Slashdot Mirror

The original paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.0378... mentions the red-shift and spectral similarities of 3 of the observed quasars without mentioning the possibility that they may be the result of gravitational lensing by the fourth object and could possibly be millions of light years behind the 4th object.

From your link:

Saturation attacks. Since a laser can attack only one target at a time, requires several seconds to disable it, and several more seconds to be redirected to the next target, a laser can disable only so many targets within a given period of time. This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual laser to deal with saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach the ship simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This limitation can be mitigated by installing more than one laser on the ship, similar to how the Navy installs multiple CIWS systems on certain ships.

Hardened targets and countermeasures. Less-powerful lasers—that is, lasers with beam powers measured in kilowatts (kW) rather than megawatts (MW) 10 — can have less effectiveness against targets that incorporate shielding, ablative material, or highly reflective surfaces, or that rotate rapidly (so that the laser spot does not remain continuously on a single location on the target’s surface) or tumble.

Now, another reference:

In order to facilitate comparison with the findings of other authors we chose to express the threshold fluence in units of pulse energy per unit area . The multipulse damage threshold for molybdenum at 1064 nm reported by Zhou [29] of 1 J/cm^2 for 10 ns pulses is rather higher than the value of the order of 0.3 J/cm^2 we find. Similarly, we find that stainless steel gets damaged at about 0.2 J/cm^2, whereas the value of 2.3 J/cm^2 for 120 ns pulses at 1064 nm found by Leontyev [30] would lead us to expect a threshold of around 0.4 J/cm^2 for 5 ns pulses.

Also, you're severely overestimating the reflectivity of materials likely to be exposed to the atmosphere, especially in battle conditions. 70% would be nice. They also discuss that, as well as how much short pulses at short wavelengths reduce the reflectivity (up to around ~25% in nitrogen, which air is largely composed of).

More info on the specs of the "supercomputer" that TFA only glossed over:

The result is the custom-built supercomputer, which we call
Minwa . It is comprised of 36 server nodes, each with 2
six-core Intel Xeon E5-2620 processors. Each sever con-
tains 4 Nvidia Tesla K40m GPUs and one FDR InfiniBand
(56Gb/s) which is a high-performance low-latency inter-
connection and supports RDMA. The peak single precision
floating point performance of each GPU is 4.29TFlops and
each GPU has 12GB of memory. Thanks to the GPUDirect
RDMA, the InfiniBand network interface can access the re-
mote GPU memory without involvement from the CPU. All
the server nodes are connected to the InfiniBand switch.
Figure 1 shows the system architecture. The system runs
Linux with CUDA 6.0 and MPI MVAPICH2, which also
enables GPUDirect RDMA.

In total, Minwa has 6.9TB host memory, 1.7TB device
memory, and about 0.6PFlops theoretical single precision peak performance.

It's not that powerful overall, but seems to be well thought out for what it is doing. I do the see point about fudging data somehow, they do provide a lot of information of what they supposedly did here

I don't know how this is verifiable, it's not like they have released source code or binaries for the software as far as I can tell.

. But that's never been proven, and there are others out there that think it isn't about motion at all

The only two known ways to produce a consistent, wavelength independent red shift are through motion and general relativity effects, both of which are part of the currently accepted theory of the red shift vs. distance relationship.

Or we could have areas of space with greater for lack of a better term "density of volume" where a given space is bigger on the inside than it would appear from out.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6731
(yes the scientist who purposed it called tardis space)

No complaints over this?

Interesting that you bring that up. Fabio, the fantasy man of the freely available at department store cash registers, literary porn for women.

Of course no one cares. Men aren't all priggish about porn, and women enjoy it. It's somehow "different."

My take: it's not the world's biggest problem, but if it's necessary to provide comparisons with earlier papers go ahead and use Lenna, go right ahead. If you just need to illustrate a technique on human skin tones, pick something else and stop needlessly pissing people off.

wikipedia states

The name Laniakea means "immeasurable heaven" in Hawaiian, from lani for "heaven" and akea for "spacious" or "immeasurable". The name was suggested by Nawa'a Napoleon, an associate professor of Hawaiian language at Kapiolani Community College. The name honors Polynesian navigators who used heavenly knowledge to navigate the Pacific Ocean.[3][7]

And perhaps more importantly, the Nature letter and preprint

Why go with Golda Meir when you can go with Fabio?

No complaints over this?

"Personal insults are not adequate replacements for knowledge, asshole."

Oh, the irony.

You're quoting Wikipedia. Again, go in search of a clue. To answer lgw's comment here, inflation was first posited as a solution to the flatness problem and gained traction because it explained also the lack of magnetic monopoles. Then later it was seen to explain the spectral index, fit ridiculously well with observations of the CMB, gives rise to the early universe structure and a whole host more.

Here's a scientific paper on the subject by the Planck collaboration, not a Wikipedia article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5082

there are (quite literally) hundreds more of these. As for the Steinhardt quote, well, he's a /long/ way out in terms of measures of probability for inflation - see anything by Wald, Gibbons, Turok, Corichi or any of the other serious measure papers.

Or you could stick to insults and half-assed bullshit. Your choice.To say that inflation is a kludge is a massive insult to people who have investigated the models thoroughly. You, I suspect from your serious lack of a clue, have not.

Yet another example of the defective nature of the WinTEL Memory Management Unit.

The Spy in the Sandbox – Practical Cache Attacks in Javascript

Our attack, which is an extension of the last-level cache attacks of Yarom et al. [23], allows a remote adversary recover information belonging to other processes, other users and even other virtual machines running on the same physical host as the victim web browser. We describe the fundamentals behind our attack, evaluate its performance using a high bandwidth covert channel and finally use it to construct a system-wide mouse/network activity logger.

Source: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.0737...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5362

Do electrons actually vibrate?

No.

The electrons emit cyclotron radiation, because they are being accelerated by a magnetic field. The acceleration is always perpendicular to the electron's velocity vector, so they don't speed up, they just turn in a circle. However, all accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation, and in the case of an electron moving in a magnetic field in this fashion it is called "cyclotron radiation". In other contexts it is called "bremsstrahlung", and so on. Physicists often have multiple names for the same basic phenomenon manifesting itself in different circumstances.

Add "electrons vibrate" or "everything vibrates" to this account adds nothing and obscures the actual source of the radiation, which is continuity conditions on the electro-magnetic field. These conditions are described by Maxwell's Equations, which predict such radiation. There is exactly nothing in Maxwell's Equations that could be said to describe a "vibrating electron" in this context.

The summary is equivalent to an account of a baseball game written by someone who has never seen a ball, or a game, of any kind. It is depressing that "science journalism" scrapes along at a standard that is an order of magnitude below anything found in sports journalism, which is itself not exactly a paragon of insight and coherence.

The paper itself can be found here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5362...

It is a beautiful piece of work that really does open up new doors to precision measurement of beta spectra.

... thanks to arXiv:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.0410...

This event is VERY interesting and unusual because the microlensing event was observed from two very different places: on Earth, and from the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is many millions of km away from the Earth. Gravitational lensing occurs when a background star and a lensing star line up exactly in the same direction, as seen from an observer. Because Spitzer was so far away, it saw the lensing star line up with the background star first; then, as the lensing star moved in its orbit around the center of the Milky Way, the lensing star eventually lined up with the background star as seen from Earth, about 18 days later.

This lag in time between two widely separated observers seeing a lensing event will help us to figure out exactly how the two stars involved in the event were moving, and where they are, and other properties. Since most telescopes are located on Earth, in basically the same place, we almost never get this extra information.

Rah, rah, Spitzer! Rah, rah, OGLE!

Method could be as involved as, I forget the name, but the system was people chosen at random to then choose the next group of people to choose the next group of people, and seven iterations that group then finally choose the representatives. Or you could just select from the social security numbers in a state. Fairly anonymous then.

As other people have mentioned, increasing the numbers of representatives makes it cost prohibitive to buy legislation. If people are chosen randomly, you get a broad section of the population who don't have re-election campaigns to donate to. They serve three years and then they are gone, replaced by the next lot who have no allegiances to previous backroom deals. Downside is it also makes it near impossible to pass legislation, so you need clear delineations of authority, and even greater checks and balances. Citizen juries have already been used in lower government functions to good effect, so it's not like it is unprecedented.

Regarding fairness, it isn't absolute, as it will still have a strong element of majority rule, except for the occasional fluke, however, it is proven to be more effective:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

You should look into MOND.

"Dark matter" as an effect is very well established. It is a sign of a failure in our models of physics. That failure could be in the microphysics (thus, various particle models, such as WIMPs), or in the macrophysics (i.e., in general relativity, the model for gravity, which is modified by theories such as MOND).

Now, as it happens, these sorts of galaxy cluster collision observations are probably the strongest test of MOND type theories - it is hard to see how a failure of gravity would get separated from the matter causing the gravity. MOND is not yet firmly ruled out, but it does look a lot less plausible.

WIMPs are actually an old explanation of dark matter, probably on the way out unless LHC can pull out a supersymmetric particle in their new run.

In any case, WIMPs only interact through the weak interaction, so it is generally assumed that these "self-interacting" particles are not WIMPs, but some new form of SIDM.

The summary has a link to a paywalled article (silly Ethan). The full article is freely available to all on the arXiv preprint server:

      http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1706

I'm peripherally involved with the supernova field, though I study only the nearby examples. There has been for years the understanding that IF a difference should arise between the nearby events that we can study well, and the distant events which appear dimly and vaguely, AND if we did not realize that such a difference existed, THEN we could reach incorrect conclusions.

Scientists in the field have worried about this for years. It's not a sudden new realization.

It's very pleasant to see that a space telescope -- SWIFT -- which was built to study one type of object (gamma ray bursts) has turned out to provide vital information on a different type (supernovae). Since it is in space, it can detect ultraviolet light, and so show us that some nearby supernovae emit different amounts of ultraviolet light, even though they appear similar in the optical region. This UV difference hints at differences in chemical composition between supernovae, which may indeed be significant when we try to study very distant events with other telescopes.

Fortunately, light from those distant events is redshifted into the optical regime, so we can use very large ground-based telescopes to see the same UV light and compare it to the nearby events.

It's a very interesting field to follow: things change on timescales of 3-5 years. And yes, we are more aware of the uncertainties in the business than some news articles might imply.

I broke the rules and RTFA, this is the first time that they have managed to combine an Earth-based observation and a space-based one separated by far enough from each other to give a reasonably accurate baseline for an accurate measurement of both distance and mass. From the article:

Calculations estimated it to be 10,200 (+/- 1,300) light-years away. . . These observations also allowed the mass of the object to be measured — around 0.23 solar masses

Not quite. If you read further, you see that the key word is that it is first for a "isolated" (i.e., single) star. Dong et al. did this in 2007, but for a binary star.

I must sat that I dislike "firstitis," both in science and on Slashdot. However, these are not easy measurements and this is still quite an accomplishment.

This is known as microlensing parallax, and was first done 1995. Parallax breaks lensing degeneracies, enabling the determination of distance,

Now, you may quibble about this particular distance measurement, but it's been done for 20 years now. Routinely. And, yes, its been done from space before too.

My guess is that some needed qualifiers were lost between the astronomer's mouth and the headline writers keyboard, but it ain't first.

There are actually certain physical phenomenon that would confirm that we are in a simulation, just from the mathematical constraints.

Here is a link to the actual paper.

The title "No Fuel In the Fukushima Reactor #1" is WRONG.
The fuel is still inside the reactor. It is just melted down at the bottom.

That is correct. The title is misleading, but summary link text "not in its place" is on the mark. Muon scanning is still in progress. The paper Cosmic Ray Radiography of the Damaged Cores of the Fukushima Reactors [2012] describes the approach in more detail. Most thought the fuel would melt under these conditions but the real question is, has the there been a 'melt-through', where melted fuel escaped the reactor containment vessel, as Chernobyl's did? To make an so-called Elephant's Foot of solidified corium?

Leslie Corrice speculates (section 'c') that the fuel is still in the reactor and has not escaped containment. He uses a line of empirical reasoning based on radiation measurements with a few assumptions about water flow inside the building. We will see if his analysis is correct.

If the melted fuel remains in the Reactor Pressure Vessel and it has not been breached, then this safety measure worked, even if nothing else did.

The fare data does include tips. See bullet point #2 on the first page.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.0302...

An already seen movie
Besides that, I just noticed that it's a 6+ years old article.

Since LIGO is looking for things like merging neutron stars, black holes, and nearby isolated supernova, you could look for evidence in other types of detectors of the exact same event (such as light based telescopes or neutrino detectors).

For example, if a "short" gamma ray burst were detected by an orbiting gamma ray telescope satellite at the same time a LIGO style detector saw a gravitational wave in the same direction (requiring 3 detectors for pointing, so you'd need to include Virgo or other international detector), that would be pretty convincing to me. Short gamma ray bursts are possibly caused by neutron star mergers. See for example: Gamma ray burst

A quick search on google shows things for multi-messenger searches, including neutrino detectors: arXiv.org multimessenger.
Different types of detectors (neutrino vs gravitational wave) will tell you different things about the source, so they aren't redundant, but allow you to learn alot more about the event when combined.

Admittedly, the detectors might also detect waves from objects obscured by the center of the galaxy or the like, at which point other types of detectors might not see anything. Or in the case of black hole mergers you might not expect to see much in other types of detectors. At which point you're down to comparisons to models and how ever many gravitational wave detectors saw it at the same time.

The article only talks about MIT history and laser inferometers (LIGO). It doesn't credit Louisiana State University's efforts to build resonant mass gravity wave detectors from the 1970s. By 1972, physics Prof William O Hamilton at LSU was working on a multi-ton aluminum bar and a He3 dilution cooler in what would become the Allegro graviy wave detector.

Some interesting history papers:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pap...
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/g...

There's a lot of multipath-related work being done right now, at the IETF, within OpenWRT, and independently.

We've been working on providing multiple routes automatically (disclaimer -- I'm a co-author). As to actually making use of the multiple routes, the solution that currently works best is MP-TCP, a set of kernel patches that allows TCP to use multiple routes simultaneously, with no modification to applications. Other solutions are SHIM6, which works below the transport layer, and Multipath Mosh, which works at the application layer.

I'm pretty confident we'll be able to have most of this stuff enabled by default in mainstream Linux distributions by the end of the year.

There's a lot of multipath-related work being done right now, at the IETF, within OpenWRT, and independently.

We've been working on providing multiple routes automatically (disclaimer -- I'm a co-author). As to actually making use of the multiple routes, the solution that currently works best is MP-TCP, a set of kernel patches that allows TCP to use multiple routes simultaneously, with no modification to applications. Other solutions are SHIM6, which works below the transport layer, and Multipath Mosh, which works at the application layer.

I'm pretty confident we'll be able to have most of this stuff enabled by default in mainstream Linux distributions by the end of the year.

True, the heuristic for quantum chemistry like DFT are pretty good but that only takes you so far. Statistical physics with the particle model is much easier but then you miss all the emergent phenomena of collective quantum dynamics like superconductivity.

That's why I am excited about quantum computing. Recent research from the ETHZ group of Mathias Troyer have shown that quantum chemistry will already greatly benefit from even modest quantum computing resources (unlike Shor's algorithm which is pretty useless unless you are with the NSA).

If you were to actually read some of the "literature", you would find out that your supposition is wrong. For example:

A GRB within a few parsecs that is directed at the Earth will impact one
hemisphere of the planet with a short, but intense blast of high energy
photons. Gamma rays and X rays are highly attenuated by the Earth’s atmosphere.
Therefore, the ground level effects are primarily indirect. A small fraction
of the incident energy reaches the ground as dangerous ultraviolet (UV)
radiation (Smith et al. 2004), but this is limited in time to the duration of
the event, which is at most 10’s of seconds for a long burst, and is less than
a seconds for a short burst. While it is possible that this flash would affect
some organisms, it seems unlikely that a biological catastrophe would result
from this effect alone. Of course, for planets with thinner atmospheres the
energy deposited at the ground would be greater and more serious effects may be
expected (Smith et al. 2004; Ga lante & Horvath 2007). We are concerned here
with effects on life on Earth and so will concentrate on the longer term
impacts.

There are three potentially harmful long term effects of a GRB that follow from
changes in atmospheric chemistry (Reid & McAfee 1978). High energy photons
cause dissociation, GRBs and Life on Earth ionization and ionizing
dissociations of N and O in the atmosphere. Subsequent reactions lead to the
formation of nitrogen oxides, most importantly NO and NO These compounds
catalytically deplete ozone (O3) in the stratosphere, leading to increases in
surface level solar UV over long time periods (years). Secondly, NO2 itself is
a brown gas that absorbs strongly in the visible. This may potentially have a
climatic effect by reducing solar insolation a t the ground, thereby leading to
cooling. Third, the atmosphere returns to normal via the removal of nitrogen
oxides by way of precipitation of nitric acid (HNO3).

What's more, it's not possible to "wipe out life on earth" in this manner given that some organisms have been found living in rocks a couple of miles down inside the earth. Instead, a mass extinction is the worst case outcome.

A classic by now on SUSY naturalness related to LHC: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.6926
See Section II.

They're using a standard technique. Convolutional networks started to become big with LeCun's 1998 paper on learning to recognize hand-written digits http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/pub... . His lenet-5 network could identify the digit accurately 99% of the time.

Convolutional networks are starting to become used to play Go, eg 'Move evaluation in Go using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks', by Maddison Huang, Sutskever and Silver, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6564... Maddison et al used a 12-layer convolutional network to predict where an expect would move next with 50% accuracy :-)

Progress on convolutional networks moves forward all the time, in an incremental way. If we had one article per day about one increment it would quickly lose mass appeal though :-) The article is about one increment along the way, but does symbolize the massive progress that is being made.

Convolutional networks work well partly because they can take advantage of the massive computional capacity made available in GPU hardware.

Yes, check this out 'High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Images', by Nguyen, Yosinkski and Clune, http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1897 . It's a paper that shows an image that the net is 99.99% sure is an electric guitar, but looks nothing like :-)

For the technically minded, the paper's authors propose that the reason is that the network is using a discriminative model, rather than a generative model. That means that the network learns a mathematical boundary that separates the images that it sees, in some kind of high-dimensional transformed space. It doesn't learn how to generate such new images, ie, you cant ask it 'draw me an electric guitar' :-) Maybe in a few years :-)

The authors don't compare the network too much with the human brain though, ie, are they saying that the human brain is using a generative model? Is that why the human brain doesn't see a white noise picture, and claim it's a horse?

neural nets do appear to be insufficient to reproduce consciousness

As in the case of his other arguments, most disagree with this. In any case, I suggest looking not to physics when trying to explain consciousness, but neuroscience. This is from one of the top neuroscientists: http://www.amazon.com/Self-Com... Specifically in terms of physics, similar arguments that the basics of physics and consciousness are intertwined are destroyed in this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/...

Hmm, seems my link to the registration help page got dropped.

I've tried to post to arXiv.org but they demand an academic email address.

If true, why is this "demand" not listed on either their page about about registering or on the registration form? Even their primer lists no such "demand". The only thing required if you don't have an recognized academic affiliation is to get an endorsement in order for them to process your submission. As the person below said, this reeks of quackery.

I've tried to post to arXiv.org but they demand an academic email address.

If true, why is this "demand" not listed on either their page about about registering or on the registration form? Even their primer lists no such "demand". The only thing required if you don't have an recognized academic affiliation is to get an endorsement in order for them to process your submission. As the person below said, this reeks of quackery.

That's right about the time that the human race barely avoided extinction. Perhaps not a coincidence?

Coincidence. The paper suggests that even if it did perturb the Oort Cloud (which it probably didn't, at least, not the inner Oort Cloud), any rain of infalling comets that it kicked off will take about 2M years to get here.

Which made me think of this bit from the end of the Hitchhiker's Guide:

"Well I have got news, I have got news for you. It doesn't matter a pair foetid dingo's kidneys what you all choose to do from now on. Burn down the forests, anything. It won't make a scrap of difference. Two-million years you've got, and that's it. At the end of that, your race will be dead, gone, and good-riddance to you. Remember that. Two. Million. Years."

With a sensible species, that might serve as motivation for us to get off this rock, or at least get far enough off the rock to establish a proper planetary defense system, but I guess itâ(TM)s time for another bath. Hmph. Pass me the sponge somebody will you?

The observation that the electron electric dipole moment is less than 10^-29 e cm (as measured by the ACME experiment in 2013) already places strong constraints on supersymmetric partner masses, making it rather unlikely that the upgraded LHC will see anything.

The original paper is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.0141... What they effectively do is create a set of all the tokens and punctuation in a method and then compress that set to include only those tokens that are "useful". They then compare the length of this set with the original method. I don't see how this is any more useful than compiling the method, looking at its bytes, and stating this method is mostly chaff since it can be reduced into a single 0 and 1, i.e. its BINSET is {0, 1}.

An example threshed set they provide for java bubblesort is: int, length, =, array, ., for, (, 1, 0, , ;, if, ++, ), {, [, j, 1, ., |, ], temp, }. If you're a programmer, you can probably see how silly this is just from looking at that set.

It's not the first model that doesn't have a big bang. It's not even the first that uses de Broglie-Bohm theory. For example, there are the bouncing cosmologies (where the universe shrinks down to almost zero but not quite --essentially stopped by quantum effects-- and then starts to re-expand) proposed by Pinto-Neto, Peter, et al. ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2790 for a review and references therein, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/02...).

Now while this paper is old news in that it was posted on arxiv almost a year ago, well done to the slashdot editors for waiting for it to be peer-reviewed (independently of how messed up you think the peer-review process is) and not taking every new model that gets posted on arxiv as some new profound discovery that must be true (slashdot would never do that, honest).

It's not the first model that doesn't have a big bang. It's not even the first that uses de Broglie-Bohm theory. For example, there are the bouncing cosmologies (where the universe shrinks down to almost zero but not quite --essentially stopped by quantum effects-- and then starts to re-expand) proposed by Pinto-Neto, Peter, et al. ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2790 for a review and references therein, e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/02...).

Now while this paper is old news in that it was posted on arxiv almost a year ago, well done to the slashdot editors for waiting for it to be peer-reviewed (independently of how messed up you think the peer-review process is) and not taking every new model that gets posted on arxiv as some new profound discovery that must be true (slashdot would never do that, honest).

The expansion hypothesis is not yet fully accepted. There are other models that explain redshift without expansion that make all the same predictions about CMBR, etc. Even ones that don't require magic "dark energy". http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2485 http://www.nature.com/news/cos...

Inflation Cosmology is starting to be questioned as well. There are other hypothesis from people in the field that don't require magic dark energy, matter or expanding space. http://phys.org/news190027752.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6878

That link again: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2506

What's interesting about this star though, is that according to the paper, Kepler-444 is not some primordial supergiant, but a K dwarf (orange, of the same type as Alpha Centauri) with a smaller companion red dwarf (or possibly two companion red dwarf stars which are closely bound to each other).

"A real-time fast radio burst: polarization detection and multiwavelength follow-up"

It's also on Research Gate.

The proposal for the quantum simulator was made back in 1982

In 2011 paper was already written about the matter

http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6457

Exposure times on SuperWASP are around 30 seconds according to them. The sensor quantum efficiency is 90% so it's close to counting photons (don't quote me!), I think in practice it's a bit more complex. They're multi-stage-Peltier cooled, backthinned, e2v, blah blah blah. Plus other amazing things like 1% linearity over the whole dynamic range, around 20 electrons readout noise and so on. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/...