Los comerciantes puertorriqueños y el cambio social.

Resumen en español.Resumen en inglés

Decision and function problems based on boson sampling

Boson sampling is a mathematical problem that is strongly believed to be intractable for classical computers, whereas passive linear interferometers can produce samples efficiently. So far, the problem remains a computational curiosity, and the possible usefulness of boson-sampling devices is mainly limited to the proof of quantum supremacy. The purpose of this work is to investigate whether boson sampling can be used as a resource of decision and function problems that are computationally hard, and may thus have cryptographic applications. After the definition of a rather general theoretical framework for the design of such problems, we discuss their solution by means of a brute-force numerical approach, as well as by means of non-boson samplers. Moreover, we estimate the sample sizes required for their solution by passive linear interferometers, and it is shown that they are independent of the size of the Hilbert space.Comment: Close to the version published in PR

Limits of Earthquake Early Warning Accuracy and Best Alerting Strategy

We explore how accurate earthquake early warning (EEW) can be, given our limited ability to forecast expected shaking even if the earthquake source is known. Because of the strong variability of ground motion metrics, such as peak ground acceleration (PGA) and peak ground velocity (PGV), we find that correct alerts (i.e., alerts that accurately estimate the ground motion will be above a predetermined damage threshold) are not expected to be the most common EEW outcome even when the earthquake magnitude and location are accurately determined. Infrequently, ground motion variability results in a user receiving a false alert because the ground motion turned out to be significantly smaller than the system expected. More commonly, users will experience missed alerts when the system does not issue an alert but the user experiences potentially damaging shaking. Despite these inherit limitations, EEW can significantly mitigate earthquake losses for false-alert-tolerant users who choose to receive alerts for expected ground motions much smaller than the level that could cause damage. Although this results in many false alerts (unnecessary alerts for earthquakes that do not produce damaging ground shaking), it minimizes the number of missed alerts and produces overall optimal performance

Kepler-4B: A Hot Neptune-Like Planet of A G0 Star Near Main-Sequence Turnoff

Early time-series photometry from NASA's Kepler spacecraft has revealed a planet transiting the star we term Kepler-4, at R.A. = 19(h)02(m)27.(s)68, delta = +50 degrees 08'08 '' 7. The planet has an orbital period of 3.213 days and shows transits with a relative depth of 0.87 x 10(-3) and a duration of about 3.95 hr. Radial velocity (RV) measurements from the Keck High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer show a reflex Doppler signal of 9.3(-1.9)(+1.1) m s(-1), consistent with a low-eccentricity orbit with the phase expected from the transits. Various tests show no evidence for any companion star near enough to affect the light curve or the RVs for this system. From a transit-based estimate of the host star's mean density, combined with analysis of high-resolution spectra, we infer that the host star is near turnoff from the main sequence, with estimated mass and radius of 1.223(-0.091)(+0.053) M(circle dot) and 1.487(-0.084)(+0.071) R(circle dot).We estimate the planet mass and radius to be {M(P), R(P)} = {24.5 +/- 3.8 M(circle plus), 3.99 +/- 0.21 R(circle plus)}. The planet's density is near 1.9 g cm(-3); it is thus slightly denser and more massive than Neptune, but about the same size.W. M. Keck FoundationNASA's Science Mission DirectorateAstronom

Discovery of the Transiting Planet Kepler-5B

We present 44 days of high duty cycle, ultra precise photometry of the 13th magnitude star Kepler-5 (KIC 8191672, T(eff) = 6300 K, log g = 4.1), which exhibits periodic transits with a depth of 0.7%. Detailed modeling of the transit is consistent with a planetary companion with an orbital period of 3.548460 +/- 0.000032 days and a radius of 1.431(-0.052)(+0.041) R(J). Follow-up radial velocity measurements with the Keck HIRES spectrograph on nine separate nights demonstrate that the planet is more than twice as massive as Jupiter with a mass of 2.114(-0.059)(+0.056) M(J) and a mean density of 0.894 +/- 0.079 g cm(-3).NASA's Science Mission DirectorateAstronom

Kepler-7b: A Transiting Planet with Unusually Low Density

We report the discovery and confirmation of Kepler-7b, a transiting planet with unusually low density. The mass is less than half that of Jupiter, Mp = 0.43 Mj, but the radius is fifty percent larger, Rp = 1.48 Rj. The resulting density, 0.17 g/cc, is the second lowest reported so far for an extrasolar planet. The orbital period is fairly long, P = 4.886 days, and the host star is not much hotter than the Sun, Teff = 6000 K. However, it is more massive and considerably larger than the sun, Mstar = 1.35 Msun and Rstar = 1.84 Rsun, and must be near the end of its life on the Main Sequence.Comment: 19 pages, 3 figure

The limits of earthquake early warning: Timeliness of ground motion estimates

The basic physics of earthquakes is such that strong ground motion cannot be expected from an earthquake unless the earthquake itself is very close or has grown to be very large. We use simple seismological relationships to calculate the minimum time that must elapse before such ground motion can be expected at a distance from the earthquake, assuming that the earthquake magnitude is not predictable. Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are in operation or development for many regions around the world, with the goal of providing enough warning of incoming ground shaking to allow people and automated systems to take protective actions to mitigate losses. However, the question of how much warning time is physically possible for specified levels of ground motion has not been addressed. We consider a zero-latency EEW system to determine possible warning times a user could receive in an ideal case. In this case, the only limitation on warning time is the time required for the earthquake to evolve and the time for strong ground motion to arrive at a user’s location. We find that users who wish to be alerted at lower ground motion thresholds will receive more robust warnings with longer average warning times than users who receive warnings for higher ground motion thresholds. EEW systems have the greatest potential benefit for users willing to take action at relatively low ground motion thresholds, whereas users who set relatively high thresholds for taking action are less likely to receive timely and actionable information