Slashdot Mirror

Right. But well, some people have attempted to develop quantum authentication protocols like this one, this one, and this one. Dunno if the device in question does any of them, or even if any of them are actually practical to use with today's technology. If the device in question doesn't use quantum authentication of some kind, well, they're selling snake oil, but I wouldn't dismiss the whole concept of quantum cryptography out of hand totally the way you seem so ready to.

Voyager has been moving through space in ways unexplainable by physics.

Any references I can read? astro-ph will do fine... :-)

So far we have not found any of this "dark matter."

Oh yes, there are many detections of massive astrophysical compact halo objects in our galaxy, P. Popowski et al, and there is also a lot of work going on to use the same ideas to look for similar bodies in other galaxies. In fact, the microlensing ideas were first proposed for extragalactic studies by Chang and Refsdal in an article in Nature in 1979. The funny thing about this is that it doesn't matter what kind of matter it is, as long as it is gravitating. Also, it is easier if it is clumped, but it doesn't need to be.

Shameless plug: My thesis: Gravitational Microlensing of Quasar Clouds: Detectability in a Worst-Case Scenario.

I for one would be utterly elated if it turns out we have to rewrite our physics books.

Voyager isn't useless yet!

IBM in fact has demonstrated Shor's algorithm

... the "gates" are in fact carefully crafted laser pulses ...

No, the universe did expand faster than light; there is no restriction against that in general relativity.

A recent relevant paper.

There are some fascinating parts to game of life, but to claim that it has some special place for hackerdom is laughable at best. I can think of one recent good work on GOL worthy of hackerdom brownie points, and that is eppstein's searching for spaceships. Rest of hackerdom's fascination is negligible enough not to warrant the basis for this logo.

Why not the ship from ancient spacewar, which was the reason for Ken's hacking unix? Why not something as imaginative as PJW face from Bell Labs? (oh no, bad suggestion: ESR may decide to deploy his own face as logo...)

Hm. I have been designing logos on and off since 1976. Hacking since 1978. I suppose I have learned a thing or two about both over the years. Here is my somewhat educated assessment: I consider ESR's logo to be unimaginative, poorly balanced, devoid of energy, and not at all representative. In other words, It is really boring, one thing hacking is most certainly not. (one of my friends thought it was a stylized person sitting with his back against the wall, head down)

ESR should have had enough respect to ask the community for input...

(a remedial course on logo design may also help)

nous.

The knowledge discovery and datamining cup challenge this year was looking at the arxiv.org papers for this sort of analysis - some very interesting results. The Task 4 winnder looked at the structure of the papers as a sort of relational database and uncovered a lot of statistical patterns and metrics that could be quite useful for scientists.

BTW, I have never, ever, ever heard of a scientist hearing even a peep of complaint from a journal about distributing reprints and preprints electronically. It's just what everyone does.

Physisits have been doing something similar for ages. Have a look at http://arxiv.org/. Most phyisics papers appear here first, only later going on to paper publishers. The big bifference between the two is arXiv has no reviewing process (its for pre-prints). This does make things quicker which seems to be what physist want, but might have impact on quility of papers.

http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0309/03 09686.pdf ... this must be a draft there's a typo in their ackowledgments (I checked all the equations and they look OK though ;0)>

You can always use your network cables instead; brief description or full paper.

Anyone care to use the method with RFC1149 Avian Carrier Protocol, namely Using Ping to determine Speed of Flight!

Anyone care for a Reactionless Thruster ?

The three new discoveries are about 42 AU from the Sun, in orbits that are about the same distance but less inclined (tipped) to the rest of the Solar System than Quaoar. They are not "plutinos".

Press releases are always skimpy on the real information; if you want the gory details, read the scientific paper. There will be some articles in Science News, maybe other places, at an intermediate level.

You're thinking of the so-called "Big Rip" theory, driven by "phantom energy" (hypothetical dark energy with particularly peculiar properties). Later papers cast doubt on this scenario.

You're thinking of the so-called "Big Rip" theory, driven by "phantom energy" (hypothetical dark energy with particularly peculiar properties). Later papers cast doubt on this scenario.

I heard somewhere that the newer ground-based optical telescope with adaptive optics can equal or exceed the Hubble's resolution.

This is true, with limitations:
1. Adaptive optics requires a bright star in the field of view, limiting the amount of sky coverage possible. While every generation of adaptive optics improves in how faint this "guide star" is, we are still in the early stages of engineering.
2. As an alternative to 1, an artificial, laser guide star can be used. Again, these are in only the earliest stages of engineering. Further, there are concerns such as the interaction of such lasers with aircraft/pilots.
3. Adaptive optics works better in the Near-Infrared than at visible wavelengths. To obtain fully diffraction limited images, most AO telescopes cannot operate in V.
4. Sensitivity. By escaping the earth's atmosphere, one can gain much more sensitivity on the whole. One can "see deeper". This is the fundamental limit of ground-based astronomy, and is why it is unlikely that any amount of engineering will compensate for not being in space.
5. Precision. The earth's atmosphere also limits the precision of many measurements, such as photometry. As an example, look at Charbonneau's results with Hubble studying a transitting extrasolar planet. This precision could not be done from the ground, AO or not. Popular story here. Original paper here.

"What are the current best theories for reconciling Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?

No, a Big Rip doesn't happen for just any accelerating expansion, but only ones with special properties. The Big Rip idea is very speculative and the conditions under which it works are even more limited than previously thought.

No, a Big Rip doesn't happen for just any accelerating expansion, but only ones with special properties. The Big Rip idea is very speculative and the conditions under which it works are even more limited than previously thought.

By the way, there are lots of problems with MOND. A bunch of papers have been written pointing them out, to the point that it no longer looks tenable. Two of the papers are here and here.

By the way, there are lots of problems with MOND. A bunch of papers have been written pointing them out, to the point that it no longer looks tenable. Two of the papers are here and here.

I think the current belief is that it's going to tear itself apart, eventually even tearing the atoms apart.

I think the current belief is that it's going to tear itself apart, eventually even tearing the atoms apart.

My comments are made in light of the state of the bilingual printing industry in Japan, plus my experience in a DTP shop in the U.S.

Two really great points were made here, about fonts and trapping. The lack of good Mac-based fonts due to liscensing trouble nearly killed Mac DTP, and even now the choice of available fonts is critical. So if you already have fonts, or know what fonts are available at the output agency, the ability to use these predictably will be extremely useful. So perhaps a kerning table that matches commercial printers' fontsets will allow you to simulate printing with a certain font that you don't have.

The point about the need for trapping is also great. Trapping is basically an algorithm to control how differently colored areas overlap or don't. If you do it right you don't get wierd intersection effects, but it is hard to get a computer to do it right every time. Get some professional DTP people to try the software and send feedback about it - tough love maybe but it will make for better software for all users.

There was a question about resolution - usually people talk about lines per inch not dots per inch, and even then you choose a printer by seeing how well the cheapest version will output the file you have. For example you can get away with a cheap printer if it is just black and white laser of a document, but you other printers will give you much finer halftone screens or will be more economical at higher print volumes. I have not used PDF at say 1200 dpi but would be interested to see how well you can print color photos with the current system they are using.

Also I mentioned in the past that I had ported specialized DTP software (like a cross between Quark and Illustrator) for traditional printing presses in Japan from Mac to Windows, now used by
1500 companies. It is used for example to print national exams. Font handling precision was important so I used Quicktime. Import and export of file formats was important, and there were a large number of functions for finicky manipulations, some of which seemed unique to the way ads were printed on these machines, mimicking the way it used to be done by hand.

So it just seems that if the authors take a single very specific problem domain (say a small to medium size company printing camera-ready advertisements for a magazine, or perhaps printing a sales brochure) and actually trying this with real users they will get excellent feedback and the word will get around. But even a small DTP (design) shop wants to use tools that are going to allow quick import and creation of line art and photos, and provide the basic tools (thinking of fonts and illustrator-like drawing functions) to get as much high quality work done in as short a time as possible. $1000 bucks is nothing. The question is can a better, cheaper system be provided for any users.

Anyway this sounds like a great attempt and I'll certainly look forward to using it. If I could I'd like to make a PDF for a Japanese product brochure with it, but this may be pushing it too much. Good luck to the authors.

Finally, this is not the only DTP software for Linux, if you count LyX (the word-processor frontend to LaTeX). Though it is not exactly easy to use, and not exactly WYSIWIG perhaps.. but you can do mathematical typesetting and manuals (or man pages) pretty well with it. I wonder if Scribus can import LyX or other postscript files. Would Scribus be a good alternative for scientific researchers to write up and publish research papers? Perhaps some templates that made it easy to print a two-column article with a bibliography would be useful there. There is some interesting information about why arxiv.org does not want you to send PDFs (they prefer TeX source since it maintains context). Can Scribus import TeX? What about EPS? How much interoperation with GIMP or other software on linux or other platfo

on a rather obscure British web site of "e-print physics archives"

on a rather obscure British web site of "e-print physics archives"

on a rather obscure British web site of "e-print physics archives"

You are making a personal attack, not attacking his ideas.

Here are two cases :

(a) Another BIG proponent of the Steady State universe is Fred Hoyle.(While we are at it, let's throw in that Hoyle also supported life from space rocks theory). Is he a quack? No. He has good arguments. In fact, Fred Hoyle is sadly forgotten for his VERY seminal work on figuring out how the Sun nuclear engine works. Sadly the Nobel committee only awarded Willie Fowler the Nobel though Hoyle arguably did as much to solve the problem : an scandalous injustice that many astrophysicists now rued.

(b) You can also attack Friedman's comment about the "obscure british "preprint physics archives".

A number of colleagues have contacted me since the web posting (on a rather obscure British web site of "e-print physics archives", http://uk.arXiv.org.)

The arXiv is the main distribution of physics and maths papers nowadays. Everybody in the field reads the archives. In fact the uk.arXiv.org is just one of the many mirrors of the main site arXiv.org hosted, ironically by Cornell.

So Friedmann did a "personal attack" on Gold (implying that Gold only published his findings in some no-name website). THat's not a good thing. A good scientist names his source without judgement : the reader can decide for himself whetehre it is good or not by its contents.

So Webster.com says mass is a measure of inertia, does it? Oh boy! It must be right!
Not according to Special Relativity.

Hate to be pedantic, but using the proper terms aids clarity and, of course, helps one to sound credible, so let me offer this helpful advice:

There is only one "Solar System," and that's the system of bodies orbiting our star, Sol.

The generic term for any other collection of planetary bodies orbiting some random other star is "planetary system." The planets therein are referred to as "extrasolar."

Read the original press release and paper. You will see this usage reflected there.

PHOBOS paper
STAR paper
PHENIX paper

PHOBOS paper
STAR paper
PHENIX paper

PHOBOS paper
STAR paper
PHENIX paper

http://arxiv.org/ is invaluable if you're interested in scientific publishing. It's been around for more than a decade and I know of no better research archiving and dissemination project. I imagine that it was designed for a specific community (researchers) but, as nothing but a spectator, I've found it to be a great source of information and worth visiting regularly.

--Asa

For those of you who are intersted in what I stated before, just take a look at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302037

Everyone in academia uses LaTeX and PostScript
Care to document this?

LaTeX is quite common in math, physics, and computer science. It is not at all common in most academic fields.

Assuming you really meant math, physics, and computer science, it's not true that PS is more common in those fields than PDF. For instance, you can submit papers to the arxiv.org preprint server in LaTeX, and they'll then automatically generate both PDF and PS for people who want to read your paper.

BTW, I hope you're not under the impression that it's impossible to make PDF files without proprietary software. Here's a counterexample, done with LaTeX.

Thank you :-))

Google for "Zeno's paradox".

Please explain. I'm afraid I don't see how Zeno's paradox applies. In fact I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to find anything mathematically wrong with the scenario that I've presented. The Physics is another matter. I believe the jury is still out on whether or not such machines could be constructed in our universe. http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0205/02 05279.pdf

If you went and read Wolpert's papers, you would realize that this entire discussion is a very low quality dorm room bull session among a bunch of guys who smoked too much, and inhaled too deeply of, excessively strong ganja.

Go to bed. When you get up. Take a shower, eat breakfast, clean up your rooms, do your home work and read the Wolpert papers.

If you went and read Wolpert's papers, you would realize that this entire discussion is a very low quality dorm room bull session among a bunch of guys who smoked too much, and inhaled too deeply of, excessively strong ganja.

Go to bed. When you get up. Take a shower, eat breakfast, clean up your rooms, do your home work and read the Wolpert papers.

Gee, MY car burns hydrogen! What are you waiting for?

My car runs on hydrogen, which is bound by carbon so it isn't so gaseous. C8H16 or so (chemistry was a long time back). Or did you mean ``uses a fuel cell which burns H_2''? I'd like something like that too; the current technology has too many moving parts. I'm not holding my breath.

While we're talking bluesky stuff, here's something interesting: tapping the vaccuume energy. The guy's got a patent, and claims that he'll be producing commercial quantities Real Soon Now (TM).

"Smoothed Analysis of Algorithms: Why the Simplex Algorithm Usually Takes Polynomial Time" by Daniel A. Spielman and Shang-Hua Teng

http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DS/0111050

Quote (from the intro):

We propose an analysis that we call smoothed analysis which can help explain the success of many algorithms that both worst-case and average case cannot. In smoothed analysis, we measure the performance of an algorithm under slight random perturbations of arbitrary inputs. In particular, we consider Gaussian perturbations of inputs to algorithms that take real inputs, and we measure the running times of algorithms in terms of their input size and the variance of the Gaussian perturbations.

We show that the simplex method has polynomial smoothed complexity. The simplex method is the classic example of an algorithm that is known to perform well in practice but which takes exponential time in the worst case[KM72, Mur80, GS79, Gol83, AC78, Jer73, AZ99]. In the late 1970's and early 1980's the simplex method was shown to converge in expected polynomial time on various distributions of random inputs by researchers including Borgwardt, Smale, Haimovich, Adler, Karp, Shamir, Megiddo, and Todd[Bor80, Bor77, Sma83, Hai83, AKS87, AM85, Tod86]. However, the last 20 years of research in probability, combinatorics and numerical analysis have taught us that the random instances considered in these analyses may have special properties that one might not find in practice.

There are many extra-dimension models that place the gravity scale back up where it belongs (> 10^16 GeV or so) and they do not face this problem, but we also will not be creating black holes at colliders this aeon...

So yeah, as a physicist, who has written papers on this subject, I would place an extremely large wager that we will not be discovering black holes at colliders. Take that to mean what you will...

-- Bob

"Proton Decay, Black Holes, and Large Extra Dimensions".

Real matter that's falling inside of the black hole doesn't tunnel out, but you can think of Hawking radiation as a vacuum tunneling process. This is a quantum effect; it doesn't have to do with classical acceleration radiation (electromagnetic / gravitational waves).

how is 7.8 lightyears local?

It's local if you're headed in that direction. Alpha Centari, Barnard's, and Wolf 359 are all on the same side.

Also, for gravity assist, it's not the size of the mass that matters so much as its relative motion.

it's rather misleading to make Sol so large, but hey, what can you do?

Solstation has a nice 3-D star map Java applet.

how is 7.8 lightyears local?

It's local if you're headed in that direction. Alpha Centari, Barnard's, and Wolf 359 are all on the same side.

Also, for gravity assist, it's not the size of the mass that matters so much as its relative motion.

it's rather misleading to make Sol so large, but hey, what can you do?

Solstation has a nice 3-D star map Java applet.

ApJ Letters Submission on arxiv

I think Dr. Evil would like to make these guys an employment offer.

And where to build the device?
We first look for a mountain like in fig. 8 whose the surface does not touch many of the straight lines depicted as P1P2, P3P4, Q1Q2 or Q3Q4. We construct two synchrotron A and B which are both revolvable...

Might I suggest a slightly used extinct volcano with a retractable roof?

Dark Matter isn't the only explanation for Fritz Zwicky's 1993 observation.

If I were to bet on someone winning a future Nobel, Milgrom would be the person.

Dark Matter isn't the only explanation for Fritz Zwicky's 1993 observation.

If I were to bet on someone winning a future Nobel, Milgrom would be the person.