ScienceBlogs 2.0

It is explicitly stated that it can be used as a heat pump:

When used as a heat pump, the device might be useful for solid-state cooling applications or even power generation.

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html

A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage V<kBT/q is shown to use electrical work to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/optical_heat_pump_100_percent_efficient_led_turns_heat_light-88230

When an electrical power input as low as 30 pico-watts is applied, the researchers consistently measured a 69 pico-watt optical power output, seemingly defying the law of conservation of energy. However, upon further investigation, the researchers showed that the system was able to derive extra energy from the thermal energy present in the environment. More specifically, the LED was able to convert the heat generated by the vibrations in the LED’s silicon lattice structure into additional emitted photons, increasing the LED efficiency to over twice unity.

Achieves greater than unity efficiency by simultaneously converting thermal and electrical energy into photons....Cools the surrounding environment as it draws thermal energy from it.

https://innovate.nasa.gov/node/152

I don't think so. The holographic universe a "projection" in the sense that the information can be thought of as living on the boundary of a given space, with the maximum entropy / information contained therein proportional to the boundary's surface area (on a quantum level, a bit is a measurement of area). But this isn't super shocking if you're aware of the idea of "light bubbles" (the generalisation to three dimensions of a light cone) which already describe the limits of how information in a region of space can propagate.

Distance was already an illusion, insofar as it represents a non-unique projection of a spacetime using purely relativistic techniques. :) But the speed of light isn't going to be got around by any of these models. If anything, the models will explain this limit better.

POSTSCRIPT:

I recommend the Hammock Physicist as a random physicist who can explain concepts like this at just the right level of detail for the HN audience. http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist

Johannes Koelman takes apart that claim in a concisely articulated argument -- http://www.science20.com/the_hammock_physicist/falsifiability_and_the_integrity_of_physics-151714

TL;DR: "The scientific method is not about testability or falsifiability per se. It is about trying hard to falsify. Nothing more, nothing less. Truth is to be found in those ideas that survive despite the multitude of attempts to falsify them[...]quantum gravity theories needs to reproduce all known low-energy physics, as well as all known classical gravitational phenomena. In other words: if you ensure your favorite theory of quantum gravity in the appropriate limits reduces to the standard model and Einstein's theory of gravity, your theory has survived all falsification attempts ever undertaken in the history of physics. This is a key point that fails to receive attention in 'string theory and falsifiability' debates."

I like this comment (with the nice explanation of the experiment):

http://www.science20.com/tommaso_dorigo/miniboone_confirms_neutrino_anomaly-232739

Author's take:

"The simple collecting more data and making the result stronger from a statistical standpoint in these cases does not help convince your peer: as I said, this is systematic in nature, so the problem has to be attacked by other means."

On one side he is "an experimental particle physicist who works for the INFN at the University of Padova, and collaborates with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC" but also writes "I am not a true expert in these matters so my comments would probably be deceiving or plain fallacious."

For him, it seems there is still a need for some other kind of approach before something more specific than "the apparent excess was consistently measured through the years" can be claimed.

Kudos, Musk is willing to embarrass himself if necessary in a good cause. Thanks. But I'm not overly fond of the paper.

No mention of asteroids when discussing other destinations, or re refueling. No mention of refueling from lunar sources (oxygen - you could haul hydrogen from Mars or Earth. Plus structural matter, solar cells, soil or even food.) Transporters that actually land on Mars - a la the first lunar return trip plans which landing everything on the moon that would return. It's surely more likely that there will be dedicated Earth-Mars transporters for that distance that don't land at either end. Way more economical.

But others have covered this in more detail:

http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/case_for_moon_open_ended_positive_future_for_humans_based_on_planetary_protection_executive_summary-170088

> Formerly known as "peer review".

An in-depth review of a paper in advance of publication is common (although that system isn't as reliable as had one been assumed). Such an exhaustive review after publication is rare, for multiple reasons.

One serious problem with post-publication review is that the original data are rarely made available to reviewers. For example, academic critics of the work of Diederik Stapel couldn't justify revoking his Ph.D. because the original data that might have proved his fraud no longer existed. He eventually voluntarily gave up his degree[1], possibly to try to avoid a deeper investigation into his behavior.

1. http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dutch_psychologist_diederik_stapel_relinquishes_his_phd-84542