deSignale

Eine interessante Alternative zur Dunklen Energie konnte nun widerlegt werden, wie science daily berichtet: hier

In Folge eines sehr starken Erdbebens in Japan gab es jetzt eine Explosion in einem AKW. Wahrscheinlich war ein Reaktor explodiert.

Ein Artikel der faz beschreibt die Situation recht fundiert:

hier

Zu den oft geäußerten Angriffen gegen das Journal of Cosmology, es sei nicht wissenschaftlich und hätte keine Reputation, gibt es nun folgenden Stellungnahme:

The Controversy of the Hoover Meteorite Study

Official Statement The Journal of Cosmology,

Have the Terrorists Won?

The Journal of Cosmology is free, online, open access. Free means = No money.

Our intention has always been to promote science and this means, particularly in this case, stepping on the toes of the "status quo" who have responded with a barrage of slanderous attacks.

The Journal of Cosmology is a Prestigious Scientific Journal Two of NASA Senior Scientists Science Directorates have published in the Journal of Cosmology (JOC). A NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate served as a "guest" Executive editor and repeatedly referred to the Journal as "prestigious." Four astronauts, two who walked on the Moon have published with JOC. Over 30 top NASA scientists have published in JOC.

Top scientists from prestigious universities from around the world have published in the Journal of Cosmology, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and so on. Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford and who shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking is Guest editing the April edition.

Peer Review NASA Senior Scientist Science Directorate Joel Levine, while participating in a NASA press conference, remarked about how his papers were peer reviewed and he was required to revise all of them, even though he was the editor for that edition of JOC!

As every editor, and guest editor will attest, all articles are subjected to peer review. We reject over 30% of invited papers and over 70% of those which are not invited. Every editor, and Guest editor, has had their work subjected to peer review, and every editor has been required to revise their articles after peer review. Even the executive editors have been required to revise their papers after peer review. We believe in peer review. Peer review provides wonderful feedback which can help make a paper better, or which can explain why the paper is hopeless and must be rejected. However, we do not reject great papers because we disagree with them as is the habit of other periodicals.

Richard Hoover's paper was received in November. It was subjected to repeated reviews and underwent one significant revision.

The Journal of Cosmology is Not For Sale & Will Continue Publishing The Journal of Cosmology has no income, a small staff, and is overwhelmed with submissions from scientists around the world.

We were well aware we would suffer profound, slanderous, attacks by those who would do anything to destroy our reputation. It took tremendous courage to publish this paper, and despite its lack of funds, the Journal will continue publishing great ideas and great research.

Have the Terrorist Won? Only a few crackpots and charlatans have denounced the Hoover study. NASA's chief scientist was charged with unprofessional conduct for lying publicly about the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper. His latest official statement is littered with falsehoods. This is the same man who approved the bogus "Arsenic-life" story which was published in Science magazine and immediately shown to be untrue. Science magazine with its 180 editors was accused by numerous scientists of failing to have the "arsenic" paper properly reviewed. NASA has no credibility on these issues.

Tremendous efforts have been made to shout down the truth, and the same crackpots, self-promoters, liars, and failures, are quoted repeatedly in the media. However, where is the evidence the Hoover study is not accurate?

Few legitimate scientists have come forward to contest Hoover's findings. Why is that? Because the evidence is solid.

In 1584, Giordano Bruno published "Of Infinity, the Universe, and the World" and wrote: "There are innumerable suns and an infinite number of planets which circle around their suns as our seven planets circle around our Sun." However, according to Bruno, we are unable to see these planets and suns "because of their great distance or small mass." On February 19, 1600 Bruno was burned at the stake by the Inquisition for publishing these claims.

Following the publication of Richard Hoover's paper, what ensued could be likened to a rein of terror, a witch hunt, an inquisition designed to crush all discussion of his findings. There were even calls to "hang" Richard Hoover. Three hundred years ago, they would have burned us all at the stake.

The silence is deafening. What prominent scientist would dare to publicly support Hoover's findings, when they know that raving lunatics will be unleashed to destroy their reputation?

How can science advance in this country if NASA and the media promotes frothing-at the-mouth-attacks on legitimate scientists and scientific periodicals who dare to publish new discoveries or new ideas?

The Journal of Cosmology sought to promote science and scientific debate, but the scientific community is too frightened and terrorized to speak up.

It took courage to publish the Hoover discoveries. The Journal of Cosmology will continue to publish great theories and new discoveries.

The terrorists and the lunatic fringe have lost.

Wie nicht anders zu erwarten entfacht das Paper von Richard Hoover viel Widerspruch in der Mainstream-Wissenschaft. In erster Linie wird dabei das Online - Journal als nicht renomiert angegriffen, hier auch vor allem deswegen, weil dort die Panspermie-Theorie vertreten wird und diese Theorie den eingefleischten Neodarwinisten nicht ins Konzept passt. Eine Biowissenschaft, die nichts anderes als den Neodarwinismus gelten lässt muss da natürlich gegenhalten. Mit polemischen Attacken wird auch die wissenschaftliche Arbeit von Hoover insgesamt herabgewürdigt.

Doch ganz so leicht ist die Lage eben nicht und ich bin sehr erfreut, dass nun auch das weitverbreitete Nachrichtenportal und Magazin New Scientist einen sehr ausführlichen Beitrag geschrieben hat. Und siehe da, die stereotypen Anwürfe der ach so renomierten Wissenschaft sind bei Lichte betrachtet bei weitem nicht so fundiert, wie es den Anschein hat.

Zum sehr ausführlichen New Scientist - Artikel geht es hier.

Daraus will ich einige Punkte zitieren.

Zunächst werden noch klärungswürdige Punkte angesprochen, dies in aller Sachlichkeit, wie es für eine solche Entdeckung auch angemessen ist:

Olcott Marshall and her colleagues revealed that what we thought were the oldest known bacterial fossils on Earth are only deceptive patterns formed in the rock by geological processes. The researchers sliced the 3.5-billion-year old Apex Chert rock containing the alleged fossils into 30-micrometre sections, thinner than any previously studied slices, and shone a powerful laser at them to get a good look under the microscope.

The new analysis confirmed that the fibrous structures researchers had originally identified as fossilised cyanobacteria were in fact fractures in the rock filled with inorganic haematite and quartz.

"One lesson we learn over and over again is that morphology is very common between minerals and life," says Olcott Marshall, who is also unconvinced by Hoover's new paper. "Finding circles and wiggles is not necessarily evidence of life."

Nun, hier hätte ich mir gerne mal Bilder dieser mineralischen Strukturen angeschaut, um zu vergleichen, ob sie wirklich wie Bakterien aussehen. Ferner muss man aber sagen, dass Fossilien eben organische Bestandteile durch Mineralien ersetzt haben. Aber gut, dieser Punkt muss im Auge behalten werden. Mal ein sachlicher Einwand der Kritiker, ok.

Kommen wir zur Ansicht, dass diese Strukturen zwar wirklich fossile Bakterien sein könnten, aber diese zuvor erst auf der Erde in die Bruchstücke eindrang, es also irdische Bakterienreste sind. Schließlich waren sie 1864 eingeschlagen. Kurze aber wirkungsvolle Entgegnung dazu:

If the squiggles are bacteria from Earth, it is unclear how they would have fossilised between 1864 and now.

Also, wenn es wirklich fossile Bakterien sind, dann müssten sie innerhalb sehr sehr kurzer Zeit fossilisiert sein. Das ist nicht möglich.

Kommen wir zu einer anderen Frage: Wann würden denn die Kritiker überhaupt bereit sein, Alien-Bakterien in Meteoriten als solche anzuerkennen? Ihre Argumentation läuft darauf hinaus, dass man immer - noch so abwegige wie Fossilbildung in hundert Jahren etwa - ein Minimum an Unsicherheit als Kilerargument heranziehen kann. New Scientist meint daher zurecht:

But even with tools that let them examine meteorites in exquisite detail, researchers cannot easily distinguish a squiggle in a rock from the remains of a living creature, which begs the question: what is the gold standard for evidence of alien life? Assuming that a little green man is not going to drop by NASA's headquarters any time soon, what will convince scientists that they have found extraterrestrial life?

The answer, it seems, is nothing short of "extraordinary evidence" – a phrase that is currently leaping from the lips of scientists around the world as they argue over Hoover's new study.

Kommen wir zu den unsachlicheren Angriffen betreffend der Veröffentlichung dieser Ergebnisse im Journal of Cosmology und nicht in Science oder Nature oder einem anderen angesehenen als renomiert geltenden peer review Journal.

More than a few scientists and journalists have argued that the evidence Hoover does offer is all the more ensconced in suspicion – though certainly not invalidated – by the journal in which he chose to publish: the peer-reviewed, open access Journal of Cosmology, which announced it is likely to go out of business in a few month's time.

The journal's editor-in-chief, Harvard University's Rudy Schild, is a proponent of panspermia – the idea that life abounds in the universe and that a meteorite crawling with alien organisms likely seeded life on Earth.

Wurde Hoovers Arbeit also einem peer review Verfahren im Journal of Cosmology unterworfen? Ja!

However, the Journal of Cosmology's editorial guidelines state that all articles are peer reviewed. In an email to New Scientist, the journal's managing director Lana Tao explained that Hoover's article was first submitted in November 2010, reviewed by Chandra Wickramasinghe, who requested certain changes and sent out for external review by five experts.

Hoover then revised the paper and it was subsequently reviewed by two external referees, who requested minor revisions. None of the external reviewers have been named.

Auch bei Nature oder Science werden die Reviewer nicht namentlich genannt. Immerhin wurde hier aber Chandra Wickramasinghe als Referee genannt und dieser Forscher ist eben kein Leichtgewicht, auch wenn seine Panspermietheorie ungeliebt ist.

Doch es haben weitere Forscher reagiert und sind einer Aufforderung gefolgt. Hundert Experten sollen bis 11.3.2001 ihr Urteil öffentlich abgeben, 21 sind bislang tätig geworden:

In a move unusual for research journals, the Journal of Cosmology sent 100 requests for additional review and analysis from scientists and has published 21 responses so far, most of which largely applaud Hoover's study, raising minor quibbles here and there.

It could all yet prove to be a tempest in a teacup, though. It appears likely that Hoover's study may soon be ignored by the majority of the scientific community, instead of enjoying a healthy debate such as that raised by McKay's 1996 paper on the Mars meteorite. Redfield says that a microbiologist that she knows refused to read it.

The Journal of Cosmology, however, does not show signs of backing down. "It should be expected that a discovery as momentous as reported by Dr. Richard Hoover, would be met with hoots and jeers," said Lana Tao in another email. "The choice is simple: Scientific discourse vs psychosis. Hysteria and lies do not constitute scientific doubt. They are calls for medication."

Der Link zu den ergänzenden Reviews hier.

Übrigens, die unsachliche Mehrhetsfraktion meinte, dass dem Aufruf nicht einmal eine Handvoll Forscher folgen würden. Nun, so kann man sich irren!

Meine Meinung zu der Entdeckung: Sie verdient eine unvoreingenommene Prüfung, nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger!

Hier mal ein wenig Hintergrund zur bisherigen Forschung von Richard B. Hoover, der nun Beweise für außerirdische Lebensformen proklamiert.

NASA - Wissenschaftler veröffentlichen - nach ihrer Meinung - Beweise für außerirdische Mikroben-Fossilien in einem Meteoritenstück.

Zum peer review Journal mit der Abhandlung:

hier

Die Bilder sind beeindruckend, viel klarer als damals ALH84001...

Darin:

Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.


Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.


Edit (7.3.2011):

Korrekterweise muss ich aber auch auf das Statement der NASA hinweisen:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32928

Im Jahre 2007 hat Hoover wohl versucht seine Ergebnisse im Journal for Astrobiology zu veröffentlichen, aber das peer-review Verfahren wurde nie vollendet. Was bedeutet das? Nun, seine Arbeit wurde nicht in Bausch und Bogen abgelehnt, aber man wollte wohl Korrekturen in den weitreichenden Aussagen Hoovers haben, die der Autor wohl nicht bereit war durchzuführen. Seine Schlussfolgerungen - nicht nur zu den einzelnen Befunden von Alien-Bakterien, sondern zum Leben im All insgesamt - sind wirklich sehr weitreichend. Jedenfalls wollte ich das auch zur Kenntnis bringen...

Eine neue Möglichkeit zur Existenz von Wurmlöchern haben zwei Kasachische Forscher berechnet, wie physorg.com berichtet:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-scientists-possibility-wormholes-stars.html

Darin

Wormholes are one of the stranger objects that arise in general relativity. Although no experimental evidence for wormholes exists, scientists predict that they would appear to serve as shortcuts between one point of spacetime and another. Scientists usually imagine wormholes connecting regions of empty space, but now a new study suggests that wormholes might exist between distant stars. Instead of being empty tunnels, these wormholes would contain a perfect fluid that flows back and forth between the two stars, possibly giving them a detectable signature.

In einer interessanten Arbeit benutzen Forscher das Modell von Schwarzen Löchern mit Ladung, um die Interaktionen von Elektronen in einem Supraleiter berechnen zu können, was auch erfolgreich gelang. Auch wenn hier Formalismen der Stringtheorie benutzt wurde, zeigt doch dieser Erfolg, dass die Grundlage der Urwort - Theorie bestätigt wurde. In der UT wird das Elektron als eine Art Schwarzes Loch moduliert, das seine umgebende Raumzeit krümmt.

Der Link zum science daily Artikel hier


Darin

Fourteen years ago, a string theorist, Juan Maldacena, conjectured that some strongly interacting quantum mechanical systems could be modeled by classical gravity in a spacetime having constant negative curvature. The charges in the quantum system are replaced by a charged black hole in the curved spacetime, thereby wedding the geometry of spacetime with quantum mechanics.

Since the Mott problem is an example of strongly interacting particles, Phillips and colleagues asked the question: "Is it possible to devise a theory of gravity that mimics a Mott insulator?" Indeed it is, as they have shown.

The researchers built on Maldacena's mapping and devised a model for electrons moving in a curved spacetime in the presence of a charged black hole that captures two of the striking features of the normal state of high-temperature superconductors: 1) the presence of a barrier for electron motion in the Mott state, and 2) the strange metal regime in which the electrical resistivity scales as a linear function of temperature, as opposed to the quadratic dependence exhibited by standard metals.

The treatment advanced in the paper published in Physical Review Letters shows surprisingly that the boundary of the spacetime consisting of a charged black hole and weakly interacting electrons exhibits a barrier for electrons moving in that region, just as in the Mott state. This work represents the first time the Mott problem has been solved (essentially exactly) in a two-dimensional system, the relevant dimension for the high-temperature superconductors.