Slashdot Mirror

Social network analysis has indeed been around for a long time. What makes Newman's work new is that he is applying new algorithms to make sense of large networks. In this particular case, he has devised a new way to divide up a network into subcommunities (see this paper for details [or many of these for lots more network analysis).

Newman, Watts, Barabasi and others are trying to understand the nature of these types of networks (and other types), rather than just the content of the networks (orkut, slashdot, disease networks, etc).

For those who are interested, a PDF of the paper mentioned in the article is here. Running time is O(n^2) versus O(n^3) for previous algorithms, so don't go applying it to the Google cache just yet.

• link to article

Bullshit. HST is among the most productive astronomical facilities ever, measured in publication and citation count ( analysed here). HST data is typically used in more than 150 peer-reviewed papers a year. These are papers in journals such as Astrophysical Journal, Science, and of course Nature. A simple seach of the Science archives show 68 original research publications with "Hubble Space Telescope" in the text since 1995. A similar search for "International Space Station" returns ZERO hits. A search of the Nature website returns an interesting article: " Biologists recommend scrapping NASA's research on crystals" (Nature394, 213 (16 Jul 1998)) that starts out: "A panel of US biologists has called for an end to protein crystallography experiments in space -- one of the highest-profile research activities..."

The fact that the general public is fairly deluged by pretty HST pictures is in addition to the fact that the astronomical community is using HST very actively; it's not an artefact of some PR department.

Don't get me wrong - I think manned spaceflight, and the space station are good things, and should be funded. But let's be honest here; HST blows ISS out of space when it comes to publications and scientific impact.

The expanded contents of the zip file is around the size of a single CD. This points to the contents being originally distributed from Microsoft on CD-rom.

Microsoft has made so much fuss about retaining control of the source code. In May 2002, under oath at the antitrust hearing Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms at Microsoft, stated that, because the Windows operating systems contained inherent flaws, disclosing the Windows operating system source code could damage national security and even threaten the U.S. war effort.

It's going to be interesting if it is subsequently found that Microsoft itself has been distributing said source code over the internet in zip format.

By the way, In February 2003, Microsoft signed a pact with Chinese officials to reveal the Windows operating system source code. Bill Gates even hinted that China will be privy to all, not just part, of the source code its government wished to inspect.

Dispite gaining more favored trading status with the USA, there remains many embargos over technology transfers which could put the US at future risk.

Either Jim Allchin lied under oath, to prevent code revelation being any part of the settlement, OR the Microsoft corporation is behaving traitorously, by exposing national security issues to foreign governments.

The exposure of Microsoft source code put users at risk because of the inherent design and implimentation flaws built into the source code.

In comparison open source development practices enables open source distributions and users to evaluate the source code from the start. This forces developers to build in security from the early outset of each project or risk abandonment for more secure alternate solutions. End users can particpate in the development process.

You can read a preprint here, or check out MNRAS vol. 347 (2004),issue 4, pp. L67-L72. I know Shanks by reputation (he was - I guess still is - an important figure in a field I briefly studied in years ago: observational cosmology) and he's no nutter.

I read something very interesting on gravity in deep space. A scientist who revised the rules of gravity so that the model worked without all this invisible stuff around. The amazing thing is that while this guy does exactly the same as dark matter believers - filling in blank spots until the model fits reality - he's not taken seriously at all.

MOND theories are taken seriously, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The problem is that these theories are only descriptive and do not lead to a universal principle. Of course that doesn't mean that there is no such principle. For example, the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom could already be calculated precisely in the 19th century. But Niels Bohr was the first to actually give an explanation for that.

Another task is to explain that some galaxies contain less dark matter than expected.

Preprint archives to the rescue: Problems with the Current Cosmological Paradigm, a talk recently given by Tom Shanks. Maybe a real cosmologist can tell us how much authority Tom Shanks has in the international community, and whether his view is taken seriously or that it is sceptically set aside as yet another attempt to kick the establishment.

Preprint archives to the rescue: Problems with the Current Cosmological Paradigm, a talk recently given by Tom Shanks. Maybe a real cosmologist can tell us how much authority Tom Shanks has in the international community, and whether his view is taken seriously or that it is sceptically set aside as yet another attempt to kick the establishment.

Ummm, what do you think the bulk of physicists do with the arxiv ?

I agree that one should be open to new ideas, but you might admit that coming forward with thousand of pages mixing well-known and original stuff and proposing this as the New Kind of Science is also meant to provoke the "old scientists".
Moreover, most people who out of the blue come up with the New Big Theory are wrong (or not even wrong). Typically, that has been practiced by entrenched organizations like churches for thousands of years is the first-line defense against critique (see Crackpot Index, item 32).

I haven't read the whole book since what read in it and about it gave me the impression that it is not worth the time (for me). I found this review interesting, since it pointed out (among other things) a (possibly fundamental) flaw in Wolfram's reasoning (his model of computation is classical, and seems to be in contradiction with the experimentally verified violation of Bell's inequality).

Actually, in his second book (Shadows of the Mind) he (as far as I can tell) claims to prove that the human mind does things a universal Turing machine cannot and must therefore be based on different physics. Please correct me if I remember this wrong.

While I do not buy Penrose's argument, it is also not entirely clear to me, where it fails. The gist seemed to be: "In any formal system of logic there are statements that can be proven to be undecidable; however, we can see that they must be true, since if they were not, there would be a counterexample, which would make them decidable. Hence human reasoning is different from just following formal logic (which is what, supposedly, a computer following the laws of classical or quantum mechanics would do). Consequently the human brain must follow different laws - and quantum gravity seemed to be the [only|obvious] place left to look for them.

I really just couldn't hold any respect for him after reading The Emperor's New Mind, which is too bad since it's one of those "tour de force" books ala hofstadter
I think it is a great book, even though I disagree with his point on AI.

I don't think he should lose respect because of the ideas he has put forward, especially since he now tries to think up experiments on how to test his hypothesis.

I do enjoy those laymans science books. Any you might recommend?
I enjoyed reading Deutsch "The Fabric of Reality" (although it is in places very speculative and I do not agree with several points) and Greene "The Elegant Universe" (cf. also the BBC tv series).

I'm thinking I should post these in HTML.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0206/020608 9.pdf
http://www.ams.org/bull/2003-40-01/S0273-0979-02-0 0970-9/S0273-0979-02-00970-9.pdf
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b9401f8a.0302 062325.194d0c8d%40posting.google.com

This has already been done. Wolfram's cellular automata model cannot be simultaneously consistent with relativity and quantum mechanics, because the model cannot violate Bell's inequality (whereas quantum mechanics does).

Terry

Perhaps Wolfram is giving back to the scientific community; perhaps it is simply clever marketing for a framework that is beginning to gain momentum. For any matter, the entire encyclopedic volume is online, and this appears to be a positive step for scientific writing.

Nope. This is a positive step for scientific writing.

While I personally agree that it's just ionizing the air, two experiments with conflicting results isn't exactly scientific proof. I seem to recall a third experiment besides the NASA one but don't remember off the top of my head who performed it...

Unfortunately there hasn't been just a whole lot of real research into the effect, possibly due to the "UFO anti-gravity sekr3tz" air surrounding it.

Ah, I remember now. The third one was done by the Army Research Labs. The abstract for the paper is here. Unfortunately, the PDF itself seems to have been deleted from the official site (break out your tinfoil hats, heh), but there is a mirror.
Looks like they didn't try the vacuum experiment, but theorized (and did some math based on) that the effect was the sum of two different forces: A smaller one (ionic wind) that would persist in a vacuum, and a larger one (charge drift) that required a fluid dielectric such as the air.

How the hell was this determined? Particularly the wobbly Uranium nucleus. Is it just a theory based on mathematical predictions, or is it actually based on direct observations like X-ray, neutron or electron diffraction studies?

Yes.

A number of experimental tools are available for nuclear shape determination:
-The electric quadrupole moment
-Neutron scattering experiments
-Giant dipole resonance
-Momentum distributions of collision fragments

In principle the nucleons can be approximated as particles existing in a square potential well, defined by the positions of all the other particles. Solving for a wave function in a potential well like that reveals a set of solutions with associated quantum numbers, which turn out to be somewhate analogous to those calculated for the hydrogen atom with its inverse-square potential, and which we can identify in the energy levels and spectra of real, nonidealized nuclei.

Things are complicated by the fact that the potential within a nucleus is not strictly definable as a potential. It is created by the sum of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces and these fall off at different rates. The nuclear force is short range, but the electromagnetic force reaches all the way across the nucleus. So when they reach a certain size you see the effects of the charge buildup. Large scale movements of particles through the nucleus become evident, and sometimes pieces even break off if merely poked by a slow neutron. Your skepticism is not unreasonable. In fact researchers had a hard time believing their own experiments when they exposed uranium to neutrons and suddenly had to explain the appearance of barium.

I prefer Phys. Rev. D (that last one is accepted but not yet published).

I prefer Phys. Rev. D (that last one is accepted but not yet published).

I prefer Phys. Rev. D (that last one is accepted but not yet published).

Colossal Electric Conductivity in Ag-defect Ag5Pb2O6
Authors: D. Djurek, Z. Medunic, M. Paljevic, A. Tonejc
Comments: 13 pages, 7 figures
Subj-class: Superconductivity; Materials Science Journal-ref: Phys.stat.sol. (a) 201, 544 (2004)
LINK

Hm, there are no publications by anybody by that name in cond-mat on Arxiv.org and no hits for color gas(s) condensate. I don't know much of the research in that field, but I had the impression from friends in the quark-gluon field that they had enough to work on before understanding condensates... I'd like some links before I take anything in the parent post at face value...

I guess the drawers of this map were well aware of all the problems you mention. It is however not their goal to produce an accurate reproduction of the universe, but rather an idea of how large a large scale can be. Then, it is a static plot, and no time involved here. Think of it as a snapshot. If you had read the article you would have noted that the authors gave a concise introduction of how their map was drawn. The map should show large scale structures and keep the shapes locally correct. Therefore, they have to use a (4D, of course) metric (the Friedmann metric) that does just this: It introduces so-called co-moving coordinates which keep objects at a constant position while the universe expands. Perhaps you should think about reading the article first and then complain. There is a reason for this model that they did. When you want to understand large scale structures, 4D stuff does not count, since how would you imagine this anyway, you want to have an impression of size as we see it, since we do not have another frame to see it from... There the map does a great job.

Yes, go online to Emule and download them they can be slow at first but should not take more than a few hours.

It's a press release; they're often misleading, and sometimes downright untrue.

(While on the subject, this is being published in Science, not Nature as the front page says: and you can read the paper here.)

Warning: not for the faint-hearted!

I can appreciate that that took a few-hour chunk out of the middle of the day; you've given me a few things to track down.

There is a most excellent paper by Xinhe Ming and Peng Wang from August 31, 2003 that led to the decelerated-then-accelerating model that has raised my eyebrows so much located here.

The equations of state resemble (to me) the way computers use polynomials to approximate sines and other trigonometric functions (with less terms, mind you, but we already know the infinite polynomial sequences for sine). There are plenty of constants and terms to tweak, and a number of the equations are unstable (which reminds me a little of the limited polynomial sequences - taking sin(100*pi) with direct substitution would give the wrong value, but here it gives more the effect of tweaking a polynomial to fit an observed curve).

In summary, adding a R^-1 or the like terms to the Einstein-Hilbert action is an interesting idea, which may originate from some String/M-theory, and looks like a possible candidate for the explanation of recent cosmic expansion acceleration fact

For all I know, they could be right. I'll admit my current prejudice, though. It has the feel of tweakery, though, for BBT to have that much "play" in it. Equations aside, much of the current consternation appears to come from "tests of reasonability", (which are being stretched by observations) such as "galaxy string X couldn't have formed Y years after photon decoupling".

I don't think the theorists were trying to solve the age problem back in the day; the announcements in Omni were simply along the lines of "the universe is 10 billion years old". The cosmological constant was rejected as a 'hack' by Einstein himself - it was originally introduced as a term to keep a static universe from collapsing due to gravity; it was set to zero in early BBT. *laugh* I wouldn't ascribe nobility to the difficulty of accepting a nonzero cosmological constant in the face of observation; that's like asking software folks to refactor - it's grudgingly, not heroically, done, even though folks are happy about the results in retrospect :)

*laugh* Sorry, didn't mean to get on a rant here - thank you for a well-crafted response, Bootsy; I'm looking forward to more!

In 2003 this story was reported in nature.

And here the link to the pre print.

The basic idea is this: a quantum fluctuation creates a matter/antimatter pair of particles near the event horizon of a black hole. The antiparticle falls in, destroying some of the mass of the black hole, while its partner escapes.

I've heard this explanation many times but it was never clear that this was the right way to think of this kind of process. It might be better to dispense with virtual particles and negative energy states, and view this via its relation with the Unruh effect.

Unruh says: an accelerating observer will see a thermal spectrum in empty space. If you are accelerating uniformly in a flat vacuum, you will fell like you are immersed in blackbody radiation. Note that the intensity of the radiation is rather small for everyday acceleration levels (this page gives a figure of about 1K for an acceleration of 10^20 m/sec^2, or about 10^19 times what we feel on Earth). Quasi-stationary observers near the event horizon are necessarily accelerating outward (since they are not falling in), and thus are bathed in thermal radiation. Faraway observers see this radiation, but it is gravitationally redshifted.

This sort of radiation will occur outside any massive body (e.g. a cat), but for everyday objects it will be immeasurably weak. More detailed explanations can be found here and here. Or you could just spend some time with Google.

The basic idea is this: a quantum fluctuation creates a matter/antimatter pair of particles near the event horizon of a black hole. The antiparticle falls in, destroying some of the mass of the black hole, while its partner escapes.

I've heard this explanation many times but it was never clear that this was the right way to think of this kind of process. It might be better to dispense with virtual particles and negative energy states, and view this via its relation with the Unruh effect.

Unruh says: an accelerating observer will see a thermal spectrum in empty space. If you are accelerating uniformly in a flat vacuum, you will fell like you are immersed in blackbody radiation. Note that the intensity of the radiation is rather small for everyday acceleration levels (this page gives a figure of about 1K for an acceleration of 10^20 m/sec^2, or about 10^19 times what we feel on Earth). Quasi-stationary observers near the event horizon are necessarily accelerating outward (since they are not falling in), and thus are bathed in thermal radiation. Faraway observers see this radiation, but it is gravitationally redshifted.

This sort of radiation will occur outside any massive body (e.g. a cat), but for everyday objects it will be immeasurably weak. More detailed explanations can be found here and here. Or you could just spend some time with Google.

And there's an oft accepted rule in physics that if your differential equations have singularities then they can't be valid solutions and the simplest alternative, no matter how much more complex than the theory giving the singular solution, is that one that should be accepted by Occam's razor.

That search engine at http://xxx.lanl.gov/find is hard to use isn't it?

But I found these papers for Emil Mottola and these for Pawel Mazur.

That search engine at http://xxx.lanl.gov/find is hard to use isn't it?

But I found these papers for Emil Mottola and these for Pawel Mazur.

This is a study referenced by a troll earlier that demonstrates why Poincare could also describe the universe.

dogg

According to Wolfram's MathWorld site, Perelman's proof is described in two papers, located online here and subsequently, here.

Of course, I'm pretty sure the reason they're not mentioned in the article is because the most people reading the article would probably have some difficulty trying to understanding them. ;)

According to Wolfram's MathWorld site, Perelman's proof is described in two papers, located online here and subsequently, here.

Of course, I'm pretty sure the reason they're not mentioned in the article is because the most people reading the article would probably have some difficulty trying to understanding them. ;)

The "Nature" article he refers to can be found here however im not sure I believe he is who he says he is because this article has no mention of Poincare space. Not to mention the history of this poster as a troll.

Here is a link to an article . I looks like they produce a cell membrane with air in the middle.
This membrane is stable because the hydrophobic chains of the surfactant molecules are slightly electronegative.

IMHO the problem is the reverse: too much stuff gets enshrined in journals. The vast majority of articles published in journals never get referenced in any later paper. It's not that it's all wrong, it's that it's utterly insignificant. In the time I was doing physics research, I really only published two papers that I thought were fairly important (most of the rest were basically things where I made some token contribution, and got my name on it). Of those two, I checked recently, and only one seems to have been referenced by a later paper.

2.2 Why can't I just give a URL?
If derivative formats of an article are less useful than the TeX source, a URL is the least useful of all. A list of URLs is like a phone book: easy to compile, temporarily convenient, and soon unreliable. The purpose of the arXiv is to record and distribute the research literature, not merely to announce its location. (On the other hand, you are free to include extra URLs along with the genuine article.)

While it's obvious that not every URL is appropriate for a research paper, papers in high energy physics have used URL-references to preprints at arxiv since 1991. It's not surprising to see some less technical fields like anthropology further behind in understanding and using the technology, and high energy physics has a particular advantage in that the web was originally created for disseminating information in that field.

People interested in the evolution of an electronic knowledge architecture that's gradually replacing the print one in some scientific fields will likely find the articles Creating a global knowledge network and Can Peer Review be better Focused? interesting. Both are by Paul Ginsparg, who started the preprint archive 12 years ago at LANL.

It's also worth noting that free, public access to preprints has democratized physics research, as all researchers have access to timely information instead of only a few who had the right connections to get early copies of preprints before 1991. It also provides affordable access to physics articles to researchers at institutions whose libraries can't afford the 5-figure subscription fees of many modern scientific journals.

While it's obvious that not every URL is appropriate for a research paper, papers in high energy physics have used URL-references to preprints at arxiv since 1991. It's not surprising to see some less technical fields like anthropology further behind in understanding and using the technology, and high energy physics has a particular advantage in that the web was originally created for disseminating information in that field.

People interested in the evolution of an electronic knowledge architecture that's gradually replacing the print one in some scientific fields will likely find the articles Creating a global knowledge network and Can Peer Review be better Focused? interesting. Both are by Paul Ginsparg, who started the preprint archive 12 years ago at LANL.

It's also worth noting that free, public access to preprints has democratized physics research, as all researchers have access to timely information instead of only a few who had the right connections to get early copies of preprints before 1991. It also provides affordable access to physics articles to researchers at institutions whose libraries can't afford the 5-figure subscription fees of many modern scientific journals.

While it's obvious that not every URL is appropriate for a research paper, papers in high energy physics have used URL-references to preprints at arxiv since 1991. It's not surprising to see some less technical fields like anthropology further behind in understanding and using the technology, and high energy physics has a particular advantage in that the web was originally created for disseminating information in that field.

People interested in the evolution of an electronic knowledge architecture that's gradually replacing the print one in some scientific fields will likely find the articles Creating a global knowledge network and Can Peer Review be better Focused? interesting. Both are by Paul Ginsparg, who started the preprint archive 12 years ago at LANL.

It's also worth noting that free, public access to preprints has democratized physics research, as all researchers have access to timely information instead of only a few who had the right connections to get early copies of preprints before 1991. It also provides affordable access to physics articles to researchers at institutions whose libraries can't afford the 5-figure subscription fees of many modern scientific journals.

In the article they show width of 2.3 MeV. 1 MeV is about 10e-21s so it is about half of 10e-21s.

The article will be published in Physical Review Letters.

For those of you interested in reading the actual paper, have a look at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0309032 Warning: Contains sentenses like "We determine a ratio of product branching fractions" and "measurement of the width for this decay channel" - scary stuff!

Does anyone know of a website where you can get access to comp sci and comp eng papers and stuff?

Try looking at arxiv.org and CiteSeer.

In a sense, the results of the project do seem to match earlier research on the topology of the web; at a glance, the graph arrived at, does seem to be scale-free in nature.

Which, actually raises an interesting question. Scale free networks, by their nature, are supposed to have certain highly connected nodes, the connectivity of which, is extremely critical to the network as a whole.

In particular, look at the resultant graph for one-third of the net. Note the single link in the middle between two nodes that seems to connect all four sub-trees together. Now imagine that link being, say, DDoS'ed. (You can see it in the one-fifth-of-the-net graph as well; only, it's more clear here)

(Additional points for all you neurologists out there:- we've been comparing the structure of the human brain with that of the Internet, do you know of any such neurons?)

[Even more points:- Will you tell the world if you've found one? :-) ]

http://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Greene_B/0/1/0/ all/0/1

Note that quantum cryptography is a misnomer for the BB84 and BB92 protocols. These should be called quantum key distribution because that's all they do. You can't encrypt information with them, just exchange keys. You still need conventional crypto to use the keys with.

Also keep in mind you need a dedicated fiber link between the communicating parties. Quantum crypto is only useful in ultra-paranoid, damn-the-expense applications (military, govt). For the majority of uses, it's not a practical improvement over public-key cryptography (or even private-key for that matter).