5 ms·

the paper is surprisingly readable (although i don't know enough to say whether it's correct or not) - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/110

the paper is surprisingly readable (although i don't know enough to say whether it's correct or not) - http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.4161v1 this is a pity - it would have been a very cool approach if true. the criticism seems quite general, unfortunately (it identifies some consequences that come from associating gravity with entropy and shows that they conflict with experimental results). the paper / main link is a theoretical argument based on an earlier experiment using neutrons and gravity. that earlier work is critical because it ties together QM and gravity observationally (very hard to do because gravity is very weak compared to the other forces that are usually important in QM). update: here's a better link than the slides below, which includes an explanation of the earlier experimental work - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110418083349.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110418083349.ht... [old text: i've been poking around and this set of slides (slow to load) gives some background on the neutron / gravity observations - http://admin.triumf.ca/docs/seminars/Sem5145306260-71715-1.Sem20110312_lee.pdf http://admin.triumf.ca/docs/seminars/Sem5145306260-71715-1.S... . there's a slide almost exactly half way through called "Experiment on QM and Gravity Using UCN" - that and the intro above are relevant, i think. the experiment involves increasing the height of a "passageway" until neutrons can get to the other side. the classical interpretation would expect the number to come through to vary smoothly with height, but in practice there's a minimum height, related to the QM wavefunction (which includes a term with gravity, since that is the force acting on the neutrons).] ps this kind of work (ultra-cold neutrons + gravity) is just as interesting and important as the higgs particle work at the lhc. it's also cheaper and smarter. so it's depressing that what is reported in the popular press is so distorted (by scientists themselves, who need to drum up money and support for "big science") - we see a huge amount of coverage of the lhc and nothing on amazing work like this.

joeyespo 15y ago
Thanks for sharing then. As someone who is very interested in this but feels a little intimidated by arxiv, I'd be very interested in seeing more posts about the results. (Either that or subscribe to a site that can summarize the results for an easier read, linking to the technical papers for further exploration. Being so interested in the discoveries of what we're made of, without taking time off to fully understand the math or dig through arxiv, I'd happily pay for such a physics news/education site.) Also, that second link has such a good title. Lots of good, visual info too.
sandGorgon 15y ago
ps this kind of work (ultra-cold neutrons + gravity) is just as interesting and important as the higgs particle work at the lhc. it's also cheaper and smarter. so it's depressing that what is reported in the popular press is so distorted (by scientists themselves, who need to drum up money and support for "big science") - we see a huge amount of coverage of the lhc and nothing on amazing work like this Hmm... Stackoverflow/Hacker-News for pure science ?
- Mizza 15y ago
  It seems to me like a really fantastic idea, but for some reason it has never happened. I've seen a few 'startup'/webapp projects that attempt this kind of idea, but none of them ever seem to gain enough traction. My theory is that it's some combination of funding cycles and the personalities of scientists.
  - adw 15y ago
    As an ex-scientist, I'd add one more contention: the cranks. They take way too much time. Limiting the site to active researchers (at least for posting) would help, but even that wouldn't be enough. Not willing to name names in public, but every university has a That Guy. Sometimes - often, in fact - they've done truly revolutionary work in the past, but for whatever reason they've now lost it. So much as HN common sentiment goes against this, it would need to be heavily moderated and have a reasonably high credentialist (qualifications or published work, preferably both) entry barrier. The FT's "Long Room" forum is a good model. Life is too short for anything else.
    - giardini 15y ago
      Tenured college professors often become cranks? I thought crankhood was reserved to those who had not achieved a legitimate doctorate. What about string theory? It seems a specialty designed for cranks: you can't do experiments, it's "a piece of 21st-century physics that had fallen by accident into the 20th century." and that, as the joke states, requires 22nd-century mathematics to solve. Are string theorists cranks?

joeyespo 15y ago

Thanks for sharing then. As someone who is very interested in this but feels a little intimidated by arxiv, I'd be very interested in seeing more posts about the results. (Either that or subscribe to a site that can summarize the results for an easier read, linking to the technical papers for further exploration. Being so interested in the discoveries of what we're made of, without taking time off to fully understand the math or dig through arxiv, I'd happily pay for such a physics news/education site.) Also, that second link has such a good title. Lots of good, visual info too.

sandGorgon 15y ago

ps this kind of work (ultra-cold neutrons + gravity) is just as interesting and important as the higgs particle work at the lhc. it's also cheaper and smarter. so it's depressing that what is reported in the popular press is so distorted (by scientists themselves, who need to drum up money and support for "big science") - we see a huge amount of coverage of the lhc and nothing on amazing work like this Hmm... Stackoverflow/Hacker-News for pure science ?

Mizza 15y ago
It seems to me like a really fantastic idea, but for some reason it has never happened. I've seen a few 'startup'/webapp projects that attempt this kind of idea, but none of them ever seem to gain enough traction. My theory is that it's some combination of funding cycles and the personalities of scientists.
- adw 15y ago
  As an ex-scientist, I'd add one more contention: the cranks. They take way too much time. Limiting the site to active researchers (at least for posting) would help, but even that wouldn't be enough. Not willing to name names in public, but every university has a That Guy. Sometimes - often, in fact - they've done truly revolutionary work in the past, but for whatever reason they've now lost it. So much as HN common sentiment goes against this, it would need to be heavily moderated and have a reasonably high credentialist (qualifications or published work, preferably both) entry barrier. The FT's "Long Room" forum is a good model. Life is too short for anything else.
  - giardini 15y ago
    Tenured college professors often become cranks? I thought crankhood was reserved to those who had not achieved a legitimate doctorate. What about string theory? It seems a specialty designed for cranks: you can't do experiments, it's "a piece of 21st-century physics that had fallen by accident into the 20th century." and that, as the joke states, requires 22nd-century mathematics to solve. Are string theorists cranks?