I think this might be a daft question, but why can't they inject packets with a (roughly) appropriate TTL for the current sequence that they're hijacking? From the two examples shown one might think they're picking ttl's more randomly
in figure 7, Faradays Law: changing magnetic field in the left torus induces a variable current in the wire, then via ampere's law the changing current in the wire induces a magnetic field in the second torus.
However in figure 8 while there is an A field which extends to infinity, don't forget that B = curl(A) and so the magnetic field of the torus is going to be confined within it. As such there's no way to induce a new field in the additional torus. A is a potential, it's not a "real" field in as much as you can only measure things like |B| and |E| (or quantum phases induced by A in the Ahranovov-Bohm experiment)
In which area of interest? As for journal access, i suggest using public computers in a university library. Not tremendously practical but they're always subscribed.
Yet another article about the parity breaking at rhic, i work in this field and while this would be very exciting it's not a cut and dry result. Running the numbers for the proposed theoretical cause of the parity violation leads to something a lot smaller than what is observed. While making simpler, non parity violating, arguments based on geometry and the elliptic flow in the fireball can get you near the right numbers.
downloaded the linux version, nice music and it seems like it mostly takes place through bbs conversations which is great but its a shame you cant type the messages, just click.
don't forget the yang-mills mass gap and the navier-stokes initial value problem, both clay millennium problems and both rather important. Well the yang-mills one is probably more important, this list is a bit m-theory biased.
I think the m is originally for membrane, not "magic" but apparently its open to interpretation.
title is misleading, the gold nucleii collide to create the a quark-gluon-plasma (probably) which eventually cools and condenses to create these new particles which are made from regular old quarks and gluons like every other baryonic particle.
Rather than somehow magically creating a new form of matter from gold.
I guess the exciting part is that they contain a hyperon which is a baryon with one strange quark in it, in this case it looks like a lambda-bar which is gonna be made from anti up, down and strange quarks. Well that and you've managed to bind three of these anti-particles into an anti-Helium or anti-Hydrogen isotope
I think the imaginary time should be taken as an indication that it doesn't make sense to talk about travelling at v > c, in terms of a Special Relativistic framework at least :)
The usual energy loss mechanism for cosmic-rays (fast protons) is reverse-compton scattering off the cosmic-microwave background photons, which is quite amazing really. Some of the most energetic particles scattering off the ubiquitous but very low energy background.
Anyway, if you propose that this is the mechanism for energy loss and you know how dense the CMB photons are (which we do very well) then you can predict interesting things like the maximum distance a cosmic ray can travel before it runs out of steam entirely, see
One of the authors, Baez, wrote "Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity" a lovely, cheap, and fairly accessible intro to applications of topology in mathematical physics. Worth a glance if you find yourself wondering about all this
check out "the structure and interpretation of classical mechanics" by sussmann et al for a whole raft of things like this done in scheme.
I don't see why would you want to stay away from floats, using rationals isn't going to magically fix the numerical errors from approximating derivatives and such.
I believe they develop an automatic differentiation routine in SICM that will actually allow you to make a pretty good planetary motion simulator, i.e one that won't just go horribly wrong if you run it for a few thousand years.
Of course if you're really interested/mathematically inclined one of the best ways to simulate Hamiltonian systems is via iterated maps, not unlike what was in the article. A good (but quite hard) ref to this is "simulating hamiltonian dynamics" by Leimkuhler and Reich.
Seems pretty clear to me, it doesn't claim to be an article for the non mathematically inclined. Not that "pop" articles on this subject wouldn't be pretty cool too.
