Slashdot Mirror

Some other nice ones:

Markets are efficient iff P=NP
Finding out if there are booby traps in certain derivatives (like CDOs) is NP-complete

We have some observational constraints on the speed of light.
11 billion years ago (when the universe was 2 billion years old), the speed of light was about the same as it is now. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.087...
Otherwise, the light crossing certain objects would be different. This result is essentially independent of cosmology.

I guess that the cosmic microwave background also places limits. If the speed of light had been infinite at that time, I suspect the last scattering would be affected. This is ~300.000 years after the big bang.

But at the time of inflation ... sure, could be infinite, I guess.

One proposed theory is that it works by exploiting unruh radiation. That explanation relies on the premise that inertia is quantum in nature, and so there can be anomalies between discrete quantum levels of inertial interactions.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.034...

The author has proposed that this mechanism may also be responsible for some other observational anomalies.

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-g...

In other news, we can tap into the visual cortex and use it as a teaching system for machine vision: "Representational Distance Learning for Deep Neural Networks"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.039...

They use a neat little trick: instead of mapping brain states directly to neural network states, they measure the distances between the representations of pairs of objects in the source domain and then transfer the same structure to the target domain. They don't need to be similar architectures. Hence, the possible lead to mind uploading / downloading. Of course we need to capture much more than vision, there's also the language representations, and value representations (as in Reinforcement Learning) for behavior transfer.

With a portable brain scanner a person could build a model of herself during life, then transfer to another body or to VR after death.

Ah, I remember the particle wind idea from my undergrad days. A more recent favourite of mine is structure formation, which doesn't propose any new physics. As matter is clumped into galaxies etc., we observe matter being pulled into these centres of attraction, so the rarefied spaces in between appear to be stretching. https://arxiv.org/abs/0811.236...

The headline annoyed the fuck out of me when I saw it in Google Science News. So I looked it up on Arxiv (costing Giz ... whoever they were ... some eyeball-seconds).

Link to original paper. Link to PDF.

Abstract.

During a systematic search for supermassive black holes (SMBHs) not in galactic nuclei, we identified the compact symmetric radio source B3 1715+425 with an emission-line galaxy offset ~8.5 kpc from the nucleus of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) in the redshift z=0.1754 cluster ZwCl 8193. B3 1715+425 is too bright (brightness temperature â¼3Ã--10^10 K at observing frequency 7.6 GHz) and too luminous (1.4 GHz luminosity â¼10^25 W/Hz) to be powered by anything but a SMBH, but its host galaxy is much smaller (â¼0.9 kpc Ã-- 0.6 kpc full width between half-maximum points) and optically fainter (R-band absolute magnitude â¼â'18.2) than any other radio galaxy. Its high radial velocity â¼1860 km/s relative to the BCG, continuous ionized wake extending back to the BCG nucleus, and surrounding debris indicate that the radio galaxy was tidally shredded passing through the BCG core, leaving a nearly naked supermassive black hole fleeing from the BCG with space velocity >2000 km/s. The radio galaxy has mass

So, yes, a really interesting discovery. Not as pumped up as the headline writers (though even the paper-writers fell to the temptation of "A NEARLY NAKED SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE."

The discussion upthread between several participants about how this black hole could be escaping from the collision, in a gravitationally bound system. Utterly astonishingly, the paper's authors considered this point too (page 7 of the paper) :

[Brightest Cluster Galaxies] BCGs can have nuclear escape velocities up to 3000 km s^â'1, so the fleeing radio galaxy may still be gravitationally bound to the BCG and/or the cluster ZwCl 8193. [...] The high [SuperMassive Black hole] SMBH velocity relative to the BCG is consistent with (1) gravitational recoil following the merger of two spinning SMBHs or slingshot ejection of one SMBH from a triple system in the BCG or (2) the velocity of a galaxy that fell into the gravitational potential well in the center of the massive cluster ZwCl 8193.
[With reasons, the authors reject case (1)]
This leaves case (2), a formerly normal galaxy that fell into ZwCl 8193, was tidally stripped as it passed near the BCG nucleus, and is now rapidly moving away from the BCG. Only the SMBH and the small central portion of that galaxy denser than the BCG core remain intact,

Someone else asked where to point his telescope. The answer is (J2000 coords) RA 17d 17' 19.20" Dec +42d 26' 59.0" (check Simbad for Zwicky Cluster 8193)

The headline annoyed the fuck out of me when I saw it in Google Science News. So I looked it up on Arxiv (costing Giz ... whoever they were ... some eyeball-seconds).

Link to original paper. Link to PDF.

Abstract.

During a systematic search for supermassive black holes (SMBHs) not in galactic nuclei, we identified the compact symmetric radio source B3 1715+425 with an emission-line galaxy offset ~8.5 kpc from the nucleus of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) in the redshift z=0.1754 cluster ZwCl 8193. B3 1715+425 is too bright (brightness temperature â¼3Ã--10^10 K at observing frequency 7.6 GHz) and too luminous (1.4 GHz luminosity â¼10^25 W/Hz) to be powered by anything but a SMBH, but its host galaxy is much smaller (â¼0.9 kpc Ã-- 0.6 kpc full width between half-maximum points) and optically fainter (R-band absolute magnitude â¼â'18.2) than any other radio galaxy. Its high radial velocity â¼1860 km/s relative to the BCG, continuous ionized wake extending back to the BCG nucleus, and surrounding debris indicate that the radio galaxy was tidally shredded passing through the BCG core, leaving a nearly naked supermassive black hole fleeing from the BCG with space velocity >2000 km/s. The radio galaxy has mass

So, yes, a really interesting discovery. Not as pumped up as the headline writers (though even the paper-writers fell to the temptation of "A NEARLY NAKED SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLE."

The discussion upthread between several participants about how this black hole could be escaping from the collision, in a gravitationally bound system. Utterly astonishingly, the paper's authors considered this point too (page 7 of the paper) :

[Brightest Cluster Galaxies] BCGs can have nuclear escape velocities up to 3000 km s^â'1, so the fleeing radio galaxy may still be gravitationally bound to the BCG and/or the cluster ZwCl 8193. [...] The high [SuperMassive Black hole] SMBH velocity relative to the BCG is consistent with (1) gravitational recoil following the merger of two spinning SMBHs or slingshot ejection of one SMBH from a triple system in the BCG or (2) the velocity of a galaxy that fell into the gravitational potential well in the center of the massive cluster ZwCl 8193.
[With reasons, the authors reject case (1)]
This leaves case (2), a formerly normal galaxy that fell into ZwCl 8193, was tidally stripped as it passed near the BCG nucleus, and is now rapidly moving away from the BCG. Only the SMBH and the small central portion of that galaxy denser than the BCG core remain intact,

Someone else asked where to point his telescope. The answer is (J2000 coords) RA 17d 17' 19.20" Dec +42d 26' 59.0" (check Simbad for Zwicky Cluster 8193)

At the performance/cost level of NASA spacecraft, there's a huge tradeoff between cost and mass (this review indicates a factor of 2-3 drop in cost of development of a scientific spacecraft for a 50% increase in mass, retaining the same capabilities of the original scientific mission).

There is no fixed cost per unit mass. However, most mission designers cost out a spacecraft so that launch costs are 10-20% of the entire mission cost.

After reading the original paper (I know - what was I thinking), it appears the test setup is as follows:
"A":
- has two inputs, let's call them DATA and KEY. DATA is a 16-bit value.
- has one output, let's call it ENCRYPTED DATA

"B":
- has two inputs, let's call them ENCRYPTED DATA and KEY.
- has one output, let's call it DECRYPTED DATA

"C":
- has one input, let's call it ENCRYPTED DATA
-has one output, lets call it DECRYPTED DATA

In short, they test to see how may bits out of the DECRYPTED DATA paths match the DATA path. Each test utilized a new KEY and DATA. Over time, A and B learned how to use the KEY successfully to hide the DATA value from C while B could successfully reproduce DATA at it's DECRYPTED DATA output.

Link to the abstract (.pdf is available for download):
https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.069...

I don't know where you are getting your data, did you read that on a blog somewhere? Here is an actual paper on the subject (which is built on some controversial assumptions, but anyway, it's written by highly respected scientists so let's go with it). They conclude that the actual number is somewhere between 350 and 385 ppm.

Thanks, I found the free version at https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5401

I kinda have this impression, which I know to be completely false, that everyone prior to the modern era were total idiots who ascribed all natural phenomena to humorous vapors and spirits and the mumbling of witch doctors.

This is the fault of both bad science teaching and bad history teaching. The history of science is generally taught as a barrage of "cherry-picked" historical anecdotes that make it look like a series of brilliant unerring people who always seemed to find their way progressing to the next advance. We rarely teach the failures in any depth, certainly not acknowledging the reasons why many learned people used to believe in different models or ideas. When we do bring up some failure -- like phlogiston, to take a prominent example -- it's often just to laugh at it. "Oh how quaint and ridiculous people were back then!"

Meanwhile, general historians often no longer receive in-depth education in science and math, so they're ill-equipped to tackle specialized stuff like the history of science. They may be used to questioning "narratives of progress" or Whiggish history in other intellectual areas, but they don't have the expertise to critique the stories about science.

For years, I've believed the best way to improve this would be to teach the Copernican controversy in some depth. No, not the stereotyped version of the Galileo affair where Science (now endowed with a capital "S") confronts "Ignorant Religion" and triumphs. I mean the real version when in 1633 -- when Galileo was on trial -- nobody had incontrovertible empirical evidence for the earth going around the sun. (That would have to wait until 1727, when James Bradley's chance observation of stellar aberration finally put heliocentrism on empirical footing.) In fact, throughout the 1600s, there were loads of people -- not just Galileo -- looking for things like parallax and Coriolis forces and other evidence of the earth's motion and not finding them. (These were not clearly observed until the 1800s.)

So, contrary to the Galileo stereotype, it was a really tough situation for scientists to figure out what was going on in the heavens in the 1600s. Once Kepler came up with his ellipses (something Galileo rejected, preferring the perfection of circles, a la Ptolemy), there was at least something mathematically more elegant in favor of the heliocentric model. And by the time you have people like Newton coming along, trying to continue to do math in a geocentric (whether Ptolemaic or Tychonic) universe had become increasingly tedious.

If you really want to know how learned people were trying to tackle this problem in the 1600s, it might be good to look at something like Riccioli's 1651 compilation of 126 arguments concerning the motion of the earth (49 in favor of the Copernican hypothesis, 77 against) as part of his 1500-page astronomical treatise. Unfortunately, they've never been translated to my knowledge from the original Latin, but you can read an English summary here.

It's really amazing the sort of reasoned debate that was going on about issues like this. Lots of experimental evidence brought to bear, etc. If we had people who were training to become scientists have a look at stuff like this, they might get a much greater perspective and respect for earlier attempts to produce scientific knowledge... much better than fairytales about Galileo, or Newton getting hit on the head by an apple or whatever.

And, frankly, it might be fodder for discussion of modern speculative theoretical physics, which also has headed toward divorcing itself from empirical verification (at least not in the near future for many theories) in pursuit of mathematical elegance. Newflash to those folks -- some parts of physics for most of its history has depended on major speculative theories with little empirical support. It might be instructive to look back at how earlier generations handled this problem.

It may be related to a 2011 study.

Physical stolen credit cards are rare to the point of being not an issue.

I wouldn't call 14% of all credit card fraud "not an issue".

With mag stripe you can be sure that the card wasn't cloned.

What? Who told you that?

Cloned cards where someone makes a fake credit card with you number encoded onto it are actually a bigger problem than physical stolen cards.

Yeah, and EMV actually has inadequate protection against cloning, because it has inadequate standards for the use of the chip, and "some EMV implementers have merely used counters, timestamps or home-grown algorithms to supply" the nonce for the transaction. That does require a compromised reader, but you don't have to compromise the reader itself, only its communications channel. This can often be done from outside a building.

Well, these guys (http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-interstellar-precursors) seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.

"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "

Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

Here's the calculator: http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...

A russian billionaire is funding this: http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

I've a picture of him at the press conference here: http://i33.photobucket.com/alb...

You absolute love non sequiturs, don't you?

If you would actually _read_ any of the current papers you'd realize Einstein hand-waves the infinite sequence mc^2 as being finite. His work is incomplete as many others point out.
The Factor 2 in Fundamental Physics

He _was NOT_ the first to discover the E=mc^2 relationship. Henry Poincare derived it 5 years earlier.
Mass-Energy Equivalence

Herrmann also points, mc^2, is an infinite series:

E = mc^2 is Not Einstein's Discovery

"The approximation is usual obtained by expanding mc^2 = m0 c^2/(1 - v^2/c^2 ) ^ 1/2 into an infinite series, where m0 is the "rest" mass. This gives mc^2 = m0 c ^2 + (1/2)m0v^2 + (3/8)m0v^4 /c^2 + .... This series contains the m0c 2 term and other "energy terms" such as a term for classical kinetic energy. In this case, the approximation is made exact by claiming that all terms, other than m0c^2 , represent an additional kinetic energy effect. Then one âoeselects,â rather than derives, E = mc^2 and E0 = m0*c^2 apparently based upon the previous incorrect Einstein radiation 'proof.' "

The above Einstein approximation process did not go unnoticed. Max Planck made mention of it and I will quote Planck in a moment.

But go ahead and keep bringing up topics that you know jack about and that have _nothing_ to do with the sample rate of CD's.

> accuse Nyquist

Who said anything about the Nyquist being wrong? Show me where I said that??

CD's 44 KHz playback can only (perfectly) reconstruct signals at 22 KHz. That is inadequate for _some_ people. Why do you assume everyone else is just as tone deaf as you ??

To use an analogy of your stupidity:

Some people (incorrectly) believe you can't see frame rates higher then 30. There is a clear difference between 30 Hz, 60 Hz, and 120 Hz. Most people will never notice it, but for others crappy 24 and 30 Hz look stuttery as hell. 24 Hz is "good enough" for most people the same way 16-bit 44 KHz is "good enough" for most people.

The summary is complete gibberish. For anyone interested, Google's own paper describing their NMT architecture is here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08144

and a Google Reseach blog entry describing it's production rollout (initially for Chinese-English) is here:

https://research.googleblog.com/2016/09/a-neural-network-for-machine.html

The executive summary is that this is a "seq2seq" artificial neural net model using an 8-layer LSTM (variety of recurrent neural network) to encode the source language into a representation vector, and another 8-layer LSTM to decode it into the target language. A lot of the performance improvement is in the details rather than this now-standard seq2seq approach.

The "vector" being discussed doesn't represent words but rather the entire sentence/sequence being translated. This is the amazing thing about these seq2seq architectures - that a variable length sentence can be represented by a fixed length vector!

The representation of words used to feed into this type of seq2seq model is often a wordvec/GloVe embedding (not WordNet), but per the Google paper they are using a sub-word encoding in this case.

It sounds like WordNet, Word2Vec and bunch of other stuff in the area. It is actually described in quite detail in the article linked from the page in the summary: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.0814...

I already read the link a few hours before it was posted. There was zero details on the algorithm and no link to the actual research that I could see.

Well, in case you are interested, after checking around, it appears that this "algorithm" was a minor result of Mr. Helfgott's work to prove the ternary Goldbach conjecture (every odd integer n greater than 5 is the sum of three primes). Here's the preprint of the paper, I should warn you that it appears to be a very theoretical paper, one targetted at the Goldbach conjecture (not practical prime sieving), so there is not a fully fleshed out algorithm that you can translate into a computer program. I haven't gone through the paper in detail, but it appears to rely heavily on technique from a Messr. Ramare.

We start by adapting ideas from Ramare’s version of the large sieve for primes to estimate l2 norms over parts of the circle. We are left with the task
of giving an explicit bound on the factor in Ramare’s work. As a side effect, this finally gives a fully explicit large sieve for primes that is asymptotically optimal, meaning a sieve that does not have a spurious factor of exp(gamma) in front; this was an arguably important gap in the literature.

I cannot find a definitive paper about this technique, but is appears to be related to this earlier paper. Mr. Helfgott apparently just tightening the bounds which theoretically should create a better sieve algorithm. My impression is that I think it will take some concerted effort to create a computer algorithm out of this algorithm.

However, your mileage may vary...

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.007...

There is your citation, it is listed in TFS, and is apparently a freely available paper (no charge like I initially thought and replied elsewhere to you).

You should write detailed rebuttals of the actual paper instead of speculating on what the paper says, as rebutting human colonies when they aren't even in the paper makes it look like you maybe don't know what the paper was about.

.. when it was first published in Science last week, and I was surprised they were devoting any space to it.

The physicist had no insights to offer, just opinions about far off fanciful speculations unconnected with any current real science. The same interview could have been given by most any SF fan, and many SF authors could have offered far more substance and insight.

Here is Gros's original paper which was the hook on which the interview hung. Not a terrible paper at that, providing some interesting summaries about the evolution of the Earth and about planetary stability. But the "Genesis mission" seeding stuff is just SF hand-waving, even in the full paper. And the whole notion is based on the very questionable premise that organism-ready planets are common that do not already have their own biology established ("The objective of the Genesis mission is after all to give life the chance to prosper in places where it has not yet a foothold..."). Life on Earth may have become established within 300 million years of its formation - i.e. about as soon as compatible conditions existed.

This paper has a pretty thorough analysis of igniting cryogenic fuels by the force of cavitation, that is, collapsing of bubbles that could, for example, form from the interaction of super-chilled LOx and LOx condensed from the atmosphere.
You don't need a bullet, or a ray gun, or even a rock to ignite cryo fuels under the right circumstances.
The shockwave from the failure of a pipe or weld could be enough to ignite the fuel.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.0172...

I RTF-Abstract a couple of days ago, but decided against submitting it as bing probably a bit too esoteric for Slashdot. But most of the questions I've seen posted up-thread are covered in the actual paper - at least to the level that I can handle cosmology, which is not very deep.

This paper has a possible explanation that was ignored by the article. If the EMDrive works, then the same explanation likely also applies to some of the galactic rotational observations that are used to justify the need for dark matter.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.0344...

These are what the IAU came up with, in a vote that was very controversial among its membership. An association dominated by astronomers, not planetary scientists, who were by and large against the decision. And a set of terminology that you can often find flatly ignored in scientific papers. Example. In short, the only group that the IAU is able to bludgeon into using their term is the general public (using the "We're scientists, if you don't use our term you're wrong and ignorant" gambit), not the scientific community itself.

"It's seems more likely that life spread TO earth than it originated from Earth"
Do you have any data on that?
Check this out, seems plausable to me.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.084...

a single observation or even two or three of gravity waves does not prove that "gravity" is a quantum wave phenomenon.

Again, I'm not even sure that that is a question that people are considering. If gravity is a wave-mediated phenomenon (which the LIGO observations of September and December last year and more this year confirm to many significant figures), then like every other wave-mediated phenomenon people would expect it to be quantised in the same way that the generation of EM waves is quantised. What the relevant quantised parameters are for understanding gravity waves remains a topic of serious study - it's the whole research direction of "quantum gravity". I just searched ARXIV for "quantum gravity" and got 600 total hits for the last year. Not a subject I'm going to try to get up to speed on without someone paying me a decent salary - that's understanding 3 papers a day for a year, just to be a year out of date. And they're all assuming that gravity is quantised, even if arguing about how it is quantised, or the consequences.

Given what we know about the quantisation of the fields of the electroweak force and the strong force, it would be most surprising if the gravity field were not quantised. However, given the extreme weakness of the gravity field (I can overcome the gravity of 10^23 grammes of the Earth with the electroweak power of a couple of kg of leg muscle!! That's a factor of about 10^20 ; and the strong force is similarly stronger.), the technological hurdles to measuring that quantisation are significant.

How many researchers are working on non-quantum approaches to gravity? "No matches were found for your search: abs:("non quantum" AND gravity)" (I actually searched for "non-quantum").

Plan 'B' - if it's non-quantum, then you might describe it as "classical". So, doing the comparable search, I get "results 1 through 25 (of 235 total) for abs:(classical AND gravity)". But I think that's going to contain results about (something classical) and "quantum gravity" because of hits like "6. arXiv:1608.00285 [pdf, ps, other]
Reissner-Nordstrom Solution from Weyl Transverse Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)" I'd need more ARXIV-fu to search better. Maybe there are researchers working on non-quantum theories of gravity. But I doubt there are many.

a single observation or even two or three of gravity waves does not prove that "gravity" is a quantum wave phenomenon.

Again, I'm not even sure that that is a question that people are considering. If gravity is a wave-mediated phenomenon (which the LIGO observations of September and December last year and more this year confirm to many significant figures), then like every other wave-mediated phenomenon people would expect it to be quantised in the same way that the generation of EM waves is quantised. What the relevant quantised parameters are for understanding gravity waves remains a topic of serious study - it's the whole research direction of "quantum gravity". I just searched ARXIV for "quantum gravity" and got 600 total hits for the last year. Not a subject I'm going to try to get up to speed on without someone paying me a decent salary - that's understanding 3 papers a day for a year, just to be a year out of date. And they're all assuming that gravity is quantised, even if arguing about how it is quantised, or the consequences.

Given what we know about the quantisation of the fields of the electroweak force and the strong force, it would be most surprising if the gravity field were not quantised. However, given the extreme weakness of the gravity field (I can overcome the gravity of 10^23 grammes of the Earth with the electroweak power of a couple of kg of leg muscle!! That's a factor of about 10^20 ; and the strong force is similarly stronger.), the technological hurdles to measuring that quantisation are significant.

How many researchers are working on non-quantum approaches to gravity? "No matches were found for your search: abs:("non quantum" AND gravity)" (I actually searched for "non-quantum").

Plan 'B' - if it's non-quantum, then you might describe it as "classical". So, doing the comparable search, I get "results 1 through 25 (of 235 total) for abs:(classical AND gravity)". But I think that's going to contain results about (something classical) and "quantum gravity" because of hits like "6. arXiv:1608.00285 [pdf, ps, other]
Reissner-Nordstrom Solution from Weyl Transverse Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)" I'd need more ARXIV-fu to search better. Maybe there are researchers working on non-quantum theories of gravity. But I doubt there are many.

Yes, absolutely, electricity is a primary factor. But not the only one. You don't want a binary value, you want to be able to measure and understand subtle differences in poverty, and why specific areas are in poverty or not. So, it's a combination of how much electricity, how many roads and of what type, what sort of water access there is, what sort of roof / infrastructure there is. Combine day and night images, and you have a much more refined measurement than just whether or not there is electricity.

Free Link to arxiv paper by same authors with related title: Transfer Learning from Deep Features for Remote Sensing and Poverty Mapping. This is not the same paper, but related research. Like many authors they publish in Arxiv to get the information out there, and then 6 months later similarl research appears in a refereed journal.

On a more serious note, anyone who has sat and given some thought to what the TFS talks about has probably realized that we could be one of the earliest sentient races. The universe didn't start with the ingredients of life. It was brewed in stars and then spread by the exploding of stars and the re-coalescence of that material. That shortens the possible time frame for sentient life

Actually if you actually read the paper (yes I know it's Slashdot so you are excused! ;-) they mention this there. All the ingredients for life, including the heavy elements, are there in the second generation stars which formed a few million years after the first generation of stars which were around ~30MYr after the Big Bang. The large stars which go supernova have very short lifetimes so heavy elements were created and dispersed into the coalescing gas clouds really quite rapidly. So instead of ~13.6 billion years for life to evolve you have ~30+a few million years less i.e. negligibly less time.

Right, a theory. But if you can't count it, can't measure it, does it really exist?

But we can measure it. Its gravity reveals its existence, its quantity, and its location. So yes it exists. We just don't know what it is, and the detector experiments are testing theories about what it may be.

We also have pretty good estimates of the density of dark matter in the solar neighborhood. It amounts to 0.49 ± 0.13 GeV cm3. This means, if you weight 70 kg, your body contains about 34 trillion electron-volts of dark matter (or 6*10^-20 grams).

So if the definition is something about clearing its orbit of anything that could possibly eject it, that isn't the definition I have ever heard.

That's because you're now near the cutting edge of science. This is a taxonomy for a continuous natural variable. There isn't an obvious criterion for separation (such as the "hydrogen fusion" criterion for distinguishing between a brown dwarf and a star - that's a natural binary criterion), but the IAU people were trying to find a definition which distinguishes between two different, but potentially overlapping, classes.

As a geologist, I don't get terribly fussed up over whether something is a "claystone" (grains averaging less than 1/256 mm in diameter) or a "siltstone" (grains averaging 1/32 to 1/256 mm) because (1) I don't have the apparatus to distinguish the two classes, (2) my clients don't care - they're both too low a permeability to be of interest, and (3) we have the useful term "mudstone" to cover both cases.

The IAU sought to tighten up the definition of "planet". That's a work in progress. One early paper discussing it was presented in 2002, with some additional thoughts by one of the authors here (that one is less than an hour's work to read, unless you want to check every line of the maths; it's what convinced me that my geological favour for the "gravitational self-rounding" criterion was misplaced). A more recent proposal is here. This last one is interesting, as it adds some interesting considerations that I'd not wasted too much of my life thinking about, but I now feel the need to consider.

By the time you've digested a couple of those, you'll be in a better place to discuss the arguments that are occupying almost no astronomer's time outside the bar at conferences. Taxonomy never really gets much attention, once the tool is "good enough" to be useful. Which is where things are, amongst the astronomical community.

So if the definition is something about clearing its orbit of anything that could possibly eject it, that isn't the definition I have ever heard.

That's because you're now near the cutting edge of science. This is a taxonomy for a continuous natural variable. There isn't an obvious criterion for separation (such as the "hydrogen fusion" criterion for distinguishing between a brown dwarf and a star - that's a natural binary criterion), but the IAU people were trying to find a definition which distinguishes between two different, but potentially overlapping, classes.

As a geologist, I don't get terribly fussed up over whether something is a "claystone" (grains averaging less than 1/256 mm in diameter) or a "siltstone" (grains averaging 1/32 to 1/256 mm) because (1) I don't have the apparatus to distinguish the two classes, (2) my clients don't care - they're both too low a permeability to be of interest, and (3) we have the useful term "mudstone" to cover both cases.

The IAU sought to tighten up the definition of "planet". That's a work in progress. One early paper discussing it was presented in 2002, with some additional thoughts by one of the authors here (that one is less than an hour's work to read, unless you want to check every line of the maths; it's what convinced me that my geological favour for the "gravitational self-rounding" criterion was misplaced). A more recent proposal is here. This last one is interesting, as it adds some interesting considerations that I'd not wasted too much of my life thinking about, but I now feel the need to consider.

By the time you've digested a couple of those, you'll be in a better place to discuss the arguments that are occupying almost no astronomer's time outside the bar at conferences. Taxonomy never really gets much attention, once the tool is "good enough" to be useful. Which is where things are, amongst the astronomical community.

Except they aren't

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.043...

Reproducible and replicable CFD:
it’s harder than you think

This used to be my field of research as a postdoc in the 1990s, and this research was done at the lab where I worked then. The slashdot summary seems wildly inaccurate compared to the actual claims in the paper, which you can see here without a paywall: http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.0148... . I can't tell whether Scheck, who is one of the coauthors, is really making these overly gee-whiz claims, or whether his remarks have been taken out of context and distorted to an incredible extent.

This is an example of an effect called spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is well known in particle physics, molecular physics, and nuclear physics. An example of SSB is when you balance a pencil on its tip and it has to pick whether to fall to the left or the right. When a molecule such as H2 forms, it has to randomly pick a direction in which to orient itself, and this is also an example of SSB, which breaks the rotational symmetry of space. For an asymmetric molecule such as H2O, there is also a breaking of reflection symmetry. In nuclei, SSB of rotational symmetry has been very well known for a long time, because many nuclear are football shaped. What's more recent is that a few nuclei have been found that are pear-shaped, which gives SSB of reflection symmetry. As the paper admits up front, this work is not actually the first example of this kind.

The stuff about time travel is just nonsense. Anyone who wants to learn more about this kind of physics can google phrases like time-reversal asymmetry, arrow of time, closed timelike curve, and Jahn-Teller effect. This experiment does not have any new implications for the arrow of time or time travel.

Curiously, I DID check the original work.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.076... says
"We predict that under 1 percent of the galaxy has been reached at all thus far, and we do not anticipate to be reached until approximately half of the stars/planets have been reached. We offer a prediction that we should not expect this until at least 1,500 years in the future."

Per my previous math, using a simplistic 2d area of the Milky Way and a simplistic smooth distribution of stars (I know they're not, but they're actually denser further in, so this is really giving the paper the benefit of napkin-math), they say that the signal has to reach HALF the systems to have a reasonable chance of response.

Again:
The area of the galaxy (50k ly radius) 7.85Ã--10^9 ly.
The area of the galaxy covered by our 80 years of emissions -
- in their summary, they say 1%
- in fact, it's 2.5x10^-6 or about 0.00025%

In 1500 years, the coverage will be:
- in their summary, about half.
- in fact, 7x10^6 or or 0.09%

To cover half the milky way would take about 35000 years of broadcasting.

Rather than being snarky, could you please point out my error in math or understanding?

Preprint paper here.

Short summary. Old technique using silicon nanowires has shortcomings. Their new technique using a silicon membrane works better (5.2dB gain at 60 mW).

For those that don't know what Brillouin scattering/amplification is all about, it's basically a non-linear scattering effect between two electromagnetic waves and a phonon (usually a "sound" wave, or more specifically spatio-temporal variations in local strain of a structure say like in silicon). A highly simplified way to think about it is if you "vibrate" a crystal you can set up patterns of constructive interference between incoming and outgoing light which results in amplification.

Although there are many Brillouin configurations that are possible, this paper talks a forward scattering scheme that allows one electromagnetic wave to pump another one (basically what is required to make an amplifier or a laser).

...but still the same basic optics solved hundreds of years ago.

Actually, no. More details.

The short story of what is different is described in their paper (preprint here)...

Although visible planar lenses can be realized by diffractive components, high NA and efficiency are not attainable because their constituent structures are of wavelength scale that precludes an accurate phase profile..... To maximize the polarization conversion efficiency, the nanofins should operate as halfwaveplates. This is achieved due to the birefringence arising from the asymmetric cross section of nanofins with appropriately designed height, width, and length

The new idea (well not new, but meta-material approach) is that for each x,y position on the lens, a nanofin is positioned and rotated so that a localized "half-wave-plate" effect created by birefringence of the nanofin crossection modifies the phase profile of incident circularly polarized light to that which propagation through a spherical lens would have produced: All without a refractive component. A fresnel-like lens uses a small refraction (lens) element instead of a nano-sized half-wave plate to accomplish bending, but refraction requires an interface, and you can't make that interface too small without diffractive effects.

The catch? Chromatic aberration will be much worse than a traditional lens because the phase profile is only correct for one wavelength (traditional materials also have a index of refraction that changes with wavelength, but it isn't strictly a linearly proportional geometric effect like rotating nanofins). This new technique would work fine for most scientific purposes where you have monochromatic light, but taking a full color picture with this type of lens might take quite a bit of dsp-post-processing to look reasonable.

Do you mean Randall Holmes on the consistency of Quine’s set theory, New Foundations? https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.014... (see also http://www.logicmatters.net/20...)

Of course it's a proof.

Not so fast. There are several mathematicians that don't necessarily agree with that statement. At least not in its strongest form. (We'll ignore the editor basing their argument on the wrong thing, of course being "satisfying" to a human has little bearing on the "proofness" of a mathematical argument).

In fact, whether computer generated proofs that are too large to check by human mathematicians are really proofs at all is a question that's alive (if not exactly well) in the mathematical community, and you'll find many mathematicians who will sneer at it. This based on the realisation that many so called proofs are wrong. The history of computer generated proofs and verifications in particular being littered with incorrect results (often due to a validation problem, rather than a verification problem, but the latter, due to bugs in the verifier are not unheard of). Hence, the need for some form of human verification. They don't call it "the social process of mathematics" for nothing. Like Jim Horning said: "A Proof is a repeatable experiment in persuasion." Now, if you need another computer to verify the first, you soon end up with a "it's computers all the way down-silly"-type of argument, that doesn't make more pure mathematicians feel exactly warm and fuzzy all over. (Us computer scientist we shrug and get on with it, but that's a different story.)

On the other hand, Myhrvold has not made verifiable claims, and hasn't published in peer-reviewed journals.

This isn't true. Myhrvold has published a related paper in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, which is a perfectly respectable peer-reviewed journal. (ADS data are here; the arXiv posting is here.)

This article doesn't display the usual signs of quackery. It's well-written, extensively referenced, and gives both pros and cons of the various approaches it considers. It's a bit on the long side, which you sometimes see in pieces written by nutters, but they tend to repeat themselves, whereas this document seems to consist entirely of well-structured analysis. The acknowledgements section explicitly thanks an anonymous reviewer, which you usually see when substantial changes have been made on the basis of the reviewer's comments, which is fairly commonplace: maybe one in three papers might do this?

Unfortunately, this paper is too far outside of my field for me to directly judge the arguments in it, at least without a few months of study, so I have to resort to judging it by these peripheral issues, insofar as this is possible. But I can say that, if I were trawling the literature on a moderately unfamiliar topic, I wouldn't be surprised by any of these: it looks to me like a fairly normal academic paper.

The significantly unusual things about this paper are that it has a single author, at a non-academic institution, and that the arXiv version appears to have been typeset with something other than LaTeX. But none of these are factors that I would count against it.

One of the major conclusions of the paper is that it would be helpful to have a common, open simulation code to evaluate the expected performance of different surveys in detecting asteroids. Now this is a familiar issue from a couple of fields that I do work in, which would benefit from a similar approach, if everyone would just work together long enough to make it happen. (It's also a bit ironic to be advocating for open software, given the author's Microsoftian background, but I won't hold that against him.)

But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."

That hurts.

Here's a link to the paper. Seriously, does this guy think the WISE team are a bunch of idiots? I'm personally not qualfied to judge the details of the physical arguments in Myhrvold's paper, but I would give it high probability that he's full of shit.

Ditto. But NASA had me convinced when they say that they used radar measurements to validate some subset of the results. So they are saying they have taken more detailed radar measurements and found their accuracy on that subset of data was what they claimed. I don't care if some of the math implies a higher error. If reality says your methodology is more accurate than the math says, then you go with reality.

Sure it isn't arxiv.org?

Whoops. I stand corrected.

Sure it isn't arxiv.org?

But Wright archly noted that Myhrvold once worked at Microsoft, so "is responsible in part for a lot of bad software."

That hurts.

Here's a link to the paper. Seriously, does this guy think the WISE team are a bunch of idiots? I'm personally not qualfied to judge the details of the physical arguments in Myhrvold's paper, but I would give it high probability that he's full of shit.

Nothing about faster than light communication (which is still impossible as far as we know, and highly unlikely to ever be discovered as it would allow sending messages back in time if our current understanding of relativity is correct).

What they are researching, is sending a larger amount of information over a long distance through space with the same number of photons, by using entanglement to reduce noise somewhat. The idea is quite complicated, google "quantum-enhanced classical communication" for more details, you can find a few related papers that are not behind pay walls (like here), but I couldn't find a decent explanation that doesn't involve pages full of math.

It's definitely not faster than light. Just a clever trick to make it a little (not even a lot) more likely for a message to arrive intact without errors.

Perhaps no paradoxes, but it seems like discretizing time at least is a problem:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.ed...

Discretizing space leads to problems of Lorentz invariance - preferred frames almost universally exist in discretized spaces, and there always exists some transformation under which a non-trivial region of space is occupied by a low number of geometrical atoms (causal set theory tries to address this, but isn't really complete).

https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.053...

The author's paper on the EM-drive is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.0344...

I was interested to read that he claims his theory also explains galactic rotation without the need for dark matter, and it explains cosmic acceleration without the need for dark energy. Neither of those can be experimentally verified, so he's pretty excited to have an actual experiment to test his theories.

In the rush to find gravitational waves, it doesn't seem like the other, more plausible explanations have been ruled out.

Really? Did you read the paper[1]?

High strain sensitivity also requires that the test masses have low displacement noise, which is achieved by isolating them from seismic noise (low frequencies) and designing them to have low thermal noise (intermediate frequencies). Each test mass is suspended as the final stage of a quadruple-pendulum system [56], supported by an active seismic isolation platform [57]. These systems collectively provide more than 10 orders of magnitude of isolation from ground motion for frequencies above 10 Hz.

To monitor environmental disturbances and their influence on the detectors, each observatory site is equipped with an array of sensors: seismometers, accelerometers, microphones, magnetometers, radio receivers, weather sensors, ac-power line monitors, and a cosmic-ray detector[65].

Exhaustive investigations of instrumental and environmental disturbances were performed, giving no evidence to suggest that GW150914 could be an instrumental artifact [69]. The detectorsâ(TM) susceptibility to environmental disturbances was quantified by measuring their response to specially generated magnetic, radio-frequency, acoustic, and vibration excitations. These tests indicated that any external disturbance large enough to have caused the observed signal would have been clearly recorded by the array of environmental sensors. None of the environmental sensors recorded any disturbances that evolved in time and frequency like GW150914, and all environmental fluctuations during the second that contained GW150914 were too small to account for more than 6% of its strain amplitude. Special care was taken to search for long-range correlated disturbances that might produce nearly simultaneous signals at the two sites. No significant disturbances were found.

Emphasis mine.

[1]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.0383...