Slashdot Mirror

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Presumably, anything that affects the "speed of light" affects *all* electromagnetic and mechanical phenomena. This is basic to the principle of equivalence in relativity. Similarly, it would be linked to gravitational phenomena. General relativity predicts that gravity travels at the speed of light, for instance.

The chocolate-microwave experiment relies on knowledge of the frequency of the microwave radiation for the calculation; your microwave's frequency is not tuned to any kind of metrological accuracy. To satisfy the government regulators, it has to hit the 2.4--2.5 GHz unregulated band, but that's a huge range.

To be precise, what would be changing are dimensionless constants, such as "alpha", the fine-structure constant. Variation in the "speed of light" depends on an arbitrary human choice of units. One can use units where length is in light-years, and time measured in years, and then c is, by definition, always 1.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0208093

...describing result here.

You too! That's great to hear! Where did you study?

  Can you provide me with some of your data and/or calculations that you used in determining the inaccuracies in MOND?

If I recall, it was your original posting that played the condescension card.

Their paper.

This has less to do with noise, and more to do with the fact that the eavesdropper has no method of telling who's sending what. Read the abstract, the article doesn't even begin to do this method justice. And an inductive tap wouldn't do anything to help you figure out who's sending what. Here's the paper: http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509136

Did YOU read the article?

If you click through to TFA, follow the link to http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509136, and then follow the link again to http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509136 which is the full text PDF of the research paper, section 3 discusses the "Secure, threefold encrypted, Kirchoff-loop-Johnson-noise (KLJN) cipher".

So, since the article DOES in fact have to do with an encryption scheme, cryptanalysts pounding on it probably would help to expose any problems, or to at least verify the non-existence of obvious weaknesses.

Did YOU read the article?

If you click through to TFA, follow the link to http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0509136, and then follow the link again to http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0509136 which is the full text PDF of the research paper, section 3 discusses the "Secure, threefold encrypted, Kirchoff-loop-Johnson-noise (KLJN) cipher".

So, since the article DOES in fact have to do with an encryption scheme, cryptanalysts pounding on it probably would help to expose any problems, or to at least verify the non-existence of obvious weaknesses.

The kinds of signals being worked with are very different than what Google has built its technologies around. It has nothing to do with a "Google search" except on an absurdly metaphorical layer, and the fact that it uses elements of statistical science.

Here is a link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505200

It is a highly anthropomorphic point of view that traditional space colonization or info-colonization are the paths that will be taken by advanced civilizations. These are concepts based on the relatively limited perspective of a few thousand years of human civilization and even shorter periods of infotech environments. It seems (to me) much more likely that advanced civilizations will replicate through a process similar to the self-replication process one sees in single cells (e.g. bacteria) and not the infectious parasite process one sees with viruses. The problem is that self-replication of advanced civilizations requires extremely close encounters between the developed resource (presumably a solar system, mega-ship or mega-intelligence like a Matrioshka Brain) with a resource of similar or greater mass & energy capacity. Such a resource should be largely undeveloped (like our solar system but much more likely regions of space where new stars are being created). This allows for self-replication over sub-light-year distances. Given the high energy/mass cost of navigating entire solar systems or mega-ships/intelligences as well as the common trajectories of natural objects in our galaxy such "close encounters" are very infrequent (occuring only over millions to billions of years).

(And for those of you who doubt navigating solar systems is feasible you need to go read related papers by Dyson or Criswell.)

I'm surpised that there hasn't been more discussion about arXiv in these comments. At our institute (astrophysics) most people send their pre-prints to astro-ph before the journal version is published, and NASA ADS http://adswww.harvard.edu/ is the first place to go when looking for something. There are also frequent group meetings to discuss recent submissions to astro-ph, making it more talked about than any particular journal.

Personally I feel that research which is not made publicly available only helps re-inforce the white tower image of scientists as self-serving. The fact that funding is directly related to citations has firmly entrenched journals in the run of things. Of course they are going to make vague claims about how science will suffer without their editorial control, but maybe if money was not an issue things wouldn't be this way.

http://arxiv.org/blurb/pg02pr.html is a pretty insightful consideration of how peer review systems can be made more efficient.

The main point of this article that tends to be overlooked/ignored, even by the OP, is this:

The Royal Society fears it could lead to the demise of journals published by not-for-profit societies, which put out about a third of all journals. "Funders should remember that the primary aims should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and wider society," The Royal Society said.

Also, its worth linking the entire Royal Society position on open access, so those who read it would realize the OP is presenting a very selective view of the Royal Society's position.

The Royal Society's point is that free stuff might make non-profit/commercial organizations lose big money, possibly forcing them to stop producing their peer-reviewed journal. This is obviously bad for a scientific community trying to reach a larger audience, and thusly the above quote on exchanging knowledge and what-not. As scientists/free-as-in-beer advocates, this is the sort of concern/fear that we need to squash, and pronto.

What I believe the Research Council UK and the Royal Society should consider is a position put forth by Paul Ginsparg, who helps run arxiv.org (an open access system primarily for math/physics based papers). His idea, contrary to the Research Council UK plan of concurrently publishing research on the web at the same time as in such journals as Philosophical Transactions, is to publish research of refereeable quality immediately in a "standard tier" system primarily interested in dissemenation, rather than review of, the information - similar to that provided by arxiv.org. That way, experts in the field have immediate access to the work, can review/comment on the work so that the authors can improve upon it, respond to comments, post updates, etc. Upon meeting some guidelines put forth by an "upper tier", the work could then be submitted for peer review knowing it had met the standards for that tier. Only upon acceptance through peer review would the article reach the larger audience via publication, thereby fulfilling both the needs of open-access advocates and commercial/non-profit societies.

As an aside, Paul Ginsparg makes the interesting note that this system would also put the power of publication back in the non-profit sector: commercial entities only got involved due to the enormous costs associated with mass-production quality control of submissions. However, the dissemination of information and communication across the 'net essentially eliminates this requirement.

The main point of this article that tends to be overlooked/ignored, even by the OP, is this:

The Royal Society fears it could lead to the demise of journals published by not-for-profit societies, which put out about a third of all journals. "Funders should remember that the primary aims should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and wider society," The Royal Society said.

Also, its worth linking the entire Royal Society position on open access, so those who read it would realize the OP is presenting a very selective view of the Royal Society's position.

The Royal Society's point is that free stuff might make non-profit/commercial organizations lose big money, possibly forcing them to stop producing their peer-reviewed journal. This is obviously bad for a scientific community trying to reach a larger audience, and thusly the above quote on exchanging knowledge and what-not. As scientists/free-as-in-beer advocates, this is the sort of concern/fear that we need to squash, and pronto.

What I believe the Research Council UK and the Royal Society should consider is a position put forth by Paul Ginsparg, who helps run arxiv.org (an open access system primarily for math/physics based papers). His idea, contrary to the Research Council UK plan of concurrently publishing research on the web at the same time as in such journals as Philosophical Transactions, is to publish research of refereeable quality immediately in a "standard tier" system primarily interested in dissemenation, rather than review of, the information - similar to that provided by arxiv.org. That way, experts in the field have immediate access to the work, can review/comment on the work so that the authors can improve upon it, respond to comments, post updates, etc. Upon meeting some guidelines put forth by an "upper tier", the work could then be submitted for peer review knowing it had met the standards for that tier. Only upon acceptance through peer review would the article reach the larger audience via publication, thereby fulfilling both the needs of open-access advocates and commercial/non-profit societies.

As an aside, Paul Ginsparg makes the interesting note that this system would also put the power of publication back in the non-profit sector: commercial entities only got involved due to the enormous costs associated with mass-production quality control of submissions. However, the dissemination of information and communication across the 'net essentially eliminates this requirement.

Because the restricted journal is known for agressive sifting of wheat from chaff, and rigorous reviewing of the wheat? That journal also (or therefore) has a high-impact factor as well, which ensures that people will actually read your paper.

I've had this go-round with other people before, since as an assistant professor, I chafe at having to pay page-charges, which reduces the amount of money available for research. I admit that journals cost something to publish, but the cost shouldn't determine whether I publish, especially given that promotion depends to a certain extent on quantity. One nice, 20-page, thorough article in J. Chem. Phys. http://jcp.aip.org/ is not going to make up for five MPU fragments published in Inorg. Chim. Acta. http:///http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journalde scription.cws_home/504086/description#description />, as far as promotion is concerned. Allegedly that JCP paper will get a heavier weight, but unofficially, it's number, with a few good ones in the better journals interspersed for status that matter.

This emphasis on quantity (especially when your packet leaves your department, and hits the administrative staff of the Dean's office, who aren't from your field), is what fuels the explosion of journals, and the corresponding explosion of frankly pointless publications. A system that rewarded impact of a paper, and quality of journal, would help, as presumably fewer, but longer and more thorough, papers would be published. This would lead to fewer journals, which would require smaller staffs to administer, and hence lower costs. Yes, new journals are needed now and then, but there are also generally older ones that can be gracefully retired.

I don't know how things are done in other sciences, but in chemistry the senior journal editors for ACS receive a stipend, office expenses, and technical support. (not necessarily great; just last year ACS upgraded their software to run on Windows > Win95, and replaced the computers) This costs money. On the other hand, the reviewers are free, and the content is free. A system that allows them to recoup the publishing cost, but then liberates the content after an appropriate period, would seem to make at least some sense.


I don't know a good solution. I think one would be that the journal gets limited copyright to your paper (say first year), after which you can deposit the raw copy at a service such as http://arxiv.org/. You can't change the content, but the formatting is left up to the author. Alternately, since the Feds probably paid for your research in the first place, after one calendar year, an electronic copy of the journal issue is deposited with the Library of Congress, and then mirrored by other academic or government labs. In this system, you still pay a service such as CAS for advanced searching (or take your chances with Google), and someone still buys the bound form, thereby creating money for the publisher, but the results are then placed into the commons after a short period. A system where I the author pay a flat fee (to help weed out dilettantes), the subscribers pay something (for prompt access), and the paper is then archived in a non-exclusive form after some brief period (1-2 years), is probably the fairest.

A different random thought is that maybe publishers should prune minor journals, and articles that would have gone there go to a publicly supported forum such as http://arxiv.org/. You would then have three tiers; peer-reviewed journals, publicly reviewed web-only publication (authentication of reviewers would be an issue, but not insurmountable; affiliation and verification by archive maintainers would do), and unreviewed conference proceedings. The economics of the above is probably worth investigating.

Of course, at the moment I'd be happy if our local library was allowed to scan a

Because the restricted journal is known for agressive sifting of wheat from chaff, and rigorous reviewing of the wheat? That journal also (or therefore) has a high-impact factor as well, which ensures that people will actually read your paper.

I've had this go-round with other people before, since as an assistant professor, I chafe at having to pay page-charges, which reduces the amount of money available for research. I admit that journals cost something to publish, but the cost shouldn't determine whether I publish, especially given that promotion depends to a certain extent on quantity. One nice, 20-page, thorough article in J. Chem. Phys. http://jcp.aip.org/ is not going to make up for five MPU fragments published in Inorg. Chim. Acta. http:///http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journalde scription.cws_home/504086/description#description />, as far as promotion is concerned. Allegedly that JCP paper will get a heavier weight, but unofficially, it's number, with a few good ones in the better journals interspersed for status that matter.

This emphasis on quantity (especially when your packet leaves your department, and hits the administrative staff of the Dean's office, who aren't from your field), is what fuels the explosion of journals, and the corresponding explosion of frankly pointless publications. A system that rewarded impact of a paper, and quality of journal, would help, as presumably fewer, but longer and more thorough, papers would be published. This would lead to fewer journals, which would require smaller staffs to administer, and hence lower costs. Yes, new journals are needed now and then, but there are also generally older ones that can be gracefully retired.

I don't know how things are done in other sciences, but in chemistry the senior journal editors for ACS receive a stipend, office expenses, and technical support. (not necessarily great; just last year ACS upgraded their software to run on Windows > Win95, and replaced the computers) This costs money. On the other hand, the reviewers are free, and the content is free. A system that allows them to recoup the publishing cost, but then liberates the content after an appropriate period, would seem to make at least some sense.


I don't know a good solution. I think one would be that the journal gets limited copyright to your paper (say first year), after which you can deposit the raw copy at a service such as http://arxiv.org/. You can't change the content, but the formatting is left up to the author. Alternately, since the Feds probably paid for your research in the first place, after one calendar year, an electronic copy of the journal issue is deposited with the Library of Congress, and then mirrored by other academic or government labs. In this system, you still pay a service such as CAS for advanced searching (or take your chances with Google), and someone still buys the bound form, thereby creating money for the publisher, but the results are then placed into the commons after a short period. A system where I the author pay a flat fee (to help weed out dilettantes), the subscribers pay something (for prompt access), and the paper is then archived in a non-exclusive form after some brief period (1-2 years), is probably the fairest.

A different random thought is that maybe publishers should prune minor journals, and articles that would have gone there go to a publicly supported forum such as http://arxiv.org/. You would then have three tiers; peer-reviewed journals, publicly reviewed web-only publication (authentication of reviewers would be an issue, but not insurmountable; affiliation and verification by archive maintainers would do), and unreviewed conference proceedings. The economics of the above is probably worth investigating.

Of course, at the moment I'd be happy if our local library was allowed to scan a

Indeed they did, but that still required subluminal separation of the entangled particles. Basically (very basically - this is only a rough summary), for quantum teleportation, you need to entangle the particles and move them apart normally in order to create the 'transmit' and 'receive' points. That still allows superluminal teleportation later, but there's a major catch: the Bell state can be rotated by the event, and it requires sending classical information about the initial Bell state to account for this. To use the traditional example, if Alice sent a particle to Bob with a known initial Bell state (the entanglement relationship between the sent particle and her 'transmission' particle), Bob has to know the result of Alice's Bell state measurement in order to get any information about the sent particle. Otherwise, the no-communication theorem would be circumvented. IOW, you can teleport something, but its information and usefulness still travel no faster than light.

Of course, the big problem with quantum teleportation is that it requires coherent quantum states for entanglement - good luck doing that with a human (even a dead one). IIRC, C70 fullerenes (buckyballs) are around the current experimental upper cutoff for coherence.

Perhaps because those guys made a small mistake? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377/

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

• Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant
• Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High-Redshift Supernovae (note: Omega refers to, roughly speaking, universal mean energy density and Lambda the cosmological constant)
• First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters
• New Constraints on Omega_M, Omega_Lambda, and w from an Independent Set of Eleven High-Redshift Supernovae Observed with HST
• A measurement of Omega from the North American test flight of BOOMERANG (includes observational constraints on Lambda)

Recent supernovae results (Perlmutter et al 1998, Riess et al 1998) have made a strong case for a nonzero and possibly quite large cosmological constant.

presumably, given entanglement [wikipedia.org], measurement of qbit state allows potentially for instant communication ?

No, it doesn't. The closest you can come is instant synchronization of states, but you don't get to choose what state that is. For example, you can have two particles entangled to have the same (or opposite, as in the EPR thought experiment) spin orientation, but you can't send a signal from one to the other by choosing the orientation. Instead, it's random whether each one is spin up or spin down - the only guarantee is the relationship between the measurements. This would be great for things like cryptographic key exchange, since you can't have a man-in-the-middle attack if there is no middle, but it's useless for sending information. See: The No-Communication Theorem (warning: requires crazy math skills to avoid the MEGO effect)

nothing can travel faster than light.

I call bullshit. Relativity prohibits* local superluminal motion; non-locally, it's fair game. See, for example, the Alcubierre Warp Drive - the only question of whether it's possible or not (aside from new physics) rests on whether there's any local superluminal energy propagation at the edge of the spacetime bubble. Plus, QM allows for lots more in the way of non-local effects (even if you assume hidden variables, since Bell's Theorem rules out local hidden variables based on current experimental results), though, as I noted above, it still doesn't allow for superluminal communication (or teleportation, for that matter).

* Minor caveat: this is not counting tachyons, since nobody knows if they exist.

I skimmed through

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

and

Grover's quantum search algorithm

And I still don't get how it works. Do you know of any quantum programming languages and code that implements this algorithm, because that would be infinitely better than the crap in those papers.

I skimmed through

A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

and

Grover's quantum search algorithm

And I still don't get how it works. Do you know of any quantum programming languages and code that implements this algorithm, because that would be infinitely better than the crap in those papers.

P.S. Despite your comments to the contrary on your blog, MOND has nothing to do with the existence of gravitational waves. Celestial mechanics also does not make the assumption that gravity propagates instantaneously. That assumption succeeds for ordinary solar system dynamics, when the effects of gravitational radiation are too weak to be negligible, but it fails for relativistic systems like PSR 1913+16, and a relativistic orbital dynamics based on linearized general relativity is required. Newtonian celestial mechanics absolutely cannot account for the loss of energy in systems like that, and not only can relativistic gravity do so, but the rate of energy loss exactly matches the predictions of general relativity.

In point of fact: regardless of whether you think general relativity is correct, special relativity is correct, and Newtonian gravity is unquestionably wrong (as demonstrated by many experiments, not to mention its inconsistency with special relativity).

This is also why MOND will continue to be rejected by the scientific community until some kind of relativistic formulation of it appears, such as Bekenstein's proposal (albeit with its own flaws). The only reason why MOND has worked at all is because relativity is negligible at the scale of galactic rotation curves, but it is inadequate as a standalone theory. It is at least possible in principle that dark matter can be explained by a modification of the laws of gravity, but that modification is not going to be a non-relativistic Newtonian theory. Such theories have already been experimentally falsified by all the experiments which support either special or general relativity.

P.P.S. I'd suggest reading what actual gravitational physicists think about gravity and why they think it, instead of radio astronomers.

Antigrav is a bit early at this stage, but it still may ultimately be possible. In the sense that the 'vacuum' energy state may be able to be adjusted to provide gravitation, and uni-directional forces.

For a start, so far, conservation of momentum is just an observation of normal matter on average, and the equations of physics is taken from there. If conservation of momentum was really understood then it could be found if it always holds or just holds under certain conditions. This is just a piece of the work being done by the Calphysics Institute:

http://www.calphysics.org/

There are a number of papers now available on http://arxiv.org/ which indicate that the infinite vacuum energy may be real and not 'virtual' merely to satisfy Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

Researchers include:

Alfonso Rueda
Bernard Haisch
Daniel Cole
Yi Zou
L. Nickisch
Jules Mollere
York Dobyns

the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have performed physical experiments to that degree of accuracy. Just not quantum computers, yet. It's important to note that there are other approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation beyond just error correcting codes. Topologically fault-tolerant quantum computing is currently highly theoretical, but has a lot of potential.

In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption

Quantum cryptography, or, more correctly, quantum key distribution (QKD), only does a subset of what today's public key cryptography does. QKD requires that the two parties already have a small shared secret for authentication, and simply allows those parties to produce an arbitrarily large shared secret (e.g. random number which they both know, but is hidden from all other parties). That large shared secret can be used as a one-time pad. In other words, QKD solves the encryption problem, but not the authentication problem.

One of the sibling posts makes an incorrect statement about QKD:
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

This is most certainly not the case if Alice and Bob have a shared secret, unless you use a particularly boneheaded implementation of QKD. QKD requires only a quantum and a classical channel between Alice and Bob. It doesn't matter if that channel is a single fiber, or a series of repeaters doing quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, or whatever. The whole point of QKD is to allow Alice and Bob to detect tampering with the quantum channel, and that works regardless of the physical nature of the channel.

The catch is when Alice and Bob don't have a shared secret, as one might imagine in a large quantum network. If Alice and Bob have never met, but both know and trust Charlie, they can use him as a trusted intermediary for QKD. If Charlie cheats, then the channel between Alice and Bob is compromised. Otherwise, it is secure. Once Alice and Bob have successfully communicated (without eavesdropping) via Charlie, they then have a shared secret and no longer need a trusted intermediary.

References:
Aharonov et al
Raussendorf et al
Silva et al
Szkopek et al
Knill et al
Aliferis et al

the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have performed physical experiments to that degree of accuracy. Just not quantum computers, yet. It's important to note that there are other approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation beyond just error correcting codes. Topologically fault-tolerant quantum computing is currently highly theoretical, but has a lot of potential.

In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption

Quantum cryptography, or, more correctly, quantum key distribution (QKD), only does a subset of what today's public key cryptography does. QKD requires that the two parties already have a small shared secret for authentication, and simply allows those parties to produce an arbitrarily large shared secret (e.g. random number which they both know, but is hidden from all other parties). That large shared secret can be used as a one-time pad. In other words, QKD solves the encryption problem, but not the authentication problem.

One of the sibling posts makes an incorrect statement about QKD:
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

This is most certainly not the case if Alice and Bob have a shared secret, unless you use a particularly boneheaded implementation of QKD. QKD requires only a quantum and a classical channel between Alice and Bob. It doesn't matter if that channel is a single fiber, or a series of repeaters doing quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, or whatever. The whole point of QKD is to allow Alice and Bob to detect tampering with the quantum channel, and that works regardless of the physical nature of the channel.

The catch is when Alice and Bob don't have a shared secret, as one might imagine in a large quantum network. If Alice and Bob have never met, but both know and trust Charlie, they can use him as a trusted intermediary for QKD. If Charlie cheats, then the channel between Alice and Bob is compromised. Otherwise, it is secure. Once Alice and Bob have successfully communicated (without eavesdropping) via Charlie, they then have a shared secret and no longer need a trusted intermediary.

References:
Aharonov et al
Raussendorf et al
Silva et al
Szkopek et al
Knill et al
Aliferis et al

the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have performed physical experiments to that degree of accuracy. Just not quantum computers, yet. It's important to note that there are other approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation beyond just error correcting codes. Topologically fault-tolerant quantum computing is currently highly theoretical, but has a lot of potential.

In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption

Quantum cryptography, or, more correctly, quantum key distribution (QKD), only does a subset of what today's public key cryptography does. QKD requires that the two parties already have a small shared secret for authentication, and simply allows those parties to produce an arbitrarily large shared secret (e.g. random number which they both know, but is hidden from all other parties). That large shared secret can be used as a one-time pad. In other words, QKD solves the encryption problem, but not the authentication problem.

One of the sibling posts makes an incorrect statement about QKD:
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

This is most certainly not the case if Alice and Bob have a shared secret, unless you use a particularly boneheaded implementation of QKD. QKD requires only a quantum and a classical channel between Alice and Bob. It doesn't matter if that channel is a single fiber, or a series of repeaters doing quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, or whatever. The whole point of QKD is to allow Alice and Bob to detect tampering with the quantum channel, and that works regardless of the physical nature of the channel.

The catch is when Alice and Bob don't have a shared secret, as one might imagine in a large quantum network. If Alice and Bob have never met, but both know and trust Charlie, they can use him as a trusted intermediary for QKD. If Charlie cheats, then the channel between Alice and Bob is compromised. Otherwise, it is secure. Once Alice and Bob have successfully communicated (without eavesdropping) via Charlie, they then have a shared secret and no longer need a trusted intermediary.

References:
Aharonov et al
Raussendorf et al
Silva et al
Szkopek et al
Knill et al
Aliferis et al

the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have performed physical experiments to that degree of accuracy. Just not quantum computers, yet. It's important to note that there are other approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation beyond just error correcting codes. Topologically fault-tolerant quantum computing is currently highly theoretical, but has a lot of potential.

In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption

Quantum cryptography, or, more correctly, quantum key distribution (QKD), only does a subset of what today's public key cryptography does. QKD requires that the two parties already have a small shared secret for authentication, and simply allows those parties to produce an arbitrarily large shared secret (e.g. random number which they both know, but is hidden from all other parties). That large shared secret can be used as a one-time pad. In other words, QKD solves the encryption problem, but not the authentication problem.

One of the sibling posts makes an incorrect statement about QKD:
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

This is most certainly not the case if Alice and Bob have a shared secret, unless you use a particularly boneheaded implementation of QKD. QKD requires only a quantum and a classical channel between Alice and Bob. It doesn't matter if that channel is a single fiber, or a series of repeaters doing quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, or whatever. The whole point of QKD is to allow Alice and Bob to detect tampering with the quantum channel, and that works regardless of the physical nature of the channel.

The catch is when Alice and Bob don't have a shared secret, as one might imagine in a large quantum network. If Alice and Bob have never met, but both know and trust Charlie, they can use him as a trusted intermediary for QKD. If Charlie cheats, then the channel between Alice and Bob is compromised. Otherwise, it is secure. Once Alice and Bob have successfully communicated (without eavesdropping) via Charlie, they then have a shared secret and no longer need a trusted intermediary.

References:
Aharonov et al
Raussendorf et al
Silva et al
Szkopek et al
Knill et al
Aliferis et al

the degree of precision required would be many orders of magnitude greater than any observations of any physical laws have ever been in a real experiment)

This is not true. The fault-tolerance threshold--the error threshold below which an arbitrarily long quantum computation can be performed to arbitrary precision with only polynomial overhead--is estimated to be anywhere from 10^-1 to 10^-7, depending on the physical system and the error model.

Now, 10^-7 is pretty hard to reach, but we most certainly have performed physical experiments to that degree of accuracy. Just not quantum computers, yet. It's important to note that there are other approaches to fault-tolerant quantum computation beyond just error correcting codes. Topologically fault-tolerant quantum computing is currently highly theoretical, but has a lot of potential.

In fact, part of the power of quantum computing is that (even without the somewhat less plausible factoring algorithm) we would have real secure encryption

Quantum cryptography, or, more correctly, quantum key distribution (QKD), only does a subset of what today's public key cryptography does. QKD requires that the two parties already have a small shared secret for authentication, and simply allows those parties to produce an arbitrarily large shared secret (e.g. random number which they both know, but is hidden from all other parties). That large shared secret can be used as a one-time pad. In other words, QKD solves the encryption problem, but not the authentication problem.

One of the sibling posts makes an incorrect statement about QKD:
The problem with quantum crypto is that it requires a direct transmission of photons from Alice to Bob. You can't have a relay station in-between, unless you are willing to guarantee its security (any relay station would allow for interception of the signal when it isn't entangled - which cannot be detected).

This is most certainly not the case if Alice and Bob have a shared secret, unless you use a particularly boneheaded implementation of QKD. QKD requires only a quantum and a classical channel between Alice and Bob. It doesn't matter if that channel is a single fiber, or a series of repeaters doing quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping, or whatever. The whole point of QKD is to allow Alice and Bob to detect tampering with the quantum channel, and that works regardless of the physical nature of the channel.

The catch is when Alice and Bob don't have a shared secret, as one might imagine in a large quantum network. If Alice and Bob have never met, but both know and trust Charlie, they can use him as a trusted intermediary for QKD. If Charlie cheats, then the channel between Alice and Bob is compromised. Otherwise, it is secure. Once Alice and Bob have successfully communicated (without eavesdropping) via Charlie, they then have a shared secret and no longer need a trusted intermediary.

References:
Aharonov et al
Raussendorf et al
Silva et al
Szkopek et al
Knill et al
Aliferis et al

It's small, but it's technologically possible to measure. I'm talking about measuring a net effect over an extremely large quantity of electrons.

Available evidence suggests the speed of gravity is at least 2e10 c.

It's small, but it's technologically possible to measure. I'm talking about measuring a net effect over an extremely large quantity of electrons.

Available evidence suggests the speed of gravity is at least 2e10 c.

Reminds me of this paper where they argued that large computations can actually be completed faster by slacking off for a few months and then buying a faster computer.

A quick search on arxiv.org for 'International Space Station' yields four papers.

For comparison, a search for 'Hubble Space Telescope' gives over 200 papers.

Not a definitive result, but it seems to indicate that there's not much science being done anyway.

A quick search on arxiv.org for 'International Space Station' yields four papers.

For comparison, a search for 'Hubble Space Telescope' gives over 200 papers.

Not a definitive result, but it seems to indicate that there's not much science being done anyway.

van Flandern is a well-known net crank who managed to get a high Google ranking via other net cranks. He actually has done good work in astronomy in the past, but he doesn't know general relativity from a hole in the ground. See the Google Groups archive of sci.physics.relativity for debunking of his claims by Steve Carlip, Chris Hillman, Tom Roberts, etc. The best capsule summary of what is wrong with van Flandern's arguments is in Carlip's paper.

In actuality, the speed of gravity has been measured already, and shown to equal that of light.

Due to the small scales, this has no influence on the devices you mention. The devices you mention make mostly use of the discrete energy levels of the electron in the atom. This can be just as well explained with classical radiation theory. It is just more complex, but people have attempted this and succeeded partially.
Furthermore, present day QM is not what many people learn in school, but is based on certain paradigms. Most common is the de Broglie interpretation (http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1929/brog lie-bio.html, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/) but just as with many other theories there are still many open questions wich leave room for improvement/change of the theory.

This does not change the fact that the true theory must conform to all the correct predictions that QM does. I doubt Mills' theory is correct, but also he stands on the shoulders of giants in his search to an alternative theory. Many people write theories that are local, just to give a recent one which has a lot of text that is understandable to non QM/RM people: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508104

I'm replying to some of the hundred-odd posts on this topic. If you want to determine whether something is decent science or crackpot, there are right and wrong ways to go about it. A lot of these posts appeal to authority to determine if focus fusion is decent science, analyzing who I am, or even who people who talk about focus fusion are or who is on their board of directors. That's not the way to analyze scientific work. If it were, we'd still be back debating what the church says is the correct Aristotelian interpretation of Ptolemy--and we sure would not be doing it by Internet. The right way is to look at the scientific work and ask--does it make sense, and does it follow the scientific method? Sometimes that's difficult if the work is only presented in technical journals. But in this case, our work is both available in technical form (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401126) and in layman's terms (www.focusfusion.org). Look at this work and judge for yourselves. If you're also interested in the Big Bang controversy, you can judge the layman's version at www.bigbangneverhappened.org or get more technical information from the download articles accessible there. (The July 2 cover story of New Scientist is a good introduction, too.) People on this list who call me a crackpot or less complimentary names have the simple obligation to point to some specific scientific errors that they perceive in my work. Otherwise they are not engaging in any sort of scientific debate and deserve to be ignored. A couple of basic historical facts need correcting. NASA did not cut off our funding because they were dissatisfied with our results. The whole program that was funding our work and many others, Advanced Propulsion Technologies, was zeroed out by the administration. More or less simultaneously all NASA programs that fund any form of fusion were also terminated. So this had nothing to do with our work in particular, but did indicate a general hostility towards fusion by the administration. Also, it would be wrong to describe focus fusion as that controversial among fusion scientists. (Unlike my cosmology work, which is controversial). Many fusion scientists think that this work, along with other alternative fusion approaches, deserves funding. But scientists don't make decisions on what is funded, administrators do. I've been at conferences of top fusion researchers in which practically not a single one supported the ITER project or thought that it could work. Yet that is the project that, for political reasons, gets all the funding. Finally, I want to address two technical points that seem to come up frequently. First, the safety of the focus fusion derives in part from the extremely tiny amount of fuel that is burned in each shot. The speck that is raised to several billion degrees is only a few microns to tens of microns across. So even when all the fuel, or nearly all, is burned, the yield will be only about 20 or 30 kilojoules--the energy a 100 W light bulb burns in a few minutes. It is only by pulsing the device a thousand times a second do you get 20 MW out of it. The much-cited PhD thesis from '95 that sought to prove that all advanced fuels like hydrogen-boron are impossible makes a number of assumptions that are not true in all cases. In particular, the thesis ignores the magnetic effect that decreases x-ray emission at the very high magnetic fields attainable in the plasma focus. The effect has been known for 30 years and is widely applied in the study of neutron stars, so it is also not controversial. But it greatly improves the prospects of getting net energy from hydrogen boron. Anyway, I urge every one to look at the material we present at www.focusfusion.org and judge it for yourself. Don't rely on "authority". That's not the scientific way. Eric Lerner

I suspect he is a crock. I don't know enough physics to prove or disprove him wrong. For a present day physicist he doesn't have that much stuff published in scientific journals. I checked his publications on arXiv.org and he only has his paper talking about his new reactor and the other one how the universe is not expanding and some other one. Also claiming to build a "new" "clean" and "cheap" energy source that other scientists just couldn't figure out just sounds a little suspicious, if you know what I mean...

Move the computers to a colder place.

According to the original paper from 2002, the star is nowhere near close enough to be "tidally disrupted", so it's just orbiting. (What it says is that even at closest approach, it's still 70x too far way.)

With all those stars whipping around, though, it wouldn't be hard to get the occasional star either entirely ejected, or potted right in. More usually, an orbit would be changed so that it approaches closely enough on each orbit to have a bit of mass (say, a trillion tons) stripped off, and gets used up over the course of a few thousand years. Of course at some point we wouldn't be able to see it any more, so there could be a bunch of those happening right now.

Probably most of the mass moving near it is non-radiating low-density plasma whose motion is controlled less by gravitation than by unimaginably intense electromagnetic fields. We see stars, but there's lots else going on in there we can't see.

The http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210426:linkedarticl e says the "enclosed point mass" (read: black hole) has a mass of 3.7 million solar masses, +- 1.5M solar masses. Not 2M solar masses, as the article summary indicates. For most people, myself included, this is a meaningless distinction, but in the interest of scientific accuracy, I thought I'd mention it.

More importantly it needs a login server to assure unique ids, and bootstrap server nodes. Pretty easy to block really http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.NI/0412017

The physics preprint server (originally xxx.lanl.gov, now residing at the more innocuous arXiv.org) started in mid-1991.

I assume that since this predates the web, it was accessible through ftp and email at the beginning. It looks like the web interface has remained the same since it was added at some later date - i.e. a real 1994-style user interface!

Despite its clunkiness, this is a fantastic resource used by tens if not hundreds of thousands of scientists to pre-publish papers, get the newest results out there (albeit in an unofficial form) and generally grease the wheels of the peer review and publication process.

There's a great (and dated) discussion of the history and technical aspects of running the service, linked to as a postscript file here: . Some choice quotes:

The system originally ran as a background job on a small Unix workstation (a 25MHz NeXTstation)... which was primarly used for research purposes by another member of my group.

An active archive such as hep-th requires about 70 megabytes per year (that is, $40 per year) for storing papers, including figures (I'm sure that's increased a little in the last ten years!

Hep-th for example would be come less useful if it were to become inundated by submissions from "crackpots" promoting their perpetual motion machines. - OOOOOPS! That did somewhat happen, and now there is a system of "endorsements" in order to post to arxiv.org, but the basic idea of opening access to the newest papers has worked and continues to serve the needs of an ever broadening scientific community.

Long live XXX!