Slashdot Mirror

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412107 has a paper by me and a friend (who is also a physics professor) on how terrible introductory physics textbooks are. The paper itself is open source, by the way, and the source is available at the link above (click on "other formats").

The paper includes prices and weights for most of the textbooks. For the first version of the paper, about a year ago, we checked the prices and shipping weights by hand at Amazon. For the revised version last month, we wanted to complete the table -- but the already-checked prices had mostly gone up, so we had to throw out all the old data. I therefore wrote the Python script included in the source; I'd include it below but the posting robot complains about junk characters. The script will extract ISBN numbers from stdin (which was our tex file), look them up at Amazon, and give you the prices and weights. I use it track the prices of my (least) favorite books. Not one has got less expensive.

In our survey, the average book price was $152 (and average weight was 6.8 pounds): for boring and often incorrect, unphysical problems and explanations. It's no wonder so many people hate physics, and we have only ourselves to blame if we lose all our funding.

Every physicist should put their (good) textbooks at http://arxiv.org/, where they would be available, sans DRM, to everyone in the world. We are supported by the public; why should the public have to pay twice, the second time in the form of royalties?

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0412107 has a paper by me and a friend (who is also a physics professor) on how terrible introductory physics textbooks are. The paper itself is open source, by the way, and the source is available at the link above (click on "other formats").

The paper includes prices and weights for most of the textbooks. For the first version of the paper, about a year ago, we checked the prices and shipping weights by hand at Amazon. For the revised version last month, we wanted to complete the table -- but the already-checked prices had mostly gone up, so we had to throw out all the old data. I therefore wrote the Python script included in the source; I'd include it below but the posting robot complains about junk characters. The script will extract ISBN numbers from stdin (which was our tex file), look them up at Amazon, and give you the prices and weights. I use it track the prices of my (least) favorite books. Not one has got less expensive.

In our survey, the average book price was $152 (and average weight was 6.8 pounds): for boring and often incorrect, unphysical problems and explanations. It's no wonder so many people hate physics, and we have only ourselves to blame if we lose all our funding.

Every physicist should put their (good) textbooks at http://arxiv.org/, where they would be available, sans DRM, to everyone in the world. We are supported by the public; why should the public have to pay twice, the second time in the form of royalties?

> As for free will, Since "we" are the sum of all our chemical reaction in the brain [...], there is no such things as free will, [...]

We may well be the sum of our chemical reactions and still have a free will, in that sense, that our actions are not pre-determined.

> Bottom line is the debate is over, unless you bring data and evidence to the contrary, not explainable within current frame.

Quantum Mechanics to the rescue: The Free Will Theorem.

"1) This is a first -- no other group has achieved this before. yay! (after decades of work!)"

wrong!

here's the NASA paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511103

here's another that does the same thing (essentially simultaneously, but posted 8 days earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511048

and here's one that did it differently (posted 4 months earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507014

guess these other goups don't have the ear of the press...

"1) This is a first -- no other group has achieved this before. yay! (after decades of work!)"

wrong!

here's the NASA paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511103

here's another that does the same thing (essentially simultaneously, but posted 8 days earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511048

and here's one that did it differently (posted 4 months earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507014

guess these other goups don't have the ear of the press...

"1) This is a first -- no other group has achieved this before. yay! (after decades of work!)"

wrong!

here's the NASA paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511103

here's another that does the same thing (essentially simultaneously, but posted 8 days earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511048

and here's one that did it differently (posted 4 months earlier): http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507014

guess these other goups don't have the ear of the press...

Arxiv.org

Because sometimes, you might want more than a press release.

Once they have some experience with this simulator I'm sure they will move on to spinning black holes.


True. In fact, some steps have already been taken in this direction by other groups. For instance, my group at U.T. Brownsville -- whose non-spinning simulations were published simultaneously with the NASA results (but we don't have the same PR machine) -- have put up a preprint on the orbits of black-hole binaries where the individual holes have spins parallel to (or antiparallel to) the orbital angular momentum. Check it out here:

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604012

Basically, right now it seems like adding spins doesn't make the simulations much more difficult per se, but it -does- mean they might take much longer to run: the greater the total angular momentum in the system, the longer the holes will orbit each other before merger, since they need to get rid of more excess angular momentum.

I think this is the paper which summarizes the results discussed in the article. If so, the "formulation" alluded to in the article is the conformal BSSN formulation; more details of their method here, and the BS of BSSN (Baumgarte-Shapiro) paper here (the SN paper, Shibata-Nakamura, isn't online).

I think this is the paper which summarizes the results discussed in the article. If so, the "formulation" alluded to in the article is the conformal BSSN formulation; more details of their method here, and the BS of BSSN (Baumgarte-Shapiro) paper here (the SN paper, Shibata-Nakamura, isn't online).

I think this is the paper which summarizes the results discussed in the article. If so, the "formulation" alluded to in the article is the conformal BSSN formulation; more details of their method here, and the BS of BSSN (Baumgarte-Shapiro) paper here (the SN paper, Shibata-Nakamura, isn't online).

A Debris Disk Around An Isolated Young Neutron Star

For example, let's compare the situation to a hydrogen atom. If you take a free proton and an electron, the total mass will be M=me+mp. Let them bind into hydrogen in the ground state and they LOSE mass; some of that mass is reallocated into the potential energy. The mass of a hydrogen atom is then Mh=M-binding (binding=13.6 eV).

However, for quarks in a proton, it goes the "other way." Bare quarks have a very small mass, but when bound in a proton, the proton become very heavy compared to the sum of the quark masses! Indeed, the quarks themselves seem to gain mass. This is all the result of what is called chiral symmetry breaking. The mass imparted to hadrons by the breaking of this symmetry is far larger than that of the Higgs mechanism. For example, see Frank Wilczek's fun article on the topic.

I would say the more easily automated the game, the less fun. People generally praise Starcraft, Final Fantasy Tactics, and Tetris precisely because the AI for them wouldn't be 5 lines to write and (to my knowledge) the AI is far inferior to a human player.

It's easy to write a Tetris AI that is better than any human player. I know about this but that's a separate issue.

The thing about Tetris is that, although the game seems difficult at first, it's easy to get better at it, and the difficulty ramps up smoothly. Also, once you've played the game enough, you're able to make decisions about block placement and act on them without consciously thinking about it. This keeps the game from being too repetitious, and it means that really good players can play the game at amazing speeds.

It's quite elementary actually. This should get you started. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0508/0508378.pd f No but really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeta_distribution Good luck see you in a week

The experiment definitely looks ready for replication. If it works it will turn gravitational theory on its head. There is no theory in existence that can account for these results. Not general relativity, not quantum gravity, and not even these guys' non-standard theory will work. Something completely new will be needed.

The experiment definitely looks ready for replication. If it works it will turn gravitational theory on its head. There is no theory in existence that can account for these results. Not general relativity, not quantum gravity, and not even these guys' non-standard theory will work. Something completely new will be needed.

None of the articles related to the find describe the experimental setup in detail, and the articles discussing the abnormal experimental results (getting a wrong cooper-pair mass values) focus on possible theoretical explanation only (anti-gravity etc.). So, we can't know :). http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0203/0203033.pdf

Hi, i found the paper at the Los Almos pre-print archive.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033

Actually, i think i believe the experiment, but i don't
think i believe the interpretion, as the article and
the above paper state, this effect is 10^30 times stronger
than the gravitation force you'd expect from too small
chunks of matter. I think they've discovered a new force
all together.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510042

When analyzing the mean-year trend of the Earth's surface temperature for the past 140 years one can discern two sections of monotone linear increase of temperature during two last industrial centuries. The first one begins somewhere in the period 1906-1909. The previous segment demonstrates a weak decrease in the temperature trend, not increase. For explanation of this sudden break we look for a phenomenon of cosmic scale during this time which could have given rise to beginning of global warming with a significant probability. On the 30th June 1908 Tungus meteorite exploded with the power of ~15 Mt TNT at an altitude of ~10 km. Such an explosion could cause considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure in mesosphere. The difference between this mesosphere catastrophe and atmospheric nuclear tests that cause another break in the temperature plot is discussed. The purpose of this report is to open the debate and to encourage discussion among scientists.

Now of course we have several mechanisms available to describe a non-scattering redshift loss.

Yeah? What are they? I've never heard a viable non-scattering tired light theory, and certainly not one compatible with known time dilation results. And please recall that there are many more observations that imply a Big Bang than simply the Hubble relation.

Another possible route is to explore a novel solution of General Relativity that results in a flat space with a curved time, the upshot of which is a distance-related time dilation.

It doesn't make mathematical sense to speak of the curvature of time alone in general relativity, but if you mean flat space with a curved spacetime, that is a prediction of inflationary theory. It doesn't explain anything that conventional Big Bang cosmology does not because it is conventional Big Bang cosmology.

So now that we have a non-expanding universe, we don't have a 12by limit to its age. So we don't have to shoe-horn enormous 5-10 billion ly structures of super-superclusters into that insuffient amount of time. Gravity and large-scale EM plasma interactions can do the work for us in its own merry time.

Oh, I get it. You think that there is a static solution of Einstein's field equation with flat space. Well, there isn't (other than the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity, which has no gravity). In fact, flat space or not, there aren't any viable non-expanding cosmological solutions. Hawking proved a theorem to that effect.

Arbitrarily inventing new phenomena to keep a pet theory afloat despite its inadequacies is not the way to go about science.

In point of fact, the entire process of science consists of constructing new theories to correct the inadequacies of old ones.

Inflation, dark matter and dark energy should all be returned to wherever we sent epicycles, aether, flat-earthers and midichlorians.

Except that inflation, dark matter, and dark energy all have quite a bit of independent experimental evidence in their favor. Their only problem is that you, personally, don't happen to like them. There is no scientific problem with them.

For instance, flat galactic rotation curves are successfully reproduced in galaxy models by assuming that galactic material is a plasma and applying magnetohydrodynamics

Except (1) no, they are not, and (2) you have to do a hell of a lot better than galactic rotation curves in order to get rid of dark matter, which accounts for far, far more observations than just that. Many alternatives to flat rotation curves have been proposed (and unlike that plasma cosmology crackpottery, they actually work), but at best, they cannot provide explanations for any of the other phenomena which require dark matter, and usually fail miserably by contradicting other observations (that dark matter passes).

We also don't have a problem with such advanced galactic evolution evident in the high redshift, very distant galaxies of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF). Occurring supposedly so early in the universe, yet they appear to have the same well-evolved stellar populations as local galaxies.

You can't explain away all the other massive amounts of evidence that the universe was once smaller, hotter, and denser. And even if your claim was correct, what do you think it proves? Do you think that contradicts even known physics of stellar and galaxy formation, let alone the 14 billion year age of the universe?

Recent statistical analysis of 46,000 quasars using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) redshift data have shown inexplicable periodicities and a non-Hubble relation in the redshift data. BB will have a very interesting time explaining that.

Are you citing more of Arp's nonse

I'll bite and play Devil's advocate:

The Hubble relation relates galaxy brightness to redshift, which is (for galaxies at least) more-or-less a good line. This is taken to mean that the galaxies are receeding from us, and therefore that the universe is expanding.

But just as well it could be that light red-shifts as it travels very long distances, the so-called "tired light hypothesis" that Hubble's contemporary Fritz Zwicky favoured. Of course, in 1929 there were no explanations for such a distance-redshift loss, so the expansion explanation stuck. Now of course we have several mechanisms available to describe a non-scattering redshift loss.

Another possible route is to explore a novel solution of General Relativity that results in a flat space with a curved time, the upshot of which is a distance-related time dilation. This niftily explains both the redshift of distant light and the time dilated Ia supernovae data. We also avoid Olbier's Paradox because after sufficient distance, light will eventually be redshifted so low that it turns into... wow check it out, an isotropic microwave glow of a few degrees Kelvin (the CMB).

So now that we have a non-expanding universe, we don't have a 12by limit to its age. So we don't have to shoe-horn enormous 5-10 billion ly structures of super-superclusters into that insuffient amount of time. Gravity and large-scale EM plasma interactions can do the work for us in its own merry time.

Arbitrarily inventing new phenomena to keep a pet theory afloat despite its inadequacies is not the way to go about science. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy should all be returned to wherever we sent epicycles, aether, flat-earthers and midichlorians. Possibly the only reason we still have the Big Bang at all is because nobody wants to lose that much face by starting all over from scratch.

For instance, flat galactic rotation curves are successfully reproduced in galaxy models by assuming that galactic material is a plasma and applying magnetohydrodynamics (rather than assuming it's a neutral gas and having to invent a halo of invisible dark matter to get the gravity field to behave itself).

We also don't have a problem with such advanced galactic evolution evident in the high redshift, very distant galaxies of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF). Occurring supposedly so early in the universe, yet they appear to have the same well-evolved stellar populations as local galaxies.

Recent statistical analysis of 46,000 quasars using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) redshift data have shown inexplicable periodicities and a non-Hubble relation in the redshift data. BB will have a very interesting time explaining that.

We can also avoid the self-contradictory BB nucleosynthesis model with its problematic D and 7Li amounts, even more problematic given the latest WMAP-derived CDM parameters. Nucleosynthesis can be derived from standard stellar models instead.

It's amazing what odd little gems there are lying hidden in the more cobwebbed corners of arxiv.

For those who want to read the original article, the final published version is here (for a fee, looks like):
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServ let?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000096000008088702000001& idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes

It's available for free (possibly a draft version) from the arXiv network:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0602091

Bon apetit.

It's kinda funny that you linked to Mark Newman, since he just wrote an article on modularity and community structure (which he did indeed proceed to use on the karate club in a recent talk). However, his work does include graph partitioning and cluster analysis, which he tries to improve upon using a new algorithm.

I agree there is certainly a lot of integrative work to be done, but that's because there has been a ton of network stuff done in physics and computer science, but not all of it is mappable to human-to-human networks, which have tricky psychological and sociological forces at work. I've found Brokerage and Closure by Ron Burt to be a really good read on social networks from a sociological and business perspective. Super-quick summary: closure measures the cohesiveness of a group, while brokers span the gaps between the groups. It can be difficult and costly to be a broker, but in general these costs are outweighed by the benefits of greater access to information and opportunities.

I think there's plenty of mediocre research in many fields, but the trick is finding, using, and promoting the good stuff. (Kinda like Slashdot comments?)

For those among us who aren't so fortunate as to have a subscription to Physical Review Letters: there's a free version of this paper available at arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0602091

A newer paper shows that they've determined a metabolism and life-cycle for these things.

That's right, they grow and reproduce:

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

Even if the original samples had Earth organisms in them, it's pretty amazing that they found something (whether it's Earth-made or not) that grows and reproduces at 300 deg. C boiling oil.

Read it, really. I'd like to hear from someone what else this could be, other than a really remarkable life form of some kind, alien or otherwise.

...[if noone can prove what it is] someone will have to verify the observation that Louis [the scientist] made whicheven he finds astonishing: that the cells replicate. In earlier unpublished papers, Louis says he cultured the red rain cells in unconventional nutrients, such as cedar wood oil, and showed that these DNA devoid mcrobes divide happily at a temperature of 300oC. Louis admits he left these claims out of his latest paper because he thought they would be considered "too exaordinary"(NewScientist 4th March 2006)

Non DNA based replication would seem like pretty good evidence for alien life.... if you believe him.

His latest paper to be published in the respectable Astrophysics and Space Science Can be found here. Dr Godfrey Louis website, with a pic of the particles and mirrors to this paper and links to other papers, here

No link to the New Scientist, but here's the paper written to support the original hypothesis:

link

You use the word 'legalese' in your post. The connotation of this word, which I wholly agree with, is that legal jargon is a language separate from English. Claiming that anyone who cannot understand a complicated legal document needs to improve their English skills is just absurd. How about "If you read this PDF on quantum entaglement from a post today and can't understand its meaning, you'd better work on your English skills!"

Far better to say, "If you cannot pick up <insert a title of a relatively recent, semi-intellectual, 700-800 page novel> and understand it fully, you need to work on your English skills."

Ok Anonymous Coward, those papers appear to attempt to refute the Cooperstock and Tieu paper.

I wonder how Cooperstock and Tieu have replied to these critisms?

Dark Matter, the magical substance, just seems contrived and, well, magical. The FSM seems to have more reality than Dark Matter... where is the proof?

That paper was debunked in the same bloody thread you cite. Read the comments! Several authors have pointed out why it is in error (here, here, here, here, and here). The authors should have known better; general relativity is just not relevant on galactic scales. I expected better of Cooperstock.

That paper was debunked in the same bloody thread you cite. Read the comments! Several authors have pointed out why it is in error (here, here, here, here, and here). The authors should have known better; general relativity is just not relevant on galactic scales. I expected better of Cooperstock.

That paper was debunked in the same bloody thread you cite. Read the comments! Several authors have pointed out why it is in error (here, here, here, here, and here). The authors should have known better; general relativity is just not relevant on galactic scales. I expected better of Cooperstock.

That paper was debunked in the same bloody thread you cite. Read the comments! Several authors have pointed out why it is in error (here, here, here, here, and here). The authors should have known better; general relativity is just not relevant on galactic scales. I expected better of Cooperstock.

That paper was debunked in the same bloody thread you cite. Read the comments! Several authors have pointed out why it is in error (here, here, here, here, and here). The authors should have known better; general relativity is just not relevant on galactic scales. I expected better of Cooperstock.

First off, I want to say a few words about dark matter. I think it's kind of irritating when people rant on about how dark matter is ad hoc fudging, etc. etc. Well, "fiddling around with the laws of gravity" isn't any better on that account. The fact of the matter is that all of theoretical physics is creating new models that fit our observations, and both dark matter and MOND fall into that category. The very existence of MOND as a theory shows that it is not easy to distinguish "matter that primarily interacts gravitationally" from "modifications to the laws of gravity". Historically, both "unseen matter" and "modifications to gravity" have been valid solutions to anomalous gravitational behavior (in the cases of Neptune's orbit and the perihelion precession of Mercury, respectively).

As it stands, dark matter models can pass many experimental tests, and they're still the way to bet. That being said, MOND is not a bad idea either. It's not as well supported by dark matter, and it has serious problems with galaxy clusters, but it can still account for a surprising amount of data (for a nonrelativistic theory!). The flaw of non-relativistic has been "corrected" by Bekenstein's TeVeS theory (the one that Zhao and Famaey's work is based on).

Unfortunately, TeVeS appears to be rather ad hoc (even compared to dark matter). Z&F's work does not appear to be much better in this regard. In addition, solar system observations appear to place serious constraints on such MOND-like theories, leading to anomalous non-inverse square forces in the outer solar system (and no, it doesn't seem to be of a form that can be attributed to the Pioneer anomaly, though the jury is still out).

The TeVeS/dark matter debate should be definitively resolved by the Planck mission, which will be capable of resolving the third acoustic peak in the the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum. TeVeS and dark matter make very different predictions for the structure of this peak. Of course, if TeVeS fails this test, maybe some other MOND-like theory could be put forward (if the entire class of theories hasn't already been ruled out by other means, such as solar system dynamics, by then).

First off, I want to say a few words about dark matter. I think it's kind of irritating when people rant on about how dark matter is ad hoc fudging, etc. etc. Well, "fiddling around with the laws of gravity" isn't any better on that account. The fact of the matter is that all of theoretical physics is creating new models that fit our observations, and both dark matter and MOND fall into that category. The very existence of MOND as a theory shows that it is not easy to distinguish "matter that primarily interacts gravitationally" from "modifications to the laws of gravity". Historically, both "unseen matter" and "modifications to gravity" have been valid solutions to anomalous gravitational behavior (in the cases of Neptune's orbit and the perihelion precession of Mercury, respectively).

As it stands, dark matter models can pass many experimental tests, and they're still the way to bet. That being said, MOND is not a bad idea either. It's not as well supported by dark matter, and it has serious problems with galaxy clusters, but it can still account for a surprising amount of data (for a nonrelativistic theory!). The flaw of non-relativistic has been "corrected" by Bekenstein's TeVeS theory (the one that Zhao and Famaey's work is based on).

Unfortunately, TeVeS appears to be rather ad hoc (even compared to dark matter). Z&F's work does not appear to be much better in this regard. In addition, solar system observations appear to place serious constraints on such MOND-like theories, leading to anomalous non-inverse square forces in the outer solar system (and no, it doesn't seem to be of a form that can be attributed to the Pioneer anomaly, though the jury is still out).

The TeVeS/dark matter debate should be definitively resolved by the Planck mission, which will be capable of resolving the third acoustic peak in the the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum. TeVeS and dark matter make very different predictions for the structure of this peak. Of course, if TeVeS fails this test, maybe some other MOND-like theory could be put forward (if the entire class of theories hasn't already been ruled out by other means, such as solar system dynamics, by then).

First off, I want to say a few words about dark matter. I think it's kind of irritating when people rant on about how dark matter is ad hoc fudging, etc. etc. Well, "fiddling around with the laws of gravity" isn't any better on that account. The fact of the matter is that all of theoretical physics is creating new models that fit our observations, and both dark matter and MOND fall into that category. The very existence of MOND as a theory shows that it is not easy to distinguish "matter that primarily interacts gravitationally" from "modifications to the laws of gravity". Historically, both "unseen matter" and "modifications to gravity" have been valid solutions to anomalous gravitational behavior (in the cases of Neptune's orbit and the perihelion precession of Mercury, respectively).

As it stands, dark matter models can pass many experimental tests, and they're still the way to bet. That being said, MOND is not a bad idea either. It's not as well supported by dark matter, and it has serious problems with galaxy clusters, but it can still account for a surprising amount of data (for a nonrelativistic theory!). The flaw of non-relativistic has been "corrected" by Bekenstein's TeVeS theory (the one that Zhao and Famaey's work is based on).

Unfortunately, TeVeS appears to be rather ad hoc (even compared to dark matter). Z&F's work does not appear to be much better in this regard. In addition, solar system observations appear to place serious constraints on such MOND-like theories, leading to anomalous non-inverse square forces in the outer solar system (and no, it doesn't seem to be of a form that can be attributed to the Pioneer anomaly, though the jury is still out).

The TeVeS/dark matter debate should be definitively resolved by the Planck mission, which will be capable of resolving the third acoustic peak in the the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum. TeVeS and dark matter make very different predictions for the structure of this peak. Of course, if TeVeS fails this test, maybe some other MOND-like theory could be put forward (if the entire class of theories hasn't already been ruled out by other means, such as solar system dynamics, by then).

First off, I want to say a few words about dark matter. I think it's kind of irritating when people rant on about how dark matter is ad hoc fudging, etc. etc. Well, "fiddling around with the laws of gravity" isn't any better on that account. The fact of the matter is that all of theoretical physics is creating new models that fit our observations, and both dark matter and MOND fall into that category. The very existence of MOND as a theory shows that it is not easy to distinguish "matter that primarily interacts gravitationally" from "modifications to the laws of gravity". Historically, both "unseen matter" and "modifications to gravity" have been valid solutions to anomalous gravitational behavior (in the cases of Neptune's orbit and the perihelion precession of Mercury, respectively).

As it stands, dark matter models can pass many experimental tests, and they're still the way to bet. That being said, MOND is not a bad idea either. It's not as well supported by dark matter, and it has serious problems with galaxy clusters, but it can still account for a surprising amount of data (for a nonrelativistic theory!). The flaw of non-relativistic has been "corrected" by Bekenstein's TeVeS theory (the one that Zhao and Famaey's work is based on).

Unfortunately, TeVeS appears to be rather ad hoc (even compared to dark matter). Z&F's work does not appear to be much better in this regard. In addition, solar system observations appear to place serious constraints on such MOND-like theories, leading to anomalous non-inverse square forces in the outer solar system (and no, it doesn't seem to be of a form that can be attributed to the Pioneer anomaly, though the jury is still out).

The TeVeS/dark matter debate should be definitively resolved by the Planck mission, which will be capable of resolving the third acoustic peak in the the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum. TeVeS and dark matter make very different predictions for the structure of this peak. Of course, if TeVeS fails this test, maybe some other MOND-like theory could be put forward (if the entire class of theories hasn't already been ruled out by other means, such as solar system dynamics, by then).

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512425 The phenomena customly called Dark Matter or Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) have been argued by Bekenstein (2004) to be the consequences of a covariant scalar field, controlled by a free function (related to the MOND interpolating function) in its Lagrangian density. In the context of this relativistic MOND theory (TeVeS), we examine critically the interpolating function in the transition zone between weak and strong gravity. Bekenstein's toy model produces too gradually varying functions and fits rotation curves less well than the standard MOND interpolating function. However, the latter varies too sharply and implies an implausible external field effect (EFE). These constraints on opposite sides have not yet excluded TeVeS, but made the zone of acceptable interpolating functions narrower. An acceptable "toy" Lagrangian density function with simple analytical properties is singled out for future studies of TeVeS in galaxies. We also suggest how to extend the model to solar system dynamics and cosmology, and compare with strong lensing data (see also astro-ph/0509590).

..and further proof that scientists are not dogmatic but actually explore the evidence and make hypotheses: the most convincing evidence I've seen for the existence of dark matter (rather than MOND) is from HongSheng himself in comparing the two body relaxation time of globular clusters compared to dwarf galaxies of the same mass (see astro-ph/0511713).

[TMB]

By tracking back to the published articles
--http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098 and citations--I found that there is nothing very useful about the critical velocity that Felber solved for. In fact, there was a Russian article several years earlier (Citebase is wonderful!)
Blinnikov, S. I.; Okun, L. B.; Vysotsky, M. I. (2003-10-03) In USP.FIZ.NAUK 46 1131 (2003)
that finds the same phenomena and derives it in a much simpler way that I can follow. No, it's not BS that the critical velocity exists, but the concept of space propulsion using it is pretty far from whole. The effect relies on two bodies being in high-speed relative motion, in a very narrow cone of angles, but disappears as 1/radius. So I figure that the net impulse delivered to a realistic traveler would be very limited, since the propeller mass will be near for a VERY short time. Perhaps someone would like to take this to the level of a for-instance calculation, but I would be much more interested in wormholes as a means of travel. YMMV
As for arguments that we would have detected it already--nonsense. You would have thought that with 500 years since Ptolemy started precisely mapping the stars we would have noticed the bending of starlight by the sun, but we didn't. There are small effects and then there are SMALL effects and there is no bottom to the hierarchy. 20 years from now, some guy will get his PhD measuring this effect at Fermilab or CERN and nobody will see it as anything more than another confirmation of GR, perhaps the first on a laboratory scale. (If you can call an accelerator a laboratory. That's a lot bigger than they used to be!)

Actually, to post on Arxiv, you have to have someone refer you. Not anyone can post to it, they need a respected author to approve (not agree with you, just agree that you should be allowed to post). See http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement for the endorsement details.

Ok, I've worked in gravity for a while, but unfortunately I haven't time right now to go through this guy's paper. Several things are setting off my B.S. detector, though.

First, this guy is not a "noted" physicist, let alone a noted gravitational physicist, as far as I can tell. He published some papers in accelerator physics while affiliated with the Naval Research Lab. He has no publications, or as far as I can tell, training in general relativity. He's now affiliated with some company ("Starmark, Inc.") in San Diego. Furthermore, gravitational physicists generally give talks at gravity conferences (or at least physics conferences), not space engineering conferences (which have drastically lower standards when it comes to gravity, since the organizers of the conference typically have no GR background).

Second, I skimmed the preprint of his (unpublished) "antigravity" paper. He claims that a distant observer watching a particle fall into a black hole, in the (initial, local) rest frame of the particle, will see the black hole to approach the particle, and then cause the particle to accelerate away from the black hole. This is not in any weird "warp drive" spacetime, but in ordinary Schwarzschild spacetime — such as the spacetime outside of a star or a planet (!). Yes, you read that right, according to him, even planets create antigravity (if you're traveling fast enough). This bears no relation to anything I know about orbits of particles in Schwarzschild spacetime.

Then he mentions performing a Lorentz transformation of a particle trajectory into the frame of a distant observer. This is impossible. You can only apply a global Lorentz transformation to a flat (Minkowski) spacetime, not a curved spacetime (such as Schwarzschild). Well, you can apply a transformation to a flat tangent space at a point in a curved spacetime, but you can only transform a vector in the tangent space at that point, not an entire trajectory that spans a continuum of points. It is true that Schwarzschild geometry is asymptotically flat for "distant" observers, and he's speaking of transforming into the frame of a distant observer, but the fact remains that you cannot Lorentz transform a worldline that is not entirely within an approximately flat region of spacetime (and his trajectories definitely aren't always far from the gravitating body).

Now, you're free not to buy my suspicions, because as I said I haven't the time to go through all his calculations and see what's up (general relativity calculations are a pain in the ass). My bet, however, is that he's simply misinterpreting a coordinate quantity as having physical meaning. This is a common error for GR beginners (and you can see a prime example of it in the crackpot A. Mitra, who claims that black holes contradict the Einstein field equations based on his misinterpretation of coordinate derivatives in Schwarzschild spacetime). The thing about GR is that you can write solutions in any coordinate system you want, and you have to make sure that the quantities you're calculating are physically meaningful, and not just an artifact of whatever coordinates you happened to choose. Anyway, that's my guess based on what this guy has written so far and the kind of errors I see people make when making "wild" claims in GR. But it's also possible he simply made a math error. I am not betting, however, that he has suddenly discovered antigravity lurking within the ordinary Schwarzschild metric.

Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it.

Within the weak-field approximation of general relativity, new exact solutions are derived for the gravitational field of a mass moving with arbitrary velocity and acceleration. Owing to an inertial- pushing effect, a mass having a constant velocity greater than 1/23 times the speed of light gravita- tionally repels other masses at rest within a narrow cone.

For more information, see Dr. Felber's recent works on arXiv.org:

Weak 'Antigravity' Fields in General Relativity
Exact Relativistic 'Antigravity' Propulsion

Personally I'm a bit skeptical about his claims, however energy appears to be conserved. This method uses gravitationally-mediated kinetic energy exchange - this is the same principle that allows gravitational slingshot to work.

For more information, see Dr. Felber's recent works on arXiv.org:

Weak 'Antigravity' Fields in General Relativity
Exact Relativistic 'Antigravity' Propulsion

Personally I'm a bit skeptical about his claims, however energy appears to be conserved. This method uses gravitationally-mediated kinetic energy exchange - this is the same principle that allows gravitational slingshot to work.

The main point is that there are many "ifs", "ands", and "buts" in the paper that did not make it into the news release. Essentially what we showed was that, in a very special set of circumstances it is possible to make a measurement at the LHC which will could possibly determine the number of extra dimensions. If that can be done, then the result will be very important to understanding string theory, since the number of dimensions plays an important role in that theory. It certainly can not rule out string theory. We think it's an important and interesting piece of work, but it isn't a definitive "test" of string theory, as the headline suggests.

Here is a comment JoAnne left on Peter Woit's blog when this showed up there, and the complaint was raised that the story sounded over-hyped:

Anybody who has ever spoken to reporters understands that what generally comes out in print basically does not resemble, in any way, your conversation with the reporter. Tom Rizzo and I spent about an hour with the reporter, explaining all the and's, if's, and but's of our analysis. None of which were included in the first draft of the story. We tried hard to clarify the description of our work in the story, and ended up with the simple asterisk "under certain conditions." And, to be fair, we were told that this story was intended for the general audience at SLAC, including admins, technicians, cafeteria workers, etc, and thus all of the details simply could not be explained. As for the headline that is blazened on the SLAC home page - I saw it for the first time when someone drew my attention to it. I knew it was going to cause headaches....

I've also replaced the arxive version with the published version: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503178, so both versions should now be the same.

Ben Lillie

In addition to string theory's problems with non-uniqueness you refer to, it seems to me that there's also a problem with string theory as a theory of quantum gravity, because it assumes a smooth background spacetime with the 3+1 ordinary dimensions being flat. But that's just not a reasonable way for a theory of quantum gravity to work. In particular, there are strong model-independent reasons for believing that spacetime must be discrete, not continuous, at the Planck scale. So even if string theory could have all its other problems taken care of, it would still not be a good candidate for a fundamental theory of quantum gravity.

We consider black hole production at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in a generic scenario with many extra dimensions where the standard model fields are confined to a brane. With ~20 dimensions the hierarchy problem is shown to be naturally solved without the need for large compactification radii. We find that in such a scenario the properties of black holes can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions, n. In particular, we demonstrate that measurements of the decay distributions of such black holes at the LHC can determine if n is significantly larger than 6 or 7 with high confidence and thus can probe one of the critical properties of string theory compactifications.