It's every schoolboy's dream: an easy way of looking through walls to spy on neighbors, monitor siblings, and keep tabs on the sweet jar. And now a dream no longer...

Researchers at the University of Utah say that the way radio signals vary in a wireless network can reveal the movement of people behind closed doors. Joey Wilson and Neal Patwari have developed a technique called variance-based radio tomographic imaging that processes the signals to reveal signs of movement. They've even tested the idea with a 34-node wireless network using the IEEE 802.15.4 wireless protocol, the protocol for personal area networks employed by home automation services such as ZigBee.

The basic idea is straightforward. The signal strength at any point in a network is the sum of all the paths the radio waves can take to get to the receiver. Any change in the volume of space through which the signals pass, for example caused by the movement of a person, makes the signal strength vary. So by "interrogating" this volume of space with many signals, picked up by multiple receivers, it is possible to build up a picture of the movement within it.

In tests with a 34-node network set up outside a standard living room, Wilson and Patwari say they were able to locate moving objects in the room to within a meter or so. That's not bad, and the team says there is ample potential for improvement by increasing accuracy while reducing the number of nodes.

The advantage of this technique over others is, first, its cost. The nodes in such a network are off-the-shelf and therefore cheap. Other through-wall viewing systems cost in excess of $100,000. The second advantage is the ease with which it can be set up. Wilson and Patwari say that adding a GPS receiver to each node allows it to work out its own location, which should dramatically speed up the imaging process. Other systems have to be "trained" to recognize the environment.

Wilson and Patwari have even worked out how their system might be used:

"We envision a building imaging scenario similar to the following. Emergency responders, military forces, or police arrive at a scene where entry into a building is potentially dangerous. They deploy radio sensors around (and potentially on top of) the building area, either by throwing or launching them, or dropping them while moving around the building. The nodes immediately form a network and self-localize, perhaps using information about the size and shape of the building from a database (eg Google maps) and some known-location coordinates (eg using GPS). Then, nodes begin to transmit, making signal strength measurements on links which cross the building or area of interest. The received signal strength measurements of each link are transmitted back to a base station and used to estimate the positions of moving people and objects within the building."

That's ambitious, but if they do get their system to the point where it can be used like this, it raises another problem: privacy.

How might such cheap and easy-to-configure monitoring networks be used if they become widely available? What's to stop next door's teenage brats from monitoring your every move, or house thieves choosing their targets on the basis that nobody is inside?

Of course, in the cat-and-mouse game of surveillance, it shouldn't be too hard to build a device that disables such a monitoring network. But only if you know it's there in the first place.

There are fun and games galore to be had with this idea.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.5417: Through-Wall Motion Tracking Using Variance-Based Radio Tomography Networks

In 1988, the astrophysicist Jack Hills at Los Alamos National Laboratories wondered what might happen if a binary star system were to wander too close to the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy. He reasoned that it ought to be possible for the black hole to swallow one star while sending the other shooting away, like a galactic catapult.

These runaway stars would be no ordinary objects. Hills calculated that they would have velocities exceeding 1000 km/s relative to the Milky Way's rest frame. That's more than the escape velocity of the galaxy.

The only trouble was that no astronomer had ever seen such a runaway star. Hills told them to look harder and sure enough, astronomers began to spot otherwise ordinary stars travelling at hypervelocities. Their discovery was a testament to the predictive powers of gravitational theory and a triumph for Hills.

Now there's a puzzle. Although astronomers have found several hypervelocity runaways they've been able to measure the proper motion of only one--HD 271791, a star about 11 times the mass of the sun and the first known to be escaping our galaxy.

Knowing the proper motion is handy because it allows astronomers to trace the trajectory of the star back to its origin.

The trouble is that when researchers do this for HD 271791, it leads to the edge of the galactic disc, more than 3000 light years from the supermassive black hole at the galactic centre. Whichever way you look at it, that's bad news for Hills' theory.

So what else can accelerate stars beyond the galactic escape velocity, asks Vasilii Gvaramadze at Moscow State University. There are several possibilities. One idea is that the star might have been torn from the clutches of the Milky Way by the tidal forces associated with a close encounter with satellite galaxy. Gvaramadze says that doesn't seem likely because there is no sign of such an encounter that could have occurred within the lifetime of HD 271791.

Another possibility (and the one most popular with other astronomers) is that HD 271791 was once part of a binary system whose partner exploded in a supernova. This sent HD 271791 on its current trajectory. But Gvaramadze dismisses this too because HD 271791's velocity is just too big to have been kick-started in this way.

That leaves one other idea: that HD 271791's velocity is the result of a much more complex interaction between three or four stars. Gvaramadze suggests that this might have involved two binary systems or a binary system interacting with a giant star some 300 times the size of the sun. The end result of this would have been a catapult effect that ejected HD 271791 at hypervelocities.

Of course, that doesn't exclude the possibility that there may have been a supernova involved somewhere. Proponents of the supernova idea are likely to say that Gvaramadze has overcomplicated matters.

How to settle the matter? More clues are likely to come from the study of the composition of HD 271791. A nearby supernova would have taken its toll on this star's make up.

And determining the proper motions of other runaway stars would help to give us a better understanding of this population of extraordinary stars.

Astronomers may even find that some of them do come from the galactic centre, which would give Hills the experimental evidence he needs to confirm his idea, albeit a little later than expected.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.4928: On the Origin of the Hypervelocity Runaway Star HD271791

They call it "the beautiful game," but from a statistical point of view, soccer's beauty is little more than skin deep. At least that's how Gerald Skinner from the University of Maryland and his mate Guy Freeman see things. It's hard not to agree when you look at the game from their point of view

Their approach is to think of a soccer game as an experiment to determine which of two teams is the best. The question then is this: What is the probability that the outcome of the experiment truly represents the relative abilities of the two teams? And the answer, unfortunately, is: not very probable.

They've carried out a statistical analysis of soccer scores in various types of competition and found them wanting as a way to determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the best team. "For typical scores, the probability of a misleading result is significant," they say.

One way to increase the statistical significance of a result is to repeat the experiment. This, say Skinner and Freeman, is essentially what happens in tournaments that are organized so that the fate of a team does not rest solely on the result of one match. For example, in the last World Cup, teams were organized into mini-leagues, which should produce a more reliable result. Unfortunately, the winning teams then go into a series of knockout rounds, which are notoriously poor experiments.

In fact, Skinner and Freeman carried out an extensive statistical analysis of the scores at the last World Cup. They point out that if the outcomes of games were a true reflection of the teams' abilities, then the situation "Team A beats Team B beats Team C, which beats Team A" should never occur. They call this an intransitive triplet.

And yet these paradoxical results occur all the time. In the 2006 World Cup, there were 355 triplets of which 17 percent were intransitive. That may not sound like much, but consider this: If the results were entirely random, you'd expect only 25 percent of the triplets to be intransitive. Is it really possible that the outcome of the World Cup is little better than random?

The mini-league stage leaves 16 teams battling it out for the trophy in a knockout stage. Skinner and Freeman calculate that the chance of the best team winning the World Cup in 2006 was merely 28 percent. "Even on very optimistic assumptions there is less than one chance in three that it was the best team that won the cup," they conclude.

That's a shame. But how to fix the situation? Skinner and Freeman suggest continuing the match with successive periods of extra time until the goal difference becomes large enough to yield a chosen level of confidence. That sounds ugly.

So the tradeoff is between a beautiful game and a statistically significant one. An easy decision if ever there was one.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.4555: Are Soccer Matches Badly Designed experiments?

The three largest impact craters on Earth are Vredefort (250 kilometers across), Sudbury (200 kilometers), and Chicxulub (170 kilometers). Most astronomers assume that these were created by asteroids roughly 10 kilometers across. But what of the possibility that comets may have been responsible for one or more of these impacts?

Today David Minton and Renu Malhotra from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona present some interesting calculations about the rate at which planet-smashing asteroids are sent our way.

Contrary to the conventional view, the asteroid belt is a vibrant, dynamic region of the solar system with a complex structure resulting from the gravitational interaction of the major planets. Over billions of years, these orbital resonances have scoured the belt clean in various places. The famous Kirkwood gaps are one result of this process.

But the major planets continue to cause some asteroids to orbit chaotically, causing collisions that inevitably send debris our way.

The new work is a computer model of the rate at which this process produces large asteroids (10 kilometers across and larger) that threaten Earth.

Minton and Malhotra say their model indicates that the rate of Earth-threatening asteroids has fallen logarithmically over the last 3 billion years or so (since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment).

But interestingly, they say that the numbers suggest that Earth would have been hit perhaps once in that period by a large asteroid, a rate that's somewhat less than observed.

They also calculate impact rates for Mars and Venus and find the number of large impact craters to be greater than the number of larger asteroids around to create them.

What might account for the difference? Minton and Malhotra discuss several options, such as the possibility that planet-impacting asteroids may have a larger relative velocity than thought, and so make larger craters.

But the most intriguing is this possibility that comets may be responsible for most large impacts. "The fraction of terrestrial planet impacts that are due to comets vs. asteroids has long been controversial," write Minton and Malhotra.

The conventional thinking is that comets are responsible for less than 50 percent of impacts, but these results suggest otherwise--that comets are responsible for an order of magnitude more impacts than asteroids are.

In their discussion, Minton and Malhotra dismiss this as unlikely, but it bears some what-if contemplation about the mechanism that might generate Earth-threatening comets in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.

Our understanding of the dynamics of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud is at a very early stage, but what's the betting that these turn out to be vibrant dynamic structures dominated by resonances, gaps, and chaos, just like the asteroid belt?

And if that's the case, it may well be possible that the rate at which comets enter the inner solar system changes dramatically from time to time, as collisions in these clouds send showers of icy visitors our way.

Perhaps a computer model of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud would help. Anybody got one they could adapt?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.3875: Dynamical Erosion of the Asteroid Belt and Implications for Large Impacts in the Inner Solar System