Slashdot Mirror

John Baez is a well-known mathematician/math. physicist who works in, among other things, quantum gravity. He is also very well known for the Usenet column This week's finds in mathematical physics, which is certainly worth a look a t if you're at all interested in these things and have a bit of a mathematics background.

One of the great things about TWFiMP is the writing style: when reading it, one really does get the idea that one understands what's going on. Of course this tends to wear off soon after leaving the computer, but. At any rate, many of the TWFiMP talk about spin networks and quantum gravity, including for example week 43 and week 55. Week 110 talks specificially about Penrose's spin networks. He mentions some of Markopoulou's work in week 99, week 114 and week 133. These might provide a bit of a middle-ground between the very fluffy SciAm article and the hard stuff on arXiv.

Of course there is also Markopoulou's recent expository article, which is a great introduction!

John Baez is a well-known mathematician/math. physicist who works in, among other things, quantum gravity. He is also very well known for the Usenet column This week's finds in mathematical physics, which is certainly worth a look a t if you're at all interested in these things and have a bit of a mathematics background.

One of the great things about TWFiMP is the writing style: when reading it, one really does get the idea that one understands what's going on. Of course this tends to wear off soon after leaving the computer, but. At any rate, many of the TWFiMP talk about spin networks and quantum gravity, including for example week 43 and week 55. Week 110 talks specificially about Penrose's spin networks. He mentions some of Markopoulou's work in week 99, week 114 and week 133. These might provide a bit of a middle-ground between the very fluffy SciAm article and the hard stuff on arXiv.

Of course there is also Markopoulou's recent expository article, which is a great introduction!

John Baez is a well-known mathematician/math. physicist who works in, among other things, quantum gravity. He is also very well known for the Usenet column This week's finds in mathematical physics, which is certainly worth a look a t if you're at all interested in these things and have a bit of a mathematics background.

One of the great things about TWFiMP is the writing style: when reading it, one really does get the idea that one understands what's going on. Of course this tends to wear off soon after leaving the computer, but. At any rate, many of the TWFiMP talk about spin networks and quantum gravity, including for example week 43 and week 55. Week 110 talks specificially about Penrose's spin networks. He mentions some of Markopoulou's work in week 99, week 114 and week 133. These might provide a bit of a middle-ground between the very fluffy SciAm article and the hard stuff on arXiv.

Of course there is also Markopoulou's recent expository article, which is a great introduction!

...can be found in the arXiv database. A search for Fotini gives ten results between 1997 and 2002, most of them published in well-known journals, such as Phys. Rev. D, Nucl. Phys. B etc. Not that I understand any of it, by the way...

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203036 for those of you that have advanced degrees in physics... could the rest of us have a translation? Of course I could be off with the publication, but it is hers and it's the only one Perimeter Institute had for her, and the introduction implies gravity with quantum physics... just a disclaimer. I don't have that advanced physics degree yet.

au=Markopoulou_F

What I find even more surprising/disturbing is what is being done at www.umi.com. The link is especially pertinent to those of you out there who have written or are going to write a dissertation that is filed away at your University's library. If you have already written a Ph.D. dissertation, go ahead and see if your dissertation is listed. If you've just recently written it and it is listed, most likely it is also available for download at a price! Now, mind you, none of that money goes to YOU the one who researched, wrote, stayed up late hours of the night to ponder and rewrite! Every last dime probably goes to UMI (and their partners). I don't know what sort of questionable business contracts UMI has with your University's library or the Library of Congress, but I know someone out there is profiting from works that others so painstakingly prepared. This racket has yet to be fully scrutinized.

Lets make no mistake of it. The SIIA is as bad if not worse than MPAA, RIAA, and Microsoft who are using bullying tactics to maintain their monopolistic grasp on a niche (but very important for the advancement of humankind) market. The information published by the scientific community wants to be free--why else would researchers write and publish THEIR work? The cost is now so restrictive, that those of us who should be benefiting and learning from the information (the lowly students) cannot afford to do so!

Graduate students make somewhere between $15,000 to $22,000 a year. Bear in mind that most journals cost somewhere from $100 to $200 (or more) a year to subscribe. And for me, a grad student in the biomedical sciences, I scan somewhere around two dozen different journals. If I had to pay for access for all of these journals, I'd have to shell out somewhere between $2400 to $4800 a year--a good 10-25% of my salary!

I'm glad /. put this article on the frontpage because it outlines how dire the situation truly is. Forget about music and movies, this directly pertains to a lot of livelihoods and careers of /. readers--their bread-n-butter. At least ponder this: at a time when technology can easily publish scientific material, why are we allowing these large publishers to hoard and monopolize OUR own work and making it difficult for us to access that material at the same time? (This is a rhetorical question, obviously; and I'm sure you have lots to say why we allow it. But really, the answer appears to be so simple, but so out of reach.)

Since this discussion goes back to Sokal's hoax, I recommend looking at Sokal's own work. His own papers are largely about obscure properties of lattice models in statistical mechanics. For much of this kind of work, it is far from clear whether it is relevant to any real physical system, or whether some of the assumptions under which they are proven are even mathematically meaningful or consistent. In mathematics, if you start with inconsistent assumptions, you can prove anything. Sokal's own field would have been another good target for a physics hoax, although string theory clearly beats lattice methods to the punch.

The other highly suspcious aspect of this whole affair is that the work was never published online prior to being submitted to a journal.

Some background for non-physicists: thesedays the primary venue for publishing new works is the arXiv. Several hundred papers per day are uploaded here in various categories, and it is the de facto standard library of modern research in physics.

After publishing your work on the arXiv, physicists around the work can and will read your paper and submit feedback. Typically, after publication on the arXiv you might submit your work to a paper-based journal, but this is only a secondary procedure, and the only real point is to give you bonus points for your resume.

Here is the main point:

No-one reads paper journals any more!

The fact that the Bogdanov papers were never uploaded to the arxiv meant that apart from the 2 referees (who basically seem to have abdicated responsibility), no-one had, or ever would have read their work!.

If the authors were serious researchers, they would have submitted their work to the arxiv so it could be read and critiqued by their peers.

From my ARRL Handbook (p. 2-7, 1993 Ed.), the definition of dBm = 10 * log(P / mW). Frequency is irrelevant.

Thus, P = 10 **(dBm / 10) * mW. 30 dBm = 10**3 mW = 1 Watt.

My point about hot spots is that what's relevant to sparking is not absolute power fed into the cavity, but energy density stored a the hot spots of the cavity, which can be substantially higher. Of course, an airplane cabin is not a terribly high-Q cavity, so the energy storage factor will not be much greater than 1, but the role of the cavity in creating hot spots is potentially much more serious. See T. Hondou, "Rising Level of Public Exposure to Mobile Phones: Accumulation through Additivity and Reflectivity" for details.

The preprint is posted on the arXiv.org web site, which is exactly that, a place to put preprints. Preprints that appear there have not been subject to peer review, so at this point, this is an annoucement of a result, which is very different than a number of mathematicians with the appropriate background agreeing that this is a proof.

The abstract from the arXiv is:
This paper proves that any simply connected closed three dimensional stellar manifold is stellar equivalent to the three dimensional sphere.

and the intro of the paper says that "Since every 3-dimensional manifold can be triangulated and any two stellar equivalent manifolds are PL homeomorphic, our result does imply the famous Poincare conjecture."

There is a nice front end to the math part of the arXiv from UC-Davis at this link

Way to go, Macarthur Foundation!

I read somewhere that if you have a major computational problem ("major" meaning "I'm buying a big honkin' cluster that's going to hammer away at it for years") then the cheapest and fastest way to solve it is to figure out how long it would take a currently available setup to solve the problem, and sit back until at least half that time has elapsed before buying the hardware.

C. Gottbrath, J. Bailin, C. Meakin, T. Thompson and J. Charfman, "The Effects of Moore's Law and Slacking on Large Computations," manuscript, Astrophysics ePrint archive, 1999.

This is Mr. Kopeikin's actual paper in PDF format. You can go to this site for other formats.

Warning: The paper contains some very seriously heavy math. It uses things like the Euler Gamma function, Lorentz factors and stuff like that. You have been warned.

This is Mr. Kopeikin's actual paper in PDF format. You can go to this site for other formats.

Warning: The paper contains some very seriously heavy math. It uses things like the Euler Gamma function, Lorentz factors and stuff like that. You have been warned.

I'm glad someone mentioned G&T, and not just because my PhD supervisor is one of the managing editors, and my MSc supervisor is the other one :)

If I remember correctly, the whole thing was sparked off by Rob Kirby's article on the pricing of research journals. There's an interesting article by Joan Birman in the Notices of the AMS (vol 4, no. 7, Aug 2000, pp770-774) which discusses the various issues, and includes detailed discussion of the day-to-day overheads of running a free, properly peer-refereed research journal. It's available from her web page, in PostScript form.

G&T (and its sister journal Algebraic and Geometric Topology, and the related Monograph series) isn't some low-quality vanity-press thing - it's a real, proper, peer-refereed journal with high standards. At a quick glance, I recognise the names of three Fields medallists on the editorial board, as well as some other very eminent names in the field. And yet it's being run with virtually no overheads by two university lecturers (one of whom is semi-retired) in addition to their normal departmental duties (lecturing, administration, supervising research students).

I understand that a lot of the procedure is automated, with a mixture of TeX and Perl, with copies of all articles being submitted to the arXIv.

Ah yes, I'd almost forgotten about the arXiv. A central repository for research preprints in mathematics, physics, and computer science. It's an unrefereed archive for research announcements, preliminary reports, and preprints. Papers submitted to refereed journals often take up to a couple of years to actually appear in print, so the idea is that you issue a preliminary version of your paper to faster communicate your ideas to anyone else who might be interested.

This stuff is great - it's all about collaborative research and the free and efficient sharing of ideas, and it gives me a great sense of hope for the future.

-- nicholas

One never actually fell back to the journals unless the paper predated the early 90s. People would reference other peoples work via the e-print archive reference number. e-prints circulated so widely that most major papers had already been read and reviewed by the relavent people long before it actually hit the official peer review process at the journals. By the time a paper made it into the journals it was VERY old news.

Yes, people still submitted their papers to the standard APS journals for publication, but nobody read them. Everybody read the e-print archive. Most people couldn't even tell you what journal most of the articles had been published in, nobody cared.

Anyway, I wish Brown all the best success, but as others have mentioned, it's a somewhat harder problem than it first seems (at least he's asking for $20 million, which is somewhat realistic for handling real peer review for a substantial number of articles - 10's of thousands at least).

What's behind this nebulous "peer review" concept, at least for us, is a complex and historically based system of checks and balances involving communications between authors, editors, and (anonymous and non-anonymous) reviewers; we're essentially a legal/court system for scientific articles. There's a lot of information-related issues in there, and information technology helps a lot (that's the part I'm involved in). But fundamentally, at least the way we do it, there needs to be a paid, responsible human being reading most communications and monitoring the process, and as far as we've been able to work out, you can't get the cost under about $500 or so per article.

Now, just distributing the papers can be done essentially for free (to as many people as would want to read for about $1-5 per article, for hardware, software, disk, network, etc.) which is what the famous physics e-print archive does so well. Of course it doesn't cost publishers any more than that to distribute articles online either - the costs are in the review part (and whatever copyediting they do), not in distribution.

You'll hear about journals now that are essentially free - this is almost always for one of two reasons:

1. The journal is very small, and some institution is picking up all the salary and incidental costs - $500/article works out to just $50,000/year for a 100 article/year journal.
   
2. The journal is heavily skimping on the "peer review" side of things - publishing conference proceedings papers for example with no review beyond the acceptance of the paper at the conference. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not what we normally mean by peer review.
   

Given the $500/article cost, the other question is does science really need this level of peer review, or can it get by with less? Well, we've already seen a couple of instances of scientific fraud that slipped by in physics in the last few months even with the current level of review - is skimping really a good idea? And is the $500 minimal cost or even $1000-$2000 typical cost per article now all that bad, compared to the typical $50,000-$100,000 research grant that generally funded such research?

Yet another proposed solution has been to publish fewer papers in those journals that receive the full peer-review treatment. Unless authors miraculously constrain themselves somehow, the only way that would save us money would be to reject a lot of things without review (because the costs are in the review process itself) - but then you've thrown out the whole "peer" process you're using to determine what's published!

So, maybe Brown has found a way through this morass - but the scientific system has a complex, little studied dynamic in which peer review as it currently stands plays an important role... if we really can't afford it (the old way) any more, we're headed into some uncharted waters...

CiteSeer is great but mostly links to articles published elsewhere. A better example (physics, math, computer science, and nonlinear systems) is lanl.arxiv.org (also at xxx.lanl.gov). Does anyone know a good history of this database and how these disciplines have seemed to escape from published journals as being the only available source for published articles?

Bayesian filters for spam have extensively been studied and compared in the last few years.

• An evaluation of Naive Bayesian anti-spam filtering
• An Experimental Comparison of Naive Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Personal E-mail Messages
• Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A Comparison of a Naive Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach

Recently more filtering methods have been studied.

It's good to see someone implementing these techniques

Bayesian filters for spam have extensively been studied and compared in the last few years.

• An evaluation of Naive Bayesian anti-spam filtering
• An Experimental Comparison of Naive Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Personal E-mail Messages
• Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A Comparison of a Naive Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach

Recently more filtering methods have been studied.

It's good to see someone implementing these techniques

Bayesian filters for spam have extensively been studied and compared in the last few years.

• An evaluation of Naive Bayesian anti-spam filtering
• An Experimental Comparison of Naive Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Personal E-mail Messages
• Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: A Comparison of a Naive Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach

Recently more filtering methods have been studied.

It's good to see someone implementing these techniques

Even constantly improving the model!

Even constantly improving the model!

suspect that gravitons are the particle representation of quantum physicists' inability to think of things other than particles

Sounds like this guy has a favorite hammer, and he's now convinced that everything looks like a nail.

Some fairly serious criticisms of MOND have been raised, which to my knowledge have not been adequately addressed. See this paper and also this one.

Some fairly serious criticisms of MOND have been raised, which to my knowledge have not been adequately addressed. See this paper and also this one.

BTW he is only talking about the observable universe in considering its computational capacity. For all we know the entire universe is infinite, but we can only see a finite bubble about 13 billion light years in radius. That's the part Lloyd is considering.

The number 3+7+127=137 is just a rough qualitative first cut. When properly refined, the bit-string physics model predicts 137.0359 674 vs. the experimental 137.0359 895(61). See this paper for more details.

Check out my paper (to appear tomorrow at http://arxiv.org/list/cs/new - cs.NI/0205058). From the abstract:
"We propose centralized algorithm of dat distribution in the unicast p2p network. Good example of such networks are meshes of WWW and FTP mirrors. Simulation of data propogation for different network topologies is performed and it is shown that proposed method performs up to 200% better then common apporaches".

here and here.

Finally a changing speed of light is predicted in a DSR approach here.

People who are interested in this stuff should check out this preprint by Duff, Okun, and Veneziano:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110060

It's a discussion of how many "dimensionful" fundamental constants there really are. I went to a seminar given by Mike Duff here in Ann Arbor and he had me pretty well convinced that the only numbers that matter are things like alpha, and if you were to change c, h, etc together in ways which left alpha unchanged you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

They're basing this assertion on just two small medium-small quakes each, spaced 19 and 26 seconds apart respectively.

Not quite. If you read the report by the researchers (Two Seismic Events with the Properties for the Passage of Strange Quark Matter Through the Earth), you will see that they are basing their findings on much more than "just two small medium-small quakes each," as you say.

Take a look at the caption on page six, which gives a short summary of why they do not believe the seismic activities are due to earthquakes, but, instead, ton-size strange quark nuggets.

The original article can be found on the pre-print archives:

http://www.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205089

Note also that strangelets may not be the only candidates.

Their paper.

"Two Seismic Evens with the Properties for the Passage of Strange Quark Matter Through the Earth"

The Cyclic Universe: An Informal Introduction
Authors: Paul J. Steinhardt, Neil Turok

The Cyclic Model is a radical, new cosmological scenario which proposes that the Universe undergoes an endless sequence of epochs which begin with a `big bang' and end in a `big crunch.' When the Universe bounces from contraction to re-expansion, the temperature and density remain finite. The model does not include a period of rapid inflation, yet it reproduces all of the successful predictions of standard big bang and inflationary cosmology. We point out numerous novel elements that have not been used previously which may open the door to further alternative cosmologies. Although the model is motivated by M-theory, branes and extra-dimensions, here we show that the scenario can be described almost entirely in terms of conventional 4d field theory and 4d cosmology.

In spite of the "informal" claim, the paper is fairly dense - IAAPA (I am a professional astronomer) and I found it heavy going. But the link above has PDF versions if you're interested.

At the time being, you are right. But you are wrong if you say that "quantum crypto only works over single lengths of fibre"... There exist proposals for quantum repeaters (see here), and it has been shown that the very techniques used for the repeaters can be used for cryptographic tasks (see here).

At the time being, you are right. But you are wrong if you say that "quantum crypto only works over single lengths of fibre"... There exist proposals for quantum repeaters (see here), and it has been shown that the very techniques used for the repeaters can be used for cryptographic tasks (see here).

This is also called a scale-free network, and the research on it, by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (currently at Notre Dame U) is in this week's New Scientist.

There are a quite few papers on this topic (behaviour of disordered networks) by Barabasi and one of his research students, Reka Albert (now probably graduated), most of which are available from his research group's website or from arXiv.

Particular highlights:

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science 286, 509, (1999)

A-L. Barabasi, R. Albert and H. Jeong, Scale-free characteristics of random networks: The topology of the World Wide Web, Physica A 281, 69-77 (2000).

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality, Physcal Review Letters 85 5234 (2000).

This work is an interesting counterpoint to the 'small world' networks of Watts and Strogatz:

D.J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks, Nature 393, 440-442, (1998).

D.J. Watts, Small Worlds, Princeton University Press, (1999).

This is also called a scale-free network, and the research on it, by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (currently at Notre Dame U) is in this week's New Scientist.

There are a quite few papers on this topic (behaviour of disordered networks) by Barabasi and one of his research students, Reka Albert (now probably graduated), most of which are available from his research group's website or from arXiv.

Particular highlights:

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science 286, 509, (1999)

A-L. Barabasi, R. Albert and H. Jeong, Scale-free characteristics of random networks: The topology of the World Wide Web, Physica A 281, 69-77 (2000).

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality, Physcal Review Letters 85 5234 (2000).

This work is an interesting counterpoint to the 'small world' networks of Watts and Strogatz:

D.J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks, Nature 393, 440-442, (1998).

D.J. Watts, Small Worlds, Princeton University Press, (1999).

This is also called a scale-free network, and the research on it, by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (currently at Notre Dame U) is in this week's New Scientist.

There are a quite few papers on this topic (behaviour of disordered networks) by Barabasi and one of his research students, Reka Albert (now probably graduated), most of which are available from his research group's website or from arXiv.

Particular highlights:

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science 286, 509, (1999)

A-L. Barabasi, R. Albert and H. Jeong, Scale-free characteristics of random networks: The topology of the World Wide Web, Physica A 281, 69-77 (2000).

A-L. Barabasi and R. Albert, Topology of evolving networks: local events and universality, Physcal Review Letters 85 5234 (2000).

This work is an interesting counterpoint to the 'small world' networks of Watts and Strogatz:

D.J. Watts and S.H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks, Nature 393, 440-442, (1998).

D.J. Watts, Small Worlds, Princeton University Press, (1999).

Of course, it's not really suited for writing the quick english assignment, but then again, why use Word for that? Any of the others work perfectly.

Read, for instance, this paper on the astrophysical evidence for black hole event horizons.

The paper was originally published on 9/11/01 and revised 4 times thereafter, the most recent being about a month ago.

It's only a matter of time before other fields catch up. Remember, the web was invented for the purpose of high energy physicists at the CERN and SLAC labs being able to look up citations online, so we've got a ten year head start on, say, historians or economists.

Wait.. no, this was the link that got cut off before it displayed. I'm sorry, i'm really stupid. I should have used "preview" :P Sorry!

http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0202174

link to paper, read and then we discuss