Slashdot Mirror

When I say quarks come in threes, I mean they come in multiples of three - usually -1, 0, or 1 multiple of 3.

• 1-1 quarks (quark/anti-quark). Examples: pions et al
• 3 quarks. Examples: proton, neutron, $\Lambda^0$
• -3 quarks. Examples: antiproton, antineutron, etc.
• 2-2 quarks (2 quarks/2 anti-quarks). Defined as: 4-quarks
• 4-1 quarks (4 quarks/1 anti-quark). Defined as pentaquarks
• 1-4 quarks. Defined as anti-particles of above.
• 6 quarks. Examples: neutron-pairs or proton-pairs
• -6 quarks. Examples: anti-particles of above.

This paper shows that the model used by Cooperstock and Tieu to describe galaxy rotation in General Relativtiy was unphyisical:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377/

Have a look at this: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377 which refutes the original paper. The title is "Singular disk of matter in the Cooperstock and Tieu galaxy model" Although it is possible in science that models researched on for years (or even decades or centuries) are proved wrong by a single paper, it is better to be cautious when judging them initially.

Of course, this all assumes that this new model using relativity is correct... It probably is, but I think it does need to under go the usual scrutiny just to be sure.

Even though this is disappointing from a philosophical point of view, the result that the model is unphysical is good because it saves astronomy a lot of trouble. I think that it is really important to stress here that the evidence for dark matter does not come only from flat rotation curves alone, but that there are many independent methods to determine the presence of gravitational mass, many of which do not depend on any Newtonian assumptions. Had the original result been true, the non-existence of dark matter halos of galaxies would have implied that most of these other independent experiments showing the presence of dark matter, e.g., in galaxy clusters, are be wrong as well. And that would have shaken the foundations of most of modern cosmology.

It seems these guys made a crude mathematical error in their calculation: arXiv.org.

Look up this: arXiv.org. It seems these guys made a crude mathematical error in their calculations.

There has been no observable evidence, only inferences.

Authors: Mikolaj Korzynski
Categories: astro-ph
Comments: 5 pages, no figures

Recently a new model of galactic gravitational field, based on ordinary General Relativity, has been proposed by Cooperstock and Tieu in which no exotic dark matter is needed to fit the observed rotation curve to a reasonable ordinary matter distribution. We argue that in this model the gravitational field is generated not only by the galaxy matter, but by a thin, singular disk as well. The model should therefore be considered unphysical.

Actually, about a month after this article was submitted another paper came out saying that the proposed model is not physical as it requires the disk generating the gravitational field to be singular. Although I did skim the Cooperstock article (he was my prof for GR, so I have a bit of a bias), I didn't read the other article.

I would be surprised if the Cooperstock & Tieu model completely dispells dark matter. For starters, we know that only about 5% of the mass (actually, density) in the universe is baryonic matter (normal matter) from Big Bang baryogenesis models and the match to cosmological observations (WMAP). We also have some confidence (also from WMAP, but also from BOOMERANG) that the Universe is very nearly gravitationally flat (this result is independent, IIRC, of assumptions about dark matter). This means that 95% of the mass/energy density in the Universe is something else. Current models and observation suggest that dark matter makes up about 35%; the remaining 60% is 'dark energy'.

However, if a simple re-application of GR can make at least some of that dark matter disappear from the models, that makes life interesting.

And of course there is already another paper calling into question the physical model used by the paper in the story summary.

I still think Dark Matter is something of a kludge that is going to be displaced by a real explanation sometime and that there is a good possibility that using general relativity (as in this paper) is going to lead to that real explanation, but teaching any of these theories as "facts" just demonstrates the lack of knowledge by the teacher. They are simply alternative theories that somewhat fit with most recent measurements.

Oh please, even the Wikipedia article that was linked to in the original post already has criticism on this paper!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_probl em

The model from the original post is discovered to be unphysical. This is all old news, why does it need to be on science.slashdot.org ?!

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377/

Recently a new model of galactic gravitational field, based on ordinary General Relativity, has been proposed by Cooperstock and Tieu in which no exotic dark matter is needed to fit the observed rotation curve to a reasonable ordinary matter distribution. We argue that in this model the gravitational field is generated not only by the galaxy matter, but by a thin, singular disk as well. The model should therefore be considered unphysical.

The outburst you refer to (and the earlier ones, seen, e.g., by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer), however, was immediately recognized as a SGR outburst, and not as a "short gamma-ray burst". As you correctly say, there is currently a lot of debate in the community whether a fraction of short gamma-ray bursts are in fact due to SGR outbursts in nearby galaxies, however, how large that percentage is is not clear. One of the most careful studies of short gamma-ray bursts available has recently set an upper limit of 4 per cent of all short gamma-ray bursts as being caused by SGR outbursts (Lazzati et al., MNRAS 362, L8, preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0504308). I think we could argue whether this is a "significant percentage". To be fair, in the original Nature paper on the December outburst, Hurley et al. argue that SGR outbursts could explain a much larger fraction of short gamma-ray bursts.

Overall, however, the debate in the community is still ongoing and therefore I think that at the moment the jury is still out and would still distinguish between SGR flares and short gamma-ray bursts. It is because of this that I stated that I am not aware of any GRB, short or long, that was ever seen from in object in our Galaxy.

(and, yes, I indeed find anomalous X-ray pulsars (which might be magnetars) and other neutron stars with high magnetic fields very exciting objects and have published on them...)

And, no, I'm not misinterpeting something. And I found it! Summary here, article here.

They were trying to measure the quantum effects of gravity, and discovered it didn't appear to have any.

And the killing ratio for a GRB would be more like 100-250 ly. 10 ly away even a normal supernova would be an extinction event.

In this article, a GRB 6'000 ly away is assumed to have a devastating effect on Earth's lifeforms: Galactic Explosions Inhibit Life

GRBs might also be the cause for the Non-Existence of a galactic Civilisation: An Astrophysical Explanation for the Great Silence.

LIGO is not just "upcoming". It's already running, though not 24x7x365, and taking data. You can see some of the early papers at the preprint archive: search for "LIGO" in the author field.

If we want real scientific information to be available to the masses, we should get the scientific journals to publish their material online for free.

Good luck. Someone has to pay. If you want to do that you will need an author pays model, such as in Optics Express. Alternatively you could go to the arXiv, of course there, you won't get the "benefit" of peer review.

Then, not being scientificly trained in the appropriate field, how do you make any sense of what you are reading?

It's not such an easy problem to solve.

He's from a university press, which is not to be confused with 'seller of exorbitant textbooks to university students' (e.g. the $80 calculus text).

The university presses publish mostly monographs with a limited circulation, such as graduate and upper-division undergraduate textbooks or books of no use to anyone except their author's case for promotion. Very few university presses have the marketing and sales muscle to compete against Addison-Wesley, Wiley, Saunders, etc. in the introductory-textbook market.

But I agree with your main point, that those introductory textbooks are absurdly priced (they are also terrible, which is another story).

that was ten years ago; I can only imagine how much it is now

What you feared. In footnote 2 of this paper, a colleague and I tabulated the prices and weights of the main introductory physics textbooks.

I don't think it's as clear cut as that. For one thing, black holes of different masses will have event horizons of different sizes. That's what the saying I tried to paraphrase was probably referring to.

For another thing, some (e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506506, haven't read it, got the link from wikipedia) theorize that no singularity occurs. Also, we can't really say for certain what's beyond the event horizon, and the equations break down when they get to the center. From what I gather, anyway.

By the way, I get what you're saying. I'm just saying it's not necessarily that clear cut.

Someone or another asks something like this everytime anything related to black holes comes up on Slashdot.

The radiation emitted from black hole related events, such as quasars, gamma ray bursts, and Hawking radiation, for that matter, comes from processes near-sometimes very near, but still OUTSIDE, the event horizon. As long as you're outside the horizon, there are trajectories that escape.

As for,

Also, if a black hole was created at explosion, was this even more massive then we can see, yet the black hole swallowed up a majority of the explosion and what we see, is just a small glimpse of it?

According to the literature on very massive stars, there as mass ranges that results in the star collapsing completely into a black hole such that no significant amount of matter or radiation gets away at all.

Check out How Massive Single Stars End their Life. Figure 1 is particularly enlightening. It's a pretty math-free article, so I think anyone who's generally interested in this stuff can follow it, maybe with a bit of help from Wikipedia and Science World.

If your journal is telling you that they won't accept latex, tell them you won't submit your articles anymore, thank you very much.

In physics we have it good due to the existence of the arXiv, where we put our articles first. Therefore journals are already limited by the fact that your article is already published on the web, and they have to accept the consequences of that. e.g. they cannot have too draconian copyright terms. I know in many disciplines the situation with journals is much worse. But remember, journals are totally dependent on us, the scientists, and not the other way around. With the advent of the web and email we can diseminate our work to our colleagues and perform peer review all without the intervention of a journal.

The physics community accepts latex as the standard, and people are (rightfully) suspicious of articles which appear on the arxiv in only .doc or .pdf format.

So, I suggest you keep using latex, investigate adding a section to the arxiv for your specialty, and tell your journal that they will accept latex or be replaced.

-- Bob

(It's actually a draft of a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, not yet approved.)

It's a nice phenomenology paper without any heavy math that puts together a bunch of theoretical ideas floating around. Even better, it has testable hypotheses! (unlike many papers these days)

1. Gravity should deviate from the inverse-square law at the nanometer scale.
2. Dark matter should be composed of a particle with mass 3e-16 GeV/c^2. (For comparison, mass of electron is 5e-4 GeV/c^2.)
3. The large extra dimensions assumptions all this is based on would require us to see all sorts of quantum gravity interactions at the LHC.

Checking hypothesis #2 would require some independent way of determining the mass of dark matter particles. I don't know what the sensitivity range of the various dark matter experiments running or planned are. Maybe they would be able to see something this light.

#3 however is going to start running in 2 years, and then we'll get some good information either way.

Based only on the assumption that nothing but gravitation can produce x-rays and high-velocity jets, or affect motion of large (electrically-conductive) masses. Even your "super-massive black holes" aren't enough to account for galactic rotation; you need to make up "dark matter" too.

galactic lensing, ... This definitely exists.

Sure, here and there. But it gets trotted out every time somebody points out that quasars are all clustered around nearby galaxies.

the Big Bang has quite a bit of evidence for it.

Meaning, really, that the mountains of evidence against it are neatly hidden behind an even bigger pile of ghostly "dark matter".

zero-point energy This exists too.

Sure, and any astronomical or cosmological event that demands an unlimited energy supply can tap into it at need.

That, and cropping from Hubble pictures anything embarrassing, such as quasars actually in front of opaque nearby galaxies. Cite?

OK:
The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319
Missing Quasars of M82

and Big Bang is looking iffier every month. Doubtful.

I will note here that respondent fails to defend "dark matter", never mind "inflation" or "dark energy".

Perhaps arxiv.org

Here's a novel approach.

The early Pioneer data relevant to the anomaly were not kept as carefully as later data, but it turns out they may shed some light on the puzzle. A recent paper here proposes looking at the data in more detail, but this will take time and effort, and therefore money.

I've answered my own question: MOND has indeed been considered as a possible explanation for the Pioneer anomaly, as described on page 44 of Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pionieer 10 and 11 . According to the authors, the anomalous acceleration is too large to be explained by MOND or similar theories.

This paper reviews the current status of the anomaly and describes how the Pioneer data could help. It may be a bit math-intensive for some, but the words surrounding the sums do pull them all into focus.

Please note that the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis is at this stage only an hypothesis, and it most certainly does not explain what consciousness is or how to reproduce it. In fact no one knows if the brain performs quantum computations of any kind, or if such computations are required for consciousness. Some AI luminaries think consciousness is in fact very simple, nothing more than memory.

At this stage physicists are trying to build very simple quantum computers, which could be used for accelerating some very specific computations. Some other people have proven that even quantum computing would not be the panacea that many think it would be. For a start it doesn't give any new insight on how to perform specific calculations that would lead to consciousness. All computations possible on a QC would also be possible on a classical one, albeit usually much slower (but it wouldnt' matter that much, at least in theory).

In other words the Penrose/Hameroff hypothesis doesn't really help in any significant way. It is just saying that the brain somehow performs some magic quantum thingy, and that thingy would somehow be the basis for consciousness. It doesn't say what this thingy is exactly, and most crucially doesn't say how to reproduce it in any way.

the P/H hypothesis is basically just saying "we can't have true AI with the current batch of computers, something else is required", but doesn't say what.

Needless to says this is not very helpful, and might be false entirely.

There is for example the anisotropy of the background radiation. Without those wimps self-gravitating while the interacting matter was still in equlibrium, there would have been no chance of the universe "clumping together" that quick.

Also, recently some structures of the higher energy band of the background radiation are suspected to be the result of the decay-series of those weakly interacting particles, as predicted by the theory of supersymetry.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405235 (sorry for the plug, but i know the guy from freshman days :) )

Computers are becomming faster all the time, certanly SOMEDAY chess will be solved. (Unless of course civilization is destroyed first)

I don't believe so. Unless some way of circumventing the laws of thermodynamics is found, there is a theoretical limit on the maximum amount of information that can be processed within our universe, which has been calculated to a figure not entirely dissimilar to the order of the tree of all possible chess games.

This calculation makes a few assumptions that seem likely to hold out. The only way around it would be a quantum solution, and chess doesn't seem like the kind of problem that quantum computers can solve.

The paper.

A little searching on arXiv.org brought up:
Quantum Algorithm for SAT Problem and Quantum Mutual Entropy
So at least the first half of that title relates to your question.

A little searching on arXiv.org brought up:
Quantum Algorithm for SAT Problem and Quantum Mutual Entropy
So at least the first half of that title relates to your question.

Physical Review Letters is pricey. Here's the free copy off arXiv. Anonymous for no karma whoring.

For example, I did the calculations a few days ago and it would appear current technologies allow the assembly of mammalian sized genomes *from scratch* in a few days using technologies that are available now (though the assembly of complete chromosomes needs some work it is a "methods" problem not a "technical infeasibility" problem). This doesn't violate any laws of physics. That means any complex life form can probably be assembled if you can design it. The problem is that most SciFi writers know relatively little about microbiology and biotechnology.

And *very* few SciFi writers really understand the implications of nanotechnology. I'm reasonably sure I can count them on less than 10 fingers. You don't go to the stars in "starships". You go to the stars by taking a planetary sized mind or an entire solar system. It doesn't move fast but since you've reengineered the power source (for "planets") or the sun (for solar systems) to last trillions of years who cares? Those of you who don't understand this haven't been following the /. discussions regarding the "Blinding of SciFi" or haven't read the background material on Matrioshka Brains.

Worth noting in passing is that the recent submission of astro-ph/0506110 which we hope to have published soon. Once it is completely grasped astronomers, physicists, SETI fans *AND* the Science Fiction authors will have little excuse for not seriously considering Life at the Limits of Physical Laws.

This is actually an interesting discovery, but the BBC News story doesn't do it justice. There's a better explanation on the New Scientist's website, and the original paper is available here.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027/

There you go... Just in case you missed my earlier post. Not that I understand the paper, but I know how to look for them fast. I'm going to give it a second read anyway.

Cheers...

there you go...
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027/

A preprint discussing some of these problems is available in the preprint archive Galactic Gradients, Postbiological Evolution and the Apparent Failure of SETI.

Worth noting to the person who suggested that planets with advanced civilization migrate outward within the galaxy... The idea is on the right track but as the paper above points out -- advanced civilizations can migrate their solar systems anywhere they want. People who really want to understand galactic gradients and the probable location (and ages) of planets similar to Earth should research the papers by Charlie Lineweaver's group. Their work suggests that there are many many "Earths" in our galaxy. Many would be quite a bit older than ours if the intelligent civilizations they might have spawned chose for some illogical (nostalgic?) reason not to disassemble them.

All of this is not to say that the PicoCell or Bluetooth or other alternatives are not good ideas for airplanes for the simple reason of preventing radiotelescope interference (i.e. *real* radioastronomy rather than radioastronomy involving the questionable pursuit of ET. Of course having no-cell-phone zones (or even no-fly zones) in locations above radiotelescopes seems to be a much simpler solution. And then of course anyone who wishes to use a cell phone on a plane should be required to use a "cone of silence" (for those of you who remember "Get Smart"). :-;

http://www.fleiner.com/bots/

I found this site through some slashdotter website long back... I've forgotten where and when, but it lends itself nicely to the topic...

Also good it the way arxiv.org fights back.

I always liked the way that arxiv.org dealt with this matter. It clearly says that it will initiate a seek and destroy against your site, if you visit a certain link.

If you do go there, it initiates a countdown.... I've never stuck around long enough to see what happens when the countdown finishes... I like my internet connection just a little too much for that... :-)

Except that there is no physical evidence whatsoever that the brain does quantum computation, vague suggestions about microtubules and such notwithstanding, and good theoretical reason to believe that there can't be.

I respect Penrose highly, he's one of my personal scientific "heroes" actually, but on this consciousness stuff, I think he's out to lunch (with his Goedel arguments moreso than his quantum, but still).

I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.

The calculation was performed on 512 processors of an IBM p690 parallel computer at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. It utilised almost all the 1 TB of physically distributed memory available. It required about 350000 processor hours of CPU time, or 28 days of wall-clock time.
The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops, so the total number of floating point operations carried out was of order 5x10^17.

I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.

The calculation was performed on 512 processors of an IBM p690 parallel computer at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. It utilised almost all the 1 TB of physically distributed memory available. It required about 350000 processor hours of CPU time, or 28 days of wall-clock time.
The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops, so the total number of floating point operations carried out was of order 5x10^17.

I figured they meant 25 TB of RAM. Which would be much more impressive.

The calculation was performed on 512 processors of an IBM p690 parallel computer at the Computing Centre of the Max-Planck Society in Garching, Germany. It utilised almost all the 1 TB of physically distributed memory available. It required about 350000 processor hours of CPU time, or 28 days of wall-clock time.
The mean sustained floating point performance (as measured by hardware counters) was about 0.2 TFlops, so the total number of floating point operations carried out was of order 5x10^17.

To be fair, the creators of skype have nothing to do with the spyware in kazaa if thats what you're refering to. Thank sherman net.

Skype is, as far as ive ever seen, spyware free.

You can find protocol analyses like these around

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.NI/0412017 (PDF)

The majority of the Skype protocol has been reverse-engineered. There's a paper on it available at .

That said, you're correct about it using a patented algorithm for its audio compression. Perhaps they'd be willing to give a Free license to said algorithm... doubtful, but possible.

No consensus yet. Go here, search astro-ph for `Pioneer' and you'll find people still arguing about it.

"That is because, usually, the author is selling his/her license to the publishers who provide the upfront money to produce the books/pay the author."

Remember we are talking about academic articles here (at least the post you were replying to was). Publishers of academic journals generally charge the readers, charge the authors, and take away copyright from the authors. That's why free online alternatives are gaining popularity, such as http://arxiv.org/