Slashdot Mirror

I'll raise you this quote: "You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?!" yet on the actual arXiv site they do indeed say "Our results suggest that there is a form of entanglement that has a weight." It's actually the third word of the paper. And here, weight IS the correct term, as it is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object. That's the whole point of the paper...current theory is quantum entanglement doesn't interact with gravity but these guys say in certain instances this might be incorrect. " Our results suggest that there is a form of entanglement that has a weight, since it affects the gravitational field." IANAQP, so here is the PDF so others can read it too and comprehend it better than I.

Versioning only ensures that anyone who subsequently performs the calculations will reach the same result - it does not verify the data is complete or correct.

Repeatability was exactly the concern addressed. Having said that, one key difference appears to be that the data is just dumped rather than interpreted. That particular version isn't going to become more or less correct and complete just because my sock puppet army is at work.

And what really can or should a content management system do here to verify correctness and completeness? I think the original insistence on repeatability is precisely because completeness and correctness is a hard problem beyond the scope of a content management system like Wikidata.

I consider this much like Arxiv.org, the pre-print server where papers are dumped without evaluation of how scientifically valid they are. I believe the filter is that you have to either be active (submitting papers to the Arxiv on a regular basis) or referred to by someone who already has access. That simple process doesn't keep all of the crap off, but it does greatly improve the signal to noise.

TFS's topic of "Experiments Create Particles Out of a Vacuum Using Neutrinos" is not discussed in the paper

• "Reanalysis of bubble chamber measurements of muon-neutrino induced single pion production"

of 18 Nov which you linked, but in McFarland's 25 Nov paper

• "Measurement of Coherent Production of $Ï^\pm$ in Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino Beams on Carbon from $E_ν$ of $1.5$ to $20$ GeV".

From the latter,

In conclusion, the coherent production of pions on carbon nuclei for both neutrino and anti-neutrino beams is precisely measured by isolating a sample with no visible nuclear breakup and low |t| transferred to the nucleus.

TFS's topic of "Experiments Create Particles Out of a Vacuum Using Neutrinos" is not discussed in the paper

• "Reanalysis of bubble chamber measurements of muon-neutrino induced single pion production"

of 18 Nov which you linked, but in McFarland's 25 Nov paper

• "Measurement of Coherent Production of $Ï^\pm$ in Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino Beams on Carbon from $E_ν$ of $1.5$ to $20$ GeV".

From the latter,

In conclusion, the coherent production of pions on carbon nuclei for both neutrino and anti-neutrino beams is precisely measured by isolating a sample with no visible nuclear breakup and low |t| transferred to the nucleus.

The summary is horribly incorrect. There are no new experiments, only new analysis of old experiments. The authors didn't actually do the experiments but "digitize and reanalyze data from both experiments." The summary didn't include the non-paywalled version of the article on arXiv. The summary sensationalizes the results with phrases like "[p]roducing an entirely new particle." (ok it is a quote) which leads non-physicist readers to think this is a new particle as yet unseen when in fact all particles involved are well known. Furthermore, pulling a particle out of the vacuum, especially near such massive and charged objects a nuclei is not at all uncommon. Sure it is a non-electromagnetic process but it isn't odd.

As usual for physics articles, a non-paywalled version is available on arXiv, and has been so for more than a month before it appeared behind the paywall. Why do people who submit physics stories to slashdot aloways link to the useless paywalled version?

Come on guys, this is Slashdot. Here's the source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3648 And it says 240K-470K years.

Six observations based on data and fits to data from a variety of areas are consistent with the hypothesis that the electron neutrino is a m^2_v_e = 0.11±0.016eV 2 tachyon. The data are from areas including CMB fluctuations, gravitational lensing, cosmic ray spectra, neutrino oscillations, and 0v double beta decay. For each of the six observations it is possible under explicitly stated assumptions to compute a value for m^2_v_e , and it is found that the six values are remarkably consistent with the above cited _e mass (\Chi^2 = 2.73). There are no known observations in clear conflict with the claimed result. Three checks are proposed to test the validity of the claim, one of which could be performed using existing data.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804

Here's the Bulgarian take on it: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.6259

http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.5945

This is really old news (at least in the particle physics cycle) and over a 100 papers have been written about this already. This is one of many papers that points out serious problems with a dark matter interpretation for this signal http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1699 and here's a less technical blog post discussing the issues http://resonaances.blogspot.co... . I'm sick of pop-sci websites peddling stuff that particle physicists have already moved on from as the "latest exciting discovery"

I skimmed the paper at
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.0460...
and found some parts very confusing. E.g. in Fig. 1a, sulfur hydride seems to have critical temperature around 70K at 177GPa, and in Fig. 1b, it seems to have critical temperature of 185K at the same pressure. And the "measurements" in Fig. 4 don't look like measurements, they look like data generated using a mathematical function. Dan

In that case one might be in for a disappointment. The article[1] seems to only contain about a page worth of equations.

[1]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0917

The actual scientific article was published on arXiv in september. Gravity does not appear to be central to the problem, it is just used as an example here. They basically look at a toy problem where a large set of particles with simple interactions give rise to solutions where they can identify variables that increase monotonically away from a minimum, and hence can be used as a time variable. It is basically an entropic argument worked out in detail for a simple system.

Carrol et al have published related ideas, and here is a popular science talk by Carrol (the main argument starts around 19 minutes into it).

The actual scientific article was published on arXiv in september. Gravity does not appear to be central to the problem, it is just used as an example here. They basically look at a toy problem where a large set of particles with simple interactions give rise to solutions where they can identify variables that increase monotonically away from a minimum, and hence can be used as a time variable. It is basically an entropic argument worked out in detail for a simple system.

Carrol et al have published related ideas, and here is a popular science talk by Carrol (the main argument starts around 19 minutes into it).

Here are links to my paper in Nature and to the arXiv version which explains why all such results are very silly.

http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.7007

If you read the linked news release (which you should, it's very short), they're not talking about meteor showers, they're talking about the large meteors that blew up with a blast energy > 1kt. There were 33 of these detected in the 14 year study period, of which 9 pairs (= 18 of the blasts) occurred within one day of each other. The assumption of independence argument was invalidated at a very high confidence level, claim the authors.

Not stated in the article is whether the 33 blasts had any connection with known meteor showers (or, I guess, previously unrecognized meteor showers). The original article (here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0452...) does mention this possibility.

I would be remiss not to mention that the statistical analysis may be flawed; a posting claiming just this is here https://astrostatistics.wordpr.... (IANAS.)

Not as "advanced" in image recognition as advertised.

Basically they took the output of a common object classifier and instead of just picking the most likely object (which is what a typical object classifier looks for), it leaves in in a form where multiple objects are detected in various parts of the scene. Then they train a neural network to create captions (by giving it training pictures with associated captions).

According to the paper, it sometimes apparently generates a reasonable description. Other times it reads in picture of a street sign covered with stickers and emits a caption like "refrigerator filled with lots of food and drink".

Actually the most interesting thing about it is the LSTM-based Sentence Generator that is used to generate the caption from the objects. LSTM's are notoriously hard to train and they apparently they borrow some results from language translation techniques to attempt to form intelligible sentences.

This is all very googly-researchy in that they want to see what the limits of pure data driven machine learning are (w/o human tuning). This is not a however much of an advance in image recognition as it is an advance in the language for caption construction.

tt can be baryonic matter, if it is encapsulated in some fashion. I believe your two conditions refer to BBN (not a particularly extreme energy density, BTW) and the Lyman Alpha constraints on Warm Dark Matter (which means it had to drop out of the radiation fluid v ~ c / sqrt(3) pretty early).

Both of these are fulfilled by, e.g., quark nugget dark matter (these would form well before BBN and drop out of the radiation fluid well before needed to fulfill the WDM constraints), as maybe also the recently proposed "macros".

Rejected by Science after in-depth review

This paper has not been peer reviewed. Read with that in mind (peer review is academic currency).

(That said, it doesn't get much more prestigious than Science. It's merely too early to bring this to bear. Perhaps it will eventually get accepted, reviewed, and then published. Only at that point can it be considered good research.)

There's about as much chance of that happening as you revising your theory when it doesn't match observations: practically none.

I'm wondering what Talbott and Thornhill have been reading, or perhaps I should say what they have been smoking, because their description of the observations does not match the ESA's. It has lots of water and a dust trail, and while there has been some unexpected magnetic activity, there isn't some electrical bogeyman waiting to jump out at the lander — and it's not like the scientists involved aren't paying attention to such things. Apparently in order to believe in EU not only do you need to ignore a century's worth of physics (including Einstein), you also have to ignore current observations and make up your own. This is beyond intellectually dishonest and far into flat-earth crackpot territory.

You could be right - I mean, I'm familiar with the idea that 'time' disappears as you get to the very, very early universe. Even so, the paper's abstract is using causal language: "the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing" - "once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

This may be sloppy language, but it seems to imply there's just the metastable false vacuum, then - paf - there's an expanding universe. If the metastable false vacuum has no time, what does it mean for it to fluctuate? Is it a sort of static, superimposition of states (but without a timelike relationship between them) and a very small number of those states are associated with the low-entropy end of a universe? I have no idea.

Well your theory relates the speed of light to the temperature of the universe. This is not uniform but fluctuates at the one in 10^-6 level (look up the cosmic microwave background). However we have seen zero variation in the speed of light down to the level of ~10^-20 so that's your theory eliminated by 14 orders of magnitude of measurement. I'd say this was pretty convincing evidence that it's nonsense.

Now, rather than waste my time giving a blow by blow account of all your other nonsense claims, how about you read some physics papers like this one and explain how your theory is completely consistent with all these measurements and those contained in other papers? Like most of the people with a loose grip on reality you seem to think that it is physics' job to explain to you why you are wrong. That is not how it works - if you want people to take you seriously you have to explain how your theory is consistent with current data. Afterall it is hardly reasonable to expect people to spend time reading and understanding your theories if you are completely unprepared to read and understand others is it?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.1860.pdf

Modified Newtonian Dynamics explains it all.

In galaxies, yes. In interacting galaxy clusters, like the Bullet Cluster, it has problems. (If you are interested, you should look at the papers that cite this one - there has been a long argument on the Bullet Cluster and MOND, and Milgrom certainly isn't convinced, but my opinion is MOND is in trouble or is incomplete on these large scales.

I believe that there are three possibilities here :

1.) A particle that interacts with normal matter via only the strong force, but evades the mass / cross section ratio limits on dark matter in some fashion.

2.) Matter that interacts with normal matter via all the usual forces, but evades the mass / cross section ratio limits on dark matter in some fashion. (Quark nuggets and primordial black holes fall into this category.)

3.) A particle that "strongly" interacts only with similar particles, by not the strong force, but by some new force.

I believe the present SIMPs are case number 3, that case number 2 aren't generally called "SIMPs", but case number 1 definitely has been so called; case number 1 particles have been significantly constrained in the past.

And the NASA HEMD guys say that to do that, you first need to have a deep space flight "with training wheels," i.e., one to something like high retrograde lunar orbit (far away to be serious, and actually test the deep space parts of the mission, but close enough you can meaningfully abort) and that, in practice, to both get the money for the test AND to make the test more realistic, the astronauts need some goal for spending 2 weeks orbiting outside the Moon, and the ARM provides that.

If the Earth had a well placed "mini-Moon" at the present, we could go to that, but as of right now, we don't appear to.

Everyone that says they have a box that makes energy from nothing, I say, phase match your box to the line current from the local utility, roll your meter backwards, and cash the ensuing checks. Then talk to me.

That's exactly what the LENR boys have been doing, for more than a year now. Well, except that they say the energy is not drawn from nothing, it's from weak nuclear force reactions (conventional fission and fusion are driven by the strong nuclear force). NASA has a reactor, and MIT has one; and there are several more in Italy and Japan.

But... nobody will talk to them. Because King Oil is first and foremost the ruler of our minds. And if you refuse to look or listen, you can still claim it's all a hoax!

And of course here on /., where a solid third (at least) of the commenters on energy issues are paid shills, there is a similar fetish for fission and hot fusion, as well.

Now that viable theories exist to explain the empirically demonstrable behavior of weak nuclear force reactions, there's only one reason for this technology to remain controversial: because people do not, and will not, believe their own eyes or brains. As Stanley Milgram and David R. Stewart have shown us, people believe what they are told to believe. And we've been told not to believe in "cold fusion", so it doesn't matter that it unequivocally can be done.

Are they talking about general relativity equations?
That's included, but I think the article and summary are actually getting it right for once. The equations in question are ones that reconcile GR with Quantum Mechanics, and that, in general, means variations on various String or Brane Theories, and quite possibly specifically Supersymmetry, if that's not being completly discarded by the researchers just because CERN is finding preliminary evidence that the simplest and lowest energy Supersymmetry model doesn't work. It's possible some alternatives to those models can also be tested and refined or dismissed, but either way, we really are looking at math where complexity increases result time very, very rapidly. Here's a link for an example of some math used for both Supersymmetry and more general String Theory calculations - If you look at the section specifically about "Stringy theories" calculations, there's a good example of a formula that's obviously, by simple inspection, prone to grow very quickly with added terms for more complex situations, and there's some other quite good examples in the lead up to that section.

Lie superalgebras of string theories
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/97...

(Note: Paper is 22 pages in PDF, and is NOT behind a paywall).

Why do you think you should be entitled to software patent protection? You have the benefit of copyright protections, so any incumbent would need to create their own algorithm without copying from yours (or potentially face lawsuits). If you have a superior algorithm with greater fuel efficiency, I would hope there is enough players in the auto industry that one big player would want to purchase your product or startup.

Also you're not the only one to come up with this idea, there is a team at VIT University, Chennai Campus look at this as well.

If you had a unique idea, could you not patent the mechanical implementation of "applying machine learning to dynamically change timing to maximise fuel efficiency in an ICE"?

It's not. On the very first page of the GP's arxiv.org paper: "Our comments reported here are based on the report as uploaded on arXiv ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913...) and Elforsk home pages on May 20, 2013 (version 2) [1]. Any possible subsequent updates have not been considered." Fail. To. Read. GP should be ashamed but not nearly as ashamed as Nemyst and tibit. I too am waiting for some good comments on arXiv to be posted for the latest test. Sadly I'll be ignoring everything these 3 slashdotters have to say on the matter because they are idiots and can't even get their thoughts in the right context.

Most were well known collaborators, known to Rossi over many years. This guy has spent jail time for fraud / tax evasion. He also had a company that could turn garden waste into high grade petrol! Amazing! Heres a great breakdown of the many (many) issues with this so called independent research... http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pap...

Have you read this? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pap...

Having glanced over the original stuff, and reading through this, as a non scientist it seems pretty convincing that the 'independent' test is missing a ton of data that would support any of their conclusions.

Here is also a nice analysis by some real scientists: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pap...

My submission of a couple of days ago.

"The EM2 corportation has submitted a paper to axiv.org http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.0133 describing their $10 million US Navy project to investigate Bussards Polywell fusion device. NBC has a report on the development http://www.nbcnews.com/science... . Quoting Nicholas Krall, a plasma physicist who has been working in the fusion field for more than a half-century and has been an adviser to EMC2 Fusion, "I think this is the most exciting experimental advance that I've been involved in," he told NBC News. 'I'm stoked.""

Plus there are 2-3 other concepts that gave got Venture Capital funding. Fusion is looking more interesting.

In the west, young academics today are typically far better than their older peers at their age, or at any age. Certainly, there aren't as many folks revolutionizing multiple fields since each field requires more background, but across the middle tier departments you typically find the strongest researchers and lecturers amongst the younger professors and postdocs.

We need to make several changes :

(1) Remove all NSF grant money for postdoctoral researchers. Postdocs exist so that young faculty headed for middle tier schools can spend a little time at upper tier schools. A middle tier school like say Perdue should not have any postdocs. If an elite institution (MIT) or flagship state institution (Berkeley) wants postdocs for this purpose, then it already has the endowment to fund them itself.

(2) Add NSF funding for staff scientists analogous to French CNRS positions. They'd negotiate with the NSF about which university and lab they're posted at, but their position is basically permanent. As in France, these would basically replace postdoc positions in that the best young scientists would take them and the best of those would move on to university professorships.

(3) Ban exploitive part-time lecturer positions by removing NSF and DoE funding for universities that hire them. Of course, universities could hire full-time lecturer positions, i.e. teachers who teach a lot more than professors.

(4) Augment salaries for NSF funded PhD students who work on research topics with believable applications in industry. These kids are going to spend their lives seeing their peers in applied fields get more for less, start that early so that they can change early if they want. We're not talking really immediate applications here, obviously very abstract fields like group representation theory or rough paths have applications, but very popular subjects like hyperbolic aka geometric group theory or set theory has no realistic industrial applications at this time. There is nothing wrong with people working on subjects without applications, but maybe paying them $300+ less per month will help them realize that they're making their lives more difficult than necessary. In practice, this dividing line might appear different in different fields, maybe CS PhD in programming language theory would earn less for example.

Easily repairable networks (arXiv version). Why not link to the open access paper when the authors bothers making it public?

There is a vast amount of quality information on the internet, even if it falls short of all information. Did you want lecture notes from a QFT class introducing Majorana particles, or an introduction talk on their relevance to condensed matter research, or a review paper covering research, or how about the previous papers (e,g. this one) from the very same author of the paper in the news here? Many of her previous papers are already available for free on ArXiV, and this one might be too. Sometimes there is a bit of delay with posting things there after they get published, but a huge amount of published papers on various physics topics are available for free, either there or on researcher's home pages.

Making something available is not the same as giving people the will to bother even looking for it, let alone actually reading and pursuing such topics. But if so motivated, there is much more easy to find introductory information now on the internet than in the library when I was in grad school, at the least due to numerous lecture notes available that would never have been available in the past because it took too much time to formalize things into an actual book. Plus now you can search if much faster, and even if a paywalled version is found, it takes literally ten seconds to find free versions for many papers.

There is a vast amount of quality information on the internet, even if it falls short of all information. Did you want lecture notes from a QFT class introducing Majorana particles, or an introduction talk on their relevance to condensed matter research, or a review paper covering research, or how about the previous papers (e,g. this one) from the very same author of the paper in the news here? Many of her previous papers are already available for free on ArXiV, and this one might be too. Sometimes there is a bit of delay with posting things there after they get published, but a huge amount of published papers on various physics topics are available for free, either there or on researcher's home pages.

Making something available is not the same as giving people the will to bother even looking for it, let alone actually reading and pursuing such topics. But if so motivated, there is much more easy to find introductory information now on the internet than in the library when I was in grad school, at the least due to numerous lecture notes available that would never have been available in the past because it took too much time to formalize things into an actual book. Plus now you can search if much faster, and even if a paywalled version is found, it takes literally ten seconds to find free versions for many papers.

Actually he did average them. The paper is at http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5830... and he discusses this issue in section 3.2.

I cannot resist promoting my own excellent paper about TLS hardening. Copying abstract:

This document presents TLS and how to make it secure enough as of 2014 Spring. Of course all the information given here will rot with time. Protocols known as secure will be cracked and will be replaced with better versions. Fortunately we will see that there are ways to assess the current security of your setup, but this explains why you may have to read further from this document to get the up to date knowledge on TLS security.

We will first introduce the TLS protocol and its underlying components: X.509 certificates, ciphers, and protocol versions. Next we will have a look at TLS hardening for web servers, and how to plug various vulnerabilities: CRIME, BREACH, BEAST, session renegotiation, Heartbleed, and others. We will finally see how the know-how acquired on hardening web servers can be used for other protocols and tools such as Dovecot, Sendmail, SquirrelMail, RoundCube, and OpenVPN.

We assume you already maintain services that use TLS, and have basic TCP/IP network knowledge. Some information will also be useful for the application developer.

whoops, forgot there's stuff on arxiv: just read this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1008

sorry, I forgot about this arxiv article:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1008

There was little reason to be worried about those shells. And there still isn't. They are dominated by synchrotron radiation, which is only important at frequencies quite a bit lower than where BICEP2 observes. And while one might expect there to be a lot of dust in them too, they don't actually show up when you go and measure the dust. Even when you measure the dust polarization. Look at figure 2 in this recent Planck article, for example. The BICEP2 region itself is in the masked region, but the radio loop that passes through the BICEP2 patch should cover a large part of the sky and hence be visible outside the mask. It isn't really visible. If it is there, it is probably not important compared to the rest of the dust. It also isn't visible in the course-grained polarized dust maps published today that actually covers the BICEP2 region.

On the other hand, there are rumours that Planck is preparing an article about radio loops, so there might be something interesting after all. Or they might be writing to report the loops are unimportant. In a few months we will know much more. But it can't be as important an effect as you're making it out to be.

Sooooo when did dark matter become anti-matter? Or am I missing something?

Probably pretty much everything.

Matter and anti-matter are--up to a flip in charge and parity--the same thing. That is, if you take an electron (a matter particle), flip its charge and look at in a mirror you'll see a positron (an anti-matter particle).

So it is actually perfectly consistent, logically if not linguistically, for dark matter to be entirely anti-matter.

Exotic dark matter can also produce anti-matter when its particles collide with each other, which is what this report seems to be about. The significant thing is that the energy spectrum of the positrons that the AMS detector sees appear to have about the right energy spectrum for one particular type of exotic dark matter (which I personally have a pretty low prior for).

There are a whole bunch of follow-on papers from other people doing what scientists do, which is check for consistency between the exotic dark matter interpretation of this result and reality, in the sense that if this signal really is due to exotic dark matter there should be a number of different consequences (including the anti-proton signal the article mentions): http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/al...

I am an astronomy professor at a large state university. There are many way in which you can contribute to astronomy as an amateur, while at the same time learn about astronomy. Some have been mentioned in previous answers in this thread:

http://www.planethunters.org/ it is a citizen scientists project that uses actual data from NASA's Kepler Space Telescope to find extrasolar planets that may have been missed by the automatic software used by the professional astronomers. It harvests the "wisdom of the crowd" and the natural pattern recognition in the human brain to find the telltale signature of extrasolar planets that the automated software may have missed. Some planets have already been found this way, and the citizens that found them have been included in the scientific publication: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.3612

There are other 9 projects using the same infrastructure that use astronomical data to do real research: https://www.zooniverse.org/pro... . Topics go from stars, planet and galaxy formation, solar physics, black holes, asteroids, etc... All these projects use actual data from ground and space based telescopes, and have ample tutorials that explain how the project work and the science behind it in an accessible way. We use this projects in our school to introduce freshmen undergraduates to research as soon as they arrive to our university.

If you own an amateur telescope you can also contribute to the American Association of Variable Stars Observers (AAVSO: http://www.aavso.org/) which despite its name is open to amateur observers all over the world. The association collects data from amateurs to create lightcurves of variable stars. This is an exceptionally important work, because monitoring of bright stars is often overlook by the professional community; yet knowing long term trends in their luminosity is essential to understand stellar evolution, stellar physics and the cosmological distance scale. The AAVSO is organized as a scientific society, and as such has a journal where results are published, scientific meetings, etc. It also has a lot of background material written in a way to be accessible for the public.

That said, I read in the comment thread above that somebody got discouraged in pursuing an academic career in astronomy because "there are no jobs". This is not true. The field is not worse than any other academic field. Surely we are suffering from cuts in science expenditures an education, like anybody else (hint: think about that when you vote next November), but universities, observatories and agencies like NASA are still hiring. New people can still make it in the field, and even if they don't find a job as astrophysicists there are many careers in the private sector where the skills learned while pursuing a Ph.D. in astronomy are welcomed. One collaborator of mine, for example, just got hired to work at a cool startup company in the D.C. area. A student of mine went to work at Lincoln Lab in Boston on remote sensing. Other ex students in our department that decided to leave research went to work in medical imaging (at Mayo clinic), or even making battle plans for F14s on a aircraft carrier (his claim of fame is that he prevented the Navy from declaring war on Venus). Our university, as well universities all over the world, still accept scores of new student in astronomy programs: not everybody remains in astronomy after their degree, but as far as I know the unemployment rate for professionals with an astronomy Ph.D. is close to zero.

One thing about astronomy is that is a very inclusive community: differently than physics, we have an almost equal gender ratio among the young generations. Age also is not a problem, one of the graduate students we admitted this year is a retiree that decided to complete his studies after working for decades in the oil industry. He is having the time of his life.

Podcasts: pick up a used ipod and subscribe to the astronomy related podcasts.

Kindle: get a used kindle that has the bubble-type keyboard, and let it read books and papers to you. The keyboard lets you start/stop the reader without looking, for in the car use. Download Calibre application and convert online/document resources and copy them to the kindle. You are not stuck with just Amazon eBooks, but many of them are good.

When online use an RSS reader and connecty to the publications feeds: e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/ http://arxiv.org/ http://www.physicsforums.com/ http://prl.aps.org/ http://phys.org/ http://physics.stackexchange.c... http://prd.aps.org/ and many blogs!

Bitch, please.

If you're going to lawyer on technicalities, at least know what the fuck is being discussed.

So, to summarize the paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1565... :

They have developed an algorithm for quickly giving a rough interpretation of the raw data stream coming out from the detector, i.e. converting the information that "value pixel A =12, value of pixel B = 43, ..." into useful physics data like "a particle with momentum vector P and charge Q was probably created 2 m from the collision point". This algorithm is special in that it can be implemented on an FPGA, and is somehow inspired by the retina of our eyes. Because it can run on an FPGA, it has the potential to be much faster, and can handle much larger data fluxes than current algorithms.

This is needed, because in a few years, we will upgrade the LHC such that it produces many more collisions per second, i.e. the data rates will be much higher. We do this to get more statistics, which may uncover rare physics processes (such as was done for the Higgs boson). Not all of this data deluge can be written to disk (or even downloaded from the detector hardware), so we use a trigger which decides which collisions are interesting enough to read out and store. This trigger works by downloading *part* of the data to a computing cluster that sits in the next room (yes, it does run on Linux), quickly reconstructing the event, and sending the "READ" signal to the rest of the detector if it fits certain criteria indicating that (for example) a heavy particle was created. If the data rate goes up, so must the processing speed, or else we will run out of buffers on the detector.