Slashdot Mirror

The author has released a revision of the paper at the same location as described above. The original version is now here. There are no major changes to the conclusions.

Well, yes electo-mechanical binary computer came first: Zuse in the late 1930s did build (with two students) one with all custom parts out of sheet metal. However, he still had the advantage of many kinds of technology that didn't exist in the early 19th century. Even standardized screws and bolts and a way to make them happened in the 1860s.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.188...

Here's the pre-print on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.106...

The primary result in this paper is the validation of the experimental design using a scaled-down version. From the paper:

ABRACADABRA-10 cm represents the first step in an experimental search program, which aims to ultimately be sensitive to ADM in the coupling range preferred by QCD axions. Future phases of ABRACADABRA will require larger magnets with higher fields, improved shielding, and strong mitigation of mechanical vibration. Augmenting the techniques described here with a resonant amplification readout and scan strategy will also greatly improve the sensitivity of a future full scale ABRACADABRA detector. We have already begun engineering studies towards designing and building such a detector and ABRACADABRA-10 cm creates a strong foundation for this ongoing work.

Or alternatively, something like these --

Do You See What I See? Detecting Hidden Streaming Cameras Through Similarity of Simultaneous Observation
Detecting Wireless Spy Cameras Via Stimulating and Probing
Detecting Spies in IoT Systems using Cyber-Physical Correlation
DeWiCam: Detecting Hidden Wireless Cameras via Smartphones

I take it that you didn't notice the papers being published for free on the arXiv, then? Seriously, here is a direct link to download the main paper described in the summary.

In contrast to standard Bell inequalities, (the probability distribution) is not concerned with the coexistence of local properties for two separate physical systems, but rather with the coexistence of facts with respect to different observers.

Yet this apparent discrepancy in observed measurements, or "facts about the world being observer independent" has several loopholes including locality, freedom of choice, and the detection loophole (only a fraction of photons are successfully detected). The locality and freedom of choice loopholes can be removed by sufficiently seperating the events in space. Neither of these was able to be done in this experiment. Further you would need to ensure that the measurement of the observers "memory" (an observer could simply be an instrument, sensor, or interaction of matter/energy of some kind and not a person) and are clearly independent systems initially.

Tl:dr this is less about showing multiple realities exist and more about showing how the "cut" between indeterminate quantum and deterministic classic macro systems work. A good discussion is here

I'll do you one better and link directly to a PDF on arXiv.

"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

"Thus, in a very physical sense, the phonon carries (negative) mass."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf

the ratio of the sines of the angles of incidence and refraction of a wave are constant when it passes between two given media.

So basically the sound kind of bounces off the pressure gradient caused by gravity, lifting the mass of the medium with it (slightly). The authors themselves discuss how it is equivalent to sourcing gravity, how to measure the effect in the conclusion, and mention how the same effect could cause two parallel sound save packets to experience a very slight attractive force.

"The Alcubierre drive is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

"Thus, in a very physical sense, the phonon carries (negative) mass."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.08771.pdf

Nevermind:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.110...

Ryan Fenton

and you don't need much more than Spectre to compromise cloud VMs sharing the same physical host. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.051...
You may use "SPOILER" to improve the data extraction speed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.004...

and you don't need much more than Spectre to compromise cloud VMs sharing the same physical host. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.051...
You may use "SPOILER" to improve the data extraction speed. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.004...

It's been tested to work thousands of times better than traditional CPUs at simulated annealing operations; however, research leveraging DWave offerings have been slow to come out. You can reach an article where researchers used DWave technology to conduct their experiments. In addition, there are numerous published papers leveraging DWave tech including application in ML and optimization tasks (traffic).

But, healthy skepticism should setup a box around our confidence in any published research until it's verified--preferably on non-DWave systems, something which is pretty damn difficult today.

Actually, they do. The electron-electron interaction of a Cooper pair has energies on the order of 10E-3 eV. The "high temperature superconductors" assume that somehow you can compensate the random heat movement (kT) and (also random) electric repulsion (order of eVs) by interactions in the crystal lattice.

This is a bit disingenuous. First of all, the critical temperature of a superconductor is proportional to the pairing energy, so trying to find a high-temperature superconductor is synonymous with increasing this energy scale. Having a pairing energy of ~1meV is typical for a good low-temperature superconductor (like Nb), where the pairing is caused by phonons. Compensating the random heat movement (~kT) would happen precisely by increasing the pairing energy proportionally. Note also that we don't really know how most high-temperature superconductors work (cuprates), but some theories actually invoke the electric repulsion you brought up as a possible mechanism for superconductivity.

Since the main question was whether high-temperature superconductors break any known laws of physics, you might also be interested to know that we already have near-room-temperature superconductors. After the discovery of superconductivity at 203K (-70C) in sulfur hydride (SH3) a couple of years ago, the record was recently pushed to 250K (-23C) in lanthanum hydride (LaH10). The caveat is that these materials require millions of atmospheres of pressure to function at these temperatures, so they're not that useful for practical applications. But they do demonstrate that room-temperature superconductivity is not prohibited by any physical laws; for instance, a high-pressure hydride would still be subject to the same thermal (~kT) and electron repulsion (~eV) conditions you referred to, but they still work. Secondly, if one is able to replicate the conditions inside these crystals chemically instead of via external pressure (e.g. via the "pressure" between atomic layers in a crystal), they could in principle be made more useful.

As for the article itself: I agree that it sounds unlikely. I'll believe it when I see a published paper replicating the effect, and eliminating other possible explanations of the observations. There are bogus papers claiming to discover high-temperature superconductivity all the time, such as this obvious fraud that made some headlines last year.

Can you find a _single_ reputable physicist or chemist who thinks room temperature superconductors are feasible?

Well, there are these guys. It took 10 seconds of Googling to find that, and there are lots more. If no reputable chemists or physicists believe room temperature superconductors are feasible, there sure are a lot of them wasting their time. The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to a group of mathematicians and physicists whose research may pave the way towards high-temperature superconductors (as well as a lot more).

Many speculate on the idea

Why do they bother if they all believe it's infeasible? And they clearly do a lot more than just speculate.

but none has demonstrated a practical theory of how to do so.

So your argument is that because no one has achieved it, no one even thinks it's possible? Really?

Given this Navy guy's other patents and the nature of how his invention supposedly works, I'm pretty skeptical that he's done it. I expect that if it's achieved it will be one with some pretty exotic materials and/or complex methods, because if it were easy it would have been done years ago. But assuming it's impossible just because no one has done it is silly.

You might read the article here, on an actual competition with human judges between computer-produced and human-produced "expressionist" art:
      https://hyperallergic.com/3910...
(The full study appeared at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.070...) It's not my kind of art, and I'm not sure I can say I like any of it, but the human "participants largely preferred the machine-created artworks to those made by humans... subjects found the images generated by the machine intentional, visually structured, communicative, and inspiring, with similar, or even higher levels, compared to actual human art."

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

Blogs:

Building a Language and Compiler for Machine Learning

DiffEqFlux.jl â" A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Why Numba and Cython are not substitutes for Julia

Papers:

Fashionable Modeling with Flux

Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

Dynamic Automatic Differentiation of GPU Broadcast Kernels

Automatic Full Compilation of Julia Programs and ML Models to Cloud TPUs

Don't Unroll Adjoint: Differentiating SSA-Form Programs

DiffEqFlux.jl - A Julia Library for Neural Differential Equations

Confederated Modular Differential Equation APIs for Accelerated Algorithm Development and Benchmarking (about differential equations, not ML, but describes how Julia's architecture permits very modular algorithmic designs that custom-compile down to efficient implementations)

I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.

It should be pointed out that the new API being proposed will actually make adblocking more efficient. The new API allows extensions to configure Chrome with a set of rules that specify what URLs to block. These rules would be evaluated by Chrome, in native code. In contrast, the method currently used by adblockers is an API that simply calls a snippet of extension-provided Javascript on each network request. While this can be fast if the adblock extension author codes it well, it clearly will never be as efficient as matching rules implemented in native code.

The source of the controversy is that the new API has an upper bound on the number of rules that can be provided: 30K So an adblocker could not add more than 30K adblocking rules. The message from Devlin Cronin (lead engineer for the extensions team) implies that they think that should be enough for good adblocking, if rules are managed properly. He cites research which finds that 90% of the 60K EasyList rules aren't useful, which implies that the same adblocking benefit would be achieved with 6K rules. Clearly, huge rule lists will be slower than small rule lists. Cronin says the rule list size limit will be increased, though there will still be a limit.

For anyone interested in the technical details, here's the documentation of the new API: https://developer.chrome.com/e... and of the existing API: https://developer.chrome.com/e...

Robots can lead the way but to really exploit space, you need humans: https://www.scientificamerican... or https://www.wired.com/2012/04/... and here's a great paper on the subject: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

Yeah, here's a preprint link. I was actually fooled myself, because the first page looked fine. Sneaky bastards. (I mean, I can get the full article from the publisher's site through my library subscription, but that's beside the point.)

Bullshit it deviated from an orbit shaped by gravity. There is no evidence of this. And outgassing requires it be made of a material that would outgas. Rocks generally don't do much of that, nor do hunks of metal. It doesn't behave like a comet because it is not a comet. Duh...

Here, you seem to be just flat our wrong. This paper states "`Oumuamua showed deviations from a Keplerian orbit at a high statistical significance." Most of all this is only be talked about because it did deviate from motion described by gravity. Most likely, it's just outgassing. However, as you said, it's not a comet and we haven't found any sort of gas. Could also be some sort of radiation pressure from the sun, but once again, they haven't detected what could be the reflective surface. It's an odd duck and some people are getting papers published with odd ideas, however most of this is just because we never got a good look at it to begin with and probably never will.

That would imply that it's rotation axis is not far from laying in the fundamental plane of the solar system, similar to the Pluto/Charon system and Uranus. Which makes me go "Hmmm, interesting."

While no coherent light curve for MU69 has been modelled, there is variation in the brightness. See, for example, fig 5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.047... (caption includes "Although there is quite a bit of scatter in the data and we cannot determine the period, it is possible to hide a lightcurve amplitude of up to 0.6 magnitudes within this dataset.") "No rotation" is possible (but unlikely) ; slow rotation (much less than the 9 day intense observation campaign, for example) is also possible ; irregular rotation ("tumbling") is possible.

You might have read alarmist articles on the matter.

The serious science is this:

reversals are rapid

the magnetic field does not disappear during reversals though there may be multiple poles

no extinctions correlate with them

the solar wind interacting with the upper atmosphere would protect us from cosmic rays

so the "fun" would be technology / navigational system issues, no anything directly dire to life

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph...

What are you talking about?

There is no new secret quantum CPU technology that is going to push Moore's law along. If you are talking about qubits and spinbits, they a long, long way off from becoming a viable CPU. This isn't a simple matter of retooling, a lot more research and slick tricks need to be invented. The quantum world is a very noisy world leading to a need to spread things out and use photons to communicate. Smaller isn't going to be the answer, in fact, chips will most likely get physically bigger. This new design is still in the research phase at least it was in Summer 2018.

CPUs stopped getting faster 3-years ago as Intel, AMD, ARM started cramming in more and more cores.
Quantum is smoke and mirrors.

Either we need specialized neural chips which no one knows how to build or we need to go back to the days of liquid cooling.

From the summer of 2018, John Preskill's session at Cal-Tech.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.008...

The strongest statement in the scientific paper is "The noise amplitude tends to increase with the shares of intermittent renewables." One of the key findings is that trading causes relatively huge fluctuations which occur every 15 minutes as trading occurs at this interval. So claiming that "renewables compromise grid stability" is very much exaggerated.

The actual research your linked article refers to is here:
https://www.nature.com/article...

ArXiv link is here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.084...

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-...

But can it also detect the elephant in the room?

At https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.051...

What is the big interest? Well, mostly that the population of "hot Jupiters" seems to be bimodal (two types of highest frequencies, but intermediate and extreme systems are present). This planet lays near the edge of one of those lower frequency bands, and is losing in the order of 10,000 tonnes/second of hydrogen - which sounds a lot, but over it's 2 billion year lifetime (less than half that of the Earth) only amounts to between 4% and 35% of it's original mass.

If there were other planets in it's system, that's really mess up their orbital stability, if they had any to start with (on the billion-year time scale). On the other hand, that gas takes a time to be driven out of the system, potentially providing a mechanism for "dynamic friction" to damp the instabilities produced.

What you're talking about was discussed in a well-publicized paper fairly recently. The authors called it The Silurian Hypothesis and found that it was a lot more plausible than you're suggesting.

Sure, let's keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out.
NGC 7603 is certainly an interesting case. Based on this paper I'm inclined to conclude that this involves 4 galaxies that are connected to a dark matter filament over vast cosmological distances (see p42 for a diagram). They do not interact with each other, but they do interact gravitationally with the filament, which also attracted an envelope of normal matter gas.

These filaments have been shown to form in cosmological simulations, and have been observed for other connected galaxies, although on a smaller scale.

Ironically for you, they are also considered to be evidence of a Big Bang expanding universe.

Re: "Sure, and since then we used that data in ever-larger sky surveys and realized what we were seeing was the large scale structure of galactic layout with walls and voids. Since the majority of galaxies are found in certain structures, then of course one will find that their red shifts also tend to cluster.

Can you point me to any examples where this is the argument which was put forward?

This is what I ran into:

Selection Effects in the SDSS Quasar Sample: The Filter Gap Footprint
M.B. Bell, S.P. Comeau (Submitted on 30 Nov 2009)

"In the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars are targeted using colors and anything that can cause the identifying characteristics of the colors to disappear can create problems in the source selection process. Quasar spectra contain strong emission lines that can seriously affect the colors in photometric systems in which the transmission characteristics vary abruptly and significantly with redshift. When a strong line crosses a gap between two filter passbands the color effects induced by the line change abruptly, and there is also a dimming in apparent brightness compared to those redshifts where the strong line is inside a filter passband where the transmission is high. The strong emission lines in quasars, combined with the varying detectability introduced by the transmission pattern of the five filters, will result in a filter-gap footprint being imprinted on the N(z) distribution, with more quasars being missed when a strong line falls in a filter gap. It is shown here that a periodicity of (z) ~ 0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N(z) distribution. Its presence also means that the SDSS quasar data cannot be used either to confirm or to rule out the (z) ~ 0.6 redshift period reported previously in other, unrelated quasar data."

Re: "Just look at your own list of papers, lots in the 60s and 70s, then less and less until the 2000s when its just a handful. Did the effect disappear, or did people just ascribe this to something more prosaic than the, well, whatever was supposed to be causing it?"

What has happened has been described by Geoffrey Burbidge:

"The observers come in now with the belief that we live in a Big Bang universe, and therefore all of their ways of understanding things are tailored to that. And they don't come in with the possibility that this - our alternative, or any other, for that matter - is right, and really do it in an open-minded way. And of course what goes along with that is that observers who would like to test this way find it very hard to get observing time, and so on. I mean, this relates to the whole issue of whether the ... the complete lack of balance in the ... way the observational programs and the funding are conducted. There's no question about that. I don't think that anybody would argue about it."

You're conflating concepts between the mathematical map ("a singular point") and the actual territory ("The average density of the observable universe is about 6 protons per cubic meter, and you can get a looooot of protons in a cubic meter."), in order to appear as though no scientific principle is being violated.

Re: "So nowhere are they claiming that there is any actual proper motion going on."

There appears to be a brief mention of these structure-induced errors here:

recent observations (Taris et al. 2011; Porcas 2009; Kovalev et al. 2008) of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and theoretical studies (Popovic et al. 2012) indicate that variability in the accretion disk and dusty torus surrounding the central black hole can cause photocentre shifts of up to the milliarcsec level ...

However, you might not be seeing one of the problems presented by the paper I originally pointed to. Figure 2 in that paper shows that there is no real trend in the apparent proper motion versus redshift. Under Big Bang Theory assumptions, there should be a clear trend that with higher redshift, the proper motion should diminish to zero. What is seen instead is that quasars seem to have similar proper motions at both low and high redshift. Even if the dataset is small or contains some errors, the lack of such a trend for the entire dataset is sufficiently anomalous that everybody should be tracking this issue over time. Most astronomers today simply assume that quasars exhibit no apparent motion - and they use this assumption to guide their own observational activities.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.102...

What makes you think they didn't look closer? I refer you to Tables A.1, A.2 and A.3 in the linked Arxiv article.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.01813.pdf

They don't give distances (not that I can see), but seriously, they looked at 50 stars, minimum.

D-Wave is already making them commercially at that scale, with wide enough use that papers are being written from tests on it https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.459...

No, Dark Matter is not simply dark matter, matter we haven't seen yet. Dark Matter is matter we absolutely can not see, e.g. detect by its direct interactions with electromagnetic waves. We only can tell that there is Dark Matter out there because it changes Spacetime according to General Relativity. There are models where Dark Matter does interact with the Weak Force (e.g. WIMPs, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), but so far, none of those models has been proven by an experiment or an observation.

See Audio Adversarial Examples: Targeted Attacks on Speech-to-Text. And see the data.

Just imagine. A television commercial says: Alexa, what is the weather?

Now every human in the room heard that, and it sounds harmless.

What Alexa actually heard: Alexa, browse to evil.com

Pretty neato.

Or see this: DolphinAttack: Inaudible Voice Commands, and see this.

Hope that helps!

Good point. Human perception can also be hacked. Another example: Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humans.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.00168.pdf

Per a recent article here, their own enterprise MITM software (TMG) maps intercepted traffic to TLS 1.0 or SSLv3:

TLS versions and mapping.
Ten appliances support TLS versions 1.2, 1.1, and 1.0, among which three also support SSL 3.0. [...] Microsoft supports only TLS 1.0 and (more worryingly) SSLv3; as many web servers nowadays do not support these versions (specifically SSLv3), clients behind Microsoft will be unable to visit these websites (Over 25% of web servers do not support TLS 1.1 & TLS 1.2. [12]).

I guess TMG will recommend Firefox or Chrome.

I don't have a horse in this race except perhaps a desire to see new and interesting physics but it didn't take much effort find papers.

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph...

I think whoever wrote or proofread the ZDNet article Introduced mistakes, here.

The phrases "TLS Middleware", "TLS middleware appliances," and "Middleware appliances" appear throughout the article Slashdot linked, BUT
the paper does not use the word even once. They are called Middleboxes in the study.

a key advantage of quantum computing is to be able to solve in milliseconds problems like factoring large numbers

They already broke RSA, and nobody told me?

If you want to factor up 18-bit RSA, sure, you are in trouble :)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.027...

And the ignorance about dark matter [...] makes creationists look well informed.

Ohhh, cruel! And as a geologist, I've been using barbed spikes and pain-enhancing medications on creationists for decades. With malice aforethought.

I'm perfectly happy to admit that I know nothing about the subject. I've never heard of "quantized inertia" before now. It doesn't look good when all that Wikipedia can come up with on the subject is a link to (this?) Motherboard article (on principle, I don't follow links to Motherboard, since they're invariably unviewable without enabling 438 (or more) advert-servers in No-Script. And then the content is crap when I get there), and a You-Tube video (not worth the bandwidth - see the "if a picture paints a thousand words - it should be smaller than about 30kb" argument).

Sigh. What is on Arxiv? Search for "Quantized inertia" (including quotes) : nothing. Without the quotes : 35 results ... not one of which uses the actual phrase (about as expected), and none look particularly likely. What about the guy's name? 15 results, all single-author papers (not good), but he's been getting published ("Journal ref: McCulloch, M.E. Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 149" ; "Journal ref: Astrophys Space Sci (2017) 362: 57" ; "Accepted for publication in EPL, 13/10/2016" ; "Journal ref: EPL, 111, 60005, 2015" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 11th February, 2013" ; "Accepted for publication in Astrophysics and Space Science on 27/7/2012" ; "To appear in the SPESIF-2011 conference proceedings, in Physics Procedia" ; "Accepted by EPL on the 16th June, 2011" ; "Accepted by EPL (Europhysics Letters) on the 19th April, 2010." ; "Journal ref: Europhys.Lett.89:19001,2010" ; "Journal ref: MNRAS-letters, 389(1), L57-60, 2008." ; "Journal ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc. 61: 373-378, 2008" ; "Journal ref: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc.376:338-342,2007" Now, they're perfectly respectable journals (well, most of them. Conference proceedings can be a bit loose.), and they're still getting published every couple of years. Which is not the sound of someone having the doors of the ivory tower slammed in his face. However, there's not a cascade of follow-up there.

Sigh. Got some reading to do, I guess.