You are here
News Feeds
AI helps distinguish dark matter from cosmic noise
AI helps distinguish dark matter from cosmic noise
AI helps distinguish dark matter from cosmic noise
Astrophysics: AI shines a new light on exoplanets
Researchers create a one-dimensional gas out of light
Researchers advance new class of quantum critical metal that could advance electronic devices
Researchers advance new class of quantum critical metal that could advance electronic devices
Global experts help nanomedicines deliver on healthcare promise
Shining light on how solar power and farming can coexist
Massive merger: Study reveals evidence for origin of supermassive black hole at galaxy's center
Sharks leap out of the water more often than you might think
Michael Shermer — Pseudohistory Makes a Comeback on Tucker Carlson’s Show
During a two-hour interview with Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper made sensational claims about the Holocaust and World War II, with Carlson calling him “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” In this solo episode, Michael Shermer takes a critical look at the pseudohistory and historical revisionism presented by Cooper on Carlson’s show.
JWST Reveals Star Formation at Cosmic Noon
Understanding the star formation rate (SFR) in a galaxy is critical to understanding the galaxy itself. Some galaxies are starburst galaxies with extremely high SFRs, some are quenched or quiescent galaxies with very low SFRs, and some are in the middle. Researchers used the JWST to observe a pair of galaxies at Cosmic Noon that are just beginning to merge to see how SFRs vary in different regions of both galaxies.
A rare alignment of massive objects in space allowed astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope to observe a pair of distant, ancient galaxies that are just beginning to interact and merge. The JWST sees the galaxies as they were about seven billion years ago, near the end of the Universe’s Cosmic Noon. The Cosmic Noon was when star formation was at its peak.
One of the galaxies is a blue, face-on galaxy, and the other is a dusty red, edge-on galaxy. The JWST can only see them because of an intervening galaxy cluster named MACS-J0417.5-1154. It’s a gravitational lens that magnifies the light from the galaxy pair and smears the galaxies’ light into an arc.
Astronomers have found many gravitational lenses and regularly use them to observe objects that are otherwise nearly impossible to see. But this lens is different. It’s a hyperbolic umbilic gravitational lens and produces multiple images of the same objects, where each one has a different magnification and brightness.
“We know of only three or four occurrences of similar gravitational lens configurations in the observable universe, which makes this find exciting, as it demonstrates the power of Webb and suggests maybe now we will find more of these,” said astronomer Guillaume Desprez of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Desprez works with the CAnadian NIRISS Unbiased Cluster Survey (CANUCS), the team presenting the Webb results.
Not only does the cluster magnify the distant background galaxies, but it also warps their appearance and produces multiple copies. Together with an unrelated one, the galaxies combine to look like a question mark. They’ve been dubbed the Question Mark Galaxy Pair.
False colour images of the Question Mark Pair and MACS J0417.5?1154 (right-hand panel). The left two panels are zoom-in images of four of the multiply lensed images of the Question Mark Pair taken with HST and JWST. By comparing the JWST and HST images, we see how dusty the red edge-on galaxy is as it is barely visible in the HST/ACS imaging. Image Credit: Estrada-Carpenter et al. 2024.This isn’t the first time astronomers have observed these galaxies. The Hubble observed it previously. But the Hubble and the JWST see things differently. The JWST can see longer wavelengths of infrared light that pass through cosmic dust, while the Hubble only sees the wavelengths of light that get trapped in the dust. So, the Hubble couldn’t detect the question mark shape, whereas the JWST could.
“This is just cool looking. Amazing images like this are why I got into astronomy when I was young,” said astronomer Marcin Sawicki of Saint Mary’s University, one of the lead researchers on the team.
But the question mark shape is just an interesting visual curiosity. The research is about star formation, and these results highlight the JWST’s ability to identify star formation regions in distant galaxies.
“Knowing when, where, and how star formation occurs within galaxies is crucial to understanding how galaxies have evolved over the history of the universe,” said astronomer Vicente Estrada-Carpenter of Saint Mary’s University. Estrada-Carpenter used both Hubble’s ultraviolet and Webb’s infrared data to show where new stars are forming in the galaxies.
The researchers developed a new method to probe SFRs on different timescales of about ten million years and one hundred million years. The ten-million-year timescale relied on H-alpha emission line maps, and the one-hundred-million-year timescale relied on UV observations. H-alpha is sensitive to ten-million-year timescales because it stems from gas around massive, short-lived stars. UV is sensitive to one-hundred-million-year timescales because it originates from longer-lived stars.
Together, the ratio between the two can spatially resolve star formation burstiness.
They found that SFRs decrease at longer distances from the galactic center. That’s not surprising since star-forming gas tends to accumulate near galactic nuclei. However, they also found that overall, the SFR has increased by a factor of 1.6 over the last ~100 Myr, an indication that the galaxies are beginning to merge.
To better understand the merger aspect, the researchers broke the QMP down into segments: blue galaxy bulge and disc, red bulge and disc, and three types of clumps: bursting, equilibrium, and quenching.
This figure from the study shows how the researchers broke the QMP into segments to better understand it. Image Credit: Estrada-Carpenter et al. 2024.“Both galaxies in the Question Mark Pair show active star formation in several compact regions, likely a result of gas from the two galaxies colliding,” said Estrada-Carpenter. “However, neither galaxy’s shape appears too disrupted, so we are probably seeing the beginning of their interaction with each other.”
They identified twenty star-forming clumps in the galaxy pair, highlighting the JWST’s ability to spatially resolve star formation in distant galaxies. Of those 20, seven were experiencing bursty star formation, 10 were quenching, and three were in equilibrium. The blue face-on galaxy, especially its disk, is mostly in a quenching phase, which makes sense since the JWST is seeing the galaxy pair as they were near the end of Cosmic Noon.
Galaxies grow massive by merging, and one of the JWST’s science goals is to better understand mergers and how they affect star formation. The QMP could be beginning to merge which only increases its value as an observational target.
“What makes the QMP so interesting is that these galaxies are possibly at the beginning of an interaction (as their morphologies do not seem to be disturbed). An interaction between the galaxy pair could lead to a burst of star formation, and this may be the reason why the blue face-on galaxy contains so many clumpy star-forming regions,” the authors write in their paper.
These results are also giving us a look at what our own galaxy was like during Cosmic Noon.
“These galaxies, seen billions of years ago when star formation was at its peak, are similar to the mass that the Milky Way galaxy would have been at that time. Webb is allowing us to study what the teenage years of our own galaxy would have been like,” said Sawicki.
The post JWST Reveals Star Formation at Cosmic Noon appeared first on Universe Today.
The mathematical theory that made the internet possible
Why criticize the Left?
If you read here, you’ll know that I spend more of my time calling out the excesses of the Left than of the Right. I’ve explained why, and it’s not because I’m a right-winger or am unaware of their program and, especially, of their deranged candidate for President.
But this time I’ll let Bari Weiss answer for me, in an extract below from a recent piece she wrote for The Free Press. I’m not interested much in the fracas about Tucker Carlson, for too much else is happening in the world, but below is an extract from Weiss’s piece that mirrors my own sentiments. You can read the whole piece, if you wish, by clicking on the headline.
An excerpt:
If there is a criticism I’ve gotten over the past several years it’s that I pay too much attention—and apply too much scrutiny—to the excesses of the illiberal left at the expense of the illiberal right. Wasn’t I ignoring the elephant and allowing myself to get distracted by the gnat?
My response to that is twofold.
The first is that there is no shortage of writers, reporters, and outlets focusing on the dangers of the far right. I saw the far left as conspicuously overlooked by people who otherwise take a great interest in political extremism. And I understand why they were averting their gaze: The social cost of noticing this subject is very high. Given that the job description of a journalist is to observe the world, uncover things in the public interest, and then tell the plain truth about it, choosing topics where others fall silent seems wise to me. It still does.
The second is that I have been concerned for years now that the illiberal ideology that has become increasingly mainstream on the political left—one that makes war on our common history, our common identity as Americans, and fundamentally, on the goodness of the American project—would inspire the mirror ideology on the right.
And that is exactly where we find ourselves, with an illiberal left that defaces Churchill statues—and an illiberal right that defaces Churchill’s legacy. With a left that insists 1619 was the year of the true founding of America—and a right that suggests the Greatest Generation was something closer to genociders. With a left that sympathizes with modern-day Nazis in the form of Hamas—and a right that sympathizes with the original ones.
Greenland voyage sheds light on little-known ancient Arctic culture
Smart speakers at crime scenes could provide valuable clues to police
A Māori defends indigenous “ways of knowing” against my critique
The other day I put up a post about an indigenous “science initiative” in New Zealand with a wonky aim: to cure the country’s iconic kauri trees of a fungal blight by, yes, playing whale songs to sick trees and rubbing them with whale oil and pulverized whale bones. This endeavor, I asserted, had no empirical basis to justify its funding—by New Zealand taxpayers, of course.
Indeed, the project came from a Māori legend that whales once roamed the land and were BFFs with kauri trees, but then got separated. The project was based on the supposition that bringing tree and whale back together again could not only revive their erstwhile friendship but also save the sick trees. (I can guarantee you here that they’re not talking about evolution of the trees and whales from a common ancestor, nor about terrestrial ancestors of whales.)
A quote from the initiative:
Māori whakapapa [genealogy] describes how the kauri and tohorā (sperm whale) are brothers, but they were separated when the tohorā chose the ocean over the forest. In this research area we looked at how this connection could possibly help save the kauri from kauri dieback disease.
The team was led by Matua Tohe Ashby and investigated rongoā (traditional medicine) solutions for kauri dieback. This involved tohorā, karakia and mōteatea, and tied into the second Oranga research project: Te reo o te waonui a Tāne. The team also traind kauri communities in rongoā solutions to help save their rākau (trees).
Here’s the video linked to Ashby’s name:
I called this project “mishegass”, a transliteration of the Yiddish word for “silliness” or “craziness”, and also used the English “nonsense”. How could I not mock such an endeavor, for doesn’t basing a funded project on a ludicrous myth fully deserve mockery? That is, unless you are a taxpaying New Zealander, in which case it should make you mad.
But my criticism also irritated a Māori journalist, who wrote me an email yesterday:
Hello Jerry
I am a journalist in New Zealand for the Southern Cross News I have recently read your article on Mātauranga Māori and would like to ask you a few questions
Have you ever been to New Zealand ?
Have you experienced Mātauranga Māori or was your research online?
Are you aware of the Pre-Polynesian Civilisation conspiracy theory and have you commented on this topic?
Do you have a bias towards Western Science and dismiss indigenous science?
Was colonisation an overwhelmingly positive event for Māori ?
Do you believe non-Māori should control the destiny of Mātauranga Māori
Joe Trinder | Editor
I hadn’t heard of the Southern Cross News (SCN), but it appears to be.a Māori-centric New Zealand website, and Joe Trinder is clearly of Māori ancestry, describing himself on “X” as “Woke Elite Maori of the highest order.”
As you can see, Trinder’s questions are loaded ones, and though I was tempted to respond, I saw no point, for there was already an article in the SCN, written by one Dr. Rawiri Waretini-Karena, criticizing my own critique and defending indigenous ways of knowing and the usefulness of whale songs, bones, and oil at curing kauri blight. Waretini-Karena himself is described at IGI Global as
. . . a current Post Doc Research Fellow Recipient lecturer and researcher at Te Whare Waananga o Awanuiaarangi Indigenous University in Whakatane. His qualifications include a PhD Indigenous Philosophy, 2014 Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, a Master of Arts Commercial Music 2010 WINTEC, and a Bachelor of Applied Social Science- Maaori Counselling 2004 WINTEC. He has spent the last 20 years in the education field.
He also has a TedX talk which he notes not only that he was a convicted murderer, but that (according to the caption), he
. . . . graduated in 2014 with a PhD Doctorate of Philosophy in Indigenous Studies and was the recipient of three prestigious doctoral scholarship awards for his research into transforming Māori experiences of historical intergenerational trauma.
Waretini-Karena doesn’t appear to have any formal scientific training. I won’t dismiss his critique because of that, but it does give us some understanding of his failure to understand modern science and how it differs from indigenous “ways of knowing”.
I got the link to Waretini-Karena’s article in SC from a Kiwi colleague, but the bizarre thing is that the article kept appearing and disappearing on the SC website for reasons unknown. (It wasn’t my browser, for the vanishing post also vanished in New Zealand.) The second time this happened, my colleague made a pdf of the article so it couldn’t be permanently removed. Below a screenshot of the article, and if it appears again I’ll put up a working link to the piece.
I checked this morning and the link is still dead and the critique is gone. But I’ve put the entire article below from the pdf saved by a colleague.
Here’s the short article; the text is indented and my comments are flush left. There was no link to my original piece nor even my name given as the author. From Waretini-Karina
Introduction:
The recent article critiquing the “Whale Song” project, a government-funded initiative aimed at revitalizing kauri trees using Māori knowledge, exemplifies a persistent problem in Western engagement with Mātauranga Māori: a fundamental misunderstanding of its core principles and its historical context.
The article is titled:
The author’s dismissal of the project as “ludicrous” and “nonsense” is not only disrespectful but also indicative of a narrow, reductionist view of knowledge. This dismissal stems from a Western perspective that prioritizes empirical evidence and scientific methodology as the sole measures of validity, failing to acknowledge the inherent limitations of such approaches in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge.
Mātauranga Māori [MM] is not simply a collection of “legends and anecdotes,” as the author suggests. It is a dynamic, evolving system of knowledge, practices, and beliefs that have been developed and refined over generations through observation, experimentation, and deep connection to the natural world. It operates on a holistic and interconnected understanding of the universe, where all things are intrinsically linked and interdependent.
This is of course a distortion of what I’ve written. I’ve noted that there is some empirical trial-and-error knowledge in MM (but also a passel of legend, myth, religion, and instruction about how to live), though I’m not aware of any explicit experimentation, at least not how modern science conceives of an “experiment”. The defense continues:
The article’s assertion that “there is no underlying ‘wisdom’ or scientific data suggesting that sounds played to ailing trees could cure them” reveals a lack of understanding of the potential benefits of sound therapy, a field of study that has shown promising results in various areas, including plant growth and stress reduction.
Yes, sound waves have been shown to affect plant growth in some studies, but this conclusion is controversial (see here).
I don’t doubt that some stressed humans can be soothed by music, but the issue at hand is not that: it’s whether reuniting infected kauri trees with the oil, bones, and songs of their ancient buddies can cure the blight. Beyond the author’s anecdotal claim, I argue that it’s not worth spending the money investigating this theory, which, in the end, is based on a palpably false legend: that whales once roamed the earth (as whales, not their ancestors), became friends with kauri trees, and then they lost touch. This experiment is designed fix the legend by playing whale songs to the trees and dousing them with whale oil and whale bones. Experimenting based on an unsubstantiated legend, and using taxpayer money to do so, is not something that seems propitious. In contrast to the author’s claim, this research is indeed based on a legend, and one that we know to be false.
Furthermore, the article’s focus on “double-blind control tests” as the sole measure of validity ignores the inherent limitations of Western scientific methodology in understanding and appreciating the complexities of Māori knowledge. Mātauranga Māori operates on a different epistemology, one that values lived experience, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and the interconnectedness of all things.
Here the author is blowing smoke. How do you establish that a treatment of any sort works unless you compare the effects of the treatment with a group not given it, and blinding the experimenters as far as possible (i.e., those who measure the effects wouldn’t know if the trees had had whale songs played to them or whether they were doused with whale oil and bones).
The “different epistemology” of MM appears to be based not on rigorous experimentation, but on wish-thinking. Don’t forget, too, that modern science is also based on “intergenerational knowledge transmission”. As for the “interconnectedness of all things,” I don’t see how that claim is of value in this study. My boss Dick Lewontin once countered an “interconnectedness” claim by saying something like “Yes, but this doesn’t mean that the emissions of a supernova has any effect on my gardening.” The defense continues:
The article’s dismissal of the project as “science-dissing” also reveals a lack of understanding of the historical context of Māori knowledge. The colonization of Aotearoa (New Zealand) has led to the suppression and marginalization of Māori knowledge systems. The “Whale Song” project represents a significant step towards reclaiming and revitalizing this knowledge, and should be viewed not as a rejection of science, but as acomplementary approach to addressing the challenges facing our environment.
The article’s reliance on anecdotal evidence to support its claims, such as the anonymous scientist’s “concerns,” further undermines its credibility. It is essential to approach discussions about Māori knowledge with respect, humility, and a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue rather than resorting to prejudiced and discriminatory language.
The “Whale Song” project, while perhaps unconventional, represents a valuable opportunity to explore the potential of Māori knowledge in addressing environmental challenges. It is crucial to approach such initiatives with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn from different ways of knowing.
Science is based on dispute, attempts to falsify, and constant criticism. Here the author argues that indigenous knowledge should be immune to that type of criticism, as it’s is seen as “disrespectful.” (The implication is that it’s also bigoted.) The very motivation for this project—a claim that walking whales were friends with kauri trees—is so ludicrous that the project should be dismissed unless there are preliminary modern scientific tests showing there’s even a hope that it would work. Modern science is indeed at work on kauri blight, and has even identified the organism causing it. To me, that gives more hope of a cure than does this project.
Conclusion:
This article serves as a reminder that genuine engagement with Mātauranga Māori requires a willingness to move beyond Western-centric perspectives and embrace the richness and complexity of indigenous knowledge systems. Only through respectful dialogue and a commitment to understanding can we truly appreciate the value
Once again, the author tries to render indigenous science immune from criticism because it’s “rich and complex”. That alone is not sufficient to sacralize indigenous knowledge. If we’re to move forward with real knowledge about the world, projects like this one should be subject to exactly the same kind of criticism as is modern science.
Once again I quote former pastor Mike Aus. Bolding is mine.
When I was working as a pastor I would often gloss over the clash between the scientific world view and the perspective of religion. I would say that the insights of science were no threat to faith because science and religion are “different ways of knowing” and are not in conflict because they are trying to answer different questions. Science focuses on “how” the world came to be, and religion addresses the question of “why” we are here. I was dead wrong. There are not different ways of knowing. There is knowing and not knowing, and those are the only two options in this world.
If you want to know if whale songs and whale oil and bone cure kauri blight in nature, there is no option save the experimental tools of modern science.
I’ve wasted a lot of time on this post, for there are many initiatives like it that need criticism, and time is limited. But then again, the taxpayers of New Zealand need to know that they’re wasting their money on projects like this one.
And, I wonder, why did the site take down the post—twice? Was it too embarrassing to publish? Your guess is as good as mine.
Friday: Hili dialogue
Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is being demanding, as cats are:
Hili: We have to have a serious talk.
A: What about?
Hili: About your duties.
Hili: Musimy poważnie porozmawiać.
Ja: O czym?
Hili: O twoich obowiązkach.
Biosafety Now: Releasing The Virus Was Mass Murder. Intentionally Spreading It Was Forgivable.
I suppose it's my turn to be called a fraudster, liar, perjurer, felon, grifter, stooge, imbecile, and maybe even murderer. What I won't get is a reasonable explanation as to why supposedly releasing a deadly virus was mass murder, but intentionally spreading it was a forgivable "policy position".
The post Biosafety Now: Releasing The Virus Was Mass Murder. Intentionally Spreading It Was Forgivable. first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.Pages
