What are you excited about in regards to science these days? Many of you are scientists, I am not. Therefore, I rely pretty heavily on following your posts on Hubski and getting input from people like b_b, mk, thundara, theadvancedapes etc.
Way back in my early days on Hubski all the rage was the higgs boson or #higgsy. Where are we in regards to the higgs boson discovery? What new science has come of this. Also, the Mars rover was a big deal but you don't hear much about Mars these days. What gives?
Right now I feel like science is spending so much time defending itself that we don't hear as much about it's accomplishments. Anti-vaxers, creationists etc suck a lot of energy out of the room.
Forget them.
What's going on in science these days that has you excited? You don't need to be a scientist to reply.
Thanks in advance.
stock image for b_b
People don't talk about science much because the newtonian mechanics/basic genetics/simple chemistry/germ theory/fundamental climate science that the average interested citizen walking around needs to understand their world has been pretty well hammered out. More than that, the cutting-edge science/technology necessary to make their world work is at a level where they need to read at least an article or two to grasp why relativistic time dilation makes GPS work or how nuclear resonance gives you fMRI. The Higgs boson got popular because 1) Atom smashers are stupid expensive and the theoretical physics community had watched what happens when you don't give the public an easily digestible reason for science 2) "God particle" has a great ring to it even if it's totally inaccurate 3) crazy cranks got popular by claiming the apocalypse; scientists got popular by debunking crazy cranks The Mars Rover was a big deal because NASA did a full-court publicity press, something they somehow forgot between Apollo 17 and the Mars Rover. The original proposals for the Apollo project had Morse Code for communication, as I recall; putting movie cameras on the booster and stuff was a PR move to justify the crazy expense of it. That, and, you know. Landing a volkswagen on another planet has some nice basic excitement to it. Unseen to most people because it's hard to digest it into a 15-second soundbite are the sweeping changes going on in cosmology, for example. It isn't just about the Higgs; cosmological discoveries are largely made through data-mining. There's also a big push right now into ginormous telescopes; between the TMT, the EELT, the GMT and the Webb there's gonna be a shit-ton of big glass pointed out within the next decade. But the stuff it's gonna show isn't gonna be that much more spectacular than the Hubble so we're kind of acclimatized. The TMT is 1.5 billion dollars worth of big bitchin' glass that nobody gets to look through for another ten years. That's hard to keep in the news. The anti-vax debate? They shut down a daycare five miles away for measles. You can bet we caught the kid up on her immunizations right quick (she's been kinda sick so we were a little behind). It's pure self-interest but it's also true to say that the vaccine debate has a lot more immediate effect on the average person.
Texan here. Still bitter. Also, when people bitch about James Webb being just sooooo overbudget, I acknowledge their arguments, but putting a price tag on the science we're going to get from that thing just seems so petty... Source: Totally unbiased space industry worker.link to SSC wiki article
Friend's dad was chief administrator on one of two collectors. I feel ya. It basically came down to "space station" or "skookum atom smasher." The senators whose districts benefitted from aerospace won against... Texas. A lot easier to scatter the pork around when you aren't earthbound to Waxahatchie. He's "the dude" for the TMT now, but... yeah. Totally lame.
Oh boy, I took this photo the other night in response to lil's bookshelf challenge, but my desk was too uninteresting to actually be worth posting about: I'd say my interests largely gravitate around systems and synthetic biology, though I think the definitions that are used for these two fields are often too limited (to the single-cell level). And realistically, you can't fully understand either without also understanding micro/cell/molecular bio-logy/chemistry/physics. I want to figure out how all the many moving parts, the cogs and motors of organisms play together to make them the dynamic, adaptable, and robust creatures that we know and call "life". And alongside that, I'd like to learn the basic principles of reconstructing autonomous new biological agents. Nowadays, synthetic biology usually refers to control of single cells, through added plasmids / minor modifications to the chromosomes. But it's fun to dream about longer term applications, when you can identify each and every niche of a biome and generate an organism to fit into it accordingly: using this to reconstruct an ecology, to repopulate your gut, to survey your body for pre-programmed genetic defects. There's a massive amount of pie-in-the-sky dreaming that goes along with imaging the possibilities of manipulating biology. But elements of the big ideas have been brewing in labs since the '60s; recombinant DNA has completely revolutionized microbiology. But now we are beginning to distance ourselves from copy-pasting natural DNA and are slowly moving towards making synthetic genes: tweaking a protein's structure and function, up or down-regulating its expression, and turning them into transducers of signal from light into a chemical form. As scientists begin to explore new mechanisms of regulation, these tools give them the ability to determine the minimal components necessary to produce some effect. And while way of understanding biology is far from new, the tools for manipulating systems, screening millions of changes, and actually seeing those changes are only just beginning to mature (See also: Pribnow's comment) There is still a lot to understand within the systems of single-cells: What mysteries remain in the genome? How do proteins' structure give them function? What is expressed where and when? How do these systems impart on the cells their morphology, their mechanical strength, their interactive behavior? But as we begin to gain insight into these questions, we can then feed that knowledge back into reprogramming those cells. I don't know if most of this will happen in the next decade. The most general problems probably won't be solved within my lifetime. But it's fascinating to see projects begin to take off by manipulating a subset of a cell's system. Metabolic engineering is already proving its value to the chemical engineering world (Who needs a total synthesis of LSD once you've cloned the genes from ergot into yeast? See also: opiates, nitrogen fixation, anti-malarial drugs )
CRISPR-Cas system, a form of adaptive immunity in prokaryotes that was relatively recently discovered and is being used as an alternative method for gene splicing/regulation. It also opens up all kinds of doors as far as our understanding of bacteriophage interactions and, potentially, improved success with phage therapy. Also bioprecipitation. Bacteria that flake off of plant leaves, get taken up into the atmosphere by simple wind currents, and that then act as nucleation sites for ice precipitation and subsequent rain or snow. It's not only a brilliant reproductive mechanism, it's been found to significantly influence patterns of precipitation on the ground. There's a lot of work being done into possible ways to utilize these bacteria both for plant health (some species that do this are equivalent to our natural microbiome, they don't harm the plant and outcompete potential pathogens) and for influencing local weather patterns in places like Africa. I'm a microbiologist in training (unsurprisingly).
I haven't seen either of those, but they're both really impressive. Now that we're pretty well able to splice genes into genomes, regulation of those spliced genes is becoming more and more important. There was a recent article I read about using XNA based genes in GMO plants so that in the absence of human-supplied nucleotides particular genes can't be reproduced, this brings to mind various methods of controlling not just the reproduction/lateral gene transfer, but the expression of the genes when it's most beneficial to the plants (or in particular tissues that need it the most and that we don't end up consuming).
We recently had a journal club where a colleague who works on Zebrafish introduced us to the CRISPR-Cas system. I had that same feeling of excitement that I had after watching Interstellar. This deep feeling of "we can accomplish ANYTHING" Gives me shivers every time
I was invited to attend the weekly lab meetings of a lab on campus that's doing some interesting research into the physical structure of Cascade (CRISPR-associated complex for antiviral defence) and Csy-complexes. The lab unsurprisingly doesn't have any vacancies, but it'll be great to learn more about how the research is done and to keep up to date on its progress. Here's some interesting reading: http://www.montana.edu/mbi/facultyandstaff/wiedneheft/publications.html
This is my first year learning physics in school. Ever. I've been on earth for 17 years, not so much without understanding physics, but without understanding how much I didn't know about physics. I know that what I'm learning in class, despite being quite intensive, is like 3rd-grade arithmetic relative to just how much more there is to know. Hell, this year isn't even calculus based! I signed up ASAP for AP Physics next year. God damn, it can change your perspective on everything around you.
The above is the best argument for humility. Or, to paraphrase the immortal words of Don Rumsfeld (a decidedly unhumble man), "It's the unknown unknowns that you worry about." Teenagers are pricks (present company excluded, obviously :), because they don't yet know how much there is to learn about the world. Once the light becomes strong enough to allow you to see that you're standing at the edge of the abyss, then you start to understand the depth of the world. Or at least understand that you don't understand it.
I spend a large part of my day, at school, slouching over a desk covering my english notebook with dickbutt. I spend a lot of time half-listening to my teacher thinking: "Oh my god, I knoooooow." That inevitable attitude sticks with us, unfortunately. So I'll apologize on behalf of today's teens, if you get where we're coming from with that. Like I said, this is my first year learning about physics for real. Yeah there was "physical science" and bullshit like that, but no intensive courses to challenge me, both with an interest in the subject– "Hey, this shit matters!"– and a course that will be pushing me to make an effort. Why the hell should I have to wait until a year before I leave our education system to learn about something like physics? Maybe if our teachers looked us in the eye day 1 of middle school and said, "Listen punk, you don't even know how much you don't know. Don't believe me? Bam. Isaac newton. In less than a decade you'll be as old as he was when he invented calculus. Now go burn a village in Minecraft you little shit."
Maybe that would do a lot of people a lot of good. Myself especially included.
Physics is dope, dude. What's really cool about physics is if you can't derive it mathematically, you don't get to use it. Purifies the approach. Even cooler is how much a solid understanding of physics helps a solid understanding of the world and the universe. Keep at it. When I got to Diff EQ and discovered I could use the same equations to design the rear suspension of a car as I could to develop an oscillator for a synth as to predict the ebb and flow of wolf populations in the Siberian tundra, my mind was pretty well blown. There will come a time when you can read this page and watch the numbers pop out of the universe in green, like Neo in the Matrix.
Whaaaaa :D See, this is what I'm talkin' about! Where the hell was this when I spent a month learning that absolute values can't be negative?I could use the same equations to design the rear suspension of a car as I could to develop an oscillator for a synth as to predict the ebb and flow of wolf populations in the Siberian tundra.
Check out the rest of the video. The main purpose is to use tau instead of pi, showing how much more intuitive it is.
Of that I have no doubts. My whole point was that when it was shown to me that the basic, fundamental constants of mathematics were all related such that they could be thrown into one equation and have it balance, I truly appreciated the beauty of math.
It's a non-trivial point though. As you'll learn eventually, when solving differential equations the obtained values are often positive, even when the "correct" answer could be positive or negative. Therefore, you have to phrase the whole thing in terms of absolute values. Learning high school arithmetic is painfully boring, but it becomes useful eventually. So far, no one has found a way to make it not boring from the start. FYI, what kb is referring to above in the text you quoted is the Harmonic Oscillator, which is the most important solution to Newton's second law (although you'll learn nothing of it until calc-based physics). It basically rules the world.See, this is what I'm talkin' about! Where the hell was this when I spent a month learning that absolute values can't be negative?
Arithmetic is interesting on its own if you look at it right, but you still have to learn it the boring way first. The same thing happens in college, where you get 4 semesters of mindnumbing calculus classes, then you get to take analysis and see all the cool stuff that got glossed over in favor of tables of antiderivatives and computational tricks.
I recently saw a video by a mathematician who earned the MacArthur Genius Grant. He said that the way math is currently taught can be related to how much is taught. Currently, 1st year math is like learning a C major scale. 2nd year, G major. 3rd year D major and so on and so forth. You get no where that way, there's no application. The man who won the award is working toward revamping how it's taught.
Of course, you're right. that's just my impatience talking. Not a great example either, but something like the concept of absolute values can be learned as it's being applied too. And with more memorable purpose at that. I'm speaking for the sake of haste, efficiency, I guess. Not that I or most people want to spend all day learning, either. That's an argument of it's own of course.Learning high school arithmetic is painfully boring, but it becomes useful eventually
Edit: to actually answer tng's question: Like a lot of physicists (I'm just a padawan), I get the most excited about reconciling general relativity and quantum theory - a grand unification theory. The problem is that for the time being, wedding these two ideas together is limited to theory. And many different theories have arisen... various flavors of string theory, loop quantum gravity, etc., but we're unable to eliminate most of them. Why? Because of our lack of experimental technology. Some brands of supersymmetry were actually disproven by data from the LHC (can you imagine your life's work invalidated?). Soon, the thing will soon be smashing atoms at 14 TeV, but even after three years of data collection, then decades of analysis and discussion, we probably still won't see experimentalism driving theoretical direction. It will be a game of catch-up to figure out how to smash things together faster, or design an ultra-sensitive orbiting cosmic ray observatory, something absolutely nuts. I truly believe that if we can analyze enough decay events of ever-increasing collision energies, we'll eventually see something we can't explain. This could spur a series of experiments that leads us towards a grand unification theory. The work that Hawking is doing with quantum information theory at the event horizons of black holes is excellent. This boundary, the event horizon, is an excellent playground for theoretical musings, and even a testing ground for a theory's mathematical integrity. It could lead to discovery or aid in the confirmation of a grand unifying theory framework. About the Higgs: The Higgs was predicted to exist 50 years ago to "explain" mass. It's complicated, but what I'd really like to point out is that it took nearly 50 years to develop the technology that was required to confirm this theoretical idea. Yes, this was the LHC, again. The Higgs was kind of a crowning achievement of what I hastily called "quantum theory" earlier; The Standard Model. I don't want to work on grand unification theory, but I think it's one of the purest pursuits of mankind. The field is unfortunately saturated as a result, and because there is no demonstrable application towards any kind of product or profit, completely over-saturated. Hah, papers coming out of the LHC have more pages dedicated to the co-authors than the actual content of the published content. To be fair, the thing is one of our greatest technical achievements to date, and is necessarily complex. There's also the possibility that the next Einstein is out there, bending spoons for Neo or whatever, and he'll just show up to Oxford some day with 5 pages of simple axioms from which every branch of any theory ever precipitates out with relatively simple math. I have been having some fun lately though... currently working with Rosetta data, scripting in IDL and using some terminal commands to make .gif files of data. I'm closing in on automating this process completely. Also doing a field of view analysis for one of the instrument suites that will be flying on Solar Probe Plus. Getting ready for MMS launch on March 12th... As if I need an excuse to roadtrip to Florida for Spring Break? Then commissioning activities for a few months before science operations really get going. As you can imagine, it's hard to walk away from this job, but I'll eventually hit a glass ceiling if I don't go to graduate school. Haven't been vocal on Hubski enough lately for the above reasons, but I'm still lurkin'! :)
The whole ghost organ thing. Quite a few organs around, lots of immune system incompatibility. I'm all for anything that gives us a better understanding of how organs are formed/work, and especially things that improve transplant outcomes. Also the whole 'Private corporations are definitely going to be getting us to space' thing.
b_b and mk, I have had discussions with both of you in the past regarding miRNA and the possibilities it opens up in the world of science. Are we still at the nascent stages of understanding this field? What are some of the implications that could come from further miRNA research? Do you guys study this?
miRNA got us to siRNA and shRNA. All methods of inhibiting the transcription of specific genes. I spent the past 3 months designing and cloning shRNA into plasmids and then producing adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) that got injected into the eyes of mice. These AAVs of a specific serotype have the ability to infect only a specific subset of cells in the eye (retinal ganglion cells, RGCs). combined with shRNA, we can inhibit specific genes in this group of cells in the retina. We use this model to test for genes that play a role in axon regeneration. For me this is day to day work. But when I tell this to a friend who is not involved in medical research, they think I am some kind of science fiction wizard :D
Well, as tng knows via Facebook, a few months back I received a scholarship to take a course through The Resonance Foundation studying Unified Physics. Essentially, it's the study of how everything is connected. The scientist behind everything, Nassim Haramein, has discovered A LOT of incredible things. Of these discoveries, quantum gravity and a grand unification theory has come arisen(as am_Unition) mentioned. In Haramein's 2013 paper Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass he describes everything. However, because most consider this to be "above my paygrade," Nassim et al are coming out with a bunch of resources to help the layperson understand. 1. A paper by an associate on the geometry of spacetime 2. A documentary describing the mathematics that led to the quantum gravity paper. 3. Another documentary post-quantum gravity paper is in the works, and recently broke Inidigogo history as the highest crowdfunded documentary in Indiegogo history. Here's and interview with the director and Indigogo CEO and here's a trailer and little bit more information about the documentary and the paper coming out. These is big. Very big. A lot of people haven't taken to it because it's so radical. Like am_Unition said, people have been working on quantum gravity for about 50 years, developing theories like the Higgs mechanism and spending A LOT of money on the Large Haldron Collider. The Higgs wasn't discovered. A particle that matched the predicted energy of the Higgs boson was observed and has yet to be replicated since the initial observation. The truth is that the Standard Model is not cutting it. It requires 7-9 free parameters. The LHC works similar to smashing two jets together and looking at the pieces to see how the jets functioned before the collision. This new model works using fundamental mathematics and has been confirmed experimentally. I'm excited for when the world embraces this and sees what can be done with it. I haven't reached that part yet in the Unified Physics course, but I will definitely share when I get there. kleinbl00, I think you'll enjoy checking out these links.
So... You won't enjoy any of this, but this person saved me the time. Haramein's math and understanding of physics just isn't accepted by the scientific community. Also, the discovery of the Higgs was confirmed far past 5 sigma. We've observed tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of decay events from the Higgs, it was replicated over a period of months. The issue is trying to manipulate a boson with a half-life orders of magnitude less than an attosecond. I feel like an asshole posting this, sorry man.
From the article you shared: This article was written pre-Quantum Gravity paper, where he released all of his equations proving what he's saying. "Even truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed [as in the link you posted], in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer Give it some time before it'll be self-evident. I'd truly recommend checking out the stuff I posted instead of a third-party analysis. The Black Whole documentary is good, but if you can get through it, the Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass paper (again, released after the article you linked) has everything in it.I'm aiming to encourage people to think carefully about what he is telling them. I'm not out to discourage people from trying out any promising new ideas – what I want is to help people question what's out there for themselves. If they want to, of course. You may choose to disagree with my assessment of Haramein.
I get excited about the most subtle effects in electro statics and dynamics. For example using Emf as opposed to a battery will still hold Kirchoff's law. Or electrostatic transfer via induction. Both are wholly simple (having some previous knowledge) yet completely unintuitive.
Neuroscience and psychedelic compound related neuropsychophamacology.