Slashdot Mirror

I guess there are a few professional rocket scientists hanging out here (and plenty of amateurs...), so now is a good time to ask a question that has bugged me for a long time:

Has any consensus been reached over what has caused the unexpected change in velocity of the Pioneer 10 and 11, Ulysses and Galileo probes? Remember this?

Since this was announced I've done some regular googling to see if this has ever been adequately explained. There are plenty of pages out there with plenty of theories, but most of the sites discussing this also have theories about things like zero-point energy generators, perpetual motion machines, that sort of stuff... Hardly the sort of thing that smells of proper scientific method.

Other theories include drag from dust, Changing velocity of light and "tired light redshift" (what the HELL is THAT???)

I have found this paper, which looks very interesting, and much more authoritive, but its is unfortunately waaay over my head!

There is still a lot of discussion on this topic, can any astrophysics lurking here comment? Are we looking at a modification of gravity? Does this tie in with dark matter/energy?

Ta :)

You're promising not to reply to my posts, now please STOP DOING IT.

Fine. _I'll_ reply.

Gravastars are an interesting idea, but they:

a) Propose modifications to physics (the phase transition that gives rise to a different type of space in the interior).

and

b) Attempt to solve a problem that doesn't necessarily exist (embodiment of entropy in black holes, which string theory takes a fairly good stab at explaining).

Thus, I'm skeptical of claims that gravastars exist, barring observations supporting their existance or wider acceptance by the scientific community.

At least in the paper I've managed to dig up so far, they acknowledge many othe potential models of how black holes work, and suggest types of observations that would help determine whether their model is accurate (i.e., they don't claim it's the One True Model off the bat). This is one of the hallmarks of good science.

Observations to look for are gravity-wave signatures of resonance modes in the stiff shell surrounding the gravastar, and optical signatures of impacting matter interacting with this shell. The first should be possible when we get sufficiently sensitive gravity wave detectors online, and the second should be possible from observations of accretion disks in known black hole/other star binary pairs once Mazur and Mottola have worked through the math to figure out what the observational signatures should _be_. Thirdly, if you could get close enough to take good measurements, you'd be able to distinguish between gravastar-type black holes and Hawking-Bekenstein black holes by different radiation signatures coming off of them, but that requires being right next to the hole and having instruments sensitive enough to detect very faint, low-frequency thermal radiation.

In summary, claiming that the gravastar model _is_ what black holes are is very, very premature.

There's an even nicer PDF version here, complete with bookmarks and page numbers.

Unfortunately, someone discovered an error.
And the paper was withdrawn.
Since the corresponding harmonic series is less than 2,
perhaps the old fox will prove that it's unprovable.

*unregistered_Pi

Withdrawing from arxiv.org doesn't mean the original version goes away: math/0405509v1

Mathworld has a link to a paper which claims de Branges' method of proof is invalid. Here is a direct link to the site with the paper.

The reasons why most specialists doubt that his approach can ever yield the result are well described in this paper from 1998:

In this note, we shall (...) give examples showing that de Branges' positivity conditions, which imply the generalized Riemann hypothesis, are not satisfied by defining functions of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces associated with the Riemann zeta function zeta(s)

I think these are all files for individual orbits, while the ocean sound I generated came from the addition of thousands of individual binaries. But of the ones given on that page, I think the eccentric orbits are the most interesting (i.e., they generate the most complicated and varied waveforms).

The ones I like best are called (humorously) zoom-whirl orbits, because the inspiraling mass makes one or two large orbits [low-frequency]followed by a series of very fast, close orbits [high-frequency] - the result is a kind of funny popping sound superimposed on the more-slowly varying sound. There are more details in this paper by Scott Hughes. (See page 37 for a graph of a zoom-whirl orbit.)

Unfortunately I don't have sound on this computer to double-check which of the sound files on his page are the ones I'm thinking of, but try the ones under "Generic Kerr Inspirals, Kludgy Results" with e=0.95 or 0.7 for starters.

You forgot the unfortunate article stating that there are infinitely many twin primes.

Apparently nobody's heard of arXiv. It works, quite well.

Example: Last year, someone published a paper on the "Big Rip" scenario, speculating that if the cosmological dark energy has such and such a form, then the acceleration will continue and eventually rip apart every bound system, even atoms. Sounds crackpot, right? However, if it appears in a peer-reviewed journal, you can be sure that at least someone with the proper credentials agrees with him.

Ok, so I'm a physicist, blah blah blah. Since we seem to agree that peer review is a valuable function, but that reviewers are not paid (at least I've never gotted paid!)... why not just take the peer-review process out of the journal context? You could have a website with a few editors/master-moderators who would settle disputes between authors and reviewers, the scripts (like those at arXiv.org) would check for most formatting issues.... I suppose the real question would be, if the editors are giving up their time, how can they best "afford" to do that? What about selling ads?

Nominate reviewers in the scientific community. Rate articles, and if they get a high enough score they are posted to the main page. The few with the highest scores each month are "Published" in a special monthly addition.

Motivation is the gain for scientific knowledge. Reviews will be better because 50 eyes are better than 3. Funding for the server shouldn't be to hard.

arxiv.org is already a good place for many scientists to publish their work. All that is needed is moderation.

Arenstorf withdrew his proof yesterday. The abstract page says "A serious error has been found in the paper, specifically, Lemma 8 is incorrect."

What matters is date of invention, not filing.

If NAI can demonstrate that they were working on a Bayes approach prior to Graham's work, then they may indeed have thougth up the idea first.

<researching> ....

Clearly Graham was not the first to think of Bayes as an approach to spam This paper ca 2000 predates both and is cited by the USPTO in the patent as a reference.

Contrary to prevailing /. wisdom the patent process does actually involve research on both the Patent office and the applicants part.

If it turns out to be true, this will be super-duper-extraordinary - the man is probably in his 70s. G. H. Hardy wrote: "No mathematician should ever allow himself to forget that mathematics, more than any other art or science, is a young man's game". Wiles proved FLT at 40, Perelman of the purported Poincare proof is in his 30s... this is similar-level stuff. The only thing I can think of that even comes close is Fred Galvin in his 50s (?) proving the Dinitz conjecture.

You can follow discussions on sci.math and fr.sci.maths. Or read about how similar asymptotic proofs about properties of primes failed. Remember, this is arxiv - in the age of electronic preprints, you get many good proofs like Perelman's along with almost-proofs like Castro-Mahecha's and Dunwoody's.

A student at Stanford is working on a technique called Active Internet Traffic Filtering that works in a similar way to what you describe, blocking malicious traffic as close to its source as possible.

Anyways how do solar sails work?

According to the laws of thermodynamics, they don't.

Another problem is that string theory is background dependent. Ie, the space that the strings propagate in has a definite shape. Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) seems to complement this approach. Ie, this theory is background independent, but the dynamics of LQG aren't understood. There's some other problems (see link above), but I don't feel qualified to discuss them.

Another problem is that string theory is background dependent. Ie, the space that the strings propagate in has a definite shape. Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) seems to complement this approach. Ie, this theory is background independent, but the dynamics of LQG aren't understood. There's some other problems (see link above), but I don't feel qualified to discuss them.

Here's a link to the article, which is accepted to MNRAS.

[TMB]

Actually, as for creationists, there were more of them a century or two ago, back when the scientific theories refuting creationism were non-existent, in the process of being invented, or less well-established than they are today.

As for Gentry, his theories are nonsense, lacking even a basic understanding of general relativity. They were rightly rejected for publication in peer review. Of course, screaming "censorship" wins sympathy from ignorant creationists who want to believe in a global scientific conspiracy to suppress the Truth -- i.e., people like you.

Here is one paper which refutes Gentry; I can personally refute several of the other papers you link to, if you wish; I am quite familiar with relativity.

Tell me, why do you feel no shame in quoting creationist arguments the validity of which you are obviously unqualified to judge?

The difference is that there are very simple tests for the helio-centric model, and there aren't any obvious experimental tests for the many world hypothesis (and seems like there are likely none), but that appearantly hasn't stopped people from trying to find a test.

I hate to say it, but CDMS II (this experiment) was SUPPOSED to not find WIMPs in this range. There was an experiment called DAMA which had found a modulation in their noise consistent with their being WIMP dark matter, and they claimed detection. The whole purpose of this press release is to say that DAMA's claimed detection is now *ruled out*.

Maybe I'm confused but in the article they use words like incompatible and inconsistent with DAMA. The also say this is the new limit on WIMP-nucleon scalar cross section. So apparently unless I'm wrong.. which I probably am CDMS II went further then DAMA and didn't find anything. Anyway check out fig. 5, and if I am wrong an explanation of it would be nice.

The assumption that "dark matter" exists is a common one based on (some of) the observations of the universe. Dark matter does not explain the increased rate of expansion of the universe at great distances. This requires another assumption - "dark energy" (or a positive "cosmological constant").
There are versions of M-theory which do not require one or both of these. There is also a theory, as yet unpublished (since it upsets physics journal editors), which eliminates the "clock hypothesis" and accounts for inflation and accelerated expansion. (One has to be careful to take each new (and old) theory in physics with a big grain of salt.)

Just as the biological community "sold" the human genome project as THE ANSWER (one gene = one protein) and is trying to sell the protein folding problem as the NEW ANSWER (and it is an important problem), the (majority of) the (astro)physics community is trying to sell "dark" (matter or energy). "Dark" may well exist. I believe that it is important to allow a variety of views in the physics community to be heard (i.e. published) and let scientists design experiments to test various hypotheses. The "popular" theory may (or may not) correspond to observations.

I strongly suggest that anyone who is into this sort of work check out Seth Lloyd's Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation. It's quite interesting. I saw him speak a few years ago. People had told me that we would "always find a way" to increase computation, which seemed like utter silliness to me. I'm glad to see that some folks are a little more sensible about this.

8. hep-ph/0210389 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: A Model for Neutrino Masses and Dark Matter
Authors: Lawrence M. Krauss (1), Salah Nasri (2), Mark Trodden (2) ((1) Departments of Physics and Astronomy, Case Western Reserve U., (2) Department of Physics, Syracuse University)
Comments: 4 pages, submitted to PRL
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 085002

9. astro-ph/0208010 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Comparing WIMP Interaction Rate Detectors with Annual Modulation Detectors
Authors: Craig J. Copi, Lawrence M. Krauss
Comments: 4 pages, 2 figures. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Letters
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D67 (2003) 103507

19. hep-ph/9904499 [abs, ps, pdf, other] :
Title: Directional Sensitivity, WIMP Detection, and the Galactic Halo
Authors: Craig J. Copi (1), Junseong Heo (2), Lawrence M. Krauss (1) ((1) Case Western Reserve University, (2) Yale University)
Comments: 4 pages revtex, submitted to PRL
Journal-ref: Phys.Lett. B461 (1999) 43-48

Please use the mirrors. In Australia, the closest one is here.

But I also know that if for some reason the transmission of light was not constant across the vast distances of the universe, that it would/could throw all of the cherished cosmological theories (like that of an expanding universe) down the drain.

There are two things that we know about but yet their effect on light is not known. Over great distances, if these two things were to affect light in even the most infinitesimal way, all of the cosmological theories would have to be rewritten.

Those two things are dark energy and dark matter.

Like all those people who whined that Galileo was ostracized?

So what makes a "real scientist?" Is it the the fact that they are pursuing scientific knowledge in a scientific manner, or do they need to be "the right people."

I do not think that all theories are honestly criticized. One prime example of this is String Theory

But I also know that if for some reason the transmission of light was not constant across the vast distances of the universe, that it would/could throw all of the cherished cosmological theories (like that of an expanding universe) down the drain.

There are two things that we know about but yet their effect on light is not known. Over great distances, if these two things were to affect light in even the most infinitesimal way, all of the cosmological theories would have to be rewritten.

Those two things are dark energy and dark matter.

Like all those people who whined that Galileo was ostracized?

So what makes a "real scientist?" Is it the the fact that they are pursuing scientific knowledge in a scientific manner, or do they need to be "the right people."

I do not think that all theories are honestly criticized. One prime example of this is String Theory

We analyse the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in hyperbolic universes possessing a non-trivial topology with a fundamental cell having an infinitely long horn. The aim of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, we show that the horned topology does not lead to a flat spot in the CMB sky maps in the direction of the horn as stated in the literature. On the other hand, we demonstrate that a horned topology having a finite volume does explain the suppression of the lower multipoles in the CMB anisotropy as observed by COBE and WMAP.

"How are you going to adjust your encryption when quantum computers will make most encryption schemes obsolete? "

Why FUD my friend? This just isn't true!

The truth about quantum cryptography is that RSA and DH will be destroyed by quantum cryptography. This is due to the work of Shor who famously proved that you could factor in cubic time.

This sounds bad but we've already had good success in performing quantum key exchanges (that are unbreakable in a theoretical sense).

What does this mean for symmetric cryptography such as AES? Well, Quantum Computers that deploy Grover's algorithm, can search unordered lists in under sqrt(n) operations. A normal computer does this in an average of n/2 steps. The key space of a cipher is an unordered list so we'd only have to double our keysizes to avoid the "Grover attack".

Clearly more research is needed but the quantum future is bright as far as cryptography is concerned.

Simon.

On the other hand, most (maybe even nearly all) papers I've seen on quantum computing recently have been about using error-correcting codes to fight decoherence.

Fortunately, though, in physics there is the network of prepring/eprint servers where many papers go prior to publication. (See Arxiv.org, for example.) However, they have the disadvantage of not having been peer-reviewed yet. I would like to see a respected, true Open Access journal in physics. There are many "free" physics journals available (see Directory of Open Access Journals), but none fit my desire for a respected, peer-reviewed, open access journal.

Hi, I'm a 4th-year grad physics student that came back to school after 3 years of doing engineering-type research (hardware + software) after my undergrad. So I see where you're coming from.

What you want already exists and is the arxiv . You can put any papers here, and people can download them, etc. I don't know what limitations there are, like how long they'll keep your papers or things like that. But this is exactly what you want. It even allows searches based on various keywords.

Some people publish here because it's quick, and then get a peer-reviewed journal (like PRL) to publish it just for more 'authenticity'. But that's not necessary, and some people publish there and don't worry about future peer review.

I regularly look at the daily new writeups in condensed matter physics, and it's amazing how many there are, and many are by very respected researchers.

Anyway, on the other side of the coin, there is something to be said for peer-review. It does help 'weed' out some of the bogus stuff that will inevitably appear.

As for the publish or perish, yeah, that's what happens when a society uses some factor for judging 'worth'. Ie, in the business world it's money and people thus try to maximize their money. For physics, some people will try to optimize their publications. Look at Schon, the guy that faked his data 2 years ago, and finally got caught. He was putting out several Nature and Science articles a year, which is nearly deity status in the physics world. He couldn't keep up with this rate, and at some point had to fabricate his data.

Virtually every paper published in the last ten years in high energy physics is online at the preprint arxiv. People still publish in peer reviewed journals, but very few people I know read them anymore. It's faster, and more current, on the arxiv. More and more physics papers in other fields are showing up there as well. The debate about open access in physics appears to have been settled already.

Why don't you look up some of his physics papers then, instead of extrapolating what you perceive is a misquote into his physics research. 10 minutes of fact-checking could show you.

For example, here is a link of 12 articles on the arxiv. Of course this is a significantly small subset of his cumulative research publications.

Also, I don't see where he cites the $1 trillion figure from an AP reporter. What I saw in the article it says he estimated that $1 trillion himself from NASA reports, to 10% or so.

The article was egregiously low on detail. (Googles a bit...) Here is a more technical article that explains the magnetism as a result of temporary unpaired electron spins (surprise!). The magnetism occurs at temperatures below 90K, so it's fairly remarkable that they can jerk this stuff from 9700K down to 90K and have it not shatter!

here

It's a little dense, but interesting.

Your links didn't work until I removed the extra spaces. Higgs Atlas

Tere are other, conceptually more interesting. Gary and Juan in black hole final state suggested that blackhole itself have boundary condition in infinty - final state, and carry only limited amount of information. Here is Lubos Motl's explanation of the article in popular terms: "... They propose that the final state that defines the final spacelike singularity (of a Schwarzschild-like black hole) can't carry any information - the evolution approaches a universal state whose identity is determined by the semiclassical data and nothing else. In popular terms, a person who falls into the black hole knows his or her future - he will die. In fact, he can know it even at the microscopic level - the final state is a unique quantum state, they say. Once he or she hits the singularity, one can imagine that he is reflected - by a complicated but concrete unitary transformation - and becomes Hawking radiation that travels backwards in time inside the black hole. (The arrow of time might seem reflected, but Juan and Gary argue that such effects won't be measurable because of the space and information limitations inside the black hole.) Once this Hawking radiation reaches the horizon, it is transformed - via the Unruh state - to the Hawking radiation that escapes to infinity. All steps in this description were unitary, and one can show that the information will be preserved. The possible modifications of causality, locality, information loss, black hole entropy and its microscopic origin, (in)dependence of the degrees of freedom inside and outside the black hole, quantum treatment of singularities, topology change, the arrow of time and similar issues is what I - as well as most "real" quantum gravity practitioners - call "interesting questions about quantum gravity".

Tunneling effect - a particle has a certain chance of overcoming a potential barrier even if it doesn't have enough energy to do so. Why can't a particle from within a black hole escape it similarly?

Accumulation of mass/energy. What exactly prevents a black hole from exploding, after accumulating enough mass - what makes them so stable?

Is it possible that the Big-Bang was an explosion of a huge black hole ?

If a half of a quantum-entagled (EPR) pair enters the event horizon, can it somehow be used as a "probe" ?

I am not aware of any other uses for the term "nova" than in "supernova".

Along with the ordinary use of "nova" there is also something called a hypernova. Think of it as a supernova's big brother.

I was privileged enough to be at the colloquium where Hans Bethe unveiled his theory about hypernovae and gamma ray bursts. You can find an interesting paper on hypernova at Cornell's arxiv.org.

Cheers,
Justin Wick

P.S. The papers done the research group I'm in at Cornell talk about things similar to this accretion process. They can be found here.

I find it strange that scientists 'believe' in dark matter. The main reason for the hypothesis that dark matter exists, is that otherwise those huge systems of galaxies don't obey Newton's laws. However, throughout the 20th century, there have been numerous occasions where Newton either was proven wrong or where fields of science were found where his laws weren't applicable:

I find it strange that scientists 'believe' in dark matter. The main reason for the hypothesis that dark matter exists, is that otherwise those huge systems of galaxies don't obey Newton's laws. However, throughout the 20th century, there have been numerous occasions where Newton either was proven wrong or where fields of science were found where his laws weren't applicable:

Hello folks,

I've read the full article at Arxiv.org and it sounds promising. But I see no code... and the algorithm description looks much too complicated for me to bother trying to implement it just to see how well it works.

It would be really nice at this stage to have some working code to throw some real messages on.

I've scoured the author's personal pages (which seem to be here and here)
but can't find anything there either...

Hello Misters Boykin & Roychowdhury, what about some working code?

And please don't forget: I may be lazy, but you are ugly and I can always try working harder... :-)

We provide an automated graph theoretic method for identifying individual users' trusted networks of friends in cyberspace. We routinely use our social networks to judge the trustworthiness of outsiders, i.e., to decide where to buy our next car, or to find a good mechanic for it. In this work, we show that an email user may similarly use his email network, constructed solely from sender and recipient information available in the email headers, to distinguish between unsolicited commercial emails, commonly called "spam", and emails associated with his circles of friends. We exploit the properties of social networks to construct an automated anti-spam tool which processes an individual user's personal email network to simultaneously identify the user's core trusted networks of friends, as well as subnetworks generated by spams. In our empirical studies of individual mail boxes, our algorithm classified approximately 53% of all emails as spam or non-spam, with 100% accuracy. Some of the emails are left unclassified by this network analysis tool. However, one can exploit two of the following useful features. First, it requires no user intervention or supervised training; second, it results in no false negatives i.e., spam being misclassified as non-spam, or vice versa. We demonstrate that these two features suggest that our algorithm may be used as a platform for a comprehensive solution to the spam problem when used in concert with more sophisticated, but more cumbersome, content-based filters.

From what I can make out, this system graphs correspondent pairs into correspondence maps, and notes that while normal people all email each other and thus have dispersed graphs, (high clustering coefficient) spammers have a distinct pattern, e.g. 1 person emailing a few million others (low clustering coefficient). There are figures in the article that make this point well.

The system would be ideal for implementation at a fairly high level, (e.g. the ISP level) where systems can aggregate email headers across many different users in order to come up with meaningful graphs. The advantage it claims of no false positives means that it would be feasible at this level.

I'm impressed; it looks like a very clever idea. My only question concerns how this would deal with mailing lists, which must appear to it like spam?

The actual paper that describes this technique can be found here

Here's an interesting article on spam filtering: Boykin and Roychowdhury: Personal Email Networks: An Effective Anti-Spam Tool. They describe an automatic system that can look at your emails and find out who your friends are. Its classification accuracy is supposed to be perfect (i.e., no false positives or negatives), but it will leave some email unclassified (i.e., "don't know"s), so it does need to be combined with another filter.