KIM KARDASHIAN’S NEWEST range of products, launched in late 2022—post SKIMS shapewear, post SKKN facewear—is a menacing set of raw concrete forms for storing bathroom products: a gray tissue box, Q-tip tin, wastebasket. Dry, brutal, and mysterious, the items look like you hired one of Gary Larson’s cavemen to decorate your vanity with found objects.

“Having the concrete material and monochromatic design are important for my mental wellness,” Kim said in a recent interview with Architectural Digest. Concrete … for wellness? I imagine her removing her shoes and socks and planting her feet on the gritty sidewalk, grounding herself on the concrete slab, gathering power from the sprawling gray. Kim abandoning her activated charcoal and turning to powdered concrete to treat her gut problems and ensure clearer skin. Jade egg? No, concrete egg. Wellness concrete!

Concrete does not, objectively, promote wellness. It is responsible for 8 percent of the world’s C02 emissions. Concrete dust ruins the lungs of those who inhale it regularly. Concrete cityscapes exacerbate flooding and degrade joggers’ joints. Thanks to a reliance on concrete for construction, the world is running out of certain types of sand. Other high-end brands have sold home products made of concrete, like Comme des Garçons’ concrete-clad perfume bottles, but these usually use the material for its brutal and rough-hewn qualities, not to promote wellness. Kim is an alchemist though. She has taken a material that is undeniably a product of industrial modernity, imbued with a century’s worth of architectural and ideological baggage, and reconfigured it as healthy, intimate, and integral to self-care.

Always ahead of the curve, Kim may have hit on something the rest of us are just coming around to. The idea that we might stop—stop producing plastic, stop building cement megastructures—seems out of the question. Decades of activism, policy work, and think tank-ery have done little to stem the tide of globalized capitalism and the torrents of plastic water bottles, polyester blend clothing, and Squishmallows that discharge from its perpetual motion machines. Blowing up a pipeline or fomenting revolution requires networks of solidarity and logistical capability that most people can’t imagine acquiring. Meanwhile, the microplastics are already in our blood.

What’s left is the alternative that Kim and her concrete line seem to offer: that we can learn how to metaphorically (or literally) digest the toxic brutality of the built environment and transform it into something else—or let it transform us. “I’m just putting little pieces of fibreglass into my cereal to get my body used to it,” tweets one nihilistic wiseass. We’re entering our metabolic era.

NONHUMAN SYSTEMS OFFER metaphors to help us comprehend and describe our own existence, and structures of behavior we might mimic to cope with intolerable conditions. Over the past decade, you may have noticed mushrooms and fungi embraced as the objects of this kind of attention. The fungal imaginary is powerful because it envisions a world where endless growth is possible, and might even be environmentally beneficial. We can build anything as long as we make it out of mushrooms. Houses, bridges, burgers, clamshell packages for said burgers. Fungi also offer a powerful, nonhuman other we can turn to for inspiration: Mushrooms can grow at the end of the world, form vast underground networks, and offer mystic insight.

More recently, though, metabolic metaphors and processes are emerging alongside, and sometimes overtaking, fungi’s place in the cultural ether. At the more practical end, digestive processes are cropping up as popular solutions to all kinds of crises: compost, vermiculture, bacteria to digest just about anything, biohacks for your gut microbiome. Elsewhere, the metaphor of metabolism is called on to describe the way people process emotions and build feedback loops, and the growth of cities.

Unlike the fungal model, the metabolic imaginary lets us envision a world in which we can get rid of anything. If the drive for endless growth has led to a world too full of bullshit and toxicity, perhaps we can chew it all up and digest it without harm, engineer bacteria to metabolize it, or transfigure it into something new and strange. There is no big other in metabolism, no consciousness to commune with or learn from. Where the fungal era has been about venerating unknowable nonhuman maybe-intelligence and believing that hope can be dredged from ruin, the metabolic era is about submission, subsumption by the great enzyme, the desire for transformative annihilation. Metabolism is an impulse that makes sense at the end of the usable world. If we’ve exhausted our current ways of being and the planet’s existing materials, we must embrace radical breakdown.

One version of creative, apocalyptic metabolism is on vivid display in David Cronenberg’s most recent film, Crimes of the Future. Set in a near future in which environmental degradation and unspecified climate events have led to generalized decay and deterioration, Crimes of the Future imagines what might happen to human digestion. In the film, a sector of the population is evolving to successfully digest and receive nourishment from plastic. At the beginning, we see a young boy crouched in a bathroom taking bites out of a plastic trash bin like he’s compelled by an insatiable craving. Later, we learn of a whole underground organization of plastic eaters who undergo surgery and other interventions in the hopes of spurring their bodies to better metabolize plastic and other pollutants.

In this world, it’s too late for a cleanup. Toxicity is endemic, and the plastic eaters consider the best path forward to be evolving human biology to flourish in the aftermath. The film captures something essential about our zeitgeist in its oscillation between anxiety about how to metabolize everything toxic we’ve created and desire to experience the bodily and social transformation that might accompany this perverse new digestion.

This scenario is only a half step away from our current reality. Efforts are well underway to metabolize the plastic that suffuses our environment. Scientists have found multiple strains of microbes and bacteria that have evolved to digest plastic. Comamonas testosteroni can metabolize complex waste from plants and plastics. Ideonella sakaiensis enzymatically breaks down polyethylene terephthalate (PET). With each new study of microbial plastic-phagy comes a spate of hopeful, if hyperbolic, news articles: “a potential breakthrough for recycling,” “This discovery … could help solve one of the world’s most pressing environmental problems.” People love the idea that we can digest our way out of this mess. The jury is still out on whether it’s possible to operationalize plastic-eating bacteria at scale. There is some movement on this front. Carbios, a well-funded French company developing enzymes that break down plastic, recently announced funding and investment for the world’s first PET “biorecycling” plant, for instance. But many scientists are skeptical about the idea that microbial digestion is a viable solution to the problem of oceanic or terrestrial pollution. For now, plastic digestion at scale remains a pipe dream.

THE METABOLIC TURN isn’t just about learning to digest toxicity. It also plays out in fantasies—both desirous and anxious—about being digested. In times of stress, it’s a relief to imagine being crushed and consumed by some other metabolic system. “Why Does Everyone Want Their Crush to Run Them Over?” asked The Cut a few years ago. Being pulverized by your crush is a dream of being relieved of your own agency, destroyed and reconfigured, freed from the pain of consciousness so that you can be reshaped for someone else’s uses. A version of this obliterating impulse is made more explicit in vore, the erotic desire to be swallowed or devoured whole (or, conversely, to swallow or devour another), which is often expressed in role-play or illustrations. In vore, the process of digestion is imagined as a relationship between devoured and devourer—a desire for the kind of intense intimacy only possible when one is literally consumed by another.

Only a short jump from vore is the transhumanist fantasy of having your brain uploaded into the cloud, outrunning death by being absorbed into another system and transformed into bits and bytes. Ray Kurzweil famously advocated for brain uploads to achieve technological immortality, estimating in The Singularity Is Near that “the end of the 2030s is a conservative projection for successful uploading.” Russian entrepreneur Dmitry Itskov’s now mostly defunct 2045 Initiative aimed “to create technologies enabling the transfer of an individual’s personality to a more advanced non-biological carrier, and extending life, including to the point of immortality.” The desire to be consumed and immortalized by technology reveals a belief that your consciousness is uniquely important and your own creation is uniquely powerful. It’s no surprise technologists like Kurzweil lust to be dissolved by their own machines.

Similarly, some of the recent hype around generative AI reveals a conflicting set of responses to metabolic machinery. Large language models and image generators are enormous digestive systems that ingest and transform the raw materials of cultural output and behavioral data on behalf of voracious corporate interests. They suck down the sprawling detritus of human effort and swallow it into the great black box stomach of the AI system, which converts it into something uncanny and instant and profitable. As with transhumanism, some may find this extremely exciting, the emergent opportunity to create the world’s biggest digestive tract, and hence the world’s biggest (and most profitable) collective intelligence. For others, the idea that their labor and creativity is nothing but grist for the generative mill owned and controlled by unaccountable companies is a cause for great anxiety. It’s harder to be optimistic about the future of technological digestion if you’re forced to be an unwilling participant in a voracious process of corporate metabolism.

KIM’S WELLNESS CONCRETE and Crimes of the Future highlight the ambivalence of digestive politics. If the environment is inescapably suffused with pollutants emitted by the biggest and worst companies on earth, then learning to digest this toxicity is a sensible coping mechanism. Of course, there are creative and aesthetic possibilities within the process of toxic digestion—minimalist home goods in Kim’s case, strange new forms of sex and performance art in Cronenberg’s film. We can eke pleasure and art from all kinds of wretched situations—and we should. As Boots Riley put it in a recent interview, “Culture is what we do to make our survival normal.” Still, these visions of metabolism leave us stuck absorbing the excretions of a system that hates us. We have sprawling digestive capabilities. What might it look like to embrace our role as part of a massive and massively weird ecological and metabolic system, and to experiment with the creative and expressive potential of digestion?

Nothing is more natural or strange than metabolism. It happens on many scales, around us and within us, via processes that involve human bodies and microbes and other flora and fauna. I move through the world, digesting it as I go—material entering the mouth hole at one end, exiting the anus at the other—and in between my body does the work of processing, sorting, excreting. I am also here to be digested—built cell by cell inside another’s body and extruded into the world, only to exit back into the earth via a final hole (the grave, the furnace, the mouth of the bear) where I provide fodder for the next stomach. What a trip, what a pleasure.

Digesting with and on behalf of the earth’s ur-metabolic system means wanting more than to function as the unhappy stomach that processes capitalism’s excesses. Embracing digestion as a tool and a metaphor can help us to not only accommodate the horrors of the existing system, but to dissolve it and break it down until it no longer exists in its current form. Some ideas for earth-first digestion are already familiar, thanks to proponents of the circular economy: recapturing waste streams from one process to become inputs for another, designing to ensure reusability. However, ideally digestion wouldn’t just be mobilized to enable human industry and profit. I’m also interested in more creative and psychedelic experiences of metabolism, like collaboration with enzymes, embrace of rot, and joyful submission to the knowledge that humans are just one digestive node of the material world, rather than its apex.

Metabolism can be framed through the lens of mutual aid. While the mainstream medical industry is now catching up, biohackers and anarchist IBS sufferers alike have been experimenting with DIY fecal transplants for years, trading advice and healthy poop samples in the interests of helping each other digest better. It can also be seen as a kind of collective destruction, where communities decide a system or an infrastructure that causes them harm should no longer exist and work together to metabolize it, dissolve it, and perhaps transform its constituent matter into something entirely new. Outside of human-centered processes, composting and rot provide inspiration for rich and generative multispecies metabolism, like worms and microbes working with chemical heat and leafy greens to produce rich and unrecognizable loam. If we’re brave enough, we can even look forward to our own bodies being digested. It’s hard to know what that experience will be like, but let’s try to imagine. Space travel is uncertain, and the singularity is a mirage, so why not stay here, nestled into the cool damp ground. There is much to learn from becoming compost for the original stomach.

Source

Organizers hailed the conference, called Psychedelic Science, as a coming out party for a subculture that has become increasingly visible over the last decade as studies and clinical trials have unveiled the potential applications of these substances in the mental health field.

A politically diverse group of high-profile speakers, including NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers, Grammy-award-winning musician Melissa Etheridge and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, advocated for the normalized use of psychedelics to combat the fear perpetuated by Richard Nixon's war on drugs, and spread the message about the drugs' healing potential.

"It's still ridiculous that in this day and age, somebody suffering from anxiety, depression, PTSD can get medical coverage for very costly prescription drugs but cannot get coverage for a treatment at a healing center that can address some of the underlying causes of the issue," Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said during his keynote speech at Psychedelic Science.

Polis noted that one pressing issue is weaving psychedelic therapy into the conventional payer system, whether that is insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, and he called on insurance companies to provide coverage for this new type of therapy. He also pledged to work to expunge the records of Coloradans with psychedelics-related charges so that "doesn't hold them back from future employment opportunities."

As research into psychedelics grows, so does public interest. In a June national poll of 1,500 registered voters, 61% said they support creating a regulated, legal framework for the therapeutic use of psychedelics, according to the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics, which conducted the survey.

Last November, 54% of Colorado voters approved a measure to legalize medicinal psilocybin. Regulators are now building a new industry around psychedelic therapy, which is expected to take shape over the next year and a half. By 2025, Coloradans ages 21 and up can expect to be able to book a psilocybin-assisted therapy session.

In the meantime, however, it's worth understanding exactly what psychedelics are, how they work and what their current and future applications could be for the general public.

What are psychedelics?

For centuries, certain plants have been used in religious ceremonies, but momentum has only recently been building to adopt them for medicinal purposes in Western cultures. Enthusiasm in the 1950s and '60s led to robust research into drugs like LSD, otherwise known as acid, and the effects of psychedelics. Though much of that enthusiasm was quashed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, studies and trials have rebounded, leading many researchers to proclaim the arrival of a "psychedelic renaissance."

Broadly speaking, psychedelics is an umbrella term that refers to several psychoactive drugs, also deemed hallucinogens. Some, like psilocybin, mescaline and ibogaine, occur naturally in mushrooms, cactus and iboga root, respectively. Others, like chemical compounds LSD and MDMA, also known as "ecstasy" or "molly," originated in laboratories.

While there is sometimes debate about exactly which drugs classify as psychedelics, Berkeley's Center for the Science of Psychedelics distinguishes between "classic" and "non-classic psychedelics" based on how each interacts with the brain.

Classic psychedelics affect serotonin 2A receptors in the brain and the central nervous system, causing sensitivity to touch, light and sound, as well as visualizations and an altered perception of time. Examples include ayahuasca, DMT, 5-meO-DMT, LSD, psilocybin and mescaline.

Experiences using these substances, also called trips or journeys, have been widely portrayed in movies and media, often in association with the psychedelia of the 1960s.

While non-classical psychedelics may produce similar physical and visual effects, they do not interact as prominently, if at all, with serotonin 2A receptors. Instead, these substances affect other neurotransmitter systems, including dopamine and glutamate. Examples include MDMA, ketamine (also known as special K) and ibogaine.

How do psychedelics work?

According to the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics, some research suggests that classic psychedelics can help temporarily rewire the brain and promote neuroplasticity, meaning the growth of new neural networks, by increasing and strengthening those connections.

Often that means parts of the brain that don't typically communicate appear able to transfer data while under the influence.

What's significant about this, according to the nonprofit Beckley Foundation, which has been researching psychedelics since 1988, is that many of those stimulated areas of the brain are part of the default mode network, which neurologically "polices the amount of sensory information that enters our sphere of awareness." That includes the sense of self or the ego.

Some substances suppress the default mode network allowing for free-flowing communication between previously segregated parts of the brain. Anecdotally, many participants in drug trials recall gaining new perspectives on behaviors or traumatic events.

That is, in part, why researchers see such promise in using psychedelics to treat conditions such as addiction, PTSD and more.

Studies by Johns Hopkins University found psilocybin, specifically, can decrease end-of-life anxiety among cancer patients, help longtime smokers kick a nicotine addiction, and reduce depression symptoms. Additionally, Colorado regulators are considering fast-tracking the use of ibogaine in the regulated therapy system for its potential in treating opioid addiction.

It is worth noting, however, that many of the aforementioned studies were done in small groups, with some including as few as 14 people. And there are still risks associated with ingesting psychedelics, from anxiety and hallucinations to circumstances that prove fatal. (For example, the William G. Nash Foundation honors its namesake 21-year-old who died not because of drug toxicity, but because he asphyxiated on protein powder while under the influence.)

When Colorado voters approved Prop 122, which legalized medicinal psilocybin, they also changed the law to decriminalize five substances—psilocybin, psilocin, DMT, ibogaine, and mescaline—meaning it is no longer illegal to possess, use, grow or share a personal amount. The state legislature clarified "personal amount" as a 12-foot by 12-foot grow area on private property.

Before using psychedelics, experts advocate considering the set and setting, or personal mindset and environment, in which you plan to do so.

How do people use psychedelics?

Most plant-based psychedelics maintain centuries-long roots in indigenous cultures that use them as spiritual sacraments. The Aztecs, for example, referred to psilocybin as teonanácatl, meaning "sacred mushroom" or "God's flesh."

The potent mushrooms were only introduced to Western society after Mazatec shaman María Sabina invited writer R. Gordon Wasson to a ritual ceremony in Mexico that he later recounted in Life magazine in 1957. Wasson is credited with coining the term "magic mushroom" and causing a barrage of tourists to travel to Mexico in search of their own psychedelic experiences. (María Sabina, for her part, was shunned by her community for commercializing the sacred medicine.)

Despite the deluge of studies, most people using psychedelics are doing so outside the clinical context. According to one analysis by Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health, more than 5.5 million Americans used hallucinogens in 2019, suggesting far more experimentation is happening beyond the research sector.

Ken Jordan, co-founder and CEO of Lucid News, which covers the emerging psychedelics industry, said even in clinical environments patients cite their trips among the most profound events of their lives. He believes many people seek similar experiences without a mental health diagnosis and in settings perceived as fun or recreational, or for enlightenment.

"There's an unacknowledged market for psychedelics outside of both the medical and the religious framework that are being widely discussed within the movement where most of the action is actually happening," he said.

As the second U.S. state to legalize psilocybin therapy, Colorado is helping blaze a trail legislators in other states appear poised to follow. Oregon voters approved medicinal psilocybin in 2020 and the first licensed service centers opened this year.

Following Oregon's lead, Polis appointed 15 people to a Natural Medicine Advisory Board, which is tasked with developing recommendations for how the burgeoning new industry should take shape here. The group's first set of recommendations is due by Sept. 30.

2023 MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Source

Last October, the United States Bureau of Industry and Security issued a document that — underneath its 139 pages of dense bureaucratic jargon and minute technical detail — amounted to a declaration of economic war on China. The magnitude of the act was made all the more remarkable by the relative obscurity of its source. One of 13 bureaus within the Department of Commerce, the smallest federal department by funding, B.I.S. is tiny: Its budget for 2022 was just over $140 million, about one-eighth the cost of a single Patriot air-defense missile battery. The bureau employs approximately 350 agents and officers, who collectively monitor trillions of dollars’ worth of transactions taking place all around the world.

During the height of the Cold War, when export controls to the Soviet bloc were at their strictest, B.I.S. was a critical hub in the Western defenses, processing up to 100,000 export licenses annually. During the relative peace and stability of the 1990s, the bureau lost some of its raison d’être — as well as staff and funding — and licenses shriveled to roughly 10,000 per year. Today, the number is 40,000 and climbing. With a sprawling trade blacklist known as the entity list (currently 662 pages and counting), numerous pre-existing multilateral export-control agreements and ongoing actions against Russia and China, B.I.S. is busier than ever. “We spend 100 percent of our time on Russia sanctions, another 100 percent on China and the other 100 percent on everything else,” says Matt Borman, the deputy assistant secretary of commerce for export administration.

In recent years, semiconductor chips have become central to the bureau’s work. Chips are the lifeblood of the modern economy, and the brains of every electronic device and system, from iPhones to toasters, data centers to credit cards. A new car might have more than a thousand chips, each one managing a different facet of the vehicle’s operation. Semiconductors are also the driving force behind the innovations poised to revolutionize life over the next century, like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, for example, was reportedly trained on 10,000 of the most advanced chips currently available.

With the Oct. 7 export controls, the United States government announced its intent to cripple China’s ability to produce, or even purchase, the highest-end chips. The logic of the measure was straightforward: Advanced chips, and the supercomputers and A.I. systems they power, enable the production of new weapons and surveillance apparatuses. In their reach and meaning, however, the measures could hardly have been more sweeping, taking aim at a target far broader than the Chinese security state. “The key here is to understand that the U.S. wanted to impact China’s A.I. industry,” says Gregory C. Allen, director of the Wadhwani Center for A.I. and Advanced Technologies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The semiconductor stuff is the means to that end.”

Though delivered in the unassuming form of updated export rules, the Oct. 7 controls essentially seek to eradicate, root and branch, China’s entire ecosystem of advanced technology. “The new policy embodied in Oct. 7 is: Not only are we not going to allow China to progress any further technologically, we are going to actively reverse their current state of the art,” Allen says. C.J. Muse, a senior semiconductor analyst at Evercore ISI, put it this way: “If you’d told me about these rules five years ago, I would’ve told you that’s an act of war — we’d have to be at war.”

If the controls are successful, they could handicap China for a generation; if they fail, they may backfire spectacularly, hastening the very future the United States is trying desperately to avoid. The outcome will likely shape U.S.-China competition, and the future of the global order, for decades to come. “There are two dates that will echo in history from 2022,” Allen says. “The first is Feb. 24, when Russia invaded Ukraine; and the second is Oct. 7.”

Despite the immense intricacy of their design, semiconductors are, in a sense, quite simple: tiny pieces of silicon carved with arrays of circuits. The circuits flip on and off based on the activity of switches called transistors. When a circuit is on, it produces a one; off, a zero. The first chips, invented in the late 1950s, held only a handful of transistors. Today the primary semiconductor in a new smartphone has between 10 and 20 billion transistors, each about the size of a virus, carved like a layer cake into the structure of the silicon.

The rate of progress over the last six decades has been famously described by Moore’s Law, which observed that the number of transistors that can be fit on a chip has roughly doubled every two years. Chris Miller, author of the book “Chip War” and an associate professor of international history at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, likes to note that if airplanes had improved at the same rate as chips, they’d now be flying at several times the speed of light. No technology in the history of human civilization has ever matched the breathtaking ascent of computing power.

Semiconductor-manufacturing plants, known as fabs, are the most expensive factories in the world, conducting the most complex manufacturing ever accomplished, at a scale of production never before achieved with any other device. The wider chip industry, meanwhile, is a web of mutual interdependence, spread all over the planet in highly specialized regions and companies, its feats made possible by supply chains of exceptional length and complexity — a poster child, in other words, for globalization. “It’s hard to imagine how the capabilities they’ve reached would be possible without access to the smartest minds in the world all working together,” Miller says. And yet it is this same interconnectedness that makes the industry vulnerable to regulations like those the Biden administration is pursuing.

Only a small handful of companies can compete at the cutting edge, where breakthroughs cost billions of dollars and decades of research. The result is an industry structured as a series of choke points. The best-known example is the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machine made by ASML, a Dutch manufacturing conglomerate, which is used to print out the layers of a chip. In 1997, ASML hired Jos Benschop, a young engineer with a Ph.D. in physics, to spearhead the creation of a new system, one that would help ASML’s customers in the semiconductor industry print smaller, faster and denser chips than ever before. It took four years to achieve the proof of concept necessary to even justify assigning a small team to the task, and then another five years for the team to build a prototype machine. In December 2010, at a research facility in South Korea, an updated prototype, a TWINSCAN NXE:3100, finally had its first successful test run. It would be nearly another decade before the first EUV-enabled products would go to market.

‘I truly believe our machine is the most complex thing mankind has ever produced.’

The newest version of the machine can craft structures as small as 10 nanometers; a human red blood cell, by comparison, is about 7,000 nanometers across. It uses a laser to create plasma 40 times hotter than the surface of the sun, which emits extreme ultraviolet light — invisible to the human eye — that is refracted onto a silicon chip by a series of mirrors. The laser is sourced from a German company and has 457,329 pieces; an entire EUV has more than 100,000 components of similar intricacy.

An EUV is just one part of the process: A cutting-edge fab can include more than 500 machines and 1,000 steps. And yet an EUV alone is a nearly miraculous human achievement, capable of working at scales and precisions that are difficult to fathom. “I truly believe our machine is the most complex thing mankind has ever produced,” says Benschop, now ASML’s corporate vice president of technology. Today, more than a decade since the TWINSCAN’s first test run, no other company has been able to recreate ASML’s achievement.

By squeezing on the industry’s natural choke points, the Biden administration aims to block China from the future of chip technology. The effects will go far beyond cutting into Chinese military advancements, threatening the country’s economic growth and scientific leadership too. “We said there are key tech areas that China should not advance in,” says Emily Kilcrease, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former U.S. trade official. “And those happen to be the areas that will power future economic growth and development.” Today, scientific advances are often made by running simulations and analyzing huge amounts of data, rather than through trial-and-error experiments. Simulations are used to discover new lifesaving drugs, to model the future of climate change and to explore the behavior of colliding galaxies — as well as the physics of hypersonic missiles and nuclear explosions.

“The person with the best supercomputer can do the best science,” Jack Dongarra, founding director of the Innovative Computing Laboratory at the University of Tennessee, told me. Dongarra runs a program called the TOP500, which offers a biannual ranking of the fastest supercomputers in the world. As of June, China claims 134 spots, compared with 150 for the U.S. But the picture is incomplete: Around 2020, China’s submissions plummeted in a way that suggested to Dongarra a desire to avoid attracting unwanted attention. Rumors of new supercomputers leak out in scientific papers and research announcements, leaving observers to guess at the true state of the competition — and the size of China’s presumed lead. “It’s striking because in 2001 China had no computers on the list,” Dongarra says. “Now they’ve grown to the point that they dominate it.”

Yet beneath China’s strength is a crucial vulnerability: Nearly all the chips that power the country’s most advanced projects and institutions are inexorably tied to U.S. technology. “The entire industry can only function with U.S. inputs,” Miller says. “In every facility that’s remotely close to the cutting edge, there’s U.S. tools, U.S. design software and U.S. intellectual property throughout the process.” Despite decades of effort by the Chinese government, and tens of billions of dollars spent on “indigenous innovation,” the problem remains acute. In 2020, China’s domestic chip producers supplied just 15.9 percent of the country’s overall demand. As recently as April, China spent more money importing semiconductors than it did oil.

America fully grasped its power over the global semiconductor market in 2019, when the Trump administration added Huawei, a major Chinese telecommunications maker, to the entity list. Though the listing was ostensibly punishment for a criminal violation — Huawei had been caught selling sanctioned materials to Iran — the strategic benefits became immediately obvious. Without access to U.S. semiconductors, software and other essential supplies, Huawei, the largest telecommunications-equipment producer in the world, was left struggling to survive. “The Huawei sanctions immediately pulled back the curtain,” says Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who studies China’s tech ecosystem. “Chinese tech giants are running on chips that are made in America or have deep American components.”

Export-control law had long been seen as a dusty, arcane backwater, far removed from the actual exercise of American power. But after Huawei, the United States discovered that its primacy in the semiconductor supply chain was a rich source of untapped leverage. Three firms, all located in the U.S., dominate the market for chip-design software, which is used to arrange the billions of transistors that fit on a new chip. The market for advanced chip-manufacturing tools is similarly concentrated, with a handful of companies able to claim effective monopolies over essential machines or processes — and nearly all of these companies are American or dependent on American components. At every step, the supply chain runs through the U.S., U.S. treaty allies or Taiwan, all of them operating in a U.S.-dominated ecosystem. “We stumbled into it,” Sheehan says. “We started using these weapons before we really knew how to use them.”

In May 2020, the Trump administration tightened the screws further, this time by making Huawei subject to a formerly obscure provision of export-control law called the foreign direct product rule. Under the F.D.P.R., foreign-made items are subject to American controls if they were produced using American technology or software. It is a sweeping assertion of extraterritorial power: Even if an item is made and shipped outside the United States, never once crossing the country’s borders, and contains no U.S.-origin components or technology in the final product, it can still be considered an American good.

For Huawei, the application of the F.D.P.R. meant the company was virtually cut off from semiconductors. “That rule subjected all semiconductors on the planet to American law, because every foundry on the planet uses U.S. tools at least in part,” Kevin Wolf, a former assistant secretary of commerce for export administration at the B.I.S., says. “If you have one U.S. tool and 100 non-American tools in your fab, that taints any wafer moving across the line.”

In 2020, according to the market-analysis firm Canalys, Huawei was the largest smartphone seller in the world, with an 18 percent market share, besting even Apple and Samsung. Huawei’s revenues plunged by nearly a third in 2021, and the company sold off one of its smartphone brands in a bid to stay afloat. By 2022, its share had fallen to 2 percent.

The Oct. 7 rules represented the sum of everything U.S. policymakers had learned about semiconductors, supply chains and American power. The measures were announced as an “interim final rule,” meaning they took effect immediately — a direct reaction to a perceived weakness in the Huawei controls. “There was a lot of notice before the Huawei rule came into effect, and they spent the time beforehand stockpiling,” says Peter Harrell, a former senior director for international economics at the National Security Council who was involved in crafting the Oct. 7 rules. “That was a tactical lesson — that you need the element of surprise.” More important, the United States had learned that hobbling one company, however large, simply created room for new competitors to step in. A more comprehensive approach would be needed. “The Trump administration went after companies,” says Allen, the CSIS expert. “The Biden administration is going after industries.”

The rules went deeper into the semiconductor supply chain than any previous measure. China was cut off not just from importing the most advanced chips, but also from acquiring the inputs to develop its own advanced semiconductors and supercomputers, and even from the U.S.-origin components, technology and software that could be used to produce semiconductor-manufacturing equipment to eventually build their own fabs to make their own chips. “It was an ‘all of the above’ strategy,” Wolf, the former B.I.S. official, says. Some elements were entirely novel, like a restriction on the activity of any “U.S. persons” — companies and citizens, as well as green-card holders and permanent residents. After Oct. 7, U.S. persons are no longer allowed to engage in any activity that supports the production of advanced semiconductors in China, whether by maintaining or repairing equipment in a Chinese fab, offering advice or even authorizing deliveries to a Chinese semiconductor manufacturer.

The decision to act unilaterally was a diplomatic gamble. Though the United States controls a number of key choke points in the global supply chain, other countries — particularly Taiwan, Japan and the Netherlands — hold dominance over similarly crucial sectors of the manufacturing process. Had those countries continued to sell to China as before, it would have rendered the Oct. 7 controls nearly useless. But in late January, the Biden administration reached an agreement with Japan and the Netherlands, under which they would implement similar controls on semiconductors or semiconductor-manufacturing equipment.

Taiwan had already signed on months earlier, as soon as the controls were announced. The island is a chip-manufacturing juggernaut: It produces almost two-thirds of the world’s semiconductors annually, and over 90 percent of the most advanced ones. Much of that output is thanks to a single firm, TSMC, the most valuable public company in all of Asia and the most advanced semiconductor manufacturer in the world. By itself, TSMC accounts for about a third of the total global market for contract chip fabrication. (OPEC, by comparison, controls about 40 percent of the global oil market.)

‘At some point, you’re replicating all of human civilization.’

Taiwan’s central role in global chip production makes it indispensable to the United States. If the island’s fabs were to be captured by China, or knocked offline during an invasion, the costs to the global economy would be catastrophic. Taiwan’s chips stranglehold is sometimes called its “silicon shield” — the island’s most formidable deterrent against a Chinese attack, and its best assurance of American help in the event of a Chinese invasion.

But the partnership between the U.S. and Taiwan is an unequal one. Though Taiwan is unmatched in chip manufacturing, it captures less than 10 percent of the global market by revenue. The bulk of sales — 40 percent in 2022 — go to the American firms that export their chip manufacturing to Taiwan, in much the same way that American clothes designers profit from the sale of items that are actually sewn overseas. Strategically, American policymakers see the U.S.’s dependence on Taiwan as an unacceptable risk. They have pushed for TSMC to build more fabs in the U.S., as part of a broader strategy to locate more semiconductor manufacturing closer to American shores.

Taiwan has no choice but to comply, for fear of upsetting its most powerful ally and largest arms supplier; but with every move to erode the island’s pre-eminence, it makes itself more vulnerable. In the worst case, Taiwan’s chip chokehold may only invite more destruction: Some American commentators and war-gamers have suggested that, if China does invade, the U.S. should destroy TSMC’s fabs to stop them from falling under China’s control.

One problem with trying to control the global flow of semiconductors is that they’re very small, lightweight and valuable. “Smugglers love stuff like that,” Allen says. But China needs chips in large quantities to power massive data centers and facilities housing cutting-edge computers — and that makes their procurement uniquely challenging. “Those are large buildings, and they don’t move,” Miller says. “It’s uniquely suited to be understood by U.S. intelligence.” The structure of the market will also present a hurdle to anyone trying to circumvent the regulations: The number of companies capable of producing cutting-edge chips is extremely limited, and the number of buyers with a history of purchasing from them is also small.

But there are also loopholes in the enforcement system, which Chinese companies are already probing. In March, Inspur Group, a Chinese conglomerate active in cloud computing and server manufacturing, was added to the entity list. But according to The Wall Street Journal, at least one of the company’s affiliates was not included in the listing, allowing American businesses to sell to the subsidiary unimpeded.

Chips are moving through China by more circuitous routes as well. Last month, Reuters reported on a booming underground trade in high-end chips in Shenzhen, with multiple retailers touting their ability to supply the A100, a powerful chip made by the American company Nvidia. The U.S. government’s ability to detect and prevent these types of hand-to-hand sales is limited: B.I.S. has only three enforcement agents stationed in China. But the existence of the underground market was, in fact, an early signal of the controls’ efficacy. According to retailers interviewed by Reuters, the chips were available only in small batches, perhaps from stocks shipped to China before the ban took effect. “It highlights that the controls are working,” an industry executive, who requested anonymity in order to candidly assess American policy, told me. “They wouldn’t be doing that if chips flowed freely.”

The battle over the controls may serve as a kind of civilizational test. In the West, the onus of compliance will fall largely on private companies. “Industry is our primary line of defense,” says Thea Rozman Kendler, the assistant secretary of export administration at B.I.S. “We can do whatever we can in government to promulgate clear and concise and effective rules, but it’s industry that’s responsible for compliance and putting those rules into effect.” For the controls to succeed, American industry will need to engage in actions that are, at least in the short-term, self-sabotaging, shutting off a piece of the lucrative Chinese market. Companies will have ample reason to operate as close to the edge of legality as possible, and their Chinese counterparts will have every incentive to game the system and feed them the information needed to approve a sale.

For China, the race for technological self-sufficiency presents perhaps a greater challenge than any the country has faced. The very traits that make China’s success possible — iron political will, endless money and a whole-of-society mobilization around key goals — are just as likely to prove its Achilles’ heel. In the last several years, as the push to develop a domestic semiconductor industry has taken on new urgency, at least six multibillion-dollar chip projects have failed and a number of executives have been put under investigation for corruption. Tens of thousands of companies, meanwhile, have flooded into the semiconductor industry, some of them with little or no expertise in chips, solely in search of easy government money.

“It’s easy for political leaders or executives to think if we throw enough money and engineers at this problem, we’ll solve it,” Jason Matheny, former deputy director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says. But the immense complexity of the science and the globe-spanning supply chains are difficult to imitate. “At some point,” says Matheny, “you’re replicating all of human civilization.”

Yet if any country can overcome such a challenge, it is likely to be China. The Oct. 7 export controls, while crippling China’s advanced chip-making ability for the foreseeable future, may end up spurring long-term growth. When Chinese companies had access to superior Western chips and suppliers, domestic manufacturers struggled to find business. Now Chinese companies must innovate together or die. “We’ve removed choice,” Kilcrease says. “Before they could choose between national resiliency and commercial motivations, and now they don’t have that choice.” Should a large share of China’s $400 billion in annual chip imports be turned inward, domestic chip companies may finally have the means and motivation to catch up.

Huawei may prove instructive once again. Battered by American sanctions and China’s strict pandemic controls, the company’s 2022 profits fell by a staggering 70 percent compared with the previous year. But there are signs of life: Despite the plunge in profits, revenues rose slightly, and the company’s operating system, HarmonyOS — which it developed after being cut off from using Android — has been installed on more than 330 million devices, mostly in China. Huawei remains one of the world’s biggest spenders on research and development, with a budget of about $24 billion last year and a research team of over 100,000 employees.

The emphasis on innovation is by necessity. Bereft of American chips and technology, Huawei has been forced to redesign and remanufacture all of its legacy products to ensure they contain no American components. The company is dragging along an entire domestic supply chain in its wake, sending its own engineers to help train and upscale Chinese suppliers it once shunned in favor of foreign alternatives. Recently, Huawei claimed that it had made significant breakthroughs in the electronic design software used to produce advanced semiconductors at a size that, though still a few generations behind the U.S., would put it further along than any other Chinese company. If Huawei manages to succeed, it could emerge from American sanctions stronger and more resilient than ever.

The controls will not stop China permanently. Even in the best case, they’re a delay tactic, meant to offer the U.S. and its allies space to expand their lead in key technologies. The question is how much time B.I.S. can buy for the West. “This isn’t the type of business where success is batting one thousand,” said Matt Axelrod, the assistant secretary for export enforcement. “Our goal is to stop as much as possible.”

I was meeting with Axelrod and Rozman Kendler, the export administration chief, at the Commerce Department building, in an office overlooking the Ellipse in downtown Washington, D.C. It had taken just a few minutes to walk nearly the entire length of B.I.S.’s headquarters. Even allowing that enforcement need not be perfect, I wondered whether this was a fair fight — the Bureau of Industry and Security versus the full weight of the Chinese government. How could B.I.S. win? How could it hope to move as quickly? How could B.I.S. possibly put as much money behind the effort, and care as much about chips as China does? The future of chips was life or death for China.

There were a few seconds of silence before Rozman Kendler answered, in a quiet voice. “It’s probably life or death for us too,” she said.

Source

The mission, Chandrayaan-3, is largely a do-over after the country’s first attempt at putting a robotic spacecraft on the surface of the moon nearly four years ago ended in a crash and a crater.

Chandrayaan-3 is taking place amid renewed interest in exploring the moon. The United States and China are both aiming to send astronauts there in the coming years, and a half dozen robotic missions from Russia, Japan and the United States could head there this year and next.

In late August, the Launch Vehicle Mark III will attempt to land on the moon with its robotic lander and rover intact.Credit...R. Satish Babu/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

If the robotic lander and rover aboard Chandrayaan-3 succeed in landing intact, that will be an accomplishment that no country other than China has pulled off this century, adding to the national pride India takes in its homegrown space program. A cadre of commercial space start-ups is also popping up in India.

Last month, India reached an agreement with the United States to send a joint mission to the International Space Station next year. The Indian Space Research Organization — India’s equivalent of NASA — is also developing its own spacecraft to take astronauts to orbit.

On Friday, at 2:35 p.m. local time (5:05 a.m. Eastern time), a rocket called Launch Vehicle Mark III lifted off from the Indian space base on an island north of the metropolis of Chennai.

As crowds waving Indian flags and colorful umbrellas cheered, the rocket rose into the sky. Sixteen minutes later, the spacecraft separated from the rocket’s upper stage, and a round of cheering and clapping erupted in the mission control center.

“It is indeed a moment of glory for India,” Jitendra Singh, the minister of state for India’s Ministry of Science of Technology, said in remarks after the launch, “and a moment of destiny for all of us over here at Sriharikota who are part of the history in the making.”

Over the coming weeks, the spacecraft will perform a series of engine firings to elongate its orbit before heading toward the moon. A landing attempt is scheduled to occur on Aug. 23 or 24, timed to coincide with sunrise at the landing site in the moon’s south polar region.

Landing on the moon in one piece is difficult, and many space programs have failed.

Chandrayaan means “moon craft” in Hindi. Chandrayaan-1, an orbiter, launched in 2008, and the mission lasted less than year. The Chandrayaan-2 mission lifted off successfully on July 22, 2019, and the spacecraft successfully entered orbit around the moon.

The landing attempt on Sept. 6, 2019, appeared to be going well until the lander was about 1.3 miles above the surface, when its trajectory diverged from the planned path.

The problems arose because one of the lander’s five engines had thrust that was slightly higher than expected, S. Somanath, the chairman of the Indian space agency, said during a news conference a few days ago.

The spacecraft tried to correct, but the software specified limits on how quickly it could turn. And because of the higher thrust, the craft was still some distance from its destination even as it was approaching the ground.

“The craft is trying to reach there by increasing velocity to reach there, whereas it was not having enough time to,” Mr. Somanath said.

Months later, an amateur internet sleuth used imagery from a NASA spacecraft to locate the crash site, where the debris of the Vikram lander and Pragyan rover sit to this day.

The Chandrayaan-2 orbiter continues to travel around the moon, where its instruments are being used for scientific study. For that reason, the Chandrayaan-3 mission has a simpler propulsion module that will push a lander and a rover out of Earth’s orbit and then allow it to enter orbit around the moon.

Although the design of the lander is largely the same, changes include stronger landing legs, more propellant, additional solar cells to gather energy from the sun and improved sensors to measure the altitude.

The software was also changed so that the spacecraft could turn faster if needed, and the allowed landing area has been expanded.

If they get to the moon, the lander and the rover will use a range of instruments to make thermal, seismic and mineralogical measurements of the area.

The mission is to conclude two weeks after the landing when the sun sets on the solar-powered lander and rover. If something comes up while Chandrayaan-3 is in orbit around the moon, the landing could be delayed a month until the next sunrise, in September, so that the spacecraft can spend a full two weeks operating on the surface.

While scientists will benefit from the lunar data collected by Chandrayaan-3, India, like other countries, is also exploring the solar system for reasons of national pride.

When the country’s Mangalyaan spacecraft entered orbit around Mars in 2014, children across India were asked to arrive at school by 6:45 a.m., well before the usual starting time, to watch the event on state television.

Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, was at the mission control center in Bengaluru and hailed the Mars mission “as a shining symbol of what we are capable of as a nation.”

For the failed Chandrayaan-2 landing attempt, Mr. Modi was again at the space center, but his address afterward was more subdued. “We came very close, but we will need to cover more ground in the times to come,” he said to the scientists, engineers and staff.

Later in his address, Mr. Modi added: “As important as the final result is the journey and the effort. I can proudly say that the effort was worth it and so was the journey.” He was later seen embracing and consoling K. Sivan, then the chief of ISRO.

On Friday, the mood in the mission control room was jubilant after the spacecraft’s successful trip to orbit was confirmed. Optimism about Chandrayaan-3 also pervaded some Indian space enthusiasts who traveled to view the launch in person.

Neeraj Ladia, 35, the chief executive of Space Arcade, an astronomy equipment maker, was parked among around 100 cars viewing the launch five miles from the ISRO campus at Sriharikota.

“This time it will be a soft landing, definitely,” he said, referring to setting down on the moon in one piece. He added, “That is why the mood is very positive this time.”

Beyond Chandrayaan-3, the Indian space agency has other plans in motion. It is developing a spacecraft, Gaganyaan, for taking astronauts to orbit, but it has fallen behind its original goal of a crewed flight by 2022, and the mission is now expected no earlier than 2025.

India is increasing its collaboration with the United States for space missions. Earlier this year, the White House announced that NASA would provide training for Indian astronauts at the Johnson Space Center in Houston “with a goal of mounting a joint effort to the International Space Station in 2024.”

India has also signed the Artemis Accords, an American framework that sets out general guidelines for civil space exploration. The accords reinforce the United States’ view that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty allows countries to use resources like minerals and ice mined on asteroids, the moon, Mars and elsewhere in the solar system.

Another collaboration is the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar mission, or NISAR, which will use advanced radar to precisely track changes in the Earth’s land and ice surfaces. The satellite is scheduled to launch from India in 2024. India also has ambitions for missions to study the sun and Venus.

Several moon missions could be right at India’s heels. Russia is planning to launch Luna 25 in August, the latest in a long line of robotic missions to the moon. But it has been a long time since the last one: Luna 24 took place in August 1976, before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Also scheduled to head to the moon in August is the Smart Lander for Investigating Moon, or SLIM, from the Japanese space agency JAXA.

Three NASA-financed missions are also on the way as part of NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services program — missions put together by private companies to take NASA instruments to the moon. Intuitive Machines of Houston has scheduled its first C.L.P.S. mission for no earlier than the third quarter of this year, heading for the south polar region.

Astrobotic Technology of Pittsburgh has its lander ready but is waiting on its ride — a new rocket developed by United Launch Alliance called Vulcan, which is not yet ready to fly.

A second Intuitive Machines mission is also penciled in for the fourth quarter of this year, but that seems likely to slide into next year.

There has been one landing attempt on the moon this year, in April, by the Japanese company Ispace. But that spacecraft crashed when its navigation system became confused.

Source

India has launched its third Moon mission, aiming to be the first to land near its little-explored south pole.

The Chandrayaan-3 spacecraft with an orbiter, lander and a rover lifted off at 14:35 on Friday (09:05 GMT) from Sriharikota space centre.

The lander is due to reach the Moon on 23-24 August.

If successful, India will be only the fourth country to achieve a soft landing on the Moon, after the US, the former Soviet Union and China.

Thousands of people watched the launch from the viewer's gallery and commentators described the sight of the rocket "soaring in the sky" as "majestic". The lift off was greeted with cheers and loud applause from the crowds and the scientists.

The BBC's Arunoday Mukharji, who was at the launch site, said there were roars of "Bharat Mata ki jai [Victory to mother India]" from every corner of the hall.

"Chandrayaan-3 has begun its journey towards the Moon," Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) chief Sreedhara Panicker Somanath said in his first comments following the successful lift off. "Our launch vehicle has put the Chandrayaan on the precise orbit around the Earth." Isro tweeted that "the health of the spacecraft is normal".

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Chandrayaan-3 had "scripted a new chapter in India's space odyssey".

"It soars high, elevating the dreams and ambitions of every Indian. This momentous achievement is a testament to our scientists' relentless dedication. I salute their spirit and ingenuity!" he wrote on Twitter.

The third in India's programme of lunar exploration, Chandrayaan-3 is expected to build on the success of its earlier Moon missions.

It comes 13 years after the country's first Moon mission in 2008, which carried out "the first and most detailed search for water on the lunar surface and established the Moon has an atmosphere during daytime", said Mylswamy Annadurai, project director of Chandrayaan-1.

Chandrayaan-2 - which also comprised an orbiter, a lander and a rover - was launched in July 2019 but it was only partially successful. Its orbiter continues to circle and study the Moon even today, but the lander-rover failed to make a soft landing and crashed during touchdown. It was because of "a last-minute glitch in the braking system", explained Mr Annadurai.

Mr Somanath has said they have carefully studied the data from the last crash and carried out simulation exercises to fix the glitches.

Chandrayaan-3, which weighs 3,900kg and cost 6.1bn rupees ($75m; £58m), has the "same goals" as its predecessor - to ensure a soft-landing on the Moon's surface, he added.

The lander (called Vikram, after the founder of Isro) weighs about 1,500kg and carries within its belly the 26kg rover which is named Pragyaan, the Sanskrit word for wisdom.

After Friday's lift-off, the craft will take about 15 to 20 days to enter the Moon's orbit. Scientists will then start reducing the rocket's speed over the next few weeks to bring it to a point which will allow a soft landing for Vikram.

If all goes to plan, the six-wheeled rover will then eject and roam around the rocks and craters on Moon's surface, gathering crucial data and images to be sent back to Earth for analysis.

"The rover is carrying five instruments which will focus on finding out about the physical characteristics of the surface of the Moon, the atmosphere close to the surface and the tectonic activity to study what goes on below the surface. I'm hoping we'll find something new," Mr Somanath told Mirror Now.

The south pole of the Moon is still largely unexplored - the surface area that remains in shadow there is much larger than that of the Moon's north pole, which means there is a possibility of water in areas that are permanently shadowed. Chandrayaan-1 was the first to discover water on the Moon in 2008, near the south pole.

"We have more scientific interest in this spot because the equatorial region, which is safe for landing, has already been reached and a lot of data is available for that," Mr Somanath said.

"If we want to make a significant scientific discovery, we have to go to a new area such as the south pole, but it has higher risks of landing."

Mr Somanath adds data from Chandrayaan-2 crash has been "collected and analysed" and it has helped fix all the errors in the latest mission.

"The orbiter from Chandrayaan-2 has been providing lots of very high-resolution images of the spot where we want to land and that data has been well studied so we know how many boulders and craters are there and we have widened the domain of landing for a better possibility."

The landing, Mr Annadurai said, would have to be "absolutely precise" to coincide with the start of a lunar day (a day on the Moon equals 14 days on Earth) because the batteries of the lander and the rover would need sunlight to be able to charge and function.

The Moon mission, Mr Annadurai says, was thought up in the early 2000s as an exciting project to attract talent at a time of the IT boom in India, as most technology graduates wanted to join the software industry.

"The success of Chandrayaan-1 helped on that count. The space programme became a matter of pride for India and it's now considered very prestigious to work for Isro."

But the larger goal of India's space programme, Mr Annadurai says, "encompasses science and technology and the future of humanity".

India is not the only country with an eye on the Moon - there's a growing global interest in it. And scientists say there is still much to understand about the Moon that's often described as a gateway to deep space.

"If we want to develop the Moon as an outpost, a gateway to deep space, then we need to carry out many more explorations to see what sort of habitat would we be able to build there with the locally-available material and how will we carry supplies to our people there," Mr Annadurai says.

"So the ultimate goal for India's probes is that one day when the Moon - separated by 360,000km of space - will become an extended continent of Earth, we will not be a passive spectator, but have an active, protected life in that continent and we need to continue to work towards that."

And a successful Chandrayaan-3 will be a significant step in that direction.

Source

NIGHTMARE SUMMER TRAVEL is upon us as vacation season coincides with high temperatures and severe weather capable of disrupting flights.

By Wednesday of this week, FlightAware, a site that follows air traffic around the world, had tallied some 30,000 delays and between 900 and 1,400 cancellations per day. In the US, more severe weather is expected in the Southwest, as scorching temperatures are forecast to reach above 115 degrees Fahrenheit in some areas, and thunderstorms are forecast for the Northeast.

The airline industry has a disproportionate effect on the climate; flying is a carbon-intense activity, responsible for 2 to 3 percent of the globe’s energy-related CO2 emissions. But it’s also vulnerable to the effects of higher temperatures and changing weather patterns. Hot weather causes obvious problems for aviation: It makes working conditions on tarmacs unbearable, and wildfire smoke reduces visibility. But there are also some surprising effects of a changing climate on flights, like more turbulence, problems with takeoffs, and more frequent and severe storms that can lead to delayed or canceled flights.

Individual storms or heat waves aren’t necessarily linkable to climate change, but the overall trends of a warming world will test aviation. “There are problems—and will be problems in the future—due to climate change,” says John Knox, a professor of geography at the University of Georgia.

First, there are the immediate effects of sudden heat waves themselves. Last summer, a heat wave in the United Kingdom damaged runway infrastructure and led to delays. As an extreme example of what heat can do, in 2012 high temperatures melted the tarmac at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, trapping a plane when its wheel became stuck.

More heat in the atmosphere means that the air holds more moisture, making thunderstorms more likely. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby warned this week that more thunderstorms from warmer temperatures will bring more delays.

Climate change is also linked to increasingly severe fire seasons. This year’s rocky start to July comes after a bad June, when wildfires from Canada sent smoke that engulfed the East Coast and the Midwest and affected flights. Wildfire smoke does more than reduce visibility—it affects a plane’s advanced navigation systems. These are designed well to work through rain and fog, but particulate matter from smoke and ash are more disruptive. To respond to these conditions, the US Federal Aviation Administration shifts air traffic, creating more distance between planes as they land.

But there are more complicated, invisible effects of a warming world too. Hotter air is trapped near the ground, and cooler air above. Shifts in temperature gradients affect the wind shear, or the changes in speed and direction between air near the ground and at higher elevations. These eddies create clear air turbulence, which occurs in the absence of clouds. Light turbulence can cause sudden changes in altitude that feel like bumps, but severe turbulence can cause structural stress to the aircraft.

Turbulence isn’t just unpleasant. It’s the cause of more than one third of injuries aboard air carriers, according to the US National Transportation Safety Board, and in rare instances can even lead to death.

Changing wind patterns may also alter flight lengths. If, for example, there are stronger eastward winds, flights from the US to Europe will speed up, but flights in the other direction may take longer. Transatlantic flights may even need to reroute and refuel.

Research from Paul Williams, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Reading in the UK, found that jet stream changes could increase the amount of time flights are in the sky each day, leading to more fuel burning, higher costs, and more CO2 emissions. Jet streams are high-altitude air currents that drive weather systems. As the Arctic warms, the North Atlantic Jet Stream is changing, leading to more odd weather.

But heat alone can also lead to delays and cancellations, like when a 119-degree day in Phoenix grounded planes in 2017. That’s because high temperatures decrease air density. When the air is less dense, planes need more time and distance to fight gravity as they take off—so they may need a longer runway to become airborne. Not all airports can accommodate these sudden changes.

Passengers are feeling the effects, but this isn’t new or surprising to the aviation industry, which has grappled with sustainability issues for decades, says Rob Britton, a former American Airlines executive and a professor of marketing at Georgetown University.

The industry has taken strides to make flying more efficient, but significantly reducing delays and cancellations will depend on designing aircraft that can withstand new environmental challenges and updating aviation infrastructure. It’s a plan that requires cooperation from the FAA, airlines, and manufacturers. “These are not solutions that happen quickly,” Britton says.

Despite the drawbacks, people want to fly. The US Transportation Security Administration expected a record number of passengers to board planes this summer. Combine the travel boom with heat waves, worker strikes in Europe, and staffing issues in the US, and these headaches aren’t likely to end soon.

Source

Source

THE ISLAND OF Svalbard, about halfway between mainland Norway and the North Pole, is warming twice as fast as the rest of the Arctic, which itself is warming up to four and a half times faster than the rest of the planet. Scientists just discovered that the island’s retreating glaciers are creating a potentially significant climate feedback loop: When the ice disappears, groundwater that’s supersaturated with methane bubbles to the surface. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 80 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. This groundwater can have more than 600,000 times the methane of a cup of water that’s been sitting with its surface exposed to air. 

“What that means is that once it hits the atmosphere, it’s going to equilibrate, and it’s going to release as much methane as it can—quickly,” says Gabrielle Kleber, a glacial biogeochemist at University of Cambridge and the University Centre in Svalbard and lead author of a new paper describing the discovery in Nature Geoscience. “It’s about 2,300 tons of methane that’s released annually from springs just on Svalbard. It’s maybe equivalent to something like 30,000 cows.” (Cows burp methane—a lot of it.) 

“These numbers, I honestly thought that they were even wrong, but they cannot be wrong,” says Carolina Olid, who studies Arctic methane emissions at the University of Barcelona but wasn’t involved in the work. “Wow, they are really, really high.” 

The methane is also coming out of the ground in some places as pressurized gas that Kleber can actually light on fire, as you can see in the video below. “This is a widespread methane emission source that we previously just hadn’t accounted for,” says Kleber. “We can safely assume that this phenomenon is happening in other regions in the Arctic. Once we start extrapolating that and expanding it across the Arctic, we’re looking at something that could be considerable.”

< Watch the video. >

Methane gas is in such high concentrations here that you can set it on fire VIDEO: GABRIELLE KLEBER

As the Arctic warms rapidly, scientists are finding ways that it’s both suffering from climate change and contributing to it. Like a freezer that’s lost power, the Arctic is thawing, and the stuff inside it is rotting, releasing clouds of greenhouse gasses. When frozen ground known as permafrost thaws, it creates pools of oxygen-poor water, where microbes chew on organic material and burp methane. The warmer it gets up there, the happier these microbes are and the more methane they produce. (In some places, the permafrost is thawing so quickly that it’s even gouging methane-spewing holes in the landscape.)

< Watch the video. >

Bubbling methane VIDEO: GABRIELLE KLEBER

Elsewhere, vast deposits of the gas are hidden in the ground beneath glaciers. When temperatures get low enough and pressures get high enough, the gas freezes into solid methane hydrate—basically, methane trapped in a cage of ice. That ice, of course, can melt as temperatures rise.

The melting of the glaciers also exposes darker-colored land, which absorbs more of the sun’s energy and accelerates the warming of the terrain—a dreaded climatic feedback loop. 

Glacier caves form when glacial meltwater flows during the summer PHOTOGRAPH: GABRIELLE KLEBER

Methane is a fundamental component of buried fossil fuels—the “natural gas” we burn contains methane, in fact—which can migrate through cracks in rock. When it reaches groundwater, the liquid readily absorbs the geologic gas. “We find that the higher-concentrated springs are much more prevalent in regions that have really high organic-containing rocks, such as shale and coal,” says Kleber. “This is millions-of-years-old methane that’s been trapped in the rocks and is now finding a way to come out by exploiting these groundwater springs. And so that means that the capacity for these emissions is quite large, since it’s being fed by this very large reservoir.” 

Groundwater gushes at the surface PHOTOGRAPH: GABRIELLE KLEBER

But it’s hard for researchers to quantify how much methane and carbon dioxide are coming off the warming landscape. For one thing, it’s extremely difficult to do fieldwork in Svalbard and the rest of the Arctic. For another, some of the microbes that inhabit the region might be methane producers, but others could be methane consumers, which help sequester it. Methane-producing microbes love thawing permafrost because conditions are wet and oxygen-poor, or anoxic. But when a glacier disappears and the land dries out, microbes that eat methane might proliferate instead.

“In some cases, it can be a small sink of methane in the landscape,” says Gerard Rocher-Ros, an ecologist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences who studies Arctic methane but wasn’t involved in the new paper. Because there’s a lot of land in the Arctic, those small sinks might add up to some significant sequestering. Plus, as the north warms, it’s greening with new vegetation, which absorbs carbon dioxide as it grows. Scientists have also found that watersheds fed by glacial meltwater can soak up CO2.

Icing in the riverbed of a glacier PHOTOGRAPH: GABRIELLE KLEBER

It’s not clear whether the natural mechanisms that trap these greenhouse gasses can keep up with the ones that are releasing them, including the newly discovered geological methane bubbling up from groundwater. The Arctic isn’t an easily characterized monolith: Scientists have to do meticulous fieldwork to figure out how one area might produce and sequester methane differently than even a neighboring ecosystem. 

But it is now becoming evident that an environment that was once reliably glaciated is thawing out as the Arctic freezer wavers. “People studying carbon cycling have long hypothesized that basically unavailable methane—that is capped or locked or frozen in permafrost or below glaciers—at some point may become available to the surface environment,” says Emily Stanley, a biogeochemist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison who wasn’t involved in the research. “What I find depressing is that this is one of a handful of papers that are saying: ‘Yep, here we go. It’s coming out.’” 

The release of groundwater methane is a bad sign that more warming is ahead. “It’s happening now,” Stanley says. “We are beginning to see this positive feedback loop.”

Source

The tiny microbes, including plant-like algae, use green chlorophyll to photosynthesize. So the greater their numbers, the greener their habitat becomes.

As appealing as a greener world might sound, a surge in phytoplankton concentrations is likely to have numerous knock-on effects on ocean ecosystems.

We are already witnessing severe short term impacts of heat-induced increases in phytoplankton. Their sudden population booms rob their surroundings of oxygen, creating hypoxic dead zones that not all animals can escape.

But there are longer term consequences too, which we are yet to understand.

One of the open questions around these long term changes is how much data is sufficient to spot them, with previous estimates suggesting that three decades of observations would be required to detect shifts in ocean ecosystems.

Darker purple means a more significant color shift. (Cael et al., Nature, 2023)

Here, the team of researchers demonstrated around 20 years of data from the MODIS-Aqua satellite is enough, meaning we can observe, understand, and react to climate change more quickly.

That faster turnaround is thanks to remote sensing reflectance, which refers to snapshots of ocean color based on reflected light. Processing these snapshots is in some ways more straightforward than trying to measure phytoplankton populations using other methods, such as chlorophyll estimates.

That's not to say phytoplankton is the only reason the ocean could be getting greener, as the researchers admit. However, their analysis closely matches an advanced model predicting how ocean ecosystems might be responding to climate change.

"Remote sensing reflectance, and thus surface-ocean ecology, has changed significantly over a large fraction of the ocean in the past 20 years," the researchers write in their published paper.

The greening of the ocean was particularly noticeable around the equator, the study reports.

As phytoplankton absorbs CO2, their increased numbers could be seen as a valuable carbon sink, making the link more complex than first appears.

But since they can alter so much of their environment – including temperature, nutrient availability, and light levels in the water, and are the foundation of the marine food chain — the increase in numbers is also likely to cause widespread significant changes to resources like conservation zones and fisheries.

This study doesn't dive into those consequences in too much depth, but whatever this ocean greening means, it seems as though it's already happening – and thanks to the latest research, they've come to light ten years ahead of time.

"Altogether, these results suggest that the effects of climate change are already being felt in surface marine microbial ecosystems, but have not yet been detected," write the researchers.

The research has been published in Nature.

Source

The medication, Opill, will become available in pharmacies and supermarkets as well as online early next year, the manufacturer Perrigo said in a statement.

Many countries already allow contraceptive pills to be sold over the counter. But in the United States the measure comes as the right to abortion is under renewed assault from conservatives and is now banned in several states.

"Today's approval marks the first time a nonprescription daily oral contraceptive will be an available option for millions of people in the United States," said Patrizia Cavazzoni, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in a statement.

"When used as directed, daily oral contraception is safe and is expected to be more effective than currently available nonprescription contraceptive methods in preventing unintended pregnancy."

Almost half of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended, the FDA.

Allowing women to access the progestin-only daily contraceptive pill without needing to see a doctor first "may help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and their potential negative impacts," the FDA statement said.

The pill, produced by the pharmaceutical company HRA Pharma, which was recently acquired by Perrigo, had already been authorized for prescription in the United States for a number of years.

© 2023 AFP

Source

Temperatures are expected to surpass 40C (104F) in parts of Spain, France, Greece, Croatia and Turkey.

In Italy, temperatures could reach as high as 48.8C (119.8F). A red alert warning has been issued for 10 cities, including Rome, Bologna and Florence.

On Tuesday, a man in his forties died after collapsing in northern Italy.

Italian media reported that the 44-year-old worker was painting zebra crossing lines in the town of Lodi, near Milan, before he collapsed from the heat. He was taken to hospital where he later died.

"We are facing an unbearable heatwave," Italian politician Nicola Fratoianni tweeted.

"Maybe it's the case that in the hottest hours, all the useful precautions are taken to avoid tragedies like the one that happened today in Lodi."

People have been advised to drink at least two litres of water a day and to avoid coffee and alcohol, which are dehydrating.

One group of tourists on the streets of Rome told the Reuters news agency they were using sprinklers and thermal water as part of efforts to keep themselves cool.

"We're trying to survive," said Mariko Desso, who was visiting from the southern city of Bari.

Several visitors to the country have already collapsed from heatstroke, including a British man outside the Colosseum in Rome.

The Cerberus heatwave - named by the Italian Meteorological Society after the three-headed monster that features in Dante's Inferno - is expected to bring extreme conditions in the next few days.

Spain has been sweltering for days in temperatures of up to 45C and overnight temperatures in much of the country did not drop below 25C. Parts of Majorca on Wednesday were as high as 37C at 04:00.

The Andalusian regional government has started a telephone assistance service for people affected by the heat which has received 54,000 calls since it opened in early June. On the Spanish island of Majorca, the emergency health hotline has had to deal with more than one case of heatstroke every day since May.

A satellite image recorded by the EU's Copernicus Sentinel mission revealed that the land temperature in the Extremadura region had hit 60C on Tuesday.

"It is true that the temperatures have risen, but much, much higher than in other years," Madrid resident Alejandrina Coy told Reuters.

"I see that this is affecting everyone a lot."

"The weather is becoming less and less linear, there is less difference between the seasons," said Paz Llanes, another resident.

The Met Office says temperatures will peak on Friday, and BBC Weather says large swathes of southern Europe could see temperatures in the low to mid 40s - and possibly higher.

The heat is likely to continue into the weekend, and in Prague, the Czech capital, temperatures could reach as high as 36C (96.8F) on Saturday, according to BBC Weather - well up from averages of 24C (75.2F) in July.

But as Cerberus dies out, Italian weather forecasters are warning that the next heatwave, dubbed Charon after the ferryman who delivered souls into the underworld, will push temperatures back up towards 43C in Rome and a possible 47C on the island of Sardinia.

Europe's hottest-ever temperature of 48.8C (119.8F) was recorded near Syracuse on the Italian island of Sicily in August 2021.

A new study says 61,672 people died in Europe as a result of the heat last year. ISGlobal Institute in Barcelona said Italy had most deaths that could be attributable to the heat, with 18,010, while Spain had 11,324 and Germany 8,173.

The fear is that this heatwave could cause many more deaths this summer.

ISGlobal's research shows that that the cities in Spain with the highest risk of deaths caused by the heat are Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Málaga, Murcia, Palma de Mallorca and Bilbao.

A heatwave is a period of hot weather where temperatures are higher than is expected for the time of year.

Experts say periods of exceptionally hot weather are becoming more frequent and climate change means it is now normal to experience record-breaking temperatures.

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather forecasts said that globally, this June was the hottest on record.

Source

If your spit is sometimes tinged pink at least a couple of times a week after you brush or floss, it’s possible you have early-stage gum disease. But the troublesome condition can also have other surprising symptoms — or none at all.

“It’s a very, very quiet disease,” said Dr. Rodrigo Neiva, chairman of periodontics at Penn Dental Medicine.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of U.S. adults over the age of 30 show signs of gum disease, and nine percent have severe gum disease, known as periodontal disease.

When left untreated, gum disease can become more difficult to remedy. “Patients may eventually end up losing their teeth,” Dr. Neiva said. And some research has connected periodontal disease with other undesirable health conditions, such as dementia, diabetes and heart disease.

Here’s everything you need to know about gum disease, including its causes and early symptoms, as well as how to prevent it and what dentists can do to manage it.

Understanding the Causes

Early gum disease is called gingivitis and it is characterized by inflammation of the gums (also known as gingiva).

“It is caused by bacteria on teeth — plaque — that release products that irritate the gums,” said Dr. Deborah Foyle, interim department head of periodontics at the Texas A&M University School of Dentistry.

Good oral hygiene is key to preventing gum disease, because it removes plaque from the teeth before bacteria can harm the gums. Often, people develop gingivitis because they aren’t brushing and flossing adequately. Sometimes, only parts of the gums become affected — especially the gums around the backs of the teeth where people often don’t brush as well, Dr. Neiva said.

Dentists can diagnose gingivitis by using a special instrument that measures the distance between gums and teeth, said Dr. Y. Natalie Jeong, professor and chair of the department of periodontology at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine. Larger spaces are indicative of the condition.

When gingivitis is left untreated, the bacteria can invade and destroy the tissues under the gums, causing advanced gum disease, or periodontal disease. “The bone supporting the teeth starts to break down, leaving the roots of the teeth exposed and sensitive in some cases,” Dr. Foyle said.

“Spaces develop between the teeth, and the teeth start to get loose.”

People who smoke, have diabetes or grind their teeth have an increased chance for developing gum disease, Dr. Jeong said. Some medications, such as steroids, and certain epilepsy and cancer drugs, can also increase the risk. Genetics can also make people more or less susceptible, she noted.

People who rarely get cavities may be more likely than other people to get gum disease, too, Dr. Neiva said. That’s because the bacteria that cause gum disease outcompete and suppress the bacteria that cause cavities.

“It’s very common to see patients with very, very advanced periodontal disease not having a single cavity,” he said.

The Warning Signs, and What to Do

Gingivitis often goes unnoticed because it doesn’t cause pain. But people with gingivitis may notice that their gums bleed when they brush or floss their teeth, Dr. Neiva said. The part of the gums adjacent to their teeth may also look red rather than pink.

That said, smokers with gingivitis may not experience any gum bleeding or other symptoms, Dr. Jeong said. “People tend to think, ‘OK, my gums never bleed, I should be just fine,’” she said — but that’s a misconception.

Regular brushing and flossing can help prevent gum disease, but once gingivitis has set in, good oral hygiene at home can’t always fix the problem. That’s because the bacteria may have started to accumulate below the gum level, Dr. Neiva said. In these cases, a professional cleaning and, sometimes, antibiotics, can treat — and cure — gingivitis.

Once gingivitis has progressed into more advanced periodontal disease, people may notice that their gums start to recede, causing their teeth to look longer, Dr. Jeong said. They may also experience increased sensitivity around the gums. Their teeth may not fit together the same way when they bite because they have shifted, and they might have chronic bad breath. Eventually, their teeth may start to become loose and even fall out.

Advanced periodontal disease can be incurable. Dentists and periodontists can, however, recommend treatments that slow down or prevent further gum and bone loss. They may also deep-clean the roots of affected teeth and recommend gum surgery.

Keeping your gums healthy is ultimately simple: Brush twice a day, floss once a day and see your dentist for cleanings every six months, or as frequently as suggested, Dr. Neiva said.

“The sooner we detect it,” he said, “the more we can do.”

Source

Source

The Perseverance Rover has found evidence of organic compounds in the Jezero Crater on Mars. Although this isn’t the smoking gun proving once and for all that Mars once hosted life — these compounds could have also developed in nonbiological ways — the results hint at surprisingly complex organic conditions for the “key building blocks for life” on Earth’s neighbor. The study was published in Nature.

The Perseverance Rover, the first to explore the Jezero Crater, has been investigating the area since February 2021. Researchers believe the basin once housed an ancient lake, including a delta from a river that once flowed into it. It’s one of the most likely regions to reveal leftover signs of life on Mars.

Organic molecules like those observed in the Jezero Crater contain carbon and often hydrogen atoms. They’re the core components of life as we know it on Earth, although they can also develop abiologically. “They are an exciting clue for astrobiologists since they are often thought of as building blocks of life,” paper co-author Joseph Razzell Hollis, a postdoctoral fellow at London’s Natural History Museum, said to Newsweek.

“Importantly, they can be created by processes not related to life as we know it, and so organic molecules are not evidence of life on their own without sufficient extra evidence that cannot be explained by nonbiological — or abiotic — processes.”

The rover observed the compounds using an instrument — the Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman and Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) — that maps organic molecules and minerals on rock surfaces. Significantly, it found organic materials in all ten targets it observed on the crater floor. “Our results support observations by previous robotic missions to Mars that the Red Planet was once rich in organic material, compounds made primarily of carbon and hydrogen, and that some of that organic material can still be detected billions of years later,” co-author Joseph Razzell Hollis, a London-based astrobiologist, told Gizmodo. “Each detection, each observation, gives us a little bit more information that brings us closer to understanding the history of Mars and whether it could have supported life in the past.”

Now that the researchers have observed the molecules, they’ll need a better look at them in Earthbound labs to draw further conclusions about their origins. “If these samples are returned to terrestrial laboratories, a more diverse suite of tools can be used to study the samples, including at higher spatial resolution and with much greater specificity and sensitivity,” the authors wrote. They’ll have to wait for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission, which isn’t expected to launch from Earth until at least the late 2020s. Still, the trip should be worth the wait. “So far, the only Martian rocks we’ve ever been able to study on Earth have been meteorites. Getting our hands on intact Mars rocks, carefully stored and protected from contamination, will be invaluable to planetary science,” Razzell Hollis told Newsweek.

Source

Who invented electricity? We'll spoil the big twist now: it wasn't invented, but discovered by humans. The energy form was always there – it just needed someone to find that spark.

Essentially, electricity is a form of energy resulting from the presence and movement of electric charges – the flow of electrons. This energy, of course, powers just about everything you own, from your TV, toothbrush, lightbulbs, and even the fastest plane in the world.

But who actually discovered electricity? The answer is much more interesting than you might think.

Who discovered electricity?

American polymath Benjamin Franklin is most credited for discovering electricity in 1752. In an experiment, he attached a wire to a kite in a thunderstorm, which showed that lightning consists of electricity.

Oil painting of Benjamin Franklin, 1783. Photo credit: GraphicaArtis/Getty Images

However, despite this seminal experiment, no one person can be credited with discovering electricity. Instead, several individuals made contributions to the study of electricity over centuries. These include...

Thales of Miletus

Greek philosopher Thales of Miletus discovered that rubbing amber (fossilised tree sap) with animal fur would attract objects like feathers. Without truly knowing it, he had noticed the effects of magnetism and static electricity.

William Gilbert (624 BCE to 546 BCE)

In his book De Magnete, English scientist William Gilbert coined the term 'electricus' in 1600, which means 'amber-like'. Polymath Sir Thomas Browne later altered the word slightly, changing it to 'electricity' in 1646

Otto von Guericke (1602-1686)

Building on Gilbert and Browne’s work, German scientist Otto von Guericke successfully produced static electricity by rotating a ball of sulfur with a crank and using his free hand to rub the rotating sulfur.

Stephen Gray (1666-1736)

Stephen Gray discovered the difference between electrical insulators and conductors, finding that electricity would "flow along wires".

Ewald Georg von Kleist (1700-1748) and Pieter van Musschenbroek (1692-1761)

In 1745, the two scientists invented the Leyden jar. This was a key invention in the build-up of our understanding of electricity. The Leyden jar was a glass jar or vial coated on the inside and outside with metal foil. This device was able to store electricity.

The Leyden jar was an early capacitor, or a device for storing an electric charge. Photo by SSPL/Getty Images)

Scientists William Watson, Henry Cavendish, and Charles A Coulomb all used the Leyden jar in key experiments with electricity, in the few years before Benjamin Franklin’s kite experiment.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

In 1752, Franklin proved that lightning consisted of electricity by flying a kite during a thunderstorm.

A metal key was tied to the string of the kite to conduct the electricity from lightning and it worked (giving him a shock). This experiment is credited with sparking the idea of using electricity as a power source.

Alessandro Volta (1745-1827)

Alessandro Volta was an Italian physicist who invented the first electric battery, known as the 'voltaic pile' in 1800. This device produced a steady flow of electrical current and was a significant advancement in the field.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

Faraday, an English scientist, made groundbreaking discoveries in the field of electromagnetism. He formulated the laws of electromagnetic induction and demonstrated the generation of electricity through moving magnetic fields. Faraday's work laid the foundation for the development of electric generators and transformers.

Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

Edison, an American inventor, is renowned for his contributions to the practical application of electricity. He developed the first successful practical electric light bulb and established the world's first electric power distribution system, which was crucial in bringing electricity into homes and businesses.

Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

Tesla, a Serbian-American inventor and engineer, made numerous advancements in the field of electrical engineering. He pioneered alternating current (AC) power transmission, which revolutionised the way electricity is generated, transmitted, and distributed.

Source

Source

Source

Source

As a physics professor who studies ways to support women in STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – fields and a film studies professor who worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood, we believe the trailer’s depiction of women reinforces stereotypes about who can succeed in science. It also represents a larger trend of women’s contributions in science going unrecognized in modern media.

Lise Meitner: A pioneering role model in physics

The Manhattan Project would not have been possible without the work of physicist Lise Meitner, who discovered nuclear fission. Meitner used Einstein’s E=MC² to calculate how much energy would be released by splitting uranium atoms, and it was that development that would prompt Einstein to sign a letter urging President Franklin Roosevelt to begin the United States’ atomic research program.

Einstein called Meitner the “Madame Curie of Germany” and was one of a pantheon of physicists, from Max Planck to Niels Bohr, who nominated Meitner for a Nobel Prize 48 times during her lifetime.

Meitner never won. Instead, the prize for fission went to Otto Hahn, her male lab partner of 30 years in Berlin. Hahn received the news of his nomination under house arrest in England, where he and other German scientists were being held to determine how far the Third Reich had advanced with its atomic program.

 Lise Meitner, the accomplished physicist who discovered nuclear fission. MaterialScientist/Wikimedia Commons

Of Jewish descent, Meitner had been forced to flee the Nazis in 1938 and refused to use this scientific discovery to develop a bomb. Rather, she spent the rest of her life working to promote nuclear disarmament and advocating for the responsible use of nuclear energy.

Meitner was not the only woman who made a significant contribution during this time. But the lack of physics role models like Meitner in popular media leads to real-life consequences. Meitner doesn’t appear as a character in the film, as she was not part of the Manhattan Project, but we hope the script alludes to her groundbreaking work.

A lack of representation

Only around 20% of the undergraduate majors and Ph.D. students in physics are women. The societal stereotypes and biases, expectation of brilliance, lack of role models and chilly culture of physics discourage many talented students from historically marginalized backgrounds, like women, from pursuing physics and related disciplines.

Societal stereotypes and biases influence students even before they enter the classroom. One common stereotype is the idea that genius and brilliance are important factors to succeed in physics. However, genius is often associated with boys, and girls from a young age tend to shy away from fields associated with innate brilliance.

Studies have found that by the age of 6, girls are less likely than boys to believe they are “really, really smart.” As these students get older, often the norms in science classes and curricula tend not to represent the interests and values of girls. All of these stereotypes and factors can influence women’s perception of their ability to do physics.

Research shows that at the end of a yearlong college physics course sequence, women with an “A” have the same physics self-efficacy as men with a “C”. A person’s physics self-efficacy is their belief about how good they are at solving physics problems – and one’s self-efficacy can shape their career trajectory.

Women drop out of college science and engineering majors with significantly higher grade-point averages than men who drop out. In some cases, women who drop out have the same GPA as men who complete those majors. Compared to men, women in physics courses feel significantly less recognized for their accomplishments. Recognition from others as a person who can excel in physics is the strongest predictor of a student’s physics identity, or whether they see themselves as someone who can excel in physics.

More frequent media recognition of female scientists, such as Meitner, could vicariously influence young women, who may see them as role models. This recognition alone can boost young women’s physics self-efficacy and identity.

When Meitner started her career at the beginning of the 20th century, male physicists made excuses about why women had no place in a lab – their long hair might catch fire on Bunsen burners, for instance. We like to believe we have made progress in the past century, but the underrepresentation of women in physics is still concerning.

 A number of barriers keep young women out of the physics field, but having role models to look up to can lead them toward success. Hill Street Studios/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Diversity as an asset to science

If diverse groups of scientists are involved in brainstorming challenging problems, not only can they devise better, future-oriented solutions, but those solutions will also benefit a wider range of people.

Individuals’ lived experiences affect their perspectives – for example, over two centuries ago, mathematician Ada Lovelace imagined applications far beyond what the original inventors of the computer intended. Similarly, women today are more likely to focus on applications of quantum computers that will benefit their communities. Additionally, physicists from Global South countries are more likely to develop improved stoves, solar cells, water purification systems or solar-powered lamps. The perspectives that diverse groups bring to science problems can lead to new innovations.

Our intention is not to disparage the “Oppenheimer” movie, but to point out that by not centering media attention on diverse voices – including those of women in physics like Meitner – filmmakers perpetuate the status quo and stereotypes about who belongs in physics. Additionally, young women continue to be deprived of exposure to role models who could inspire their academic and professional journeys

Source

Equity for Women in Science: Dismantling Systemic Barriers to Advancement Cassidy R. Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière Harvard Univ. Press (2023)

Are gender inequities slowly disappearing in the natural and social sciences? Those who argue so might point, say, to election to prestigious academies, such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Until the 2000s, women were under-represented, but in the past 20 years, women have been advantaged relative to similarly credentialed men in psychology, economics and mathematics. Equity for Women in Science is a convincing reply to those who advance such arguments. Less overt — all but invisible — gender gaps are still with us.

Every scientist experiences advantages and disadvantages, acceptances and rejections, citations and a lack thereof. In most societies men are advantaged relative to women, but at the individual level, advantage varies and is subject to multiple influences, including skin colour and socioeconomic status. The combined subtlety and variability of privilege make it difficult to observe and document the aggregate imbalances. That requires sophisticated and ingenious efforts.

Cassidy Sugimoto and Vincent Larivière, information scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and the University of Montreal in Canada respectively, have the sophistication and ingenuity, and have put in the effort. Their book summarizes scientometric and bibliometric analyses, conducted by themselves and their colleagues, of the influence of gender on outcomes in academia. The analyses show who publishes, who gets credit, who gets funding, who has job mobility, who collaborates and whose work is cited.

Big data

The book isn’t all numbers. Besides copious amounts of data, the book provides revealing vignettes of the experiences of women in science, along with telling examples of institutional practices, both past and present. Nature, for instance, used the phrase ‘men of science’ in its mission statement until the year 2000, and did not have a female editor-in-chief until 2018. My favourite example, also from 2018, concerns Donna Strickland, physicist at the University of Waterloo in Canada, who received a share of the Nobel prize in physics that year for her work on short-pulsed lasers. At the time, she was an associate professor whose Wikipedia entry had just been rejected on the grounds that she didn’t meet the online encyclopedia’s notability criteria.

But the numbers do speak volumes. Sugimoto and Larivière’s global analyses show that although gender inequity occurs everywhere, there are interesting differences by country. For example, the proportion of female authors on papers varies, even among economically advantaged countries. Japan has lower rates than China (17% vs 26%), whereas China and Germany show similar rates. They are all lower than the world average of 31%.

Donna Strickland’s Wikipedia page was initially rejected despite her later winning the Nobel prize.

Credit: Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP/Getty

Some of Sugimoto and Larivière’s analyses are straightforward data mining, such as those documenting the common observation that female researchers, on average, publish less than male researchers do. (Non-binary status cannot be detected from their byline analysis). Without controls, on average, women published 20% fewer papers than men (4 vs 3.2 overall) between 2008 and 2020. That difference was reduced to 7% (4.2 vs 3.9), however, when the productivity analysis was restricted to a group of (presumably younger) researchers who published their first article in 2008. Younger people published more, with women increasing their production more than men. It is hard to pinpoint the driver for this, given the breadth of societal changes in the past two decades. Bibliometric analyses can reveal only so much: the trend might be explained by there being more women in almost every field now, more attention being given to gender gaps, more efforts to support women in science, more hiring of women at research institutions, or some combination of those and other factors.

But why does the gap in paper publication exist in the first place? The authors investigated the role of parenting, using data from an as-yet unpublished paper. It involved an international survey sent out to 1.5 million potential participants. Of these, 10,400 (fewer than 1%) yielded usable data. The representativeness of that sample is unclear, but the conclusions make sense. The authors found that the extent to which being a parent affected productivity depended more on how much time someone spent actively parenting than on how many children they had: if you leave the active parenting to someone else, it doesn’t matter whether you have one child or five. According to various studies, women are on average more engaged in parenting than are men, especially “invisible” parenting — being on call, planning, monitoring children’s emotional well-being and so on.

Sugimoto and Larivière address issues — collaborations, mobility, funding — that contribute to women’s disadvantages relative to men’s. A recent study in Nature demonstrated a deeper problem: women who appeared in progress reports for physics grants as doing equal work to men were nevertheless less likely to appear as authors on papers emanating from those grants (M. B. Ross et al. Nature 608, 135–145; 2022). The more important the paper, the less likely women were to be included. Data from fields such as economics also suggest that women’s contributions are undervalued compared with men’s, even when they publish equally well in high-impact journals.

Quality and equality

Perhaps the most important chapter of the book investigates disparities in citation rates. As the authors point out, ideas cannot change a field if people do not pay attention to them. Men are cited more than women are. People who believe that the present system is largely meritocratic would see citations as a reasonable proxy of an article’s quality and importance. Does that mean that women just do lower-quality work?

Sugimoto and Larivière break things down by a journal’s impact factor to address this possibility. (The impact factor is the average number of times that articles published in a journal are cited.) Papers with men as first authors have at most a tiny citation advantage over those with female first authors for publications with impact factors of 1 or below. As impact factor increases, so do both the number of citations and the disparity. The average number of citations jumps from 2, for journals with an impact factor of 1.75–2, to 4 when the factor is above 2. At that impact factor, men have 0.5 citations more than women on average, compared with 0.1 below that factor. Women simply do not reap the same rewards as men.

More interpretation of the importance of the citation disparity — and the other disparities documented in the research — would have been welcome. A sceptic might note, for example, that although women publishing in high-impact journals are cited considerably less frequently than men publishing in the same journals, they are still cited much more often than men or women in journals with lower-impact factors. Sugimoto and Larivière briefly bring in the concept of the accumulation of (dis)advantage — how small advantages and disadvantages compound over time to produce notable effects — but they could have spelled out its applicability at greater length and shown its effects. The original insight that advantage compounds over time — similar to compound interest on an investment or debt — was from the sociologists Robert Merton and Harriet Zuckerman. They in turn cite a considerably older, biblical source:Matthew 25:29, “to every one who has, more will be given”. Computer simulations show that small consistent differences in treatment add up to substantial changes in career trajectories.

Equity for Women in Science is primarily a compendium of the authors’ compelling research. It is weakest in its contextualization of that research. Since their work consists mainly of non-experimental analyses of large-scale patterns in publication, funding and migration between institutions, it does not directly address the underlying mechanisms. The book sparsely and selectively samples the large literature on the socio-psychological, organizational and institutional mechanisms that contribute to gender disparities, and interventions that can address them effectively.

Similarly, the authors do not tie together how they think the different components of the scientific enterprise interact. They eschew a large model that would show how, for example, funding and collaboration interact to affect academic careers. For readers with their own theories, the rich array of data could provide a testing ground even if it does not provide new insights. For those who want to challenge their beliefs in science as agender-fair enterprise, the data amply serve that purpose.

Nature 619, 244-246 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02139-x

Source

To lose weight (body fat), you need to be in a calorie deficit. This means consuming fewer calories than your body uses, or exercising to burn more calories than you consume.

During the first few days in a calorie deficit, the body uses up its small reservoir of glycogen stores for energy. Glycogen is a string of glucose (sugar) that comes from the carbohydrates you eat.

Since carbs are the body's main energy source, this is why any glucose the body doesn't immediately use is stored to use for energy later.

But as carbohydrate molecules bind with water, this means that when the body stores glycogen, it also stores water in the muscles. As these glycogen stores are used up, the body also releases a significant amount of water.

This is often called "water weight", and explains why some may feel they lose considerable weight early in their diet.

Given you only have days' worth of glycogen stores, this is why the body uses fat to store extra calories for when you need it. Once the glycogen stores are used up, the body shifts to metabolizing fat to get the energy it needs to function.

But not all tissues can use fat for energy – such as the brain. This is why the body needs to metabolize your muscles when you're in a calorie deficit.

Protein (from the food you eat) is stored in your muscles. The body can convert this stored protein into glucose for energy. But this means you subsequently lose the muscle tissue itself when that happens.

This has significant consequences – including slowing the metabolism, which may ultimately drive weight regain after losing weight.

Muscle loss

Many factors can affect how much muscle you lose while in a calorie deficit.

While it was once thought that the more fat you had, the less muscle you lost in a calorie deficit, this has since been disproved – with both lean and obese people losing significant rates of muscle when dieting.

Ethnicity and genetics may, however, play a role – with studies showing Black people tend to lose more muscle mass in a calorie deficit than White people do.

Some research also suggests that genetic variants may make some people more susceptible to certain dietary changes, which may determine how much muscle mass they end up losing.

Muscle loss will also happen regardless of whether you lose weight gradually or quickly. A better determinant of how much muscle you'll lose depends on how much weight you end up losing.

If a person loses 10% of their body weight, typically around 20% of this is fat-free mass (the proportion of body mass that isn't fat – such as muscle). This can equate to several kilograms of muscle.

Many people also think that what you eat while losing weight may determine how much muscle you lose, with it commonly believed that if you eat plenty of protein you're less likely to lose muscle mass.

This is debatable, with research showing people lose as much muscle on high-protein weight loss diets as people who followed other types of diets.

Low-carb diets have also been claimed to promote more fat loss. But studies comparing different types of diets have found that low-fat high-carb diets seem to offer the same, if not better, fat loss than low-carb, high-fat diets – with no differences in muscle loss.

Protein and exercise

Given all that has been said, the only way to prevent muscle loss somewhat while losing weight is to combine exercise (particularly resistance exercise and endurance exercise) with a diet higher in protein.

This is because exercise stimulates muscle growth – but this process can only happen if you have an adequate supply of protein.

It's suggested adults normally aim to consume 0.8g of protein per kilogram of body weight per day to maintain muscle mass. But given the extra demand exercise places on the muscles, a person will probably need to consume 1.2-1. 5g of protein per kilogram of body weight to preserve muscle during weight loss.

People who exercise a lot may need to increase that to more than 2g per kilogram of body weight when losing weight. Older people may also need to consume more protein than average.

Just be wary of consuming too much protein (more than 2.5g per kilogram of body weight) as eating more than your body uses could have an adverse effect on your metabolism by potentially making the body less able to draw upon glucose for energy.

It may also put greater pressure on the kidneys and liver – which could lead to serious health issues, such as liver and kidney damage.

Even if you prevent muscle loss when losing weight, other metabolic changes still happen that promote weight regain – such as changes in your metabolic rate (the minimum amount of calories your body needs to survive) and increases in appetite and hunger.

This is why, when trying to lose weight, the most important thing to consider is how sustainable your diet and lifestyle changes are. The easier these are to maintain, the better chances you have of keeping the weight off.

Source

Florida’s coral reefs are facing what could be an unprecedented threat from a marine heat wave that is warming the Gulf of Mexico, pushing water temperatures into the 90s Fahrenheit.

The biggest concern for coral isn’t just the current sea surface temperatures in the Florida Keys, even though they are the hottest on record. The daily average surface temperature off the Keys on Monday was just over 90 degrees Fahrenheit, or 32.4 Celsius, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Source: NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; NOAA Coral Reef Watch

By The New York Times

Source

Dutch researchers have found that some birds use the spikes as weapons around their nests - using them to keep pests away in the same way that humans do.

It shows amazing adaptability, biologist Auke-Florian Hiemstra says.

"They are incredible fortresses - like a bunker for birds," he told the BBC.

Human-made objects being used in bird nests is nothing new - there is evidence of species around the world using everything from barbed wire to knitting needles.

However, this research by Naturalis Biodiversity Center and the Natural History Museum Rotterdam is the first well-documented study that says birds appear to be positioning the sharp spikes outwards, maximising protection.

Mr Hiemstra's research started in the courtyard of a hospital in Antwerp, Belgium, where an enormous magpie nest was found containing some 1,500 spikes.

"For the first few minutes, I just stared at it - this strange, beautiful, weird nest," Mr Hiemstra explained.

He says the spikes were pointing outwards, creating a perfect armour around the nest.

A trip to the hospital roof confirmed it - about 50m (164 ft) of anti-bird spike strips had been ripped off the building - all that remained was the trail of glue.

One unfinished nest is at the museum in Rotterdam - and a larger, finished nest is in the collection of Naturalis Biodiversity Center.

Mr Hiemstra says many more need to be found to further prove his theory, but there are several aspects to the nest architecture that suggest the birds are using the spikes as protection.

One is their placement - the spikes are on the roof of the nests, he says, "so they aren't just making a roof - it's a roof with thorny material for protection".

Birds often use thorny branches to protect their nests, but humans aren't fans of these kinds of bushes and trees, so birds living in built up areas go for the next best thing, Mr Hiemstra says.

It shows a remarkable adaptability to their environment, he adds, and also a determination to protect their nests, as the glue used to attach the spikes to buildings is strong and the spikes not easy to remove.

There have been many instances of birds taking matters into their own talons - like the cheeky cockatoo ripping away spikes on a building near Sydney in Australia, or Melbourne's Parkdale Pigeon that went viral for building its nest right on top of them.

And while this may be an annoyance for the humans who paid for the spikes in the first place, Mr Hiemstra sees it as a "beautiful revenge".

"They are using the material that we made to keep them away, to make a nest to make more birds."

Source

Humanity’s relationship with telling time began before the first written word, making it a challenge today to investigate the origin of many timekeeping units.

However, some time measurement units that derive from astronomical phenomena are quite easy to explain and likely were independently observed in many different cultures across the world. For example, measuring how long a day or a year is uses apparent motions of the sun relative to Earth, while measuring months comes from the phases of the moon.

Yet there are some measurements of time that do not have clear connections with any astronomical phenomena.

Two examples are the week and the hour. One of the most ancient written traditions, Egyptian hieroglyphic texts, gives us new insight into the origin of the hour. It originated in the area of North Africa and the Middle East, and adopted in Europe before spreading around the world in the modern era.

Time in Ancient Egypt

The Pyramid Texts, written before 2400 BCE, are the earliest writings from Ancient Egypt. Included in the texts is the word wnwt (approximately pronounced “wenut”), and the meaning-hieroglyph associated with it was a star. From this we gather that wnwt is associated with the night.

To understand the word wnwt and why it is now translated as “hour,” we go to the city of Asyut around 2000 BCE. There, the inside of wooden rectangular coffin lids are sometimes decorated with an astronomical table.

Sopdet and Sahu (Sirius and Orion) shown in the left and right-hand boats, respectively, from the East Osiris Chapel on the roof of the temple in Dendera. Image Credit: Sarah Symons

The table contains columns representing 10-day periods of the year; the Egyptian Civil Calendar had 12 months each having three 10-day “weeks,” all followed by five days of festivals. In each column, 12 star names are listed, making 12 rows. The whole table represents the changes in the star sky over the course of a whole year, similar to a modern star chart.

Those 12 stars are the earliest systematic division of the night into 12 time-areas, each governed by one star. However, the word wnwt never appears in association with these coffin star tables.

But around 1210 BCE in New Kingdom — the period of ancient Egypt between the 16th and 11th centuries BCE — the link between the number of rows and the word wnwt is made explicit.

Astronomical instructions

One temple, the Osireion at Abydos, contains a wealth of astronomical information, including instructions on how to make a sundial and a text describing the motions of stars. It also contains a star table of the coffin type where, uniquely, the 12 rows are labelled with the word wnwt.

By the New Kingdom, there were 12 night-wnwt and also 12 day-wnwt, both clearly time measures. The idea of the hour is almost in its modern form but for two things.

First, although there are 12 day-hours and 12 night-hours, they are always expressed separately but not together as a 24-hour day. Day time was measured using shadows cast by the sun, while night hours were primarily measured by the stars. This could only be done while the sun and stars were visible, respectively, and there were two periods around sunrise and sunset that did not contain any hours.

Second, the New Kingdom wnwt and our modern hour differ in length. Sundials and water clocks demonstrate very clearly that the length of the wnwt varied throughout the year: long night hours around the winter solstice, long day hours around the summer solstice.

To answer the question of where the number 12 or 24 comes from, we have to find out why 12 stars were chosen per 10-day period. Surely, this choice is the true origin of the hour. Was 12 just a convenient number? Perhaps, but the origin of the coffin star tables suggests another possibility.

The Osireion temple in Abydos, Egypt provided a wealth of astronomical information. Image Credit: Hannibal Joost/Shutterstock.com

Timekeeping stars

The ancient Egyptians chose to use the bright star Sirius as a model, and selected other stars based on their behavioural similarity to Sirius. The key point seems to be that the timekeeping stars disappeared for 70 days each year, just like Sirius, even though the other stars were not as bright. The Osireion star text gives dates such that every 10 days, one Sirius-like star disappears and one star reappears, for the whole year.

Depending on the time of year, between 10 and 14 of these stars are visible each night. If recorded at 10-day intervals throughout the year, a table very much resembling the coffin star table emerges. By 2000 BCE, the table became more schematic than (in our sense) accurate, and a table with 12 rows had emerged, resulting in the coffin tables we can see in museums in Egypt and elsewhere.

It is therefore possible that the choice of 12 as the number of hours of the night — and eventually 24 as the total number of hours from noon to noon — may be related to a choice of a 10-day week.

And so our modern hour originates from a confluence of decisions that happened more than 4,000 years ago.

Robert Cockcroft, Assistant Professor, Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University and Sarah Symons, Professor, Interdisciplinary Science, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Source

Galaxies big and small are now peppered across the universe like the blueberries in a muffin. They are distributed in what we call the cosmic web, a much less appetizing construct. Galaxies can be quite isolated, or in small groups, or large clusters, but if you zoom out, all these groupings are connected by filaments.

Under the action of gravity, these filaments and the void surrounding them are becoming more prominent. In the beginning, structures were in filaments that were not as well defined but those filaments were there since very early times. And now, JWST has shown the earliest example yet.

Astronomers using the powerful telescope were able to find 10 galaxies placed in what appears to be a thread-like structure that extends for 3 million light-years. Their lights come to us from just 830 million years after the Big Bang and it is anchored around a massive active galaxy whose supermassive black hole is in a quasar state.

“This is one of the earliest filamentary structures that people have ever found associated with a distant quasar,” Feige Wang of the University of Arizona in Tucson, the principal investigator of this program, said in a statement. 

“I was surprised by how long and how narrow this filament is,” added team member Xiaohui Fan, also at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “I expected to find something, but I didn't expect such a long, distinctly thin structure.”

The discovery was part of the JWST program called ASPIRE, which stands for “A SPectroscopic survey of biased halos In the Reionization Era” – certainly a choice, even in the crowded field of peculiar backronyms in astronomy. ASPIRE focuses on the cosmic environment of the earliest black holes to understand the role they play in the evolution of the universe. They are observing 25 quasars to do so.

“The last two decades of cosmology research have given us a robust understanding of how the cosmic web forms and evolves. ASPIRE aims to understand how to incorporate the emergence of the earliest massive black holes into our current story of the formation of cosmic structure,” explained team member Joseph Hennawi of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The ASPIRE program also aims to understand how supermassive black holes got so big so quickly during the first billion years of the Universe. While smaller supermassive black holes have now been found, the program is looking at eight that range in mass from 600 million to 2 billion times the mass of our Sun.

“To form these supermassive black holes in such a short time, two criteria must be satisfied. First, you need to start growing from a massive ‘seed’ black hole. Second, even if this seed starts with a mass equivalent to a thousand Suns, it still needs to accrete a million times more matter at the maximum possible rate for its entire lifetime,” explained Wang.

“These unprecedented observations are providing important clues about how black holes are assembled. We have learned that these black holes are situated in massive young galaxies that provide the reservoir of fuel for their growth,” added Jinyi Yang of the University of Arizona, who is leading the study of black holes with ASPIRE.

These results are published in two papers in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Source