Slashdot Mirror

There area plenty of other ideas to deal with noisy chips.. I'd point out DARPA's SyNAPSE program as an example. Due to quantum constraints, the future of deterministic computation must eventually deal with the noise in a robust manner. The above efforts are focusing on memristor technology.

I don't know whether stochastic architectures do better than noisy memristor ones, but either way we'll have to learn how to program in an environment that the least predictable element is not the one at the console.

Still, each story about a scientist gone astray increases the visibility of scientific fraud. Each story reinforces a negative view held by the public and destroys their trust in the scientific system. The potential implications are dire if the public--and therefore those who fund research--regard every scientist as a potential charlatan. Every scientist should therefore reinforce his or her commitment to avoid ignoring any data that do not fit the hypothesis. Honesty is the only weapon against fraud and against public mistrust, and it is available to everyone from technician to professor. We all need to make sure that it remains the dominant ethos in our laboratories.

In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91-19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

As quoted from How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09107.html The paper was already published last week in Nature. There was another paper by Guiguemde and Kip Guy in the same issue that my lab helped with. The problem is that antimalarial drugs need to be affordable for millions of people to take daily in places where people live off less than $1/day. Things like Coartem and even artemisinin combination pills cost too much for most of the countries that need them, due to patents and safe manufacturing facilities or even just raw materials. Luckily, malaria is getting special recognition and that helps a lot with widely dispensing every tool available to combat the parasite.

Correct paper

"This is the first demonstration of a photorewritable phenomenon at room temperature in a metal oxide. -Ti3O5 satisfies the operation conditions required for a practical optical storage system (operational temperature, writing data by short wavelength light and the appropriate threshold laser power)."

There are piles of astronomy data that are publicly available - you just need to write the software to dig through it. I remember a few of years ago there was a paper in the top science journal Nature in which the authors found a snow/ice/dry ice outcrop on Mars that was not there in some earlier images of the area, but appeared in some of the more recent ones. All the raw images are available online, someone just had to find this needle in the haystack. So, if you have an interesting idea, you should be able to pursue it even without astronomic equipment. Btw., the original Nature article is here (if you have a subscription): http://www.nature.com/nature/foxtrot/svc/mailform?doi=10.1038/444800a&file=/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/444800a.html The 'before' and 'after' images are available, for example, here: http://popsci.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/marswater.jpg

however I will be applauding their work with less skepticism when I hear that MIT, Cornell, CMU, etc confirm the results.

Mod the ignorant parent down. If you read TFA, you'll notice that it references the paper as published in the scientific peer-reviewed magazine Nature (once again, the magazine is peer-reviewed and thus only peer-reviewed works are published in it).

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphoton.2010.87.html

I believe Quantum entanglement is actually a minimum of 10'000 times the speed of light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Experiment_measures_.22speed.22_of_the_quantum_non-local_connection

For those who are curious, this is the article referenced by Wikipedia.

>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.

Oh, Really?

"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.

The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.

NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."

How long have accurate temperature readings been kept? When I say "accurate", I mean with 0.76C margin of error? Is that really long enough to make a trend?

Arctic ice lowest since 1967? Why that's a whole 43 years ago. Is 43 years of climate change really long enough to indicate a trend? Since it's the 4th lowest in the past 40 years, I'd say that it is only in the low 10% range. Climate changes. That's what it does. Every 10 years or so, you can expect it to be in the bottom 10%. That's how statistics work.

What data? His data on which stations match NOAA guidelines. Again, do you think this data is accurate or not? That is the only question that matters.

How many different ways should I explain this? Watts implied that his "good" stations would have a significantly smaller warming trend than the "bad" stations. Menne 2010 showed that any differences are negligible:

... Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative ("cool") bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive ("warm") bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative ("cool") bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

Watts's response is incoherent, filled with healthy doses of a persecution complex:

Surely he didn't mention that he and Menne et al 'borrowed' my incomplete surfacestations rating data against my protests. Dr. Pielke Sr. and I, plus others on the surfacestations data analysis teams (two independent analyses have been done) see an entirely different picture, now that we have nearly 90% of USHCN surveyed. NCDC used data at 43%, and even though I told them they'd see little or nothing in the way of a signal then, they forged ahead anyway. Assuming we aren't blocked by journal politics, we'll have the surfacestations analysis results in public view soon. If we are blocked by journal politics, we'll have other ways. ... After NCDC's unethical borrowing of my data and denying my right of first publication, don't ask to see the surfacestations analysis results here. I learned my lesson not to trust Karl et al the first time. Full disclosure comes in an SI with journal publication, not before.

He spent years posting pictures and implying incompetence/conspiracies on the part of NOAA/NASA scientists without ever bothering to redo NOAA's analysis on his subset of "good" stations. When someone actually did some science with his rankings, his claims ended up looking silly even to nonscientists who aren't familiar with previous studies like Parker 2004.

And, obviously, Watts doesn't see Menne's paper as verification of any sort. You appear to be alone in that opinion, and I don't understand why you're taking a position that even Watts is sensible enough not to make. He's saying that Menne is wrong, and pointing two non-peer-reviewed (heck, unlinked) analyses of "more complete" data which he's apparently not going to share.

Oh, Really?
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.

Look at all the warming across northern Canada. Pity that NOAA collects its temperature data from only 35 stations across the entirety of Canada (in the 1970s, they had more than 600), while Canada itself has more than 1400. And the elevated temperatures across Canada above the Arctic Circle? It's amazing how the one station at Ellesmere Island -- the only one above the Arctic Circle that NOAA collects data from -- can measure the temperature all the way across Canada.Look at NOAA's own data; in 1991, almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."

Really? In other articles, data collection by NOAA's own National Snow and Ice Data Center would appear to suggest otherwise. "While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979, the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started: 1979. While the extent of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is currently slightly below the 30-year mean, the coverage in the southern hemisphere exceeds the thirty-year mean by approximately 500,000 square kilometers." Not only that, the extent of sea ice around Antarctica has been increasing over the last 20 years, a state of affairs that the current climate models are unable to explain; all the models that have been tweaked to corroborate the desired result of global warming would have warming water around Antarctica causing a long-term reduction in sea ice; the Earth failing to cooperate with rigged projections places these models in doubt.

>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.

Oh, Really?

"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.

The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.

NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."

Here is a link to the actual journal article.

I would like to point out that the guy promoting the use of negative index materials (NIMs) in solar cells is being extremely optimistic. The Kramers-Kronig dispersion relations require any and all passive NIMs to be inherently lossy at the wavelength of interest. In addition, the wider your try to make the bandwidth, the more loss will incur.

Don't get me wrong, metamaterials are an extremely interesting field of research, but to promote their use for energy harvesting is ridiculous. They are much more interesting for beating the diffraction limit.

It unfortunately doesn't appear to be freely available online anywhere, but you might be interested in this survey paper if you have access to a university library.

Except Global Warming is still used. It appears in the latest issue of Nature and PNAS, as well as in recent (2010) issues of Science, PRSocA, PRSocB, JPhysChemA, Ecology, JEnvironQ, PLos One and many others.

That they "don't even call it global warming anymore" is just as false as most of the claims made by lay-critics of climate science.

2. Arctic and antarctic to warm faster than rest of the planet - predicted by all models. Observed.

I haven't been keeping up with the latest news in climatology, but the last I heard Antartica was getting colder, and the sea ice was expanding. This is directly contrary to the prediction that it should be warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world. But AGW is a hydra, so the loss of that head did nothing to it. I assume there's some rationalization for why the prediction is wrong (or even better, that prediction went down the memory hole; AGW has always predicted Antarctica would cool initially).

I was originally a supporter of AGW, became a "skeptic" when I saw data that didn't fit that theory, and became apathetic when I realized that AGW will not be falsified (hence why I'm not going to bother verifying the other claims). There's probably something to it, but it's not a scientific theory so far as I'm concerned, which makes me not really care about it. Runaway CO2 production can't be maintained indefinitely without having effects, so if it gets cut, great. If the economy tanks in the process my student loans will likely become easier to pay back when I start to care about them in a few years.

I predict a triumphal return of neural nets, predicated on memresistors and recent advances in large scale quantum superpositions.

The time for a new paradigm is upon us.

• Penn State
• the British Parliamentary inquiry
• the Oxford panel
• Nature.com

Here's the nature article (paywall):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/nature08693.html

When I couldn't find it in the most recent nature issue,
I looked a little harder and noticed TFA was published Jan 25th.

Cool, but old news. Haven't really heard anything about it since (other than rehashes of that same info from Oct)

It was the treatment of tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma but I can't find the reference at present. Read about it in med school.

However, may I draw your attention to a couple of other cancers that seem to benefit from localised immune activation due to injected bacteria:

Stomach: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v84/n4/abs/6691599a.html
Mouth: http://www.springerlink.com/content/rw3kk056t4014t5j/
Bladder: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20205607

Good point, another point is CO2 is heavier than air, so it stays down, not up where it would be blocking the heat from escaping. That's also missing from pretty much every "Green" article.

It's quite a bit more complex than that.....

"His thing is geo-engineering though, so his take is that this means we must start geo-engineering now.

No it doesn't, Kintisch is a reporter for the journal Science and as this Nature review of his book points out...

"Both Goodell and Kintisch make it clear that geoengineering is at best a complement to drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. “We have to immediately launch a worldwide program to stop polluting our atmosphere with this surprisingly pernicious trace gas,” Kintisch argues. Most scientists feel much the same, viewing geoengineering strictly as a possible emergency backup plan that should be used only if things get really dire....[snip]...Kintisch also digs deeper than Goodell into explaining the details of how geoengineering might work — and why it would be so difficult to do well....[snip]...That's not to say Kintisch argues in favour of geoengineering, but that he writes from firmly within the world of science, and for an audience who's comfortable with science, too....[snip]...Kintisch is sceptical about the idea that we can tame and control ecosystems, let alone the whole planet."

"Climate change scientists have now resorted to trolling us."

Climate scientists have known about the negative forcing of areosols since at least the 1950's. It's the half truth behind the widely repeated troll that "most climate scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's". I know of no reputable climate scientist* who would advocate repealing the clean air act and going back to pea-soupers and acid rain as a sane method of tackling AGW.

* = Eli Kintisch (the author of the original opinion piece in the LA times), does not advocate increasing pollution. He is simply pointing out that man made areosols are currently masking the full impact of CO2 emissions. His book Hack the Planet is an informative work about the pros and cons of geoengineering options that governments may be tempted to consider if things continue on a BAU basis. As the Nature review points out; "Kintisch is skeptical about the idea that we can tame and control ecosystems, let alone the whole planet."

Like the vast majority of scientists his prefered geoengineering option is to wind down the current uncontrolled geoengineering experiment in a responsible manner, but as we have seen there is some mighty stiff oposition against that option from powerfull vested interests. And how surprising is it to learn that they are the same vested interests who, for almost a century, successfully used anti-science and economic alarmisim to fight tooth and nail against any and all proposals for clean air regulations?

I found a nice little illustration of the effect temperature has on the equilibrium of this reaction here. The calculation is actually for the related reaction using carbon (as coke) instead of methane, but the equilibrium constants are about equal for the temperatures discussed here. At atmospheric conditions on Earth, the equilibrium can be considered as shifted completely to the left. Virtually no carbon monoxide is produced from this reaction at temperatures less than about 600K. At a temperature of 956.7K, the levels of carbon and carbon monoxide are equal, and at higher temperatures, carbon monoxide is On GJ 436b, with a temperature of 800K, the equilibrium should still strongly disfavor CO production, and the calculation suggests that there should be around 13.6 times as much carbon (or methane in the case of GJ 436b) as there is carbon monoxide.

However, the researchers determined that "GJ 436b's atmosphere is abundant in CO and deficient in methane (CH4) by a factor of ~7,000." The only way the planet could have gotten an atmosphere like that through this reaction equilibrium alone is if its temperature is really around 2000K instead of 800K. The researchers therefore argue that it's far more likely that some other mechanism is disrupting this equilibrium, like polymerization of methane that pulls it out of the system. In their Nature paper, they include a a chart of the atmospheric ratios of gas giants, both in our solar system and exoplanets; nothing else known has a CH4/CO ratio like that seen for GJ 436b.

Anyone that's done a little research knows the scientists there really did some questionable stuff. They would also know that they've (CRU/IPCC) been taken to task by others in the scientific community for doing so.

There was a small amount of criticism from the scientific community regarding small details, but the consensus was that the leaked emails did reveal a conspiracy, and did not alter any of the science. See: Nature, Scientific American New Scientist, the Royal Society.

The NYT story was pretty good, but Nature had an even better story (from the scientists' perspective). For the subscription-challenged among you:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/04/native_american_research_lawsu_1.html

Native American Research Lawsuit Settled - April 22, 2010

Posted for Rex Dalton. ...

The researchers denied the charges then, and still do. Mick Rusing, a Tucson attorney representing the one remaining researcher defendant, notes that all those charges were rejected by judges as the case moved through state and federal courts. The remaining claim in state court related to alleged negligence. ...

The tribal government will receive no money, state attorneys say. The award will cover legal expenses [emphasis added] for the 41 tribal members who remain as plaintiffs, with those members dividing the amount left after the legal costs, their attorney says. The exact details of those distributions are private, say Stephen Hanlon, a Washington, DC attorney for tribal members; he adds he isn’t being paid. ...

Geneticist Therese Markow – the former ASU leader of the project and the remaining researcher defendant – told Nature: “I’m glad it’s over; but it never should have happened. There was no basis for any claim. They would have lost had it gone to trial.”

When the project began, the ASU Humans Subjects Committee approved genetic studies of diabetes, schizophrenia and depression. Markow, who is now at the University of California at San Diego, says the research was conducted properly, tribal leaders were briefed on the studies, and patients were treated with respect. ...

Markow’s attorney, Rusing, said at least a half dozen of the original suing tribal members were shown not to have been in the study. Markow added that plaintiff Tilousi “wasn’t in the canyon” during the study. ...

“Tribal members were mislead by various parties,” says Markow. “This created suspicious sentiments; made them feel vulnerable. That was a shame; a travesty.”

In the end, she says, these misconceptions spread through various Native American communities making them more suspicious of researchers.

“It is a bitter irony that a group of people who historically have been under-served with respect to health-related research may now become even more under-served,” says Markow.

Pure text paper without the images
The images

'But as far as I know, theres nothing stopping you from putting it up on your web site as well or submitting it in publication in other journals.'

Nature has exclusive publication rights for the first 6 months, after which you're free to submit the paper to a public repository or put it up on your own site:

http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html

This is rather more enlightened than some other major journals, which still require a copyright transfer to the publisher, but obviously falls short of full open access from day 1. But I think most people who get a paper in Nature will happily accept this compromise! (at least for now).

Incidentally, some form of open access is pretty much being forced on traditional publishers by major funding bodies, which now commonly require that most or all funded publications are submitted to journals that provide this (time delays are generally allowed), e.g.:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/gapp/terms/openaccess_ukpmc/

So things are at least moving in the right direction.

... a cousin of mine just submitted and got approved for a article on leukemia research in Nature and I don't think he regrets the fact that is behind a pay wall: it's success.

The US of A is involved. Check out ICGC for the public release of the data. The original news source was published in Nature today.

I thought making symmetrical holes in water is easy http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/news060515-17.html

Stumped scientists first attributed the shape to a huge, stormlike vortex along one of the hexagon’s sides, which Voyager also spotted during its journey. Astronomers believed this gyre was altering the jet stream’s course, much in the same way a large rock would change a nearby river’s path. But when the Cassini mission returned to Saturn and photographed Saturn's north pole in 2006, the vortex was gone, yet the hexagon was still there.

The PP is correct - it was also recreated in 2006 with only a spinning bottom. What was disproved is that the hexagon was shaped by an *offset* vortex. And it was featured in /. too, IKEA jokes included :) Quoth ye olde article:

Tomas Bohr and colleagues made plexiglass buckets, 13 and 20 centimetres across, with metal bottoms that could be rotated at high speed by a motor. [...] Swinney, meanwhile, thinks that the process is unlikely to apply to large-scale flows such as that on Saturn, but might be relevant to smaller-scale phenomena such as tornadoes.

Then again, experiments must be repeated for validation, additional data and other improvements (including prettier videos!)

Old news. This article from 2006 details a similar experiment.

See http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/full/news060515-17.html

There are other articles with more coverage -- Live Science, BMC Biology (PDF of 20-page article with pictures available), New Scientist, Nature, and others. The provisional PDF available at BMC Biology is the full article as it was accepted, and details the experimental procedure that confirmed that these were completely anaerobic organisms.

The abstract of the Nature Nanotechnology article notes the superconducting transition temperature for the bulk material is around 8 Kelvin, which is definitely liquid helium range (nitrogen boils at 77K). They do go on to note, however, that at very small levels of this molecule, the superconducting gap decays exponentially with the number of linked molecules, and that 4 pairs is the minimum number where any effect at all was seen. So I don't have an exact temperature, but at least liquid helium (boils at 4K), and just as a guess, the minimal four paired molecule version might be something that might only work at the millikelvin range. Those dilution refrigerators are rather bulky items.

It would seem prudent first to ask whether we have any data to suggest there is much CO2 in the stratosphere. If we do have measurements to show it is there, why deny this observation simply because you are not yet aware of the mechanism?

Then maybe relevant data (such as historical trends) could shed some light on methodologies for such transfer.

Suggesting that it must be some sort of anti-gravitation mechanism we could harness for transportation seems a bit premature.

If you really are interested in researching this (which... ahem... your tone belies), you could start with these sites:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v316/n6030/abs/316708a0.html
http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5291/1340

Forgot the link to the study: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v15/n10/full/oby2007293a.html

You mean like Nature, as the second link states?

From Nature, the advance online publication. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08956.html [nature.com]

this url takes you to the real article
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08956.html
As a scientist who works in biotech, I am amazed at how credulous slashdot is about biotech stuff; i guess it is because most /.s are not biologists, so they don't understand how far from a treatment this sort of thing is; This is great science, and an important step forward, but it is a long, long way from an FDA approved treatment.

Who cares how the particles get inside the cancer cells? Does it matter if we use microscopic needles and inject every single cancer cell or just throw a bunch of square pegs at square holes and hope for the best?

The end result is that the medicine winds up where it should be, and doesn't seem to be accumulating where it shouldn't.

BTW, in the above referenced Nature article it says this:

When the components are mixed together in water, they assemble into particles about 70 nanometres in diameter. The researchers can then administer the nanoparticles into the bloodstream of patients, where the particles circulate until they encounter 'leaky' blood vessels that supply the tumours with blood. The particles then pass through the vessels to the tumour, where they bind to the cell and are then absorbed.

So maybe that counts as targeted. Maybe not. I don't care either way - it works, regardless of semantics.

How about Nature?

The study describes the science behind a phase I trial assessing the safety of the technique in 15 patients.

I cannot see anything meaningful coming from such a small sample size. It has potential but obviously much more research is needed.

...and if we take into account the fact that this was focused more on the historical end of things, it even more meets the op's apparent definition of "scholar" (as someone without religious presupposition).

There are also a number of PhD students out there right now no doubt working on articles like this one regarding the academic side of pretty much everything including super hero clothing.

Academics can be found with an interest in pretty much anything.

See paper here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08956.html and article here http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100321/full/news.2010.138.html

Why do I keep seeing summaries that link to articles that are summaries of summaries of the original publication? Just link to the damn Nature article if that's the source.

See paper here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08956.html and article here http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100321/full/news.2010.138.html

Why do I keep seeing summaries that link to articles that are summaries of summaries of the original publication? Just link to the damn Nature article if that's the source.

Cleland and his team took a more direct measure of quantum weirdness at the large scale. They began with a a tiny mechanical paddle, or 'quantum drum', around 30 micrometres long that vibrates when set in motion at a particular range of frequencies. Next they connected the paddle to a superconducting electrical circuit that obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. They then cooled the system down to temperatures below one-tenth of a kelvin.

At this temperature, the paddle slipped into its quantum mechanical ground state. Using the quantum circuit, Cleland and his team verified that the paddle had no vibrational energy whatsoever. They then used the circuit to give the paddle a push and saw it wiggle at a very specific energy.

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.

Similarly macroscopic quantum states have been achieved in superconductors. So the significance of this work is that macroscopic superposition is accomplished with a mechanical system, not an electronic one. The Nature article that the BBC is referring to: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08967.html The BBC removed the scale bar, which shows that the resonator is about 70 microns long, with an "active region" 40 microns long. But the resonant frequency is still up in the GHz, so they only have to cool to 0.1K, which is not so hard these days.