News Feeds

Researchers have used magnetic fields to reveal the mystery of how light particles split. Scientists are closer to giving the next generation of solar cells a powerful boost by integrating a process that could make the technology more efficient by breaking particles of light photons into small chunks.

A research team has revealed that photoreactions proceed differently depending on the crystal structure of photoreactive molecules, shining a light on the mechanism by which non-uniform photoreactions occur within crystals. This is a new step toward controlling photoreactions in crystals.

Researchers create a storybook generation system for personalized vocabulary learning.

A study has made it possible to estimate experimentally the energy required to transfer protons from water to ionic liquids.

Researchers explain a new mechanism for ice formation. Ice can form near the free surface of a water droplet via small precursors with a structure resembling ice 0. These are readily formed by negative pressure effects due to surface tension, creating ring-like structures with the same characteristics as ice 0, which act as seeds for nucleation, providing a mechanism for the bulk formation of ice.

Engineering researchers have demonstrated a state-of-the-art hardware device that could reduce energy consumption for artificial intelligent (AI) computing applications by a factor of at least 1,000.

Detailed measurements and analysis of the dielectric properties of polyimides could bolster the development of 6G wireless communication technologies, report scientists from Tokyo Tech and EM Labs, Inc. Using a device known as a Fabry--P rot resonator, they measured the dielectric constants and dissipation factors of various types of polyimides at frequencies up to 330 GHz. Their findings provide design pointers for polymer-based insulating materials suitable for applications in high-frequency telecommunications.

The other day I wrote about the paper below that has now appeared in Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics (click headline to read; download pdf here).

It detailed how, over time, federal grand funding by agencies like the NIH and NSF has gradually required statements from the applicants about how they will implement DEI in their grants or, for group or educational grants, will select candidates to maximize diversity and create “equity” (i.e., the representation of minoritized groups in research in proportion to their occurrence in the general population).

If reading the big paper is too onerous for you, one of the authors (Anna Krylov), along with Robert George (“a professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University”) have published a short précis in The Chronicles of Higher Education, a site that usually doesn’t publish heterodox papers like this. You can read the shorter version simply by clicking on the screenshots below:

I won’t go through the whole argument, but will simply give an example of how each agency requires DEI input to create equity, and then show why the authors think this is bad for science and for society.

DEI statements have been made mandatory for both the granting agency and aspiring grantees, via two federal acts and the federal Office of Management and Budget:

. . .  a close look at what is actually implemented under the DEI umbrella reveals a program of discrimination, justified on more or less nakedly ideological grounds, that impedes rather than advances science. And that program has spread much more deeply into core scientific disciplines than most people, including many scientists, realize. This has happened, in large part, by federal mandate, in particular by two Executive Orders, EO 13985 and EO 14091, issued by the Biden White House.

. . . . As the molecular biologist Julia Schaletzky writes, “by design, many science-funding agencies are independent from the government and cannot be directed to do their work in a certain way.” So how do Biden’s executive orders have teeth? The answer: They are implemented through the budget process, a runaround meant, as Schaletzky says, to tether “next year’s budget allocation to implementation of ideologically driven DEI plans at all levels.”

One example of capture of each organization, but the paper gives more details:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA):

For its part, NASA requires applicants to dedicate a portion of their research efforts and budget to DEI activities, to hire DEI experts as consultants — and to “pay them well.” How much do such services cost? A Chicago-based DEI firm offers training sessions for $500 to $10,000, e-learning modules for $200 to $5,000, and keynotes for $1,000 to $30,000. Consulting monthly retainers cost $2,000 to $20,000, and single “consulting deliverables” cost $8,000 to $50,000. Hence, taxpayer money that could be used to solve scientific and technological challenges is diverted to DEI consultants. Given that applicants’ DEI plans are evaluated by panels comprising 50 percent scientists and 50 percent DEI experts, the self-interest of the DEI industry is evident.

Department of Energy (DOE):

In a truly Orwellian manner, the DOE has pledged to “update [its] Merit Review Program to improve equitable outcomes for DOE awards.” Proposals seeking DOE funding must include a PIER (Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research) plan, which is “encouraged” to discuss the demographic composition of the project team and to include “inclusive and equitable plans for recognition on publications and presentations.”

National Institutes of Health (NIH):

The National Institutes of Health’s BRAIN (Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies) initiative requires applicants to submit a “Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP).” By “diverse perspectives,” the NIH explains that it means diverse demographics. In the agency’s own words, “PEDP is a summary of strategies to advance the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project through inclusivity. Broadly, diverse perspectives refer to the people who do the research, the places where research is done, as well as the people who participate in the research as part of the study population [emphasis ours].”

The NIH’s efforts toward advancing racial equity also offer an invitation to “Take the Pledge,” which includes committing to the idea that “equity, diversity, and inclusion drives success,” “setting up a consultation with an EDI [DEI] liaison,” and “ordering the ‘EDI Pledge Poster’ (or … creat[ing] your own) for your space.

Three years ago the NIH tried to incorporate DEI into its most widely-awarded grant, the “R01,” by asking investigators to give their race and then saying they’d fund some grants that didn’t make the merit cut but were proposed by minority investigators. But I guess they decided that awarding grants based on race, and discriminating against white investigators whose proposala had higher merit scores, was likely to be illegal. They quickly scrapped this program, but DEI, like the Lernaean Hydra, always grows a new head.  As you see, DEI back again in a more disguised form.

National Science Foundation (NSF):

Scientists applying to the National Science Foundation for what are known as Centers for Chemical Innovation grants must now provide a two-page Diversity and Inclusion Plan “to ensure a diverse and inclusive center environment, including researchers at all levels, leadership groups, and advisory groups.” They must also file an eight-page “broader impact” plan, which includes increasing participation by underrepresented groups. For comparison, the length of the scientific part of the proposal is 18 pages.

Those are the four largest grant-giving agencies in the federal government, and their largesse to science amounts to $90 billion per year.

Why is this DEI practice harmful? The authors give a handful of reasons:

These requirements to incorporate DEI into each research proposal are alarming. They constitute compelled speech; they undermine the academic freedom of researchers; they dilute merit-based criteria for funding; they incentivize unethical — and, indeed, sometimes illegal — discriminatory hiring practices; they erode public trust in science; and they contribute to administrative overload and bloat.

While well-intended, as are nearly all efforts to lend a hand to those disadvantaged by their backgrounds, most of these practices are probably illegal because they practice discrimination based on race or other immutable traits. The only reason DEI stipulations remain, I think, is because nobody has challenged them. To bring the agencies to court, one needs to demonstrate “standing”—that is, the investigator has to demonstrate that they have been hurt by the practices.  And, as you can imagine, finding someone like that would be hard, as they’d be forever tarred as racist.

Nevertheless, nobody wants to exclude minorities from science. But the paucity of black and Latino scientists is due not to “structural racism” in science (encoded rules that impede minorities), but to a lack of opportunity for disadvantaged groups starting at birth, which leads to lower qualifications. The way to solve this problem is to create equal opportunity for all, a solution that will solve the problem for good but is at present impossible to implement. Until then, all the granting system should do is cast a wider net, for the more people who apply for money, the greater the chance of finding more diverse people who pass the merit bar. And merit must remain the criterion for funding if we want to keep up the standard of American science. While I continue to believe in a form of affirmative action for college admissions, to me that’s where the buck stops. After that, all academic achievements should be judged without considering minority status.

And that seems to be happening, for in almost every venue, DEI efforts are waning.

A mission to the sun’s closest neighbouring star, Alpha Centauri, could be made faster thanks to a tiny light sail punctured with billions of tiny holes

We’ve been saved by the submission of two batches of photos, and as I go to South Africa for a month next week, photo posting will pause. I hope people will accumulate photos to send here during my absence (I will of course try to post.

Today’s photos are from Damon Williford, whose notes and IDs are indented. Click on the photos to enlarge them.

Attached are photos of various species of birds from my local area that I’ve taken this year between March and June. These photos were taken within a 120-mile radius of my home in Bay City on the central Texas coast (more or less equidistant between Houston and Corpus Christi).

Black-bellied Whistling Duck (Dendrocygna autumnalis):

Black-bellied Whistling Duck:

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura):

Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus):

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura):

Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis), an adult:

Mississippi Kite, a fledgling:

Crested Caracara (Caracara plancus:

Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus):

Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus):

Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria interpres):

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) developing breeding plumage:

Sanderling (Calidris alba) in breeding plumage:

Another Sanderling but a juvenile:

Willet (Tringa semipalmata):

Astrophysicists aren’t sure how supermassive black holes get close enough to merge, a mystery called the final parsec problem – but an exotic form of dark matter may explain it

Electromagnetic radiation leaking from the cable between your computer and monitor can be intercepted and decoded by AI to reveal what you are looking at

The largest tree nursery in North America is helping scale up efforts to inoculate seedlings with native fungi and other soil microbes, a treatment that helps trees grow faster and capture more carbon

A robot can hold a squash, pumpkin or melon in one hand, while it is peeled by the other

Biodegradable plastic that gets broken down into microplastics may decrease soil nitrogen levels more than conventional ones, which stunts plant growth

Doctors who claimed that only enormous RCTs for every variant could demonstrate the COVID vaccine's benefits, were fine just casually inventing reasons not to use it.

The post Making Up Reasons to Let Unvaccinated Kids Get COVID: Pediatricians Will Run Out of Time and Measles Will Return first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

When we think of Jupiter-type planets, we usually picture massive cloud-covered worlds orbiting far from their stars. That distance keeps their volatile gases from vaporizing from stellar heat, similar to what we’re familiar with in our Solar System. So, why are so many exoplanets known as “hot Jupiters” orbiting very close to their stars? That’s the question astronomers ask as they study more of these extreme worlds.

It turns out that hot Jupiters don’t actually start life snuggled up so close. Instead, they form much farther away from their stars in the protoplanetary nebula. That leads to the question: how did they migrate inward? The answer has been “we aren’t sure” from the planetary science community. However, astronomers at MIT, Penn State University, and a host of other institutions think they’ve got a handle on a better answer. They’ve found a hot Jupiter “progenitor.” That’s a juvenile version of a Jovian world slowly turning from cold to hot. The clues lie in its orbit and may give insight into how other planets evolve.

Introducing a Proto Hot Jupiter

This new world is called TIC 241249530 b and it lies about 1,100 light-years away from us. Instead of circling its star in an almost circular elliptical orbit (our Jupiter does around the Sun), this one is in a highly elliptical orbit. That squished “egg-shaped” path takes it very close to its star (like about 10 times closer than the orbit of Mercury. Then, it heads out to about the distance that Earth lies from the Sun. Not only is that a weird orbit, but it gets weirder. The path is “retrograde”. That means its direction of travel is counter to the star’s rotation. Think of it like this: the star rotates one way and the planet orbits the opposite way.

Both the highly elliptical orbit and the retrograde path tell planetary scientists that the formerly “cool” Jupiter-like world is evolving into one of those hot Jupiters. Now, if that isn’t strange enough, the star the planet is orbiting is actually a binary star. That means it has a stellar companion. Over time, successive interactions between the two orbits—of the planet and its star—force the planet to migrate ever closer to its star. That forces its elliptical orbit to change to a tighter, more circular one. That’ll take about a billion years and that’s when the planet will be fully evolved into a Hot Jupiter.

An orbital comparison of this evolving hot Jupiter if it existed in our Solar System. Courtesy NOIRLab. How Do Hot Jupiters Fit Formation Theory?

The standard theory about planetary formation usually requires that rocky worlds form closer to their stars than the gas and ice giants. That’s because the heat of the newborn star vaporizes any “volatile” gases such as hydrogen away from newly forming planets. Worlds with a lot of those volatiles tend to form out where it’s cooler and those gases don’t get vaporized.

Artist’s conception of early planetary formation from gas and dust around a young star. Planets with large abundances of volatile elements (such as hydrogen) need cooler environments much further from their stars in order to maintain their volatiles. So-called “hot Jupiters” may form further away but then migrate closer to their stars. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

So, does this new world fit into that theory? According to MIT’s Sarah Millholland, it does. “This new planet supports the theory that high eccentricity migration should account for some fraction of hot Jupiters,” said Millholland. “We think that when this planet formed, it would have been a frigid world. And because of the dramatic orbital dynamics, it will become a hot Jupiter in about a billion years, with temperatures of several thousand kelvin. So it’s a huge shift from where it started.”

So, this hot Jupiter (and many of the others seen in exoplanet surveys) started farther from its star. Then, through orbital interactions, it’s been getting closer. That may well explain many of the hot Jupiters seen in exoplanet discoveries.

Simulations of Orbital Dances

“It is really hard to catch these hot Jupiter progenitors ‘in the act’ as they undergo their super eccentric episodes, so it is very exciting to find a system that undergoes this process,” says Smadar Naoz, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study. “I believe that this discovery opens the door to a deeper understanding of the birth configuration of the exoplanetary system.”

Of course, tracking the changes in exoplanet orbits can take a long time, so Millholland and her colleagues ran computer simulations. Those allowed them to model how this particular Hot Jupiter could have evolved. The team’s observations, along with their simulations of the planet’s evolution, support the theory that hot Jupiters can form through high eccentricity migration, a process by which a planet gradually moves into place via extreme changes to its orbit over time.

“It’s clear not only from this, but other statistical studies too, that high eccentricity migration should account for some fraction of hot Jupiters,” Millholland said. “This system highlights how incredibly diverse exoplanets can be. They are mysterious other worlds that can have wild orbits that tell a story of how they got that way and where they’re going. For this planet, it’s not quite finished its journey yet.”

For More Information

Astronomers Spot a Highly Eccentric Planet on its Way to Becoming a Hot Jupiter
A Hot-Jupiter Progenitor on a Super-eccentric Retrograde Orbit

The post Is This How You Get Hot Jupiters? appeared first on Universe Today.

What puts the electronic pep in peptides? A folded structure, according to a new study. Researchers combined single-molecule experiments, molecular dynamics simulations and quantum mechanics to validate the findings.

The key to developing quantum electronics may have a few kinks. According to researchers, that's not a bad thing when it comes to the precise control needed to fabricate and operate such devices, including advanced sensors and lasers. The researchers fabricated a switch to turn on and off the presence of kink states, which are electrical conduction pathways at the edge of semiconducting materials.

The key to developing quantum electronics may have a few kinks. According to researchers, that's not a bad thing when it comes to the precise control needed to fabricate and operate such devices, including advanced sensors and lasers. The researchers fabricated a switch to turn on and off the presence of kink states, which are electrical conduction pathways at the edge of semiconducting materials.