combined observations of the gas in a merging cluster of galaxies with gravitational lensing data that indicates the distribution of the dark matter. As the two clusters in question merge, the gas from each cluster collides with that from the other, causing it to slow down. The dark matter, on the other hand, doesn't experience this sort of "drag" and just keeps on going, so the dark matter gets "ahead" of the gas.

Chances are very good that it's an update to the results published by the same authors in the Astrophysical Journal in 2004, but using newer and much improved data. Pre-prints of the earlier papers are on astro-ph at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309303 and http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312273. The papers from a few years ago combined observations of the gas in a merging cluster of galaxies with gravitational lensing data that indicates the distribution of the dark matter. As the two clusters in question merge, the gas from each cluster collides with that from the other, causing it to slow down. The dark matter, on the other hand, doesn't experience this sort of "drag" and just keeps on going, so the dark matter gets "ahead" of the gas.

"...But if you're looking for an answer to a question, you may or may not find a single document that happens to contain it....

You minsunderstand. what you do is for example a "google closeness search" or a "Google Mindshare", or finding the Normalised Google Distance (NGD) and mapping this.

You will not get any search results, it will more let you, for example, play "20 questions" like a master.

Basically, for example, the NGD quantifies the strength of a relationship between two words. For example, "speakers" and "sound" are more related than "speakers" and "elephant." Instead of creating this manually, of course, they find the Google PageCount when both words are used together in a search. ("Speakers" and "sound" would have a relatively high number of result pages when compared to "speakers" and "elephant.")

Now when you repeat this process of finding the NGD for a lot of words, you can build a multi-connection word map. This automatic meaning extraction can well be the way to make a computer understand things and act semi-intelligently. Apply this to all text produced by for example the U.N., and you will have a front end that can produce good(?) quality UN papers automatically.

Here are some more detail on this example(Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google):
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0412098

This is of course insanly compute intensive, but google have enormous supercomputers available to you for free.

These are all results of power laws. The fat (Pareto) tail and the 80/20 (Pareto) law are the same thing.

The preprint of ApJ article is on the ArXive, entitled The First DIRECT Distance Determination to a Detached Eclipsing Binary in M33 .

The preprint of ApJ article is on the ArXive, entitled The First DIRECT Distance Determination to a Detached Eclipsing Binary in M33 .

As i understand it the wobble technique is used because directly imaging low intensity light sources like these is extremely difficult when you have a giant hot star in the immediate vicinity. it would be like to distinguish a single LED attached to the side of a searchlight. so they use the indirect method of measuring the position of the star as it is moved by the orbiting body.

for more details on the telescope and other tools used here's the paper published in Science that likely spawned TFA

everything that has temperature > 0 emits light at some wavelength, we just have a bias for calling the human visible spectrum "Light", the infrared spectrum "Heat", and the shorter wavelength emissions names like "x-rays" and "ultraviolet rays". it's all the same phenomenon.

while i was looking for the paper referenced above I also found an earlier paper that probably drew attention to this particular pair of planemos. it doesn't appear they were aware of the binary configuration at the time. it can be found here

This paper seems to be a better example of Mitra's recent work on MECOs than your reference. It's easy to annonymously call someone a 'loon' in a public forum, as you have done. I, like all of us, have no idea if Mitra's ideas about MECOs are correct or not but they certainly deserve to be considered seriously, especially in light of the supporting observations that are the subject of this forum. Many important discoveries are made by people who were originally called 'loons' because they dared to think outside of the conventional thinking of their time. Copernicus comes to mind, with his 'loony' idea that the earth revolves around the sun when anyone could see with their own eyes that the sun traveled through the sky and therefore revolved around the earth.

In defense of Mitra, the peer-reviewed paper published by Schild, Leiter, and Robertson references Mitra's work repeatedly.

How do you think that's a defense of Mitra? If anything, it's an incrimination of Schild et al. Mitra has gotten papers published. That doesn't mean his work isn't nonsense.

You sound like a black hole guy.

That has all the derogatory connotations of calling me a "round-Earth" guy.

Go over to this paper of Mitra's and tell me it doesn't have exactly the error I described. An error, I might add, that any grad student taking their first course in general relativity could point out; in fact, the theorem proving that timelike-somewhere geodesics are timelike-everywhere is deemed "the easiest exercise in the book" in Misner et al. Mitra never should have been published.

In defense of Mitra, the peer-reviewed paper published by Schild, Leiter, and Robertson references Mitra's work repeatedly. You sound like a black hole guy. These new observations by Schild et. al. appear to be a huge boost for the Mitra theory of MECOs. If other work confirms this, we will be talking about MECOs in the future rather than black holes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505518

instead of analyzing a press release...

The definition of a black hole does NOT require a singularity. What the strict defintion requires (as in Hawking and Ellis, or Wald's "General relativity) is that the black hole region in an asymptotically simple spacetime is the region that is causally disconnected from future null infinity.

In English: once you go into one, you can never get back out if you believe that nothing can travel faster than light. If you CAN get out, the thing you started with was not a black hole!

Notice that for the concept of black hole to make sense, you do not need general relativity. You do need to believe that there is an ultimate speed limit, and then the black hole of any theory is the region you cannot escape from.

It is then a THEOREM of (classical) general relativity that such a region contains a singularity. If GR is corrected by some version of quantum gravity where there are no singularities, then this theory can still have black holes (regions of no escape).

Now this is a stricter sense in which black holes are talked about currently. The article mentions Hawking and Thorne's disagreement: is information carried off by Hawking radiaiton? The answer is no: if the information goes in then it cannot come out by (the strict) definition of what a black hole is. Technically, the argument about the information loss problem is whether or not black holes (as originally defined) exist at all!

However, this is an arguement purely at the level of sematics. There is very little observational difference between a real black hole [one that locks information up forever] and an information returning black hole [one that locks up and processes particles for a long period of time, but the end result of this process is re-emission as Hawking radiaiton]. Because the definition given above is one made for convience, most researchers in the field take a somewhat more pragmatic definition of a black hole.

The theory of MECOs seems to still be built on General Relativity. It claims that radiation increases to stop complete collapse. This does not preclude the existence of black holes! It just means that they are unlikely to form as the end result of astrophysical processes. However, there are situations where you can make black holes at very low temperatures, or ones that you can do in flat space (although these tend to be somewhat artificial).

    The moral is
        * MECOs are built on GR. If MECOs exist, then black holes are still solutions to GR
        * The MECO advocates claim that this is a universal process for very hot and dense gas. We should not expect that black holes are a typical end of stellar product.
        * MECOs may exist, but the process may not be universal (i.e. it may require particular thresholds of energy/pressure). This would allow a mix of black holes and MECOs.
        * There may be no MECOs at all.

    Personally I am dubious that MECOs exist at all. Pressure *can* support a star against collapse, but only to a certain extent in GR. After a while, the pressure required also acts as a stronger source of gravity and ends in a runaway reaction causing collapse. See this paper of mine for more details: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306038

Wouldn't this result in a real-universe equivalent of Zeno's paradox - i.e., wouldn't the collapsing mass always be moving closer to becoming a black hole but never arriving at that point due to the increasing time dilation?
It's a matter of perspective. An outside observer will never see a black hole fully form (although there will be a finite time at which the last photon from the collapsing star will be observed). However, an infalling observer will pass through the event horizon and hit the singularity within in finite proper time (measured by their own clock). See this FAQ.

Much of our current understanding of the cosmos is based directly on the correctness of the Theory of Relativity, but this finding (if confirmed) would appear to falsify at least some of relativity's conclusions.
No, MECOs supposedly are constructed within the framework of relativity. See this paper.

(I will chime in to agree with the skepticism of other posters; MECOs seem like a very contrived way to avoid the implications of black holes. Furthermore, general theorems in GR indicate that black holes form under very generic conditions, while no corresponding arguments exist showing how a MECO could plausibly form.

(This assumes that the MECO model isn't just plain wrong, which is possible, especially considering the publication record on this theory or lack thereof; I haven't studied the work closely enough to see if there are errors.)

Does this tenative finding square with string theory?
The cynic in me would say that any finding consistent with quantum mechanics and relativity squares with string theory...

I'm a little skeptical of their method. TFA mentions that the quasar was lensed by a foreground galaxy and they measured the flickering as individual stars lensed the quasar. It just doesn't work that way. When a galaxy gravitationally lenses a background object, the image will appear as an arc or multiple points around the lensing galaxy. This configuration doesn't allow for flickering due to individual stars because you are using the combined masses of all those stars to do the lensing. Given that a typical galaxy has 100 billion stars, any individual effects are .000000001%, in other words, not measurable.

Reading some more into it, I found the paper:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0505/050551 8.pdf

Lots of math and theory, but no data to be had, which I find suspicious... I did some googling on the quasar Q0957+561 and found several links.

This site, by the author:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~rschild/qgl.html

This goes into how measuring the time delay between the flickering images of the quasar can give an estimate on the age of the universe (correlation between geometric distance and redshift). Also, he seems to have a persecution complex....

Also:

http://www.extrasolar.net/planet.asp?PlanetID=74

Again, the same author suggests a minute fluctuation in one lensed image and not the other is consistent with a microlensing event by a planet in the foreground galaxy. I still don't see how you can say that since the paper in the first link talks about how years of observations and statistical correlations were needed to make the discovery of the MECO. One fluctuation out of many observations is like spitting in the ocean...

This link gives an alternate explanation for the planet microlensing event:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Q/Q0957+ 561.html

And the obligatory Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Quasar

One thing I noticed is that most of sites I found are either from the author himself or use his papers as the primary source. He also appears to have his fingers in everything from determining the age of the universe (his estimate was 12 billion years as opposed to 13.7 billion, but still pretty good), detecting extrasolar planets, and now debunking black holes. Dr. Schild has done some good work, but I'm skeptical of his recent "discoveries".

The arxiv.org original paper can be found here. From what I understand of the original paper, they only did a non-rotating black holes. This paper is a significant step forward in numerical relativity because they were able to actually get information out about the gravitational waves that carry the energy away from the two black holes and allow for the inspiral to happen.

As mentioned in the paper, a lot of previous work has been done on this problem. Up to this point, one of the methods used was a circular orbit approximation.

The detection of gravitational waves will be a huge step forward for General Relativity and these simulations are very important for the groups doing the data analysis like the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Group at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who work on the data analysis of the scientific runs from LIGO. It allows them to test their detection algorithms more accurately so that when(if) they detect an event, greater confidence can be given about the detection.

The arxiv.org original paper can be found here. From what I understand of the original paper, they only did a non-rotating black holes. This paper is a significant step forward in numerical relativity because they were able to actually get information out about the gravitational waves that carry the energy away from the two black holes and allow for the inspiral to happen.

As mentioned in the paper, a lot of previous work has been done on this problem. Up to this point, one of the methods used was a circular orbit approximation.

The detection of gravitational waves will be a huge step forward for General Relativity and these simulations are very important for the groups doing the data analysis like the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Group at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who work on the data analysis of the scientific runs from LIGO. It allows them to test their detection algorithms more accurately so that when(if) they detect an event, greater confidence can be given about the detection.

Actually your cynicism was misplaced.

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentati on/documentation/pressReleases/2006/pressRelease20 060719/presselogin/
is the original press release. In the last paragraph it mentions that the star may "eventually be destroyed in a supernova explosion" but otherwise it details how they tracked the blast wave and what they found. Basically models told that the blast wave would be symmetrical but it isn't.

Mr. Roland Pease of BBC News thought that was not interesting enough, so he decided to write a piece on supernovae instead. While he wanted the drama he probably knew it sounded a bit over the top so he said "RS Ophiuchi is close to destroying itself in a nuclear explosion called a type 1a [sic] supernova, scientists report in the journal Nature."

I haven't read the article http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606224, but they certainly say no such thing in the press release or the in the abstract. Really I think Mr. Pease just made that up and put it into the scientists' mouth.

You need to learn more about quantum computer science:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9804025

According to Wikipidia the polynomial time algorithm space for quantum computers is called BQP, which is a superset of BPP. Quantum computers are only good for randomized algorithms.

Almost forgot, An analysis of the skype protocol from 2004

This "our visible universe is the centre of the universe" thinking has got to stop ;).

duhhhhh... no, what has to stop is the dogmatic anticentrist mentality that you have, and then we might actually have a chance to figure this mess out.

Try reading the article... when all else fails... because the last couple of paragraphs explain that this is what the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE INDICATES... and what we think about that, is irrelevant.

OR...

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508047/

It always amazes me how the ones that don't have a clue think that they've got it all figured out.

I actually thought of this exact idea myself! :-)

Casimir forces are extremely sensitive to geometries however, and the solutions are very hard to derive. A sphere was recently found to have a repulsive Casimir force IIRC[2] (ie. the force is expansive rather than contracting as with parallel plates). So while this idea would be cool, I suspect that any non-parallel plates would yield a null result, or perhaps so small as to be useless, even if you had nano or pico-scale manufacturing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0106045

how many people will click on this link :)

IAAPM (that physics major) and have heard about a similar experiment.

I looked up and found a paper in the arxiv preprint library that appears to be what the new scientist article is about. Its at: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606063

Quickly reading through the paper and based on some previous reading of another older paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0002088 I think that both the ideas proposed are with in the realm of possibilities. Obviously there would be many technical measurement challenges but that's expected. And any such challenges are likley surmountable.

IAAPM (that physics major) and have heard about a similar experiment.

I looked up and found a paper in the arxiv preprint library that appears to be what the new scientist article is about. Its at: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606063

Quickly reading through the paper and based on some previous reading of another older paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0002088 I think that both the ideas proposed are with in the realm of possibilities. Obviously there would be many technical measurement challenges but that's expected. And any such challenges are likley surmountable.

There are possible tests at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which will make predictions that could discredit M-theory (which is the current version of Superstring theory). One possiblility is presented in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503178. The paper argues that experiments at the LHC can deduce if the number of extra dimensions is signifcantly larger than 6 or 7. This allows them to investigate one of the problems addressed in a previous post regarding string theory compactifications. Although this isn't M-theory predicting something and an experiment testing it. In addition, future tests of proton stability can put tighter constraints on the validity of any theory that predicts the dimensions of our universe are more than 4. This is because having more than 4 dimensions naturally leads to the proton being unstable to decay.

IMO, the only thing we're missing is the "gravity to the rest of it" connection, confounded by the inconvienient fact that gravity appears to be the only force in the universe which is apparently instantainious over galactic distances.

The 1993 Nobel Prize was awarded for work which, among other things, indirectly measured the speed of gravity: it works out to th speed of light, to within a few percent error.

Go work any celestial orbital mechanics problem, including the orbit of the earth around the sun, and try and make it work if the gravitational attraction vector is assumed to be toward where the sun appears to be now (as opposed to where it is right now instead where it was 8 minutes ago when that light left the suns position then). By adding any delay, the orbit falls apart, and our earth would have spiraled into the sun many billions of years ago.

That's incorrect. To first order, the attraction points at the Sun's "instantaneous" position even in a relativistic theory. This happens in ordinary Maxwellian electromagnetism as well as in general relativity. There is orbital decay due to gravitational radiation, but it is much, much slower than what is given by the naive calculation you describe. This issue is discussed in detail by this paper by Steve Carlip.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9709/9709318. pdf

Chapter 6 counters your arguments in a way that I think is quite clear (for a string theory paper, at least).

And while I won't try and claim there's some particle that we can discover at the LHC that string theory can't explain, by not finding light supersymmetric partners of existing particles, the LHC has the possibility to disprove string theory.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312639. pdf

He goes into quite a bit of detail about the test they ran on these bugs. Pretty interesting stuff.

So, as an evolutionist, you have reproducible proof that an insanely dense ball of matter about the size of my fingernail exploded and the results from this explosion were planets, stars, galaxies and, evidently background noise?

Yes. See here. P.S. Evolution is a theory of biology, not of physics.

What laboratory was this reproduced in?

You are confused about the role of reproducibility in science. See here.

"This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong."

Uncertainty in galactic cluster distribution is modeled in the statistical analysis and controlled for. If we knew better what the distribution was, we could pin down the parameters more precisely. However, the uncertainty in the parameters is nowhere near close enough to invalidate the general LambdaCDM model itself. In short, it's like saying that incorrectly taking wind resistence into account when predict the trajectory of a bomb may suddenly reveal that bombs fall up instead of down. But don't take my word for it. Read the paper. Note that this only effects the positions of the acoustic peaks in the fine structure of the CMBR spectrum which has implications for inflation, but not the basic Big Bang model. Moreover, the work is several years old and followup work by an independent group failed to confirm their claims.

So not only are the claims suspect, but they don't even invalidate Big Bang theory if they were true; they only affect the precision with which we can measure the expansion of the universe.

I think you greatly underestimate and misrepresent the scientists who are a part of Answers in Genesis. We are talking about legitimate scientists, not "snake handlers."

Many of them are incompetent, and the few who are competent are usually speaking in fields outside their area of expertise. See, for instance, the ludicrous cosmology of "physicist" Richard Gentry, debunked here; I wonder if AiG still links to his work?

The article, after all, is quoting directly from a Royal Astronomical Society article.

Yes, however it badly misinterprets the work, as I said, and as the other poster said: the work, even if valid (doubtful), doesn't cast doubt on the Big Bang, but merely some parameters of a particular inflationary model of it.

And wouldn't predictability imply design?

No. It just implies that the universe obeys laws. It doesn't say anything about the origin of those laws.

It certainly doesn't imply chance or randomness as required by the Big-Bang theory.

I don't know what "chance" or "randomness" you think is implied by the Big Bang, but even in "random" quantum mechanics, the universe still obeys laws: they're just probabilistic instead of deterministic.

I have eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible attesting to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his other miracles.

You have no way of knowing whether those accounts are true, however, and there is no independent evidence of their truth. Thus, they are useless.

Creationists invite debate, it is the evolutionists that cannot defend any challenges against their faulty theory and therefore refuse to debate

Snicker. Go over to talk.origins and post some claims. Not vague insults like "evolution is stupid and

So, as an evolutionist, you have reproducible proof that an insanely dense ball of matter about the size of my fingernail exploded and the results from this explosion were planets, stars, galaxies and, evidently background noise?

Yes. See here. P.S. Evolution is a theory of biology, not of physics.

What laboratory was this reproduced in?

You are confused about the role of reproducibility in science. See here.

"This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong."

Uncertainty in galactic cluster distribution is modeled in the statistical analysis and controlled for. If we knew better what the distribution was, we could pin down the parameters more precisely. However, the uncertainty in the parameters is nowhere near close enough to invalidate the general LambdaCDM model itself. In short, it's like saying that incorrectly taking wind resistence into account when predict the trajectory of a bomb may suddenly reveal that bombs fall up instead of down. But don't take my word for it. Read the paper. Note that this only effects the positions of the acoustic peaks in the fine structure of the CMBR spectrum which has implications for inflation, but not the basic Big Bang model. Moreover, the work is several years old and followup work by an independent group failed to confirm their claims.

So not only are the claims suspect, but they don't even invalidate Big Bang theory if they were true; they only affect the precision with which we can measure the expansion of the universe.

I think you greatly underestimate and misrepresent the scientists who are a part of Answers in Genesis. We are talking about legitimate scientists, not "snake handlers."

Many of them are incompetent, and the few who are competent are usually speaking in fields outside their area of expertise. See, for instance, the ludicrous cosmology of "physicist" Richard Gentry, debunked here; I wonder if AiG still links to his work?

The article, after all, is quoting directly from a Royal Astronomical Society article.

Yes, however it badly misinterprets the work, as I said, and as the other poster said: the work, even if valid (doubtful), doesn't cast doubt on the Big Bang, but merely some parameters of a particular inflationary model of it.

And wouldn't predictability imply design?

No. It just implies that the universe obeys laws. It doesn't say anything about the origin of those laws.

It certainly doesn't imply chance or randomness as required by the Big-Bang theory.

I don't know what "chance" or "randomness" you think is implied by the Big Bang, but even in "random" quantum mechanics, the universe still obeys laws: they're just probabilistic instead of deterministic.

I have eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible attesting to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his other miracles.

You have no way of knowing whether those accounts are true, however, and there is no independent evidence of their truth. Thus, they are useless.

Creationists invite debate, it is the evolutionists that cannot defend any challenges against their faulty theory and therefore refuse to debate

Snicker. Go over to talk.origins and post some claims. Not vague insults like "evolution is stupid and

So, as an evolutionist, you have reproducible proof that an insanely dense ball of matter about the size of my fingernail exploded and the results from this explosion were planets, stars, galaxies and, evidently background noise?

Yes. See here. P.S. Evolution is a theory of biology, not of physics.

What laboratory was this reproduced in?

You are confused about the role of reproducibility in science. See here.

"This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong."

Uncertainty in galactic cluster distribution is modeled in the statistical analysis and controlled for. If we knew better what the distribution was, we could pin down the parameters more precisely. However, the uncertainty in the parameters is nowhere near close enough to invalidate the general LambdaCDM model itself. In short, it's like saying that incorrectly taking wind resistence into account when predict the trajectory of a bomb may suddenly reveal that bombs fall up instead of down. But don't take my word for it. Read the paper. Note that this only effects the positions of the acoustic peaks in the fine structure of the CMBR spectrum which has implications for inflation, but not the basic Big Bang model. Moreover, the work is several years old and followup work by an independent group failed to confirm their claims.

So not only are the claims suspect, but they don't even invalidate Big Bang theory if they were true; they only affect the precision with which we can measure the expansion of the universe.

I think you greatly underestimate and misrepresent the scientists who are a part of Answers in Genesis. We are talking about legitimate scientists, not "snake handlers."

Many of them are incompetent, and the few who are competent are usually speaking in fields outside their area of expertise. See, for instance, the ludicrous cosmology of "physicist" Richard Gentry, debunked here; I wonder if AiG still links to his work?

The article, after all, is quoting directly from a Royal Astronomical Society article.

Yes, however it badly misinterprets the work, as I said, and as the other poster said: the work, even if valid (doubtful), doesn't cast doubt on the Big Bang, but merely some parameters of a particular inflationary model of it.

And wouldn't predictability imply design?

No. It just implies that the universe obeys laws. It doesn't say anything about the origin of those laws.

It certainly doesn't imply chance or randomness as required by the Big-Bang theory.

I don't know what "chance" or "randomness" you think is implied by the Big Bang, but even in "random" quantum mechanics, the universe still obeys laws: they're just probabilistic instead of deterministic.

I have eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible attesting to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his other miracles.

You have no way of knowing whether those accounts are true, however, and there is no independent evidence of their truth. Thus, they are useless.

Creationists invite debate, it is the evolutionists that cannot defend any challenges against their faulty theory and therefore refuse to debate

Snicker. Go over to talk.origins and post some claims. Not vague insults like "evolution is stupid and

Hey, I know these guys! Way to go!

This just confirms my suspicion that the chance of a Nature publication is directly proportional to alcohol consumption. (Wonder what it takes to get on /.) OTOH, having an advisor from the Bohr family probably doesn't hurt.

The academic lowdown:

ArXiv preprint
The full B. Sc. project

Now, if only we could make 60gons...

I finished my Astro masters online a few years ago, and we studied the techniques being used to detect extra-solar planets. The are lots of these being discovered each year since

Wikipedia lists the current number of known extra solar planets as 180, but this is bound to be out of date. I don't know if you'd call the discovery of 3 more news.
Here's what wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet

For those not afraid of the more technical stuff there's a lot of good information in the form of scientific papers at:
http://arxiv.org/

The holy grail at the moment is confirmed discovery of an Earth sized planet that may be suitable for life to come into being on.

Social networks are often claimed to have a power law degree distribution, and scale-free graphs have been proposed as a model of social networks, but there are two problems with this suggestion:

1. The model described by Barabasi and Albert only produces a power law degree distribution while the graph is growing. Once the graph reaches a steady state, with nodes leaving as well as joining, the power law degree distribution disappears.
2. Scale-free graphs don't exhibit high clustering, which is observed in social networks and captured by the small world model of Watts and Strogatz. (Clustering means that if X knows Y and Z, it's likely that Y knows Z.) However, there are modified versions of the Barabasi-Albert model that incorporate clustering.

Social networks are often claimed to have a power law degree distribution, and scale-free graphs have been proposed as a model of social networks, but there are two problems with this suggestion:

1. The model described by Barabasi and Albert only produces a power law degree distribution while the graph is growing. Once the graph reaches a steady state, with nodes leaving as well as joining, the power law degree distribution disappears.
2. Scale-free graphs don't exhibit high clustering, which is observed in social networks and captured by the small world model of Watts and Strogatz. (Clustering means that if X knows Y and Z, it's likely that Y knows Z.) However, there are modified versions of the Barabasi-Albert model that incorporate clustering.

Now, I know we all enjoy reading reporters vain attempts to understand complex scientific theories, and we all have a good laugh when they say things like "The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought..." when it's clear that they just took a rough estimate of 1 trillion and subtracted the accepted value of 14 billion, but can we please have useful links now and then? I mean it's not like there isn't a website that has every damn phyisics paper written since 1994 . If you can't add useful links, at least reject submissions that only link to the news reporters "interpretation" (and I use that term loosely) of the theory.

For those of you that want to see the real physics, the first paper I could find on the subject is here. It's from 2001, by the way.

Now, I know we all enjoy reading reporters vain attempts to understand complex scientific theories, and we all have a good laugh when they say things like "The universe is at least 986 billion years older than physicists thought..." when it's clear that they just took a rough estimate of 1 trillion and subtracted the accepted value of 14 billion, but can we please have useful links now and then? I mean it's not like there isn't a website that has every damn phyisics paper written since 1994 . If you can't add useful links, at least reject submissions that only link to the news reporters "interpretation" (and I use that term loosely) of the theory.

For those of you that want to see the real physics, the first paper I could find on the subject is here. It's from 2001, by the way.

Condensed Matter, abstract cond-mat/0502336: Achieving Transparency with Plasmonic Coatings

There is not enough information in the Guardian article to judge whether the approaches to transparency are similar or not. It is definitely interesting to note that there are at least these two fairly mature theoretical research/engineering projects underway.

Who has not had a dream of having the power of invisibility? Such a power could be fun, useful, and dangerous. If it were invented, how would people use it? How would governments use it? Although the research is early stage and there are practical bugs for implementation, the science and general engineering are good and it is only a matter of time before such a device is demonstrated.

Here are additional references on the nanoplasmonic research:

• Nature 28 February 2005: Engineers Devise Invisibility Shield

  PDF: Nanofocusing_in_Tapered_Plasmonic_Waveguides

• The group's website, including movies
• The journal article

As a lithmus test, any such device should be fed the writings of Jack Sarfatti, PhD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti). It is perfectly possible that a paper produced 100% by a human still consists of random bullshit (See: "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr: A Comment on Emergent Gravity" at http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602111).

As I am so strongly directed to get my facts right, and within this spirit, I should point out a few things. Though even Heisenberg put forth energy-time as well as position-momentum in his original description (as well as angle-action), Pauli noted in 1933 that there isn't any operator that is canoncally conjugate to the Hamiltonian, provided the Hamiltonian is bounded from below (which means they are not complementary variables in the strict sense that I have been taken to task). For what it is worth, Bohr considered them all "complementary quantities."

Now my anonymous critic points out that you derive it from the Schroedinger equation, but that is only one way. Forty-five years ago Ahranov and Bohm summarized this issue very nicely and it has been a topic of study even longer. A good, recent, review paper on this topic can be found by Busch.

As for the issue of the time operator, that is an interesting topic of study as well, and not so cut-and-dried as my combatitive friend would have you to believe. As an example with relation to quantum field theories, one can look at Wang et al.. I would not be a quick as my self-confident friend that there is not a time operator to be found.