News Feeds

An ancient passerby may have visited the Sun and inadvertently helped shape the Solar System into what it is today. It happened billions of years ago when a stellar drifter came to within 110 astronomical units (AU) of our Sun. The effects were long-lasting and we can see evidence of the visitor’s fleeting encounter throughout the Solar System.

Neptune is the outermost planet in the Solar System, and by a simple definition, that can mark the edge of the Solar System. There’s an entire realm of other objects beyond Neptune called the Kuiper Belt. It’s the home of Pluto, most of the dwarf planets, and some comets. Astronomers aren’t certain how large the Kuiper Belt population is, but it could contain tens of thousands of objects larger than 100 km in diameter.

Some of these objects have unusual orbits and are called Trans-Neptunian objects (TNO). In new research, a team of astronomers suggest that these orbits, and some other evidence in the Solar System, support the idea that another star passed by our Solar System and drove these objects into their current orbits. The star may have disturbed some objects so strongly that they were driven into the inner Solar System and took up residence as moons around the giant planets.

These results are in two new papers. One is published in the journal Nature and is titled “Trajectory of the Stellar Flyby Shaping the Outer Solar System.” The second is published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters and is titled “Irregular moons possibly injected from the outer solar system by a stellar flyby.” Susanne Pfalzner, the lead author of both, is from Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum (Research Center) Jülich, Jülich, Germany.

“The beauty of this model lies in its simplicity. It answers several open questions about our solar system with just a single cause.”

Susanne Pfalzner, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany

While Neptune marks the outermost boundary of planets in our Solar System, an entire population of objects exists beyond it. “However, several thousand celestial bodies are known to move beyond the orbit of Neptune,” said Pfalzner. “Surprisingly, many of these so-called trans-Neptunian objects move on eccentric orbits that are inclined relative to the common orbital plane of the planets in the solar system. “

Pluto is the most well-known TNO because it used to be considered a planet. Its orbit is inclined by 17 degrees relative to the ecliptic, an imaginary plane that Earth follows as it orbits the Sun. In the ecliptic, Earth is considered to orbit the Sun at zero degrees, and none of the other planets are inclined by more than only seven degrees.

Pfalzner and her co-researchers used simulations to try to understand how some objects are inclined. They ran more than 3,000 supercomputer simulations in their effort. They wanted to investigate the idea that a passing star could be responsible, and their work showed that it could.

“Our exhaustive numerical parameter study consists of over 3,000 individual simulations modelling the effect of a stellar flyby on a planetesimal disk surrounding the Sun extending to 150?au and 300?au, respectively,” the authors write in their research.

There are three distinct populations of TNOs:

• the cold Kuiper belt objects moving on nearly circular orbits close to the plane,
• the Sedna-like TNOs orbiting at large distances (rp?>?60?au) on highly eccentric orbits (e?>?0.5),
• TNOs with high inclination (i?>?60°).

Any theory on the formation of the Solar System has to explain these three groups, according to the authors. “While only three Sedna-like objects and few highly inclined TNOs are known so far, they are the make-or-break test for any outer Solar System formation theory,” they write.

This isn’t the first time scientists have wondered if a stellar flyby can explain these puzzling parts of our Solar System. But this question has been dismissed because stellar flybys were thought to be rare. However, as we get more powerful telescopes, we’re discovering that they’re more commonplace. “However, recent Atacama Large Millimeter Array observations reveal that close stellar flybys seem to be relatively common,” the authors write.

The flyby hypothesis has gained renewed interest, but it’s difficult to study because the flyby parameter space is so large, and predictions are vague.

These researchers have made important progress, though, and their simulations can explain a lot.

“Even the orbits of very distant objects can be deduced, such as that of the dwarf planet Sedna in the outermost reaches of the solar system, which was discovered in 2003. And also objects that move in orbits almost perpendicular to the planetary orbits,” Pfalzner said. Sedna has an extremely wide orbit and takes 11,400 years to complete one orbit around the Sun. Its orbit is also wildly eccentric.

According to Pfalzner and her colleagues, a stellar flyby can also explain two Solar System objects with very oddball orbits. 2008 KV42 has a retrograde orbit, meaning it orbits in the opposite direction than the planets. 2011 KT19‘s orbit is tilted 110 degrees, meaning it effectively follows a polar retrograde orbit.

What kind of star could’ve shaped these objects’ orbits?

This table from the paper shows the trajectory of the stellar flyby that shaped the outer Solar System. Columns: solar masses, AU, inclination, angle of periastron, and assumed pre-flyby disk size. Image Credit: Pfalzner et al. 2024.

“The best match for today’s outer solar system that we found with our simulations is a star that was slightly lighter than our Sun – about 0.8 solar masses, “explained Pfalzner’s colleague Amith Govind. “This star flew past our sun at a distance of around 16.5 billion kilometres. That’s about 110 times the distance between Earth and the Sun, a little less than four times the distance of the outermost planet Neptune.”

The irregular moons are one of the Solar System’s puzzles. Everything in the Solar System formed from the solar nebula, which means barring outside influence, everything should share orbital similarities. “The origin of these irregular moons is still an open question, but these moons have a lot in common with the objects beyond Neptune (trans-Neptunian objects—TNOs), suggestive of a common origin,” the authors write.

The passing star could’ve disrupted distant objects and sent them careening into the inner Solar System, where the giant planets captured them into their orbits.

“Some of these objects could have been captured by the giant planets as moons,” says co-author Simon Portegies Zwart from Leiden University. “This would explain why the outer planets of our solar system have two different types of moons.”

This table from the research shows the Solar System’s irregular moon population. The majority of the irregular moons follow retrograde orbits. Image Credit: Pfalzner et al. 2024.

Irregular moons have unusual orbits that can be inclined, “highly elliptical, sometimes retrograde, and sometimes at great distances from their planet. All four giant planets host irregular moons, like Saturn’s Phoebe and Neptune’s Triton. “The beauty of this model lies in its simplicity,” says Pfalzner. “It answers several open questions about our solar system with just a single cause.”

This Cassini image shows Saturn’s moon, Phoebe. It’s an example of the unusual properties of irregular moons. Like many others, it orbits Saturn in the opposite direction. Image Credit: NASA/JPL

“A stellar flyby can simultaneously reproduce the complex TNO dynamics quantitatively while explaining the origin of the irregular moons and the colour distributions of both populations,” the authors write. Their simulations show that the flyby would’ve sent 7.2% of the TNO population into the inner Solar System. Many of them would’ve followed retrograde orbits, though most would’ve been subsequently ejected from the Solar System, and only a handful were captured by planets.

Could this flyby have impacted the appearance of life? That’s a purely speculative question, but since life is so rare and unexplained, it needs to be asked. It’s possible that some objects disturbed by the flyby crashed into Earth or other planets, possibly delivering prebiotic material and volatiles. At the same time, Earth’s orbit could’ve remained undisturbed. “However, how much prebiotic material originally contained in an injected TNO would survive impact on a terrestrial planet would require further studies,” the authors write.

The simulations were able to explain critical things about the Solar System that are in need of explanations. However, there needs to be more evidence before the work is conclusive.

The team’s predictions may be verified when the Vera Rubin Observatory (VRO)comes online. The VRO is expected to discover around 40,000 TNOs.

The post A Stellar Flyby Jumbled Up the Outer Solar System appeared first on Universe Today.

Although Maher is always accused of being a right-winger, that’s not true at all; he’s more or less a left-centrist, like me.  Here he defines “ick” with some graphic examples, and says that Trump has a bad case of it, and that’s the best thing Democrats have going for them. But. . . . he then says that the extreme Left aren’t immune to it, using as an example of the extreme Left going after Cheryl Hines, married to RFK Jr., for not divorcing him.

He says this, “You want to know why I have a bug up my ass about the Left more than I used to? It’s shit like this: there’s an ugliness they never used to have. The liberals I grew up respecting–none of them are like this.  Going after the wife? Even the Mafia doesn’t do that!”  He then shows a clip of Barack Obama at the latest DNC criticizing everyone across the political spectrum for thinking the worst of those on other side, and thinking that “the only way to win this is to scold and shame and out-yell the other side.”

The YouTube notes:

Donald Trump is stained with “the ick,” but liberals who scold and shame those who don’t share their worldview risk being tainted by it, too.

I’m not sure that Bill Maher qualifies as an expert on marriage given that he’s never been married and vowed he never will be. But, as usual, he’s funny, and the message not to fully demonize one’s political opponents is always worth pondering. Maher ends up by criticizing the Republican politicians as “far worse” than the Democratic ones, but adds tjat “the kind of people who are always howling on social media are the ones who give people the ‘ick’ when they hear the word ‘liberal.'”

It was good to hear Obama again: I’d missed his convention speech.

Ancient humans are said to have evolved to leave the trees, where our primate ancestors lived, in favour of open grassy savannahs – but we may have this idea wrong

As you know, there’s a Big Debate tonight between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. It’ll be broadcast on television on ABC, a non-cable channel. ABC says this: (note that times are Eastern times):

The ABC News debate, moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis, will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 10 at 9 p.m ET. A prime-time pre-debate special will air at 8 p.m. ET. It will air on ABC and stream on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu. Viewers can also stream the debate on the ABC app on a smartphone or tablet, on ABC.com and connected devices.

The debate will last an hour and a half. I may do a live post with readers reacting in real time, but I will refrain from giving any of my own take until the next day.

If you’re a PBS fan, there’s a bunch of broadcasting on PBS starting at 6 pm EDT with the PBS News Hour, and continuing through the debate (with, undoubtedly, some post-debate analysis).

A few comments and some related articles.

Although Harris has been notably silent about specific policy issues until now, and has sat for only one (softball interview), I now see that there’s a menu of policy positions on her website, which you can see here. You’d better believe that the Trump campaign will be scanning them for what they see as weak spots.  There are, of course, a gazillion ways Trump himselfcan be attacked, though, like Harris, he seems to have moderated some of his more extreme stands (e.g., on abortion) in a pragmatic bid for victory.

I’m not convinced that either candidate will tell the truth about what they really plan to do, as both now seem to be acting pragmatically: they both want to win, and both will say what they think will get them elected. Such is politics: you can’t govern unless you win.  That said, I think Harris is absolutely serious in wanting to pass a law that reinstates the provisions of Roe v Wade nationwide, and I support her on that. But unless both houses of Congress turn Democratic, she stands no chance. As for Trump, I have no idea what he’s absolutely serious about, which scares me.

But I don’t think that Trump will have the self-control that will gain him a victory in the debate. Still, a victory in the debate may not, unlike the fatal Trump/Biden debate, have much to do with how people vote come November.

What will happen tonight?  All I can predict with confidence is that it’s going to get nasty despite both candidates having moderated their tone and made noises about sticking to the issues. I don’t think Trump can control himself, and to the extent that Harris keeps her cool, she’ll come off looking better. But I hasten to add that Trump has always seemed impervious to how he “comes off,” and the support he’s enjoyed despite all the civil and criminal trials in his future support his statement that “”I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?. . . . It’s, like, incredible.”

As Tom Friedman notes in the NYT op-ed below (click headline to read, or find the article archived here). Harris has taken some positions in the past that could come back to haunt her should Trump bring them up in the debate. These include immigration and Title IX issues. As the Free Press reports in its daily news summary.

Even as Harris gets a little more specific in 2024, the promises she made in 2019 remain a headache. The latest unwelcome reminder of the progressive positions she took in the Democratic primary five years ago come courtesy of CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski, who reports that during that race Harris told the ACLU she supports cutting ICE’s funding and providing gender transition surgery to detained migrants.

Further, she’s susceptible to her statement that her values haven’t changed but some of her positions have (e.g., fracking).  If I were a moderator, I’d ask her to explain that. She’s also not good when thinking on her feet, and, with the pressure of a deranged opponent coming down on her, she has to try hard to keep her cool.

I am not a fan of Friedman so much, but I think he’s pretty much correct in his article below:

An excerpt:

“Joe and I got a lot of things right, but we got some things wrong, too — and here is what I have learned.”

For my money, uttering those 23 words, or something like them, is the key for Kamala Harris to win Tuesday’s debate against Donald Trump — and the election.

Utter them, and she will hugely improve her chances to win more of the undecided voters in this tight race. Fail to utter them or continue to disguise her policy shifts with the incoherent statement she used in the CNN interview — that while her positions might have changed on fracking and immigration, “my values have not changed” — and she will struggle.

Madam V.P., if you say your positions have changed but your values haven’t, what does that even mean? And what should we expect from your presidency — your values or your actions? Our latest poll shows too many voters still don’t know.

It’s OK to say: “I learned a lot as vice president. I’m proud of our record of putting America on a sustainable path to a clean energy future. It will make us more secure and more prosperous. But I also see that we can’t get there overnight. For reasons of both economic security and national security, we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy right now. So you can trust that in a Harris presidency, America will continue to lead the world in exploiting our oil and gas advantages but we will do it in the cleanest way possible while making the transition as fast as possible.”

I’m not so sure that admitting she was wrong will “hugely improve her chances” to win over undecided voters, but if she doesn’t she’ll be in a tight place.

Will admitting she was wrong hurt her? Not to me, but perhaps to the American public, which may interpret it as a weak candidate flip-flopping on the issues.  Here’s one of the issues—from CNN—that she might want to back off on, especially given the fact that illegal immigration is now an important issue to many Americans (as is, to a lesser extent, “affirmative care”).

Click to read Kaczynski’s article mentioned above:

An excerpt from CNN:

As Kamala Harris pivots to the political center in her campaign for president, a 2019 questionnaire from a leading civil rights organization spotlights her past support for left-wing causes such as taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.

In an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire then-Sen. Harris filled out as a candidate for president in 2020, she also expressed support for decriminalizing federal drug possession for personal use, and for sweeping reductions to Immigration and Custom Enforcement operations, including drastic cuts in ICE funding and an open-ended pledge to “end” immigration detention.

The questionnaire has received scant media attention and a spokesperson for the ACLU claimed it had remained live from 2019.

But the ACLU’s website upload and page source indicate the questionnaire was reposted last month after Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. CNN was unable to find questionnaires filled out by other candidates from the 2020 campaign that the ACLU had reposted.

Harris has acknowledged that some of her stances have evolved over time but that she holds core beliefs that remain unshakable: “My values have not changed,” she said in an interview with CNN last month.

The ACLU questionnaire, which was sent  to all Democratic and Republican candidates during the 2020 presidential campaign, provides a clear record of Harris’ progressive stances. Some candidates did not respond to the questionnaire, including Joe Biden.  The ACLU later ran radio ads attacking Biden for not answering.

The ACLU also had volunteers question candidates at public town halls and later posted videos on their website of their responses.

During one town hall event in New Hampshire in April 2019, Harris was asked by a voter if she supports adding a “third gender” to federal identification cards.

“Sure,” Harris answered to a round of applause from the crowd. “I have my entire life and career been an ally and I see the issue of LGBTQ rights as a fundamental civil rights and human rights issue, period,” Harris said.

Here’s a graphic of that, again from CNN:

I have to say that her stand on this: giving federal funding for gender surgery for immigrants who entered the country illegally, is absurd.  And slashing ICE funding is not something most Americans want.  She’d better be ready to disavow these positions, because if Team Trump has any smarts, they’ll bring them up.

Perhaps most Americans will be watching the debate as a form of entertainment rather than a way to figure out how to vote. It’s not at all clear that there will be more debates, though, so this may be the only chance to see the candidates go mano a mano. All we know is the country is poised to go down two very divergent paths, and I find debate about that to be more anxiety-inducing than entertaining.

Anyway, these are just random thoughts, but I invite your random thoughts or predictions about the debate.  I’m sure people will have more to say tomorrow.

Three amazing recent asteroid finds show what’s possible in terms of astronomy online.

Practical astronomy is increasingly becoming an online affair. In 2023, we wrote about this trend, and highlighted how Russian observer and amateur astronomer Filipp Romanov used time on a remote observatory to successfully discover two asteroids, which he named 623826 Alekseyvarkin and 623827 Nikandrilyich after his great-grandfathers. Now, Filipp has repeated this feat and pushed the limit of what’s possible online with the discovery of a trio of asteroids, including a rare near-Earth asteroid discovery found using a remote system.

Universe Today caught up with Filipp to explain how he did it:

“I have been searching for asteroids in images from remote telescopes from time to time for almost two years, and I have discovered four asteroids that have received their names, but on August 26th, 2024, I made a great find—I found a near-Earth asteroid in the images obtained using the 0.51-meter f/6.8 remote telescope T59 located at the Siding Spring Observatory of the iTelescope network, which is visible in all eight (300 second exposure) photos of one of the fields of the sky.”

A Surreptitious Find

Timing and planning is crucial in the hunt for asteroids, as Filipp elaborates: “I reserved in advance the necessary time on this telescope (when the waning gibbous Moon did not illuminate the sky above this observatory, and when the Moon was still below the horizon) for imaging, calculated the celestial coordinates, and requested specifically for the searching of main-belt asteroids and photography of two areas of the sky near the near the ecliptic and in the opposition region.”

The region is crucial, as asteroids coming into opposition ‘opposite’ to the Sun as seen from Earth are also at their brightest. Also, the area in the constellation Pisces where asteroids are reaching this point in late August into September is also relatively vacant, and far from the densely packed plane of the Milky Way Galaxy. In the era of visual astronomy in the mid-19th century, more asteroids were discovered in September than any other month.

It was in the same constellation than Filipp made a surprise discovery.

“I found an asteroid with a fast movement. In the images, this astronomical object looked like lines, unlike star-shaped (point source) main-belt asteroids, and I thought that it might be a near-Earth asteroid.” This fast motion leaving trails in the images is a clue that the object is also closer to the Earth.

Still, Filipp had to be sure that the asteroid wasn’t a known space rock. “I checked that there were no matches with known astronomical objects from the Minor Planet Center (MPC) database and sent the data of my astronomic measurements to the NEO Confirmation Page (NEOCP) so that they appear there for the attention of astronomers around the world.”

Pinning Down an Asteroid Find

This stage is crucial, in order to confirm the discovery and refine the position and orbit of the asteroid… and the more observations the better. Bad weather over key sites or losing the asteroid in the Sun’s glare can mean a discovery can go missing for months, or even years. “I immediately wrote to a number of astronomers with a request to confirm this astronomical object, but some of the astronomers did not have clear weather for observations (or were) not online at the time. Only one amateur astronomer immediately responded.” Filipp then made a quick decision to use precious observing time to make a follow up observation, using an iTelescope in Chile. “As a result, we both managed to confirm this asteroid and each of us sent results of our astrometric measurements to the MPC.”

Automatic sky surveys have since picked up asteroid 2024 QS, including the Mount Lemmon Survey on September 3rd, and the ATLAS-HKO and -MLO surveys in Hawaii on September 5th.

Asteroid 2024 QS, captured September 1st, days before closest approach to the Earth. Credit: Filipp Romanov.

The discovery became known as 2024 QS, a 43-meter asteroid on a 1.8 year orbit around the Sun, passing 12.1 LD (lunar distances, or slightly less than 4.7 million kilometers) from the Earth yesterday on September 9th at 00:39 Universal Time (UT). This pass ejected the asteroid from the near-Earth vicinity. About 35,000 Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are known of though certainly, amateur astronomers finding one is rare.

…And Something More Asteroids 679996 (left) and 679999 (right). Credit: Filipp Romanov.

Two more recent discoveries were also made by Filipp:

The first was asteroid 2023 PS3, found on August 9th, 2023 using the the 2-meter Liverpool Telescope. This small (150-170 meter in diameter) asteroid is on a 2.56 year orbit. 2023 PS3 is a member of the Hungaria Group. Astronomers only know of about 30,000 Hungaria Group asteroids. This asteroid was later named 679996 Mariyafilippovna, after Filipp’s great-grandmother.

M.F. Romanova (left) and M.M. Varkina (right), the two great grandmothers of Filipp Romanov.

Mariya Filippovna Romanova (1919-1979) lived in Chugueka and worked as a secretary-typist and as a clerk. She was awarded the Veteran of Labour medal.

Next was asteroid 2023 SJ76, found on September 16th, 2023 using the T11 iTelescope located at the Utah Desert Remote Observatory located at Great Basin desert in Beryl Junction, Utah.

This main-belt asteroid is several hundred meters across, and has an orbital period of 3.57 years. It later received the name of 679999 Mariyavarkina after Filipp’s great-grandmother Mariya Maksimovna Varkina, who tragically died while pregnant in a bus accident in Primorsky Krai, Russia in 1962. She was Mordvin (by nationality), and from Sabanovo (near Penza, Russia).

Filipp Romanov at his laptop.

Congrats to Filipp on these amazing finds, and showing us all what’s possible, with a little dedication and persistence.

The post Amateur Astronomer Finds Additional Asteroids With Remote Telescopes appeared first on Universe Today.

When worker ants are exposed to a pathogenic fungus, they build nests that are more compartmentalised to reduce the risk of an epidemic

Researchers have designed and synthesized a new organic semiconductor for organic solar cells (OSCs). By adding specific side units to their structure, they achieved separation between the frontier molecular orbitals, leading to lower exciton binding energy and increased power conversion efficiency. This tuning of the design of an acceptor component is expected to increase the performance of OSCs leading to more effective large-scale photovoltaic systems and new devices.

Pure metal nanowires (NWs) are nanomaterials with distinctive properties that make them useful for various applications. However, their utilization in modern electronics has been limited by the lack of a mass-production method. Researchers have now succeeded in the mass growth of aluminum NWs. The underlying growth process could in principle be extended to other metals, removing the limitations to the mass production of NWs and ushering in a new era of nanotechnology.

Methane concentrations in Earth's atmosphere increased at record speed over the past five years. At least two-thirds of annual methane emissions now come from human activities, including fossil fuel use, agriculture, and landfills and other waste.

A research team developed a microbial strain that efficiently produces aromatic polyester using systems metabolic engineering.

Researchers have introduced a novel method for converting the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) into ethanol, a sustainable fuel. This significant advancement could pave the way for more environmentally friendly and economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels.

Bioactive glasses, a filling material which can bond to tissue and improve the strength of bones and teeth, has been combined with gallium to create a potential treatment for bone cancer. Tests in labs have found that bioactive glasses doped with the metal have a 99 percent success rate of eliminating cancerous cells and can even regenerate diseased bones.

Researchers report on a new defect passivation strategy for improved power conversion efficiency and stability of perovskite solar cells.

A study has developed an innovative method that overcomes the limitations of traditional additive manufacturing (3D printing), significantly simplifying and accelerating the production of geometrically complex cellular ceramics. This groundbreaking approach has the potential to revolutionize the design and processing of multifarious ceramic materials, opening up new possibilities for new applications in energy, electronics, and biomedicine, including robotics, solar cells, sensors, battery electrodes, and bactericidal devices.

When cars, planes, ships or computers are built from a material that functions as both a battery and a load-bearing structure, the weight and energy consumption are radically reduced. A research group is now presenting an advance in so-called massless energy storage -- a structural battery that could halve the weight of a laptop, make the mobile phone as thin as a credit card or increase the driving range of an electric car by up to 70 percent on a single charge.

From migrating sauropods and semi-aquatic predators to doting parents, palaeontologists are finally uncovering the mysteries of the lifestyles of dinosaurs

As I’ve said many times, while over 100 American colleges and Universities have adopted a version of the University of Chicago’s policy of free speech, only a handful have adopted our complementary policy of institutional neutrality (“The Kalven Report”). That policy mandates that our University, its departments, and other “official” units, are forbidden from making statements espousing a specific ideology or taking moral or political stand—except when making such a statement directly supports the university’s mission of teaching, learning, and research. Institutional neutrality—which in our school also involves investment decisions—is designed to buttress freedom of expression: nobody feels that they would be punished if they went against some “official” political statement.

As I wrote in an earlier post announcing that Columbia University also has professed this policy (I’ll believe it when I see it there):

The only universities that have adopted Kalven-esque principles, besides us, number two: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Vanderbilt University. (Vanderbilt’s Chancellor, Daniel Diermeier, is a free-speech advocate who was Provost here before he moved south.)  Some professors at Northwestern University have urged adoption of institutional neutrality, but so far little seems to have happened.

(See Diermeier’s WSJ critique of Harvard’s lame attempt at institutional neutrality.)

So, including Chicago, we had four schools adopting a policy that should be universal.  But if you count Simon Fraser University near Vancouver, B.C. as “American” (well, it’s North American), now we have five.  Read the announcement from Simon Fraser’s President by clicking on the screenshot below.

A transcript (I’ve bolded the important stuff except for the title and subtitle, but some of the bolded stuff is troubling, at least to me):

Message from the President: the Role of Universities in Troubled Times

September 09, 2024

As president of SFU, I am often asked by students, faculty and staff to take a stance on partisan political matters and current events. These requests have increased greatly in the past year, during which this topic has been at the forefront of discussion on university campuses around the world. I want to share some thoughts on why I have come to the view that it is important for university administration not to take public positions on such matters.

Universities are comprised of thousands of students, faculty and staff who all hold unique opinions and views, informed by their scholarly work and lived experiences. I believe that universities need to be a place where people can freely engage in academic inquiry, share ideas, learn from each other, disagree constructively and peacefully protest. And I believe that my role as university president is to help facilitate an environment where people can have robust conversations, including on controversial topics.

In the past, I have made statements related to world events in an attempt to be responsive to issues our community is concerned with. However, I have come to understand that taking a public position on behalf of the university can have a chilling effect on the vigorous discussion and debate of students, faculty and staff. While these statements were intended to provide comfort to and express solidarity with members of the university community, their potential impact on open discussion runs contrary to the university’s purpose. I also recognize that there are many local, global and personal issues affecting community members at any given time, and issuing statements on some topics but not others can further contribute to feelings of exclusion.

If SFU is truly to be a place where people feel comfortable sharing their ideas and participating in meaningful dialogue, the university must be non-sectarian and non-political in principle. In order to facilitate this, I believe that the institution—and senior leadership as representatives of the institution—must refrain from taking public positions on topics unrelated to the business of the university, including partisan matters and world events.

Living by Our Values

Academic freedom, as enshrined in our collective agreements and underscored in What’s Next: The SFU Strategy, creates the conditions for scholars to freely examine, question, teach and learn within their area of study, provided that these actions are based on an honest search for knowledge. To truly live by our core values of academic freedom and critical thinking, we need to hold space for difficult and controversial conversations to take place responsibly and respectfully, as well as defending and protecting the human right to express views within the bounds of the law.

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated. Taken together, academic freedom and inclusive excellence support each other and work together to create a vibrant academic community where everyone feels a sense of belonging.

One of the foundational practices of university life is to be exposed to different points of view, broaden our perspectives and have our beliefs and ideas challenged. This may be uncomfortable, but it is also an important part of being an engaged citizen. As we take on this work, it is important to remember that students, staff and faculty are accountable to SFU’s policies and codes of conduct. If violations of established codes of conduct, university policies or laws occur, we will follow the appropriate processes and procedures to address them.

In a time of increased polarization, we must preserve the vibrancy of our academic community while ensuring that difficult conversations are grounded in care and respect for each other. This is a challenging task, but I believe it is one we can accomplish, together. I want to assure you that senior leaders are committed to doing our part by promoting—not shutting down—healthy dialogue at SFU.

Joy Johnson
Pronouns: she, her, hers
President & Vice-Chancellor
Simon Fraser University

Now the “pronoun statement at the bottom undermines this statement just a tad, but on the whole Dr. Johnson (a researcher in “gender and health”) seems to understand the issues at play. But there is one bit of her message that seriously undermines her statement:

As outlined in What’s Next, we are also committed to embedding the values of equity and belonging in every decision and action. We have a collective responsibility to create a culture of inclusive excellence where all feel welcome, safe, accepted and appreciated.

This statement is indeed a debatable political assertion, because “equity” is not equal opportunity for everyone, which is not only the law but morally correct. Rather, “equity” is a policy of equal outcomes, and is premised on the debatable claim that a lack of equal outcomes must perforce reflect bias against an underrepresented group (e.g., “structural racism” or “structural sexism”). The University of Chicago would never adopt a policy calling for equity, but of course we do have a policy of equality of opportunity.  Our University would never assert that it tries to ensure “equity” because that is a debatable statement about ideology.

Further, ensuring that everyone feels “welcome, safe, accepted, and appreciated” may not be possible if there is true freedom of speech.  For that kind of speech almost invariably assures that, at least at some times, some students claim that they feel “unsafe” and “unwelcome”.  That, for example, was one reason that an art history professor at the private Hamline University in Minnesota was fired for showing images of old Islamic pictures in which Muhammed’s face was unveiled.  Showing those pictures (which some Muslims feel is disrespectful or even blasphemous) made some students feel “unsafe,” and that  “they didn’t belong.”  (The professor sued Hamline and, I think, got an other job.)

Finally, “inclusive excellence,” though it links to an explanation of its meaning, is really a slippery concept.  In many cases where students and groups differ in achievement, the words “inclusive” and “excellence” may not be compatible.

So this statement is a sort-of acceptance of Kalven, but shows some unsettling signs of wokeness. For the time being we’ll see what happens at Simon Fraser. It is a public university, but there’s no First Amendment in Canada.

The link was sent to my reader Mike, who is associated with Simon Fraser. Mike said this in an email:

I wanted to share some good news. My university president today publicly embraced institutional neutrality for the university and its senior leadership.  (See below).

We don’t have a real policy yet, we don’t know how far down the administrative structure this neutrality will extend, and I don’t know whether this or a different message was sent to our students at the same time. But I hope clarifying those things will be a next step. It’s a huge improvement over the past 5 years in which the president created a new vice-president-level DEI infrastructure and pursued other initiatives that have chilled free expression by choosing sides on controversial topics including Hamas terrorism. So although there is work to do this is good news and a good day for my university. The people most responsible for this positive development are the faculty leaders of our Heterodox Academy Campus Community at SFU. Our group has politely, publicly, and insistently urged our colleagues and administrators to back off from adopting public positions on policy or cultural issues on behalf of everyone at the university, and we have extolled the virtues of academic freedom of expression. We think that public campaign has borne its first fruit. I hope its effects will continue to be felt (a real policy, extended to students, and extended down to the level of department chairs).

Mike’s statement about the President setting up a DEI infrastructure is further unsettling. I hope this is good news for Simon Fraser, but, as a cynic, I found the President’s statement worrisome. The first sign that Dr. Johnson means what she says it that she has to dismantle or cut way back on the DEI business. For DEI itself, or at least the ideology behind its most common implementations, is itself ideologically debatable. Remember, the “E” stands for “equity.”

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/sciencesalon/mss467_Matthew_Stewart_2024_09_10.mp3 Download MP3

Matthew Stewart is an independent philosopher and historian who has written extensively about the philosophical origins of the American republic, the history of philosophy, management theory, and the culture of inequality. His work has appeared in The Atlantic, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Harvard Business Review, among other publications. In recent years he has lived in Boston, New York, and Los Angeles, and is currently based in London. He is the author of Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic and An Emancipation of the Mind: Radical Philosophy, the War over Slavery, and the Refounding of America.

Shermer and Stewart discuss:

• What does the phrase “The Law of Nature and Nature’s God” mean?
• What is heretical about the origins of the American Republic?
• Religion of the founders: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Jay, James Madison, Thomas Paine
• Ethan Allen and Thomas Young
• The Enlightenment influence on the Founding Fathers
• John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza
• Ancient Greek influences on the Founding Fathers
• Epicurus’s Dangerous Idea
• Lucretius’s “swerving” atoms
• Theism, Deism, Pantheism, Atheism
• Reason and empiricism
• Self-evident truths
• Morality and the origin of right and wrong
• Happiness and its pursuit
• The religion of freedom
• Enslaving other humans: what were these people thinking and feeling?
• Should they have known better?
• Racists or creatures of their time in which nearly everyone held such views?
• Monogenism vs. polygenism
• Abolitionism
• John Brown
• Frederick Douglass
• Theodore Parker
• Abraham Lincoln
• Civil War cause: slavery or states’ rights?
• Religious supporters of abolition: Quakers, William Wilberforce
• How did American slavery lead to civil war?
• Why did the war result in emancipation?

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Five satellites due to launch this week could be brighter than most stars, and astronomers fear the growth of such constellations could have a catastrophic impact

By now we have all seen the impressive robot videos, such as the ones from Boston Dynamics, in which robots show incredible flexibility and agility. These are amazing, but I understand they are a bit like trick-shot videos – we are being shown the ones that worked, which may not represent a typical outcome. Current robot technology, however, is a bit like steam-punk – we are making the most out of an old technology, but that technology is inherently limiting.

The tech I am talking about is motor-driven actuators. An actuator is a device that converts energy into mechanical force, such a torque or displacement. This is a technology that is about 200 years old. While they get the job done, they have a couple of significant limitations. One is that they use a lot of energy, much of which is wasted as heat. This is important as we try to make battery-driven robots that are not tethered to a power cord. Dog-like and humanoid robots typically last 60-90 minutes on one charge. Current designs are also relatively hard, so that limits their interaction with the environment. They also depend heavily on sensors to read their environment.

By contrast we can think about biological systems. Muscles are much more energy efficient, are soft, can be incredibly precise, are silent, and contain some of their own feedback to augment control. Developing artificial robotic muscles that would perform similar to biological systems is now a goal of robotics research, but it is a very challenging problem to crack. Such a system would also need to contract slowly or quickly, and even produce bursts of speed (if, for example, you want your robot to jump). They would need to be able to produce a lot of power, enough for the robot to move itself and carry out whatever function it has. It would also need to be able to efficiently hold a position for long periods of times.

As a bonus, human muscles, for example, have stretch receptors in them which provide feedback to the control system which not only enhances control but allow for rapid reflexive movements. Biological systems are actually very sophisticated, which is not surprising given that they have had hundreds of millions of years to evolve. Reverse engineering such systems is no easy task.

Researchers, however, have made some preliminary progress. To start they need a material that can contract or stretch (or change its shape is some way) when a voltage is applied to it. That is the fundamental function of a muscle – they contract when activated by nerve stimulation. Muscles will also contract when an external electrical stimulus is applied to them. The musculoskeletal system is essentially a system of contracting muscles, arranged so as to move joints in different directions – the biceps flexes the elbow while the triceps extends the elbow, for example. But also there are often different muscles for the same action but with different positions of maximal mechanical advantage.

Designing such a system won’t be the challenge for engineers – thinking about such forces is bread and butter for engineers. The limiting factor right now is the material science, the artificial muscle itself. The other technological challenge (where we have already made good progress) is developing the various sensors that work together to provide all the necessary feedback. Humans, for example, use multiple sensory modalities at the same time. We use vision, of course, to see our environment and guild our movements. We also have proprioception which allows our brains to sense where our limbs are in three-dimensional space. This is why you can move accurately with your eyes closed (close your eyes and touch your nose – that’s proprioception). The vestibular system tells us how we are oriented with respect to gravity and senses any accelerating forces acting on us (such as spinning around). We also have tactile sensation so we can sense when we are touching something (our feet against the ground, or something in our hands). Our muscles can also sense when they are being stretched, which further helps coordinate movement.

Our brains process all of this information in real time, comparing them to each other to provide a unified sense of how we are oriented and how we are moving. Motion sickness, vertigo, and dizziness result when the various sensory streams do not all sync up, or if the brain is having difficulty processing it all.

Designing a robotic system that can do all this is challenging, but it starts with the artificial muscles. There are a few approaches in development. MIT researchers, for example, developed a fiber made of different materials with different thermal expansion properties. When stimulated the fiber coils, and therefore shortens. Muscles are made of many individual fibers that shorten when activated, so this could serve as the building block of a similar approach. The question is – will dozens or hundreds of these fibers work together to form a muscle?

More recently scientists have developed an electrohydraulic system – essentially bags of oil that contract or stretch when stimulated. Preliminary testing is promising, with a key feature that the system is energy efficient.

A recent Nature review breaks down the various artificial muscle systems by the environmental stimuli to which they respond: “According to different stimuli, artificial muscles can be categorized as thermoresponsive, electrically responsive, magnetically responsive, photoresponsive, chemically responsive, and pressure driven.” There are also multi-stimuli driven systems. They can also be categories by potential application. These include micro-robotic systems, where very tiny actuators are needed. Also there are biomedical applications, such as prosthetics and implantable devices. And of course there are robotic applications, but this is a huge category that includes many different sizes and designs of robots.

Most of this research has been essentially done in the last decade, so it is still very new. Interest and investment is increasing, however, as the potential of “microactuators” and “soft robotics” is better understood. This could potentially be a transformative technology, with lots of applications beyond just building more efficient and agile robots.

The post Artificial Robotic Muscles first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.