Slashdot Mirror

Heh, that's funny, just yesterday I browsed around on arxiv.org (the famous repository of physics/math/cs papers) and saw the
original paper.

Problem though is that when the real world does not match the simulation model, then the theories don't work in the real world.

Indeed. Just for kicks, here's a description of the simulation they use (from the paper here, emphasis mine) :

The Simulation
We implemented the methods described in the next section in NetLogo [12],
a multi-agent modelling environment. We extended the "Gridlock" model [13]
which is included in the NetLogo distribution. It consists of an abstract trac
grid with intersections between cyclic single-lane arteries of two types: vertical
or horizontal. In the first series of experiments, cars only flow in a straight
line, either eastbound or southbound. Each crossroad has trac lights which
allow trac flow in only one of the arteries which intersect it with a green light.
Yellow or red lights stop the trac. The light sequence for a given artery is
green-yellow-red-green. Cars simply try to go at a maximum speed of 1 "patch"
per timestep, but stop when a car or a red or yellow light is in front of them.
Time is discrete, but not space. A "patch" is the size of a car. A screenshot of the
environment can be seen in Figure 1. The reader is invired to test the simulation
(source code included), with the aid of a Java-enabled Internet browser, at the
URL http://homepages.vub.ac.be/cgershen/sos/SOTL/SOTL. html .
The user can change dierent parameters, such as the number of arteries or
number of cars. Dierent statistics are presented: the number of stopped cars,
the average speed of cars, and the average waiting times of cars.

Gravitational waves are a far better medium for communicating through the earth. Neutrinos are way too hard to detect, and there are billions passing through your head at any given minute.

The most constructive thing I can do is give you some buzzwords to google for. Quantum teleportation is possible because of a quantum effect known as "quantum entanglement", an effect that was predicted in the 1930's and proven experimentally in the 1970s and 1980s. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any decent references for this effect on the web in my ~5 minute search. On the other hand, if you want to see what a real scientific explanation of quantum teleportation looks like, check this out. The first page actually looks like it's pretty comprehensible.

Some beautiful equations of mathematical physics

In my field, Oceanography, we have not moved to the Arxiv model used in Physics ... yet.

Right now as it stands, scientists work on getting their grants, doing the research, hiring and supervising researchers, writing up the research, submitting articles, and editing and reviewing articles for publication. All that is done for "free" as researchers must publish.

In exchange for all that, they then pay for the privilege of accessing their articles in the form of journals. However, as budgets shrink, the prices of journal subscriptions has been rapidly increasing. In response to the price increase, fewer journals are purchased making the remaining ones more essential. Since these then become essential, the prices increase even more to what the market is able to bear, not what is appropriate. Some of the annual subscription fees approach the cost of a small car. Access to electronic versions often cost extra and don't give you the option of keeping a copy on the shelf after the subscription runs out.

None of that is conjecture on my part. Next visit to your university or corporate library, chat with the staff and you'll hear more.

No one said life is fair, but then again no one says that it has to be stupid as well. There's plenty of blog or content managment software out there. Try it. If it's boring or too much work, drop it or hand it off. If it takes off like Arxiv did, learn to delegate authority (one can never delegate responsibility) and get some help seeking extra hands / funding.

Yes, only 3 of the 4 is used, because the 4rth one points in the wrong direction (outwards). The atomic geometry of Boron and Nitrogen is not suitable for making flat 2d structures.

All four of the bonding electrons in carbon are used. There are three sigma (spp) bonds and a delocalized pi (p) bond.

It is true that if you tried to make a planar material out of just boron or nitrogen, it wouldn't want to lie flat. Combined, thought, you get an electron structure very similar to pure carbon. Here are some links mentioning planar boron nitride: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0111020 and http://www.uminokai.net/nanotube/index.htm

A chip optimized to do QCD calculations (QCDOC QCD on Chip) has been developed and parallel computers using that chip are being built. More details can be found here. Machines are being built by the U.S., U.K. and Japan. The U.S. and Japaneese machines will be located at Brookhaven National Lab Computing Facilty which is close to Columbia University where the QCDOC was developed.

There was also an article on the subject in The Economist a couple of weeks ago. The Economist story refers to a paper by Chris Duif that looks at other gravitational anomolies. Specifically there is something called the "Allais effect" which describes a measurable change in the force of gravity during solar eclipses. The effect has been experimentally confirmed by a number of observations with different measurement methods - and is also inconsistent with General Relativity. It will be interesting to see what - if anything - comes from the NASA Gravity Probe experiments.

It is most certainly not radiation pressure from the RTGs. If you would care to read the original 54 page article gr-qc/0104064 at http://arxiv.org/ you would have noticed that the original authors took serious effort to account for the radiation pressure from the RTGs and could make it in no way large enough to account for the anomaly.

As it happens, The Economist recently ran an article addressing some of these issues. The article also provides context and perspective that should be of interest to those participating in this discussion. For convenience, the full text is reproduced below; it is also accessible online (may require paid subscription).

----

Gravitational anomalies

An invisible hand?

Aug 19th 2004
From The Economist print edition

[Image]

An unexplained effect during solar eclipses casts doubt on General Relativity

"ASSUME nothing" is a good motto in science. Even the humble pendulum may spring a surprise on you. In 1954 Maurice Allais, a French economist who would go on to win, in 1988, the Nobel prize in his subject, decided to observe and record the movements of a pendulum over a period of 30 days. Coincidentally, one of his observations took place during a solar eclipse. When the moon passed in front of the sun, the pendulum unexpectedly started moving a bit faster than it should have done.

Since that first observation, the "Allais effect", as it is now called, has confounded physicists. If the effect is real, it could indicate a hitherto unperceived flaw in General Relativity--the current explanation of how gravity works.

That would be a bombshell--and an ironic one, since it was observations taken during a solar eclipse (of the way that light is bent when it passes close to the sun) which established General Relativity in the first place. So attempts to duplicate Dr Allais's observation are important. However, they have had mixed success, leading sceptics to question whether there was anything to be explained. Now Chris Duif, a researcher at the Delft University of Technology, in the Netherlands, has reviewed the evidence. According to a paper he has just posted on arXiv.org, an online publication archive, the effect is real, unexplained, and could be linked to another anomaly involving a pair of American spacecraft.

Three different types of instrument have been used to detect the Allais effect. The first are conventional pendulums, such as the one Dr Allais used originally. The second are torsion pendulums, which work by hanging a bar that has weights at each end from a wire. As the wire twists back and forth, the bar rotates in pendulum-like motion. The third are gravimeters, which are, in essence, very precise scales. All of these instruments measure the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, a quantity known as g. The Allais effect is a small additional acceleration, so tiny that it would take an apple about a day to fall from a tree branch if it were the only gravitational effect around.

Allez, Allais

Dr Duif has examined various conventional explanations for the Allais effect. He finds the most obvious suggestion--that it is a mere measuring error--unlikely, because similar results have been found by many different groups, operating independently and, in at least one case, without knowledge of Dr Allais's results.

He also discounts several explanations that rely on conventional physical changes that might take place during an eclipse. One of these is that the anomaly is caused by the seismic disturbance induced as crowds of sightseers move into and out of a place where an eclipse is visible. That seems unlikely, given that one of the experiments with a positive result was conducted in a remote area of China while another that had a negative result took place in Belgium, one of the most crowded parts of the planet. Dr Duif also considered the possibility that, because the moon's shadow cools the air during an eclipse, this cooler, and thus denser, air might exert a different gravitational pull on the instruments. This change could, he reckon

Perelman just casually posted his solution out to the web in much the same way that some of the most brilliant posts on /. come form "anonymous cowards" sitting in their offices at MIT. What a god.

Yes, that's the way maths works - people share their ideas online rather than wait years for the refereeing process. (Though the briefest browse through the "general" section of the arxiv will convince anyone that refereed journals are still necessary.)

Wasn't this sort of scientific openness one of the inspirations and models for OpenSource software?

Don't waste your time/modpoints replying or modding a copy of this.

Of course it is. Have you guys never heard of http://www.arxiv.org/?

In particle physics (and some other mathematical physics), we already put preprints of all our papers on the web (for free) at the arXiv and have done for years.

What seems a little ambiguous here is what would actually happen to the papers. AFAICT from the article, they're just talking about forcing recipients of NIH money to give their papers to NIH for free-as-in-beer distribution. But then what happens to the papers? In physics, we have arxiv.org, which is a free electronic depository for preprints and reprints, many of which have not yet been peer reviewed or published in a peer-reviewed journal. Is NIH planning to set up the equivalent of arxiv.org themselves? It seems like they're completely ignoring the recent efforts to start up free, electronic scientific journals.

I would like to see something like this:

• Traditional print journals (ones that charge subscription fees) should all be forced out of business. They're dinosaurs. They have absolutely no excuse for continuing to exist.
• The success of arxiv.org should be emulated in other sciences besides physics. But note that this has nothing to do with peer review.
• There should be nonprofit peer-reviewing societies; peer reviewing is already unpaid work, so this is something that should be possible to accomplish with fairly easily. It should be hard to get the seal of approval of the most selective peer-reviewing societies (as hard as publishing in Phys Rev Letters), and easy to get the seal of approval of the least selective ones (as easy as publishing in Phys Rev).

What's all the fuss about?

Recently I've read couple of articles speculating the possibility of gravity being faster than the speed of light and also that Kopeikin-Fomalot work on measuring speed of gravity (or rather propagation of gravitational force) is rather controversial.

At the same time, I find this observation by Van Flaudern very interesting and logical

"Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons."

Recently I've read couple of articles speculating the possibility of gravity being faster than the speed of light and also that Kopeikin-Fomalot work on measuring speed of gravity (or rather propagation of gravitational force) is rather controversial.

At the same time, I find this observation by Van Flaudern very interesting and logical

"Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons."

Recently I've read couple of articles speculating the possibility of gravity being faster than the speed of light and also that Kopeikin-Fomalot work on measuring speed of gravity (or rather propagation of gravitational force) is rather controversial.

At the same time, I find this observation by Van Flaudern very interesting and logical

"Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons."

I wasn't referring to any practical/experimental difficulties (that might be overcome as engineering progresses). My point holds for a perfect system (no noise, no errors), all signal travelling at light speed and measurements that take as good as no time to perform.

1. Distribute the entangled state. As before. Takes place at sublight speed.
2. A perturbs the state of the system, thus sending a signal.
3. *B* performs the measurement, thereby receiving the signal.

i have objections to both point 2. and 3.
My argument is that A cannot send a signal by perturbing his system because no matter what he does to his system, it does not change the state that B has! Only when he tells B about his measurement result the state of B's system is changed (and the quantum teleportation concluded).

That was Günter Nimtz, but he used tunneling, not quantum entanglement.

His papers on the subject can be found here.

These telescopes (STARE, located on Tenerife in the Canary Islands, PSST, located at Lowell Observatory, Arizona, and Sleuth, located at Mt. Palomar, California) are being described individually elsewhere (Dunham et al. 2004; Brown et al. 2004). Briefly, all 3 are small-aperture (10 cm), wide-field (6 degree), CCD-based systems with spatial resolution of about 11 seconds per pixel. from the technical report

I consulted my professor (he's a General Relativity guy, but works in quantum field theory, too) and he said that he sees no reason for the increase, as long as you stick to linear electrodynamics.

This 'negative energy' argument would be valid in classical mechanics, where the decrease of potential energy gives increase in kinetic energy (since their sum is conserved).

I did an arXiv search (which IMHO is better suited for scientific lookups than google) and found only one article referring to the concept. Not a lot for a theory sound enough to be brought up on slashdot? The articles is written by the authors of the concept themselves and was published in 1999. It does not give the impression of being written by proffessional scientists (no academic affiliation) and the authors base the concept on another hypothesis of their own (stuffed in the lengthy appendix). This concept is just a hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory. The authors explicitly state that their postulate violates Special Relativity. Special Relativity is not a Bible, but you really should think twice before attempting to tear it down. I did not read the article line by line, and I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I think I have enough evidence to say that the concept in question (of the increase of light speed between plates) is risky and presenting it as a fact to the general public is, in my opinion, dishonest.

I consulted my professor (he's a General Relativity guy, but works in quantum field theory, too) and he said that he sees no reason for the increase, as long as you stick to linear electrodynamics.

This 'negative energy' argument would be valid in classical mechanics, where the decrease of potential energy gives increase in kinetic energy (since their sum is conserved).

I did an arXiv search (which IMHO is better suited for scientific lookups than google) and found only one article referring to the concept. Not a lot for a theory sound enough to be brought up on slashdot? The articles is written by the authors of the concept themselves and was published in 1999. It does not give the impression of being written by proffessional scientists (no academic affiliation) and the authors base the concept on another hypothesis of their own (stuffed in the lengthy appendix). This concept is just a hypothesis, not a proven scientific theory. The authors explicitly state that their postulate violates Special Relativity. Special Relativity is not a Bible, but you really should think twice before attempting to tear it down. I did not read the article line by line, and I am by no means an authority on the subject, but I think I have enough evidence to say that the concept in question (of the increase of light speed between plates) is risky and presenting it as a fact to the general public is, in my opinion, dishonest.

MOND evidently has problems; while dark matter can explain both galactic rotation curves and cosmological behavior, MOND is hard to make consistent with both. (And it's also, I've heard, extremely hard to make consistent with any relativistic theory of gravity.)

As for the "apparent need" for FTL expansion in the early universe, by which I assume you mean inflation, some very specific predictions of inflation are now verified by WMAP, including the structure of the acoustic peaks in the CMBR angular power spectrum.

Wacky as they may seem, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are the mainstream theories right now for a reason: the alternatives so far simply don't work as well.

MOND evidently has problems; while dark matter can explain both galactic rotation curves and cosmological behavior, MOND is hard to make consistent with both. (And it's also, I've heard, extremely hard to make consistent with any relativistic theory of gravity.)

As for the "apparent need" for FTL expansion in the early universe, by which I assume you mean inflation, some very specific predictions of inflation are now verified by WMAP, including the structure of the acoustic peaks in the CMBR angular power spectrum.

Wacky as they may seem, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are the mainstream theories right now for a reason: the alternatives so far simply don't work as well.

MOND evidently has problems; while dark matter can explain both galactic rotation curves and cosmological behavior, MOND is hard to make consistent with both. (And it's also, I've heard, extremely hard to make consistent with any relativistic theory of gravity.)

As for the "apparent need" for FTL expansion in the early universe, by which I assume you mean inflation, some very specific predictions of inflation are now verified by WMAP, including the structure of the acoustic peaks in the CMBR angular power spectrum.

Wacky as they may seem, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are the mainstream theories right now for a reason: the alternatives so far simply don't work as well.

I decided to do a little googling instead:
How this relates to quantum computing:
When a single photon is split by a beam splitter, its two `halves' can entangle two distant atoms into an EPR pair.

How to entangle a photon pair: There are certain nonlinear (BBO) crystals, such as are used in optical parametric oscillators, that will supply entangles photon pairs.

Indeed, here's another novel argument from Bruce Schneier's book.... in regards to the strength of 256-bit encryption: now, the annual energy output of our sun is about 121 * 10^41 ergs. this is enough to power about 2.7 * 10^56 single bit changes on our ideal computer; enough state changes to put a 187-bit counter through all its values. if we build a dyson sphere around the sun and captured all of its energy output for 32 years, without any loss, we should power a computer to count up to 2 ^ 192. of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter.

It is rather funny that scientist name a protein after a character in a computergame.

Have anybody similar stories.

Check out the author list on the paper in the arxiv, it's like 2 pages long!!! When did author lists get so long?

No authors of hep-ex/0407057 can endorse Observation of Direct CP Violation in B0 -> K+pi- Decays

Many papers can already be accessed, at least in astronomy, for free online, e.g. NASA's ADS or the arxiv.org system.

It depends on what kind of random graph you have: Erdos-Renyi, scale-free (e.g. Barabasi-Albert), etc. You can hunt around in the references to some review papers, such as Newman's papers (cited above), or Barabasi and Albert, etc. Some useful methods involve generating functions.

The top title, with 3227 citations, is ``Self-Consistent Equations...'', from 1965, obviously a methods paper. The average age of the citations for it was 26 years. If you want to make a mark in your field, come up with some hot new method that everyone will use for decades.

Here are the top 100 titles from the paper, counting down from number 1 to 100:

Self-Consistent Equations... Inhomogeneous Electron Gas E ects of Con guration... On the Quantum Correction... Self-Interaction Correction to... Interaction Between d-Shells .. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical .. On the Interaction of Electrons... Absence of Di usion in... Theory of Superconductivity Ground State of the Electron ... Simpli ed LCAO Method for... On Gauge Invariance and... Linear Methods in Band Theory Stochastic Problems in... Crystal Statistics Special Points for Brillouin-Zone A Model of Leptons Considerations on Double... Localized Magnetic States... E ects of Double Exchange... Dynamical Model of Elementary... Forces in Molecules Motion of Electrons and Holes in... Signi cance of Electromagnetic... Coherent and Incoherent... A Simpli cation of the Hartree-... Absence of Ferromagnetism... Coherence in Spontaneous... Neutron Di raction Study of... Theory of Dynamic Critical... Quantum Theory of Cyclotron... Absence of Mott Transition Field Dependence of... Scaling Theory of Localization: E cacious Form for ... Theory of the Role of Covalence Special Points in the Brillouin... Electronic Properties of... Atomic Shielding Constants An Approximate Quantum... Indirect Exchange Coupling of... Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic... New Method for Calculating... Transition Temperature of... Forms of Relativistic Dynamics A Relativistic Equation for... Diatomic Molecules According... Pseudopotentials That Work:... E ect of Invariance... Relaxation E ects... Neutrino Oscillations in Matter On the Behavior of... R-Matrix Theory of ... Theory of Brillouin Zones... Disordered Electronic Systems Spontaneous Emission... Magnetization of Hard... The In uence of Retardation on ... Nuclear Constitution and... Correlations in Space and Time... The Dipolar Broadening of... Tunneling Between... Reciprocal Relations in... I. Norm-Conserving Pseudo- potentials Ferromagnetism in a Narrow... Lepton Number as the Fourth... Reciprocal Relations in II. Radiative Corrections as the... Intensity of Optical Absorption... Uni ed Approach for Molecular... Mach's Principle and a... Weak Interactions with Lepton-... Linear Magnetic Chains with... Dynamical Model of Elementary... Symmetry Behavior at Finite... Magnetization of High-Field... Theory of the Motion of Vortices... Axial-Vector Vertex in... Random-Field Instability of... Spin Echoes The Quantum Theory of Optical... Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn... Exchange and Correlation in... ...Contribution of Excitons... Dynamic Scaling of Growing Interfaces In ationary Universe:... Statistical Theory of Equations... The Inelastic Scattering of... E ect of Correlation on... Nucleon-Nucleus Optical-Model... The Mechanism of Nuclear Fission The Threshold Law for... Conservation Laws and... Role of Meson Current in... Cyclotron Resonance and... The Structure of Electronic... Gauge Invariance and Mass. II A Theory of Cooperative... Solution of the Schroedinger...

If you're interested in network theory in general, and as it applies to scientific collaborations, you could do much worse than checking out Mark Newman's publications, in particular this, this, and this.

Clever guy! http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406088 paper posted on /.!

Speaking as someone who has predicted new particles generally people come up with new model that do something novel (e.g. in the case of the paper I linked to, has a natural explanation of the relative electric charges of the particles.

If the model seems particularly interesting then people will do calculations in it and either show it's wrong or come up with experiments to test it....If it turns out to be right (if only....), then it's a good job you predicted those extra particles because you've just advanced our understanding of the way the world works. Even if it's wrong (likely!) the model might give someone an idea for a better one....

We've known for a long time that whether you observe something to fall into a black hole or not depends on your reference frame. That is, if you are riding along with the object falling in, you will pass the event horizon with it and be crushed at the singularity in a finite amount of your time (proper time). However, if you observe something falling into the black hole from a safe distance beyond the event horizon, you will never see it fall in - although you also won't see anything after a short while, since the light from the infalling object becomes redshifted exponentially in time... (indeed black holes used to be called frozen stars for this reason). I am assuming that Hawking has shown working in a reference frame outside the black hole, that the faint radiation (the average wavelength is about the size of the black hole itself, and a solar mass black hole has a radius of about a kilometer) emerging from the black hole is affected by the wavefunction of the particles that have fallen in. I've also heard some people have doubts about using Euclidean path integral method (need to have time t go to i*t so that -t^2 -> t^2, i.e. time becomes another space like coordinate), and I'm looking forward to reading the paper. There are other papers out on this stuff - here's one by Stephens, 't Hooft and Whiting.

Then comes the nonsense - he says, sum over both (a reasonable thing to do in a Euclidean gravity path integral) and that's unitary... huh??? You add unitary to non-unitary, and sorry, buddy, you get non-unitary...

The only way it would make sense is if you never sum over BH spacetimes, but that's not what he says, and anyway it would mean there are no BHs.

Anyway, if you want a coherent, and probably correct discussion, see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106112

Tom van Flandern is a well-known crank. He has done some good science in other areas, but his conclusions regarding the speed of gravity are just plain wrong. For corrections of van Flandern's mistakes, see this paper, and also this discussion.

The speed of gravity has been indirectly measured to be equal to the speed of light within about 1% accuracy, by observing a binary pulsar system (whose rate of inspiral due to loss of energy from gravitational radiation depends on the speed of that radiation); the 1993 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Taylor and Hulse for this work. Direct measurements will become possible once LIGO or one of its peer or successor experiments detect gravitational waves.

The US Navy actual does a lot of research of gravity waves, however they are referring to a slightly different definition or nature. Instead they are looking at periodic influences of tides and other aspects of gravity. For example, examining the effects of "gravity waves" on the atmosphere. It also doesn't help that a component of surface waves on the ocean are also called "gravity waves" since these are waves that are working against gravity. A google search shows the stuff does show up in a lot of Navy research documents, and would probably be pretty confusing if it doesn't give enough information to hint it is not the same gravity waves talked about here.

There has been a few popular discussions of gravity wave (in the normal sense) communication, including a short blurb in several magazines that I recently remember referring to a paper about converting electromagnetic waves to gravity waves. I'm skeptical of what is proposed, but it doesn't take too much equipment to test, so I wouldn't be surprised if other people were testing it. Although there is no explicit mentioning of the Navy in any of that I remember.

There are a lot of attempts at solutions, depending on exactly how the problem is phrased and what solution is considered acceptable (what constitutes "maximizing the satisfaction of all parties"). Some approaches have included evolutionary adaptation, inductive behavior, bounded rationality, and statistical mechanics. You can search the physics e-print server for "El Farol" or "Minority Game" in titles or abstracts for some physics-based approaches (mostly in the cond-mat archive); Google will get you other approaches. Look around at the Santa Fe Institute; that's where the actual El Farol bar is that spawned the problem.

There are several methods of detecting extra-solar planets. One of the first was detecting the extremely small wobble of the parent star as the planet orbits it. This works for planets less than the size of a "brown dwarf" (15-80 times the mass of Jupiter) down to around the size of Jupiter. As an example of the size of the wobble we detect, at 10 parsecs from the Sun, the wobble due to the orbit of Jupiter would be something like (if memory serves me correctly) three tenths of an arc-second.

Another method that also uses this wobble measures the Doppler shift of the light from the star as it comes towards us and away from us due to the planet's rotation. According to this paper, these velocities of the star are on the order of meters per second, so we're talking about extremely tiny Doppler shifts.

The method used in this study measures the slight dimming of the light of the star as the planet transits the star. This still generally works for larger, close-in planets. However, by studying the spectrum of the light that comes from the star and passes through the atmosphere of the planet, we can figure out what the atmosphere of the planet is made of.

For much smaller planets, it is possible to detect a slight localized brightening of the parent star when the planet is transiting across it. This brightening is due to the same gravitational lensing that we use to see far-away galaxies. The gravity of the planet focuses the light very slightly near it, and so we see a slightly bright spot on the star. This technique, called gravitational microlensing, has been used to discover planets of roughly the same size as the Earth.

You can always check out the pre prints server.

No, it's not the only problem remaining. There are a ton of nanotube problems left, and there's some doubt that they even attain the sort of >100GPa tensile strength that Edwards' design requires (one test measuring actual SWNTs put the strongest ones in the test at around 60GPa (MWNTs have tested higher, but they're not applicable due to mass)).

Then there's the "fiber" problem. Nanotube fibers are at best held together by Van der Waals force. Edwards proposes some sort of unexplained "nanotube epoxy" that is somehow supposed to be able to withstand these incredible tensile strengths which the tubes themselves, even in theory, can barely withstand. I don't buy it one bit. The best fibers made so far, held together by the same forces, achieve the sort of tensile strength you get from Kevlar. Longer tubes will help, but you'd need a *huge* improvement.

The epoxy concept is bunk. There is a concept which might work, however: pressure induced interlinking of carbon nanotubes. Basically, you swap out some of the stronger sp2 bonds for the weaker sp3 bonds, but it interlinks the tubes.

I have other problems with Edwards' design, too, but he has done an awful lot of well-reasoned calculations. I contributed a lot to the article on Wikipedia, so if you want to read more about space elevators, that's the place.

It's been working ('experimental') for a while now - judging from this help page, for almost a year.

It's quite nice, too. Check the above link and see. I was impressed when I first saw it.

I am not a physicist, or a physics student, or even an arm chair physicist, but from what I understand, creating a quantum gate requires (at least?) 3 particle entanglement, which is quite a bit more difficult than 2 particle enganglement. Can anyone better versed in the subject confirm or refute this?

Disclaimer: I'm a physics student, not a physicist. However, it is my poorly educated thought is that they could use a Fredkin Gate.

It's more convenient than Web interface and has no arbitrary limits...it's a quantum computing module for Perl! There's also libquantum for C users, and QCF for Matlabbers.

I don't know about QCF, but Quantum::Entanglement and libquantum take a different approach. The perl module gives a rather abstract layer without simulating the physics of a quantum computer at all. libquantum has been designed as a gate-level simulator which allows the analysis and optimization of complex quantum circuits.

Here, the simulation goes all the way down to the quantum-mechanical description of a quantum computer. This is a computationally a harder task which explains the heavy hardware. This is nothing new and has been done before (e.g. here).