tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.comments2022-11-21T00:22:47.772-08:00The Trenches of DiscoveryShaun Hotchkisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comBlogger638125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-40515088725231052512021-03-01T15:37:24.974-08:002021-03-01T15:37:24.974-08:00Here's a link<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#/media/File:EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png" rel="nofollow">Here's a link</a>Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-20762219194563755652021-03-01T15:36:12.891-08:002021-03-01T15:36:12.891-08:00It's from the wikipedia page for the Sun.It's from the wikipedia page for the Sun.Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-6282408394068994102021-03-01T08:19:38.478-08:002021-03-01T08:19:38.478-08:00Do you have a reference for the source of the figu...Do you have a reference for the source of the figure of the Planck distribution you show? I'd like to use it.David Snokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09880189122186494495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-22993608247842522742021-03-01T08:19:37.687-08:002021-03-01T08:19:37.687-08:00Do you have a reference for the source of the figu...Do you have a reference for the source of the figure of the Planck distribution you show? I'd like to use it.David Snokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09880189122186494495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-6118922470546758542019-03-10T06:06:50.281-07:002019-03-10T06:06:50.281-07:00I am inclined to think that the galaxies were set ...I am inclined to think that the galaxies were set in circular motion at the time of the big bang, because the mass they were thrown away from was rotating. It happened for no other reason than that the rotation of the earth makes rising air circulate The fact that the galaxies rotate separately indicates to me that each galaxy is the product of a lesser bang. Be that as it may, a similar basic law explains why some of the matter drawn towards a star ends up in orbit - the galaxy is rotating. Anyway, what is certain, and common to all galaxies, is that this rotation is exactly right to produce planets, and ultimately life. It only had to be a little different, and life would be impossible. We don't really have to think long and hard to see that our lives are dependent upon a host of similar remarkable chances - Caius. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06291937175926838267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-7710856986912853972018-03-08T07:45:16.451-08:002018-03-08T07:45:16.451-08:00Do the black "holes" n the center of a g...Do the black "holes" n the center of a galaxy rotate and if they do, do they rotate in the same direction of their galaxy? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-79568972223419979002016-09-10T09:04:47.016-07:002016-09-10T09:04:47.016-07:00Succinct and informative. As a non-scientist/lay-p...Succinct and informative. As a non-scientist/lay-person I find the information presented fascinating (if not mildly refreshing.) Bjoern's command of the language of this subject presents a very thought provoking snapshot of the reality in which I find myself reading the work.<br />Thanks for bringing this to the 'Trench' Shaun - I'm just sorry it took me so long to get back around to read it. ~all the bestmasodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02132234899113156952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-91107433663568283712016-04-08T03:00:14.674-07:002016-04-08T03:00:14.674-07:00"I do apologize for some of the mathematics&q...<i>"I do apologize for some of the mathematics"</i><br /><br />Depending on the definition, I suppose there is some mathematics here, but not a single equation!<br /><br />Reminds me of Elvis Presley: "I don't know much about music. In my business, you don't have to!" :-)<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-37384371195445724662016-02-10T19:25:48.749-08:002016-02-10T19:25:48.749-08:00Regarding ISW, you're right that I know about ...Regarding ISW, you're right that I know about the problems there. Unfortunately, the anomaly I spent some time working on didn't re-appear when looking for structures in other areas of the universe. This leads me to err on the side of believing that the original was just a statistical fluke. I hope it isn't though.<br /><br />This paragraph is just me splitting tacks, but I *now* wouldn't call that anomaly an "ISW" anomaly, basically because where LCDM has predicted ISW signals to exist, they have been found and do match LCDM's predictions (e.g. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1193" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The other stacking measurement of <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2974" rel="nofollow">Granett et al.</a> doesn't match LCDM, but nor should it be called "ISW" (in my current opinion).<br /><br />Of course, if a backreaction calculation matched ISW where LCDM predicts it *and* also can explain what Granett et al. saw I would be ecstatic and would jump on that bandwagon right away!Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-72226498936496959442016-02-10T12:13:05.833-08:002016-02-10T12:13:05.833-08:00Hi Sean: I said all data for which calculations ha...Hi Sean: I said all data for which <em>calculations have been done so far</em>. ISW/Rees-Sciama is a hard one. I have ideas about how to approach ISW, which will take at least a few years of more than one good PhD student to do. We have started actually. As you know the amplitude of the ISW effect is observationally a big headache for LCDM, so that should not be held up as one of its successes. (Some fellow backreactionistas and I have a recent summary of the tensions for LCDM in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03313" rel="nofollow">arXiv:1512.03313</a>.)<br /><br />My strategy for dealing with ISW is the same one which we hope may shed light on the large angle anomalies - namely ray tracing in Szekeres models that match actual structures in the Universe on < 70/h Mpc scales, as Krzysztof Bolejko, Ahsan Nazer and I do in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07364" rel="nofollow">arXiv:1512.07364</a>. We can already match features of the local expansion that standard FLRW assumptions do not, and by the end of the year we hope to have a model with more actual structures that even better fits local expansion, that can then actually be tested in the CMB map making pipeline for its effect on anomalies. As we are at an early stage, I am not prepared to discuss much of this publically, but I have started to talk to people within the Planck collaboration.<br /><br />For ISW, rather than looking at the features of our own "peculiar potential", one wants a statistical ensemble of nonlinear structures (Szekeres models being the best) that model the variety of structures we see. That is a much bigger problem. The ray-tracing effect itself is independent of the model of backreaction, and independent of timescape, as is our local "peculiar potential" work of <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07364" rel="nofollow">arXiv:1512.07364</a>. To go to ISW one has to take an statistical average - it is at that stage that the specific model of backreaction - timescape or otherwise, becomes important. That involves steps over and above the numerics of ray-tracing, which I assure you are already complex enough if you are dealing with thousands of sources from actual galaxy surveys, as we do.David Wiltshirehttp://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-25762711047252807772016-02-10T02:21:32.187-08:002016-02-10T02:21:32.187-08:00Thanks for the comment David. I wasn't aware t...Thanks for the comment David. I wasn't aware that timescape cosmology required the same number of parameters as LCDM, so that's good news. When you say it fits *all* the data have you calculated the expected ISW (or equivalent) effect and the slow down on growth of structure (as seen in e.g. galaxy cluster abundances and weak lensing signals)? These are both additional evidence for LCDM as well as the now usual supernovae, BAO and the CMB, but they also track how structures form, as well as just the background/average expansion. If the same two parameters can also fit ISW and structure growth rates that'd be awesome! (In LCDM both observables give similar values for Omega_m... though with a small amount of tension - so maybe there's room for timescape cosmology to do better than LCDM).<br /><br />I definitely accept that the assumption that even at last scattering the universe is close to FRW is unrpoven and needs to be taken, for LCDM, as an assumption. It seems to work, but of course that also isn't proof that it is correct.<br /><br />Thanks again for the comment.Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-50547878716735410902016-02-10T00:51:02.043-08:002016-02-10T00:51:02.043-08:00Sean: you say you are "unaware of any backrea...Sean: you say you are <em>"unaware of any backreaction model in 2016 that is *calculable* and has only one free parameter and still fits all the data available today."</em><br /><br />Actually, the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.3787" rel="nofollow">timescape cosmology</a> is calculable, fits the data for which the calculations have been done so far, and has the same number of free parameters as the spatially flat LCDM model; which for average expansion are <em>two</em>: the Hubble constant and the matter density parameter. The differences between timescape and the standard model are at the level that understanding systematic uncertainties in supernova data reduction is needed to distinguish the models (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1009.5855" rel="nofollow">MNRAS 413 (2011) 367</a>), but by the Clarkson-Basset-Lu test the timescape model will be distinguishable from the standard model using the Euclid satellite (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2236" rel="nofollow">Sapone et al, PRD (2014) 023012</a>).<br /><br />When it comes to the CMB anisotropy spectrum Ahsan Nazer found after two years of recoding of the standard MCMC analysis, that although we get likelihoods for the timescape model comparable to LCDM on Planck data, that when it comes to the (more than two) parameters of the standard model - such as baryon to photon ratio, spectral index etc - that the systematic uncertainties generated by uncertainties of less than 1/10^5 in energy density at last scattering nonetheless give systematic uncertainties of order 8-13% today (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3470" rel="nofollow"> PRD 91 (2015) 063519</a>).<br /><br />To do the job properly for the timescape case we actually have to consider backreaction in the primordial plasma - which nobody does. People assume, as Adamek et al do, or Ahsan and I did in starting our investigation, that since the universe is so close to smooth before last scattering then the FLRW approximation is good enough. But no! Actually, there is a fundamental issue at stake in assuming a single global FLRW universe ever. In my view, the Einstein equations are evolution equations that should provide a well posed causal initial value problem. Many would agree with that. But if the notion of spacetime itself is generated as a solution of the equations there is no requirement that the same notion of spacetime must hold on scales outside the particle horizon for which there is no causal contact. That is of course the same problems that inflation solves phenomenologically. But people just add scalar fields to a global spacetime to get the phenomenology. In my view this problem must have a more fundamental solution, and the notion of spacetime must be emergent to fundamentally deal with the very early universe.<br /><br />Dealing with the fundamental issues is not easy; but any real solution to questions involving dark energy and the like do mean going back to first principles about the nature of gravity and the nature of spacetime, which many researchers do not find comfortable. I have discussed the <a href="http://eddiecurrent.blogspot.com/2013/01/dark-energy-too-big-to-fail.html?showComment=1359626440108#c1038214054293161911" rel="nofollow">sociology of this elsewhere in the blogosphere</a>, and will not do so again here. But a few of us are working on calculable, testable models - just to do it with both conceptual and mathematical rigour is a slow, hard job.David Wiltshirehttp://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-52759123818602492632016-02-09T21:02:12.202-08:002016-02-09T21:02:12.202-08:00The age problem you're referring to is based o...The age problem you're referring to is based on assuming <em>decoupling</em> of matter inhomogeneities from the expansion, i.e. it assumes <em>no</em> backreaction. In backreaction studies, <em><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102049" rel="nofollow">"the averaged densities are directly coupled to the evolution of the averaged spatial curvature"</a></em>.Boudhttps://cosmo.torun.pl/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-23486216433826169052016-02-09T20:46:51.485-08:002016-02-09T20:46:51.485-08:00I agree with you Boud regarding whether Green and ...I agree with you Boud regarding whether Green and Wald have proven that backreaction is irrelevant and I can empathise with the frustration that must come from interacting with people who haven't had time to look at the situation closely and thus take G and W at face value.<br /><br />My thoughts on what side has the "onus is proof" is vaguely the following. When the accelerated expansion was first observed LCDM was a pre-existing, calculable model with just one new parameter. It still fits the data now in 2016. I'm unaware of any backreaction model in 2016 that is *calculable* and has only one free parameter and still fits all the data available today. Therefore, even if backreaction seemed very compelling at first, the fact that this alternative model has fitted the data well for 15 years suggests that either backreaction mimics that model very closely for some subtle and profound reason (maybe the backreaction effects exponentiate??), or that the effects of backreaction are small in our universe and Lambda is correct.<br /><br />Also, the other work, not normally mentioned in these debates (surprisingly to me) of Adamek, Daveiro, Durrer and Kunz (latest being: <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.01699" rel="nofollow">this one</a>) seems much more relevant. They don't assume that the universe is close to FRW *at all times*, only explicitly requiring it at early times and calculated forward in time from that initial state. If backreaction were true their framework should break down, but it doesn't appear to. There are certainly loopholes in their analysis, but the loopholes (e.g. the universe *not* being FRW at early times) seem unlikely.<br /><br />Anyway, I don't think backreaction research should be given up on, I'm just stating my opinion on the probability that it is the explanation of the physics normally attributed to Lambda. I definitely don't think it has been proven to be irrelevant beyond any reasonable doubt.Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-21340733394549441842016-02-09T12:47:56.150-08:002016-02-09T12:47:56.150-08:00If you propose that, to simplify things a bit, you...If you propose that, to simplify things a bit, you can explain lambda away with back reaction, you run into the age problem, because the Hubble constant on large (CMB) scales would, without lambda, indicate a universe which is too young.<br /><br />Also, all the talk of voids and so on assumes that most of the matter traces the light. What if it doesn't? Dark matter could be much more homogeneous than visible matter.<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-30949954801378983732016-02-08T12:55:08.973-08:002016-02-08T12:55:08.973-08:00Thanks for the comment David. I think your words b...Thanks for the comment David. I think your words below summarise the situation to me quite well. I'm confused as to why they're still pushing this results as so general.<br /><br />"To be clear we have not claimed that they make an error of logic, but rather that their framework is too narrow to capture the essential physics of the averaging and backreaction problems."Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-19044604931478576272016-02-06T17:49:05.542-08:002016-02-06T17:49:05.542-08:00Shaun: you are perfectly correctly that Green and ...Shaun: you are perfectly correctly that Green and Wald are using a different definition of backreaction, and in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06452" rel="nofollow">arxiv:1506.06452</a> they state that their formalism was "never intended or claimed to apply" to various approaches to backreaction that constitute much of the literature.<br /><br />Unfortunately, time-challenged non-experts only read titles and abstracts, rather than studying the fine print of the content of papers peripheral to their own research. In fact, Green and Wald's mathematical results are inapplicable to much of the literature, because the averaged cosmic variables in many backreaction schemes are not an exact solution of Einstein's equations, but rather of equations with additional backreaction terms on any coarse-grained scale, and not only in an ultra-local limit.<br /><br />In their past work, Green and Wald have strongly criticized other approaches while arguing that their own framework should provide an accurate description of the actual Universe, leaving it unclear to what extent their mathematical results are limited by restrictive assumptions which may not apply to the actual physical problem.<br /><br />In Green and Wald's framework backreaction can only contribute a radiation-like trace-free term to the effective stress-energy tensor in the average equations. We show that such a result is not a feature of general averaging schemes. Furthermore, even if an average background FLRW metric is assumed, Green and Wald's proof of the trace-free property relies on specific technical assumptions when taking weak-limits, one of them implying that the scheme does not actually provide an averaging operation as it is generally understood. If one takes a more general mathematical framework in dealing with such limits, specifically by emphasizing mathematical and physical control on the properties of curvature and matter fluctuations, then their result does not follow.<br /><br />In a new paper, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.06789" rel="nofollow">arxiv:1601.06789</a>, they refer to their non-peer reviewed note <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06452" rel="nofollow">arxiv:1506.06452</a> as giving a "refutation" of our arguments. Our referees, one of whom effectively also wrote a report on arxiv:1506.06452 disagreed. To be clear we have not claimed that they make an error of logic, but rather that their framework is too narrow to capture the essential physics of the averaging and backreaction problems.<br /><br />We see no point in continuously going over these arguments. We wish to move things on, as there is much exciting work to be done, and the point of our article was to dispell a few myths so people are not discouraged to work in this field. Thus when invited to write a piece for CQG+, we have focused on the challenges of the future:<br /><br /><a href="http://cqgplus.com/2016/01/20/the-universe-is-inhomogeneous-does-it-matter/" rel="nofollow">http://cqgplus.com/2016/01/20/the-universe-is-inhomogeneous-does-it-matter/</a>David Wiltshirehttp://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-50730066742291986262015-12-09T10:09:23.834-08:002015-12-09T10:09:23.834-08:00My guess is that, 10 years from now, a popular equ...My guess is that, 10 years from now, a popular equation will be: dark-matter-particles = phlogiston. My guess is that Gravity Probe B discovered the Fernández-Rañada-Milgrom effect — can anyone point out a previous case in which 4 (out of 4) scientific instruments malfunctioned in a remarkably predictable manner? I say that that MOND has been outrageously ignored — for example:<br /><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.05774" rel="nofollow">"Spacetime, Spin and Gravity Probe B" by James M. Overduin, 2015</a><br />According to the research of Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Pawlowski, and several others, there are 2 possibilities:<br />(1) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory is 100% correct but appears to be significantly wrong for some unknown reason.<br />(2) Newtonian-Einsteinian gravitational theory really is slightly wrong.David Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10537922851243581921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-80231447233336015582015-12-07T06:14:50.299-08:002015-12-07T06:14:50.299-08:00Just because Kroupa (no, he is not the new Kepler)...Just because Kroupa (no, he is not the new Kepler) says so doesn't make it so, and neither does your posting similar comments wherever a blog post touches this topic (at least they are not grossly off-topic).<br /><br />Why no dark matter haloes in our own solar system? Is this a serious question? Check out the size of even a small halo.<br /><br />I'm sure Stacy has learned some things since 1998. Yes, MOND seems to work better in some regimes, which, probably not coincidentally, are regimes where simulations are very hard, because small-scale "gastrophyics" and what not are involved. However, there are other regimes where LCDM works better. Touting one and ignoring the other doesn't help the debate. Even if his LSB galaxies work better with MOND, one has to come up with some explanation what the alternative to LCDM is where it does work, and MOND doesn't.<br /><br />The same comments apply to Kroupa, though perhaps he hasn't learned as much since 1998. Debate is good, and Kroupa even debated Simon White. But the it seems that MOND, while intriguing, is not the last word, and LCDM won't just be thrown out the window. Probably, a solution which explains why MOND works, whether or not such a solution involves some sort of MOND, would probably leave LCDM untouched in other areas.<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-41395338791873245412015-12-07T03:25:02.356-08:002015-12-07T03:25:02.356-08:00"This model is the FLRW metric with cold dark..."This model is the FLRW metric with cold dark matter and a cosmological constant." The cosmological constant seems very good on the evidence, but Kroupa says that the Lambda-CDM model has been ruled out and that galactic dynamics is Milgromian. It seems to me that Kroupa is definitely correct. If cold dark matter particles exist, then why are there no dark matter haloes in our own solar system?<br />“I came to the subject a True Believer in dark matter, but it was MOND that nailed the predictions for the LSB galaxies that I was studying (McGaugh & de Blok, 1998), not any flavor of dark matter. So what I am supposed to conclude? …” — McGaugh<br />“The currently (2010) widely accepted/believed description of the birth and evolution of the universe and of its contents is "Lambda Cold Dark Matter Concordance Cosmological Model" (LCDM CCM) … My own research was very much confined to the early version of the LCDM CCM (mid-1990's) when I began performing numerical experiments on the satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. I was quite happy with the CCM, as everyone else, and did not bother with the fundamental issues raised by some. With time, however, it became apparent that the LCDM CCM accounts poorly for the properties of the satellite galaxies and their distribution about the Milky Way. Warm dark matter models fared no better.” — KroupaDavid Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10537922851243581921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-87570031429892118682015-11-01T08:36:47.943-08:002015-11-01T08:36:47.943-08:00I hope all is well with you. I'm doing my best...I hope all is well with you. I'm doing my best to cope but it's bad man, so bad, to slog my way over to your place just telling myself you've bound to have posted again by now. Unless you're dead or something, but that's treatable now so you should be able to post if you care enough. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-165854016396408562015-10-30T01:49:51.097-07:002015-10-30T01:49:51.097-07:00The question then becomes: What is enough? Answer...The question then becomes: What is enough? Answers to subtle "scientific" questions take many years to properly define; meaning, exploring all possible venues - a kaleidoscope of possibilities. One theory, then another takes ascendance, and for awhile, bedrock answers needed to take our collective vision to the next level of discreetness appear distant and even, occasionally, impossible of achievement. But witness Aristotle, Kepler, Newton and Einstein. As we are striving to understand the inscrutable, that singular, unique mind, brought forth from common, human generations, shines light on the unseen and makes all things possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-70795524175922041332015-09-30T05:30:44.147-07:002015-09-30T05:30:44.147-07:00" I would be interested to know of any studie..." I would be interested to know of any studies providing evidence as to which "<br />Hi Chris Mannering here. I don't know if this will prove useful but Sir Timothy Gowers was getting stuck into this matter couple year back. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-25654109405482429242015-09-25T07:05:15.054-07:002015-09-25T07:05:15.054-07:00Ok, I don't know how I seem to have ended up d...Ok, I don't know how I seem to have ended up defending what some journals charge for open-access - for the record I also think it's extortionate to charge that much for essentially putting it on a server. However, if I'm being devil's advocate I would say that the journals provide a service to the authors of a paper by providing increased impact than the paper would have in other journals or just on an open-access server. The cost of this service (the editors, other staff, upkeep of online tools, and many other overheads) is met largely through the subscription fee paid by individuals and institutions. If an author wants their paper to be open-access then they essentially undermine the means by which the journal is funded, since no-one's going to pay for a subscription if it's all free online anyway. Hence the open-access fee. I can't speak for how much the $1000 average truly represents the cost of the whole process, but I imagine that's the logic behind it.<br /><br />My original point was that if you were only to use arXiv as a post-publication server then I don't see how it's any different to PubMed. So, I don't think the issue is that life scientists are against online archiving, more that the pre-print approach is harder to sell in a heavily experimental field.James Felcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14031758835739415241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1513704378254120283.post-44060498734977670682015-09-24T06:52:43.486-07:002015-09-24T06:52:43.486-07:00This isn't the 20th century where we need to p...This isn't the 20th century where we need to pay for the costs of the paper in journals, and the printing costs and distribution costs to ship that paper all around the world, just to give people the possibility to read our papers. ("Our" being applied to scientists, institutions and funding bodies who all add genuine value towards the production of research output)Shaun Hotchkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04832423210563130467noreply@blogger.com