Science

Australopithecus came before us, but that doesn't tell us which specific individual species is our ancestor. The fossil record is spotty in places, but the latest finds could give us enough clues to pin down how we are linked

[An immediate continuation of Part 1, which you should definitely read first; today’s post is not stand-alone.]

The Asymmetry Between Location and Motion

We are in the middle of trying to figure out if the electron (or other similar object) could possibly be of infinitesimal size, to match the naive meaning of the words “elementary particle.” In the last post, I described how 1920’s quantum physics would envision an electron (or other object) in a state |P0> of definite momentum or a state |X0> of definite position (shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from last time.)

If it is meaningful to say that “an electron is really is an object whose diameter is zero”, we would naturally expect to be able to put it into a state in which its position is clearly defined and located at some specific point X0 — namely, we should be able to put it into the state |X0>. But do such states actually exist?

Symmetry and Asymmetry

In Part 1 we saw all sorts of symmetry between momentum and position:

• the symmetry between x and p in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
• the symmetry between the states |X0> and |P0>,
• the symmetry seen in their wave functions as functions of x and p shown in Figs. 1 and 2 (and see also 1a and 2a, in the side discussion, for more symmetry.)

This symmetry would seem to imply that if we could put any object, including an elementary particle, in the state |P0>, we ought to be able to put it into a state |X0>, too.

But this logic won’t follow, because in fact there’s an even more important asymmetry. The states |X0> and |P0> differ crucially. The difference lies in their energy.

Who cares about energy?

There are a couple of reasons we should care, closely related. First, just as there is a relationship between position and momentum, there is a relationship between time and energy: energy is deeply related to how wave functions evolve over time. Second, energy has its limits, and we’re going to see them violated.

Energy and How Wave Functions Change Over Time

In 1920s quantum physics, the evolution of our particle’s wave function depends on how much energy it has… or, if its energy is not definite, on the various possible energies that it may have.

Definite Momentum and Energy: Simplicity

This change with time is simple for the state |P0>, because this state, with definite momentum, also has definite energy. It therefore evolves in a very simple way: it keeps its shape, but moves with a constant speed.

Figure 5: In the state |P0>, shown in Fig. 1 of Part 1, the particle has definite momentum and energy and moves steadily at constant speed; the particle’s position is completely unknown at all times.

How much energy does it have? Well, in 1920s quantum physics, just as in pre-1900 physics, the motion-energy E of an isolated particle of definite momentum p is

• E = p2/2m

where m is the particle’s mass. Where does this formula come from? In first-year university physics, we learn that a particle’s momentum is mv and that its motion-energy is mv2/2 = (mv)2/2m = p2/2m; so in fact this is a familiar formula from centuries ago.

Less Definite Momentum and Energy: Greater Complexity

What about the compromise states mentioned in Part 1, the ones that lie somewhere between the extreme states |X0> and |P0>, in which the particle has neither definite position nor definite momentum? These “Gaussian wave packets” appeared in Fig. 3 and 4 of Part 1. The state of Fig. 3 has less definite momentum than the |P0> state, but unlike the latter, it has a rough location, albeit broadly spread out. How does it evolve?

As seen in Fig. 6, the wave still moves to the left, like the |P0> state. But this motion is now seen not only in the red and blue waves which represent the wave function itself but also in the probability for where to find the particle’s position, shown in the black curve. Our knowledge of the position is poor, but we can clearly see that the particle’s most likely position moves steadily to the left.

Figure 6: In a state with less definite momentum than |P0>, as shown in Fig. 3 of Part 1, the particle has less definite momentum and energy, but its position is roughly known, and its most likely position moves fairly steadily at near-constant speed. If we watched the wave function for a long time, it would slowly spread out.

What happens if the particle’s position is better known and the momentum is becoming quite uncertain? We saw what a wave function for such a particle looks like in Fig. 4 of Part 1, where the position is becoming quite well known, but nowhere as precisely as in the |X0> state. How does this wave function evolve over time? This is shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 7: In a state with better known position, shown in Fig. 4 of Part 1, the particle’s position is initially well known but becomes less and less certain over time, as its indefinite momentum and energy causes it to move away from its initial position at a variety of possible speeds.

We see the wave function still indicates the particle is moving to the left. But the wave function spreads out rapidly, meaning that our knowledge of its position is quickly decreasing over time. In fact, if you look at the right edge of the wave function, it has barely moved at all, so the particle might be moving slowly. But the left edge has disappeared out of view, indicating that the particle might be moving very rapidly. Thus the particle’s momentum is indeed very uncertain, and we see this in the evolution of the state.

This uncertainty in the momentum means that we have increased uncertainty in the particle’s motion-energy. If it is moving slowly, its motion-energy is low, while if it is moving rapidly, its motion-energy is much higher. If we measure its motion-energy, we might find it anywhere in between. This is why its evolution is so much more complex than that seen in Fig. 5 and even Fig. 6.

Near-Definite Position: Breakdown

What happens as we make the particle’s position better and better known, approaching the state |X0> that we want to put our electron in to see if it can really be thought of as a true particle within the methods of 1920s quantum physics?

Well, look at Fig. 8, which shows the time-evolution of a state almost as narrow as |X0> .

Figure 8: the time-evolution of a state almost as narrow as |X0>.

Now we can’t even say if the particle is going to the left or to the right! It may be moving extremely rapidly, disappearing off the edges of the image, or it may remain where it was initially, hardly moving at all. Our knowledge of its momentum is basically nil, as the uncertainty principle would lead us to expect. But there’s more. Even though our knowledge of the particle’s position is initially excellent, it rapidly degrades, and we quickly know nothing about it.

We are seeing the profound asymmetry between position and momentum:

• a particle of definite momentum can retain that momentum for a long time,
• a particle of definite position immediately becomes one whose position is completely unknown.

Worse, the particle’s speed is completely unknown, which means it can be extremely high! How high can it go? Well, the closer we make the initial wave function to that of the state |X0>, the faster the particle can potentially move away from its initial position — until it potentially does so in excess of the cosmic speed limit c (often referred to as the “speed of light”)!

That’s definitely bad. Once our particle has the possibility of reaching light speed, we need Einstein’s relativity. But the original quantum methods of Heisenberg-Born-Jordan and Schrödinger do not account for the cosmic speed limit. And so we learn: in the 1920s quantum physics taught in undergraduate university physics classes, a state of definite position simply does not exist.

Isn’t it Relatively Easy to Resolve the Problem?

But can’t we just add relativity to 1920s quantum physics, and then this problem will take care of itself?

You might think so. In 1928, Dirac found a way to combine Einstein’s relativity with Schrödinger’s wave equation for electrons. In this case, instead of the motion-energy of a particle being E = p2/2m, Dirac’s equation focuses on the total energy of the particle. Written in terms of the particle’s rest mass m [which is the type of mass that doesn’t change with speed], that total energy satisfies the equation

For stationary particles, which have p=0, this equation reduces to E=mc2, as it must.

This does indeed take care of the cosmic speed limit; our particle no longer breaks it. But there’s no cosmic momentum limit; even though v has a maximum, p does not. In Einstein’s relativity, the relation between momentum and speed isn’t p=mv anymore. Instead it is

which gives the old formula when v is much less than c, but becomes infinite as v approaches c.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that; momentum can be as large as one wants. The problem is that, as you can see for the formula for energy above, when p goes to infinity, so does E. And while that, too, is allowed, it causes a severe crisis, which I’ll get to in a moment.

Actually, we could have guessed from the start that the energy of a particle in a state of definite position |X0> would be arbitrarily large. The smaller is the position uncertainty Δx, the larger is the momentum uncertainty Δp; and once we have no idea what the particle’s momentum is, we may find that it is huge — which in turn means its energy can be huge too.

Notice the asymmetry. A particle with very small Δp must have very large Δx, but having an unknown location does not affect an isolated particle’s energy. But a particle with very small Δx must have very large Δp, which inevitably means very large energy.

The Particle(s) Crisis

So let’s try to put an isolated electron into a state |X0>, knowing that the total energy of the electron has some probability of being exceedingly high. In particular, it may be much, much larger — tens, or thousands, or trillions of times larger — than mc2 [where again m means the “rest mass” or “invariant mass” of the particle — the version of mass that does not change with speed.]

The problem that cannot be avoided first arises once the energy reaches 3mc2 . We’re trying to make a single electron at a definite location. But how can we be sure that 3mc2 worth of energy won’t be used by nature in another way? Why can’t nature use it to make not only an electron but also a second electron and a positron? [Positrons are the anti-particles of electrons.] If stationary, each of the three particles would require mc2 for its existence.

If electrons (not just the electron we’re working with, but electrons in general) didn’t ever interact with anything, and were just incredibly boring, inert objects, then we could keep this from happening. But not only would this be dull, it simply isn’t true in nature. Electrons do interact with electromagnetic fields, and with other things too. As a result, we can’t stop nature from using those interactions and Einstein’s relativity to turn 3mc2 of energy into three slow particles — two electrons and a positron — instead of one fast particle!

For the state |X0> with Δx = 0 and Δp = infinity, there’s no limit to the energy; it could be 3mc2, 11mc2, 13253mc2, 9336572361mc2. As many electron/positron pairs as we like can join our electron. The |X0> state we have ended up with isn’t at all like the one we were aiming for; it’s certainly not going to be a single particle with a definite location.

Our relativistic version of 1920s quantum physics simply cannot handle this proliferation. As I’ve emphasized, an isolated physical system has only one wave function, no matter how many particles it has, and that wave function exists in the space of possibilities. How big is that space of possibilities here?

Normally, if we have N particles moving in d dimensions of physical space, then the space of possibilities has N-times-d dimensions. (In examples that I’ve given in this post and this one, I had two particles moving in one dimension, so the space of possibilities was 2×1=2 dimensional.) But here, N isn’t fixed. Our state |X0> might have one particle, three, seventy one, nine thousand and thirteen, and so on. And if these particles are moving in our familiar three dimensions of physical space, then the space of possibilities is 3 dimensional if there is one particle, 9 dimensional if there are three particles, 213 dimensional if there are seventy-one particles — or said better, since all of these values of N are possible, our wave function has to simultaneously exist in all of these dimensional spaces at the same time, and tell us the probability of being in one of these spaces compared to the others.

Still worse, we have neglected the fact that electrons can emit photons — particles of light. Many of them are easily emitted. So on top of everything else, we need to include arbitrary numbers of photons in our |X0> state as well.

Good Heavens. Everything is completely out of control.

How Small Can An Electron Be (In 1920s Quantum Physics?)

How small are we actually able to make an electron’s wave function before the language of the 1920s completely falls apart? Well, for the wave function describing the electron to make sense,

• its motion-energy must be below mc2, which means that
• p has to be small compared to mc , which means that
• Δp has to be small compared to mc , which means that
• by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Δx has to be large compared to h/(4πmc)

This distance (up to the factor of 1/4π) is known as a particle’s Compton wavelength, and it is about 10-13 meters for an electron. That’s about 1/1000 of the distance across an atom, but 100 times the diameter of a small atomic nucleus. Therefore, 1920s quantum physics can describe electrons whose wave functions allow them to range across atoms, but cannot describe an electron restricted to a region the size of an atomic nucleus, or of a proton or neutron, whose size is 10-15 meters. It certainly can’t handle an electron restricted to a point!

Let me reiterate: an electron cannot be restricted to a region the size of a proton and still be described by “quantum mechanics”.

As for neutrinos, it’s much worse; since their masses are much smaller, they can’t even be described in regions whose diameter is that of a thousand atoms!

The Solution: Relativistic Quantum Field Theory

It took scientists two decades (arguably more) to figure out how to get around this problem. But with benefit of hindsight, we can say that it’s time for us to give up on the quantum physics of the 1920s, and its image of an electron as a dot — as an infinitesimally small object. It just doesn’t work.

Instead, we now turn to relativistic quantum field theory, which can indeed handle all this complexity. It does so by no longer viewing particles as fundamental objects with infinitesimal size, position x and momentum p, and instead seeing them as ripples in fields. A quantum field can have any number of ripples — i.e. as many particles and anti-particles as you want, and more generally an indefinite number. Along the way, quantum field theory explains why every electron is exactly the same as every other. There is no longer symmetry between x and p, no reason to worry about why states of definite momentum exist and those of definite position do not, and no reason to imagine that “particles” [which I personally think are more reasonably called “wavicles“, since they behave much more like waves than particles] have a definite, unchanging shape.

The space of possibilities is now the space of possible shapes for the field, which always has an infinite number of dimensions — and indeed the wave function of a field (or of multiple fields) is a function of an infinite number of variables (really a function of a function [or of multiple functions], called a “functional”).

Don’t get me wrong; quantum field theory doesn’t do all this in a simple way. As physicists tried to cope with the difficult math of quantum field theory, they faced many serious challenges, including apparent infinities everywhere and lots of consistency requirements that needed to be understood. Nevertheless, over the past seven decades, they solved the vast majority of these problems. As they did so, field theory turned out to agree so well with data that it has become the universal modern language for describing the bricks and mortar of the universe.

Yet this is not the end of the story. Even within quantum field theory, we can still find ways to define what we mean by the “size” of a particle, though doing so requires a new approach. Armed with this definition, we do now have clear evidence that electrons are much smaller than protons. And so we can ask again: can an elementary “particle” [wavicle] have zero size?

We’ll return to this question in later posts.

The results of a year-long survey suggest that people in the US are warming up to artificial intelligence, potentially due to marketing and the engaging way AI chatbots respond to human users

Welcome to The Cruelest Day: Tuesday February 11, 2025, and National Peppermint Patty Day.  I can’t show a picture (copyright issues!) but here’s some information from Wikipedia, where you can find a drawing from the Peanuts strip:

Peppermint Patty is a fictional character featured in Charles M. Schulz‘s comic strip Peanuts. Her full name, very rarely used in the strip, is Patricia Reichardt. She is one of a small group in the strip who live across town from Charlie Brown and his school friends (although in The Peanuts Movie, Snoopy in Space, and The Snoopy Show she, Marcie, and Franklin live in the same neighborhood and attend the same school). She has freckles and “mousy-blah” hair, and generally displays the characteristics of a tomboy.

Charles M. Schulz modeled Peppermint Patty after a favorite cousin, Patricia Swanson, who served as a regular inspiration for Peanuts. Schulz had also named his earlier character Patty after Swanson, and he coined his well-known phrase “Happiness is a Warm Puppy” during a conversation with her in 1959. Swanson’s roommate Elise Gallaway served as the model for Peppermint Patty’s best friend Marcie. In later years, especially after lesbian groups began identifying with Peppermint Patty, Schulz downplayed the fact that the character was based on Swanson to protect her privacy.

In one interview, Schulz stated that he coined Peppermint Patty’s name after noticing a dish of peppermint patties in his house and deciding the name was so good that he should use it before another artist thought of the same joke. He created the character design to fit the name. Peppermint Patty debuted in the strip of August 22, 1966.  In 1972, Schulz introduced the character’s last name, Reichardt, which he borrowed from the last name of his secretary, Sue Reichardt, whose favorite character was Peppermint Patty.

It’s also Get out Your Guitar Day (I have a Martin that I no longer play), International Day of Woman and Girls in Science,  and National Latte Day. Here’s mine from yesterday (Puerto Rican coffee courtesy of Divy):

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the February 11 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Trump is about to intensify his trade war by levying tariffs on steel and aluminum from every country, including Canada and Mexico (article archived here):

President Trump is poised to move forward with sweeping tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum on Monday, re-upping a policy from his first term that pleased domestic metal makers, but hurt other American industries and ignited trade wars with allies on multiple fronts.

The 25 percent tariffs that the president said he would impose on foreign steel and aluminum will be welcomed by domestic steelmakers, who argue they are struggling to compete against cheap foreign metals. As they did during Mr. Trump’s first term, U.S. metal makers have been lobbying the administration for protection, and Trump officials agree that a strong domestic metal sector is essential for U.S. national security.

But the tariffs will invite plenty of controversy. They are likely to rankle America’s allies, like Canada and Mexico, who supply the bulk of U.S. metal imports. And they could incite retaliation on U.S. exports, as well as pushback from American industries that use metals to make cars, food packaging and other products. Those sectors will face significantly higher prices after the tariffs go into effect.

That’s what happened in Mr. Trump’s first term, when he slapped 25 percent tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. While he and President Biden eventually ended up rolling back those tariffs on most major metal suppliers, they were often replaced with other trade barriers, like quotas. Studies have shown that while the measures helped U.S. metal makers, they ended up hurting the broader economy, because they raised prices for so many other industries.

And of course that’s what’s expected. Tariffs are no good for anybody, and ultimately the consumer pays the price. Further, among his other unconstitutional acts, the NYT reports that Trump is contemplating running for a third term!:

Just eight days after he won a second term, Mr. Trump — whose supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory from being certified — mused about whether he could have a third presidential term, which is barred by the Constitution.

Since then, he has floated the idea frequently. In public, he couches the notion of staying in office beyond two terms as a humorous aside. In private, Mr. Trump has told advisers that it is just one of his myriad diversions to grab attention and aggravate Democrats, according to people familiar with his comments. And he has made clear that he is happy to be past a grueling campaign in which he faced two assassination attempts and followed an aggressive schedule in the final weeks.

The third-term gambit could also serve another purpose, political observers noted: keeping congressional Republicans in line as Mr. Trump pushes a maximalist version of executive authority with the clock ticking on his time in office.

The man is insane! (But we knew that already.) This, like the prohibition of birthrights, is destined to sink like a lead balloon. The Supreme Court wouldn’t allow anything like this, for it’s a clear violation of the Consitution.

*The WSJ reports that, in violation of international law, Ukrainian prisoners of war are now subject to unlimited violence  and torture in Russian prisons, with no restrictions on what can be done to them.

In the weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine, the head of St. Petersburg’s prisons delivered a direct message to an elite unit of guards tasked with overseeing the influx of prisoners from the war: “Be cruel, don’t pity them.”

. . . Those meetings set in motion nearly three years of relentless and brutal torture of Ukrainian prisoners of war. Guards applied electric shocks to prisoners’ genitals until batteries ran out. They beat the prisoners to inflict maximum damage, experimenting to see what type of material would be most painful. They withheld medical treatment to allow gangrene to set in, forcing amputations.

Three former prison officials told The Wall Street Journal how Russia planned and executed what United Nations investigators have described as widespread and systematic torture. Their accounts were supported by official documents, interviews with Ukrainian prisoners and a person who has helped the Russian prison officials defect.

. . . . Pavel Afisov, who was taken prisoner in the city of Mariupol in the initial months of the war, was among the first Ukrainian prisoners detained in Russia. For 2½ years, the 25-year-old was moved from prison to prison in Russia before being released in October of last year.

He said beatings were the worst when he was transferred into new prisons. After arriving at a penitentiary in Russia’s Tver region, north of Moscow, he was led by guards into a medical examination room and ordered to strip naked. They shocked him repeatedly with a stun gun while shaving his head and beard.

When it was over, he was told to yell “glory to Russia, glory to the special forces” and then ordered to walk to the front of the room—still naked—to sing the Russian and Soviet national anthems. When he said he didn’t know the words, the guards beat him again with their fists and batons.

The violence served a purpose for the Russian authorities, according to the former guards and human-rights advocates: making them more malleable for interrogations and breaking their will to fight. Prison interrogations were sometimes aimed at extracting confessions of war crimes or gaining operational intelligence from prisoners who had little will to resist after they suffered extreme brutality.

The former guards described a staggering level of violence directed at Ukrainian prisoners. Electric shockers were used so often, especially in showers, that officers complained about them running out of battery life too fast.

One former penitentiary system employee, who worked with a team of medics in Voronezh region in southwestern Russia, said prison guards beat Ukrainians until their police batons broke. He said a boiler room was littered with broken batons and the officers tested other materials, including insulated hot-water pipes, for their ability to cause pain and damage.

The guards, he said, intentionally beat prisoners on the same spot day after day, preventing bruises from healing and causing infection inside the accumulated hematoma. The treatment led to blood poisoning and muscle tissue would rot. At least one person died from sepsis, the officer said.

Many of the guards enjoyed the brutality and often bragged about how much pain they had caused prisoners, he said.

Well, this is close to how the Nazis treated Soviet prisoners of war, though it’s not quite as bad (the Germans often shot them or starved them to death). But it’s a war crime, and I doubt that Ukraine is doing anything like this.  Remember when Trump said he’d stop the war in Ukraine on “day 1” of his administration?

*Two piece of news from the Hamas/Israel war.  First, Hamas has suspended both the release of hostages and the cease-fire, blaming Israel for violating their agreement:

Hamas announced on its Telegram account on Monday that it is canceling the release of hostages on February 15 until further notice due to an Israeli violation.

Egyptian mediators fear that the statements will lead to a breakdown of negotiations. At the same time, Hamas told US mediators that the ceasefire was no longer in place due to Trump’s comments about displacing Palestinians.

The Hostages and Missing Families Forum said, following the announcement, that it has reached out to all countries mediating the agreement, demanding “swift assistance in finding an immediate and effective solution to restore the implementation of the deal.”

“We call on the Israeli government to refrain from actions that endanger the execution of the signed agreement and to ensure its continuation, securing the return of our 76 brothers and sisters,” the statement continued.

“The hostages are out of time, and they all must be rescued from this nightmare urgently,” the forum added.

They said they have officially contacted the government and the intelligence coordination unit to “clarify the situation and provide updates to all concerned families who fear for their loved ones’ fates.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is consulting with top security officials in light of Hamas’s announcement and intends to move the security cabinet meeting on Tuesday to the early morning hours.

One Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post that, in his view, Hamas did not attempt to sabotage the deal in its latest statement.

What is going on here? Hamas is complaining that Israel is not delivering enough goods to Gaza and not allowing Gazans to return to their homes in northern Gaza.  Neither claim is true: Gazas who go north and find their homes in ruins are simply heading south again.  Malgorzata suspects that this is a tactic that Hamas is using to try to wheedle more out of Israel than was agreed.  We will know on Saturday, if more hostages are not handed back to Israel, if Hamas is really  breaking the agreement. If so, then all hell may break loose.

*Also, the Palestinian Authority has stopped its “pay for slay” program (see Wikipedia article on the Palestinian “Martyr’s Fund”) which gives Palestinian prisoners in Israel (or Palestinians killed or injured while enacting terrorism money based on how many Jews they have killed or tried to kill (not a lot of people know about this).

Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas issued an order to cancel laws and regulations related to paying financial allocations to the families of Palestinians linked with terrorist activity, known as “pay for slay,” on Monday, according to Palestinian Authority state media WAFA.

Additionally, the computerized cash assistance program, along with its database and financial allocations, will be transferred from the Ministry of Social Development to the Palestinian National Institution for Economic Empowerment, WAFA stated.

The amendments will allow all families previously benefiting from the former laws, regulations, and legislations to be subject to the same eligibility criteria as other families enrolled in social protection and welfare programs, according to WAFA.

The Palestinian Institution for Economic Empowerment will now assume full authority over all social protection and welfare programs in Palestine. It will be responsible for providing assistance to all Palestinian families in need, without discrimination, WAFA added.

Why are they eliminating this odious fund? Because Trump cut of all money to the Palestinian Authority, and Israel is withholding the pay-for-slay money from the prisoners. And, on top of that, there’s this:

This comes amid news that, on February, US courts will impose heavy fines – of about $200-300 million – on the Palestinian Authority – following lawsuits filed by families of terror victims. The PA is reportedly worried that this will lead to a financial crisis.

The Palestinian Authority arranged payment for families of dead Hamas terrorists amounting to a combined total of around $2.8 million, following the October 7 attacks, according to a report by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), a nongovernmental organization and media watchdog group.

With U.S. aid cut off, and fines in the offing, Abbas is in danger of losing his Presidency for life (that would be a good thing.) To try to avoid bankrupting the West Bank, Abbas seems to have decided that he can sacrifice the pay-for-slay program.

*From The Free Press‘s daily newsletter (yesterday) about the Super Bowl. You’ll want to click on some of the links, but I’ve also put two of the videos below (one is in a tweet).

The Super Bowl isn’t just a game, it’s a cultural barometer—and sometimes, a crystal ball. In 2016, Beyoncé danced on the Super Bowl stage to her new song “Formation,” flanked by backup dancers dressed like Black Panthers. Controversy ensued, foreshadowing the great war over woke that would dominate for years to come.

This year, another vibe shift. The NFL changed the message stenciled into the end zone from “End Racism” to “Choose Love.” Trump showed up—the first sitting president to do so—and his favorite patriotic walk-on song, “God Bless the USA,” was heard playing in the stadium. Kendrick Lamar’s halftime performance featured a nagging Uncle Sam character (played by Samuel L. Jackson) who told the rapper not to be “too ghetto,” but when backup dancers dressed in red, white, and blue formed the American flag, it felt more patriotic than political, even though his song “Alright” is perhaps best known as BLM’s unofficial anthem. And in another patriotic move, Kendrick performed “Not Like Us,” his Grammy Award–winning diss track against one of America’s new trade war enemies—Canadian rapper Drake.

Speaking of Canada, even the ads couldn’t escape the vibe shift. In the wake of Trump’s proposed, but currently delayed, 25 percent tariffs against Canadian goods, the province of Ontario ran an ad reminding Americans that Canucks are important trade partners and good neighbors, eh bud?

Speaking of “bud,” Bud Light launched a new ad to convince America they aren’t woke anymore. Still reeling from its disastrous 2023 campaign with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, which spurred an effective conservative boycott, the beer’s new commercial featured Peyton Manning, Post Malone, and Shane Gillis—a comic who was infamously fired from Saturday Night Live in 2019 for affecting a Chinese accent on a podcast. (Read Anson Frericks’ great essay on the Bud Light saga.)

Bud Light wasn’t the only company with a subtle rebrand. After a backlash last year over their support for trans women participating in female sports, Nike launched a new ad putting female athletes front and center. The tagline: You can’t win, so win. Well, maybe they can’t win because they’re competing against biological males, Nike. Still, the ad is about female sports and features only female athletes, which is radical conservatism by Nike’s standards.

The Nike ad (note the FP’s comment) is among the tweets below, along with a counter-ad by women objecting to trans-identified males competing in women’s sports.  Here’s the Bud Light commercial:

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron are in the kitchen, closely watching Andrzej:

Szaron: What is he doing? Hili: I don’t know, but it’s not what we are waiting for. In Polish: Szaron: Co on robi? Hili: Nie wiem, ale nie to, na co czekamy.

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

From Things With Faces. This spud is saying, “Don’t chop me up!”:

From Cat Memes:

From @secretsoftheoccult:

Masih posted this 2½-minute video Twitter post about Iranian women defying the hijab ban. Do watch it. I can’t embed it, but if you click on the screenshot you’ll go there.

I saw this ad, which apparently was meant to counter the Nike ad below. This is a good ad; I guess it was the Nike ad that “sucked”:

It sure seems like @Nike thought they needed a women’s ad.

I wonder why?

The ad sucked. You can’t win. So win. WTF does that even mean?

Dear Nike – your ad was no good. You’ve lost your mojo. Hypocrisy does that. No longer authentic. pic.twitter.com/iFUGa3u7gN

— Jennifer Sey (@JenniferSey) February 10, 2025

Here’s the ad (featuring famous women athletes urging other women to accomplish what they’re told they can’t):

From Luana. I can’t believe that encamping students (actually in buildings) at Bowdoin actually got punished!

Haha, Bowdoin is suspending the students occupying a campus building and telling on them.

They’ve received an “immediate temporary suspension…pending a College disciplinary process” and are kicked off campus.

They’re also told, “Your family will receive a copy of this letter.” pic.twitter.com/9jbChzo3P2

— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) February 10, 2025

From Brian, showing the speed of light going around different planets. Jupiter is BIG!

Visualization of the speed of light on the surface of different planets. pic.twitter.com/LGOI1F3iNv

— Black Hole (@konstructivizm) February 10, 2025

From Malcolm; revenge cat:

The middle one planning revenge pic.twitter.com/ZNTCDBCLoN

— Posts Of Cats (@PostsOfCats) January 23, 2025

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I reposted:

Gassed upon arrival at the camp, this Italian Jewish girl was five.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-02-11T11:07:42.250Z

Two tweets from Dr. Cobb. The first on reports a finding that flies PLAY! I must read the paper!

Our story about flies on carousels is out in @currentbiology.bsky.social! After formally engaging the fantastic @clarahowcroft.bsky.social and integrating helpful reviewer feedback, we present a more concise story with detailed behavioural quantification and cooler videos! doi.org/10.1016/j.cu…

— Wolf Huetteroth (@wolfhuette.bsky.social) 2025-02-10T16:03:38.157Z

A lovely duck photo taken by one of Matthew’s friends:

Teal on the River Otter estuary this morning

— Andrew Luck-Baker (@andrewl-b.bsky.social) 2025-02-09T16:04:52.872Z

Fears that other nations could gain an advantage are holding back the development of quantum computers, with export controls and other restrictions making it harder for researchers to work across borders

John Preskill has been guiding the growing quantum computing industry for decades, and now he has set a new challenge – to build a device capable of a million quantum operations per second, or a megaquop

Hundreds of quantum computing firms around the world are racing to commercialise these once-exotic devices, but the jury is still out on who is going to pull ahead and produce a machine that actually does something useful

With an investment of AU$1 billion, PsiQuantum is planning to build a photonic quantum computer with a million qubits, far larger than any in existence today - and the firm says it will be ready in just two years

Not everyone responds to statins, the standard treatment for people at risk of cardiovascular disease, so an alternative based on genetically engineered immune cells could help prevent arteries from becoming blocked with plaque

Stripping carbon dioxide out of the ocean could be much more efficient than capturing it from the air. Researchers are hoping to show its potential at a pilot plant in Weymouth

Researchers have developed a new AI algorithm, called Torque Clustering, that significantly improves how AI systems independently learn and uncover patterns in data, without human guidance.

Researchers have developed a new AI algorithm, called Torque Clustering, that significantly improves how AI systems independently learn and uncover patterns in data, without human guidance.

Researchers have developed a new AI algorithm, called Torque Clustering, that significantly improves how AI systems independently learn and uncover patterns in data, without human guidance.

When used responsibly botulinum toxin is very safe, but patients should be especially vigilant about cosmetic treatments done outside a medical setting.

The post Botulinum Toxin: A tale of medicine, beauty, and danger first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

A trove of lithium-rich brine exists underground in Bolivia. Researchers conducted the first comprehensive chemical analysis of wastewater associated with mining the resource.

As part of their ongoing mission to push the boundaries of space exploration, NASA’s cutting-edge robotic hand is bringing us one step closer to a future where machines can grab objects just like humans. The machine which has been designed for dexterity and precision, isn’t just about gripping objects—it’s about revolutionising how astronauts and robots work together in space. With applications ranging from spacecraft maintenance to cleaning up space junk, this high-tech hand is paving the way for a new era of spacecraft operations.

Satellites have revolutionised modern life, bringing us global communication and navigation to weather forecasting and scientific discovery. However, as space becomes increasingly crowded, a growing threat grows above us—space debris. Thousands of decommissioned or unused satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments from past collisions now orbit Earth at high speeds, posing serious risks to spacecraft and future missions. As space agencies and private companies launch more satellites than ever before, finding solutions to manage and mitigate space debris has become a critical challenge for the future of space exploration.

An artist’s conception of ERS-2 in orbit. ESA

Space debris is a particular problem that NASA’s new Astrobee system is ideally placed to address. With over 36,000 pieces of debris larger than 10cm and over 100 million smaller than 1cm, all orbiting Earth at speeds in excess of up to 28,000 km per hour it’s a problem we must start to deal with. 

Orange balls of light fly across the sky as debris from a SpaceX rocket launched in Texas is spotted over Turks and Caicos Islands on Jan. 16, in this screen grab obtained from social media video. Credit: Marcus Haworth/Reuters

Astrobee is a free-flying robotic system that has been initially designed to help astronauts on board the International Space Station (ISS.) The system is composed of three cube shaped robots that have been named Bumble, Honey and Queen! The system could navigate around the ISS without human intervention using their sensors to see. The system also comprises of an arm that allows it to grab onto handrails on board to stabilise itself and conserve energy. 

The International Space Station (ISS) in orbit. Credit: NASA

The system, that was designed at the NASA’s Ames Research Centre has been on board the ISS since 2019 but it could go much further. It’s certainly been of great help around the ISS but deployed into orbit with a suitable propulsion system and power source, the sensor guided robotic arm could grab onto and manipulate pieces of debris. It could ultimately be used to collect debris like a space based road cleaner. 

Astrobee isn’t the only approach being taken to cleaning up the debris in space. The European Space Agency have also been experimenting with robotic arms and nets in their  ClearSpace-1 programme which aims to capture debris using robotic arms or nets and deorbit it safely. There is also talk of using harpoons to capture debris too but, and whilst I love the idea of harpoons around to grab debris it feels like it could be a dangerous option. 

Lasers are another option that has been considered as has ground based tethers, the use of solar sails and other de-orbit technology. Whichever technique works, it’s great to see space agencies around the World taking space debris and its clean up seriously. Hopefully if Astrobee can prove itself it too can join the ranks of growing janitors to our Solar System. 

Source : Robot Gets a Grip

The post NASA Gets a Firm Grip on the Future of Space Exploration appeared first on Universe Today.

When the experimental XB-1 aircraft achieved supersonic speeds on a test flight, it did not create a disruptive sonic boom – thanks to a physics phenomenon called the Mach cutoff

Researchers have developed a method that leverages artificial intelligence to ensure accurate heart scans without added radiation or cost.

A new paper has demonstrated that improving the texture of the soft metal used in battery anodes greatly improved performance. The team added a thin layer of silicon between lithium metal and the current collector to create the ideal grain orientation.

New research, working toward ambient-pressure high-temperature superconductivity, brings us one step closer to finding superconductors that work in everyday conditions -- and potentially unlocking a new era of energy-efficient technologies.