Slashdot Mirror

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.

Yes, there are tests for gravity at large scales. See for example: A Test of Newton's Law of Gravity in the Weak Acceleration Regime

From the abstract:

"A pilot experiment suitable to test Newton's law of gravity down to the regime of acceleration typical of galaxies has been carried out in Omega Centauri. Stars in the extreme periphery of this globular cluster are used as test particles immersed in such weak gravitational field. The stellar velocity dispersion is found to remain constant at large radii, rather than decrease monotonically, starting at acceleration a=10e-7 cm/s2. This is comparable to the acceleration at which the effect of dark matter becomes relevant in galaxies. Explanations for this result within Newtonian dynamics exist (e.g. cluster evaporation, tidal effects, presence of dark matter) but require fine tuning of the relevant parameters in order to make the dispersion profile flat. An interesting alternative is that this result, together with a similar one for Palomar 13 and the anomalous behavior of spacecrafts outside the solar system, suggests a breakdown of Newton's law in the weak acceleration regime."

A similar site is ArXiv, which does mostly physics stuff AFAIK. You can do things like searching more easily on the web, as well as the openness benefits.

Just adding to that excellent explanation, the arcane code HD 141569A merely gives the star's listing in the Henry Draper Catalogue, a gigantic star catalogue (over 250,000 entries) first compiled about a century ago. The spectral class A does denote that HD 141569A is a young, fairly massive, and hot star- its surface temperature should be between 7,500 - 10,000K, and it should be white to blue-white in color. Another example of an A type star would be Sirius.

I also wanted to point out that the story submitter gets it a bit wrong- which is more the fault of the story, which fails to make this clear- HD 141569A is not in a binary system with a single companion star, it is in a three star system with two other stars. These other two stars, HD 141569B and HD 141569C, are in a binary relationship with each other, and together perturb the disk around HD 141569A, which is over 100 billion miles from the pair. This paper (.pdf file) from 1999 on the Arxiv gives more details on the star system and protoplanetary disk.

If you are interested in actually reading the papers, they can be found on the arXiv.org e-Print archive, and directly here and here. I would suggest the first article - the math doesn't look so hairy.

The idea is to build up redundancy signatures of email messages. The global network of SMTP servers exchange these signatures by a grid orientated P2P network. When the distribution of a special signature is worldwide too high then it's identificated as spam and destroyed everywhere [1]. Note that a distributed annealing algorithm can do this in O(log(log(n)))+theta(n) operations (theta(n) a blotzmann distribution due to the annealing process).

Building up these signatures is a little more complicated, something like MD5 checksum won't be sufficient. After some preparsing we have to project the text into a suitable banach space for further operations. Cleckerson and Allman have proposed an infinite dimensional Lie group for this task, surely any Diffeomorphism group over a Hardy space will do [2]. In this space we can build unique (!) singnatures using a simple frequency domain transformation. However we can't of course exchange an infinite amount of data, so an approximation will have to do it. Reseach any Valdpornik and Rosé has shown that there are decent approximations for this task [3]. So we can use these thing to build up our signatures and the whole stuff works indeed.

However the highly numerical approach requires DSP coprocessors in mail servers. But I think that Intel and AMD will throw in a DSP core to their server processors in a few years anyway, so that's not a big issue.

The idea is to build up redundancy signatures of email messages. The global network of SMTP servers exchange these signatures by a grid orientated P2P network. When the distribution of a special signature is worldwide too high then it's identificated as spam and destroyed everywhere [1]. Note that a distributed annealing algorithm can do this in O(log(log(n)))+theta(n) operations (theta(n) a blotzmann distribution due to the annealing process).

Building up these signatures is a little more complicated, something like MD5 checksum won't be sufficient. After some preparsing we have to project the text into a suitable banach space for further operations. Cleckerson and Allman have proposed an infinite dimensional Lie group for this task, surely any Diffeomorphism group over a Hardy space will do [2]. In this space we can build unique (!) singnatures using a simple frequency domain transformation. However we can't of course exchange an infinite amount of data, so an approximation will have to do it. Reseach any Valdpornik and Rosé has shown that there are decent approximations for this task [3]. So we can use these thing to build up our signatures and the whole stuff works indeed.

However the highly numerical approach requires DSP coprocessors in mail servers. But I think that Intel and AMD will throw in a DSP core to their server processors in a few years anyway, so that's not a big issue.

The idea is to build up redundancy signatures of email messages. The global network of SMTP servers exchange these signatures by a grid orientated P2P network. When the distribution of a special signature is worldwide too high then it's identificated as spam and destroyed everywhere [1]. Note that a distributed annealing algorithm can do this in O(log(log(n)))+theta(n) operations (theta(n) a blotzmann distribution due to the annealing process).

Building up these signatures is a little more complicated, something like MD5 checksum won't be sufficient. After some preparsing we have to project the text into a suitable banach space for further operations. Cleckerson and Allman have proposed an infinite dimensional Lie group for this task, surely any Diffeomorphism group over a Hardy space will do [2]. In this space we can build unique (!) singnatures using a simple frequency domain transformation. However we can't of course exchange an infinite amount of data, so an approximation will have to do it. Reseach any Valdpornik and Rosé has shown that there are decent approximations for this task [3]. So we can use these thing to build up our signatures and the whole stuff works indeed.

However the highly numerical approach requires DSP coprocessors in mail servers. But I think that Intel and AMD will throw in a DSP core to their server processors in a few years anyway, so that's not a big issue.

If modern string theory is true then most nano science applications will fail to work.
Recall that standard supersymmetry work with strings in 11 space dimensions on Yang-Calbai manifolds. At sizes below 15 angstroem you'll effects from these 11 dimensions. Especially has the wave equation non-trivial, non-analytic solutions and Hygens' principle fails (due to the topology of the Yang-Calbai manifolds, recall that the 5th deRham cohomology group is non-trivial).
So you'll get the effect of string resonance - strings are coupled together the 3rd order Laplace equation which overrules strong and weak interaction. This means that control of dynamical systems below the 15 angstroem barrier is impossible - you'll always get 5th order resonance which collapses the control Lie-algebra.
So all these nifty little nano-machines won't work, they'll be just little protein blob wiggling around and doing nothing useful.
As an example see this example.

Of course, SPIRES and arxiv are very well cross-linked.

One of the neat things about arxiv.org is that a lot of the older papers will be automatically generated from Latex source when you request.

I also wish to point out that extrapolation can be useful for precisely the reason many are criticizing it: it can reveal where current theories are wrong.

This reminds me of the `proof' of the Poincaré conjecture posted a few months ago on arXiv.org by Sergey Nikitin (see this page). Does anybody know if that has received any serious attention from other mathematicians? I read one reaction of a mathematician saying Nikitin had a wrong idea of one of the concepts he used, but he has made a couple of corrections since then.

If you liked this article, you might also like Comment on "Where is the Planck time?" which argues that Lieu and Hillman made a booboo to the tune of 15 orders of magnitude, and as a result this HST observation has no bearing on the validity of quantum gravity theories.

I think that the proof of the Poincare Conjecture. Will get the first Millenium Prize (by a few days!) if it is correct (talked about here but hey if this gets the second then blimey! Two already!?! Could be a good decade for mathematics!

Of course aether was primarily brought up by Maxwell to explain certain phenomena. It was disproved by the "fact" that the speed of light was a constant in all inertial frames.

What's interesting is that there is a movement to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, the speed of light wasn't a constant after all. While I rather doubt that, New Scientist has an interesting interview with the main proponent of that theory, Joao Magueijo. Interview with Joao Magueijo

He has a book partially about this coming out this month called Faster than the Speed of Light

I rather doubt Einstein is wrong on this matter, although some of Magueijo's criticisms of superstring theory are often made. Still quite a few people are discussing the issue. Landau, for instance, has a recent paper on the topic. "Charge Conservation and Time-Varying Speed of Light.

To tie all this together, here's an interesting paper that ties some of this all together, including "dark energy." "Perfect Fluid Cosmology with Varying Light Speed."

Of course aether was primarily brought up by Maxwell to explain certain phenomena. It was disproved by the "fact" that the speed of light was a constant in all inertial frames.

What's interesting is that there is a movement to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, the speed of light wasn't a constant after all. While I rather doubt that, New Scientist has an interesting interview with the main proponent of that theory, Joao Magueijo. Interview with Joao Magueijo

He has a book partially about this coming out this month called Faster than the Speed of Light

I rather doubt Einstein is wrong on this matter, although some of Magueijo's criticisms of superstring theory are often made. Still quite a few people are discussing the issue. Landau, for instance, has a recent paper on the topic. "Charge Conservation and Time-Varying Speed of Light.

To tie all this together, here's an interesting paper that ties some of this all together, including "dark energy." "Perfect Fluid Cosmology with Varying Light Speed."

Does anyone know if this invalidates the Alcubierre drive?

I forgot to link to Carlip's paper.

I wouldn't take their word for it.

This paper [ldolphin.org] gives a good case for gravity traveling faster than light

van Flandern is a known crank. (Check out his "face on Mars" claims, too...) You can read about his errors here and here, in debates with physicists and mathematicians. Eventually, Steve Carlip (the world's leading authority on 3D quantum gravity, and a GR expert) got so sick of correcting laymen wandering into Usenet having heard of van Flandern's claims that he published a paper to debunk him once and for all.

and I'm pretty sure all the working Newtonian gravity calculations assume instantaneous gravity:

When I first heard about this I went and dug up some articles on google. One argued from indirect evidence that the speed of gravity >= 2 * 10^10 * c.

Consider the Earth's orbit around the Sun. It takes light about 8 minutes to travel the distance. If gravity takes that long, then the Earth should feel the tug of gravity not where the Sun is, but where it was 8 minutes ago. This should cause gravitational drag. Though this is small over short time scales, over a 5 billion (10^9) year time scale, the Earth's orbit isn't stable.

The argument continues that since the Earth's orbit appears to be stable, gravity must move faster.

I haven't heard a really good counter argument.

here is the pdf (save and open with pdf-viewer) called "Light-cone effect on the Shapiro Time Delay". This is prob what you want. As You pointed out, some good info is found here. Noone ever expected the result to be different!

No reason to be pissed off now, his calculations have already been shown to be in error.

Like gravity is the speed of light?

Next they will be saying that gravity is always the speed of light. Wait, doesn't that mean that when light is in a gravitational pull it goes slower, so gravity goes slower in gravity? Pretty stupid, doncha think?

We actually expect gravitational radiation to be influenced by gravity, because the source of gravity is relativistic mass-energy, and the gravitational field has energy, like all fields. Thus, the gravitational field self-couples; this is what makes general relativity a nonlinear theory.

This view is a lot more senseble in my position:
The Speed of gravity, and more! (MetaResearch.org)

Also relevant are Low's and Carlip's papers on the theory regarding the speed of gravity.

Also relevant are Low's and Carlip's papers on the theory regarding the speed of gravity.

Physicists have been accused of being loose with rigour, but this is really stretching it.

That's an excellent measurement for astrophysics. Recall, there was a recent announcement that astronomers are 95% certain that the age of the universe is between 11 and 20 billion (thousand million in the UK) years old. That's 15.5 plus or minus 29%.

If you read the original paper proposing the measurements back in July, the technique requires interferometric measurements timed to within picoseconds (1e-12 seconds) to give an accuracy of at best plus or minus 10%. That translates to pegging the apparent position of a little speck of light (and radio waves) in the sky to within five millionths of a second of arc. (Roughly speaking, that's the apparent width of a bacterium at twenty miles.) I think that they did a pretty good job to be able to call the number to within 25%, especially given that nobody has ever attempted this sort of measurement before.

No doubt it will be refined in the future; meanwhile, it's another piece of evidence which supports a subtle result general relativity. GR is a really neat theory, in that it made predictions and had consequences that we are still only beginning to be able to test nearly a century later. Even more interesting, it has yet to be contradicted by a reproducible experimental result. Hats off to Einstein, yet again.

van Flandern is wrong. See also this paper.

van Flandern is wrong. See also this paper.

Tom van Flandern is a well-known crank. (I understand he did some decent scientific work some time ago, but he's very ignorant of general relativity.) van Flandern haunted Usenet long enough and misled enough layman that a gravitational physicist, Steve Carlip, finally wrote a paper debunking van Flandern's claims.

In Newtonian physics, lots of things are assumed to happen instantaneously (like gravity) so they don't have a speed per se. But in general relativity, everything has a speed -- and that speed is no greater than the speed of light.

The only problem is that GR implicitly assumes that information is available instantaneously over great distances while denying its existence.

The reason is simple. In order for gravity to propagate at c and still result in stable planetary orbits, general relativists have to get on their heads and do a neutron dance, so to speak. They claim that information about the source velocity of body A is transmitted at c to body B. They call it "velocity-dependent interactions." This way body B can react to the actual (extrapolated, of course, from the transmitted velocity info) instantaneous position of body A. This way GR can reproduce the stable-orbit results of Newtonian gravity in weak field approximations without assuming instantaneous information at a distance.

The theory can be found in this paper by GR expert Steve Carlip.

The problem with this is that instantaneous information at a distance is implied from the start. How can body A know about its instantaneous velocity relative to body B (they could be light years apart within a galaxy)?Furthermore, if the instantaneous relative velocity is already available to both bodies, why transmit it at all?

This is the sort of nonsense that make the foundations of general relativity very suspect at best. I, for one, do not trust relativists to conduct impartial tests of GR. It's a political game and way too many people have way too much invested in GR being correct for comfort. It's like trusting Big Tobaco to tell the truth about the dangers of smoking. One man's opinion.

Journal inaccessibility is one roadblock for researchers, another is easy and quick access to research data. What if you were able to see research data as it's being produced? That combined with easy access to journal articles, like supplied by the physics eprint archive, would certainly improve the research environment. One of the NSDL collections, the Atmospheric Visualization Collection, allow users to visually explore near real time atmospheric research data for just this purpose.

I would doubt that very many people of the general public would care much less take the time to *read* and understand a scientific paper.

I didn't immediately find the Science article in question online, so maybe it's not available to non-subscribers anyway, but here's a relevant link to a preprint by the primary author.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210006

Note that you can download the full original in PDF, Postscript, or other scientific formats. The PDF is about a half meg in size. and is about 38 pages long.

One big problem is that a random coincidence between four neutrons from unrelated events could masquerade as a tetraneutron. The paper says they have the random-coincidence rate all figured out, but it's the kind of thing that is notoriously hard to be sure about.

With any other exotic nuclear species, you can catch it in a metal foil, and then find out stuff about it, e.g., what particles it emits when it decays. The tetraneutron, if it exists, can only be detected by destroying it, which makes it hard to measure any of its properties. If you can't measure any of its properties, it's pretty hard to be sure it's real.

Relatively Special Relativity
Double Secret Relativity

In fact, physicists call a related theory Doubly Special Relativity, which also attempts to revise Einstein's work.

As someone pointed out, its work in progress(everything is). Kopeikin will try to settle this once and for all but One should know that there is people who disagree with Kopeikin's experiment model(pdf), e.g. H.Asada. He's view is that it will measure the EM speed, which everybody(well almost..) agrees on.In this(pdf) paper he points to the Light-cone effect on the Shapiro time delay (and here is Kopeikin's answer to that). There are a people out there, mostly physics and astronomers who questions the Gravity propagation speed(yeah..what speed are we talking about?), many of them called crackpots. Among famous astronomers you'll find Tom Van Flandern and friends here. You'll find he's wrap-up on the matter here. And if you want more, follow this thread.

Please try to use EM instead of just light, some people get confused :)

As someone pointed out, its work in progress(everything is). Kopeikin will try to settle this once and for all but One should know that there is people who disagree with Kopeikin's experiment model(pdf), e.g. H.Asada. He's view is that it will measure the EM speed, which everybody(well almost..) agrees on.In this(pdf) paper he points to the Light-cone effect on the Shapiro time delay (and here is Kopeikin's answer to that). There are a people out there, mostly physics and astronomers who questions the Gravity propagation speed(yeah..what speed are we talking about?), many of them called crackpots. Among famous astronomers you'll find Tom Van Flandern and friends here. You'll find he's wrap-up on the matter here. And if you want more, follow this thread.

Please try to use EM instead of just light, some people get confused :)

As someone pointed out, its work in progress(everything is). Kopeikin will try to settle this once and for all but One should know that there is people who disagree with Kopeikin's experiment model(pdf), e.g. H.Asada. He's view is that it will measure the EM speed, which everybody(well almost..) agrees on.In this(pdf) paper he points to the Light-cone effect on the Shapiro time delay (and here is Kopeikin's answer to that). There are a people out there, mostly physics and astronomers who questions the Gravity propagation speed(yeah..what speed are we talking about?), many of them called crackpots. Among famous astronomers you'll find Tom Van Flandern and friends here. You'll find he's wrap-up on the matter here. And if you want more, follow this thread.

Please try to use EM instead of just light, some people get confused :)

It seems to me that Michael Eisen and others setting up the PLOS initiative, are trying to appease the big publishing companies (Springer, Elsevier) by appearing not to threaten their cartel on the scientific discourse. The truth is that all scientific journals are dinosaurs from the age of paper. There is simply no reason why a larger version of the arxiv, with electronic peer-review (Slashdot as a model?), would not be a workable substitute for every scientific journal. If the PLOS organisers were to be true to their principles of open science, they would be pushing for an end to the journal system altogether. Physicists are far ahead of the bioscientists in this respect.

It seems to me that Michael Eisen and others setting up the PLOS initiative, are trying to appease the big publishing companies (Springer, Elsevier) by appearing not to threaten their cartel on the scientific discourse. The truth is that all scientific journals are dinosaurs from the age of paper. There is simply no reason why a larger version of the arxiv, with electronic peer-review (Slashdot as a model?), would not be a workable substitute for every scientific journal. If the PLOS organisers were to be true to their principles of open science, they would be pushing for an end to the journal system altogether. Physicists are far ahead of the bioscientists in this respect.

I signed the Open Letter long ago, not because I agreed with every point, but because it was good to see something stir up some noise. I also licensed my thesis under the PLoS license, not because I think it has much legal value (it confuses "public domain" with RMS' concept of copyleft), but because I think that if anybody wants to copy that thesis, it can only help me, and besides the fuzz you created was great! As it turns out, all of those of my childhood friends who have become scientists have independently signed the Open Letter! :-)

One of my main beefs with the PLoS is the insistence of a centralized archive. True, it may be easier to build something good on the top of for example the existing Arxiv.org (I'm an astrophysicist), but decentralization is one of the fundamental principles of the web. It is wise to learn as much as possible from these architectural principles, and make use of them as fast as possible.

I have for long wanted to write an article with the many thoughts I have in my head, but time has not allowed me to. The future of scientific publishing is perhaps the topic that I would most like to work with.

I noted in the Nature debate (which I submitted a link to some time ago), that some of the non-profit publishers wouldn't let go of their published articles because they couldn't ensure the integrity of the articles. This has a rather obvious technical solution to most people here on Slashdot, in the form of signatures. Now that XML Signature is a W3C Recommendation, I think it is just a matter of implementing it, the problem is really solved.

As for finance (now comes the excuse for posting in this thread), it is a problem that needs addressing for the whole Internet community. Many different modes should be available, for example, a nice, printed journal set by a professional typographer will not seize to be attractive although the article is available on the web. Some may well find a steady income there. Also, micropayments is something that is worth checking out.

I would personally like to work on those solutions, so if anybody is hiring... :-)

"It sounds very sympathetic to say this should be available to the public," he said. "But this kind of material is only used by experts."

I have to disagree with this viewpoint. Just because the majority of people who want to get to this information are "experts" doesn't mean you shouldn't make it available to everyone. There are plenty of people (I am one of them) who have an interest in various scientific fields and like to read papers and yet who aren't studying for their PHDs. When are they going to start one of these journals for physics! (I guess there is Arxiv.)

Some people have said that lots of scientific work is copyrighted/patented, but that doesn't prevent free distribution. The whole _point_ of the patent process is to give the patentee a guaranteed limited monopoly so that they _will_ immediately publish their works, instead of hording them as secrets. Free distribution doesn't mean noone can make any money.

Really, this seems like the trend that is happening in many areas where distribution has hitherto been controlled by a small group of publishers, due to the high cost of publishing. The internet can change the way we distribute information without killing commerce!

At least Nature (the magazine) isn't passing their own version of the DMCA...

Many authors of scientific papers, at least in Physics, Math, and CS are making preprints available for free on arXiv.org. This is a great site, and as a fellow scientist, I for one would like to see more authors do this and make their knowledge accessible to those who don't want to feed greedy journal publishers.

The paper raises some valid questions however, including the general point that statistical analysis of misprints can give an insight into the process of scientific writing.

It's rather funny because the misrepresentation of this paper in the New Scientist raises the larger question about the meaning of 'reading a scientific paper'.

For example, you could have one person who just runs their eyes through a entire paper on autopilot, without thinking about it much. Another might very carefully read just a tiny section. To what degree have each of these people legitimately read the paper that they cite?

In these days with the explosion of knowledge and correspondent explosion in pages and pages of references in scientific papers, perhaps there needs to be a revamp in the standards for citations. For example, how about an extra sentence in each citation which explains the relevance of the citation to the author's own paper? I know that would certainly make citations a lot more meaningful to me when I scan through them.

mhack

References:

1. Scientists exposed as sloppy reporters , Hazel Muir, New Scientist, 9:3014December02. This is the reference to the New Scientist article which was the main subject of the slashdot post

2. Read before you cite! , Simkin and Roychowdhury.This is the paper which did a statistical analysis of scientific misprints

When I was a postdoc at Argonne National Lab, my group's policy was that every group member got his name on every paper. On this paper, one of my coauthors refused to read the paper before publication. He said he was busy, and it was a long paper. I wanted to take his name off, but he insisted on having it on. This is not uncommon at all. I'm just quoting an example that I know of from personal experience.

There was a recent scandal where a group at Berkeley claimed to have discovered a new element. Later on, it turned out that the evidence had been fabricated. However, the group claimed it was only one guy who was a loose cannon who had invented the data. In other words, if it was right, they were ready to take credit. But if it turned out to be a fraud, they had plausible deniability.

There is huge pressure on young people in the sciences to establish a long list of publications, because permanent jobs are so hard to get. Another common phenomenon is where you have a senior administrator at a lab who "blesses" every paper done at the lab, and gets his name on every single one of them, even though he never actually makes any scientific contribution.

As for peer review, the same people doing reviews of hardcopy papers can review electronic papers... I don't see why that has to change. The reviewers aren't getting paid either...

BTW, arXiv has a good selection of physics, math, and some CS papers.

I'd mostly agree, but there's an exception to every rule, and in this case it's Greg Egan. Of course, he is able to make up science because he well aware of developments at the cutting edge of mathematical physics; a cosmologist friend of mine was very impressed by the calculations of photon paths near a black hole that Egan has posted on his website, which anticipated some recent work posted to astro-ph.

There are lots of databases that follows this philosophy allready, the NASA Astrophysics Data System, the Digitized Sky Survey, not to speak of the larger arxiv.org. You can all grab whatever you like from there.

That being said, there are a number of amateur astronomers who are extremely dedicated and are willing to obtain the skill needed to use such a system, even if there is a tough learning curve. These can be considered "laymen", but they are actually very good at what they do. That's the kind of "laymen" you would expect to use it. Not Joe Sixpack, but the people who are dedicated enough to learn how to use it.

The idea of discrete spin nodes in one large net was proposed by Roger Penrose several decades ago. It is only since recent that his idea was revived, due to some very influential breakthroughs in Hopf algebra's. This network of causally related space-time cells should have a low energy limit which approximates the universe as we see it (just like relativity approximates Newton for low speeds of light). This low energy limit case is the current goal, verifying that it does approximate our universe will be a large, necessary step.

Funny things: when starting with the space-time cells (nodes), only few laws/axioms are assumed. One of the things is that physics laws in the local cell case need not be exactly the same for every cell, they just need to converge in the limit case. Example: the speed of light need not be the same in each cell. This puzzles me, but let's not forget: it's a model, not universal truth.

Your idea of how the cells influence each other is largely correct. One of the interesting things is that when you model the nodes (using either cycles, like fontini does, or treelike graphs, like Kreimer does, you'll find that only certain transition steps are allowed. Cells can only influence other cells in a few limited ways. I haven't a clue yet how, but I wonder how this translates to the large scale case of our universe.