News Feeds

Could a new, fifth force of nature provide some answers to our biggest questions about dark matter and dark energy? We’re working on it.

The Standard Model is, for all intents and purposes, the supreme accomplishment of modern physics. It describes four forces of nature, a zoo of particles, and how they all interact. It is perhaps the most successful scientific theory of all time.

And it’s fantastically incomplete.

It turns out that the Standard Model is able to account for less than 5% of all the matter and energy in the cosmos. Another 25% or so is Dark Matter, an unknown kind of matter that is for all intents and purposes invisible. The rest is known as Dark Energy, a mysterious entity that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate.

One of the first things astronomers noticed when they first discovered dark matter and dark energy was their apparent similarity. Why in the world are the two dark components of our universe roughly the same strength? I know, 25% and 70% don’t sound very similar, but when it comes to astronomy – and especially cosmology – they’re basically the exact same number.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that they have about the same strength, and we’re overthinking it.

Or maybe it’s something else. Clever physicists have proposed connections within the “dark sector” of the universe, where dark matter and dark energy talk to each other. This would allow them to follow each other’s evolution, ensuring that they have roughly equal contributions to the energy budget of the universe for long periods of time.

To make them talk to each other, you need a force. But this force can’t be any of the known ones, otherwise dark matter and/or dark energy must also interact with normal matter, and we would have seen more directly evidence of them already.

So it has to be a new force, a fifth force of nature, completely different from electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear.  While ideas like this remain only in the realm of hypothesis, some of the ideas already have names.

One name is quintessence, the fifth essence of the universe. Another is dark photons, a particle that travels the cosmos like a photon but is, as its name suggests, dark.

To test these ideas we have to turn to the cosmos for answers. If a fifth force exists, it must be very subtle. Stronger manifestations of the fifth force have already been ruled out by observations of galaxy clusters, the expansion of the universe, and even the behaviors of neutron stars. So we have our work cut out for us – it will take a truly massive amount of data to tease out some signal that differs from expectations.

The post Is There a Fifth Force of Nature? appeared first on Universe Today.

In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development—the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—a universal call to action to protect the planet for future generations and ensure that all people will enjoy peace and prosperity. These 17 goals included the elimination of poverty, hunger, and inequalities, the promotion of education, and the promotion of sustainable development worldwide. With the rapid development in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), there are growing concerns that an 18th SDG should be adopted for space.

This goal calls for the sustainable use of Earth’s orbit by space agencies and commercial industry and the prevention of the accumulation of space junk. This has become a growing problem in recent years thanks to the deployment of satellite mega-constellations and the “commercialization of LEO.” In a recent study led by the University of Plymouth, a team of experts outlined how the lessons learned from marine debris mitigation could be applied to space so that future generations can live in a world where space truly is “for all humanity.”

The study was conducted by an international collaboration of experts from the International Marine Litter Research Unit (IMLRU) at the University of Plymouth, the Aukland Space Institute and the Centre for Putaiao at the University of Auckland, the School of Earth and Climate Sciences (SECS) at the University of Maine, PBLWorks Ltd., the Arribada Club, Science StoryLab Ltd., the Centre for Aeronautics at Cranfield University, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and many other universities, institutes, and commercial space companies.

Graph showing how the number of unregistered objects (red) in space has increased in recent years. Credit: ESA/UNOOSA

According to the ESA’s Space Debris Office (SDO), there have been 6,740 rocket launches since the beginning of the Space Age in 1957. The number of satellites these rockets deployed close to 20,000 satellites in orbit, about 13,230 are still in space while about 10,200 are still operational. These satellites have immensely benefited society, providing global communications, high-bandwidth internet, and other services used by billions of people worldwide. They’ve also enabled Earth observation science, allowing scientists to monitor ecological systems, forest fires, natural disasters, and climate change.

However, these launches have also left LEO littered with spent rocket stages, inoperable satellites, and debris from explosions or collisions. According to the SDO, there are currently 40,500 space debris objects greater than 10 cm (~4 inches) in LEO, and over 100 million measuring from 1 mm to 10 cm (~0.04 to 4 inches). This could lead to a scenario known as Kessler Syndrome, where the accumulation of debris increases the likelihood of more collisions, creating a vicious cycle that poses a significant hazard to active satellites and operations in space.

“It’s important because space is a finite resource in dire need of environmental protection, and it’s been neglected thus far because it hasn’t been universally accepted as such. Our collective actions are leading us to a tragedy of the commons,” said co-author Moriba Jah, a Professor of Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas at Austin.

In 2009, Kessler wrote that attempts to model the orbital debris problem indicated the debris environment had already become unstable. With the number of launches dramatically increasing annually, it is clear to many that the time for action is now. Dr. Imogen Ellen Napper, a Visiting Research Fellow with the IMRLU, led the study that recently appeared in One Earth. As she said in a University of Plymouth press release:

“The need to protect and connect our natural environments, from the ocean to Earth’s orbit, has never been more urgent. Both are vital to the health of our planet, yet increasingly under threat from the pressures we place on them. There is growing recognition that marine litter knows no international boundaries, and the same applies to space debris. A UN-backed agreement would be a crucial step in safeguarding Earth’s orbit for the future.”

Their work builds on a previous article titled “Protect Earth’s orbit: Avoid high seas mistakes,” authored by Dr. Napper and many of her colleagues who contributed to this latest paper. In the article, the team cited how insubstantial maritime governance has led to overfishing, habitat destruction, deep-sea mining, and plastic pollution. They further called for a legally binding treaty to ensure that the future expansion of the global industry does not irreparably harm Earth’s orbit. Said co-author Dr. Thomas Dowling, a lecturer in Remote Sensing & Geospatial Science at the University of Auckland:

“Not so long ago, our oceans were regarded as infinite resources to plunder and infinite sinks for our waste. We now know that view was grossly mistaken – many marine environments are now barren wastelands and more than eight million tonnes of plastic debris is estimated to enter the ocean every year. Earth’s orbit is a similar finite environment to the ocean, and mindlessly exploiting the orbital environment is repeating the mistakes of the past.

“It’s time to create policies to regulate what we’re putting in space, and we need to ensure objects entering orbit are safe, sustainable, and serving essential – or at least important – purposes for significant numbers of people around the world.”

“Just like plastic pollution and climate change, space junk is an issue that transcends borders,” added co-author Professor Heather Koldewey, the ZSL’s Head of Ocean and FAIRER Conservation. “Our ongoing efforts to protect the ocean highlight how important UN-backed agreements are for managing this crisis. It’s key we learn from the challenges and solutions in tackling marine debris and act now to protect our planet’s orbit.”

In their article and study paper, the team argues that SDG18 should draw direct inspiration from an existing goal—SDG14: Life Below Water, which calls for a commitment to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.” While several organizations have begun to recognize the need for action, the authors say an additional SDG could be the means through which a global call to action could be made. The necessary mechanisms could be developed and enforced.

They also argue that SDG18 would complement the existing SDGs that emphasize how space technology will support an improved understanding of global issues. This includes Earth Observation (EO) satellites for tracking climate change, organizing disaster relief, and providing geolocation through the Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). However, the UN acknowledges that space-based research contributes to economic growth, increased food production, medical advances, access to research facilities, and connecting remote and isolated communities to services.

If this study emphasizes one thing above all, it is the interconnected nature of humanity’s efforts in space and life here on Earth. At the same time, it highlights the need for proactive measures and legal frameworks to address issues of global importance before they become unmanageable. Lastly, it reminds us that if humanity is to achieve the “Great Migration” and become an interplanetary species, we need to avoid making the same mistakes in space that we have on Earth.

The study was conducted with funding provided by the National Geographical Society.

Further Reading: University of Plymouth, One Earth

The post It's Time for Sustainable Development Goal for Space appeared first on Universe Today.

Radiation testing suggests that solar cells made from carbon-based, or organic, materials could outperform conventional silicon and gallium arsenide for generating electricity in the final frontier, a study suggests.

Radiation testing suggests that solar cells made from carbon-based, or organic, materials could outperform conventional silicon and gallium arsenide for generating electricity in the final frontier, a study suggests.

A whitish, grey patch that sometimes appears in the night sky alongside the northern lights has now been explained.

Astronomers have been battling threats to their clear skies on all fronts lately. One of the most notable battles, which we have reported on repeatedly, is the one against Starlink and other mega-constellations of satellites, which, while they offer high-speed internet in the most far-flung places, also disrupt observations by sensitive telescopes due to their reflectivity and fast movement speed. They also pose a global problem, whereas a more down-to-earth issue is cropping up at one very special observatory. A vast industrial plant threatens the European Southern Observatory’s Paranal telescope planned only a few kilometers from the site.

The ESO recently released a statement calling on the government of Chile, where Paranal is located, to consider moving the project elsewhere. Currently, AES Andes, a subsidiary of AES Corporation, an American power utility, recently submitted a proposal for the environmental review of a 3000-hectare industrial area that includes hydrogen and ammonium factories, electricity-generating machinery, and, importantly, a lot of lights.

Lights are part and parcel of any large industrial project, but they pose a particular threat to Paranal. In a recent study, it was found to be the observational site with the least amount of light pollution. Any significant increase to that baseline over only about .1% of the generic background level could have a massive negative impact on the capabilities of the telescope located there.

Levels of light pollution at observatories around the world.
Credit – ESO, modified from Falchi et al

That telescope has been an essential part of the astronomical community and contributed to research such as the Nobel Prize-winning 2020 studies into the Sgr A*, the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. It also represents billions of dollars of investment from the European Southern Observatory member states.

When thinking about natural resources, a clear sky might not come to someone’s mind, but it certainly is for Chile. In addition to Paranal, two other Chilean observatories are in the top three least light-polluted major astronomical observatories – Armazones and Tokyo Atacama. It also has four more in the top 15, making it one of the best contributors in the world to this type of astronomy.

That contribution is planned to grow with the ESO’s ongoing development of the Extremely Large Telescope not far from the Paranal site. While the light pollution from the planned industrial facility might not reach as far as what will be the biggest telescope of its kind in the world, any precedent by the Chilean government to approve projects that would undercut investment by ESO and other astronomical bodies would be detrimental to the long-term outlook of observations in the country.

The night sky over Paranal.
Credit – ESO YouTube Channel

Since the AES Andes proposal is still in the environmental impact assessment phase, it’s still early enough to provide feedback for a potential alternative. ESO’s letter shows support for the project in concept but suggests moving it to a different location so as not to negatively affect the telescope. Whether or not that is feasible and whether or not the Chilean government will support it at all remains to be seen. But this threat to one of the world’s great observatories shouldn’t be ignored.

Learn More:
ESO – World’s darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject
UT – The ESO Releases the Most Detailed Infrared Map of our Galaxy Ever Made
UT – Existing Telescopes Could Directly Observe ‘ExoEarths…’ with a Few Tweaks
UT – The Paranal and the Shadow of the Earth

Lead Image:
Touching the Arc of Space – taken at the Paranal Observatory.
Credit – ESO / P. Horálek

The post A New Industrial Megaproject Threatens the View of the World’s Best Observatories appeared first on Universe Today.

A research team found a key indicator for the chemical activity of acoustic microbubbles and a correlation between the temperature of a liquid and that of the microbubbles generated.

Alloying, the art of blending metals with other elements, has long been a cornerstone of materials science and metallurgy, creating materials with tailored properties. In contrast, dealloying has been known primarily as a corrosive process that degrades materials over time by selectively removing elements, weakening their structure. Now, researchers have turned these two seemingly counteracting processes into an innovative harmonic synthesis concept.

Researchers have created a dataset of the whole atmosphere, enabling new research to be conducted on previously difficult-to-study regions. Using a new data-assimilation system called JAGUAR-DAS, which combines numerical modeling with observational data, the team created a nearly 20-yearlong set of data spanning multiple levels of the atmosphere from ground level up to the lower edges of space. Being able to study the interactions of these layers vertically and around the globe could improve climate modeling and seasonal weather forecasting. There is also potential for interdisciplinary research between atmospheric scientists and space scientists, to investigate the interplay between space and our atmosphere and how it affects us on Earth.

Researchers have developed a new process that uses microwave flow reaction and recyclable solid catalysts to efficiently hydrolyze polysaccharides into simple sugars. The developed device utilizes a continuous-flow hydrolysis process, where cellobiose is passed through a sulfonated carbon catalyst that is heated using microwaves, resulting in the efficient conversion of cellobiose to glucose.

Researchers have demonstrated that the direction of the spin-polarized current can be restricted to only one direction in a single-atom layer of a thallium-lead alloys when irradiated at room temperature. The discovery defies conventions: single-atom layers have been thought to be almost completely transparent, in other words, negligibly absorbing or interacting with light. The one-directional flow of the current observed in this study makes possible functionality beyond ordinary diodes, paving the way for more environmentally friendly data storage, ultra-fine two-dimensional spintronic devices, in the future.

Researchers have demonstrated that the direction of the spin-polarized current can be restricted to only one direction in a single-atom layer of a thallium-lead alloys when irradiated at room temperature. The discovery defies conventions: single-atom layers have been thought to be almost completely transparent, in other words, negligibly absorbing or interacting with light. The one-directional flow of the current observed in this study makes possible functionality beyond ordinary diodes, paving the way for more environmentally friendly data storage, ultra-fine two-dimensional spintronic devices, in the future.

Cordierite, the material behind heat-resistant pizza stones, has been shown to resist changes in size despite significant temperature fluctuations. The reasons for this have been largely unexplained until now. New findings have profound implications for the design and development of advanced materials.

Comet C/2024 G3 (ATLAS) should be visible from the southern hemisphere, and possibly also the northern hemisphere, over the next few days

As the article by Matt Taibbi below notes, Mark Zuckerberg is moving his Meta platform–notably Facebook and Instagram–away from censorship and more towards free speech (click the link to read):

The video in this post has vanished from YouTube, but I found it on Facebook and put it below.  Do watch it.

Taibbi quotes a bit of it:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a video promising a shift toward free speech:

The US has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world. Europe has an ever increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there. Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down. China has censored our apps from even working in the country. The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years, when even the US government has pushed for censorship by going after us and other American companies.

The NYT adds a bit more:

Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.

. . . Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.

Now there is still an opportunity for counterspeech; fact-checkers will be replaced with “Community Notes,” similar to those used on X. There will be a policy to reduce “mistakes”, tackling “illegal and high severity violations” that are reported by others. People, rather than filters, will look for these violations and remove the ones deemed “not free speech.”

As I’ve said before, I would prefer large social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) to adhere as strongly as possible to the First Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment, of course, has carve-outs: truly prohibited speech. This includes defamation, harassment, false advertising, child pornography, obscenity, and speech liable to incite predictable and lawless violence.

So long as Facebook and X adhere to this policy, I think it’s a step in the right direction. The “Community Notes” will allow the counter-speech that advocates of free speech see as essential to promote the clash of ideas that, according to John Stuart Mill, will promote the emergence of truth. So I think this is a good step, regardless of what you think of Zuckerberg (or Elon Musk, who is running X this way).

I will be at meetings all day today, so I ask readers to discuss this new policy of Zuckerberg (and Musk).  Yes, I know people say that Musk and Zuckerberg are pandering to Trump,  and perhaps that is one motivation, but I do not want readers to concentrate on the people involved, but on the speech policy itself.

Please discuss below.  Do you think places like Facebook and X should prohibit speech that is actually allowed by the First Amendment? If so, which speech?

Or you can discuss Trump’s sentencing as a felon:

After months of delay, President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday became the first American president to be criminally sentenced.

He avoided jail or any other substantive punishment, but the proceeding carried symbolic importance: It formalized Mr. Trump’s status as a felon, making him the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency.

“Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances,” said the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan. “This has been truly an extraordinary case.”

The judge then imposed a so-called unconditional discharge of Mr. Trump’s sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to jail or probation. Explaining the leniency, Justice Merchan acknowledged Mr. Trump’s inauguration 10 days hence.

“Donald Trump the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant” would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency, Justice Merchan asserted, explaining that only the office shields him from the verdict’s gravity.

The judge then wished Mr. Trump “godspeed” and departed the bench.

A more detailed understanding of the natural anti-insect protections of tomato plants can lead to better pest-management strategies

Insulin-producing cells injected into a man with type 1 diabetes have survived for a month so far without the need for immune suppression

When it comes to the weak nuclear force and why it is weak, there’s a strange story which floats around. It starts with a true but somewhat misleading statement:

• The weak nuclear force (which is weak because its effects only extend over a short range) has its short range because the particles which mediate the force, the W and Z bosons, have mass [specifically, they have “rest mass”.] This is in contrast to electromagnetic forces which can reach out over great distances; that’s because photons, the particles of light which mediate that force, have no rest mass.

This is misleading because fields mediate forces, not particles; it’s the W and Z fields that are the mediators for the weak nuclear force, just as the electromagnetic field is the mediator for the electromagnetic force. (When people speak of forces as due to exchange of “virtual particles” — which aren’t particles — they’re using fancy math language for a simple idea from first-year undergraduate physics.)

Then things get worse, because it is stated that

• The connection between the W and Z bosons’ rest mass and the short range of the weak nuclear force is that
  • the force is created by the exchange of virtual W and Z bosons, and
  • due to the quantum uncertainty principle, these virtual particles with mass can’t live as long and/or travel as far as virtual photons can, shortening their range.

This is completely off-base. In fact, quantum physics plays no role in why the weak nuclear force is weak and short-range. (It plays a big role in why the strong nuclear force is strong and short-range, but that’s a tale for another day.)

I’ve explained the real story in a new webpage that I’ve added to my site; it has a non-technical explanation, and then some first-year college math for those who want to see it. It’s gotten some preliminary comments that have helped me improve it, but I’m sure it could be even better, and I’d be happy to get your comments, suggestions, questions and critiques if you have any.

[P.S. — if you try but are unable to leave a comment on that page, please leave one here and tell me what went wrong; and if you try but are unable to leave a comment here too for some reason, please send me a message to let me know.]

The herbicide glyphosate is helping farmers adopt more environmentally friendly practices, and resistant weeds will make this transition more difficult, experts say

One of the things I have come to understand from following technology news for decades is that perhaps the most important breakthroughs, and often the least appreciated, are those in material science. We can get better at engineering and making stuff out of the materials we have, but new materials with superior properties change the game. They make new stuff possible and feasible. There are many futuristic technologies that are simply not possible, just waiting on the back burning for enough breakthroughs in material science to make them feasible. Recently, for example, I wrote about fusion reactors. Is the addition of high temperature superconducting material sufficient to get us over the finish line of commercial fusion, or are more material breakthroughs required?

One area where material properties are becoming a limiting factor is electronics, and specifically computer technology. As we make smaller and smaller computer chips, we are running into the limits of materials like copper to efficiently conduct electrons.  Further advance is therefore not just about better technology, but better materials. Also, the potential gain is not just about making computers smaller. It is also about making them more energy efficient by reducing losses to heat when processors work. Efficiency is arguably now a more important factor, as we are straining our energy grids with new data centers to run all those AI and cryptocurrency programs.

This is why a new study detailing a new nanoconducting material is actually more exciting than it might at first sound. Here is the editor’s summary:

Noncrystalline semimetal niobium phosphide has greater surface conductance as nanometer-scale films than the bulk material and could enable applications in nanoscale electronics. Khan et al. grew noncrystalline thin films of niobium phosphide—a material that is a topological semimetal as a crystalline material—as nanocrystals in an amorphous matrix. For films with 1.5-nanometer thickness, this material was more than twice as conductive as copper. —Phil Szuromi

Greater conductance at nanoscale means we can make smaller transistors. The study also claims that this material has lower resistance, which means more efficient – less waste heat. They also claim that manufacturing is similar to existing transistors at similar temperatures, so it’s feasible to mass produce (at least it seems like it should be). But what about niobium? Another lesson I have learned from examining technology news is to look for weaknesses in any new technology, including the necessary raw material. I see lots of battery and electronic news, for example, that uses platinum, which means it’s not going to be economical.

Niobium is considered a rare metal, and is therefore relatively expensive, about $45 per kilogram. (By comparison copper goes for $9.45 per kg.) Most of the world’s niobium is sourced in Brazil (so at least it’s not a hostile or unstable country). It is not considered a “precious” metal like gold or platinum, so that is a plus. About 90% of niobium is currently used as a steel alloy, to make steel stronger and tougher. If we start producing advanced computer chips using niobium what would that do to world demand? How will that affect the price of niobium? By definition we are talking about tiny amounts of niobium per chip, the wires are only a few molecules thick, but the world produces a lot of computer chips.

How all this will sort out is unclear, and the researchers don’t get into that kind of analysis. They basically are concerned with the material science and proving their concept works. This is often where the disconnect is between exciting-sounding technology news and ultimate real-world applications. Much of the stuff we read about never comes to fruition, because it simply cannot work at scale or is too expensive. Some breakthroughs do work, but we don’t see the results in the marketplace for 10-20 years, because that is how long it took to go from the lab to the factory. I have been doing this long enough now that I am seeing the results of lab breakthroughs I first reported on 20 years ago.

Even if a specific demonstration is not translatable into mass production, however, material scientists still learn from it. Each new discovery increases our knowledge of how materials work and how to engineer their properties. So even when the specific breakthrough may not translate, it may lead to other spin-offs which do. This is why such a proof-of-concept is exciting – it shows us what is possible and potential pathways to get there. Even if that specific material may not ultimately be practical, it still is a stepping stone to getting there.

What this means is that I have learned to be patient, to ignore the hype, but not dismiss science entirely. Everything is incremental. It all adds up and slowly churns out small advances that compound over time. Don’t worry about each individual breakthrough – track the overall progress over time. From 2000 to today, lithium-ion batteries have about tripled their energy capacity, for example, while solar panels have doubled their energy production efficiency. This was due to no one breakthrough, just the cumulative effects of hundreds of experiments. I still like to read about individual studies, but it’s important to put them into context.

The post New Material for Nanoconductors first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.