Slashdot Mirror

Here is the preprint. It's pretty pathetic that the Slashdot blurb only linked to an article that you can't actually access without being a subscriber to New Scientist.

Forget the New Scientist article, read the actual paper.

I'm not a string theorist (or a heavy ion physicists for that matter) but having a quick look at the original article, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068, it seems that they are not suggesting that real black holes appear in RHIC. Instead, they are suggesting that the dual theory description of the fireball is a black hole. It's already in the abstract: 'The "Color Glass Condensate" (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the *pion field soliton*, dual to the interior of the black hole'. In this dual description, the pion exchange is described by gravitational interactions.

So it's standard QCD going on in there and the only 'real' black hole is in the BBC science writer's mind.

If I understand this correctly, the dual is meant in the sense of the "AdS/CFT-correspondence", which is a mathematical correspondence, or "duality" between a gravitational theory (which may contain black holes) and a "Gauge theory", which is the kind of theory that is used to describe quarks, electrons etc.

The duality means that calculations on black holes may (possibly) be used to understand certain things about this "fireball", but it doesn't mean that the fireball is actually a black hole.

Want more ? Here is the Home page-Science Lite for the STAR detector

Please note also that Dr. Nastase was beating these same drums back in 99. I expect that this paper is science politics- at that level you don't want anyone to think you were wrong, so you will spend significant effort at proving your predictions right, despite evidence to the contrary. Oh, and he's not even on the project- he's sucking down other people's results after the fact.

For Horatiu Nastase's paper in pdf format: Title: The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole

The e-print of Nastase's paper.

Hence nearly every astronomical paper of the last century is available online free of charge, either at the NASA astrononomical data system or through the reprint/preprint archive.

Meanwhile ad or subscription supported journals tend to charge fairly steep fees for electronic access to "their" articles.

Its tough for an author supported journal to say "We're going to charge you in order to publish this, but we're not going to let you distribute it in other ways." Hence, "pay to publish" journals foster free access to journal articles.

As others have said in this thread, this is an old problem. Interestingly, other professional societies have generally dealt with this reasonably well. Both the American Physical Society and the American Chemical Society assess page charges from the authors to help cover costs, as well as modest subscription costs from libraries.

Even though there are free archives of preprints, where content is available publicly, people are still willing to pay a little for the stamp of peer-review. Certainly one could imagine an automated system that would distribute manuscripts to appropriate referees at comparatively little cost, but you have to remember that not all "peers" view refereeing as good citizenship. Many view it as a burden, not unlike jury duty.

Finally, let's keep our eyes on the big picture: it's typically for-profit publishing houses , not professional societies, that squeeze libraries for every penny, have outrageously inflated page charges, and generally lower quality and standards.

Why don't they just make it available on the net and see what happens.

In maths and physics, at least, there's already the arXiv, and a new non-commercial journal http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/gt/ that publishes through the arXiv, and which seems to be a viable going concern as far as one can tell.

All is not perfect: recently the journal published an erroneous article, which subsequently disappeared from the arXiv (cf. this thread), which shows the risk of online publishing. Nonetheless, the principle remains: with support from a university, peer-reviewed journals, cheap to access and cheap to submit to, are already possible.

I do not wish to start a holy war, but there's clearly something wrong with you folks (I mean chemical researchers). In theoretical physics, the problem has been solved long ago: http://arxiv.org/. The professionals in the field somehow did not fear that publishing free preprints will cost them their reputations. Perhaps the chemists are simply too greedy and/or short-sighted to adopt the right model.

xxx.arxiv.org arXiv has been funded almost exclusively by Los Alamos National Laboratory. There are mirrors all arround the world provided by various universities. Authors do the formatting in latex, and the papers get compiled and downloaded automatically. What is missing in this case is quality control, which again could be done by authors of other papers, as is the case with susbscription journals. An automatic peer review system could be a good solution to this problem. I'm sure that funding for this kind of project can be found, either from universities or directly from government grants.

People thought it was some sort of sophisticated artificial intelligences. I didn't have the heart to tell them how simple the working really where.

On that note, I would also like to bring to the attention of the slashdot community the immense body of work that's been done using "the game of life" type systems. One particular paper Modeled the social dynamics of corruption in an enlightening way.

Couldn't find a link to the published ApJL paper, but this might be the preprint or related to it.

I completely agree. I work in mathematical biology and know a number of people who work on these models , here at the UofA and LANL. The "until we can predict everything" garbage is the typical argument of people who don't understand modeling. Biology is frequently complicated, but not ALWAYS complicated. What if people said "Oh, light, you can't model that, it's too complicated, that Hilbert space garbage will never get you anywhere?" There is only one way to figure this out and that is to try to build models. Models of epidemics can actually tell you quite interesting things. There are not necessarily so many variables that you can't get anywhere. Take ecology. Understanding/modeling the rainforest is really hard. But not everywhere is that complicated. How about the Antarctic or the tundra? The Namibian desert? Too complicated to ever understand?

Some diseases are understood alright, like tuberculosis. Others are harder. Models suggest things to look for. Don't think the issues you thought of in two minutes are lost on the investigators who have studied these things their entire lives. The natural progression of earlier models of disease is to incorporate network topology through network theory and agent based models. There are already interesting results such as vaccination on a scale free network is useless if you miss the nodes with highest degree.

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0205260
http://www.csss.washington.edu/Papers/wp23.pdf

It is true that in some situations there is no particular course of action that will do much. Just like there is little defense from an atomic bomb. But don't you want to make sure?

You can check this out if you're really interested.

I would also like to point out that the arXiv http://www.arxiv.org/ usually contains the .tex source for any preprint published there. This makes it an excellent source for example latex code.

Also want to look into add-ons such as revtex and some of the mathematical societies' stuff. Very handy all around

The original author of LaTeX has a very great introduction book (it has a blue and yellow cartoon cover...). There are probably better reference manuals, but for teaching first-timers, it's great, IMO

Here's an obligatory link to the pre-print research paper and the abstract:

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0502336

Achieving transparency with plasmonic coatings

Andrea Alu, Nader Engheta

The possibility of using plasmonic covers to drastically reduce the total scattering cross section of spherical and cylindrical objects is discussed. While it is intuitively expected that increasing the physical size of an object may lead to an increase in its overall scattering cross section, here we see how a proper design of these lossless metamaterial covers near their plasma resonance may induce a dramatic drop in the scattering cross section, making the object nearly invisible to an observer, a phenomenon with obvious applications for low observability and non invasive probe design. Physical insights into this phenomenon and some numerical results are provided.

Instead, Tien Kieu from my university wants to solve arbitrary Diophantine equations using quantum effects. If he's a) correct, and b) it becomes possible to create the required quantum behaviours for arbitrary equation, the following problems become solvable:

• The halting problem for arbitrary Turing machines, with all that that would imply.
• The Riemann hypothesis.
• Goldbach's conjecture

  Needless to say, to say people are sceptical of Kieu's ideas is an understatement, but it's fun to speculate about the "what if"...

Quantum computing: a view from the enemy camp

Quantum computing relies on processing information within a quantum system with many continuous degrees of freedom. The practical implementation of this idea requires complete control over all of the 2^n independent amplitudes of a many-particle wavefunction, where n>1000. The principles of quantum computing are discussed from the practical point of view with the conclusion that no working device will be built in the forseeable fu

But don't suggest this to the astronomers or astrophysicists because they are so friggen sure that the universe is *dead* and nothing they observe could be explained by the activity of advanced technological civilizations... They obviously haven't read any of the work by the Lineweaver group pointing out that 75% of the stars in the galactic habitable zone are older (in some cases much older) than the Sun. [Ref: astro-ph/0401024].

Roll the open source and nanotechnology development efforts forward by a few hundred million years and project what the universe would look like...

Some common objections to dark matter I constantly see whenever the topic comes up on Slashdot:

Can't dark matter just be brown dwarves or black holes or something? Why do scientists postulate crazy exotic invisible particles?

Dark matter is postulated to come in two kinds, Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) and Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). MACHOs are things like brown dwarves, etc.; WIMPs are the new kind of matter. We have already detected some MACHOs through gravitational microlensing experiments (looking for them by how they gravitationally deflect light). But if all the dark matter were MACHOs or something else mundane and baryonic, we would have detected more of them by now. That leaves WIMPs. Also, MACHOs and WIMPs have different physical properties (e.g., they cluster differently, and thus seed the formation of the large-scale galactic clusters we see today in different manners), and an all-MACHO universe doesn't cluster right, though it works out if you let some WIMPs into the mixture.

Ordinary neutrinos don't do the trick, either; we evidently need some new kind of particle. We don't know what WIMPs are, but some have postulated axions, neutralinos or other supersymmetric particles, WIMPZILLAs, solitons, sterile neutriono (that only interact gravitationally), ...

Dark matter is unscientific; it can't be tested or falsified.

Dark matter theories can be tested indirectly by observing the different predictions they make for galactic rotation curves, early-universe structure formation, cosmological expansion, etc. Already such observations have excluded a number of dark matter theories. And there are experiments underway that try to directly detect them, similarly to how we detect neutrinos.

Dark matter is just epicycles all over again, a fudge factor to preserve a wrong theory of gravity.

Once upon a time, irregularities were noted in the orbit of Uranus. It could have been postulated that the laws of gravity were wrong. Instead, it was postulated that an unseen bulk of matter was perturbing Uranus's orbit. Eventually, that bulk of matter was seen: the planet Neptune.

On the other hand, once upon a time, irregularities were noted in the orbit of Mercury. It was postulated that maybe a new planet caused them (Vulcan), but that turned out to be wrong; instead, a new theory of gravity was needed (general relativity).

The moral: you can attempt to explain away the observations with either dark matter or a new theory of gravity; both are scientifically valid approach. The problem with the latter is that it has proven extraordinarily difficult to produce a modified theory of gravity that is consistent with all observations, whereas there are dark matter theories that appear to do the job. Believe me, scientists don't ignore the possibility of a new theory of gravity any more than they ignore the possibility of a new type of matter; it's just that new theories of gravity don't seem to work as well as new theories of matter in explaining the observations.

What about MOND?

MOdified Newtonian Dynamics is the leading candidate for a non-dark matter alternative, modifying the laws of gravity. (Note that this page is by MOND's inventor, and may be biased.) However, it has had trouble with a number of observational tests; you can search the astro-ph arXiv for critiques of MOND. In particular, although it seems to work for galactic rotation curves, it's hard to get it to also work for cosmological expansion and structure formation. It's also very difficult to make it into a theory compatible with observed tests of relativity.

What about Bekenstein's MOND theory?

Bekenstein recently proposed a relativistic version of MOND called

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502312

The preprint.

Of course, there is one unbreakable encryption - one time pads. Fortunately, quantum cryptography seems to be able to implement a convenient one time pad at a decent data rate. It's a race to see whether quantum computing or quantum cryptography becomes widespread first.

For funny side of things. Now that we know that we 10E90 bits will be enough for everyone. 299 bits will be enough to address every bit in the universe. 296 bits if we want to access 8-bit bytes.

It also seems evident that universe wasn't compiled with full optimizations. There is no input or output so all this computation could have been optimized out. Let's have silent moment for this tought.

As far as we know, the whole universe is just a finite state machine (see, for example, Computational Capacity of the Universe). Infinite entropy for finite systems was the big problem with 19th century physics that the introduction of quantum mechanics fixed.

Quantum dot memories in transistor embodiment is still an option.

Imagine a sphere of matter of a given fixed density D. Escape velocity is proportional to sqrt(M/r) for mass M and radius r. Since M=Dr^3, escape velocity is proportional to r*sqrt(D). Therefore, no matter how small D is, you can find a radius large enough to make the escape velocity exceed the speed of light.

Given estimates for the (very small) average density of the observed universe, you get a number like 10e10 light years, which indeed matches pretty closely (well within an order of magnitude) the size measured observationally.

Here are tons of the most recent research papers on black holes. Definitely an good read for anyone with an interest in physics.

Recently I saw on Discovery that many galaxies (if not all) were orbiting around supermassive black holes. And that the orbiting speed of the stars is proportional to the black holes' mass. This is known as the "M-sigma" relation.

This meant that the supermassive black holes actually contributed to the process of galaxy formation.

The theory is more or less the following:

In the center of a galaxy-sized gas cloud, a star collapsed, forming a black hole. The black hole began eating the gas around it, forming a quasar (quasars are the matter just about to be swallowed by a black hole, disintegrating and generating enormous amounts of energy).

The quasar, due to its high temperature and rotational speed, heated the surrounding gas cloud, activating a chain reaction that gave birth to all the stars in the new-forming galaxy.

Eventually, the quasar pushed away the stars, so the black hole could only be fed by the quasar itself. After that, the black hole enters a dormant phase (it has nothing else to eat), and the galaxy is already formed (of course, I'm talking about a process that takes billions of years).

Wouldn't it be more productive to study ways to combat spam? From simple Bayesian techniques to graph theoretic methods? That would teach you a lot of theory and principles you could apply to other courses as well. Right now, it just sounds like they're just doing this for attention...

- sm

"Second, observations of some neutron star binaries (with at least one member a pulsar) show decaying orbits. The rates of decay very nicely match the hypothesis that energy is being lost from the systems in the form of gravitational radiation, as predicted by GR (some hard working scientists got Nobels for this). Since gravity travels at c in GR, these results provide indirect support for GR and the speed of gravity being c (this is explained in more detail in the Baez page)."

If you're the same AC who posted this, I already mentioned Bekenstein's paper, and used it as an example of what's wrong with MOND. First off, Bekenstein's theory does not explain all the observed effects -- if you actually read his paper, he says that there are a number of tests to which he has not yet subjected his theory. Second, read this response.

If you're not the aforementioned AC and have theories other than Bekenstein's in mind, name them. I'm sure the astrophysics community will be fascinated to learn that dark matter has been superseded.

Bekenstein's theory is a MOND theory. Moreover, it's a prime example of how many hoops you have to jump through to get MOND to work; even moreso than what you need to get dark matter to work. This Usenet article summarizes the opinion of one well-known gravitational physicist (and also reflects my own opinion on Bekenstein's paper). It is also unknown whether Bekenstein's theory -- which is extremely new -- really is a better explanation, because it has not yet been subjected to the full battery of tests to which dark matter has already been subjected. Read the paper for a list of some of them.

As an aside, in science it's generally a poor idea to hail a month-old unpublished proposal as a valid alternative to a widely-accepted paradigm -- even if the author is Bekenstein. Ideas need to be published, vetted by peers, discussed and tested in the literature, before they can be accepted.

Viewing this mapping as a data compressor, we connect to earlier work on Normalized Compression Distance.

This is basically what I was referring to in my response to "Using The Web For Linguistic Research" when I said:

There needs to be an annual prize for the highest compression ratio using random pages from the web as the corpus. This would probably do more for real advancement of artificial intelligence than the Turing competitions.

Intelligence can be seen as the ability to take a sample of some space and generalize it to predict things about the space from which the sample was drawn. The smaller the sample and the more accurate the prediction, the greater the intelligence. This is also a short description of what a compression algorithm does.

Text Compression as a Test for Artificial Intelligence, 1999 AAAI Proceedings. Matt Mahoney shows that text prediction or compression is a stricter test for AI than the Turing test. (1 page poster, compressed Postscript).

Anyone here who's a scientist ever try to use "google scholar"? Unfortunately, it's not very good. What I'd like to see (as an Astrophysicist) is some way to do a search that combined results from difficult-to-navigate scientific sites, such as NASA's ADS abstract service, the Spires HEP database, and the arXiv.org preprint database. Finding what you need on these individual sites is often a pain, and to be able to search a compilation of them would sure be nice for me...

Now think carefully about the huge number assumptions and magic constants behind expansion redshift, most of them barely tested, and then think about this quasar as a classic example of its class.

A new URL for preprint archive is http://www.arxiv.org/.

Just a month ago I finished a paper exploring using Google counts in great detail for language analysis and other forms of meaning extraction.
"Automatic Meaning Discovery Using Google":http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0412098/

Comments welcome, -Rudi.

• Eisenstein et al.
• Cole et al.

• Eisenstein et al.
• Cole et al.

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.

Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.

Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." -- Albert Einstein

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity,
"Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference. Numerous republished quotations from Einstein's contemporaries prove that they were aware of his plagiarism.

Many people may have been misled by the tactless and prejudiced account of the history of the Hilbert-Einstein equations of gravity published in 1997 by Leo Corry (Cohn Institute, University of Tel-Aviv) and John Stachel (Director of the Center of Einstein Studies, Boston). The "objectivity" of that account is well demonstrated by the fact that Corry and Stachel "forgot" to mention that the set of galley proofs of the fundamental Hilbert's paper that they analyzed was incomplete and was missing a critical part. The wonderful book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity" by Bjerknes is a perfect remedy to Corry and Stachel's "discovery" and their attempt to further cultivate the cult of personality of Einstein at the expense of Hilbert. The book is thoroughly and meticulously documented and leaves only one way to counter it: by silencing it or by labeling the author as Einstein-hater (or worse) and changing the subject. Especially valuable is the section reproducing the original publications, including the (incomplete) galley proofs of the Hilbert's paper. If after having read this book someone still thinks that Corry and Stachel understand physics well enough to write about the history of general relativity then I would recommend the paper by A. A. Logunov et al., "How were the Hilbert-Einstein equations discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 47, pp. 607-621 (2004) (in English).

I'm a physics grad student now, but let me give my take on it. The answer to your question is really yes or now. Much like the printing press and the internet let's any crackpot publish/disseminate bogus facts, but it gives the same abilities to people that have something worthwhile to say.

But how do you tell the good stuff from the bad? Firstly, most scientists worth their salt will be able to immediately distinguish whether a paper is written by an expert in the field, or someone bullshitting. Now as to someone outright lying, well the case of Jan Hendrick Schon reveals that problem can exist within the peer-reviewed literature too. However, seeing how afterwards he was exposed he was fired, and even had his PhD revoked by his university, can hopefully deter other would-be frauders. Scientific 'trolling' may be a harder problem to crack, though.

One such method to determine relative 'goodness' of an author, or a paper, is to see how many times it is cited by another paper. In fact, one of my former professors at U. Penn was one of the motivators for this method because she experienced alot of discrimination trying to get a faculty job. (In the old days, and even today to a smaller extent, female PhD physicists are underrepresented). She had to use these citation numbers to prove her work was as influential as some of the top men in the field.

Of course, with fully open access, it will be relatively easy to create many 'spam' articles that cite your own article to increase it's perceived importance. One way to combat this might be to weigh citing scores lower if they come from within an intimate circle. Another would be to have a moderation and meta-moderation system to acknowledge which papers in their field are worthy of being cited. Of course this goes back to the 'elite' problem of someone being unfairly shut out, but at least they can still publish their paper openly, if they need to point out 20 years down the line they were the first to publish a certain theory.

There actually already are such open venues, for example the arxiv will allow AFAIK anybody to publish a paper there.

Other than publications, the American Physical Society , for example, gets some federal funding and hence provide some public services. For example, at some of the larger meetings they might provide a room for presentations from non-physicists or others, kind of like the local public access station on cable TV. Sometimes talks are given on philosophy of physics, sometimes there are just crackpot talks, but any decent physicist will be able to tell by a talk whether it is worthwhile or not.

I should have said: "Quantum mechanical effects become significant in the realm of the extremely super small." Likewise: "Einstein's relativity becomes significant in the realm of extremely large values of velocity."

Close but no cigar, BECs (Bose Einstein Condensates), Nonlinear optical systems, and the Stern-Gerlach experiment (which gave evidence for electrons having spin) all occur on scales as large or larger than cell biology. Special relativity depends on velocity but General relativity does not, in fact velocity is a difficult idea to describe in General Relativity and not useful anyway. In full scale General Relativity all you have is spacetime and curvature.

What about: "Look around, and everyone will see that quantum mechanics is not tangible."

I guess the 8 foot tall, 2 ton NMR spectrometer I work on isn't tangible. How about this NMR magnet is it tangible? Of course I guess NMR isn't a quantum phenomenon.

I have not heard about the quantum economic model yet, or social Q.E.D.

Probably because quantum theory refers to a very specific set of axioms which cannot be applied willy nilly. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution likewise refers to a very specific logical framework, the general ideas of competition and selection can be simulated in a variety of other systems hence the proliferation of "Darwinian X" ideas floating around. On the the other hand, quantum statistical phenomena apply only in very specific cases and other than those systems studied by quantum physicists don't appear in economic systems or social interaction networks or other areas in which analogies to Darwinian Evolution can be made. On the other hand, there is a lot of useful work that can be done in applying quantum mechanical ideas to computation.

The term "quantum darwinism" is really an unnecessary buzzword. There is a certain analogy about states which create many records of themselves surviving a robust pointer states where others are "selected against", but the analogy is really pretty limited and not very useful. It's better to stay away from using terms like darwinism for effect. I should note that I didn't see the word "quantum darwinism" in the title or abstract of either of the actual journal articles this news item references. For the lazy, the two papers in question seem to be this preprint and this article from the Nov 26 issue of Physical Review Letters.

This sounds like an interesting result and Zurek is a premenent figure in the field of quantum decoherence, but this looks like the tying up of some (important) details rather than the revolutionary developement the news article makes it out to be. Even as far back as the work of Everett we had an idea of why two observers who compared notes would always agree on the objective facts. In the many worlds interpretation, this comes down to the fact that if observer A measures system S, there will be many different possible results. So there will be many branches of the wavefunction with A observing each possible result. When observer B measures system S, he becomes entangled with S and A, and there are many possible outcomes, but in each branch of the wave function A and B agree on the outcome. Not sure if that clears anything up. :-) If you're talking about purely quantum systems, the same thing happens in the Copenhagen interpretation. The only tricky part is how to think about it when A and B are "classical observers". Still, I haven't read these papers yet and now I'm eager to.

can be found in some of Wojciech Zurek's (mentioned in the article) preprints located at http://www.arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Zurek_W/0 /1/0/all/0/1.

For Physics and Astronomy examples (the ones I know the most about) try:
http://arxiv.org/

http://adswww.harvard.edu/

http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/ and http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/sim-fid.pl et al

and now of course http://scholar.google.com/ as well.