Posts Tagged ‘science’

Biologists reveal why mosquito repellent DEET is doomed to fail [Bug Overlords]

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Biologists reveal why mosquito repellent DEET is doomed to fail Everyone's favorite mosquito repellent, DEET, works by making a smell that mosquitoes can't stand, or by blocking their ability to smell humans, depending on who you ask. But even the greatest repellents won't stop all mosquitoes. New evidence suggests why.

It turns out that the Anopheles gambiae have a second family of olfactory sensors, previously unknown, which sniff out and activate due to completely different smells than the ones we already knew about. This could help explain why it's so hard to develop efficient repellents, and maybe help stop the spread of diseases from the insects.

Research published in the Public Library of Science, Biology

Charles Darwin performed the world’s first terraforming experiment [Mad Science]

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Charles Darwin performed the world's first terraforming experimentNearly two centuries ago, famed scientists Charles Darwin and Joseph Hooker transformed the barren volcanic island of Ascension into a lush artificial ecosystem, unwittingly inventing terraforming. Now, Darwin's incredible achievement could help us transform Mars into a livable environment.

Darwin and Hooker, with the assistance of the Royal Navy, managed to create a functional ecosystem in decades, rather than the million of years it would have taken for such a system to develop naturally. Although much of Ascension remains arid, they were able to plant enough trees to capture rainwater without it all evaporating away, creating a self-sustaining ecosystem that made life a whole lot easier for its inhabitants.

Dr. Dave Wilkinson, an ecologist at Liverpool John Moores University, explains why he found the Ascension ecosystem so strange when he first visited in 2003, and why it's important:

"I remember thinking, this is really weird. There were all kinds of plants that don't belong together in nature, growing side by side. I only later found out about Darwin, Hooker and everything that had happened. What it tells us is that we can build a fully functioning ecosystem through a series of chance accidents or trial and error."

Wilkinson believes these principles could be adapted to colonization efforts on Mars, although he notes scientists have yet to seriously consider the lessons Darwin's work on Ascension could teach us. For more on this remarkable story, check out the full article at BBC News

[BBC News; thanks to Mathmos for the tip!]

The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call [Mad Science]

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call The lovely scent of cut grass is the reek of plant anguish: When attacked, plants release airborne chemical compounds. Now scientists say plants can use these compounds almost like language, notifying nearby creatures who can "rescue" them from insect attacks.

A group of German scientists studying a wild tobacco plant noticed that the compounds it released - called green leaf volatiles or GLVs - were very specific. When the plants were infested by caterpillars, the plants released a distress GLV that attracted predatory bugs who like to eat the caterpillars in question.

According to Science, where the researchers published their study today:

They found that when these plants are attacked by tobacco hornworm caterpillars, Manduca sexta, the caterpillars' saliva causes a chemical change in the GLV compounds the plants had produced. These modified compounds then attract predatory "true bugs," Geocoris, which prey on hornworm eggs and young larvae. Although more research will be needed to figure out exactly how the molecules in the caterpillar saliva cause this change in the GLVs, it's clear that the caterpillars themselves cause the change in the GLV signal, the researchers say. It may thus be possible someday to induce the same sort of change via genetic engineering, which might protect plants against pests without encouraging the resistance that pests develop in response to pesticides.

Below you can see Geocoris attacking a newly-hatched larva, after responding to the tobacco plant's GLV signal.

The smell of freshly-cut grass is actually a plant distress call

I think what's most interesting about this study is the way it suggests that plants have a rudimentary form of language based on releasing these chemical compounds. These tobacco plants have the ability to modulate the signals they send out, depending on the kind of attack they're suffering. Combine this discovery with the one a few weeks ago, that plants are able to perform simple computations, and it's clear that the average person underestimates how much plants are dynamically engaged with their environments. It's interesting to imagine plants as having truly alien forms of consciousness and communication - different from animals' minds, but sometimes performing similar tasks.

via Science

"Dry water" could be the next storage medium for dangerous chemicals [Mad Science]

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

"Dry water" could be the next storage medium for dangerous chemicals
Despite the oxymoronic name, 'dry water' is very real. This bone-dry water-silica compound could provide a way to transport dangerous liquids and gases safely - inside trillions of water-drop sized packages.

'Dry water' is comprised of 95% water, with a thin layer of silica coating each droplet, essentially turning it into a dry powder. When it's mixed with certain liquids or gasses, they combine with the water - which then traps them in a silica cage. Hence, they become non-reactive, and are easily transported without worrying about accidental detonation and the like.

'Dry water' was first discovered in the late 60s, and was immediately snatched up by cosmetic companies, eager to make use of its unique properties. It resurfaced in 2006, and researchers at the University of Liverpool have been working on new applications for the hydrate.

This substance gleefully combines with both liquids and gasses - and this feature makes it very useful. The primary application would be carbon dioxide sequestering. The 'dry water' can absorb three times the mass of CO2 as its constituent ingredients could.

The research also indicates the substance could be used a number of other ways: for storing and transporting methane (from natural deposits, or as fuel); as a way of speeding up the reaction between hydrogen gas and maleic acid to produce succinic acid, which is used to make drugs, food ingredients, and consumer products; or, to aid in transporting emulsions.

What about getting the stored materials out again, once they've been sequestered? Dr. Ben Carter, a researcher on the product, says it's quite straightforward to separate:

A dry liquid (either pure water or a solution of something dissolved in water) can be separated back to liquid + silica by either of two methods. You can centrifuge it at high speed to force the two apart, or you can add an alcoholic solvent like methanol or ethanol. This reduces the water surface tension as the alcohol penetrates the water droplets, causing the dry liquid to fall apart.

If you've stored a gas in DW as a gas hydrate, all you have to do to release it is warm up the material to melt the hydrate (hydrates normally form at 0 degrees C under pressure, and can be stored at -20 degrees C without the need to be kept under further pressure).

The dry water itself is easy enough to manufacture. The hydrophobic silica and water are blended together at 19,000 rpm for 90 seconds, which coats the water droplets completely.

SOURCES

Video of the presentation the researchers gave today to the American Chemical Society:

Pausing a Stir - heterogeneous catalysis in dry water

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry [Mad Science]

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistryThe Sun is changing the supposedly constant rates of decay of radioactive elements, and we have absolutely no idea why. But an entirely unknown particle could be behind it. Plus, this discovery could help us predict deadly solar flares.

It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways.

A team at Purdue University needed to generate a string of random numbers, a surprisingly tricky task that is complicated by the fact that whatever method you use to generate the numbers will have some influence on them. Physics professor Ephraim Fischbach decided to use the decay of radioactive isotopes as a source of randomness. Although the overall decay is a known constant, the individual atoms would decay in unpredictable ways, providing a random pattern.

That's when they discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry. Intrigued, they checked out long range observations of silicon-32 and radium-226 decay, both of which showed a slight but definite variation over time. Intriguingly, the decay seemed to vary with the seasons, with the rate a little faster in the winter and a little slower in the summer.

At first, the researchers tried to rationalize the seasonal fluctuations as the result of instrument error, perhaps caused by changing heat and humidity. But that idea fell apart when nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed the decay rate of the short-lived isotope manganese-54 dropped slightly during a solar flare. In fact, the decrease began a good 36 hours before the flare occurred.

That suggests two things: one that's theoretically puzzling, and another that's hugely exciting from a practical perspective. If decay rates really are affected by solar flares before the flares even occur, that could provide the first truly reliable early warning system for flares. Considering severe solar flares can wreak havoc on electrical grids and even kill astronauts who aren't properly protected, that would be a huge benefit for humanity.

But practical pluses aside, why is this happening? The seasonal fluctuations suggested the Sun could be involved somehow, and the solar flare connection confirmed it. The scientists speculated that solar neutrinos, the nearly massless particles created as byproducts of the sun's fusing of hydrogen atoms into helium, might be causing these variations. The fact that these neutrinos pass straight through the Earth with ease fit well with the fact that the decay rates were changing even at night, when the entire planet was between the radioactive isotopes and the Sun.

Once the researchers conclusively ruled out environmental influences, that left the Sun as the only possible cause of the decay variations. They also found that the amount of change varied in time with the Earth's orbit - the effect was greater when the orbit brought the Earth closer to the Sun and thus into contact with more neutrinos.

That's where renowned Stanford physics professor Peter Sturrock entered the picture. Confronted with this mystery, he advised the researchers to test how the decay fluctuations correlated with the Sun's own rotation. They found the decay rates recurred every 33 days, which didn't quite fit with the Sun's known surface rotation length of 28 days. But the neutrinos wouldn't be coming from the surface - they would be coming from deep inside the core. Unlikely as it might seem, the sun's core must be rotating a little slower than its surface, apparently once every 33 days.

All of this relies on some unlikely assumptions and the occasional bold intuitive leap, but the model they propose seems to hang together. And yet one mystery remains - how are the neutrinos managing to interact with the radioactive particles in this way? It doesn't fit with the known behavior of neutrinos, and it opens up the very real possibility that some previously unknown subatomic particle is actually behind this bizarre effect.

As Peter Sturrock explains:

"It's an effect that no one yet understands. Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too. [If it's not neutrinos,] it would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable."

If these new discoveries hold up, then we've discovered that the sun changes rates radioactive decay, that we can predict solar flares before they happen, that the sun's core rotates slower than its surface, and maybe even that an entirely unknown particle exists and is affecting our world in a tangible way. Not a bad set of results for what was supposed to be a simple search for some random numbers.

[Symmetry Breaking]

Is evolution pushing our DNA towards diabetes? [Evolution]

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Is evolution pushing our DNA towards diabetes?Eighty DNA variants associated with type-1 diabetes have undergone positive selection, increasing in prevalence over recent generations. Here's the crazy part - 58 of those variantsincrease the risk of the deadly disease. Why is evolution seemingly out to get us?

The answer, of course, is that evolution can't be out to get us - by definition, positive selection of genes and traits works to maximize our species's chance of survival. So something about those particular DNA combinations that increase the risk of type-1 diabetes must also be conferring some positive benefit that outweighs the dangers of diabetes.

Of course, it would have to be a pretty big benefit. Type-1 diabetes, also known as juvenile diabetes, primarily affects children by causing a potentially lethal shortage of insulin in their bodies. The fact that it affects people who haven't yet reached reproductive age is crucial - natural selection should pretty much always select against diseases that can kill people before they get a chance to pass on their genes. (On the other hand, there wouldn't be nearly as much evolutionary pressure on the more common type-2 diabetes, which mostly affects post-reproductive adults.)

Lead researcher Atul Butte, a biologist at Stanford medical school, explains the conundrum:

"At first we were completely shocked because, without insulin treatment, type-1 diabetes will kill you as a child. Everything we've been taught about evolution would indicate that we should be evolving away from developing it. But instead, we've been evolving toward it. Why would we have a genetic variant that predisposes us to a deadly condition?"

The best answer is that the genetic variants that increase the diabetes risk are also decreasing the risk of certain viral or bacterial infection. That would have made particular sense in a past where infectious diseases ran rampant, and the risks of dying young from these mostly untreatable illnesses far outstripped the dangers of diabetes. It's not yet clear whether the same mutated genes that increase the diabetes risk also provide this protection, or if it's neighboring genes whose allocation from generation to generation is intertwined with the diabetes gene.

Maybe the best example of this genetic phenomenon is seen with the disease sickle cell anemia. A particular recessive gene causes the painful, potentially deadly disease if both parents pass it along to their offspring. It's the sort of trait that natural selection would have weeded out if not for the fact that people with only a single copy of the gene have increased protection against malaria. As such, the sickle cell gene is a net positive, because more people are protected from malaria than become sickle cell patients. (Although that evolutionary balance might shift if we ever managed to wipe out malaria.)

The diabetes question is more complex than the sickle-cell anemia case because it's not limited to the mutation of a single gene. Complex diseases like diabetes are tied to a number of DNA variants, or locations where the nucleotide combinations vary between different people. These variants are known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs for short. You can calculate a person's susceptibility to a particular disease by figuring out the net effect of his or her variants, which will likely be a mix of beneficial, malicious, and neutral.

Genome studies have revealed several hundred variants that can play a role in diabetes, so it's supremely complicated to figure out the precise interplay of all these different strands of DNA. Still, the raw numbers are striking - of the 80 DNA variants that have increased in prevalence, only 22 increase protection while 58 cause greater risk of developing the disorder.

There are some possible candidates for the diseases these variants are protecting against. For instance, the gene IFIH1 has been found to increase diabetes risk while also protecting against enterovirus infection, which can cause severe, possibly lethal, abdominal pains. Another disease the researchers found had a majority of increasing risk factors, rheumatoid arthritis, has had its less protective gene variants linked to a sharp decrease in tuberculosis risk.

Still, the picture is far from complete, and Butte and his team are going to keep testing more and more SNPs until they can figure out why natural selection keeps favoring a greater risk of diabetes over the alternative. Until then, Butte says it's a mystery with only the sketchiest answers available:

"It's possible that, in areas of the world where associated triggers for some of these complex conditions are lacking, carriers would experience only the protective effect against some types of infectious disease. Even though we've been finding more and more genetic contributions to disease risk, that's not really an appealing answer. There have got to be some other reasons why we have these conditions."

[PLoS ONE]

Lasers Approach Their Ultimate Intensity Limit

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

(reprinted from: Slashdot)

Flash Modin writes "Death Star style superlasers? Don't bet on it. High-power lasers currently in development appear to be nearing the theoretical laser intensity limit, according to new research set to be published in the journal Physical Review Letters. Ultra-high-energy laser fields can actually convert their light into matter as shown in the late '90s at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). This process creates an 'avalanche-like electromagnetic cascade' (also known as sparking the vacuum) capable of destroying a laser field. Physicists thought it might be a problem for lasers eventually, but this work indicates the technology is much closer to its limit than researchers believed. A preprint is available here."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

University of Calgary succeeds in building a neurochip out of silicon, human brain cells

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

(reprinted from: Engadget)

Scientists at the University of Calgary have teamed up with the National Research Council Canada to put a network of human brain cells on a microchip -- in effect creating a (tiny) brain on a chip. Until now, when scientists wanted to monitor brain cells, they could only monitor one or two simultaneously, but with this new neurochip, large groups of cells can be placed on the chip and observed in detail, as they go about their business "networking and performing automatic, large-scale drug screening for various brain dysfunctions," according to PhysOrg. But that's just the beginning! This sort of advance could someday lead to neurochip implants for driving artificial limbs, treatments for strokes and brain trauma, and more. The Globe and Mail even mentions the possibility that living neurons could be combined with silicon circuits to create an "organic computer." From that point it's only a matter of time before you're jacking into cyberspace with your Dixie Flatline ROM.

University of Calgary succeeds in building a neurochip out of silicon, human brain cells originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:43:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  sourcePhysOrg  | Email this | Comments

Why golf balls have dimples [Mad Science]

Monday, August 9th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Why golf balls have dimplesYou'd think a totally smooth surface would be better at flying through the air with the least amount of wind resistance. So why do golf balls have all those little indentations? So they can use the air against itself.

Ah, golf, the thing you watch when nothing else is on and you're not energetic enough to get off the couch. Since putting is never interesting unless the golfers are trying to time it so they don't get their balls knocked aside by a windmill, and the audience isn't privy to the whispers about which kind of club the golfer will use, the whole draw of the sport is pretty much seeing a clean white ball flying through the vast blue sky.

So it's no wonder that golfers will do everything they can to make the ball go farther. Once upon a time, the only balls that went far were the ones that weren't so white. Golfers noticed that battered balls went farther than new, smooth ones, and the balls were modified accordingly, if bemusedly.

It doesn't make sense. Air generally moves smoothly over smooth surfaces. A smooth ball should fly easily, the air parting and rushing past it without any turbulence.

A rough surface doesn't make for easy airflow. Air dips into crevasses and is stopped short. It eddies and whirls. It creates turbulence, which sucks the ball one way and pushes it another, making it erratic and slow. After all, you don't see any pits being put into the wings of airplanes to make them fly faster.

You do see airplane wings tapering off, though, and that makes all the difference. The wing tapers off behind, providing air a smoother path to move over. And of course a wing keeps a flat underside, for that all-important lift. The ball doesn't do the same. As a smooth ball moves through the air, it clears a path of air behind it as wide as it is, and then it abruptly drops away. This leaves a wide wake and this wake can do many unpleasant things a ball in flight. It can create pockets of low air pressure, or extremely fast-moving, swirling vortices. Both ‘suck' the ball backwards, draining its momentum.

Rougher balls, on the other hand, create their own turbulence right off the bat. The dimples and bumps create their own little pockets of suction, and their own small breezes that push at the ball. Both of these things keep a layer of air in contact with the ball. Specifically, they keep that layer in contact with the side of the ball that trails behind. This creates a sort of glove of air around the ball and makes for a much smaller wake. That smaller wake pulls the ball back less, and lets it fly farther.

Why golf balls have dimples

This is counter-intuitive, but far less counter-intuitive than the sport of golf allowing the ball to be modified in the first place. For a game that goes to literally great lengths to make every aspect as challenging as possible, modifying the ball seems like cheating. I wonder how golfers were convinced to do it. I wonder if we can convince them to add rocket packs to the balls, next.

Via LiveScience and HowStuffWorks.

String theory and black holes show a possible path to practical superconductors [Mad Physics]

Friday, August 6th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

String theory and black holes show a possible path to practical superconductorsA leading candidate for room temperature superconductors is the copper compound cuprate, but no one knew how cuprates facilitated superconductivity...until some brave souls looked inside a black hole and broke out the string theory to explain how they work.

Superconductors that can transmit massive amounts of electricity with zero resistance at room temperature are pretty much the holy grail of applied physics (with good reason), but we're still a long way away from actually building one. Indeed, even figuring out the theoretical underpinnings of a room temperature superconductor has proven tremendously difficult, although a team of MIT physicists may have found an unlikely - and brilliant - way to learn more about how they would work. But first, a little backstory.

Currently, there are two types of superconductors. One group is the low temperature superconductors, which can only work at temperatures near absolute zero and thus require gigantically impractical amounts of coolants. The other set is the high temperature superconductors, which still have to be kept more than a hundred degrees Celsius below zero. They require slightly less impractical but still pretty damn impractical amounts of coolants (that's a technical term). Researchers focus on the second set to see if they can boost the working temperature another hundred or so degrees.

Cuprates are compounds that include copper anions, or copper atoms with more electrons than protons and, as a result, a negative charge. The physicists Georg Bednorz and Karl Müller discovered a cuprate compound, specifically lanthanum barium copper oxide, was a superconductor at the relatively high temperature of 135 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. They won a Nobel Prize for their efforts, and a bunch of other cuprate compounds have since been discovered that also have superconductivity properties.

String theory and black holes show a possible path to practical superconductors

Although we know a lot about what cuprates do, physicists have struggled to explain how they do it. Cuprates are what's called a "many-body system", which basically means they're made up of huge groups of electrons that interact with each other in ways that are difficult to model mathematically. Quantum mechanics can usually help with many-body systems, but cuprates behave so differently than other such systems that little headway has been made in understanding their workings. That's kind of a problem, because physicists are fairly sure it's precisely that peculiar behavior that gives cuprates their superconductivity, and understanding it might allow us to move towards superconductors at much higher temperatures.

Part of the problem is that cuprates don't follow Fermi's laws, a subset of quantum mechanics that describe the actions of most - but apparently not all - microscopic objects at temperatures near absolute zero. In regular Fermi liquids, electrical resistivity is proportional to the temperature squared, while in materials like cuprates - known as strange metals - the resistivity is proportional to just the temperature. That exponential reduction in resistance is the key to superconductivity. But physicists have absolutely no idea how to explain that fact on a theoretical level.

Here's where the MIT physicists and their offbeat ideas enter the picture. They figured out there was another system that shared the same properties as these superconducting strange metals, and best of all this system could be explained using gravitational mechanics and relativity instead of quantum mechanics. That system is a black hole. At low energy levels, the black hole model is a good match for the traits and behaviors that cuprates exhibit. Most importantly, electrical resistance in a black hole is directly proportional to temperature, not the temperature squared, which is the crucial match for superconducting cuprates.

None of these revelations would be particularly useful if it wasn't possible to correlate the features of the black hole model with those of the strange metals, and that's a tricky task because black holes are described by relativistic features while the cuprates are governed by quantum mechanics. String theory solves that problem, providing a bridge between quantum and gravitational mechanics called gauge/gravity duality.

The physicists simply used general relativity to figure out various key values of the black hole model, then used the duality to translate them to the quantum world of the strange metals. At that point, it was just a matter of connecting the right values, such as the fact that the strength of the electromagnetic field in the black hole corresponds to electron density in the cuprates.

These connections represent a theoretical breakthrough in the study of high temperature superconductors, and will hopefully illuminate a path towards the really high temperature superconductors that would work at room temperature. If nothing else, this represents the first time the gauge/gravity duality has been used to describe anything that existed after the very, very beginning of the universe, and the physicists hope to apply the duality to other modern forms of matter.

[Science]

Electrons viewed in real time for the first time ever [Mad Science]

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Electrons viewed in real time for the first time everIn an unprecedented achievement, physicists have managed to directly observe electrons moving about the outer orbit of an atom. It's all thanks to some nifty quantum trickery and a machine that measures time in quintillionths of a second.

The actual process used by the scientists, called attosecond absorption spectroscopy, is about as fiendishly complicated as its name, so let's take this slowly. They started by taking some atoms of krypton, one of the nobles gases. They then ionized the atoms using a near-infrared laser pulse. This pulse operated in cycles of a few femtoseconds each. A femtosecond is 10^-15 second, or a quadrillionth of a second. This ionization pulse caused anywhere from one to three of the eight electrons in the krypton's outermost shell to leave the atom, leaving an empty space in this furthest valence.

Next, it was time for the attosecond pulse. An attosecond is a thousandth of a femtosecond, which is also 10^-18 second (not to mention a quintillionth of a second, just so all our bases are covered). They sent an extreme-ultraviolet attosecond pulse on the same path as that of the earlier, femtosecond pulse. And this is where the physicists were able to directly observe electrons at work in the wake of ionization.

The attosecond pulse excited one or more of the electrons in the next energy orbital beneath the outermost shell, causing them to jump to the outer orbital and fill the gap created by the departed electrons. At that point, the electron starts "flopping" between the two orbits, creating complementary interference patterns that essentially merge into one, thanks to the quantum concept of coherence.

It's that short-lived electron coherence that the attosecond pulses are able to measure, giving the physicists a direct measurement of the changing levels of coherence between the electron's two quantum states. The graph below shows how the coherence dipped and peaked over the tiny fractions of a second. Each black dot represents a direct moment of electron observation.

Electrons viewed in real time for the first time ever

This is one of the first direct applications of attosecond pulses, but according to Berkeley researcher Stephen Leone, this is just the tip of the iceberg for what the technology can do:

"his revealed details of a type of electronic motion – coherent superposition – that can control properties in many systems. The method developed by our team for exploring coherent dynamics has never before been available to researchers. It's truly general and can be applied to attosecond electronic dynamics problems in the physics and chemistry of liquids, solids, biological systems, everything.

[via UC Berkeley]

The Disappearing Spoon

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

(reprinted from: Boing Boing)

 Wp-Content Uploads 2010 07 The-Disappearing-Spoon The title for Sam Kean's new book, The Disappearing Spoon: And Other True Tales of Madness, Love, and the History of the World from the Periodic Table of the Elements, comes from a prank that scientists sometimes play: they make a spoon out of gallium (which melts at 84 degrees Fahrenheit) and hand it to unsuspecting friends to stir their tea with.

The title sets the tone for this witty, anecdote-filled book about the role elements have played in science, art, war, commerce, medicine, literature, and other fields. An element I'd never heard of before, ruthenium, was the key to riches for Kenneth Parker, who used it to make fountain pen tips in 1944. A more well-known element, silver, plays a role in the fate of Stan Jones (I posted about him in 2002), Montana's Libertarian candidate for Senator in 2002. Jones drank a homebrew concoction of colloidal silver to prevent bacterial infection (he was afraid that conventional antibiotics wouldn't be available in the new millennium) and it stained his skin blue for good (the condition is called argyria and I wrote abut it in my book, The World's Worst, which you can buy for $0.01 on Amazon). Cadmium is both a hero and a villain: a hero for being a part of vibrant pigments (I love my cadmium red and cadmium yellow acrylic paints), and a villain for sickening a great many people in the 1940s who drank out of drinking glasses lined with cadmium.

The disappearing spoon is my favorite kind of science journalism: it reveals a hidden universe in the form of a thrilling tale.

Buy The Disappearing Spoon on Amazon



Ask a Physicist: How long does it take for you to fall into a black hole? [Ask A Physicist]

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Ask a Physicist: How long does it take for you to fall into a black hole? In this week's "Ask a Physicist," we tackle a general relativistic paradox: If time slows down near the event horizon of a black hole, how does anything ever fall in?

I've been enjoying reading all of your questions to "Ask a Physicist." As an added twist in the coming weeks, I'd be interested in hearing any questions you have about physics and cosmology in the news, especially those along the lines of, "Is this real, or just bullshit?" As always, please send your queries to askaphysicist@io9.com

Today's question comes to us from David Sirola who asks:

If a black hole warps space-time to such a degree to slow and stop time, how can anything ever disappear past the event horizon (or whatever point t=0)? It would seem to me in my superficial understanding, that ultimately, after all the fun at the outer edges of the hole, that nothing ever really happens, since happens implies a time/cause/effect relationship.

What am I missing here?

Let's get one thing out of the way from the outset: Black holes are awesome. They are the only major disturbance of space-time which have the advantage of actually being known to exist. Almost every large galaxy, including our own, seems to have a supermassive black hole at the center.

And black holes are ridiculously simple objects — or at least the non-rotating ones are, which are the only ones I'm going to talk about here. They basically consist of an infinitely compact "singularity" at the center and an outer boundary known as an "event horizon" from which nothing can escape (and here's where I'm supposed to use an ominously spooky voice) not even light. These guys are tiny, astronomically speaking. Were our sun to become a black hole, it would be smaller in radius than the city of Philadelphia. Even the 3 million solar mass black hole at the center of the Milky Way could comfortably fit inside the orbit of Mercury.

Ask a Physicist: How long does it take for you to fall into a black hole?

Okay, you probably knew all of that. I still need to dispel a few myths before we get into the hardcore space-warping.

  1. Black holes don't suck.

    Suppose the sun were to suddenly turn into a black hole. Would you notice? Sure you would. The sun would blink out of existence and you'd quickly freeze to death. But in your dying moments, you'd no doubt be struck by the fact that J.J. Abrams lied to you. Rather than get pulled into the black-hole sun, the earth would just keep orbiting that seemingly empty point in the sky, exactly as it always had. Only icier.

  2. You can't actually see them.

    Black holes are called that because they don't give off any light. I don't want to get into a nerd-fight here, partly because my mom says I'm not allowed, but mostly because things will go more smoothly if I anticipate a few objections. Somebody is likely to point out that we do, indeed, "see" black holes in the form of quasars in other galaxies. But this isn't quite right. What you're really seeing is hot, glowing gas falling onto the black hole or even larger glowing gas clouds surrounding the whole shebang. And by the way, with the exception of giant radio jets, we can't even generally resolve these clouds. When you see detailed accretion disks in news stories about black holes, that's somebody using MS Paint or whatever they use these days to make artist's conceptions.

    Let me further anticipate a black-belt level nerd who might introduce an even better possibility: Hawking Radiation. This is one of the coolest ideas in astrophysics, and one that most physicists believe, even though we've never observed it. Near the event horizon of black holes, particles and antiparticles are constantly being created in pairs. Every now and again, one of the particles escapes and creates some radiation (and takes with it some of the mass-energy of the black hole). But here's the deal: Hawking radiation is far too dim, and far too long of wavelength to ever be seen directly.

Ask a Physicist: How long does it take for you to fall into a black hole?

Now that we've got the lay of the land, we can get into the question of what's so special about the event horizon.

One of the major predictions of general relativity is that time runs slower near massive bodies than far away. On earth, we don't notice this effect, since the effect is only about 1 part in a billion. However, if you were of a stout enough constitution (we're talking, like 18+2, or something like that) you could hang out on a neutron star where the effect is more like 20% or more. Hang out for a few years, and even more time will have passed far away. What you've done here is built a (pretty crappy) time machine into the future. Also, this would be a one-way trip.

Black holes do it one better, and at the event horizon the time distortion effect literally becomes infinite. There's the paradox. If time slows down infinitely near the surface, presumably it takes stuff longer and longer to get closer and closer to the event horizon. How does anything ever actually fall in?

Let's imagine you have a friend who you didn't mind sacrificing for science. Suppose he decided to jump feet first into a black hole. What do you see when he crosses the event horizon?

Well, first off, you're not going to see him cross the event horizon at all because he's going to be torn to shreds by tidal forces long before-hand. He's also going be squeezed by the strong gravitational forces until he's ripped apart atom by atom. To those of you who either whispered under your breath (or more likely squealed with delight), "Spaghettification," good for you!

It's unfortunate for your friend, however, as he will most certainly not survive the ordeal. There is a glimmer of good news, however. A friend and former professor of mine, Rich Gott did an interesting calculation in which he found that regardless of the size of the black hole, it would take approximately one tenth of a second between the moment when you first felt mildly uncomfortable to the time when you are ripped atom from atom. Incidentally, if you'd like to read more about what's in store when falling in, you should check out Neil Tyson's discussion of the subject or my own.

But let's forget about this unpleasantness. Even if your friend could somehow survive the process, you couldn't see him fall in because eventually his signal is going to disappear. If your clock is running slow, this means that everything you could possibly use to measure time — including the frequency of light, will also appear to run slow. Light emitted from your friend's ship, for example, becomes longer and longer in wavelength as he approaches the event horizon until you can't see him at all. Even if you were looking at him with a radio detector, eventually his signal would be too low a frequency for you to see him.

Of course, from his perspective, it happens the other way around. Photons (and other particles) coming from the outside will appear to have a much higher frequency and much higher energies than they would otherwise. Even if he could somehow have survived the spaghettification, the high energy particles would rip him apart. This is a common theme, and one of the big puzzles of black holes. After all, if everything — keys and chairs and friends and particles lose their identity when they fall in — where does that information go?

And there would be a lot of particles, too. After all, just as you see your friend running slow, he sees you running fast. Indeed, someone dangling near the edge of a black hole would see the rest of the universe infinitely sped up. He could literally see the entire future of the universe.

Sort of. This only works if we can dangle someone just outside the black hole without them falling in. Supposing they were actually falling, they'd cross the event horizon and barely notice it (except for the dying part). From the perspective of people (and particles) inside the black hole there is no paradox. Everything falls in in a perfectly reasonable amount of time.

How reasonable? Well, I suppose I'd better answer the original question. Let's see you dropped your friend into a black hole the mass of the sun, and let him go at the same distance the earth currently is from the sun. It takes a surprisingly long time to fall in (from his perspective), a bit over 2 months. Of course, except for the last second or so, this is pretty uneventful. In fact, up until the last minute or so, your friend isn't even traveling an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and is so far outside the event horizon that you two could have a perfectly normal, nearly time-synchronized, conversation.

But after your friend falls in, and he tries to tell you how long it took, he's just SOL. Remember, nothing can escape, not even light. But of course, you knew that already.

Dave Goldberg is the author, with Jeff Blomquist, of "A User's Guide to the Universe: Surviving the Perils of Black Holes, Time Paradoxes, and Quantum Uncertainty." (follow us on facebook or twitter.) He is an Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University. Feel free to send email to askaphysicist@io9.com with any questions about the universe.

Why it matters that we’re close to discovering the Higgs Boson particle [Io9 Backgrounder]

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Why it matters that we're close to discovering the Higgs Boson particleLast month rumors swirled that scientists at Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator found the Higgs Boson particle. Those reports were untrue, but we have made significant progress towards finding the elusive particle. Why is this such an important discovery?

What is the Higgs Boson?

The Higgs is one of the five bosonic elementary particles, each of which acts as a carrier of a fundamental property of nature. The other four bosons, known as the gauge bosons, are the carriers of the fundamental forces - photons carry electromagnetism, the W and Z bosons both carry the weak nuclear force, and gluons carry the strong nuclear force. (There's also another hypothetical gauge boson, the graviton, which unsurprisingly carries the gravitational force, but that one remains undiscovered.)

Why it matters that we're close to discovering the Higgs Boson particle

Now, the Higgs Boson is the carrier of mass in the universe. It does this by helping to form a Higgs field, a quantum structure through which all the other elementary particles pass. According to the Standard Model of physics, certain particles - such as the photon - pass through the field unaffected and remain massless, while others - such as the W and Z bosons - bring part of the field with them, giving them mass. This subatomic interaction with the Higgs field is what accounts for the existence of all the mass in the universe - at least, if the theory is correct. And the only way to confirm it is to find the Higgs Boson.

Why is the Higgs Boson so difficult to find?

It's a relatively massive subatomic particle, thought to be over a hundred times the mass of a proton. The problem is that the Higgs Boson is thought to exist at extremely high energy levels - so high that only the newly built Large Hadron Collider is thought to be capable of achieving them. And then it only survives for a few seconds before decaying into other particles. Then there's the fact that, despite some rather ingenious deductions of its nature using indirect evidence, we still don't really know exactly where we should be looking for the Higgs Boson.

Today we're getting closer to knowing the Higgs Boson mass

Scientists at Fermilab, home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator that isn't the LHC, have been able to significantly narrow down the possible masses of the Higgs.

Physicists use the unit of measurement GeV/c^2, or Gigaelectronvolts divided by the speed of light squared, to measure the mass of subatomic particles. An electronvolt is the amount of energy of, you guessed it, a single electron. Because of Einstein's iconic equation E=mc^2, dividing the electronvolt by the speed of light squared makes it a unit of mass. And because most subatomic particles are much, much bigger than the tiny electron, we have to bump up the unit of measurement we use from electronvolts to gigaelectronvolts, or a billion electronvolts. Protons have a mass of about one GeV/c^2.

Why it matters that we're close to discovering the Higgs Boson particle

Here's what the Fermilab scientists found - their experiments with the Tevatron particle accelerator have conclusively ruled out a Higgs Boson with a mass between 158 and 175 GeV/c^2. Since the previously known range extends from 114 to 185 GeV/c^2, that means nearly a quarter of the possible masses have been eliminated.

Those remaining higher masses may be soon to fall as well, says physicist Dmitri Denisov:

We are close to completely ruling out a Higgs boson with a large mass. Three years ago, we would not have thought that this would be possible. With more data coming in, our experiments are beginning to be sensitive to a low-mass Higgs boson.

But where is the Higgs Boson?

If the Higgs does exist, it's running out of possible hiding spots, says University of Manchester physicist Stefan Söldner-Rembold:

"Our latest result is based on about twice as much data as a year and a half ago. As we continue to collect and analyze data, the Tevatron experiments will either exclude the Standard Model Higgs boson in the entire allowed mass range or see first hints of its existence."

It was thought until recently that the Large Hadron Collider held the only practical hope of discovering the Higgs Boson, but now it looks as though Fermilab's Tevatron accelerator is back in the hunt as well. As Fermilab spokespeople point out, creating high energy environments may actually be less important than simply creating as huge an amount of collisions as possible. We haven't found the Higgs Boson yet, but we're fast approaching the moment of truth: either we will discover it and confirm the Standard Model in the process, or we will have to reluctantly head back to the drawing board and start building a Higgs-less universe.

[Fermilab]

Meet your true ancestor: The segmented worm [Evolution]

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Meet your true ancestor: The segmented wormSegmentation, the replication of anatomical structures throughout the body, is found in many animal species. It's also a huge reason why all those species succeeded, and it comes from a single common ancestor 600 million years ago.

Specifically, segmentation refers to instances where identical anatomical units are repeated on the axis running from the top to a bottom of an animal. (So the fact that we have eyes, ears, arms, and legs that are all identical doesn't count as segmentation.) Obviously segmented species include centipedes and millipedes, in which a single structure is repeated dozens, even hundreds, of times over, but they're hardly the only examples. Anything from earthworms to humans can possess segmented features.

Three of the most basic groups of animals - arthropods (insects, arachnids, and crustaceans), vertebrates (most animals that we're familiar with), and annelid worms (sea and earthworms, basically) - all heavily make use of segmentation throughout their individual species, and yet they're very distantly related groups. Recent evidence indicates that the genes controlling segmentation are essentially the same in anthropod and worm species, indicating that there was indeed a single common ancestor, probably a worm-like creature, some 600 million years ago that proved phenomenally successful because of its ability to segment.

So why does segmentation provide such a huge evolutionary advantage, and why has it helped bring about such fantastic animal diversity? The answer might be quite simple: segmentation creates ready-made spare parts, producing duplicated anatomical units that can be repurposed as needed. If a species is under heavy pressure to fit into a changing environmental niche, it may need to develop new structures that can deal with the altered conditions. In that instance, it would be much easier to modify an existing organ than build a whole new one. Segmentation would give species a better shot at quickly adapting to new environments, which would create more pronounced changes in the species and, thus, greater diversity.

In that case, segmentation is the ultimate example of what Stephen Jay Gould dubbed an exaptation, in which a trait becomes extremely useful for reasons unrelated to its initial development. If nothing else, there's a certain evolutionary irony in that the exact duplication of body parts is responsible for why animal species all look so wildly different.

via Science

Drowning doesn’t look like drowning

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

(reprinted from: Boing Boing)

lifepreserver.jpg

The kind of drowning you see on T.V.—think thrashy, screamy—doesn't have much in common with what real drowning looks like, according to writer and Navy/Coast Guard veteran Mario Vittone. That's because of something called the Instinctive Drowning Response, a pattern of behavior that appears to be hard-wired into humans and pops up whenever somebody feels like they're suffocating in water.

Frank Pia, Ph.D., the psychologist and lifeguard to first described the Instinctive Drowning Response explains it this way:

  1. 1. Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.

  2. 2. Drowning people's mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people's mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.

  3. 3. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water's surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.

  4. 4. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.

  5. 5. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people's bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.

In real life, a drowning person will be a lot more still and silent than you expect.

Image courtesy Flickr user jopoe, via CC



Physicists reveal how the universe guarantees paradox-free time travel [Time Travel]

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Physicists reveal how the universe guarantees paradox-free time travelTime travel isn't just science fiction: Albert Einstein's general relativity suggests it could exist. And now we might have solved the tricky matter of time paradoxes. It's all just a question of adjusting probabilities.

A certain reading of Einstein's theories argue for the existence of closed timelike curves, which are strange paths of spacetime that take anything traveling on them into the past and then back to the future. First proposed by Kurt Gödel in 1949, CTCs could theoretically exist deep within black holes or other similarly chaotic corners of the universe. Since these CTCs, however difficult they might be to access, would apparently make time travel into the past a genuine possibility, the question then becomes how to deal with the potential time paradoxes.

As always, the Grandfather Paradox, in which a time traveler kills his or her grandfather before he fathered the traveler's parent, gets the most attention here. Various workarounds have been proposed over the years - Oxford physicist David Deutsch came up with an intriguing possibility in the early 90s when he suggested that it was impossible to kill your grandfather, but it was possible to remember killing your grandfather. In some weird way, the universe would forbid you from creating a paradox, even if your memories told you that you had.

This theory, like most others put forward, relies on liberal use of the word "somehow" and the phrase "for some reason" to explain how it works. As such, it's not an ideal explanation for paradox-free time travel, and that's where a new idea by MIT's Seth Lloyd comes into the picture. He says that paradoxes might be impossible, but extremely improbable things that prevent them from happening very definitely aren't.

Let's go back to the grandfather paradox to see what he means. Let's say you shoot your grandfather at point-blank range. This theory suggests that something will happen, such as the bullet being defective or the gun misfiring, to stop your temporal assassination. This can involve some very low-probability events - for instance, the manufacturer becomes incredibly more likely to make that specific bullet improperly than any other, for the sole reason that it will be later used to kill your grandfather. It might even come down to an ultra-low-probability quantum fluctuation, in which the bullet suddenly alters course for no apparent physical reason, in order to keep the paradox at bay.

Dubbed the post-selected model, Lloyd's theory is all about trading the impossible for the improbable, which admittedly can cause some very, very unlikely things to happen right around the specific moment where the paradox would otherwise occur. As Charles Bennett of IBM's Watson Research Center explains:

"If you make a slight change in the initial conditions, the paradoxical situation won't happen. That looks like a good thing, but what it means is that if you're very near the paradoxical condition, then slight differences will be extremely amplified."

Incredibly enough, Lloyd and his team say they actually have some experimental evidence of the theory. Though they obviously can't send anything, even a subatomic particle, back in time, they can at least create certain quantum conditions that would closely resemble those experienced by a time traveler. They placed photons in these temporal-like circumstances and then tried to push them towards what were essentially paradoxical situations. The closer they got, the more frequently the experiment failed, and they argue the universe as a whole could function in much the same way when it comes to stopping paradoxes. (This is probably one of those times when you're going to need to read the original paper to understand what they were up to here, because I'll readily admit this is a bit beyond my comprehension.)

In any event, other physicists have met the new theories with great enthusiasm. Todd Burn of the University of Southern California calls it "a nice, consistent loop" and "a really interesting body of work." However, he reminds us that, for now, these aren't much more than clever thought experiments:

"I don't expect these will be tested anytime soon. These are ideas. They're fun to play with."

Looks like we need to find a closed timelike curve. Who's up for a sightseeing trip to the nearest black hole?

[arXiv]

The amazing electrons that let nothing stand in their way (with a little help from antimony) [Mad Science]

Monday, July 19th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

The amazing electrons that let nothing stand in their way (with a little help from antimony)Even the most minuscule, atom-sized surface imperfections can pose colossal obstacles for the speedy flow of electrons. But certain substances create a remarkable condition where the electrons are able to completely ignore these pitfalls and move ultra-fast.

On most surfaces, tiny imperfections are like gigantic cliffs to electrons, which can become temporarily trapped and jam up the proper flow of the particles. For circuits that process information using electron flow, that's a major problem that needs to be carefully guarded against, which limits their maximum potential performance.

However, recent theories hold that certain compounds that contain the element antimony (or other elements with very similar chemical properties, but antimony works best) would provide electrons an essentially smooth surface. Although these nano-sized cliffs and crevasses would still exist, antimony helps create a special form of electron wave that allows the electrons to effortlessly flow around any possible imperfection.

Princeton physicist Ali Yazdani, who discovered this remarkable property, explains the potential applications of this discovery:

"Material imperfections just cannot trap these surface electrons. This demonstration suggests that surface conduction in these compounds may be useful for high-current transmission even in the presence of atomic scale irregularities — an electronic feature sought to efficiently interconnect nanoscale devices."

Antimony has a long history of practical use, but its strange properties with regards to surface conduction had been ignored until now. Admittedly, it's only recently become possible to even study how electrons flow at just the surface, requiring the development of incredibly precise techniques able to visualize surface electrons. Antimony is one of the so-called "topological" materials, which are able to give surface electrons these unique, free-flowing properties.

[Nature]

Arsenic is unlikely warrior against cancer [Medical Breakthroughs]

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Arsenic is unlikely warrior against cancerThe deadly poison made famous in countless Agatha Christie mysteries isn't known for its health benefits. But an arsenic compound has helped treat leukemia sufferers for over a decade, and we've just discovered it can fight other cancers as well.

The specific compound is arsenic trioxide, and it's already been approved by the FDA for the treatment of humans. The arsenic is combined with other therapies to fight cancers brought on by an error in a cellular signaling pathway known as the Hedgehog pathway. This signaling cascade regulates embryonic development and remains crucial to properly functioning cells in adults. Malfunctions in the Hedgehog pathway have been shown to cause tumors in the skin, brain, blood, and muscle.

Arsenic trioxide works in relatively low quantities by blocking one of the final steps in the Hedgehog pathway, preventing a few of the cell's genes being expressed that would otherwise cause runaway, cancerous growth. Other treatments currently on the market also target the Hedgehog pathway, but they do so at much earlier points in the signaling cascade. That gives the malfunctioning pathway many more opportunities to mutate around the drug and relay its self-destructive messages to the cells. The arsenic treatment takes effect so late in the pathway that's there is nearly no chance for the cancer to mutate around it.

Researchers Philip Beachy and Jynho Kim at the Stanford medical school first became interested in arsenic as a treatment for cancer when they noticed that birth defects brought on by arsenic exposure are very similar to the physical effects of not having an active Hedgehog pathway. They found that the same small amounts of arsenic trioxide that treated leukemia patients could also shut off the Hedgehog pathway, providing a potential treatment for sufferers of many other kinds of cancer.

Arsenic trioxide works by inhibiting a protein called Gli2 from causing gene transcription in the cell nucleus. Without Gli2, the Hedgehog pathway comes to a sudden, ineffectual end. Early tests of this treatment on mice found that most tumors either slowed down or stopped growing completely. Best of all, this works even in cells that have already proven resistant to other drugs that target the Hedgehog pathway.

[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]

Was our universe born inside a black hole in another universe? [Mad Physics]

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

(reprinted from: io9)

Was our universe born inside a black hole in another universe?The current explanation of the universe's origins relies on clumsy assumptions and can't explain most subatomic particles. A small tweak to general relativity solves these problems - and seemingly proves the universe must have come from a black hole elsewhere.

As it stands right now, the explanation for the universe's beginnings is built around a combination of Einstein's general relativity and observation of the ancient universe. Mixing these two theories together creates some problems - for instance, the universe is impossibly large according to its current rate of expansion, so astrophysicists have to invoke the idea of inflation, in which the early universe expanded at a tremendous rate within the first second after the Big Bang.

General relativity, however, can't explain inflation, so another theory is required to account for it. There's nothing technically wrong with that, but it's an inelegant solution, and physicists tend to prefer an all-encompassing explanation to a bunch of piecemeal solutions. That's not the only issue with the current explanation - it can't deal with many properties of subatomic particles, consigning them entirely to the realm of quantum mechanics.

Nikodem Poplawski of Indiana University thinks solving the latter problem can also solve the former, and that's just the start of the craziness. In a new paper, he explains that the standard version of general relativity totally ignores the intrinsic momentum of subatomic particles like protons and neutrons, but a modified version known as the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity solves that problem. The theory states these particles interact repulsively, creating tiny amounts of a force called torsion.

Under normal circumstances, this is just an interesting bit of math, and torsion doesn't really affect anything. However, if densities are increased tremendously, then torsion has some very significant effects. Most intriguingly, torsion makes it impossible for black holes to form singularities. And if singularities are impossible, then what's at the center of black holes?

Poplawski has an audacious proposal: there are whole universes where we thought the singularities were. The torsion process allows for a massive energy buildup inside the event horizon, and this would allow for the creation of new particles through pair production, in which matter and antimatter are created in equal quantities. All it takes then is a small imbalance between the particles and antiparticles to form, and you've got a Big Bang on your hands.

What makes this idea appealing (beyond the fact that it just sounds so awesome) is that torsion explains inflation without requiring a new theory. That repulsive force is sufficient to explain how the universe expanded to its present extent, which means a single theory can explain the entire universe as it is now.

This potentially means that many of the black holes in our own universe are the incubators of entirely new universes, each separated by the infinite time gap of the event horizon. That said, some properties of the mother universe could trickle through to its daughters, and detecting some of these properties could actually provide experimental proof of the theory. In fact Poplawski speculates this inheritance of properties could solve another great mystery of cosmology.

The so-called arrow of time, in which time flows in one direction but not another, is a fundamental aspect of our experience. This isn't accounted for at all by physics, as all of its laws are apparently time-symmetric in that they work just as well whether time flows forwards or backwards. However, the passage of matter through the event horizon would provide a time asymmetry in the new universe, giving it a forward arrow to time. In that way, time itself is a gift of our mother universe on the other side of the black hole.

[arXiv]