We’re going north to our cabin to do some work. It’s time to get out the blog entry early.
And I think it’s time for Cheese Ends.
(Picture from here.)
Scientists have uncovered an ancient boomerang made from a mammoth tusk. The age is still indeterminate but it appears to be on the order of 40,000 years old.
This is interesting for a couple of reasons. For one, it’s made from mammoth tusk in Poland. This puts it at the very beginning of Homo sapiens invasion of Europe. Given that it’s a mammoth tusk, this means we were able to drop big animals very early on—which is one more piece of evidence that a good deal of the loss of these megafauna is attributable to us.
But it’s a boomerang—a sophisticated piece of hunting weaponry that is most famously used by the aborigines in Australia. Experiments have shown it works smoothly and doesn’t return—similarly to the hunting versions used by the aborigines. This indicates a couple of scenarios: 1) humans in Poland and humans in Australia figured out the same weaponry at nearly the same time. (There’s a depiction of a boomerang in rock art that is 50,000 years old.) 2) The boomerang was invented long before humans invaded Australia (for the first time) and carried there.
Both scenarios are extremely interesting.
This is a different approach than has been done previously. Before, the attempt was brain->text->speech. The accuracy was first a problem but even when that was licked the latency was a big issue.
This approach attempts to create sounds rather than text. I.e., the human provides enough neural data that can be interpreted as sound and, since the human is attempting speech, what comes out is intelligible. Or, at least, that is the intention.
The impulses that come out go through an AI interpreter (see? A good use for AI!) in order for a sound to be created. Training had to be done between the human and the AI to get anywhere close to a speech output. But progress has been made.
The exciting feature is that it can do this work in near real time. Right now, it’s a proof of concept. But it does tend to verify Niven’s Paradigm: “You don’t get down off an elephant. You get down off a duck.” We don’t always have to do things the hard way.
Mammals don’t regenerate much. I mean salamanders, some fish, spiders, and other species have the ability to regenerate significantly lost components such as legs, tails, and fins, while we have to be satisfied if the cut on our fingers heals with too much of a scar. I mean, imagine if miter saw amputations were just a few weeks therapy? (I had a close call. It’s in the forefront of my mind.)
It turns out that mice and rabbits heal differently when a hole is punched in the membrane of their ear. (Remember, rabbits and rodents are only distantly related. Rabbits are Lagomorpha and rodents are Rodentia. Never the twain shall meet for the last fifty million years.) In rabbits, the hole greatly reduces in size. But in mice, the hole heals as a hole. The idea is that this difference might be a step in the direction of regeneration.
The difference was traced to a specific gene which activated in rabbits and remained idle in mice. This gene triggered the production of retinoic acid, which appears to be important in cell positioning and differentiation in embryos.
Mice given regular injections of retinoic acid regenerated the ear pinna just like the bunnies did.
Watch this space for new developments.
Axions: Now With Quantum Chromodynamics!
There’s a lot of missing mass in the universe. It’s been demonstrated time and time again. Galaxies rotate too quickly. We see gravitational lensing where there is (apparently) nothing there. And the larger structures of the universe seem to lie out there like beads on an invisible string.
Unless there’s something wrong with gravitational theory, (I’m looking at you, Modified Newtonian Dynamics) there’s Something Out There We Can’t See. This is what is called “dark matter.”
We’ve been looking for whatever makes up dark matter for decades now with nothing much to show for it. We were looking at WIMPs—Weakly Interacting Massive Particles—but they wimped out. MOND is still in the works but they have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
Now, it’s the axion’s turn.
Axions (named after a laundry detergent) were invented to handle a different problem. The strong nuclear force obeys symmetry rules but there’s nothing there to enforce said rules. We could say the strong force is pure at heart but no one thought that likely. The idea of a new field in the universe to enforce that symmetry was born. Like the boll weevil needs a home, the field needed a particle and the name axion was slapped on it.
The axion is a tiny, tiny thing. Much, much smaller than a neutrino, which is, itself, much, much smaller than a proton. In fact, it’s so small it’s not clear that the word “particle” fits. All particles are also waves and the wavelength is inversely proportional to the particle size. Axions are so small that their wavelengths could range from meters to solar system size.
But, if they exist, they are bosons which means they can group together to form a condensate that resembles a single massive particle. This is one hypothesis regarding their role in dark matter. It’s not a bunch of weak particles out there making up the missing mass. It’s a huge collection of condensates.
Maybe. After all, there is at present absolutely no physical evidence that axions (or their corresponding field) actually exists. Just an inference from a gap in the model. This is something those who favor MOND gleefully like to point out.
Earth Sized Planets Found Not Where We Want Them and Here
Stars come in all sizes. But we would like them to be like our own sun. Big stars burn out quickly and, if big enough, end their lives in spectacular supernovae. Tiny stars burn nearly forever but have problems. Medium stars, like ours, last for billions of years and don’t try to kill their planets. At least, not often.
The most numerous stars we’ve found are Red Dwarfs. These are the most common kind of star. They’re called “red” because they put out a bit redder in their spectra. They’re tiny—less than 10% the mass of our sun. But, because of that, they sip hydrogen like fine wine and last for trillions of years.
This makes them interesting candidates for life.
Except, there are problems. Red dwarfs flare often. Really big flares. Flares that might scorch the atmosphere of one of their planets. And the planets in the Goldilocks Zone, where there is the possibility of liquid water, have to be very, very close to the star. So close that they get scorched. In addition, typically their so close they are tidally locked with one side perpetually facing their star. (The Moon is tidally locked so we only see the near side.)
So, not only do they get scorched regularly, one side gets all the heat while the other side gets zip. There is evidence life isn’t possible under these circumstances.
So, it is with a heavy heart, that Earth sized planets are much more prevalent around red dwarfs.
We can find rocky planets like us around red dwarfs. But they’re probably dead.
Yay.
There are a lot of reasons to despise the new budget bill. I consider the second B in the BBB is “butt ugly.” But that’s just me.
Regardless, one of the things in the bill is rescinding the energy subsidy for solar installations. There has been some suggestion that there is actually a tax on solar in the bill but I haven’t found that part so it’s speculation as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t understand the calculus here. The issues with fossil fuels are numerous and well known: CO2 caused global warming, mercury from coal, pollution in the air and water from burning all this stuff. Even if you believe global warming is a Chinese hoax—a very damned effective one, if so—the rest is pretty much settle fact. The sun spills over everyone. We don’t need to drill for oil, make pipelines, or spill it all over.
There are engineering issues with cutting away from fossil fuels—well, none, as far as I’m concerned, regarding coal. Shut that one down. But those are engineering issues. Work on them long enough and they will be solved. The rhetoric about energy takes on a cult like fervor. As if it is our duty as Americans to burn as much oil as we possibly can in service to the shortened lifespans of future generations.
The rhetoric calculus is idiotic. But the political calculus is inescapable. Exxon and its ilk do want us beholden to them. They like having us by the hanging bits.
I don’t like giving money to Exxon, either at the pump, in the monthly bill, or in my taxes.
So, now we have a dog in this race. Thirteen years ago we put solar on the house and it has paid for itself three times over. We’re looking into more—hopefully, to have it in place to take advantage of subsidies while they’re still here. But we’ll manage it if we can’t.
The reason is energy independence. Right now, we have to rely on the good nature of fossil fuel companies for some percentage of our yearly energy costs. That’s expensive and will get more expensive—if you don’t think so, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Waterfront property, twelve hours every day.
Eventually, we’re not going to be in debt to the fossil fuel companies for running our house. Transportation is next.
Oh, and want to see how NIH cuts are hurting important research worldwide? See here.
Used to be American exceptionalism was about accomplishments. Now, it’s just talk.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment