News Feeds

There are a couple potential explanations for distinctive markings found on a Martian rock, but new evidence suggests they are most likely to be related to microbial activity

Thanks to readers who sent in photos, but we always need more!

Today’s batch comes from UC Davis ecologist Susan Harrison, and were taken near her school.  Susan’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Early spring meanderings

In late February I took a visiting college friend hiking in the hills northwest of Davis, California.  Starting up the trail, we had the good luck to see a tiny Northern Pygmy-Owl (Glaucidium gnoma) high in an oak.   Thinking I’d captured at least a low-resolution facial photo, it turned out I’d been fooled by the false eyes on the back of the bird’s head.  Pygmy-Owls prey upon and therefore are often mobbed by small songbirds. The eyespots are believed to protect the owl’s true eyes when it’s under attack.

Northern Pygmy-Owl:

We later enjoyed watching an Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna) doing yoga in the sun; just like humans, they stretch to stay flexible and prepared for action:

The setting was Valley Vista Regional Park, looking south to the organic farms of the Capay Valley and east to the remarkable Sutter Buttes and Sierra Nevada.

Capay Valley:

Sutter Buttes:

Here are a few other sightings from near Davis:

Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana):

Merlin (Falco columbarius):

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus):

In early March, invigorated by recent owl experiences, I set off to the Sonoma coast in search of Northern Saw-Whet Owls (Aegolius acadicus).   They are found in lushly forested canyons, and one such location near Jenner, California, sounded promising.

Waiting for nightfall, I hiked among the redwoods enjoying the startlingly loud and lovely song of tiny Pacific Wrens (Troglodytes pacificus):

Calypso Orchids (Calypso bulbosa) lit up the understory here and there:

After dark a Saw-Whet Owl began singing.  After I followed it and played a few of its low toots on my phone, a small ghostly presence flapped past my head into a willow.  Using a headlamp for illumination, I managed a few grainy photos.

Saw-Whet Owl:

Stopping by the coast the next morning, I saw a possible — and if so, unusual — Yellow-Billed Loon (Gavia adamsii)  in front of a smaller and darker Common Loon (Gavia immer):

The mouth of the Russian River at Jenner, California:

NASA’s Perseverance rover recorded unusual sounds as a Martian dust devil passed directly over the robotic vehicle in 2021, and we now know they came from electrical activity in the storm

For much of human history, wolves and other large carnivores were considered pests. Wolves were actively exterminated on the British Isles, with the last wolf killed in 1680. It is more difficulty to deliberately wipe out a species on a continent than an island, but across Europe wolf populations were also actively hunted and kept to a minimum. In the US there was also an active campaign in the 20th century to exterminate wolves. The gray wolf was nearly wiped out by the middle of the 20th century.

The reasons for this attitude are obvious – wolves are large predators, able to kill humans who cross their paths. They also hunt livestock, which is often given as the primary reason to exterminate them. There are other large predators as well: bears, mountain lions, and coyotes, for example. Wherever they push up against human civilization, these predators don’t fare well.

Killing off large predators, however, has had massive unintended consequences. It should have been obvious that removing large predators from an ecosystem would have significant downstream effects. Perhaps the most notable effects is on the deer population. In the US wolves were the primary check on deer overpopulation. They are too large generally for coyotes. Bears do hunt and kill deer, but it is not their primary food source. Mountain lions will hunt and kill deer, but their range is limited.

Without wolves, the deer population exploded. The primary check now is essentially starvation. This means that there is a large and starving population of deer, which makes them willing to eat whatever they can find. They then wipe out much of the undergrowth in forests, eliminating an important habitat for small forest critters. Deer hunting can have an impact, but apparently not enough. Car collisions with deer also cost about $8 billion in the US annually, causing about 200 deaths and 26 thousand injuries. So there is a human toll as well. This cost dwarfs the cost of lost livestock, estimated to be about 17 million Euros across Europe.

All of this has lead to a reversal in Europe and the US on our thinking and policy toward wolves. They have gone from active extermination to protected. In Europe wolf populations are on the rise, with an overall 58% increase over the last decade. Wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone park, leading to vast ecological improvement, including increases in the aspen and beaver populations. This has been described as a ripple effect throughout the ecosystem.

In the East we have seen a rise of the eastern coyote – which is a larger cousin of the coyote, through breeding with wolves and dogs. I have seen them in my hard – at first glance you might think it’s a wolf, it does really look like a hybrid between a wolf and a coyote. These larger coyotes will kill deer, although they also hunt a lot of smaller game and will scavenge. However, the evidence so far indicates that they are not much of a check on deer populations. Perhaps that will change in the future, if the eastern coyote evolves to take advantage of this food source.

There is also evidence that mountain lions are spreading their range to the East. They already a seen in the Midwest. It would likely take decades for the mountain lions to spread naturally to reach places like New England and establish a breeding population there. This is why there is actually discussion of introducing mountain lions into select eastern ecosystems, such as in Vermont. This would be expressly for the purpose of controlling deer populations.

All of this means, I think, that we have to get used to the idea of living close to large predators. Wolves are the common “monsters” of fairytales, as we inherited a culture that has demonized these predators, often deliberately as part of a campaign of extermination. We now need to cultivate a different attitude. These predators are essential for a healthy ecosystem. We need to respect them and learn how to share the land with them. What does that mean.

A couple years ago I had a black bear showing up on my property, so I called animal control, mainly to see (and report on) what their response was. They told me that first, they will do nothing about it. They do not relocate bears. Their intervention was to report it in their database, and to give me advice. That advice was to stay out of the bear’s way. If you are concerned about your pet, keep them indoors. Put a fence around your apple tree. Keep bird seed inside. Do not put garbage out too early, and only in tight bins. That bear owns your yard now, you better stay out of their way.

This, I think, is a microcosm of what’s coming. We all have to learn to live with large predators. We have to learn their habits, learn how to stay out of their way, not inadvertently attract them to our homes. Learn what to do when you see a black bear. Learn how not to become prey. Have good hygiene when it comes to potential food sources around your home. We need to protect livestock without just exterminating the predators.

And yes – some people will be eaten. I say that not ironically, it’s a simple fact. But the numbers will be tiny, and can be kept to a minimum by smart behavior. They will also be a tiny fraction of the lives lost due to car collisions with deer. Fewer people will be killed by mountain lions, for example, than lives saved through reduced deer collisions. I know this sounds like a version of the trolley problem, but sometimes we have to play the numbers game.

Finding a way to live with large predators saves money, saves lives, and preserves ecosystems. I think a lot of it comes down to learning to respect large predators rather than just fearing them. We respect what they are capable of. We stay out of their way. We do not attract them. We take responsibility for learning good behavior. We do not just kill them out of fear. They are not pests or fairytale monsters. They are a critical part of our natural world.

The post Living with Predators first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

A very curious thing about quantum physics, 1920’s style, is that it can create observable interference patterns that are characteristic of overlapping waves. It’s especially curious because 1920’s quantum physics (“quantum mechanics”) is not a quantum theory of waves. Instead it is a quantum theory of particles — of objects with position and motion (even though one can’t precisely know the position and the motion simultaneously.)

(This is in contrast to quantum field theory of the 1950s, which [in its simplest forms] really is a quantum theory of waves. This distinction is one I’ve touched on, and we’ll go into more depth soon — but not today.)

In 1920s quantum physics, the only wave in sight is the wave function, which is useful in one method for describing the quantum physics of these particles. But the wave function exists outside of physical space, and instead exists in the abstract space of possibilities. So how do we get interference effects that are observable in physical space from waves in a weird, abstract space?

However it works, the apparent similarity between interference in 1920s quantum physics and the interference observed in water waves is misleading. Conceptually speaking, they are quite different. And appreciating this point is essential for comprehending quantum physics, including the famous double slit experiment (which I reviewed here.)

But I don’t want to address the double-slit experiment yet, because it is far more complicated than necessary. The complications obscure what it is really going on. We can make things much easier with a simpler experimental design, one that allows us to visualize all the details, and to explore why and how and where interference occurs and what its impacts are in the real world.

Once we’ve understood this simpler experiment fully, we’ll be able to discard all sorts of misleading and wrong statements about the double-slit experiment, and return to it with much clearer heads. A puzzle will still remain, but its true nature will be far more transparent without the distracting cloud of misguided clutter.

The Incoming Superposition Experiment

We’ve already discussed what can happen to a particle in a superposition of moving to the left or to the right, using a wave function like that in Fig. 1. The particle is outgoing from the center, with equal probability of going in one direction or the other. At each location, the square of the wave function’s absolute value (shown in black) tells us the probability of finding the particle at that location… so we are most likely to find it under one of the two peaks.

Figure 1: The wave function of a single particle in a superposition of moving outward from the center to the left or right. The wave function’s real and imaginary parts are shown in red and blue; its absolute-value squared in shown in black.

But now let’s turn this around; let’s look at a superposition in which the particle is incoming, with a wave function shown in Fig. 2. This is just the time-reversal of the wave function in Fig. 1. (We could create this superposition in a number of ways. I have described one of them previously — but let’s not worry today about how we got here, and keep our attention on what will happen when the two peaks in the wave function meet.)

Figure 2: The wave function of a single particle in a superposition of moving left or right toward the center. This is just Fig. 1 with time running in the opposite direction.

Important Caution! Despite what you may intuitively guess, the two peaks will not collide and interrupt each others’ motion. Objects that meet in physical space might collide, with significant impact on their motion — or they might pass by each other unscathed. But the peaks in Fig. 2 aren’t objects; the figure is a graph of a probability wave — a wave function — describing a single object. There’s no other object for our single object to collide with, and so it will move steadily and unencumbered at all times.

This is also clear when we use my standard technique of first viewing the system from a pre-quantum point of view, in which case the superposition translates into the two possibilities shown in Fig. 3: either the particle is moving to the right OR it is moving to the left. In neither possibility is there a second object to collide with, so no collision can take place.

Figure 3: In the pre-quantum version of the superposition in Fig. 2, the particle is initially to the left of center and moving to the right OR it is to the right of center and moving to the left.

The wave function for the particle, Ψ(x1), is a function of the particle’s possible position x1. It changes over time, and to find out how it behaves, we need to solve the famous Schrödinger equation. When we do so, we find Ψ(x1) evolves as depicted in Figs. 4a-4c, in which I’ve shown a close-up of the two peaks in Fig. 2 as they cross paths, using three different visualizations. These are the same three approaches to visualization shown in this post, each of which has its pros and cons; take your pick. [Note that there are no approximations in Fig. 4; it shows an exact solution to the Schrödinger equation.]

Figure 4a: A close-up look at the wave function of Fig. 2 as its two peaks approach, cross, and retreat. In black is the absolute-value-squared of the wave function; in red and blue are the wave function’s real and imaginary parts. Figure 4b: Same as Fig. 4a, with the curve showing the absolute value of the wave function, and with color representing the wave function’s argument [or “phase”]. Figure 4c: Same as Fig. 4a. The wave function’s absolute-value-squared is indicated in gray scale, with larger values corresponding to darker shading.

The wave function’s most remarkable features are seen at the “moment of crossing,” which is when our pre-quantum system has the particle reaching x=0 in both parts of the superposition (Fig. 5.)

Figure 5: The pre-quantum system at the moment of crossing, when the particle is at x=0 in both parts of the superposition.

At the exact moment of crossing, the wave function takes the form shown in Figs. 6a-c.

Figure 6a: Graph of the wave function Ψ(x1) at the crossing moment; in black is the absolute-value-squared of the wave function; in red and blue are the wave function’s real and imaginary parts. Figure 6b: Graph of the absolute value |Ψ(x1)| of the wave function at the crossing moment; the color represents the wave function’s argument [or “phase”].
Figure 6c: The absolute-value-squared of the wave function at the crossing moment, indicated in gray scale; larger values of |Ψ(x1)|2 are shown darker, with |Ψ(x1)|2=0 shown in white.

The wiggles in the wave function are a sign of interference. Something is interfering with something else. The pattern superficially resembles that of overlapping ripples in a pond, as in Fig. 7.

Figure 7: The overlap of two sets of ripples caused by an insect’s hind legs creates a visible interference pattern. Credit: Robert Cubitt.

If this pattern reminds you of the one seen in the double-slit experiment, that’s for a very good reason. What we have here is a simpler version of exactly the same effect (as briefly discussed here; we’ll return to this soon.)

These wiggles have a consequence. The quantity |Ψ(x1)|2, the absolute-value-squared of the wave function, tells us the probability of finding this one particle at this particular location x1 in the space of possibilities. (|Ψ(x1)|2 is represented as the black curve in Fig. 6a, as the square of the curve in Fig. 6b, and as the gray-scale value shown in Fig. 6c.) If |Ψ(x1)|2 is large at a particular value of x1, there is a substantial probability of measuring the particle to have position x1. Conversely, If |Ψ(x1)|2=0 at a particular value of x1, then we will not find the particle there.

[Note: I have repeated asserted this relationship between the wave function and the probable results of measurements, but we haven’t actually checked that it is true. Stay tuned; we will check it some weeks from now.]

So if we measure the particle’s position x1 at precisely the moment when the wave function looks like Fig. 5, we will never find it at the grid of points where the wave function is zero.

More generally, suppose we repeat this experiment many times in exactly the same way, setting up particle after particle in the initial superposition state of Fig. 2, measuring its position at the moment of crossing, and recording the result of the measurement. Then, since the particles are most probably found where |Ψ(x1)|2 is large and not where it is small, we will find the distribution of measured locations follows the interference pattern in Figs. 6a-6c, but only appearing one particle at a time, as in Fig. 8.

Figure 8: The experiment is repeated with particle after particle, with each particle’s position measured at the crossing moment. Each new measurement is shown as an orange dot; previous measurements are shown as blue dots. As more and more particles are observed, the interference pattern seen in Figs. 6a-6c gradually appears.

This gradual particle-by-particle appearance of an interference pattern is similar to what is seen in the double-slit experiment; it follows the same rules and has the same conceptual origin. But here everything is so simple that we can address basic questions. Most importantly, in this 1920’s quantum physics context, what is interfering with what, and where, and how?

• Is each particle interfering with itself?
  • Is it sometimes acting like a particle and sometimes acting like a wave?
  • Is it simultaneously a wave and a particle?
  • Is it something in between wave and particle?
• Is each particle interfering with other particles that came before it, and/or with others that will come after it?
• Is the wave function doing the interfering, as a result of the two parts of the superposition for particle 1 meeting in physical space?
• Or is it something else that’s going on?

Well, to approach these questions, let’s use our by now familiar trick of considering two particles rather than one. I’ll set up a scenario and pose a question for you to think about, and in a future post I’ll answer it and start addressing this set of questions.

Checking How Quantum Interference Works

Let’s put a system of two [distinguishable] particles into a superposition state that is roughly a doubling of the one we had before. The superposition again includes two parts. Rather than draw the wave function, I’ll draw the pre-quantum version (see Fig. 3 and compare to Fig. 2.) The pre-quantum version of the quantum system of interest looks like Fig. 9.

Figure 9: Two particles in a superposition of both particles moving right (starting from left of center) or both moving left (from right of center.) Their speeds are equal.

Roughly speaking, this is just a doubling of Fig. 3. In one part of the superposition, particles 1 and 2 are traveling to the right, while in the other they travel to the left. To keep things as simple as possible, let’s say

• all particles in all situations travel at the same speed; and
• if particles meet, they just pass through each other (much as photons or neutrinos would), so we don’t have to worry about collisions or any other interactions.

In this scenario, several interesting events happen in quick succession as the top particles move right and the bottom particles move left.

Event 1 (whose pre-quantum version is shown in Fig. 10a): at x=0, particle 1 arrives from the left in the top option and from the right in the bottom option.

Figure 10a: The pre-quantum system when event 1 occurs.

Events 2a and 2b: (whose pre-quantum versions is shown in Fig. 10b):

• at x=+1, particle 1 arrives from the left in the top option while particle 2 arrives from the right in the bottom option
• at x=-1, particle 2 arrives from the left in the top option while particle 1 arrives from the right in the bottom option

Figure 10b: The pre-quantum system when events 2a and 2b occur.

Event 3 (whose pre-quantum version is shown in Fig. 10c): at x=0, particle 2 arrives from the left in the top option and from the right in the bottom option.

Figure 10c: The pre-quantum system when event 3 occurs.

So now, here is The Big Question. In this full quantum version of this set-up, with the full quantum wave function in action, when will we see interference?

1. Will we see interference during events 1, 2a, 2b, and 3?
2. Will we see interference during events 1 and 3 only?
3. Will we see interference during events 2a and 2b only?
4. Will we see interference from the beginning of event 1 to the end of event 3?
5. Will we see interference during event 1 only?
6. Will we see no interference?
7. Will we see interference at some time other than events 1, 2a, 2b or 3?
8. Something else altogether?

And a bonus question: in any events where we see interference, where will the interference occur, and what roughly will it look like? (I.e. will it look like Fig. 6, where we had a simple interference pattern centered around x=0, or will it look somewhat different?)

What’s your vote? Make your educated guesses, silently or in the comments as you prefer. I’ll give you some time to think about it.

For years, Egyptologists have assumed pyramid tombs were just for the rich – but the burials at a site called Tombos don’t fit this pattern

A new way of estimating rural populations has found that we may be undercounting people who live in these areas, potentially inflating the global population beyond the official count of 8.2 billion - but not everyone agrees

Ten of the places where Atlantis true believers think the mythical city might actually be.

Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

I have always had a bias towards the Appeal to Nature Fallacy: An Appeal to Nature Fallacy happens when someone argues that something is good, better, or more authentic simply because it’s natural, while brushing aside anything man-made as inferior or harmful. Or last my version of it. I have always thought of the human body as more or less tuned by […]

The post Vitamin A, Infections and Measles first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

From far enough away, most supernovas are benign. But the thing you have to watch out for are the X-rays.

For decades, atomic clocks have been the pinnacle of precision timekeeping, enabling GPS navigation, cutting-edge physics research, and tests of fundamental theories. But researchers are now pushing beyond atomic transitions to something potentially even more stable: a nuclear clock.

For decades, atomic clocks have been the pinnacle of precision timekeeping, enabling GPS navigation, cutting-edge physics research, and tests of fundamental theories. But researchers are now pushing beyond atomic transitions to something potentially even more stable: a nuclear clock.

When water is sprayed or splashed, different size microdroplets develop opposite charges. This "microlightning" could've provided the energy needed to synthesize prebiotic molecules necessary for life.

Scientists are investigating how structures made from several layers of graphene stack up in terms of their fundamental physics and their potential as reconfigurable semiconductors for advanced electronics.

A new study has found that fortified enclosures also benefit nearby livestock keepers by preventing carnivore attacks.

Researchers have discovered that bacterial swarms transition from stable vortices to chaotic turbulence through distinct intermediate states. Combining experiments with bacterial swarms, computer simulations, and mathematical modeling, the team clarified the intricate process by which orderly swirling turns to disordered turbulence as the free space available to bacteria increases. These findings provide new insights into active matter physics and could inform future applications in micro-robotics, biosensing, and active fluid-based micro-scale systems.

Companies can significantly enhance their stock market performance by adopting Integrated Reporting (IR) and Combined Assurance (CA) practices, according to new research that underscores the importance of transparency and accuracy in financial reporting.

Scientists have acquired direct evidence of rare, pulsing pear-shaped structures within atomic nuclei of the rare-earth element Gadolinium, thanks to new research.

With the long-term goal of creating living cells from non-living components, scientists in the field of synthetic biology work with RNA origami. This tool uses the multifunctionality of the natural RNA biomolecule to fold new building blocks, making protein synthesis superfluous. In pursuit of the artificial cell, a research team has cleared a crucial hurdle. Using the RNA origami technique, they succeeded in producing nanotubes that fold into cytoskeleton-like structures.

Researchers have identified a previously unknown bacterial protein, the structure of which is being used in the design of protein nanoparticles for the targeted delivery of anticancer drugs to tumors.