Slashdot Mirror

You can RTFA, or read the actual paper here. (available as PS or PDF). Beware, a working understanding of general relativity may be required.

I've been taught that Einstein-Rosen bridges ("Wormholes") are unstable in MSc lectures. This knowledge is at least five to ten years old. I can't find the appropriate paper at the moment, but if you try this summary of Black Hole Theory, for example, it will tell you on page 25 that Wormholes are not crossable. There are similar problems with time machines ("closed timelike curves") and other strange phenomena of Quantum Cosmology: They all sound so cool at the beginning, but the closer you look, the less interesting they get.

Here is the article. Seems to be well-organized and inviting to the reader. Anyway, you'll want to learn some relativity first to find it awarding to read.

PS:
http://arxiv.org/ps/hep-th/0504003
PDF:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0504003

Here is the article. Seems to be well-organized and inviting to the reader. Anyway, you'll want to learn some relativity first to find it awarding to read.

PS:
http://arxiv.org/ps/hep-th/0504003
PDF:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0504003

I don't really have the background to understand the paper in detail, but from the BBC article, it sounds like they're saying that even if you had some exotic matter, you still couldn't build a wormhole stable enough to travel through, not get vaporized, and end up at a known time and place.

Scientific American and Popular Mechanics don't publish original research. Nature does, but it also summarizes interesting papers published elsewhere, in the belief that most of its non physicist readers prefer not to scour physics preprint services for the odd paper on complex systems.

The article is devoid of data. The text of the study can be found here though: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/?0505071

Yes, at the very bottom: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505071

h-bar.

Decoherence and biological feasibility. Computer simulations, experimental results and suggestions.

h-bar.

Decoherence and biological feasibility. Computer simulations, experimental results and suggestions.

You seem to forget entirely about the arXiv, which is a freely accessible scientific database of papers that's been around for many years now. It's also been at least partly funded by US tax dollars, ever since it's inception.

Im sure you all know this but, just look up the titles in a journal index and get the full text here,
Physics, Maths, CS, Bio papers

See:

Annis, James. "An Astrophysical Explanation for the Great Silence," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 52, 19 (1999).

If there are events that happen without cause (i.e., fundamentally random events) then running the clock backwards will not be merely a replay of the same events in reverse. The random events are noise that always tend to increase entropy. Time will always flow in one direction. This means that there is no way to get back.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101088/

Now, as far as we can tell all quantum mechanical events are causeless (i.e., fundamentally random). Anyway, if there are not causeless events then we get either an infinite regress of preceeding causes or closed causal loops.

So do not expect that you will meet any real time travelers.

All arguments about the workings of quantum encryption can refer to this paper. One key assumption is that you only send a single photon, not two or none. If none arives you wasted that bit-slot, but a second photon allows eavesdropping. Traditional sources generate photons according to Poisson statistics, which means that you can't accurately meter out one photon at a time. The standard fix for this is to attenuate the signal so that the average N is much less than 1 photons per measurement slot. This effectively means you only get (roughly) a photon every 1/N slots, but you still get 2 arriving together every 1/N^2 slot. The first part is both wastful, the second vulnerable.

The current paper merely how to generate single photons more reliably using diamonds as microcavities. Essentially the diamond is a tiny laser resonator on the scale of a single wavelength (1 micron), and can only support one optical mode, so any single spontaneously generated photon goes into that mode, and your output is single, narrow wavelength photon, but no doubles. In some ways this has ceased to be a "L.A.S.E.R." since the Light is not Amplified, and the Emmision of Radiation is not Stimulated, but spontaneous. Maybe I would call it Light Organized from Spontaneous Emission of Radiation, but I digress...

If you wat to look at such microcavities, see this paper

It's not visible to an amateur scope; it's magnitude 22.2, and I don't think the largest amateur scopes can get past 17 or so. That translates to about 100 times too dim to be seen by them. The value I quoted is the R_c band, which is visible (around 650 nm), if I'm reading the paper correctly. You can read all this yourself in the paper; see the bottom of section 1 on page 2, and Figure 2.

The official scientific term for gravitational lensing that produces a ring image is an "Einstein ring". The submitter/editors didn't make it up; it's right in the title of the paper.

The paper.

Section 2.1 covers the limitations of quantum key distribution (QKD) as per his proof; other proofs for other situations have been made, but this is about as general as I was able to find.

There is only one source on the Wikipedia article on Quantum Cryptography. I find it lacking and possibly misleading, but there are many other sources on the web & beyond that you can read to correlate the good information & gain understanding. Search http://arxiv.org/ among others, although note that not all papers here are peer-reviewed, either.

Common mistakes:

1. This is technology intended for you to do banking.

Sorry for frustrating your grandiose self-delusions, but NSA & DARPA (QuIST) aren't funding the hell out of this type of project in the US to improve your personal banking experience. [but maybe that will only add to your delusions]

2. Because it is quantum (oooh!) it is unbreakable.

All encryption is breakable by some method. And all proofs rely upon assumptions, and some proofs rely on unrealistic or unreasonable assumptions. E.g., I could "prove" relativity to be wrong if I choose assumptions that ignore experimental evidence.

One proof (and an overview of other proofs) of the security of quantum key distribution, i.e., what could come out of the Melbourne group's single photon transmitter:

"Quantum key distribution allows two parties, traditionally known as Alice and Bob, to establish a secure random cryptographic key if, firstly, they have access to a quantum communication channel, and secondly, they can exchange classical public messages which can be monitored but not altered by an eavesdropper, Eve."

So there's your fallible assumption, that A & B have one channel that can be monitored but not altered. (In this proof, Eve can monitor and alter the quantum communication channel if there is another un-alterable channel open between A&B.)

Another explanation is given by Myers in section 2.1, entitled "THEORETICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES IN KEY DISTRIBUTION."

3. Perspective

With the oncoming technology of quantum computing (also not for Joe Slashdot), numerically "difficult" public/private-key encryption schemes are going to be easily breakable. Hence the need for a different scheme. This is the US government, et al., trying to protect themselves against each other when the others figure out quantum computing.

There is only one source on the Wikipedia article on Quantum Cryptography. I find it lacking and possibly misleading, but there are many other sources on the web & beyond that you can read to correlate the good information & gain understanding. Search http://arxiv.org/ among others, although note that not all papers here are peer-reviewed, either.

Common mistakes:

1. This is technology intended for you to do banking.

Sorry for frustrating your grandiose self-delusions, but NSA & DARPA (QuIST) aren't funding the hell out of this type of project in the US to improve your personal banking experience. [but maybe that will only add to your delusions]

2. Because it is quantum (oooh!) it is unbreakable.

All encryption is breakable by some method. And all proofs rely upon assumptions, and some proofs rely on unrealistic or unreasonable assumptions. E.g., I could "prove" relativity to be wrong if I choose assumptions that ignore experimental evidence.

One proof (and an overview of other proofs) of the security of quantum key distribution, i.e., what could come out of the Melbourne group's single photon transmitter:

"Quantum key distribution allows two parties, traditionally known as Alice and Bob, to establish a secure random cryptographic key if, firstly, they have access to a quantum communication channel, and secondly, they can exchange classical public messages which can be monitored but not altered by an eavesdropper, Eve."

So there's your fallible assumption, that A & B have one channel that can be monitored but not altered. (In this proof, Eve can monitor and alter the quantum communication channel if there is another un-alterable channel open between A&B.)

Another explanation is given by Myers in section 2.1, entitled "THEORETICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES IN KEY DISTRIBUTION."

3. Perspective

With the oncoming technology of quantum computing (also not for Joe Slashdot), numerically "difficult" public/private-key encryption schemes are going to be easily breakable. Hence the need for a different scheme. This is the US government, et al., trying to protect themselves against each other when the others figure out quantum computing.

There is only one source on the Wikipedia article on Quantum Cryptography. I find it lacking and possibly misleading, but there are many other sources on the web & beyond that you can read to correlate the good information & gain understanding. Search http://arxiv.org/ among others, although note that not all papers here are peer-reviewed, either.

Common mistakes:

1. This is technology intended for you to do banking.

Sorry for frustrating your grandiose self-delusions, but NSA & DARPA (QuIST) aren't funding the hell out of this type of project in the US to improve your personal banking experience. [but maybe that will only add to your delusions]

2. Because it is quantum (oooh!) it is unbreakable.

All encryption is breakable by some method. And all proofs rely upon assumptions, and some proofs rely on unrealistic or unreasonable assumptions. E.g., I could "prove" relativity to be wrong if I choose assumptions that ignore experimental evidence.

One proof (and an overview of other proofs) of the security of quantum key distribution, i.e., what could come out of the Melbourne group's single photon transmitter:

"Quantum key distribution allows two parties, traditionally known as Alice and Bob, to establish a secure random cryptographic key if, firstly, they have access to a quantum communication channel, and secondly, they can exchange classical public messages which can be monitored but not altered by an eavesdropper, Eve."

So there's your fallible assumption, that A & B have one channel that can be monitored but not altered. (In this proof, Eve can monitor and alter the quantum communication channel if there is another un-alterable channel open between A&B.)

Another explanation is given by Myers in section 2.1, entitled "THEORETICAL IMPOSSIBILITIES IN KEY DISTRIBUTION."

3. Perspective

With the oncoming technology of quantum computing (also not for Joe Slashdot), numerically "difficult" public/private-key encryption schemes are going to be easily breakable. Hence the need for a different scheme. This is the US government, et al., trying to protect themselves against each other when the others figure out quantum computing.

The only problem is that the protocol is proprietary and only Skype knows how it works. This seems to offend a lot of people.

There's a good paper investigating how it all works here. Interesting stuff.

- shadowmatter

There was a theory that carbon nanotubes would support Cooper pairs (if impurities were added).
Described in this paper.

Yes, I do have a degree in physics. You may wish to check said thesis in light of errors explained above.

And I'm doing a Ph.D in physics on quantum computing. Sorry to be a prick about it, but you were a bit rough on the undergrad who posted above, and what goes around comes around. As long as that guy isn't doing his research on slashdot, he'll probably be OK..

If by "no problems" you mean "severe and most likely insurmountable quantum coherence issues". Any quantum computer big enough to simulate a modern sized classical computer will contain so many qubits as to have problems with interference from the outside world. IIRC the problem of quantum coherence is roughly exponential in the number of qubits in a system

No, the problem is not exponential in nature. It has been shown that if the error rates for storage, gates, etc. can be brought below certain thresholds (typically 10^-3 to 10^-6), then arbitrarily long computations can be performed. There are many papers on the subject, but here is one.

The only way in which decoherence could pose an insurmountable problem is if there is fundamentally new physics that plays a role in the regime between "quantum" and "classical". Nobel Laureate Tony Leggett has talked (in a recent issue of Science, and at the 2005 Gordon Research Conference) about how we might find such new laws of physics if they exist, or otherwise rule out their existence.

It implies no such thing.

You are correct. In the early days of the field, I think there was a little bit of confusion about whether quantum computers could do NP-complete, but it has long since been sorted out.

I recently attended a talk by Ike Chuang about general issues in the field. Chuang feels that quantum simulation and quantum communication will be the important applications, although he emphasized communication. I think quantum simulation is way, WAY underappreciated. Not only is it going to revolutionize protein folding, drug design, and other biomed applications, I have a hunch it may prove to be a prerequisite for advanced nanotech.

The article is not particularly good. The supposed problems that optical lattices will have in addressing qubits in the interior of a 3-D lattice are "solved" by using what is essentially a 2-D lattice on a chip. The same can easily be done with optical lattices.

Of course, addressing atoms inside a lattice of moderate size can be done using a high numerical aperature lens to focus an addressing beam onto a single atom. The addressing beam produces an AC Stark Shift of the appropriate hyperfine sublevels of the atom (in the case of Cesium-133 qubits, it shifts each of the mF sublevels of the F=3 and F=4 states), with the exact shift being different for different sublevels. This allows transitions in that particular atom to be driven by a microwave pulse which is detuned from all the other atoms in the lattice. Just how well can we address one atom while not disturbing atoms in adjacent planes? I'll know in a week or two. I'm currently simulating one and two qubit gates in this exact scheme. The actual experiment is also under construction, at Penn State.

Anyone interested in a distributed computing project to develop quantum computers? I could use help from developers, and later, also regular user input.

In fact, it would be very surprising if it turns out to be NP-complete, as it is in NP intersect co-NP. Also, no efficient quantum algorithms are known for NP-complete problems, and it is generally suspected that quantum computers won't be able to solve them efficiently. For example, see this semi-technical paper.

You had better get that right in your undergrad thesis ;)

a lot like open source. And has been so for quite some time. I publish my results, stating what I have been doing and precisely how. If I can as many other people as possible to use my results and ideas, I will gain respect in the scientific community (a lot of references). Regarding the publication process, open archives such as arxiv have been gaining in popularity for a long time, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions

The article submitter uses the term "perfect fluid." Indeed the language that is actually used in both the article and the STAR white paper (a technical summary from one of the four RHIC experiments) is, in fact, "perfect fluid" (see p.42 in the link below). In the white paper, the term is also used in quotes and is qualified by the clarification that this means, in this context, a fluid free of of viscosity.

STAR white paper

Well, I am an astrophysicist working outside the US, so I'll throw in some thoughts: 1) The preprint server arxiv.org is fundamental but still there is no peer review on papers. I can cite you more than one utterly ridiculous paper on astro-ph and gr-qc lists. So use it with care 2) Astrophysical journal IS charging non-US researcher with costs on a per-page basis. So I think that the PLOS politic is more than acceptable. 3) The copyright agreements traditional journals ask you to sign are as offending as a Microsoft EULA So, in the end, I think the "author pays, everybody has access" approach seems to work pretty well, If we have to pay in some way for peer review and proofs correction.

Well, I am an astrophysicist working outside the US, so I'll throw in some thoughts: 1) The preprint server arxiv.org is fundamental but still there is no peer review on papers. I can cite you more than one utterly ridiculous paper on astro-ph and gr-qc lists. So use it with care 2) Astrophysical journal IS charging non-US researcher with costs on a per-page basis. So I think that the PLOS politic is more than acceptable. 3) The copyright agreements traditional journals ask you to sign are as offending as a Microsoft EULA So, in the end, I think the "author pays, everybody has access" approach seems to work pretty well, If we have to pay in some way for peer review and proofs correction.

At PLOS Medicine and PLOS Biology, for example, authors pay $1,500 each [...]

A pre-print of the research article is available. The impression that I get is that they don't claim to really "prove" the idea, but rather pose it as a very interesting hypothesis which is compatible with the evidence and deserves further investigation. In particular, I think their claim is that gamma ray bursts can explain the evidence of rapid cooling from the extinction period. Of course, the popular press claims this tentative hypothesis like it was already a concrete fact, but that's what the press does.

Here's the basic info:

Title: Did a gamma-ray burst initiate the late Ordovician mass extinction?

Abstract: Gamma-ray bursts (hereafter GRB) produce a flux of radiation detectable across the observable Universe, and at least some of them are associated with galaxies. A GRB within our own Ggalaxy could do considerable damage to the Earth's biosphere; rate estimates suggest that a dangerously near GRB should occur on average two or more times per billion years. At least five times in the history of life, the Earth experienced mass extinctions that eliminated a large percentage of the biota. Many possible causes have been documented, and GRB may also have contributed. The late Ordovician mass extinction approximately 440 million years ago may be at least partly the result of a GRB. A special feature of GRB in terms of terrestrial effects is a nearly impulsive energy input of order 10 s. Due to expected severe depletion of the ozone layer, intense solar ultraviolet radiation would result from a nearby GRB, and some of the patterns of extinction and survivorship at this time may be attributable to elevated levels of UV radiation reaching the Earth. In addition a GRB could trigger the global cooling which occurs at the end of the Ordovician period that follows an interval of relatively warm climate. Intense rapid cooling and glaciation at that time, previously identified as the probable cause of this mass extinction, may have resulted from a GRB.

(at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503715 sorry, the preview button makes me think the URL: isn't working)

ahref=http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503715http:// arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503715>

Abstract: It is widely believed that the assumption of homogeneity is a good zero{\it th} order approximation for the expansion of our Universe. We analyze the correction due to subhorizon inhomogeneous gravitational fields. While at early times this contribution (which may act as a negative pressure component) is perturbatively subdominant, we show that the perturbative series is likely to diverge at redshift of order 1, due to the growth of perturbations. So, the homogeneous Friedmann equation can not be trusted at late times. We suggest that the puzzling observations of a present acceleration of the Universe, may just be due to the unjustified use of the Friedmann equation and not to the presence of a Dark Energy component. This would completely solve the coincidence problem.

Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google:

Oh brother. I didn't even get past the first page of his paper without running into physics errors. He claims that "quantum mechanics requires a universal time". This is nonsense; quantum field theory on curved spacetime -- and, in particular, on non-stationary spacetimes which do not admit any preferred "universal time coordinate" -- is a well-developed field and is quite rigorous (as far as QFT goes); it is a proof-by-example that QM without a "universal time" does work. However, you have to accept that certain procedures of ordinary QM won't remain useful; e.g., you don't tend to work with Schroedinger equations, since, as the author does correctly point out, the Schroedinger equation posits an absolute time (and a flat space). But the Schroedinger equation isn't fundamental to quantum mechanics and is not one of the postulates of QM (heck, it's not even relativistic). You can construct canonical Hamiltonian formulations of QFT without ever referring to a Schroedinger equation.

Actually, I just continued to read more of his paper, and it seems that almost his whole argument is predicated on this false claim that "synchronous time" is incompatible with quantum theory.

His "simple thought experiment" to demonstrate why it is "wrong to assume classical GR is always correct on macroscopic length scales" does no such thing: he gives an example of a condensed matter system which is a black hole analogue (has the qualitative kinematics of an event horizon). This is also well-known, but doesn't prove that condensed matter systems can mimic the full dynamics of general relativity. Indeed, nobody has succeeded in that task (don't have a good review article, but look at the references in this paper by Visser). And even if it did prove that condensed matter systems can externally act like black holes, that doesn't prove that GR is wrong on macroscopic length scales, either.

I didn't even bother to really study the dark energy bit after these preceding flaws, but beyond that, the paper is filled with crackpot warning signs: grandiose claims (simultaneous resolution of the question of black holes, singularities, the black hole information loss paradox, dark matter, and dark energy); claims that historians will one day vindicate his obvious correctness; etc.

In short: read with an extremely large grain of salt.

I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, but if you talking about this /. article from a few weeks ago, then the answer is no. The summary for that article was misleading, and the news article it pointed to was vague, but the actual paper merely said the object they observed had certain mathematical similarities to a black hole. See this post for a brief explanation.

...or tack /foo.pdf on the end. Seems to work for me:

http://xxx.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503200/foo.pdf

Didn't LANL or BNL create a black hole for a few seconds, several times?

They smashes beams of gold nuclei together at near light speeds, the result was a fireball who's core had "a striking similarity to a black hole." His paper is here. Its in PDF format, although it does not end in .pdf so you must open it manually in your PDF reader.

Here is his actual article (PDF).

Intrinsic is just another way of saying unexplainable: saying the redshift is "intrinsic" means that it is not due to anything. In other words, it has no explanation. That doesn't exactly seem scientific.

On the contrary. You do not have to have an explanation in hand. Dark energy, for example, has a name, but not an explanation (calling it Einstein's cosmological constant doesn't help much either :) Yet it can be used to generate hypotheses and tested, given certain assumptions.

In this case, we have an existing theory, and some disparate observations (e.g. at their measured redshift distances, older galaxies in any cluster seem to group on the near side, which is anti-Copernican) that have raised suspicions.

Having a hypothesis that expansion of space cannot statistically account for the observed redshift is a perfectly valid, and scientific, premise for experimentation.

That said, there are some theorists working on the problem.

Contenders for a mechanism:

• CREIL
• Compton Effect
• Plasma Redshift
• Variable Mass Theory (cf. Mach's Principle)

Some of these have got to be wrong, of course, (and this doesn't rule out other mechanisms) but those will show up on further experiments.

Cheers :)

The preprint is here.

Yes, that's one method of FTL travel. The Alcubierre warp drive works on that principle. Unfortunately, it requires negative energy to work, and there doesn't appear to be any of that in our universe. (Ok, you can get into discussions of the Casimir effect, so maybe it's barely possible... but will require either very high energies or energy densities.)

For anyone that can actually understand it click here (in pdf format)

The paper.

It's funny you mention google. Recentely, a Dutch research group used google to determine relationships between words based on the number of matches for each word and various combinations. Their article (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0412098) was also featured on slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/ 29/1815242&tid=217&tid=14) a while ago.

Of course, you can always check this site for all extra-solar planets found, and method they were found with.

"Finite and unbounded" was Einstein's model, and nobody's come up with a compelling reason to think otherwise so far.

Sure, but cosmologies with zero and negative curvature work just as well. Until we can measure the difference between "finite and unbounded" (positive curvature) and "infinite and unbounded" (negative curvature) we can't say which one is the correct description of our universe.

Most measurements put the universe's geometry as zero plus or minus a measurement error. The measured error puts a 'minimum size' of the universe on the scale of 24 Gigaparsec, at least.

Reference paper :http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310233

Dr Fish

They're the same process described in two different ways. Another paper.

Yes, you can describe Hawking radiation in terms of quantum tunneling. But you can also describe it in terms of virtual vacuum pair production, as in the link I gave above.

Gravity seems to be behaving oddly, with things like the Pioneer acceleration

The Pioneer accelleration is well within the error bar for the known spacecraft condition. The physicists who are arguing for a new effect are grossly misstating the precision to which we understand the condition of the spacecraft and how it will affect the trajectory.

The Nieto/Turashev/Anderson paper on a dedicated probe to try and get data with a lower error bar size skirts around this issue, but does address how a probe would have to be built to try and avoid those sorts of systematic errors. Quoting from that article:

Thermal design requirements: Thermal design is one of the most critical design issues for a mission to explore the Pioneer anomalous signal. The entire spacecraft and/or probe should, as much as possible, be heat-balanced and heat-symmetric fore/aft. In particular, the emitted radiant heat from the RTGs must be symmetrical in the fore and aft directions and the thermal louvers should be placed on the sides to eliminate fore/aft thermal recoil force due to the release of excess radiant heat.5 One should have a precise knowledge of all heat sources - RTGs, electronics, thrusters, etc. Also, an active control of all heat dissipation channels would be an additional critical aid. Finally, it is important to have a precise knowledge of how the spectral properties of the materials, from which the spacecraft surface is composed, will degrade. This is a challenging issue to discuss quantitatively. The difficulty lies firstly in the precise folding of the reflective insulation blankets and in the precision painting of all the external surfaces. But it is still hard to predict the exact behavior of all the surfaces on the spacecraft, especially after long exposure to the space environment (i.e., solar radiation, dust, planetary fly-byes, etc.). Knowing this all would result in a precise knowledge of the future history of the 3-dimensional vector of any residual thermal recoil force.

These unknowns are at least on the order of magnitude of the anomalous effect, and can be argued to be many times larger than it.

We simply can't say that there is an anomaly here which is real and physical when we know so little about the spacecraft to that level of precision. Anderson, Nieto, and Turashev know that real proof will require an experiment which is much more precise. Where they are failing is in continuing to argue that the existing experiment is precise enough to say that the anomaly is probably real and not simply experimental bias in the Pioneer spacecraft condition.