News Feeds

Physicists have created a new computer code that could speed up the design of the complicated magnets that shape the plasma in stellarators, making the systems simpler and more affordable to build.

Physicists have created a new computer code that could speed up the design of the complicated magnets that shape the plasma in stellarators, making the systems simpler and more affordable to build.

Researchers gathered emissions data from hundreds of US cities that either conducted a greenhouse gas emissions inventory, or reported they employed sustainability staff. The cities that conducted an inventory showed a statistically significant reduction in emissions between 2010 and 2015, while those with sustainability staff did not. Little research had previously been done to gauge effects of such measures and show that addressing emissions is meaningful, researchers argue.

Researchers have studied a new method to deliver antibiotics, specifically gentamicin, directly into the bladder tissue to better treat UTIs. They did this by creating nanogels combined with a special peptide (a small protein) that helps the drug get inside the cells where the bacteria are hiding. The results demonstrate that this approach proved highly effective when tested in animal models with UTIs, eliminating over 90% of the bacteria from the bladder.

Tracking targeted drug delivery is often a challenge due to limitations in the current imaging techniques. A recent study reports a breakthrough imaging technique that allows direct and highly sensitive tracking of gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) inside the body. This novel technique, which uses neutron activation of gold, could revolutionize cancer drug delivery by enabling real-time visualization of the gold nanoparticles without external tracers.

Researchers have announced the creation of the first operating system designed for quantum networks: QNodeOS. The research marks a major step forward in transforming quantum networking from a theoretical concept to a practical technology that could revolutionize the future of the internet.

Scientists have developed a compact optical amplifier based on a photonic chip that vastly outperforms traditional optical amplifiers in both bandwidth and efficiency. This breakthrough could reshape data center interconnects, AI accelerators, and high-performance computing.

Researchers have demonstrated that phosphorene nanoribbons (PNRs) exhibit both magnetic and semiconducting properties at room temperature. The research establishes PNRs as a unique class of low-dimensional materials that challenges conventional views on magnetic semiconductors, and could provide a stepping stone to unlocking new quantum technologies.

Researchers have demonstrated that phosphorene nanoribbons (PNRs) exhibit both magnetic and semiconducting properties at room temperature. The research establishes PNRs as a unique class of low-dimensional materials that challenges conventional views on magnetic semiconductors, and could provide a stepping stone to unlocking new quantum technologies.

Bone fragments from a cave in northern Spain suggest there were multiple hominin species living in western Europe around a million years ago

When the two American astronauts Butch Wilmore and Sunita Williams were stranded at the International Space Station (ISS) last June because their return vehicle had a problem that could not be fixed, I wailed to my friend Jim Batterson (a former employee at NASA) that they were going to die.  How could they survive if they couldn’t get back? Batterson (“Bat”) reassured me that there were plenty of vehicles that could bring them home, and there was nothing to worry about.  But their one-week visit turned into nine months of waiting, and my wailing increased. (To be sure, they did seem happy to have an extended stay on the ISS, since they like being in space.)

Well, it now looks like they’re coming home, so I have one less thing (among millions!) to worry about. I got the good news from Bat yesterday in an email, and asked him to expand it as a post, but also to keep some of the wording in his orginal email to me, which is beneath the asterisks. Bat’s post, original and fleshed out, are indented.

In 2014, contracts were awarded to SpaceX and to Boeing to each develop ways to take human crews to the International Space Station (ISS) and return them safely to Earth.  SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule was developed and has been operating successfully since 2020. It’s also used (along with Russian vehicles) to effect crew rotations of the ISS about every six months.  The Boeing Starliner capsule, after much delay, underwent a crewed test flight to ISS last June with two senior NASA astronauts onboard: Barry (Butch) Wilmore and Sunita (Suni) Williams.  The mission called for them to rendezvous and dock with the ISS and to stay aboard ISS for a week. But unexpected anomalies on the Starliner during rendezvous and docking led to NASA delaying their return until Boeing could understand and fix the cause of the anomalies.

After several months of testing both the docked Starliner and ground-based models, the problem was neither understood nor resolved, to NASA’s satisfaction. The astronauts could not be safely returned on this vehicle, so Starliner returned to Earth, uncrewed, in September 2024, having a soft landing in the New Mexico desert.  Astronauts Butch and Suni, as veterans of previous ISS missions, were integrated into the standing ISS crew to work and await the appearance of two future capsule seats for return to Earth.

Those seats finally appeared when the Crew 9 SpaceX capsule with two astronauts and two empty seats docked with the ISS in Septemberl, 2024.  The Crew 9 capsule is scheduled to undock and return to Earth with four astronauts—including Butch and Suni—in the next week or so.  Meanwhile four fresh astronauts (Crew 10) are scheduled to launch in a SpaceX capsule on Wednesday, March 12 and spend a week getting the ISS duties handed over to them.

This has been an excellent use of the ISS as a “safe haven” for astronauts, an idea that came about after the Columbia Shuttle accident for situations in which there are safety concerns about a return vehicle, allowing astronauts to await a rescue vehicle or simply another set of available return seats.  While there is constant danger in space, NASA decided that spending time on the ISS was deemed safer than returning on the Boeing Starliner ship.

************

But now Bat is worried that I might have been right: the returning astronauts might be in some danger. From Bat’s original post:

But NOW: Jerry,

You may have been right all along, as it is unfortunately turning out.

Now I also worry about Butch and Suni.  USA Today described tomorrow’s launch (Wednesday March 12 at 7:48 PM EDT – I usually go to Space.com to get a link or C-SPAN may carry it) of Crew-10, the replacement for Butch and Suni and the two Crew9 astronauts as routine. But Jeebus…nothing about human spaceflight is routine, and as soon as people start thinking it is, we are closer to losing a crew due to inattention. Then there is Musk, who in the past few weeks has exploded two suborbital spacecraft, raining debris down on the National Airspace System and on populated Caribbean islands, leading to significant flight delays and endangering 100’s if not 1000’s of air passengers.  I am convinced that Musk’s inattention to his launches led to at least the second failure and maybe both since it appears to me that he is the kind of hands-on boss whose constant physical presence makes a huge difference. So with him running all over the world as Trump’s chief of federal gov’t chaos, his space operations are running on autopilot for maybe the first time.  Both the booster rocket and the capsule for Crew 10 tomorrow are SpaceX products as is the Crew 9 capsule, currently docked at Station, which Butch and Suni are scheduled to return to Earth in sometime in the next several days.

And of course NASA has just announced a Reduction in Force per Trump’s and Musk’s actions, which has to get pretty much everyone’s (in NASA) attention.

Here’s Butch and Suni talking about their return. Look how her hair stands up in zero gravity!

Scientists have struggled to explain why global temperatures have shot up in recent years, but ocean cloud cover has now emerged as a crucial piece of the puzzle

Sheets of bismuth, gallium, indium, tin and lead can now be made just a few atoms thick by crushing them at a high temperature and pressure between two sapphires

As a step towards a useful and ultra-secure quantum internet, researchers have created an operating system that coordinates connected quantum computers, no matter what hardware they use

Radical new insights from the science of interoception – how the body senses its internal state – explain the real reasons we feel tired all the time, and how to re-energise

Terry Pratchett was diagnosed with posterior cortical atrophy, a type of dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease, in 2007 – but an analysis of his Discworld books suggests there were signs of the condition a decade earlier

D-Wave's claim that its quantum computers can solve problems that would take hundreds of years on classical machines have been undermined by two separate research groups showing that even an ordinary laptop can perform similar calculations

I argued yesterday that Mahmoud Khalil, the ex-Columbia grad student and pro-Palestinian activist snatched by ICE, had been illegally detained and was facing deportation simply for exercising free speech. That of course was my first reaction, and I explicitly said I didn’t know what else he was being charged with, or what evidence the government had.

We even had a pro-Palestinian demonstration on campus yesterday, though it involved issues besides Khalil.  Still, the deportation has caused cognitive dissonance in many of us who detest pro-Hamas demonstrations or sentiments: Khalil was clearly a public espouser of Palestinian terrorism, but that espousal is not a violation of free speech, which I strongly support. The big questions are a). did Khalil do more than simply verbally espouse terrorism, a “more” that would make him subject to laws that could cause his deportation? and b.) are those laws just?

I’m not going to adjudicate question b.) as I’m not a lawyer or judge and don’t know the historical underpinnings of the U.S. Code that deals with “aliens,” as they call them. As for a.), well, let’s hear what venues who want Khalil deported say.

I’ll highlight posts from three sites: the National Review (conservative) the Elder of Ziyon (pro Israel), and City Journal (conservative). All three ultimately claim that Khalif was not only lawfully detained, but that deporting him is a no-brainer.  I’ll simply give you their arguments and then my own conclusion based on their pro-deportation stands, which I see as the strongest arguments for deportation I can find.

The National Review actually had two articles on Monday by Andrew McCarthy. The first (archived here) dealt largely with Khalif’s alleged activities and the second (first headline below) arguing that those activities meet the standards for deportation. In contrast, the Elder of Ziyon piece simply argues that Khalil’s membership in an organization promoting terrorism, regardless of his activities, warrants deportation. The third is similar, not detailing what Khalif actually did to promote terrorism.

But in the end all three come down to the same thing, arguing that Khalil violated the same provision of the U.S. Code §1182 on Inadmissible Aliens: section 3B.

Click if you subscribe to the National Review (or find the article archived here):

First realize that Khalil, who had a green card (and a graduate degree from Columbia) was regarded as a “lawful permanent resident alien” (LPR), giving him special rights, though not rights equivalent to those of a U.S. citizen.  But he is married to an American citizen, who happens to be pregnant.  He was picked up by ICE and apparently taken to Louisiana, where he was held. Two days ago, a federal judge blocked Khalil’s removal from the U.S., and there will be a habeas corpus hearing today. As far as I know, he has not been formally charged with any crimes.

This is from the first National Review article detailing the law and how what Khalil supposedly violated it:

To be sure, visas and green cards are saliently different. Unlike a mere student-visa holder, a green-card holder, such as Khalil, is an LPR. That is the highest category of alien: a non-American who has lawfully relocated to the United States and is on track to become a naturalized citizen (see §1427 of federal immigration law — Title 8, U.S. Code). In many contexts — e.g., tax law and the privacy protections — federal law deems green-card holders to be “U.S. persons,” meaning they are part of our national community. Their rights can approximate those of American citizens but, as the administration will surely argue, they are not equal to those of Americans citizens (who, of course, may not be deported).

. . . Section 1182 of federal immigration law controls the categories of aliens who may be excluded from the United States. In the category of national security, the statute mainly targets aliens who have “engaged in terrorist activity,” who are “members” of terrorist organizations, or who have received paramilitary training from terrorist organizations. Fortunately, though, there is additional latitude: An alien may be excluded if he has “endorsed” or “espoused” terrorist activity — see subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb), under the subheading “Terrorist activities.” The statute defines terrorist activity to include violent attacks and the planning of such attacks. That should be sufficient to bar from entry into the United States aliens who support Hamas, which has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law since the mid-Nineties (when the designation process began).

. . . His most prominent role seems to have been as a negotiator of sorts on behalf of student radicals with the university administration. Objectively speaking, his activities are pro-Hamas, but I assume that if the government had strong evidence that he’d committed the crime of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization — such as recruiting or fundraising on behalf of Hamas — the Justice Department would indict him.

Fortunately, it need not be provable in criminal court that an alien agitator committed crimes in order to establish that the alien should be deported.

That is weird to me. One can violate the law, but you don’t have to prove that the law was violated to deport a green-card holder.

The second National Review article argues that Khalil should be deported because the judgement of the Secretary of State should override that of any judge:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the executive branch has broad discretion when it comes to national security judgments about which aliens may be admitted and which should be expelled from the United States. Nevertheless, because §1227 says the Secretary of State must have a reasonable ground to believe the alien’s presence or activities in the U.S. could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” counsel for Khalil will argue that the court has authority to review whether Secretary Rubio’s judgment is “reasonable.”

It would be highly controversial for a politically unaccountable judge — who has no constitutional responsibility for foreign policy, national security, or immigration enforcement — to substitute the court’s judgment for that of the Secretary of State, especially one who was just unanimously confirmed by the Senate to steer American foreign policy. I do not believe a majority of the Supreme Court would abide such judicial imperialism.

. . . To repeat, §1227 incorporates by reference the “terrorist activities” provision in the exclusion statute — specifically, subsection (a)(3) of §1182, which prescribes the excludability of aliens who, among other things, represent “a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity” (that’s subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)(bb) — a mouthful, I know).

But there is one free-speech-like exception in the law:

“An alien … shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States … because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest. [Emphasis added.]”

This is what I argued yesterday: to me, speech alone cannot justify deportation. But author Andrew McCarthy argues that this exception is “maddening” and legally insupportable.  In addition, he argues that Khalil did more than just speak: he acted:

I do not believe that Khalil’s activities in the U.S. should be deemed lawful speech and association. If reports are correct, Khalil was active as an agent of agitators who carried out lawless activities. That is not mere speech and association, and it would be unlawful if engaged in by Americans — indeed, that is why dozens of Americans were arrested in connection with the campus unrest.

I still have not heard the details of Khalil acting as an “agent of agitators,” except as a negotiator with Columbia on behalf of the two expelled students. Even if he demonstrated on behalf of Palestine or Hamas, that a statement, not a promotion of terrorism. But as McCarthy says:

. . . If the government can prove that Khalil was in a campus group that endorsed or espoused Hamas’s atrocities against Israel, it should be able to deport him regardless of his LPR status. And if it can deport him, there are likely to be thousands of others who can be deported, too — and should be.

That is also the argument of the Elder of Ziyon below, who claims that Khalil’s mere membership in an organization that foments or endorses terrorism is enough to get him deported, and the case is “airtight”. Click to read:

An excerpt:

According to 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – Deportable aliens, “Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.” The relevant part of those subparagraphs say:

The Elder argues, then, that Khalil was a “representative” of a Columbia group that endorsed terrorism:

There is no question that Khalil is a representative of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD.) He represented CUAD in negotiations with Columbia a number of times; he was interviewed on TV numerous times as its lead negotiator, he is described as one of CUAD’s leaders.

There is also no question that CUAD endorses and espouses terrorist activity. For example, on the one year anniversary of October 7, it handed out newspapers on campus called “The New York War Crimes” that included this full page “ad:”

And the Elder continues, trying to demolish the idea that Khalil was merely exercising free speech:

Besides that, CUAD chants include explicit support for Hamas (“Yes, we’re all Hamas, pig!” and “Al-Qassam, you make us proud, kill another soldier now.”) Yet even without explicit support for Hamas, CUAD has praised “resistance’ over and over again, and that “resistance” is terrorism. One example is that they praised the October 1 shooting attack in Tel Aviv that murdered seven civilians, saying “On October 1, in a significant act of resistance, a shooting took place in Tel Aviv, targeting Israeli security forces and settlers. This bold attack comes amid the ongoing escalation of violence in the region and highlights the growing resolve of those resisting Israeli occupation.”

What seems clear is that CUAD did indeed endorse terrorism. But did Khalil himself? Is his membership in the organization sufficient to show he endorsed terrorism? You could say that it certainly is, but then you are saying that Robert Oppenheimer deserved to lose his security clearance because at one time he was a member of the Communist party, which to the government implied that he endorsed the Communist plan to overthrow capitalism (Oppenheimer didn’t, of course). To me it seems necessary to give evidence that Khalil himself endorsed terrorism. Perhaps the government has that information, but I haven’t seen it.  Thus I don’t find the Elder’s argument below convincing:

Even if Khalil claims that he is personally against the pro-terrorism stance of CUAD and only acted as their liaison, even if he claims that he never uttered a word of support for terror, he is CUAD’s representative by the legal definition and CUAD unambiguously endorses or espouses terrorist activity, making him subject to deportation. Free speech is a red herring.

Under US law, Mahmoud Khalil should be deported.

Finally, we have the article below by Ilya Shapiro arguing briefly that Khalil (or any supporter of Hamas) should be deported). Note the Shapiro himself was an immigrant who had to swear fealty to the U.S. twice (upon arriving and upon getting his green card). Click to read.

A short excerpt:

it’s a basic application of U.S. immigration law, which says that people here on a visa (tourist, student, employment, or otherwise) who reveal themselves to be ineligible for that visa—“inadmissible,” in the parlance of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)—can have their visa revoked. As I wrote in a broader analysis of campus-related civil rights issues after the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, “The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.’” Biden’s State Department also told then-Senator Marco Rubio that it could revoke the visas of Hamas supporters.

But that’s not all Trump can do. The INA’s inadmissibility provision also empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whom he determines to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” or to impose on them “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court upheld that broad grant of presidential discretion to vet, restrict, and even ban immigrants—and thus to direct executive-agency action in that regard—at the culmination of the high-profile “travel ban” litigation. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court okayed an executive order restricting travel from various countries, with Chief Justice John Roberts affirming that the only statutory requirement is that the president “find” the entry of the affected aliens to be “detrimental to the national interest.”

That’s exactly what’s happening now.

Shapiro is arguing about whether immigrants should be admitted under a visa, but concludes that the same restrictions prohibiting one’s admission should permit one to be deported when they’re already here—even if you have green card, which apparently counts as a visa:

While the government can’t send foreigners to jail for saying things it doesn’t like, it can and should deny or pull visas for those who advocate for causes inimical to the United States. There’s nothing objectional or controversial about removing those who harass, intimidate, vandalize, and otherwise interfere with an educational institution’s core mission. More, please.

MY TAKE:  As I noted yesterday, Khalil undoubtedly holds sentiments that I detest and was part of a group that holds similar sentiments—a group that seems to have approved of terrorism and thereby (the government argues) promoted it. However, I’ve seen no evidence that Khalil himself engaged in such activities, nor do I think it’s okay to deport somebody for saying something that would be legal if uttered by an American citizen.  Given that Khalil was one step away from citizenship, and (at least in the press) has not been shown to actually promote terrorism beyond being a member of a group that arguably does, I don’t think that what he does rises to the level of deportation.

Nor do I think that one should slough off the problem by saying “let Marco Rubio decide”.  Clearly the Secretary of State is an agent of the President, and of course our President wants anybody deemed “anti-American” kicked out of the U.S. (I would be making this argument, however, no matter who is President.) This seems to me—because Khalil is charged with violating immigration law—that it is the law—the courts—that must ultimately decide about his deportation.

This case may go to the Supreme Court.  Regardless of that Court’s conservatism, their judgement is the law, a law that should be obeyed. Right now, though, I haven’t seen any grounds for deporting Khalil.  That may change, but we are a country of laws, not of dictators.

The Jesus and Mo artist is back from hols, and proffers a new strip called “unsafe,” mocking the Emotion of the Decade. As so often, the theme is hypocrisy: the boys are unsafe because they can’t make others feel unsafe.

Our local star, the Sun has been under the watchful gaze of ESA’s Solar Orbiter since its launch in 2020. It’s been slowly getting closer and grabbing images using its Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUI) which citizen scientists have been stitching together into wonderful time-lapse videos. A recent video covers just 15 minutes of real time but within, you can see an M-Class flare that was unleashed by the Sun. The flares can produce brief radio blackouts here on Earth.