Slashdot Mirror

There is a new MNRAS paper on reconnection in grbs http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.0219... but what I'm thinking of is a sulution to a lack of plasma around a black hole pair. The orbits are all unstable so matter should be consumed prior to merger. What then emits light? Magnetic reconnection can produce a pair plasma, and on a large enough scale, it might be Compton thick (briefly). You might end up with an isotropic (ish) burst as the plasma decays....

Disclaimer: I am no physicist, I just read the papers and quote them :)

There is this paper which does some speculation for what could have been the cause: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.0473...

It says that the "hydrogen envelope" (probably most of the star), would be required to be ejected before the merger, otherwise it would choke the whole gamma ray burst already, meaning that we wouldn't have detected detect a gamma ray burst the first place if there was a hydrogen envelope. Probably something would have happened what happens right now in the sun, the "envelope" would convert the gamma ray radiation to lower frequency radiation, like visible light.

So you might be right with most of the star being already gone when the event happened.

The paper also tries to find an explanation on the cause for the delay:

"For a progenitor star in the mass range [of 100 to 1000 solar masses], most of the observed 0.4 s delay can be accounted for by the neutrino cooling timescale or by the extra time it takes the GRB to jet to cross the star relative to GWs for a jet Lorentz factor of [gamma around 4-7]".

I admit I can't really understand what they said here. The "neutrino cooling" is most likely cooling by neutrino radiation.
But all references to neutrino cooling I could find in the paper indicate that this cooling is happening before the two black holes form, as a requirement for their formation, and not as an event between the BH merger and the GRB emission.
Also I'm not sure what this has to do with a jet. I mean jets are these matter streams that leave an object at relativistic speeds (therefore also the Lorentz factor mention). But it is very unlikely that for the first GW we detect (GWs get emitted into all directions) we also detect a GRB emission which only gets to us because of a jet being targeted at us (something that affects only a tiny fraction of the star's sky), isn't it?

There's a reason for this. They use a neural network and an absolutely massive dataset. They seeded this data set with GOOG-411 a few years before Google Now came out. Microsoft did the same thing with BING-411 when GOOG-411 shut down and now we have Cortana.

All of the reasons are market / bullshit based. We had more options a decade ago for offline recognition then we do now and your jumbling training datasets and running set together as if they are the same.

If you believe there is any technical reason we can't have useful offline recognition: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.0318...

Out af an academic interest, blind computation (remote execution of an encrypted client's program on encrypted client's data) is possible in theory, but it's very far from being todays' technology. It's possible both classically (with computational complexity assumptions), and quantum (unconditionally secure in theory).

Every human activity has a cost. Nothing is free in this world.

Who will pay to publish and host these papers? Advertisement? How well did that turn out for the Internet?

Oh who oh who would do such a thing?

I'm not in academia, but I've published a bunch of (mostly IT security) research to be freely read by the public under my own copyright or the copyright of a company that's hired me. My serious question is: what is to prevent individual researchers from just publishing what they have as a PDF or WordPress article on a random site on the Internet? (e.g. are there rules in their contract that says they can only publish through so-and-so service, who has the copyright of academic research, etc.)

In part, this is what preprint servers like arxiv and bioarxiv are for.

However, there are deeper-rooted, cultural issues at play here. Academics are rated on their job performance (for keeping your position, finding tenure-track positions, and later attaining tenure) based upon their peer-reviewed publications. Traditionally, this has meant going through the private, paywalled journals.Likewise, getting grants requires publications in peer-reviewed journals, rather than just posting online.

Now, posting in open access journals (like the PLOS family of journals, PeerJ, etc.) helps here, since at the least the access isn't paywalled. But now the academic / lab itself has to pay a much larger publication fee. (Often on the order of $1500 per article.) Moreover, many of said tenure review panels and grant review committees judge you not just on whether you've published, but where. Impact factor matters, and that again tends to steer people towards glammy, paywalled journals like New England Journal of Medicine (which just made a big kerfluffle about research parasites), Nature, Science, etc.)

So, there's a lot going on here. And even the scientists who want to just post preprints and move on are facing tremendous pressures.

I'm totally with you that there is almost certainly nothing suggesting FTL here.

However, if FTL content were actually discovered, it wouldn't really be that bad for existing theories. You can recover as a subgroup of the "true" symmetries of a solution for the EFEs where the slope of the surface of the causal cone is less than that of SR's.

Geroch (a serious relativist) did a serious paper on this here http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.1614 -- his central point is that SR is in a GR sense just a solution to the EFEs ("first-order quasilinear system of PDEs admitting a hyperbolization"), that time machines do not automatically arise in the face of FTL and that SR would remain a viable (if effective) theory in approximately flat spacetime mostly devoid of FTL matter content.

That's not to say that it'd be easy to adapt to FTL matter content if it were actually discovered, including its effect on the generation of the metric. I doubt, however, that the BTSM physics would have to focus much on the isometry group front.

And stop linking to the news article only, without linking to the scientific paper. Just for those who care, here is the link: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.0372...

From TFPaper:

[...] we have shown that teleportation is a general concept, that transcends the distinction between classical or quantum systems, and that non-locality ultimately differentiates between these two realms.

So no, the classical form is local (not FTL).

http://www.newscientist.com/ar... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The paper from the actual researchers is far more guarded, and suggest that it may be EMI similar to Perytons, which are radio sources that appear to look like a pulsar signature.

From Wikipedia - "In 2015, Perytons were found to be the result of premature opening of microwave oven doors at the Parkes Observatory. The microwave oven releases a frequency-swept radio pulse that mimics an FRB as the magnetron turns off.[2][10]"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0524...

Here is a paper on Perytons, and their possible sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5080...

Here is a link on Pulsar physics, including a very basic back of the envelope derivation of the dispersion medium of pulsars. Apparently two pulses from a pulsar are detected a few milliseconds from one another, and stem from the mass difference between the electron and a proton and their interaction with interstellar space. Still trying to get a handle on this.. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/...

Dispersion measure variations and their effect on precision pulsar timing: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.a...

http://www.newscientist.com/ar... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The paper from the actual researchers is far more guarded, and suggest that it may be EMI similar to Perytons, which are radio sources that appear to look like a pulsar signature.

From Wikipedia - "In 2015, Perytons were found to be the result of premature opening of microwave oven doors at the Parkes Observatory. The microwave oven releases a frequency-swept radio pulse that mimics an FRB as the magnetron turns off.[2][10]"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0524...

Here is a paper on Perytons, and their possible sources: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.5080...

Here is a link on Pulsar physics, including a very basic back of the envelope derivation of the dispersion medium of pulsars. Apparently two pulses from a pulsar are detected a few milliseconds from one another, and stem from the mass difference between the electron and a proton and their interaction with interstellar space. Still trying to get a handle on this.. http://www.cv.nrao.edu/course/...

Dispersion measure variations and their effect on precision pulsar timing: http://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.a...

Which still would not be enough to counteract climate change, because [a] clouds also trap heat near the Earth's surface, and [b] they don't cover 100% of the Earth's surface and CO2/H2O do. This has been pretty thoroughly investigated both as a response to climate contrarians and because it was something of a Hail-Mary loophole. Unfortunately all attempts to disprove AGW so far have failed.

Slightly closer to reality, having more cosmic rays reach earth would be good news for the Pierre Auger Observatory, which otherwise is looking at a few dozen detection events per year. This article[pdf] goes into some more detail about their methods and data, if anyone else is interested.

Per the original paper, that's what they use to train the NN and as a goodness metric.

You have to also consider the economics of running some kind of galactic lighthouse. It would take a lot of energy and so probably alot of money/resources. The science fiction author Gregory Benford along with his brother James Benford who just happens to be in the business of building jthe sort of transmitters that would be required for any sort of beacon wrote a couple of interesting papers on the subject. One is called Searching for Cost Optimized Interstellar Beacons and the other is called Messaging with Cost Optimized Interstellar Beacons. Both well worth reading.

According to the Benfords we should be looking for pulsed rather than continuous signals and up around 10 Ghz rather than around the so called water hole in the 1.42 to 1.666 Ghz range which would be a massive waste of energy for a galactic beacon. A real signal is a lot more likely to resemble the WoW! signal than the sort of continuous directional beam signal SETI has searched for. A short blip that never repeats.

You have to also consider the economics of running some kind of galactic lighthouse. It would take a lot of energy and so probably alot of money/resources. The science fiction author Gregory Benford along with his brother James Benford who just happens to be in the business of building jthe sort of transmitters that would be required for any sort of beacon wrote a couple of interesting papers on the subject. One is called Searching for Cost Optimized Interstellar Beacons and the other is called Messaging with Cost Optimized Interstellar Beacons. Both well worth reading.

According to the Benfords we should be looking for pulsed rather than continuous signals and up around 10 Ghz rather than around the so called water hole in the 1.42 to 1.666 Ghz range which would be a massive waste of energy for a galactic beacon. A real signal is a lot more likely to resemble the WoW! signal than the sort of continuous directional beam signal SETI has searched for. A short blip that never repeats.

Here is the context needed to understand this story:

The weak cosmic censorship hypothesis asserts "there can be no singularity visible from future null infinity. In other words, singularities need to be hidden from an observer at infinity by the event horizon of a black hole."

The research paper referenced by this story, End Point of Black Ring Instabilities and the Weak Cosmic Censorship Conjecture, "produce(s) the first concrete evidence that violation of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture can occur in asymptotically flat spaces of five dimensions by numerically evolving perturbed black rings."

FlatCam is an instance of a coded aperture imaging system; however, unlike the vast majority of related work, we place the coded mask extremely close to the image sensor that can enable a thin system.

So why do these authors publish their papers through expensive journals instead of just uploading to slideshare.net or scribd?

Besides the career advancement others have mentioned, another main reason is that peer review in mainstream journals performs a significant quality check on both the results and the clarity of communication. The system is not without its failures, and it does not work well every time, but by and large it works and it is better than any known alternative. Notice I have written mainstream journals. There are "peer-reviewed" journals out there that will publish anything. But, in any area of science it is generally known among scientists which journals follow good practices and which are junk.

Putting a manuscript online is easy nowadays. E.g., in many areas of natural sciences arXiv is a de-facto repository for nearly all papers published in the field. Papers often appear there many months before they appear in the journal. Yet it's rarely that a paper ends its life in arXiv. Most are submitted to journals, receive anonymous reviews, are revised (sometimes more than once), copyedited, and finally published. This can often be traced by several revisions of the manuscript in arXiv.

The problem we are dealing here is that running a journal and managing the editorial process (at the minimum, peer review and publication decisions) still costs money. These have to be recouped somehow. Hopefully it shakes down over the coming years and we'll have a better system than subscription-based journals that only universities can really afford.

The problem with neutrino telescopy is that we don't have a neutrino-opaque material. So all our neutrino telescopes are whole-sky telescopes. The first generations of neutrino telescopes (e.g., the Homestake experiment that you refer to) had no direction sensitivity at all, but purely returned counts of neutrinos over the interval since the last purging.

When Cherenkov detectors came in, the cone of Cherenkov radiation would give you the orientation of travel, but not the direction of travel. For example, the Super-Kamiokande detector counted a pulse of 11 neutrinos from SN1987A with an accuracy of about +/-28deg, of which the first two pointed to the LCM (or it's antipode) with an accuracy of 18deg +/-18deg and 15deg +/- 27deg (the rest of the burst was "consistent with isotropy" ; the trigger time of the photomultipliers is about 50ns, which restricts the directional accuracy).

I can't be bothered to track down the accuracy of, say, ANTARES or ICE-CUBE ; but they'll be in the literature. On the basis that you try to half the imprecision with each new generation of equipment (otherwise it's not worthwhile building ore re-building), you'd expect precisions of around 7-10deg (one and ah half to two fist-widths at arms length), which is getting to the point of potentially being useful for pointing survey telescopes.

So, while we knew there were neutrinos coming into the detectors before SN1987A, observers had no way of knowing whether they were from the Sun, a supernova, or backwash form an alien's anti-gravity drive. The "SK eleven" (sounds like a bank robbery gang) were the first detections that astronomers could point at and say "we think these neutrinos came from there, for these reasons".

That's the science bit (and a little defence of StartWithAnAdvert's science, if not of his writing skills) ; for my own interest ... WTF is the current SN monitor system?

Well, unsurprinsingly, there is a paper on Arxiv. Oh, it's just from last week!

It is also important to determine the SN direction using the neutrino signal: the direction information can guide optical instruments toward the SN explosion and enable observation of the onset of radiation. Among the neutrino detectors operating at present, Super-Kamiokande (SK) is the only detector able to determine the SN direction using neutrino events.

Well, I'll take their word for it.

When the SN burst has less than 60 events, the golden warning will not be generated.

Oh, Japanese English! sorry, "Engrish!" It must be authentic!

The pointing accuracy estimated by the e nsemble study is found to be 3.1 â¼ 3.8â--¦ (4.3 â¼5.9â--¦) at 68.2% coverage for the Wilson (NK1) model at 10 kpc, where the range covers various neutrino oscillation scenarios.

Well bugger me! My wild-arsed guess above wasn't too bad!

And the final question ... how do I receive neutrino burst alerts? That is something I'm working on finding the answer to. but I deserve a pint!

Also do not forget, that "non-predictability" can be a good model for something. Quantum physics has some effects that are "random", like tunneling. Calling them "random" basically means "we do not know how they work, but they seem to follow a certain statistical model".

What you are referring to is the idea of hidden variables. But it seems that there are no hidden variables in Quantum Theory. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, God appearently really plays dice.

Also do not forget, that "non-predictability" can be a good model for something. Quantum physics has some effects that are "random", like tunneling. Calling them "random" basically means "we do not know how they work, but they seem to follow a certain statistical model".

What you are referring to is the idea of hidden variables. But it seems that there are no hidden variables in Quantum Theory. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, God appearently really plays dice.

As i understood it, the primary reason for classifying Pluto as a "dwarf planet" was size.

Actually no, the size criterion was whether it's big enough to be round. Pluto and Ceres, and a number of TNOs all qualify. However, Pluto is gravitationally dominated by Neptune, in a 3:2 orbital resonance. The rule is, if some other planet's gravity makes you its bitch, you don't get to be a planet.

For a more precise definition of what it means to be a planet, including several criteria for what "clearing the neighborhood" means, you can consult this arXiv paper[pdf]. Interestingly, it suggests that the size criterion may be superfluous; anything large enough to clear its orbit should be big enough to be round.

[W]hat if a star were bombarded with large inert bodies consisting of iron or other materials that would create inconsistent light output as those semisolid bodies materials moved about within the mixture?

A couple of years ago analysis of a star's light showed that it had recently had a large amount of debris similar to asteroids. I'm struggling to find the reference, I'm getting interference from the story that we're discussing at the moment. Can't find it. There's lots of reports of detecting silicates in the atmosphere of white dwarfs (e.g. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2252... ; tracing forwards from that should get you a lot of stuff) But, no matter ; the spectral patterns caused by solid (silicate, asteroidal) bodies impacting stars is not a new topic, and there's plenty of evidence that the process is fairly well understood. Unless you're going to call the original researchers incompetent (which is not a good idea, unless you're actually working full time in that field yourself), it's safe to assume that they've covered this possibility, otherwise one or other of the people listed in the references of that 2010 review article would have raised the question.

We need to think outside the box,

Think outside the box as much as you like. But you are constrained by the evidence. In this case, TFP start it's abstract with "The star KIC 8462852 is a completely-ordinary F3 main sequence star," so your scenario doesn't fit the reality. It might be interesting for some other star, but not this one.

And do you have any more fascinating-yet-pointless semantic arguments to make? Personally, I define "clearing the neighborhood" as "putting painted tarps over the homeless people" but for some reason that's not the definition the IAU used. However, if you'd like a more precise definition (or set of definitions), you can consult this paper. This graph is also relevant.

A more directly relevant reference is here.

It's also entirely likely that the person who wrote the summary wrote "molecule" when they meant "atom"...

How does that work?

Scintillation in liquid Xenon happens when Xe atoms are ionized and temporarily form molecules before returning to a neutral state and emitting photons.

No, the first attack assumes the identity provider to use an 307 request in answering a valid used identification request from the malicious server (which might look to the outside as a normal service while secretly retrieving user password). As far as I understand the forward will always happen in the protocol. The assumption is that this is done with a 307 request instead of 302 (or 303). This was apparently allowed by the OAuth specification (although one can of course wonder why any ID provider would not use 302 or 303).

Reading the original paper (and not just the blog) really helps to understand the attacks. With respect to the second attack I immediately thought that it wasn't worse than any authentication not using HTTPS. But the authors point out that they attack a step of the protocol (selection of ID provider) not normally considered sensitive so it could happen in HTTP.

I thought it would be of interest that at least the Gamma Burst Monitor on Fermi is running the open source RTEMS real-time operating system.
There are multiple references but this is an easy to find one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.0450... This paper details the hardware and some of the timing characteristics of the system. And it has some nice pictures. :)

• Facebook: https://research.facebook.com/...
• Google: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0383...

Check rankings on LFW: http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lf..., most of the best performing systems are using deep learning.

Facebook and Google can easily have millions of labeled face images, and there are now publicly available face databases of 0.5M face images, so training data: not an issue. All systems perform some preprocessing to align faces to a canonical frontal view, so any face image that is not totally a side view is usually well recognized. Strong pose (both tilt and pan), illumination changes and occlusions are still tricky though. Curious about the issue of this lawsuit.

One of us is very confused by exactly the paper you link to.

I say that it argues that all black holes will evaporate, and point to the second last paragraph on page three and the second sentence in the following paragraph as the nontechnical statements which justify my comments above. He is clearly saying that -- fully classically -- there are things which we call black holes that for the purposes of AMPS resolution *only* we can consider as not-black-holes because they are non-eternal.

For all other purposes, these are black holes just like any other: they evaporate.

Nobody has yet proven that *all* black holes eventually evaporate in the presence of an accelerating metric expansion, and he himself admits that his solution fails in the AdS with nontrivial lambda case (i.e., he leans on the topologically trivial periodicially identified AdS metric), which is at least suggestive of what happens in our physical (non-AdS) universe. However, that failure is not especially strong evidence against evaporation for all black holes.

Now, when you consider that the with the current Lambda-CDM parameter H_0 the lifetime of a 1e10 M_sun SMBH (of which several are known to exist) is on the order of 1e100 years (probably longer; and more massive black holes will [a] persist longer and [b] feed on the emissions of the smaller SMBHs that die earlier) and during the vast majority of the time the object is much dimmer than the CMB, it is *ridiculous* to not call them black holes. They are just not *eternal* black holes, which have a different Penrose diagram.

The whole paper you link to is simply rejecting the idea of SMBHs persisting to the far future boundary in order to avoid having to make the ugly AMPS choice of rejecting AdS/CFT duality, rejecting unitarity, rejecting the equivalence principle, or rejecting semiclasical gravity as a valid low-energy EFT outside the horizon.

Few people want to reject anything other than semiclassical gravity, and it even shows in Hawking's argument that he prefers that choice too. And unfortunately it's hard to avoid thinking that an argument which neatly buries the AMPS problem by arguing it does not actually exist as a problem is a bit of sleight-of-hand, because one can construct physically plausible solutions to the EFEs (that violate no energy conditions and obey both cosmic censorship conjectures and that match the observed evolution of the scale factor) that *do* result in eternal black holes. And such universes are not exactly easy to distinguish from the one we model with Lambda-CDM.

Finally, Hawking and his collaborators are aiming at a description of a plausible mechanism for the doubling of information that his solution requires in order to preserve unitarity (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.0114... and http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.0092...), and it will be interesting to compare that with EPR=ER when both are done. Note that the second of these preprints fails in the case of a black hole whose Hawking temperature *ever* crosses below the temperature at future timelike infinity barring a metric contraction. It is not very hard to imagine colliding supermassive black holes reaching that low temperature threshold; it's much harder to explain why that is forbidden in nature, at least with the tools we have available (a quantum theory of gravitational radiation might do it, for example, but we don't have one, and it would necessarily make different predictions than GR's gravitational waves, and both could not be correct).

One of us is very confused by exactly the paper you link to.

I say that it argues that all black holes will evaporate, and point to the second last paragraph on page three and the second sentence in the following paragraph as the nontechnical statements which justify my comments above. He is clearly saying that -- fully classically -- there are things which we call black holes that for the purposes of AMPS resolution *only* we can consider as not-black-holes because they are non-eternal.

For all other purposes, these are black holes just like any other: they evaporate.

Nobody has yet proven that *all* black holes eventually evaporate in the presence of an accelerating metric expansion, and he himself admits that his solution fails in the AdS with nontrivial lambda case (i.e., he leans on the topologically trivial periodicially identified AdS metric), which is at least suggestive of what happens in our physical (non-AdS) universe. However, that failure is not especially strong evidence against evaporation for all black holes.

Now, when you consider that the with the current Lambda-CDM parameter H_0 the lifetime of a 1e10 M_sun SMBH (of which several are known to exist) is on the order of 1e100 years (probably longer; and more massive black holes will [a] persist longer and [b] feed on the emissions of the smaller SMBHs that die earlier) and during the vast majority of the time the object is much dimmer than the CMB, it is *ridiculous* to not call them black holes. They are just not *eternal* black holes, which have a different Penrose diagram.

The whole paper you link to is simply rejecting the idea of SMBHs persisting to the far future boundary in order to avoid having to make the ugly AMPS choice of rejecting AdS/CFT duality, rejecting unitarity, rejecting the equivalence principle, or rejecting semiclasical gravity as a valid low-energy EFT outside the horizon.

Few people want to reject anything other than semiclassical gravity, and it even shows in Hawking's argument that he prefers that choice too. And unfortunately it's hard to avoid thinking that an argument which neatly buries the AMPS problem by arguing it does not actually exist as a problem is a bit of sleight-of-hand, because one can construct physically plausible solutions to the EFEs (that violate no energy conditions and obey both cosmic censorship conjectures and that match the observed evolution of the scale factor) that *do* result in eternal black holes. And such universes are not exactly easy to distinguish from the one we model with Lambda-CDM.

Finally, Hawking and his collaborators are aiming at a description of a plausible mechanism for the doubling of information that his solution requires in order to preserve unitarity (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.0114... and http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.0092...), and it will be interesting to compare that with EPR=ER when both are done. Note that the second of these preprints fails in the case of a black hole whose Hawking temperature *ever* crosses below the temperature at future timelike infinity barring a metric contraction. It is not very hard to imagine colliding supermassive black holes reaching that low temperature threshold; it's much harder to explain why that is forbidden in nature, at least with the tools we have available (a quantum theory of gravitational radiation might do it, for example, but we don't have one, and it would necessarily make different predictions than GR's gravitational waves, and both could not be correct).

I'm not referring to either of these arguments by Hawking, which are both very old. I'm referring to his most recent response to the firewall paradox from several months ago, which has often been snarkily summed up as "there are no black holes", but can more accurately be summed up as "only apparent horizons exist, not true event horizons, and by implication, not singularities either". All infalling matter, even that which built the black hole itself, is held on the apparent horizon, which is a metastable state that slowly decays with time as the black hole boils off. The implication is that there is no singularity because nothing moves past the apparent horizon.

"Expanded solar-system limits on violations of the equivalence principle" James Overduin, Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 31, Number 1. IOP: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/ar... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202

"Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory", L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, and W. Rubens
Physical Review Letters 105, 100507. APS: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915

"Permutation orbifolds and holography", Felix M. Haehl, Mukund Rangamani Journal of High Energy Physics 2015:163 Springer: http://link.springer.com/artic... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2759

"Quest for the Perfect Liquid: Connecting Heavy Ions, String Theory, and Cold Atoms" Barbara Jacak, John E. Thomas, Clifford Johnson, Symposium at tahe AAAS Amual Meeting 2009 https://www.bnl.gov/aaas09/per...

"Expanded solar-system limits on violations of the equivalence principle" James Overduin, Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 31, Number 1. IOP: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/ar... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202

"Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory", L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, and W. Rubens
Physical Review Letters 105, 100507. APS: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915

"Permutation orbifolds and holography", Felix M. Haehl, Mukund Rangamani Journal of High Energy Physics 2015:163 Springer: http://link.springer.com/artic... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2759

"Quest for the Perfect Liquid: Connecting Heavy Ions, String Theory, and Cold Atoms" Barbara Jacak, John E. Thomas, Clifford Johnson, Symposium at tahe AAAS Amual Meeting 2009 https://www.bnl.gov/aaas09/per...

"Expanded solar-system limits on violations of the equivalence principle" James Overduin, Jack Mitcham and Zoey Warecki, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 31, Number 1. IOP: http://m.iopscience.iop.org/ar... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1202

"Four-Qubit Entanglement Classification from String Theory", L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, A. Marrani, and W. Rubens
Physical Review Letters 105, 100507. APS: http://journals.aps.org/prl/ab... arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4915

"Permutation orbifolds and holography", Felix M. Haehl, Mukund Rangamani Journal of High Energy Physics 2015:163 Springer: http://link.springer.com/artic... arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2759

"Quest for the Perfect Liquid: Connecting Heavy Ions, String Theory, and Cold Atoms" Barbara Jacak, John E. Thomas, Clifford Johnson, Symposium at tahe AAAS Amual Meeting 2009 https://www.bnl.gov/aaas09/per...

There was a study a few years ago about traffic in cities. They found that if all the drivers kept to rules that most cities would halt into complete grid lock.
People need to break rules to clear junctions, to pass cars that are stuck, and even force priority to not starve lanes going into a junction.

I travel by bus to and from work in Amsterdam, it is quite a long trip which includes traffic jams in the inner city. The bus driver needs to often break the rules to be able to pass cars, and force priority on junction because they are often stuck. Cars are backing up, cars are trying to make room.

That is kinda BS.
This is the popular press articles about the study:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
http://physicsbuzz.physicscent...

Here is the actual study. http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3513
Basically they designed a automata simulation that would have gridlock, and made a rule that would avoid jams forming, but called that rule "rule-breaking"; probably because if you did that in a car you would die in a head-on collision.

Abstract:

A system of agents moving along a road in both directions is studied numerically within a cellular-automata formulation. An agent steps to the right with probability q or to the left with 1q when encountering other agents. Our model is restricted to two agent types, traffic-rule abiders (q=1) and traffic-rule ignorers (q=1/2). The traffic flow, resulting from the interaction between these two types of agents, is obtained as a function of density and relative fraction. The risk for jamming at a fixed density, when starting from a disordered situation, is smaller when every agent abides by a traffic rule than when all agents ignore the rule. Nevertheless, the absolute minimum occurs when a small fraction of ignorers are present within a majority of abiders. The characteristic features for the spatial structure of the flow pattern are obtained and discussed.

Bee could have been a bit more charitable, maybe. I'd have put it that the null hypothesis in the experiment was proven, but it was only ever "no new physics will be revealed", which is a pretty weak basis for an elaborate and expensive experiment. However, the precision engineering is plausibly useful for testing more conventional areas of curvature-interferometry; for instance, I think these authors could have profited from practical insights gained in building the holometer if it had been built twenty five years ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/931... In 2015, however, we have better non-terrestrial probes available. So maybe being more charitable would be wrong.

Massimo Pigliucci did a very nice blog of the Conference, with separate posts for day 1, 2 and 3.

There is also Joseph Polchinski's String theory to the rescue paper, which has a ridiculously bad probabilistic argument in Section 3. (Peter Woit thought it was a joke, but apparently not.)

For myself, I favor loop quantum gravity, which as far as I can tell wasn't represented at the conference at all.

Nah, it is just because quantum computing is relativistic therefore, nothing they may say will always be true, it always depends of the user point of vue... ;-)

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/...

Most variables have become known to some degree in the last few years, namely the number of planets per star, the size distribution of planets, fraction of planets in the habitable zone, etc. see http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.0120... (it does not use the Drake equation).

The unknown in the Drake equation is the fraction of habitable planets in which life (or a intelligent civilisation) arises, which probably remains speculation until either >3 civilations have been found or civilations have been ruled out for a few hundred exoplanets.

There are a lot more unknowns than that.

Even you missed the fact that the definition of the "habitable zone" is based on a sample size of one.

And that the "number of planets per star" is actually "the number of planets per star that we can see in this tiny corner of the universe".

Most variables have become known to some degree in the last few years, namely the number of planets per star, the size distribution of planets, fraction of planets in the habitable zone, etc. see http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.0120... (it does not use the Drake equation).

The unknown in the Drake equation is the fraction of habitable planets in which life (or a intelligent civilisation) arises, which probably remains speculation until either >3 civilations have been found or civilations have been ruled out for a few hundred exoplanets.

Purifying helium is not hard: everything else condenses out way before it does. You just blow "dirty" helium over a sufficiently cold heat exchanger, and everything other than helium will condense on the heat exchanger. See e.g. this excellent reference.

From the perspective of a space elevator, it's not. Read this paper linked from the article. There's no talk of space elevators, that's just their way to entice the reader into listening to them.

That is to say, the space elevator mention is just clickbait.

As the paper notes, "experimentally measured tensile Young's modulus for SWNTs ranges from 320 GPa to 1.47 TPa with the breaking strengths ranging from 13 to 52 GPa". A material with the density of SWNTs is generally considered to need at least 100-120 GPa irreversible yield strength (less than breaking strength) to make a "practical" elevator (although if you read those proposals it's hard to come across with any conclusion other than that they're being way too optimistic even with those numbers). Note: 13-52 GPa for individual tubes. Ropes of multiple tubes are 1-2 orders of magnitude weaker.

So what about these diamond nanothreads?

The yield strength experienced more than 25% reduction (from ~ 75 GPa to ~ 56 GPa) for the DNT-14 when the sample length increases from ~ 13 nm to 26 nm. Afterward, it fluctuates around 56 GPa. Unlike the yield strain, the yield strength for all considered DNTs saturates to a similar value (around 56 GPa) and exhibits a relation irrelevant with the constituent units for the investigated length scope (fro ~13 - 92 nm)

  Their data is pretty consistent, with graphs showing a clear dropoff and stabilization around 56 GPa. Obviously nm-sized fibers are pretty worthless for the purposes of an elevator, there'd be way too little Van der Walls holding them together into a rope.

Now, these are just simulations. But more often than not real world seems to underperform simulations rather than overperform, so I wouldn't get too optimistic about the real-world greatly exceeding these figures. For example, early simulations of SWNTs said they'd be around 120GPa; few believe nowadays that they can even approach those figures.

But what about the density side of the equation? After all, a material can be weaker, but if it's correspondingly lighter, then that's not a problem. The density is not in the paper, but this cites the tenacity (breaking strength over mass) as 4.1e10^7 N-m/kg. While the yield strength is going to be a bit less than the breaking strength, it shouldn't be too far off - this means that the density should be somewhere less than - but not too much less than - 1,37g/cm^3. That's on the same order as SWNTs, unfortunately.

Short answer? We're still nowhere even remotely close to being even capable of making a space elevator.

Space elevators face such numerous problems anyway (really don't want to have to go into them all) that they're really not a fruitful avenue of pursuit. We'd do far better to direct such efforts to more realistic access methods, such as a Lofstrom loop or variant thereof, which requires no unobtanium and is far more efficient (space elevators lose huge amounts of energy to transmission losses, throwing away a large chunk of the advantage that they gain from bypassing the rocket equation). Active suspension via recirculating kinetic transfer, by one means or another, is something we can do today.

There are links to papers in the article, you know. The operator theory formulation of the problem in the Casazza et al 2005 (page 5 "Paving Conjecture") was immediately intuitive to me, with no more than undergrad linear algebra. But it's strange that Wikipedia has next to nothing about such a "famous" and seemingly important theorem.

Kalai and Spielman are both very talented and have done a lot of work in many different branches of mathematics. Moreover, in this particular context they proved an equivalent version of the conjecture that was much closer to their own sort of work. The problem in question has many different equivalent formulations such as that described here http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209078 is essentially a statement about vector spaces that anyone with some basic linear algebra background could understand. This is a very common tactic in mathematics if one has a tough problem: try to find equivalent problems that are in other subfields of math where their might be techniques to handle them.

FWIW, they've been doing laser-doppler cooling for a while (all the articles you hear about cooling atoms down near absolute zero generally used laser-doppler cooling). This anti-stokes technique is very similar to the laser-dopper cooling technique in that both involve on average the emission of photons at higher mean energy than those absorbed.

In the case of laser doppler cooling, you illuminate a batch of atoms with a laser from multiple directions at a slightly lower frequency than a transitional energy state. Atoms that are thermally in motion, but are instantaneously moving towards one of the lasers will absorb more photons (because doppler blue-shift makes the atom see the slightly higher frequency matching its transition energy state from the laser if it is moving towards from laser) causing the atom to lose net momentum in that direction and become slightly cooler (mostly because the photon will be re-emitted in a random direction).

In the case of the anti-stokes technique, you need to construct a system that has florescence (emits light a certain frequency when excited) with a bandgap, you then need to pump the energy into the system at the lower frequency. The trick (which is what makes this hard), is that the system needs to be tuned so that the energy you pump in is more efficiently converted into florescence energy than general thermal heating and the photons that are released by florescence can efficiently leave the system to avoid secondary heating.

Anti-stokes is interesting because it has the potential to be able to cool things microscopically (rather than at the atomic scale only).

AFAIKT, this team pulled out quite a few stops to setup this system. Apparently, they setup a laser trap to localize the florescent crystal (doped-YLF) and the "liquid" was D2O (deuterium or heavy water) to get the right thermal gradients for the laser trap for their experiment.

If you are interested, you can read about it here.

It looks to me that the new algorithm offers no real speed advantage over gaussian process optimization. Rather, by making similar local approximations it gains some convergence proofs. Those are nice and all, but not often relevant to real-world applications.

Yes, who would have thought that a black hole could have multiple singularities (and even maybe, just maybe, life) inside it.

What I think is the really important thing in the original paper is that information actually seems to be lost in the black hole. There is an enormous amount of theoretical musing about how to prevent information loss at event horizons (remember the black hole firewall?); this, if taken seriously, could have implications in quite a number of areas in theoretical physics.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.0044...
Then RTFSC, https://github.com/Tribler/sel...