News Feeds

We have two contributors today, each with a few photos. Once again I’ll ask readers to send in their wildlife photos, as, save for Robert Lang’s Brazil pictures, we’re at an end.  Readers’ captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Our first trio is from Sharon Diehl in Colorado:

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)  Pair atop Transform Tower #199, Wally Toevs Pond, Walden Wildlife Habitat, Boulder, Colorado. I have photographed this mated pair for years at Walden Wildlife Habitat, where they hang out atop the transform towers that overlook Wally Toevs Pond. They aren’t always successful breeders, but they keep at it, together year after year. Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)  hunting at my backyard bird feeders–where, alas, it caught a bird–at least it was a Starling. I know the raptors have to eat, too: Downy Woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens) on the Hornbeam tree I believe, waiting for the flicker to leave the suet feeder–my backyard, Boulder, Colorado:

. . . and more eagles from Mark Shifman

Obviously I’m not a biologist and these are backyard bird photos. This series is a bald eagle on the Cumberland River.

Researchers study enigmatic asteroid Kamo’oalewa, as China’s first asteroid sample return mission moves toward launch.

China is about to get in to the asteroid sample return game. The CNSA (China National Space Administration) has recently announced that its Tianwen-2 mission has arrived at the Xichang Space Center. The mission will launch this May, on a Long March 3B rocket with the agency’s first solar system exploration mission of the year.

The mission was originally named ZhengHe, after a 15th century explorer. Tianwen-2 is a follow-on to China’s Tianwen-1, the nation’s first successful Mars orbiter-lander mission. Set to launch this coming May, Tianwen-2 will perform an ambitious first: not only will it explore asteroid 469219 Kamo’oalewa, but it will head onward to Comet 311P/PanSTARRS, in a first-ever asteroid-comet exploration mission for the agency.

A Tantalizing Worldlet

Certainly, asteroid Kamo’oalewa is an intriguing space rock. An Apollo Group Near Earth Asteroid, Kamo’oalewa is a rare quasi-satellite of the Earth. Discovered on the night of April 27th, 2016 from the Haleakala Observatory, the asteroid received the provisional designation 2016 HO3. The formal name means ‘oscillating fragment’ in the Hawaiian language. The asteroid currently fluctuates from being a quasi-satellite and horseshoe orbit between the Sun-Earth L1-L2 and L4-L5 Lagrange points, respectively. One day—perhaps a 100 million of years or so in the future—Kamo’oalewa may ultimately strike the Earth or the Moon.

A reddish object, Kamo’oalewa is either an S- or L-type asteroid, about 40 to 100-meters in size. The asteroid also bears a striking spectral resemblance to Apollo 14 and Luna 24 soil returns, suggesting it may in fact be ejecta from the impact that formed the Giordano Bruno crater on the Moon. The farside crater is thought to be about 4 million years old.

Giordano Bruno crater on the lunar farside. Credit: NASA/LRO Following Asteroid Kamo’alewa

A recent study out of the European Space Agency’s Near-Earth Objects Coordination Centre (NEOCC) entitled Astrometry, Orbit Determination and Thermal Inertia of the Tianwen-2 Target Asteroid (469219) Kamo’oalewa is looking to better understand the tiny world ahead of the mission’s arrival. Specifically, the study looks to refine the orbit of the asteroid, and understand how the Yarkovsky and YORP (Yarkovsky-O’Keefe-Radzievskii-Paddack) effects act on the orbit and rotation of the asteroid over time. The Yarovsky Effect is the result of how sunlight alters the path of small asteroids over time, as they absorb solar energy and re-emit it as heat. YORP is a similar phenomena, but includes the scattering of sunlight due to the shape and surface structure of the asteroid. Kamo’oalewa is a fast rotator, spinning on its axis once every 27 minutes. This will add to the challenge of grabbing a sample.

“We observed Kamo’oalewa and precisely measured its position in the sky,” lead researcher on the study Marco Fenucci (ESA/ESRIN/NEO Coordination Centre) told Universe Today. “Thanks to these new measurements, we were able to determine the Yarkovsky effect with a signal-to-noise ratio of 14, and the overall accuracy of the orbit was improved.”

Our best view yet of asteroid Kamo’oalewa. Credit: ESA/NEOCC/Loiano Astronomical Station

The study used current observations from the Calar Alto Observatory in Spain and Loiano Astronomical Station based in Italy, as well as pre-discovery observations found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) from 2004. These were especially challenging for the team to incorporate, as SDSS used a unique drift scan method to complete images. Also, an NEO asteroid like Kamo’oalewa has a relatively fast proper motion against the starry background. These two factors presented a challenge to pinning the asteroid’s time and location down in earlier images.

An Enigmatic World

“Thanks to the accurate measurement of the Yarkovsky effect on Kamo’oalewa, we were able to estimate the surface thermal inertia,” says Fenucci. “Our best estimate indicates that the thermal inertia is smaller than that of Bennu and Ryugu (the target for JAXA’s Hayabusa2 mission). A low value of thermal inertia is usually due to the presence of regolith on the surface of the asteroid. The presence of regolith was not expected on such fast rotators.”

Certainly, the tiny world is worthy of further scrutiny. Any information will be handy leading up the Tianwen-2’s arrival. Like NASA’s OSIRIS-REx, which sampled asteroid 101955 Bennu in 2020, Tianwen-2 will use a touch-and-go sample technique, in addition to an anchor-and-attach method to acquire its samples of asteroid Kamo’oalewa.

“Kamo’oalewa will be the smallest asteroid visited by a spacecraft, and also the one with the shortest rotation period,” says Fenucci. “In terms of composition, the spectrum is similar to that of S-type asteroids, for example, Itokawa or Eros.” The reddish aspect of the asteroid in the visible-to-near infrared part of the spectrum, however, remains a mystery. “This is a typical feature of lunar regolith,” says Fenucci. “However, this particular feature can also be caused by space weathering. The Tianwen-2 mission should give an answer to the question of the origin of Kamo’oalewa.”

Tianwen-2 Mission Timeline

Currently rendezvous with the asteroid is set for 2026, with a departure in 2027. The CNSA team hopes to nab about 100 grams of Kamo’oalewa, about the mass of medium-sized apple. After that, the mission will dispatch its return capsule on Earth flyby in late 2027. Then, it will head onward to explore periodic comet 311/P PanSTARRS. The mission will reach the comet in 2034.

The Tianwen-2 spacecraft to carry out a sample-return targeting near-Earth asteroid 469219 Kamo?oalewa has arrived at Xichang spaceport. Launch date not revealed, but expected around May. english.news.cn/20250220/d95…

[image or embed]

— Andrew Jones (@andrewjonesspace.bsky.social) February 20, 2025 at 6:08 AM

China has certainly taken a prudent, incremental path to space exploration. CNSA’s Chang’e program has returned samples of the lunar near and far side. Tianwen-1 was successful at Mars, scoring a combination orbiter, lander and rover on the Red Planet, all in one mission. China also has long term plans to combine these proven techniques in a Mars sample return mission of their own. This could launch as early as 2028.

It will be exciting to see asteroid Kamo’oalewa up close, as Tianwen-2 attempts to unravel the origin story for this elusive world.

The post China’s Tianwen-2 Is About to Launch. Here’s What We Know About Its Target Kamo’oalewa appeared first on Universe Today.

In my last post, I looked at how 1920’s quantum physics (“Quantum Mechanics”, or QM) conceives of a particle with definite momentum and completely uncertain position. I also began the process of exploring how Quantum Field Theory (QFT) views the same object. I’m going to assume you’ve read that post, though I’ll quickly review some of its main points.

In that post, I invented a simple type of particle called a Bohron that moves around in a physical space in the shape of a one-dimensional line, the x-axis.

• I discussed the wave function in QM corresponding to a Bohron of definite momentum P1, and depicted that function Ψ(x1) (where x1 is the Bohron’s position) in last post’s Fig. 3.
• In QFT, on the other hand, the Bohron is a ripple in the Bohron field, which is a function B(x) that gives a real number for each point x in physical space. That function has the form shown in last post’s Fig. 4.

We then looked at the broad implications of these differences between QM and QFT. But one thing is glaringly missing: we haven’t yet discussed the wave function in QFT for a Bohron of definite momentum P1. That’s what we’ll do today.

The QFT Wave Function

Wave functions tell us the probabilities for various possibilities — specifically, for all the possible ways in which a physical system can be arranged. (That set of all possibilities is called “the space of possibilities“.)

This is a tricky enough idea even when we just have a system of a few particles; for example, if we have N particles moving on a line, then the space of possibilities is an N-dimensional space. In QFT, wave functions can be extremely complicated, because the space of possibilities for a field is infinite dimensional, even when physical space is just a one-dimensional line. Specifically, for any particular shape s(x) that we choose, the wave function for the field is Ψ[s(x)] — a complex number for every function s(x). Its absolute-value-squared is proportional to the probability that the field B(x) takes on that particular shape s(x).

Since there are an infinite number of classes of possible shapes, Ψ in QFT is a function of an infinite number of variables. Said another way, the space of possibilities has an infinite number of dimensions. Ugh! That’s both impossible to draw and impossible to visualize. What are we to do?

Simplifying the Question

By restricting our attention dramatically, we can make some progress. Instead of trying to find the wave function for all possible shapes, let’s try to understand a simplified wave function that ignores most possible shapes but gives us the probabilities for shapes that look like those in Fig. 5 (a variant of Fig. 4 of the last post). This is the simple wavy shape that corresponds to the fixed momentum P1:

where A, the amplitude for this simple wave, can be anything we like. Here’s what that shape looks like for A=1:

Figure 5: The shape A cos(P1 x) for A=1.

If we do this, the wave function for this set of possible shapes is just a function of A; it tells us the probability that A=1 vs. A=-2 vs. A=3.2 vs. A=-4.57, etc. In other words, we’re going to write a restricted wave function Ψ[A] that doesn’t give us all the information we could possibly want about the field, but does tell us the probability for the Bohron field B(x) to take on the shape A cos(P1 x).

This restriction to Ψ[A] is surprisingly useful. That’s because, in comparing the state containing one Bohron with momentum P1 to a state with no Bohrons anywhere — the “vacuum state”, as it is called — the only thing that changes in the wave function is the part of the wave function that is proportional to Ψ[A].

In other words, if we tried to keep all the other information in the wave function, involving all the other possible shapes, we’d be wasting time, because all of that stuff is going to be the same whether there’s a Bohron with momentum P1 present or not.

To properly understand and appreciate Ψ[A] in the presence of a Bohron with momentum P1, we should first explore Ψ[A] in the vacuum state. Once we know the probabilities for A in the absence of a Bohron, we’ll be able to recognize what has changed in the presence of a Bohron.

The Zero Bohron (“Vacuum”) State

In the last post, we examined what the QM wave function looks like that describes a single Bohron with definite momentum (see Fig. 3 of that post). But what is the QM wave function for the vacuum state, the state that has no Bohrons in it?

The answer: it’s a meaningless question. QM is a theory of objects that have positions in space (or other simple properties.) If there are no objects in the theory, then there’s… well… no QM, no wave function, and nothing to discuss.

[You might complain that the Bohron field itself should be thought of as an “object” — but aside from the fact that this is questionable (is air pressure an object?), the QM of a field is QFT, so taking this route would just prove my point.]

In QFT, by contrast, the “vacuum state” is perfectly meaningful and has a wave function. The full vacuum state wave function Ψ[s(x)] is too complicated for us to talk about today. But again, if we keep our focus on the special shapes that look like cos[P1 x], we can easily write the vacuum state’s wave function for that shape’s amplitude, Ψ[A].

Understanding the Vacuum State’s Wave Function

You might have thought, naively, that if a field contains no “particles”, then the field would just be zero; that is, it would have 100% probability to take the form B(x)=0, and 0% probability to have any other shape. This would mean that Ψ[A] would be non-zero only for A=0, forming a spike as shown in Fig. 6. Here, employing a visualization method I use often, I’m showing the wave function’s real part in red and its imaginary part in blue; its absolute-value squared, in black, is mostly hidden behind the red curve.

Figure 6: A naive guess for the vacuum state of the Bohron field would have B(x) = 0 and therefore A=0. But this state would have enormously high energy and would rapidly spread to large values of A.

We’ve seen a similar-looking wave function before in the context of QM. A particle with a definite position also has a wave function in the form of a spike. But as we saw, it doesn’t stay that way: thanks to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the spike instantly spreads out with a speed that reflects the state’s very high energy.

The same issue would afflict the vacuum state of a QFT if its wave function looked like Fig. 6. Just as there’s an uncertainty principle in QM that relates position and motion (changes in position), there’s an uncertainty principle in QFT that relates A and changes in A (and more generally relates B(x) and changes in B(x).) A state with a definite value of position immediately spreads out with a huge amount of energy, and the same is true for a state with a definite value of A; the shape of Ψ[A] in Fig. 6 will immediately spread out dramatically.

In short, a state that momentarily has B(x) = 0, and in particular A=0, won’t remain in this form. Not only will it change rapidly, it will do so with enormous energy. That does not sound healthy for a supposed vacuum state — the state with no Bohrons in it — which ought to be stable and have low energy.

The field’s actual vacuum state therefore has a spread of values for A — and in fact it is a Gaussian wave packet centered around A=0. In QM we have encountered Gaussian wave packets that give a spread-out position; here, in QFT, we need a packet for a spread-out amplitude, shown in Fig. 7 using the representation in which we show the real part, imaginary part, and absolute-value squared of the wave function. In Fig. 7a I’ve made the A-axis horizontal; I’ve then replotted exactly the same thing in Fig. 7b with the A axis vertical, which turns out to be useful as we’ll see in just a moment.

Figure 7a: The real part (red), imaginary part (blue, and zero) and absolute-value-squared of Ψ[A] (the wave function for the amplitude of the shape in Fig. 5) for the vacuum state. Figure 7b: Same as Fig. 7a, turned sideways for better intuition.

Another way to represent this same wave function involves plotting points at a grid of values for A, with each point drawn in gray-scale that reflects the square of the wave function |Ψ(A)|2, as in Fig. 8. Note that the most probable value for A is zero, but it’s also quite likely to be somewhat away from zero.

Figure 8: The value of |Ψ(A)|2 for the vacuum state, expressed in gray-scale, for a grid of choices of A. Note the most probable value of A is zero.

But now we’re going to go a step further, because what we’re really interested in is not the wave function for A but the wave function for the Bohron field. We want to know how that field B(x) is behaving in the vacuum state. To gain intuition for the vacuum state wave function in terms of the Bohron field (remembering that we’ve restricted ourselves to the shape cos[P1 x] shown in Fig. 5), we’ll generalize Fig. 8: instead of one dot for each value of A, we’ll plot the whole shape A cos[P1 x] for a grid of choices of A, using gray-scale that’s proportional to |Ψ(A)|2. This is shown in Fig. 9; in a sense, it is a combination of Fig. 8 with Fig. 5.

Figure 9: For a grid of values of A, the shape Acos[P1 x] is drawn in gray-scale that reflects the magnitude of |Ψ(A)|2, and thus the probability for that value of A. This picture gives us intuition for the probabilities for the shape of the field B(x) in the vacuum state. The Bohron field is generally not zero in this state, even though the possible shapes of B(x) are centered around B(x) = 0.

Remember, this is not showing the probability for the position of a particle, or even that of a “particle”. It is showing the probability in the vacuum state for the field B(x) to take on a certain shape, albeit restricted to shapes proportional to cos[P1 x]. We can see that the most likely value of A is zero, but there is a substantial spread around zero that causes the field’s value to be uncertain.

In the vacuum state, what’s true for a shape with momentum P1 would be true also for any and all shapes of the form cos[P x] for any possible momentum P. In principle, we could combine all of those shapes, for all of the different momenta, together in a much more complicated version of Fig. 9. However, that would make the picture completely unreadable, so I won’t try to do that — although I’ll do something intermediate, with multiple values of P, in later posts.

Oh, and I mustn’t forget to flash a warning: everything I’ve just told you and will tell you for the rest of this post is limited to a child’s version of QFT. I’m only describing what the vacuum state looks like for a “free” (i.e. non-interacting) Bohron field. This field doesn’t do anything except send individual “particles” around that never change or interact with each other. If you want to know more about truly interesting QFTs, such as the ones in the real world — well, expect some things to be recognizable from today’s post, but much of this will, yet again, have to be revisited.

The One-Bohron State

Now that we know the nature of the wave function for the vacuum state, at least when restricted to shapes proportional to cos[P1 x], how does this change in the presence of a single Bohron of momentum P1?

The answer is quite simple: the wave function Ψ(A) changes from to (up to an overall constant of no interest to us here.) Depicting this state in analogy to what we did for the vacuum state in Figs. 7b, 8 and 9, we find Figs. 10, 11 and 12.

Figure 10: As in Fig. 7, but for the one-Bohron state. Note the probability for A=0 is now zero, and the probability (black curve) peaks at non-zero positive and negative values of A. Figure 10: As in Fig. 8, but for the one-Bohron state. Figure 10: As in Fig. 9, but for the one-Bohron state. Note the probability for B(x)=0 is zero in the one-Bohron state with momentum P1, in contrast to the vacuum state.

Notice that the one-Bohron state is clearly distinguishable from the vacuum state; most notably the probability for A=0 is now zero, and its spread is larger, with the most likely values for A now non-zero.

There’s one more difference between these states, which I won’t attempt to prove to you at the moment. The vacuum state doesn’t show any motion; that’s not surprising, because there are no Bohrons there to do any moving. But the one-Bohron state, with its Bohron of definite momentum, will display signs of a definite speed and direction. You should imagine all the wiggles in Fig. 12 moving steadily to the right as time goes by, whereas Fig. 9 is static.

Well, that’s it. That’s what the QFT wave function for a one-Bohron state of definite momentum P1 looks like — when we ignore the additional complexity that comes from the shapes for other possible momenta P, on the grounds that their behavior is the same in this state as it is in the vacuum state.

A Summary of Today’s Steps

That’s more than enough for today, so let me emphasize some key points here. Compare and contrast:

• In QM:
  • The Bohron with definite momentum is a particle with a position, though that position is unknown.
  • The wave function for the Bohron, spread out across the space of the Bohron’s possible positions x1, has a wavelength with respect to x1.
• In QFT:
  • The Bohron “particle” (i.e. wavicle) is intrinsically spread out across physical space [the horizontal x-axis in Figs. 9 and 12] and the Bohron itself has a wavelength with respect to x.
  • Meanwhile the wave function, spread out across the space of possible amplitudes A (the vertical axis in Figs. 7a, 8, 10 and 11) does not contain simply packaged information about how the activity in the Bohron field is spread out across physical space x; both the vacuum state and one-Bohron states are spread out, but you can’t just read off that fact from Figs. 8 and 11.
  • And note that the wave function has nothing simple to say about the position of the Bohron; after all the spread-out “particle” doesn’t even have a clearly defined position!

Just to make sure this is clear, let me say this again slightly differently. While in QM, the Bohron particle with definite momentum has an unknown position, in QFT, the Bohron “particle” with definite momentum does not even have a position, because it is intrinsically spread out. The QFT wave function says nothing about our uncertainty about the Bohron’s location; that uncertainty is already captured in the fact that the real (not complex!) function B(x) is proportional to a cosine function. Indeed physical space, and its coordinate x, don’t even appear directly in Ψ(A). Instead the QFT wave function, in the restricted form we’ve considered, only tells us the probability that B(x) = A cos[P1 x] for a particular value of A — and that those probabilities are different when there is a single Bohron present (Fig. 12) compared to when there is none (Fig. 9).

I hope you can now start to see why I don’t find the word particle helpful in describing a QFT Bohron. The Bohron does have some limited particle-like qualities, most notably its indivisibility, and we’ll explore those soon. But you might already understand why I prefer wavicle.

We are far from done with QFT; this is just the beginning of our explorations. There are many follow-up questions to address, such as

• Can we put our QFT Bohron into a wave packet state similar to last post’s Fig. 2? What would that look like?
• Do these differences between QM and QFT have implications for how we think about experiments, such as the double-slit experiment or Bell’s particle-pair experiment?
• What do QFT wave functions look like if there are two “particles” rather than just one? There are several cases, all of them interesting.
• How do measurements work, and how are they different, in QM versus QFT?
• What about fields more complicated than the Bohron field, such as the electron field or the electromagnetic field?

We’ll deal with these one by one over the coming days and weeks; stay tuned.

This catchphrase has become popular with comedians. Is that in line with its true origin?

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

The chaos and cruelty of its abrupt deconstruction are self-evident and already demonstrable

The post Indiscriminate, Cruel, and Wasteful: Abandoning USAID clinical trials first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Around the world, the earliest buildings are typically round while later ones are rectangular – but 12,000-year-old buildings with corners don’t fit the pattern

A team has used a process known as DNA origami to make electrochemical sensors that can quickly detect and measure biomarkers.

A computer science team has developed a sensor-based technology that could revolutionize commercial beekeeping by reducing colony losses and lowering labor costs. The technology uses low-cost heat sensors and forecasting models to predict when hive temperatures may reach dangerous levels. The system provides remote beekeepers with early warnings, allowing them to take preventive action before their colonies collapse during extreme hot or cold weather or when the bees cannot regulate their hive temperature because of disease, pesticide exposure, food shortages, or other stressors.

Researchers demonstrated that brewing tea naturally adsorbs heavy metals like lead and cadmium, effectively filtering dangerous contaminants out of drinks. Researchers tested different types of tea, tea bags and brewing methods. Finely ground black tea leaves performed best at removing toxic heavy metals. Longer steeping times helped tea remove larger amounts of contaminants.

Mars may have once been home to sun-soaked, sandy beaches with gentle, lapping waves according to a new study.

A new artificial intelligence model measures how fast a patient's brain is aging and could be a powerful new tool for understanding, preventing and treating cognitive decline and dementia.

A comparison of 263 species supports the idea that large animals have higher rates of cancer than smaller ones. But the increase is less than expected, suggesting they have evolved ways to lower their risk

In 2007, astronomers discovered the Cosmic Horseshoe, a gravitationally lensed system of galaxies about five-and-a-half billion light-years away. The foreground galaxy’s mass magnifies and distorts the image of a distant background galaxy whose light has travelled for billions of years before reaching us. The foreground and background galaxies are in such perfect alignment that they create an Einstein Ring.

New research into the Cosmic Horseshoe reveals the presence of an Ultra-Massive Black Hole (UMBH) in the foreground galaxy with a staggering 36 billion solar masses.

There’s no strict definition of a UMBH, but the term is often used to describe a supermassive black hole (SMBH) with more than 5 billion solar masses. SMBHs weren’t “discovered” in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, over time, their existence became clear. Also, over time, more and more massive ones were measured. There’s a growing need for a name for the most massive ones, and that’s how the term “Ultra-Massive Black Hole” originated.

The discovery of the enormously massive black hole in the Cosmic Horseshoe is presented in new research. It’s titled “Unveiling a 36 Billion Solar Mass Black Hole at the Centre of the Cosmic
Horseshoe Gravitational Lens,” and the lead author is Carlos Melo-Carneiro from the Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. The paper is available at arxiv.org.

There was a revolution in physics in the late 19th/early 20th century as relativity superseded Newtonian physics and propelled our understanding of the Universe to the next level. It became clear that space and time were intertwined rather than separate and that massive objects could warp spacetime. Even light wasn’t immune, and Einstein gave the idea of black holes—which dated back to John Michell’s ‘dark stars’—a coherent mathematical foundation. In 1936, Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, though he didn’t live long enough to enjoy the visual proof we enjoy today.

Now, we know of thousands of gravitational lenses, and they’ve become one of astronomers’ naturally occurring tools. They exist because of their enormous black holes.

The lensing foreground galaxy in the Cosmic Horseshoe is named LRG 3-757. It’s a particular type of rare galaxy called a Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG), which are extremely bright in infrared. LRG 3-757 is also extremely massive, about 100 times more massive than the Milky Way and is one of the most massive galaxies ever observed. Now we know that one of the most massive black holes ever detected occupies the center of this enormous galaxy.

“Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) are found at the centre of every massive galaxy, with their masses tightly connected to their host galaxies through a co-evolution over cosmic time,” the authors write in their paper.

Astronomers don’t find stellar-mass black holes at the heart of massive galaxies and they don’t find SMBHs at the heart of dwarf galaxies. There’s an established link between SMBHs and their host galaxies, especially massive ellipticals like LRG 3-757. This study strengthens that link.

The research focuses on what’s called the MBH-sigmae Relation. It’s the relationship between an SMBH’s mass and the velocity dispersion of the stars in the galactic bulge. Velocity dispersion (sigmae) is a measurement of the speed of the stars and how much they vary around the average speed. The higher the velocity dispersion, the faster and more randomly the stars move.

When astronomers examine galaxies, they find that the more massive the SMBH, the greater the velocity dispersion. The relationship suggests a deep link between the evolution of galaxies and the growth of SMBHs. The correlation between an SMBH’s mass and its galaxy’s velocity dispersion is so tight that astronomers can get a good estimate of the SMBH’s mass by measuring the velocity dispersion.

However, the UMBH in the Cosmic Horseshoe is more massive than the MBH-sigma e Relation suggests.

“It is expected that the most massive galaxies in the Universe, such as brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), host the most massive SMBHs,” the authors write. Astronomers have found many UMBHs in these galaxies, including LRG 3-757. “Nonetheless, the significance of these UMBHs lies in the fact that
many of them deviate from the standard linear MBH?sigmae relation” the researchers explain.

LRG 3-757 deviates significantly from the correlation. “Our findings place the Cosmic Horseshoe ~1.5 sigma above the MBH?sigmae relation, supporting an emerging trend observed in BGCs and other massive galaxies,” the authors write. “This suggests a steeper MBH?sigmae relationship at the highest masses, potentially driven by a different co-evolution of SMBHs and their host galaxies.”

This figure from the research shows the relationship between the SMBH mass and the host effective
velocity dispersion. The black solid line represents the relation from previous research in 2016, with dashed and dotted lines showing the 1 sigma and 3 sigma scatter, respectively. Horseshoe is labelled and clearly deviates from established relationship. The other galaxies labelled nearby also contain UMBHs that deviate significantly. Image Credit: Melo-Carneiro et al. 2025.

What’s behind this decoupling of the MBH?sigmae relation in massive galaxies? Some stars might have been removed from the galaxy in past mergers, affecting the velocity dispersion.

LRG 3-757 could be part of a fossil group, according to the authors. “The lens of the Horseshoe is unique in that is at ? = 0.44 and that has no comparably massive companion galaxies — it is likely a fossil group,” they write.

Fossil groups are large galaxy groups that feature extremely large galaxies in their centers, often LRGs. Fossil groups and LRGs represent a late stage of evolution in galaxies where activity has slowed. Few stars form in LRGs so they’re “red and dead.” There’s also little to no interaction between galaxies.

“Fossil groups, as remnants of early galaxy mergers, may follow distinct evolutionary pathways compared to local galaxies, potentially explaining the high BH mass,” the authors write.

LRG 3-757 could’ve experienced what’s called “scouring.” Scouring can occur when two extremely massive galaxies merge and affects the velocity dispersion of stars in the galaxy’s center. “In this process, the
binary SMBHs dynamically expel stars from the central regions of the merged galaxy, effectively reducing the stellar velocity dispersion while leaving the SMBH mass largely unchanged,” the authors explain.

Another possibility is black hole/AGN feedback. When black holes are actively feeding they’re called Active Galactic Nuclei. Powerful jets and outflows from AGN can quench star formation and possibly alter the central structure of the galaxy. That could decouple the growth of the SMBH from the velocity dispersion.

Artist view of an active supermassive black hole and its powerful jets. Image Credit: ESO/L. Calçada

“A third scenario posits that such UMBH could be remnants of extremely luminous quasars, which experienced rapid SMBH accretion episodes in the early Universe,” the authors write.

The researchers say that more observations and better models are needed “to explain the scatter in the ?BH ? sigma e relation at its upper end.”

More observations are on the way thanks to the Euclid mission. “The Euclid mission is expected to discover hundreds of thousands of lenses over the next five years,” the authors write in their conclusion. The Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will also contribute by allowing more detailed dynamical studies of the velocity dispersion.

“This new era of discovery promises to deepen our understanding of galaxy evolution and the interplay between baryonic and DM components,” the authors conclude.

The post One of the Most Massive Black Holes in the Universe Lurks at the Center of the Cosmic Horsehoe appeared first on Universe Today.

In the summer of 2022, the journal Nature Human Behavior put out a notice that it could reject articles that were “stigmatizing” or “harmful” to different groups, regardless of the scientific content. The problems with this stand, which were immediately called out by Steve Pinker, Michael Shermer, and others, is that what is seen as stigmatizing or harmful is pretty much a subjective matter, and, as Pinker tweeted:

I think the journal and its editor were taken aback by this and similar reactions to their statements, and on Day 2 of our USC conference on Science and Ideology in January, the Chief Editor of the journal, Stavroula Kousta, walked back their statement a bit in here 24-minute talk (go here to here her talk; it’s the first one on the video).

But the walking-back didn’t mean that Nature Human Behavior was becoming less woke. Indeed, it just published a ridiculously repetitive and trite paper about how science needs “allyship” to produce a “diverse, equitable, and inclusive academia.” It’s not that STEM isn’t seeking a diversity of groups and viewpoints—though, inevitably, “diversity” in their sense means “diversity of race or sex”—but that this article says absolutely nothing new about the issue. What the journal published now is a prime example of virtue-flaunting that, in the end accomplish nothing.  You can read it by clicking on the screenshot below (it should be free with the legal Unpaywall app), and you can get the pdf here.

The piece begins with the usual claim of “harm”: the same issue that the same journal discussed before:

In academia, despite recent progress towards diversity, biases and microaggressions can still exclude and harm members of disadvantaged social groups.

The person who sent me this article wrote “No citations are given for this claim about bigotry and discrimination at the most liberal, open, welcoming institutions that have ever existed in human history. Amazing.”

The article then gives these figures, which are baffling because one would expect younger women to drop out more rather than less frequently. But they may be correct; I am just not sure that they reflect misogyny:

Such patterns of marginalization are not specific to students. Among US faculty members, for example, women are 6%, 10% and 19% more likely to leave each year than their men counterparts as assistant, associate and full professors, respectively.

I suspect that these departures have little to do with ongoing “structural bias” against women academics, not only because no instances of inbuilt structural bias are actually given, but also, at least for women, a big and recent review by Ceci et al. found either no bias against women’s achievements in academic science or a female advantage—save for teaching evaluations and a slight difference in salary, about 3.6% lower salary for women.   However, the authors do not dismiss the possibility and importance of bias against women.

At any rate, if you haven’t heard come across this advice about “allyship” before, and are an academic, you must be blind and deaf. I’m not going to reprise the paper for you, as you’ve heard it all before.

I’m assuming that well-meaning people agree with me that marginalized scientists should be treated just like everyone else.  But how many times do we need to hear that? At any rate, this paper rings the chimes again, singling out six areas where we’re told how to behave. These are direct quotes.

1.) Listen to and centre marginalized voices.

2.) Reflect on and challenge your own biases (I guess you determine them by taking an “implicit bias” test, a procedure that’s been severely criticized

3.)  Speak up to include and support disadvantaged groups

4.)  Speak out against bias when it happens

5.)  Advocate for institutional initiatives to promote equity and inclusion

6.)  Dismantle institutional policies and procedures of exclusion

#4 and #6 are no-brainers, though, speaking personally, I don’t know of any institutional policies and procedures of exclusion in biology.  The rest are ideological statements assuming that everyone except for the marginalized is biased, and that the way to achieve inclusion is to promote “equity” (do they even know what “equity” means?) And, of course, the entire program reflects the tenets of DEI, which are on the chopping block in the U.S.

Now this article isn’t as bad as ones on feminist glaciology or ones maintaining that Einstein’s principle of covariance supports the view that minorities have an equal claim to objectivity..  No, it’s just superfluous, a farrago of what decent human beings already do, misleading assertions about bias, mixed with patronizing advice that we already follow. It accomplishes nothing save further erode the credibility of editor Kousta.

Here’s the conclusion:

For allyship to be effective in academia, it must be grounded in a deep commitment to DEI. This means recognizing that allyship is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process of learning, reflection and action. Moreover, it needs to go above and beyond symbolic or superficial acts (performative allyship) to demonstrate substantial and meaningful support that is recognized as beneficial by those it is meant to serve (substantive allyship). It is noteworthy to understand and accept that we will make mistakes along the way. No one is perfect, and as explained above, allyship requires a willingness to engage in humility and self-reflection. When mistakes are made, it is important to listen to feedback from disadvantaged groups, take responsibility for any harm caused, and commit to doing better in the future.

In conclusion, everyone can engage in allyship and work to challenge and dismantle systemic bias, creating a more just, equitable and inclusive academic community for all.

At least they used “equitable” properly, meaning “treating people fairly.”  But couldn’t the whole article have consisted of just that sentence?

Preserved wooden spears from hundreds of thousands of years ago seem to have been suitable for throwing, not just close-range attacks

The site of a deep-sea mining test in 1979 had lower levels of biodiversity when researchers revisited it in 2023 compared with undisturbed areas nearby

When I first investigated the sharp rise in human deaths due to dogs in the UK, I did not expect the fast-paced chain of events it would spur. A month after publishing a blog post on the dramatic rise in maimings and deaths due to dogs and the single breed that accounted for this unprecedented change, I was asked by the head of a victims’ group to run a campaign to ban the American Bully XL breed in England. From the outset, I was told that such action, from an inactive government, was essentially impossible—one person involved in politics told me I would need to “make it a national issue” before the government would ever consider hearing our concerns, let alone acting on them. Thanks to a small group of dedicated people, relentless persistence and focus on our goal, just 77 days after starting the campaign, the British Prime Minister announced the implementation of our policy to the nation.

The ban was overwhelmingly popular with the public and remains so to this day. Indeed, in recent polling on the chief achievements of the now ex-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the American Bully XL ban was ranked by the public tied for 4th place—higher than a significant tax cut and above increased childcare provision. Why? The British public is known for its love of dogs. Indeed, I have a dog and have grown up with dogs. Why would I spearhead such a campaign?

The Horrifying Problem

It is common to start these kinds of articles with a kind of emotive, engaging story designed to appeal to the reader. I have tried writing such an introduction, but the stories are so horrifying I cannot begin to describe them. Whether it’s the 10-year-old Jack Lis, mauled to death and having injuries so horrific that his mother cannot shake the image from her mind at every moment she closes her eyes, or a 17-month-old girl that lost her life in the most unimaginably terrible circumstances, the stories, the pain of the parents, and the horrifying last moments of those children’s lives are beyond comprehension.

In the past three years, the number of fatal dog attacks in the UK has increased dramatically.1 Between 2001 and 2021 there were an average of 3.3 fatalities per year—with no year reaching above 6. In 2022, 10 people were killed, including 4 children. Optimistic assumptions that 2022 was an outlier did not last and by the summer of 2023, there had already been 5 fatalities. This pattern continued throughout the year. A day before the ban was announced, a man lost his life to two dogs. He had been defending his mother from an attack, and was torn apart in his garden, defending her. A video surfaced online showing people attempting to throw bricks at the animals, but they continued to tear him apart, undaunted. Later in 2023, after the ban was announced, another man was killed by a Bully XL while walking his own dog. In 2024, even after the ban, the owners that have chosen to keep Bully XLs under the strict new conditions, face the threat within their home. As of this writing, two people have died: one, an elderly woman looking after the dogs for her son; the other an owner torn to pieces by the dogs she had raised from puppies.

These are “just” fatalities. Non-lethal dog attacks on humans, often resulting in life-changing injuries, are also on the rise, increasing from 16,000 in 2018, to 22,000 in 2022, and hospitalizations have almost doubled from 4,699 in 2007 to 8,819 in 2021/22, a trend that continued in 2022/23 with 9,342 hospitalizations.2, 3 These cases make for difficult reading. Seventy percent of injuries on children were to the head; nearly 1 in 3 required an overnight stay. In Liverpool (a city of 500,000), there are 4–7 dog bites a week, with most injuries to the face. One doctor recounted dealing with a “near-decapitation.” In 2023 in London, the police were dealing with one dangerous dog incident per day.4 We do not have reliable data on dogs attacking other dogs and pets, but I would wager those have increased as well.

Yet, despite an increase in both the human and dog populations of the UK over the past four decades, fatalities have remained consistently low until just a few short years ago.

What’s going on?

Looking through the list of fatal dog attacks in the UK, a pattern becomes clear.5, 6 In 2021, 2 of the 4 UK fatalities were from a breed known as the American Bully XL. In 2022, 5 out of 10 were American Bullies.7 In 2023, 5 fatalities of 9 were from American Bullies. In 2024, 2 of 3 deaths so far are from American Bully XLs kept by owners after the ban. In other words, without American Bullies, the dog fatalities list would drop to 5 for 2022 (within the usual consistent range we’ve seen for the past four decades), 4 for 2023 and 1 for 2024 so far.

Hospitalizations have almost doubled from 4,699 in 2007 to 8,819 in 2021/22, a trend that continued in 2022/23 with 9,342 hospitalizations. Seventy percent of injuries on children were to the head.

Again, this is “just” fatalities. We do not have accurate recordings of all attacks, but a concerning indication arises from Freedom of Information requests to police forces from across the UK. In August of 2023, 30 percent of all dogs seized by police—often due to violent attacks—were American Bullies. To put this in context, the similarly large Rottweiler breed accounted for just 2 percent.

This pattern is seen elsewhere, in one other breed, the Pitbull—a very, very close relative of the American Bully. In the U.S., for example, 60–70 percent of dog fatalities are caused by Pitbulls and Pitbull crosses.8 The very recent relatives of the American Bully are also responsible for the vast majority of dog-on-dog aggression (including bites, fatalities, etc.).9 In the Netherlands, the majority of dogs seized by police for dog attacks on other dogs were Pitbull types.10 The same is true nearly anywhere you look. In New York City, Pitbulls were responsible for the highest number of bites in 2022.11

Despite these figures, both in the UK and internationally, and the recent media attention dog attacks have received, if you were to argue that a breed was dangerous, you would receive significant pushback from owners, activists, and even animal charity organizations stating that it is the owner’s fault. But this is wrong. While many would contend that “it’s the owner, not the breed,” the reality is different.

Designing Our Best Friend

Dogs—unlike humans—have been bred for various, very specific traits. Their traits, appearance, and behavior has been directed in a way comparable to how we’ve molded plant and other animal life over thousands of years. Watermelons and bananas used to be mostly seed; now they’re mostly flesh. Chickens were not always raised for their meat; now they are. These weren’t the natural course of evolution, but the result of humans intentionally directing evolution through deliberate cultivation or breeding. Modern-day dogs are very clearly also a result of such directed breeding.

Broadly speaking, we selected dogs for traits that are very much unlike those of wolves. Unlike their wolf ancestors, dogs are, broadly, naturally loyal to humans, even beyond preserving their own lives and those of other dogs. Indeed, a trait such as this in dogs might actually have caused some of the original aesthetic changes to their original wolf-like appearance. When Russian scientists bred foxes over generations for “tameness” to humans, they found the foxes began to have different colored fur, floppy ears, and to look, well, more like domestic dogs (though there is some debate on this).

Each dog breed has deep underlying propensities, desires, and drives for which we have selected them for generations. A key responsibility of dog ownership is to know your dog’s breed, understand its typical traits, and prepare for them. Not all individual dogs will exhibit these breed-specific traits, but most do, to varying degrees. Some hound breeds (Whippets, Greyhounds, etc.) have a prey drive and will chase or even try to kill small animals such as rabbits, even if those animals are kept as pets. Some breed-specific behavior can be trained out, but much of it can’t. Form follows function—breed-specific behavior has driven physical adaptations. Relative to other breeds, they have great vision (aptly, Greyhounds and Whippets belong to the type of dogs called “sighthounds”) and bodies that are lean and aerodynamic, with a higher ratio of muscle to fat relative to most other breeds, making them among the fastest animals on the planet, with racing Greyhounds reaching speeds up to 45 mph (72 km/h). Like many other hound breeds, they are ancient, bred for centuries to seek comfort in humans and to hunt only very specific animals, whether small vermin for Whippets and Greyhounds, or deer and wolves for the, well, Deerhounds and Wolfhounds. Hounds make fine family pets, having been bred to be highly affectionate to humans, as after all, you don’t want your hunting dog attacking you or your family.

Labradors love to retrieve—especially in water, much to the displeasure of their owners who all too often find them diving into every puddle they encounter on their daily walks. Pointers point. Border Collies herd, and as many owners would note, their instinct can be so strong that they often herd children in their human family. Cocker Spaniels will run through bushes, nose to the ground, looking as if they are tracking or hunting even when just playing—even when they have never been on a hunt of any kind. Dogs are not the way they are by accident but, quite literally, by design.

Designing Bully-type Dogs

Bulldogs were originally bred to be set on a bull, and indiscriminately injure and maim the much larger animal until it died. (These dogs were longer-legged and much more agile and healthier than today’s English Bulldog breed—bred specifically for their now nonfunctional squat appearance.) After the “sport” of bull baiting was banned, some of these dogs were instead locked in a pen with large numbers of rats and scored on how many they could kill in a specified time, with often significant wagers placed on picking the winners. This newer “sport” required greater speed and agility, so the bulldogs of that time were interbred with various terriers to produce what were originally called, naturally, “Bull and Terriers.” From these would eventually come today’s Pitbull Terriers.

In addition to this, some of the early Bull and Terriers began to be used for yet another “sport,” and one on which significant amounts of money were wagered—dog fighting. These were bred specifically for aggression. Two of these dogs would be put together in a closed pit to fight until only one came out alive. During their off hours, these fighting dogs were mostly kept in cages, away from humans. The winners, often seriously wounded themselves, were bred for their ability to kill the other dog before it could kill them. They were not bred for loyalty to humans—these were dogs bred for indiscriminate, sustained, and brutal violence in the confined quarters of the dog pit (hence the name, Pitbull Terrier).

This explains why Pitbulls are responsible for 60–70 percent of deaths to dogs in the U.S. It is not—as some advocates state—a function of size. There are many larger and stronger breeds. Pitbulls are not the largest or the strongest dog breed, but—combined with their unique behavioral traits—they are large enough and strong enough to be the deadliest.

While Pitbull and some Pitbull-type breeds have been banned in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the American Bully XL was permitted due to a loophole in the law—simply put, this new breed exceeded physical characteristics of the banned breeds to the point they no longer applied under the law. It is that loophole that resulted in the recent rise of the American Bully XL, and the violence attendant to it.

(In)Breeding the American Bully XL

American Bully XLs are the heavyweight result of breeds born out of brutal human practices that sculpted generations of dogs. The foundational stock for American Bully XLs were bred for terrifying violence and we should not be surprised to find that this new, more muscular and larger version still exhibits this same propensity. It is not the dogs’ fault any more than it is the fault of sighthounds to chase squirrels, or pointers to point. But that does not change the reality.

The American Bully began in the late 1980s and early 1990s. At least one line started from champion “game dogs,” bred to endure repeated severe maiming and still continue to fight to the deadly end. To be a champion they must have killed at least one other dog in brutal combat. To further increase their size and strength, these game dogs were then bred with each other and with other Pitbulls.

The UK original breeding stock that produced Bully XLs is extremely small. An investigation from one member of our campaign uncovered an absurd, awful reality: that at least 50 percent of American Bullies advertised for sale in the UK could trace their immediate or close lineage to one line and one single dog: Killer Kimbo.12, 13

Killer Kimbo was infamous in Bully breeding circles. He was a huge animal and the result of extreme levels of inbreeding to create his mammoth size. He was so inbred that he had the same great grandfather four times over. It is this dog that has given rise to one of the most popular bloodlines within the UK.

And what has been the result of heavily inbreeding dogs originating from fighting stock? While precise data are difficult to collect, at least one of Killer Kimbo’s offspring is known to have killed someone; other breeders recount stories of his offspring trying to attack people in front of them. At least one death in the UK is a second-generation dog from Killer Kimbo stock. These are the dogs that were advertised and promoted as if they just looked large but had been bred responsibly for temperament.

Indeed, many families bought these dogs thinking these were gentle giants—many have kept them even after the impositions of the ban, believing that a dog’s behavior is set only by their owners. After his own mother was killed by the Bullies he had kept, one owner in 2024 said:14

I did not know bullys were aggressive, I didn’t believe all this stuff about the bullys [being dangerous]. But now I’ve learned the hard way and I wish I’d never had nothing to do with bullys, they’ve ruined my life and my son’s life.I honestly thought the ban was a stupid government plan to wipe out a breed which I had never seen anything but softness and love from … Now I think they need to be wiped out.

In fact, the breed was genetically constructed from fighting stock, inbred repeatedly for greater size and strength, shipped over to the UK skirting the Pitbull ban, and then advertised to families as if these dogs were the result of years of good breeding.

The Nanny Dog

In the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) has argued that no breeds are more inherently dangerous than others and leads a coalition to stop any breed bans, including the campaign to “Ban the Bully.” This is despite the fact that the RSPCA itself would not insure American Bullies on their own insurance policies, and that they separately advocate for the banning of cat breeds they consider to be too dangerous.

The UK Bully Kennel Club (not to be confused with the similar sounding UK Kennel Club) describes the American Bully XL as having a “gentle personality and loving nature.” While the United Kennel Club does not recognize the American Bully XL breed, it describes the wider breed (i.e., not the XL variant) as “gentle and friendly,” and goes even a step further, recommending that the breed “makes an excellent family dog.” Again, the XL variant of this breed is responsible for the most fatalities of any dog breed in the UK in recent years, including for killing several children.

Even more troubling is the fact that well-intentioned and potentially good owners are left at a severe disadvantage by the statements of advocates for Pitbulls and American Bullies. If an owner is aware of the breed’s past and the risks in their behaviors, they are far more likely to be able to anticipate issues and control the dog. For example, hound owners are generally aware that they will often have to emphasize recall in their dogs or keep them on a lead in non-fenced areas to prevent them from running off to chase squirrels or other small animals—it is a well-advertised trait. These preventive measures are taken very early, far before the dog may even be interested in chasing. However, owners of American Bullies would not be aware of the breed’s past were they to rely on the supportive advertising descriptions. They were actively told, from sources all over, that American Bullies are naturally good with kids and family, that they are naturally non-violent, and don’t pose any risk. Positive descriptions of American Bullies (and their XL variety) de-emphasized their violent tendencies and ran the very real risk of obfuscating future owners as to the aggressive traits of this breed and so prevented owners from correctly understanding and therefore controlling their dog appropriately.

This encouraged ignorance from owners who are ill-equipped to handle their dog, such as the owner that saw her dog “Cookie-Doe” (related to Killer Kimbo) kill her father-in-law by ripping apart his leg. Her response? It wasn’t an aggressive dog, it just liked to “play too rough.” But for every owner like this, there are other experienced, diligent owners that nevertheless find themselves, or their children, under attack from one of these dogs.

Worse still is the nickname of “nanny dog.” There is a myth among advocates for the breed that Pitbulls were once known as “nanny dogs” for their loyalty to children in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this isn’t true. The name originates from Staffordshire Bull Terriers (not Pitbulls) that were named “nursemaid dogs” in a 1971 New York Times piece. There is no evidence of “nanny dog” or similar descriptions before this. Stories of 19th or early 20th century origins for the nickname are likely the result of advocates wanting to believe in a more family-oriented origin for the breed, rather than the cruel reality.

We should not blame the dog breed for how they were bred, maintained, and for what they were selected for. They were bred out of cruel origins, inbred repeatedly, still face ear cropping, and some find themselves owned by individuals who select dogs for their ability to intimidate and attack. Nevertheless, none of this changes that violent, aggressive nature that has resulted from generations of breeding specifically for it.

(Some) Owners Bear Blame Too

American Bully XLs were not cheap, and this only began to change when our campaign started in full. At the lower end, they cost about the same as other dogs, but at the very higher end of the price range they were some of the most expensive dogs you could buy. Golden Retrievers, the archetypical family dog, are so desired that it is common for breeders to have long waiting lists for litters yet to be conceived. A typical cost for a Golden Retriever in the UK is around $2,600. American Bullies, at the height of their popularity, cost as much as $4,000 per puppy. The higher-end puppies were often accompanied by graphics involving violent metaphors and text written in horror movie-type “blood” fonts.

Given this kind of marketing, what did some prospective owners think they were purchasing? Indeed, it bears asking what kind of owners were prepared to pay vast sums for a dog advertised in such a way. These dogs were clearly a status symbol for many—a large, aggressive, powerful animal to be used either for intimidation or self-defense. It is for this reason that many owners have their dog’s ears cropped to look yet more aggressive, a practice illegal under UK law, but still nonetheless practiced. Cropping ears and tails actually serves a purpose—though a brutal one. The other dog cannot bite on to the ear or tail and so gain control of its rival. The old bull baiting dogs used to go after the bull’s ears and noses. Cropping also prevents a human, engaged in defending themselves from a dog attack, from grabbing the tail or ears and using them to sling the dog off or up against a wall. This explains the popularity of these dogs, altered in such a way, amongst drug dealers and others involved in crime.

Opposition

The politics of banning the American Bully proved difficult. It took a public campaign both to convince a government that was generally averse to actions of any kind; as well as to stop the continued influence of a coalition of charities that was opposing any and all breed bans. These charities included the Dogs Trust, RSPCA, the UK Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and others.

It might seem strange that these charities could argue against any breed bans, given the figures in fatalities from Bullies. Not only this, but these same charities supported the return of the Pitbull to the UK, even despite the decades of startling figures on their dramatic overrepresentation in fatalities.

The reason for this is simple. There is no way to split fatality data so that it is favorable to Pitbulls (or, recently, XL Bullies). Instead, the charities focus chiefly on a different measure: bites.15 This measure enables charities to claim that there is a problem with a great many dog breeds such as Labradors—which, in some calculations, bite the most people. On this measure, a mauling from a Bully XL that rips a child’s throat, or tears away an adult’s arm, and a bite on the hand from a chihuahua count the same: they are each one bite.

It isn’t necessary to outline how inadequate and bankrupt this measure is. It is a shame on this entire sector that this was considered anything more than a smokescreen. It is, in my view, a true scandal that has provided a great deal of unintended cover for horrifying breeding practices, which in turn resulted in the horrific deaths of pets, adults, and children. Dog bites are not the public’s (or owners) chief concern: it is maulings, hospitalizations, and deaths. That is what we should focus on, and until the advocacy sector does so, it does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Banning the Breed

England and Wales have banned several breeds since the early 1990s. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 first banned Pitbulls, and then was amended to ban a further three breeds. The Act required little more than the signature of the relevant Secretary of State to add a new breed to the banned list. This Act prohibits the buying, selling, breeding, gifting, or otherwise transferring the ownership of any dog of a banned breed. All dogs in that breed are to be registered, neutered, as well as leashed and muzzled at all times in public. Not doing so or failing to register a dog of a banned breed, is a criminal offense.

When the XL Bully ban was announced, all owners were given a few months to register their dogs, neuter them, and then muzzle and leash them in public. They were forbidden to sell them, give them away or abandon them. Scotland—as a devolved nation within the United Kingdom—announced they would not ban the American Bully, and this resulted in a great many Bullies being sent to Scotland to escape the ban. Within two weeks, and after a couple of prominent attacks, the Scottish government made a legal U-turn and announced a ban. When the new Northern Ireland government formed, their first act was to ban the American Bully.

The Effects of the Ban

The strength of the ban is twofold. On one hand, Bullies are less of a danger to pets and people than they were previously. They must now be muzzled and leashed in public—or owners face seizure of the dog by police and criminal sentences for themselves. However, as has been seen in recent months, this does not change the risk to owners or those that visit their homes. Allowing registered dogs to be kept by their owners means that this risk persists. It is a risk from which the public is shielded, however, it remains one that owners and those that visit them choose to take upon themselves.

The other and key strength of the ban is in the future. Stopping the breeding and trading of Bullies means that there is a timer on their threat within Britain. They will not continue to future generations. We will not have to see more and more Bully variants, and yet worse breeding practices as breeders chase the latest trend, inbreeding for a particular coat color, the ever-increasing sizes, or the propensity for violence. Children will not have to be mauled; other dogs will not have to be ripped apart. We chose to stop this.

From the perspective of complex systems, the study reveals the universality, specificity, and explanatory power of underlying rules governing urban system evolution.

Scientists have developed an AI-powered tool that detects 64% of brain abnormalities linked to epilepsy that human radiologists miss.

For as long as I can remember, espionage has fascinated me. Over the years, I’ve developed a certain expertise—at least in the pop culture sense—interviewing former spies for publications ranging from The Washington Post to, well, Playboy. I even once worked as a researcher at an international investigative firm, a job that, regrettably, involved fewer trench coats and shadowy rendezvous than one might hope. But I did walk away with a highly marketable skill: knowing how to conduct a proper background check (one never knows when that might prove useful).

Spies have long been the pillars of Hollywood storytelling, woven into thrilling tales of intrigue, and deception. But what is it about them that keeps us so enthralled? I’d argue that our obsession stems from an innate desire to know what is hidden from us. Secrets are power, and in a world increasingly shaped by information, nothing is more seductive than the idea of being the one in the know.

Secrets are power, and in a world increasingly shaped by information, nothing is more seductive than the idea of being the one in the know.

But while James Bond is synonymous with adrenaline filled action and shaken-but-not-stirred glamour, in real life, intelligence work is usually rather mundane and bureaucratic. More along the lines of painstaking, systematic data gathering and staring for hours at your screen, rather than the dramatic fight sequences we’ve been conditioned to associate with spycraft through the media. In other words, making sense of what’s going on is often hard, dull work.

Making sense of what’s going on is often hard, dull work.

We have never had more access to information, yet somehow, we understand less. The sheer volume of data is overwhelming—no single person can process even a fraction of it—so we outsource the task to algorithms, aggregators, and search engines with their own opaque filtration systems. In theory, social media should expose us to a diversity of perspectives, but in practice, its algorithms ensure we’re served more of what we already believe, cocooning us in ideological comfort.

We like to think of Google, X, Facebook, and even ChatGPT as neutral tools, but neutrality is an illusion. These platforms, intentionally or not, prioritize engagement over accuracy, outrage over nuance, and emotional provocation over intellectual depth. Further, the speed at which information spreads tends to outpace our ability to critically analyze it. Misinformation, half-truths, and emotionally charged narratives circulate rapidly, shaping perceptions before facts can be verified. In this landscape, false stories are 70 percent more likely to be shared than true ones and travel six times faster. Eager to engage in the conversation as it happens, we jump in before having even had sufficient time to process the “latest thing.” Our public discourse is shaped not by careful reasoning but by knee-jerk reactions.

Social media should expose us to a diversity of perspectives, but in practice, its algorithms ensure we’re served more of what we already believe.

Then there’s the growing crisis of trust in media. As per Gallup, Americans’ trust in mass media remains at a record low, with only 31% expressing confidence in its accuracy and fairness in 2024. Trust first dropped to 32% in 2016 and has remained low. For the third year in a row, more Americans (36%) have no trust at all in the media than those who trust it. Another 33% have little confidence. Contrast this with 72% of Americans trusting newspapers in 1976, after Watergate.

Trust in mass media remains at a record low. What is behind this erosion? A cocktail of inaccuracies, overt ideological bias, viewpoint discrimination, the weaponization of fact-checking, and outright censorship.

What is behind this erosion? A cocktail of inaccuracies, overt ideological bias, viewpoint discrimination, the weaponization of fact-checking, and outright censorship has pushed many toward alternatives: independent media, podcasters, influencers, social media, and, naturally, grifters. Yet rejecting legacy media in favor of these alternatives is often a case of leaping from the frying pan into the fire. There’s a common misconception that because something isn’t mainstream, it must be more truthful—but plenty of these new voices are just as ideologically captured, if not more so, with even fewer guardrails against deception and little investment in accuracy. Many embrace them because they mistake truthfulness for ideological alignment. Paradoxically, many have embraced the idea that “we are the media now,” a phrase frequently echoed by Elon Musk and his admirers on X—even as they repost news from the very mainstream outlets they claim are now irrelevant, and even, “dead.”

Rejecting legacy media in favor of these alternatives is often a case of leaping from the frying pan into the fire.

We are living in the middle of an information battlefield, where reality itself feels up for debate. What’s legitimate news, and what’s an AI-generated psyop? Who’s a real person, and who’s a bot designed to amplify division? How much of what we read is organic, and how much is algorithmically nudged into our feeds? And then there are also state-sponsored disinformation campaigns added to the mix—with countries like Russia, Iran, China, and yes, even the United States deploying fake news sites, deepfakes, and coordinated social media operations to manipulate global narratives.

Russia, Iran, China, and yes, even the United States deploy fake news sites and coordinated social media operations to manipulate global narratives.

In this environment, conspiracy theories thrive. People don’t fall down rabbit holes at random—there are certain preconditions that make them susceptible. Institutional distrust is a major factor, and right now, faith in institutions is in free fall, whether it’s the government, the courts, or the medical establishment. Many people feel betrayed. Add in alienation and social disconnection, and you have the perfect recipe for radicalization. The irony, of course, is that while conspiracy thinking is often framed as a form of skepticism about official narratives, it frequently results in an even greater willingness to believe in something—just not the official story.

Faith in institutions is in free fall, whether it’s the government, the courts, or the medical establishment. Many people feel betrayed.

Not all people become full blown conspiracy theorists, of course, but we can see how conspiratorial thinking has taken root. But then again, perhaps we are simply seeing this phenomenon because social media lets us see people we might have otherwise never come in contact with? What we do know is that people have a high need for certainty and control when times are uncertain, so they become more prone towards believing false things because they no longer trust institutions that they once might have.

The fragmentation of media consumption means that reaching people with authoritative information has never been more difficult. Everyone is living in a slightly different version of reality, dictated by the platforms they frequent and the sources they trust. And because attention spans have collapsed, many don’t even make it past the headlines before forming an opinion. When everything is engineered to make us feel angry, polarized, scared, and reactionary, how can we stay nuanced, critical, open-minded, and objective? How can we be more truth-seeking in a world where everyone seems to have their own version of the truth on tap?

Everyone is living in a slightly different version of reality, dictated by the platforms they frequent and the sources they trust.

A recent controversy over a certain billionaire’s hand gesture provided a perfect case study in perception bias. We all saw the same video. To some, Elon Musk’s movement was undeniably a Nazi salute. To others, it was merely an overzealous gesture made to express “my heart goes out to you.” Few people remained undecided. The fact that two groups could witness the exact same footage and walk away with diametrically opposed conclusions is a testament to how much our prior beliefs shape our perception of reality and speaks to the difficulty of uniting people behind a single understanding of reality. Psychologists call this phenomenon, “motivated perception.” We often see what we expect to see, rather than what’s actually there.

So in this landscape, what is it that grounds me? It all comes down to a simple question: How much of what I believe is based on evidence, and how much is just my own emotions, assumptions, and attempts to connect the dots? What is it that I really know? Very often in life, we imagine what something might be, rather than seeing it for what it is.

In a world where narratives compete for dominance, my goal is not to add another, but to cut to the core of what is verifiable and likely to be true.

With this new column at Skeptic, my aim is to strip away the noise in front of the headlines and get to the core of what is verifiable and true. I have no interest in reinforcing anyone’s preconceived notions—including my own. The only way to do that is through curiosity rather than confirmation. In a world where narratives compete for dominance, my goal is not to add another, but to cut to the core of what is verifiable and likely to be true. It’s easy to be swayed by emotion, to see what we expect rather than what’s in front of us. But the only way forward—the only way to make sense of this fractured information landscape—is to remain committed to facts, no matter where they lead.

I would like to keep my door open to topics you’d like to see me cover, or just feedback and thoughts. Comment below, and feel free to reach out anytime: mysteriouskat[at]protonmail.com