> The interesting point is that it doesn't make any difference! If it
> was a hoax, some established experts were duped. If it wasn't a
> hoax, other established experts were duped---duped into believing it
> was! In other words, that a hoax is a serious possibility that takes
> a group of theoretical types to figure out is an interesting issue
> in itself.
one of the real obvious problems here is with the thesis advisers. from some of the statements i have seen in the media, it seems awful that a group of researchers who surely worked intimately with the B's over several years seemed to understand so little about their work, or at least offered the flimsiest of support for the work.
> Anyone out there know enough to explain what KMS conditions are and
> why they are important? I know for sure I don't understand this
> stuff at all.
history: Kubo, 1957, Martin & Schwinger, 1959
arena of play: quantum field theory + quantum statistical mechanics
crude description: conditions on quantum fields (QFs) for the case of thermodynamic equilibrium and definition of chemical potential for QFs.
kinda like: condx Einstein derived on relation between rate if emission and absorption of photons in thermal equilibrium ...
current uses: photoluminescence studies, quark-gluon plasma (new results just out from Brookhaven), etc
the horror:
http://www-aix.gsi.de/~fauser/pi.ps.gz
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0209088 (extension to non-equilibrium)
B-brothers appear to be toying around with an interpretation of KMS that can be thought of as taking place in imaginary time, hence speculative leaps about what happened before t = 0, etc., are "to be expected".
les schaffer