Slashdot Mirror

Rubbish.

We have had LaTeX for many years and papers are independantly published in LaTeX format. Have a look at arXiv.

Many low luminosity galaxies, although showing evidence of having very massive black holes at their center, appear less bright than expected given the calculated size of their black holes. This has been explained by models which assume that the black holes in question are "underfed", i.e. that there's no longer enough matter close enough to the holes to create larger amounts of radiation.

However, the galaxy described in this paper, NGC4395, is an exception to this scenario, which is why it is interesting. Although it is of similar low luminosity to the galaxies described above, according to this paper, it shows evidence of containing a much smaller black hole than other low-luminosity galaxies. This smaller hole is from 10,000 to 100,000 solar masses, which is small for a galactic-core black hole.

The paper concludes that NGC4395 behaves more like a brighter galaxy with a larger hole, but because its hole is small, it appears dimmer. Attempting to apply the massive-underfed-hole model to this galaxy, based on it having low luminosity, gives incorrect results; instead, the model that applies is that of brighter galaxies with larger holes, except that in this case, the hole is smaller and thus the galaxy dimmer.

The space.com article actually did manage to say something along these lines, but you have to completely ignore the first half of the article, which is confused nonsense, and read the following paragraphs:

Until now, scientists had speculated that black holes residing in galaxies with dim cores - such as NGC 4395 - were either too old or too small to quickly eat up lots of material, as more massive black holes do on a regular basis. But now it seems that "mid-mass" black holes (a new nickname for the smallest type of supermassive black holes) may simply be more efficient matter-eaters.

"We now see that the nuclear source in NGC 4395 is a scaled-down version of black holes found in the most luminous of galaxies," said, Andrew Fabian, another Institute of Astronomy researcher who worked on the discovery. "Everything is the same, only it is smaller."

As a result, some astronomers now think that the total output of X-rays from accreting matter may therefore be more a product of how massive the black hole is, rather than of the luminosity of the region surrounding the black hole, as it once was thought.

I am trying to decide which sucks worse, space.com or salon.com. Instead I will try to answer your questons.

For what it is worth, black holes have a certain effeciency in converting stuff into energy that we can observe. The more effecient they are in converting matter into radio waves, light, and X-rays, the less effecient they are at gobbling up matter. I think that the article uses effecient in two different ways.

Reading the actual abstract you see that the authors are proposing that this object is a smaller mass black hole with a high matter to energy effeciency rather than a larger mass black hole that does not have a lot of fuel to work with. Why this is interesting is beyond me, but then I don't study AGN....

There's a quite interesting couple of pre-prints in the arXiv dealing, in part, with the similarities between quantum logic (not quite the same thing as quantum computing) and cognition. (And don't forget that pre-prints can range from pure nonsense to wonderful - I'm not clever enough to tell where these particular ones lie on that spectrum)

arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007044 - We show how Bell inequalities can be violated in cognition, specifically in the relationship between abstract concepts and specific instances of these concepts. This supports the hypothesis that genuine quantum structure exists in the mind.

To even vaguely understand the above, you'll need to read:
arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007041 Why the Disjunction in Quantum Logic is Not Classical

There's a quite interesting couple of pre-prints in the arXiv dealing, in part, with the similarities between quantum logic (not quite the same thing as quantum computing) and cognition. (And don't forget that pre-prints can range from pure nonsense to wonderful - I'm not clever enough to tell where these particular ones lie on that spectrum)

arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007044 - We show how Bell inequalities can be violated in cognition, specifically in the relationship between abstract concepts and specific instances of these concepts. This supports the hypothesis that genuine quantum structure exists in the mind.

To even vaguely understand the above, you'll need to read:
arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007041 Why the Disjunction in Quantum Logic is Not Classical

There's a quite interesting couple of pre-prints in the arXiv dealing, in part, with the similarities between quantum logic (not quite the same thing as quantum computing) and cognition. (And don't forget that pre-prints can range from pure nonsense to wonderful - I'm not clever enough to tell where these particular ones lie on that spectrum)

arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007044 - We show how Bell inequalities can be violated in cognition, specifically in the relationship between abstract concepts and specific instances of these concepts. This supports the hypothesis that genuine quantum structure exists in the mind.

To even vaguely understand the above, you'll need to read:
arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0007041 Why the Disjunction in Quantum Logic is Not Classical

• This is science by press release again. There's no link from the press release to any technical report, and the language of the press release seems to be written to attract attention.

• There are several papers by Arkani-Hamed on arXiv, if you want to get technical details (although it's hard to tell whether the work referred to in the press release actually has already been published).

• Modeling the universe with more than 3+1 dimensions to account for the various forces has been common since the 20's, and it's already a big part of string theory. If the press release reflects what's in the papers, it appears, however, that Arkani-Hamed and co-authors are claiming that the extra dimensions are spatially extended.

As for experiments... well, the article discusses experiments to test for the existence of these "large" extra dimensions, but "small" (Planck-scale) effects are much harder to see.

Quantum computers can facilitate perfectly secure communications (even key exchange) with man-in-the-middle detection via polarized light.

Some basic information on quantum computers is available at this link.

Basically, quantum computers could be good at cracking rsa encryption because of their exponentially smaller time-space requirements in searching for a factorization. Here is Shor's famous paper on the subject..

Quantum computers are not just "faster" computers, they are a different beast altogether. Sometimes, they may act as infinitely parallel devices, and for other operations, they may be totally worthless.
---

See this aarticle for a refutation of Misner's flawed work. They point out that the serious problems that Misner attributes to Yilmaz theory actually applies to GR, not Yilmaz theory!

Yilmaz Cancels Newton (gr-qc/9504050)

Charles Misner is one of the three authors (with John Wheeler and Kip Thorne) of Gravitation, the standard reference work on GR.

Anyone in favor of a stationary Solar System over our current, orbiting configuration, please raise your hand.

I don't know what it would take... it might not even be theoretically possible. For more information, go to gr-qc archives and do an author search on Krasnikov or Visser. Also check out Visser's superb book Lorentzian Wormholes. There is also at least one regular reader of sci.physics.relativity who knows a fair amount about this stuff if you want to ask questions.

I don't know what it would take... it might not even be theoretically possible. For more information, go to gr-qc archives and do an author search on Krasnikov or Visser. Also check out Visser's superb book Lorentzian Wormholes. There is also at least one regular reader of sci.physics.relativity who knows a fair amount about this stuff if you want to ask questions.

I don't know what it would take... it might not even be theoretically possible. For more information, go to gr-qc archives and do an author search on Krasnikov or Visser. Also check out Visser's superb book Lorentzian Wormholes. There is also at least one regular reader of sci.physics.relativity who knows a fair amount about this stuff if you want to ask questions.

Read the original report for a much better description of how this is supposed to be accomplished.

~/cybe

__________

On the other hand, when applied to quantum gravity, the Euclidean (imaginary time) theory might not actually be equivalent to the Lorentzian (real time) theory. Euclidean and Lorentzian quantum gravity don't appear to be equivalent in 2D spacetime. No one knows if this is true in 4D spacetime. And if they're not equivalent, people don't know yet which approach should be considered correct if they both reduce to general relativity in the classical limit. Most researchers would probably be inclined to choose Lorentzian over Euclidean if they are inequivalent unless Lorentzian has inherent flaws (i.e., not just difficulty in doing calculations) that Euclidean doesn't or if experimental evidence supports Euclidean over Lorentzian.

Spacetime explained through knot equations? You may be thinking of loop quantum gravity (slightly easier article also available).

The authors have some online preprints available

www.arxiv.org should work if you are filtered out from xxx.lanl.gov or its mirrors.

And why was it xxx.lanl.gov in the first place? No real reason, apparently.

www.arxiv.org should work if you are filtered out from xxx.lanl.gov or its mirrors.

And why was it xxx.lanl.gov in the first place? No real reason, apparently.

``...two sets of functions are of special--although certainly not exclusive--interest. These are the functions that are computable by an idealized human being who is unaided by machinery, and the functions that are in principle computable in the real world, which is to say, are computable by machines, or organs, or in general entities, that physically could exist, given the resources on offer in the real world, even if they do not actually exist, nor ever do so. Turing argued, we think persuasively, that the first of these sets is coincident with the set of Turing-machine-computable functions. We believe that the extent of the second set is an open, empirical question. [...]

...it would--or should--be one the greatest astonishments of science if the activity of Mother Nature were never to stray beyond the bounds of Turing-machine-computability.''

Copeland believes, like Penrose, that the mind is NOT a Turing machine! On the other hand the best analysis of modern physics indicates that any finite physical process, understood by modern physics, can be simulated efficiently, i.e. with a number of gates polynomial in the size of the system, by a Quantum network. Copeland believes that Deustch is wrong not because he is too radical but because he is too conservative. (A Turing machine can perfectly simulate a Quantum computer although it is VERY UNLIKELY it can do it efficiently-- if it could we could crack RSA in real-time on your linux box.)

A. Wait.

Since you apparently didn't read up on Jacobson's work like I suggested, let me cite it again. Yes, you can get effects similar to Hawking radiation without an actual black hole. And if they can do it in a superfluid, I don't think it's beyond conception that it could be done in a Bose-Einstein condensate.

Related subject: Jacobson and Volovik have done some work on making superfluid black hole analogues instead of the optical ones being discussed here.

The code is already there. Some on-line science publisher could easily set this up. Question is, would the science community really like being "moderated" in this way, even if it is by their own selves?

I work for the Physical Review journals of the American Physical Society - we've been strong supporters of some of these new ideas, including creating a new mirror of the Los Alamos XXX/arXiv site. Since it's part of my job to bring up new ideas, I've been thinking of setting up a /. site for physics here - having the latest slashdot code available would probably help us get going...

I think scientists really would support something that worked as well as /. seems to. The critical thing is getting enough comments and contributors - if you only get 1 comment or rating for every 100 featured articles (as some trial comment systems out there seem to), you just won't have a statistically valid sampling, no matter how unbiased your pool of moderators attempts to be. Part of the difficulty of doing this (and why Lederman's probably wrong that this will make anybody a pot of money) is that most scientific articles are pretty boring, and you have to motivate reviewers with some sense of duty or something to get even one or two of them to read an article with any degree of care. But it's definitely worth experimenting with - something along these lines has GOT to be the way to go in the long run, we just haven't quite figured out the systemic structures needed yet...

On DejaNews you can find a post on behalf of Paul Ginsparg commenting on some other posts, summarizing his views of online journals and such. (Paul is the maintainer of the LANL physics preprint archives, the premier online repository of physics research preprints.) If you search sci.math.research for posts by Greg Kuperberg, you can find his opinions on the math archives that he maintains.

I should note that there are real practical and even theoretical problems in trying to engineer a warp drive. It may be physically impossible.

In particular no one ever argues that there are inconsistencies with the theory of gravity.

There's plenty of argument. It's just that no government or religion has an opinion on the subject.

Check out the LANL archive of physics preprints, especially in the General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology section. They argue about inconsistencies all the time (or rather, how to eliminate them).

Also remember that the people who raise "inconsistencies" in evolutionary theory are usually not scientists or even people who have a rudimentary knowledge of what evolution is. (And yes, before anyone brings him up, I know of Michael Behe. He is a biochemist. One can be a successful biochemist, if highly specialized, while being very confused about evolution. I know; I worked in a biochemistry lab for a year.)

Robert Kern

kern at caltech.edu

Paul Ginsparg's e-print server began as an automated e-mail archive of high-energy physics theory papers in 1991. xxx.lanl.gov (now also known as arXiv.org is now the primary source of online literature in Physics and Mathematics.