What happens when three black holes share the same region of space, all orbiting one another? As Science News reports, it remains a mystery. Their orbits may be so unpredictable that even if their motions were measured to the maximum precision theoretically possible, their orbital paths would still elude us. Computer simulation of a black hole's orbit may thus demonstrate some fundamental characteristics of time. And, according to astrophysicist Nathan Leigh, the results show that "Quantum mechanics imprints into the universe chaos at a fundamental level." No Harmony of the Spheres The very idea of science is rooted in our experience that the world around us can be fairly predictable. If you drop an apple, it will probably fall straight down, not sideways or up. On the big scale of astronomical events, this predictability or regularity of nature is particularly strong, like the sun rising in the east every morning. The first great triumph of science was the ability to construct an accurate calendar and predict events such as a solar eclipse. These accomplishments were based on the regularity of celestial orbits. Today, this same predictability of orbits allows NASA to send spacecraft to the outer planets and measure the orbits of exoplanets many light-years away. If a black hole's orbit is not predictable, even in theory, that shakes things up. Running the Time Tape Backwards Orbital simulations and similar scientific models, explains Interesting Engineering, are based on a principle known as time symmetry. That is, if you simulate an orbit, then run the simulation backwards, it will work just as well. The simulated object will be orbiting in the opposite direction, but it won't fly off into the void in an unexpected way. The real universe, as Interesting Engineering notes, isn't quite so neat. If you drop a cup, it will shatter and won't piece itself back together. Astronomers and mathematicians have long known that orbits involving three objects can't be calculated with the precision attainable for two objects orbiting each other. This is commonly known as the three-body problem. The normal solution for this problem is to simulate the orbit step by step, as precisely as the available programming and computing power allow. Researchers have found that these simulated orbits can't always be run in reverse — that attempts to do so do not always end by reproducing the initial start conditions, as they should, according to the principle of time symmetry. What they didn't know was whether these failures were due to the nature of the universe, or only to the technical limitations of a particular simulation, such as how many decimal places it could calculate. Black Holes, Gravity and Quantum Mechanics  Now a team led by astronomer Tjarda Boekholt has built a simulation model so precise that the precision limit of the simulation is set not by the available computing power, but by the structure of the universe itself. It's specifically set by a distance known as the Planck length, which according to the theory of quantum mechanics is the shortest length that can be measured in the universe, according to Science Alert. (How long is the Planck length? About 0.000000000000000000000000000000000016 meters. Aren't you glad you asked?) The researchers tested their model by simulating the process of predicting the behavior of a black hole, or in fact three black holes. Why black holes? Because their gravitational fields, which are so intense that not even light can escape, magnify quantum effects — usually noticeable only on the subatomic scale — to the point where they can have large-scale effects. What the simulation research team found was that, even with Planck-length precision, their model couldn't play back about 5% of simulation runs in reverse to return to the model's initial conditions. These runs break time symmetry because predicting the behavior of a black hole in these runs turns out to be impossible. What's more, there is no way to know in advance which 5% of runs will break time symmetry, which means that time symmetry cannot ever be entirely counted on. A Touch of Chaos Physicists and mathematicians use the term chaos for systems in which tiny changes in initial conditions can produce dramatic changes in the final outcome. The study results, says Science News, confirm that orbital systems involving three black holes are fundamentally chaotic, and can never be reliably predicted over long periods of time. Says Science Alert, quoting team member Portegies Zwart, "Not being able to turn back time is no longer just a statistical argument ... It is already hidden in the basic laws of nature." By odd coincidence, reports Universe Today, astronomers recently discovered three supermassive black holes orbiting each other in a galaxy a billion light-years away. But they cannot provide a direct test of orbital chaos, because as Science News notes, we can't measure actual black holes with the accuracy needed to model their orbits to Planck-length precision. We can also be glad, perhaps, that the black holes' chaotic orbits are a billion light-years from Earth.

From a Black Hole's Orbit, Chaos Erupts

If you ignore history, you're doomed to repeat it; it's a gentle, collective wake-up call to learn from the past. And a recent finding from the seabed not far from the South Pole presented climate scientists with just this opportunity. A mid-Cretaceous period core sample has yielded a tangle of fossilized roots that reveal an ancient rainforest.  When the planet was at its warmest and, as noted by Phys.org, despite an annual four months without sunlight, temperate rainforest plants thrived over the Antarctic, which is now covered in ice. What lessons can the former jungle of Antarctica teach us about climate change?  A Tangle of Roots  Researchers from Germany and the United Kingdom published a paper in Nature that describes the unusual sediment layers in a core extracted from ocean bed around 560 miles (900 km) from the pole. Science Alert describes that when the scientists began examining the strangely striped bands, they could see a tangle of fossilized roots so well-preserved that detail was apparent even at the cellular level.  Upon analysis, they found that the species held in the geological time capsule were characteristic of a lush and temperate ancient rainforest. This meant that mid-Cretaceous period temperatures in the Antarctic were positively balmy compared with today's icy habitat.  Mid-Cretaceous Period 101  CNN describes the mid-Cretaceous period lasting from around 80 to 115 million years ago. The entire Cretaceous period spanned the time from the Jurassic to the mass extinction event caused when an asteroid smashed into the Earth to create the Chicxulub impact crater. Pangaea broke up and sea levels rose.  In 140 million years of Earth history, the mid-Cretaceous is the warmest so far. Levels of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases rose in the atmosphere driven by increased volcanic activity. This led to global warming with little difference between the poles the equator. Since the temperature gradient drives winds and thus ocean currents, the mid-Cretaceous period was characterized by warm but stagnant shallow seas.  And yes, there were dinosaurs; towards the end of the period, Tyrannosaurus rex and other powerful meat eaters roamed, while newly emerging mammals scuttled to find a safe niche. National Geographic describes how flowering plants established themselves, and we now know that swampy ancient rainforests covered the South Pole.  Secrets of the Deep  When the research team extracted the 10-foot (3-meter) core sample from the seabed, they realized that warmer temperatures also affected the pole. The sample — the southernmost Cretaceous core ever examined — showed that the landmass was not covered by ice as it is today.  One of the key features of the mid-Cretaceous period was abundant atmospheric carbon dioxide. Scientists previously thought that levels hovered around 1,000 parts per million (ppm). However, with the information from vegetation in the recent core sample, scientists had to revise their previous models. They compared species identified in the cores with plants growing today to determine a suitable climate for growth. They now estimate that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide between 1,120 and 1,680 ppm would be needed to generate environmental condition suitable for ancient rainforests to thrive.  Lessons From the Past Inform Today  Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures. As well as altering global weather patterns, vegetation and habitats, warming is also affecting the poles. Glacier loss, thawing permafrost and melting sea ice impact polar wildlife survival and threaten to bring ancient disease back from the dead. One of the biggest proven drivers of global warming is the greenhouse effect; rising levels of carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane are trapping heat within the planet's atmosphere. In 2018, NOAA noted that atmospheric carbon dioxide rose above 400 ppm. These are now the highest on record in the past 800,000 years. In the last 60 years, the rate of increase in accumulation has accelerated around 100 times; by the end of this century, levels are predicted to rise above 900 ppm without serious intervention.  At mid-Cretaceous levels, the South Pole was covered in ancient rainforest. Scientists already know that polar ice caps contribute significant cooling to the region. Known as the albedo effect, ice and snow fields reflect heat back into the atmosphere and away from the planet's surface. According to The Verge, the loss of sea ice is responsible for around 25% of global warming. Losing Antarctic ice albedo would have similar impact.  Though we cannot predict exactly what a warmer world would look like, a tangle of fossilized roots from deep below the Antarctic seabed offers a glimpse of what our future might be.  

The Mid-Cretaceous Period and a Rainforest in the South Pole

Hearing the name "Stonehenge" creates a common set of mental images featuring massive and monolithic minerals towering above Salisbury skies. It also raises a host of questions around who built the structure, why and how they accomplished such a feat. Now, researchers from the University of Salford have added their own audio appellation: What did Stonehenge sound like? Henge-ing Your Bets Despite its place in human history and regular appearance in television, movies and novels, the history of this henge — a circular ditch and bank — aren't exactly set in stone. While it's likely the site was used as a burial ground and took millennia to fully construct, the mandate and methodology behind this prodigious project remain shrouded in myth. Consider the second phase of the building process, which historians typically date to around 2,800 BCE. Approximately 80 bluestones were lifted into standing positions and placed in a circular formation. Not only were these stones massive, but they were also likely located at least 200 miles from the Stonehenge landscape, meaning ancient builders needed to both ship and stand these stones without the aid of any modern technology — including the wheel. The site's purpose is also uncertain. Many scholars believe it may have been used as a ceremonial site or pilgrimage destination, while other researchers suggest it functioned as an astronomical calendar. More recent discoveries also indicate its potential as a place of healing. Now, there's a new entry making noise in the field of Stonehenge science: acoustic archaeology. Acoustic Advantages: The Science of Sound As Ars Technica notes, acoustic archaeology — also called archaeoacoustics — focuses on the role of sound during historical events or in specific locations. For example, acoustic archeologists have examined the role of "acoustic shadows" in the loss of critical Civil War battles and the sound of a chirping bird produced when visitors clap their hands at the bottom of the Mayan Temple of Kukulkan at Chichen Itza. The Stonehenge landscape has long been known for strange sounds. For example, the arrangement of stones creates peculiar echoes and produces humming noises in strong winds. Acoustical engineer Trevor Cox and his team at the University of Salford decided to explore these auditory oddities further by creating "Stonehenge Lego," a 1/12 scale model made of 3D-printed and painted blocks standing in for the real standing stones, which produced a structural soundscape capable of both amplifying speech and enhancing music. Cox and his team explain, "It seems improbable that sound was a primary driver in the design and arrangement of the stones at Stonehenge," but the acoustical advantages would certainly have garnered attention. Archeologist Timothy Darvill of Bournemouth University also notes that these structural sounds "must have been one of the fundamental experiences of Stonehenge." Can You Hear Me Now? Work by the University of Salford team turned up two salient soundscape insights: Audio signals inside the stone circle were amplified, while those outside were dampened. As a result, participants within the monument could better hear music or speaking, while those passing by were largely unable to listen in. To measure the acoustic properties of a structure, acousticians use what's known as "impulse responses" — the time between initial sound input (impulse) and any sound reflections (response) off any surfaces. For the Stonehenge Lego model, Cox and his team used four-directional speakers in five locations producing sounds at twelve times normal frequency to account for the 1/12 structure scale. They found that sound inside the circle reverberated for at least 0.6 seconds in most cases and up to 0.8 seconds for lower-frequency impulses. For comparison, larger spaces such as cathedrals may have reverb times up to 8 seconds, while your average living room comes in at around 0.4 seconds, making the 0.6-0.8 second range ideal to slightly amplify sound without causing significant interference or echo. Rock n' Role Much like the pyramids, the stones of Salisbury Plain stand as a testament to human ingenuity and engineering— and provide an endless source of speculation for historians, astronomers and archaeoacoustic adherents alike. Yet, while the exact role of this mammoth monolith may never be fully revealed, one thing is certain: There's beauty in the sound of science.

Stonehenge Sound Science Offers Acoustic Addition to Monumental Methodology

In his book "A Brief History of Time," the late cosmologist Stephen Hawking included a now-famous bit of speculation about how a fictional astronaut would get decidedly longer and thinner when crossing a black hole's event horizon, from which nothing escapes. Steering clear of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way is one thing, but scientists now suggest it's surrounded by some 10,000 other black holes like a giant piece of Swiss cheese. Much more than simply helping us answer the question, "How many black holes are in the Milky Way?," the finding could be the first in a set of space discoveries centered on black hole swarms.   Black Hole Signatures   In a study published in Nature, a team led by Columbia University researchers reported discovering a dozen black holes surrounding the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. They were working on the premise of a decades-old theory that thousands of black holes — both isolated and ones paired with stars — should be grouped in a "density cusp" around supermassive black holes in the heart of big galaxies. Space.com noted that these black holes have masses that are millions or billions times that of our sun.   Many unsuccessful attempts to find these black holes sought signs of the bright, fleeting X-ray bursts that occur when black holes pair up with low-mass stars. The researchers, led by Columbia Astrophysics Lab co-director Chuck Hailey, used a different technique. They instead focused on searching for fainter but more consistent X-rays emitted after the stellar pairings, according to Science Daily.   Using archival data from a NASA telescope known as the Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hailey and colleagues looked for these fainter X-ray signatures and found 12 within three light years of the Milky Way's supermassive black hole, which is known as Sagittarius A*. Isolated black holes don't give off these telltale signs, but knowing what proportion of black holes pair with stars allowed the team to extrapolate how many there are in the region. They estimate 300 to 500 black holes paired with stars and roughly 10,000 isolated black holes around Sagittarius A*, said Science Daily.   Impact on Gravitational Waves   The discovery could have a significant impact on our understanding of the origins and dynamics of the galaxy, just as the detection of the most distant black hole ever recorded is shedding new light on the early stages of the cosmos. For instance, a multiplicity of black holes increases the chances of a collision, an event that can generate gravitational waves like the kind detected in 2016 by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which confirmed a century-old prediction by Albert Einstein and helped us better answer the question of how many black holes are in the Milky Way.   "This finding confirms a major theory and the implications are many," Hailey told Columbia News. "It is going to significantly advance gravitational wave research because knowing the number of black holes in the center of a typical galaxy can help in better predicting how many gravitational wave events may be associated with them. All the information astrophysicists need is at the center of the galaxy."   Since the Milky Way's density cusp is relatively close to Earth compared to the centers of distant galaxies, the research may also deepen our understanding of how large black holes interact with smaller ones.    "'A discovery like this will always have consequences that we cannot presently predict,'" Jordi Miralda-Escudé©, an astrophysicist at the University of Barcelona, told Scientific American. "'If confirmed, the existence of these black holes suggests similar concentrations should exist in the centers of most galaxies throughout the universe.'"     

How Many Black Holes Are in the Milky Way?

Key Takeaways Less than 1% of the atmosphere at airplane cruising altitudes has severe turbulence. Cell phones not in airplane mode won't make the plane crash. Planes are designed to withstand and disperse lightning strikes.When you're hurtling through the sky in a steel tube at 500 miles per hour, it's easy to get in your own head, start believing myths about flying and obsess over what could go wrong. Even aviation experts get scared sometimes."For folks who suffer a fear of flying, myself included, just remember this statistic," said Chris Leeper, Civil Aviation program manager at Northrop Grumman. "The odds of you being involved in an accident while flying are one in 11,000,000, whereas the odds of you being involved in an accident while driving are one in 200!"While statistical reassurance can calm shaken nerves, let's take it one step further by looking at three common myths about flying, debunked by science, to help you keep your cool the next time you're in the air.Myth #1: Flying Through Turbulence Is DangerousIs turbulence dangerous? What happens if your plane hits turbulence? It's a common occurrence, but for those afraid of flying, even small wobbles and shakes can become the stuff of nightmares. Thankfully, turbulence is (almost) all bump and no bite.According to Weather.gov, "turbulence is an irregular motion of the air resulting from eddies and vertical currents." It has four primary causes: Mechanical turbulence, which creates eddies due to friction between the air and the ground. Thermal turbulence, which occurs when different surface types heat unevenly, causing convective currents. Frontal turbulence, which happens when warm air is lifted along the sloping frontal surface of a cold air mass, in turn creating friction. Wind shear, which is a rapid change in wind direction, speed or both over a specific distance.Turbulence is also divided into four intensities: light, moderate, severe and extreme. As reported by NPR, Paul Williams, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Reading, says that only 3% of the atmosphere has light turbulence at airplane cruising altitudes. Just 1% has moderate turbulence, and only a few tenths of a percent have either severe or extreme turbulence.Even in cases where planes encounter severe turbulence, modern aircraft remain safe. NPR notes that just 34 passengers and 129 crew members were injured by turbulence from 2009 to 2022. And, according to data from the Federal Aviation Administration, more than 2.9 million passengers take flight in the U.S. every day — making turbulence-related injury incredibly unlikely.Myth #2: Phones Not in Airplane Mode Cause Navigation IssuesIn the early days of cell phones, there was concern that their mobile frequencies could cause problems for avionics and ground communications networks. While aviation technology has significantly improved since the Federal Communications Commission first banned in-flight phone calls in 1991, U.S. airlines still require passengers to switch their personal devices to airplane mode. Other parts of the world, meanwhile, have tossed this rule — in 2022, the European Commission allowed airlines to provide 5G connectivity in the air for phone calls and high-speed data, according to the Washington Post.Why does airplane mode exist? If passengers take their phones off airplane mode (therefore enabling the transmitter), it won't make the plane crash, but it could annoy the pilots and air traffic controllers."This annoyance is due to the potential noise you may be inducing into the radio transmissions," Leeper said. "If you've ever had your phone near an audio system, you may have heard the 'ticking' sound that's created due to the parasitic demodulation." This noise could make it into the radio transmissions between the pilots and air traffic controllers.If that's the concern, then why allow planes to offer Wi-Fi connections? Leeper has the answer: "The phone's radio emissions are much stronger (~8W) versus the Wi-Fi signal (~100mW)."Myth #3: Lightning Storms Can Short-Circuit AircraftLightning strikes commercial planes an average of once or twice a year, according to Weather.gov. The good news is that planes are designed to withstand the inevitable storm. In addition to standard electromagnetic interference protection, a plane's electrical components and fuel tanks are grounded to prevent electrical arcs, and the body of the plane is effectively a container that blocks electromagnetic fields, known as a Faraday cage. If planes are struck by lightning, they must undergo mandatory inspection for damage before they are cleared again for flight.When lightning hits a plane, it might cause some minor structural damage, but a commercial plane hasn't crashed in the U.S. as a result of a lightning strike since 1967, according to Scientific American. Modern commercial aircraft designs have incorporated many precautions that put safety first."The key safety measure is designing the aircraft body to allow for energy dissipation and proper grounding. We want to prevent the formation of electric arcs, which could ignite vapors in the fuel tanks or knock out sensitive flight management systems," said Leeper. "Airframes have incorporated metal strips connecting all the structural features of the airframe, which work to create a Faraday cage and block electric charge from passing through the airframe."Why do pilots turn on the seatbelt sign when they encounter turbulence? So you don't accidentally fall down. Why does airplane mode exist? To keep communication channels clear. Why are planes big metal tubes when they sometimes fly through lightning storms? Because they act to quickly disperse lightning strikes.Why are myths about flying so common? Because when we're not in control, we tend to fixate on the worst-case scenario. Science, however, says otherwise: While plane myths are popular, they can be definitively debunked.Don't myth your chance for fear of flying — it's time for your career to take off with Northrop Grumman. Discover how we're defining possible in the air.

Common Myths About Flying, Debunked by Science


Time dilation, in the form of the so-called Twin Paradox, is a popular and long-standing plot element in science fiction, dating back at least to Robert Heinlein's classic YA novel "Time for the Stars," first published in 1956.In the novel, one of two twin brothers goes on a voyage of interstellar exploration aboard a ship capable of traveling at nearly the speed of light. The other remains on Earth. When the starship returns and they meet again, the star-faring protagonist is still young, while his twin brother has grown old.The underlying phenomenon, relativistic time dilation, is not only a basic consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity. It has also been demonstrated experimentally many times, as the National Institute of Standards and Technology points out.

Getting Relative

The discovery of time dilation and of the theory of relativity itself has roots going back generations beyond Heinlein's novel, to the late 19th century. According to Space.com, in 1887, a physicist and chemist — Albert Michelson and Edward Morely, respectively — attempted to determine the Earth's precise movement through the universe by measuring the speed of light as observed in various directions.At the time, physicists assumed that space had a fixed geometric framework, called the "ether," that light flowed through and which Earth was also moving through, orbiting the sun and also being carried along by the sun's own motion through interstellar space.But to Michelson and Morely's surprise, their instruments measured the speed of light as the same in all directions. They checked their instruments; these worked fine but still gave the same results. Physicists were left puzzled for nearly 20 years, until a young Albert Einstein came up with an explanation that seemed completely bizarre but that also worked.Einstein showed that the speed of light really IS the same for all observers, no matter where they are or how fast they are going. The rigid cosmic "ether" that Michelson and Morely had taken for granted did not exist. Instead, our measuring instruments — both yardsticks and clocks, along with everything else in the universe — turned out to be "rubbery" in a sense, seeming to stretch or shrink so that the measured speed of light always came out the same.And in 1905, Einstein published his results, calling it the theory of special relativity.



What's so Special About Special Relativity?
Einstein's original theory was called "special" relativity because it did not attempt to cover everything. It dealt only with the effects of high speeds on matter, setting aside the implications of acceleration or gravity and, thus, was formally applicable only to special cases.Nevertheless, much of what popular culture associates with Einstein and relativity — including the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit and the famous equation E=mc2 — falls within the scope of special relativity. This also includes the time dilation effects of very high (relative!) speeds, including the "Twin Paradox" of interstellar travel at relativistic speeds.In 1915, Einstein expanded his work to incorporate gravity and acceleration; this enlarged and "generalized" version of the theory was aptly called general relativity. However, for decades, general relativity was regarded as a bit like the Andromeda Galaxy — awesome but remote, far from any practical applications. As Universe Today notes, general relativity's greatest claim to fame in popular culture was that only a handful of people in the world could understand it.Over time, though, general relativity has come to seem a bit less abstruse. The discovery of black holes — objects so dense and massive that not even light can escape from them — was a big win: One of the strangest theoretical predictions of general relativity turned out to be for real.
 


Black Holes and Time Dilation
As it turns out, general relativity also has its own implications for time dilation. In general relativity, the force of gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, and both can cause clocks to run slower (as measured by an outside observer). If one of two twins orbited close to the event horizon of a black hole, that person would age more slowly than their sibling who remained on earth.We do not have the technology to achieve this (yet!) any more than we can achieve the "old-fashioned" time dilation of a traveler going nearly the speed of light. But per Science News, atomic clocks have reached such a high level of precision that we can measure the time-dilation slippage between clocks that are one millimeter apart (about 1/25 of an inch). The clock that is one millimeter lower (closer to Earth's gravitation) runs a tiny bit slower, just as general relativity predicts it should.Score one for Albert Einstein!Being on the forefront of change, especially regarding space, physics, and engineering has been part of the Northrop Grumman culture for generations. Click here to search jobs in these areas of scientific innovation.
 

Time Dilation: Games Relativity Plays With Clocks

The equation at the heart of Einstein's theory of relativity, E=mc2, is surely the most familiar equation in the world. It expresses that matter and energy are interchangeable, a fact that explains how the sun can shine for billions of years — and that led to the development of nuclear energy. We usually think of this process as a way to convert a small amount of matter into a lot of energy. The very form of the equation, "solving for E" as the mathematicians put it, underlines this capability. But the theory's famous equation actually works in both directions. If you write the equation m=E/c2, it is exactly equivalent to the familiar version and still expresses the theory of relativity. We usually write the equation the familiar way for a few reasons. One is that people have typically been more interested in obtaining a lot of energy rather than a little bit of matter, which we already have in piles all around us. Another reason, though, is that creating matter from energy may be good Einstein theory but is very difficult to do in practice. Going Uphill Is Harder A procedure for creating matter (specifically an electron-positron pair) from colliding light beams was outlined as early as 1934 by a pair of physicists named Gregory Breit and John A. Wheeler. But as Brookhaven National Laboratory physicist Zhangbu Xu explains, "Breit and Wheeler already realized this is almost impossible to do." The process would require a collision of extremely high-energy photons — in fact, a collision of gamma ray beams. Breit and Wheeler did offer a theoretical alternative involving acceleration of heavy ions. And, as Xu explains, "their alternative is exactly what we are doing" at the Brookhaven laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). As IFL Science reports, in an enchanting twist, the ions used for the RHIC experiments were gold ions — just the thing for a whiff of alchemy. More remarkable is the speed to which those ions are accelerated: 99.995% of the speed of light — barely under the universe's ultimate speed limit, itself another consequence of the theory of relativity. Two streams of gold ions were driven to this enormous speed, in opposite directions and arranged so that they just barely missed a head-on collision. But according to Live Science, when charged particles such as ions (which have their own magnetic fields) are fired through another magnetic field at very high speed, they produce a wake of so-called virtual photons that, in Xu's words, are "traveling with [the ion] like a cloud." These photons do collide, and their collisions produce electron-positron pairs — exactly as the Einstein theory of relativity says should happen. (As a bonus, Brookhaven reports that the experiment also demonstrates another previously elusive effect of relativity: a vacuum polarized by a powerful magnetic field, affecting light passing through it, similar to what sunglasses do.) But Is It Real? There is a complication, though. These virtual photons are not quite real — they exist only for profoundly small fractions of a second, and for that brief time they have mass, which "real" photons do not. The electron-positron pairs produced when these photons collide are definitely real, but if they result from virtual-photon collisions, do they truly represent energy converted to matter or merely some other effect of very high-energy physics? As Science News reports, the researchers tested this question by using Brookhaven's STAR (Solenoid Tracker at RHIC) detector to make extremely precise measurements of the electron-positron pairs' trajectories. STAR showed that, thanks to the enormous speed of the gold ions that triggers the whole process, the trajectories of these created particles match exactly what would be expected from collisions of "real" photons. So are we seeing the "real" Breit-Wheeler effect? For now, the question is almost philosophical. But as other research teams ramp up the power of experimental lasers, we may soon be able to test the effect with indisputably real laser beams. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

A Twist on the Theory of Relativity: Creating Matter from Energy

Do mermaids exist? Sadly, we can definitely say no, they do not. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it simply: "No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found." Unsurprisingly, however, this hasn't stopped the search for proof of mermaids that could upend the scientific status quo. Have merfolk fanatics had any luck? Not a bit. Is it interesting to see what they've come up with? Absolutely. The Mermaid Myth Myths surrounding mermaids, and to a lesser extent mermen, have existed for centuries. It makes sense, as the sea is both a mysterious force and an essential part of life for many people. Indeed, for hundreds of years sea travel was the only option for inter-ocean transport. It also stands to reason that sailors and people living on shorelines sometimes saw things they couldn't explain, and many believed what they were seeing took the form of a half-human, half-fish creature. Of course, what exactly a mermaid looks like depends on your source material. In Europe and North America, the top half of a mermaid's body resembles that of a human woman, while the bottom is a fishtail. In Scottish folklore, mermaids achieved their underwater ability by wearing the skin of a fish, and if they lost this skin while on land, they wouldn't be able to return. Sailors often associated mermaids with sirens who lured ships off course and their crews to rocky deaths on shoals or reefs. In the collection of Middle Eastern folktales known as One Thousand and One Nights, mermaids have faces and hair like women and tails like fish, but their hands and feet are inside their bellies. Head to Japan and you'll hear tales of the ningyo, a monkey-fish hybrid that lives in the sea. Supposedly, the creature came into being when a fisherman trespassed into protected waters and was cursed to wander the ocean as a monkey-fish mix. On his deathbed, he appeared to Prince Shotoku and asked the prince to forgive him for his crimes and build a temple to display his remains as a reminder of the sanctity of life — and not to trespass. Thanks to American and European influence, Japanese conceptions of merfolk have slowly shifted to the more familiar human-fish hybrid. Of Monkeys and Merfolk Earlier this year, scientists got the chance to examine one of these ningyo up close and in person after it was found inside a safe in an Okayama Prefecture temple. The effort began with Hiroshi Kinoshita, a board member of the Okayama Folklore Society. After coming across a picture of mummified ningyo remains in a book about mythical creatures, he was able to track the body back to the temple, where it was worshiped as an omen of good health. Notes left inside the mummy's original box indicate that the creature was supposedly caught in the mid-18th century, sold to an affluent family, and eventually passed on to the temple. In February 2022, the temple priests agreed to let scientists examine the body using a CT scan and take DNA samples to evaluate its genetic makeup. While those results haven't yet been released, there's a likely explanation: Someone may have grafted the head and torso of a monkey onto the tail of a fish and then added embellishments of human hair and nails. This isn't the first "mermaid" that's been found in Japan. Ningyo are worshiped at several other temples across the country, and during the early years of European travelers visiting Japan, fake mermaids were sold to curious Western tourists who were unfamiliar with the legend. Making a Mermaid Where science says no, human ingenuity bridges the gap. In Weeki Wachee Springs State park, there's a year-round show featuring women dressed as mermaids who swim through "a mysterious blue underwater world of mermaids, manatees, turtles, and bubbles." Earlier this year, Discovery Channel's Animal Planet aired a mermaid special that combines science fiction with some real events to make the case for mermaids. Paired with a somber, scientific tone, the special generated enough interest that NOAA received questions about the potential existence of mermaids and issued a formal statement regarding the lack of evidence to suggest that they are real. Do mermaids exist? Put simply, there is no proof of mermaids being real, and the same goes for monkey-sea creature hybrids. Nonetheless, the fascination with mermaids isn't going under. Rather, folks who are passionate about ocean people are creating their own versions of what mermaids might look like and exploring new ways of searching for these elusive sea sirens. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Proof of Mermaids? Science Tells the Tail

What critical component does our planet have that just-down-the street solar neighbor Mars is missing? Water's not a bad guess, and life always tops the list when tantalizing new hints about Martian creatures come to light. But today, we're talking about a more protective property: Earth's strong magnetic field.  How does Earth's magnetic field work? Where did it come from, and how is it changing over time? How is the concept used (and misused) in popular media, and what are actual STEM experts doing with magnetic field functions?  What Are Magnetic Fields, and How Do They Work?  Despite the ubiquity and familiarity of magnets, their exact operation remains a mystery. The basics are easy: It's all about electron spin. In most objects, electron spin is fairly even — approximately half spin one way and half spin in the opposite direction. However, in materials such as iron, nickel, and cobalt, more electrons spin one direction than the other. When exposed to an external magnetic force, these objects become permanently magnetized. In practice, this means the creation of north and south poles and a corresponding magnetic field that flows from north to south. This type of magnetism is known as ferromagnetism.  There's also another type of magnetism that matters: electromagnetism. In this case, an electric current applied to an object causes the electrons to align, in turn creating a magnetic field. This field only exists so long as the current is on — when the source shuts off, the magnetic field fails.  The challenge? While we understand how magnetism works in context, scientists still aren't exactly sure why the conditions for magnetism exist in the first place.  What Causes Earth's Magnetic Field?  Earth's magnetic field is likely tied to the movement of molten metal in the Earth's core that causes electric currents and effectively makes the planet into a massive magnet with two poles, north and south. But these don't always line up with the geographical north and south poles. In fact, Earth's magnetic poles switch places approximately once every 300,000 years, and there's evidence that we're due for another switch soon. Right now, the poles are moving at 35 miles per year.  The result of this molten movement is a magnetic field that extends out and around our planet in a "teardrop" shape thanks to pressure and compression from solar wind. It's this wind we'd need to be worried about if our magnetic field ever disappeared — the strength of Earth's field means that most high-energy particles tossed our way by the sun never reach the surface; instead, they're trapped by constantly moving field lines. Worth noting? The intensity of these particle pushes isn't consistent. Solar "storms" can cause an uptick in particle volume, which in turn creates brighter and more easily visible northern and southern lights.  But this isn't the whole story. New research suggests that Earth may have had a magnetic field more than 4 billion years ago, long before the core started solidifying and molten rock movement began the process of massive magnet creation. The result? Other forces must have been at work — but there's no consensus around exactly what causes Earth's magnetic field.  Magnetic Movie Magic  Given the ubiquity and familiarity of our magnetic field, it's no surprise that the concept shows up in a host of sci-fi movies. The caveat? Some do it better than others.  In the swing-and-a-miss magnetism department, we've got films like Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. In the film — spoiler alert! — the heroes turn on a massive electromagnetic coil to pull in the evil T-X for an untimely demise. The problem? Other magnetic items in the scene are totally unaffected. This is an oversight we see in sci-fi quite a bit: the science conveniently stops working when the fiction demands it.  On the other side of the coin are movies like The Core, which do a decent job of explaining the protective impact of Earth's magnetic field and why it's such a massive problem that the planet's core has stopped spinning. It's not all good news, however. The movie claims that Earth's magnetic field protects us from solar microwaves, which simply isn't true. Not only does the sun produce a minimal amount of microwaves compared with other types of radiation, but these waves are absorbed by the air when they arrive. Even more problematic? Magnetic fields don't affect microwaves. At all.  Making Magnetic Fields Work for Us  While movies may not make the most of magnetism, scientists are hard at work looking for new ways to leverage this field-producing framework.  Consider work from MIT on ferrimagnetic substances. While similar to ferromagnetic materials, there's a significant difference between the two. Ferromagnets see the north-south axes of their atoms lined up in the same direction, in turn producing a strong magnetic field. Meanwhile, ferrimagnets have sets of atoms with axes in the opposite direction. If the number of atoms pointing in each direction is equal, the result is no magnetic field. However, changing the orientation of even a few atoms produces a weak magnetic field. While they can't compete with ferromagnets for strength, their ability to flip directions with only minor adjustments makes ferrimagnets a great choice for data storage — new research leverages small changes to rapidly flip the magnetic polarity, effectively allowing these magnets to act as a "1" or "0" in binary storage devices.  Efforts from the University of Konstanz managed to isolate a new type of magnetism that exists in strontium ruthenate (Sr2RuO4), which is a well-known superconductor. Using a beam of muons, the team found surface magnetism that exists independently of superconductivity and can coexist alongside it — something long thought impossible. The muon beam revealed that, unlike most magnetic materials that rely on electron spin, circulating electron currents at nanometer scale are responsible for Sr2RuO4's magnetism. Other work includes the development of ultra-sensitive magnetometers capable of pinpointing positions even if GPS systems are damaged or unavailable.  Mars 2.0?  Simply put, our planet's magnetic field offers a massive benefit for life on Earth. Without it, solar radiation would slowly strip away our atmosphere, in turn giving rise to a second red planet in our solar system.  Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology, and engineering. 

An Attractive Opportunity: Unpacking Earth's Magnetic Field

It's become increasingly clear that COVID-19 is here to stay, — as a result, companies are looking to make detection and treatment as fast and easy as possible. One new device is the InspectIR COVID-19 breathalyzer test, which received FDA emergency use authorization in April 2022. If you're wondering how this test works, what is unique about this new healthcare technology or why it matters, read on. How the InspectIR COVID-19 Breathalyzer Technology Works This new healthcare technology uses a specific technique called gas chromatography mass-spectrometry. The American Chemical Society likens this groundbreaking tech to a tricorder from Star Trek: a portable method that can analyze the components of a chemical mixture. Gas chromatography mass-spectrometry is the combination of two separate, powerful techniques. Gas chromatography vaporizes a substance. It's then usually carried into a tube by an inert gas through a stationary phase, which is often a viscous liquid over a solid. Because gases react differently to passing through a stationary phase, a detector can tell what the different components are and how much of each there is. In mass spectrometry, the substance is ionized and its components are then separated according to the ratio of their mass to their charge. Once separated into fragments, scientists are able to determine what's in the sample through a spectrum. These two techniques work together because the gas chromatography separates each component and then mass spectrometry can analyze them individually. The InspectIR COVID-19 breathalyzer test can identify five separate volatile organic compounds associated with the novel coronavirus in a patient's breath, thanks to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. If the test detects any of these, it returns a positive result. How Does It Compare to Other Tests? This new healthcare technology can only be administered by professionals, which means it is not a replacement or substitute for at-home antigen or PCR tests. The accuracy rate of this breathalyzer test is high — 91.2% for positive samples and 99.3% for negative samples, which is similar to the accuracy of antigen tests. It was even able to identify COVID-19 in patients displaying no symptoms. According to FDA documents, the company does recommend following up a positive result with a more accurate molecular test. Negative tests shouldn't be taken at face value and should instead be considered with the patient's exposure history. In other words, you may still have COVID-19 even if the test comes back negative. It's also less invasive than other tests; patients need only blow into a straw rather than undergo a deep nasal swab. And it returns results faster than many competitors — within three minutes. What Are the Drawbacks? There are a few drawbacks to this method, however. First, the technology is relatively untested. Some scientists and doctors think that there needs to be more real-world use of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry as a diagnostic tool before it's used in real-world testing situations. It's also only approved for those 18 or older, so it's not suitable for children. Additionally, despite the technique being described as "portable," it still requires suitcase-sized equipment. And each machine can only process a single test at once, which means using this technology for mass testing would be cumbersome. Despite its speed, that makes this technology less than ideal for rapid testing. Why Does This Matter? The approval of the InspectIR COVID-19 breathalyzer test is significant for a broader reason, though. This is the first authorized use of a breathalyzer machine as a diagnostic tool. Scientists and researchers have been trying to perfect this technology for years. This is an interesting step forward for the new healthcare technology, and it remains to be seen how well it does in practical, daily use over the next few years. Are you interested in all things related to technology? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

InspectIR COVID-19 Breathalyzer Test Is the First of Its Kind

Fossils are pieces of stone that preserve the shape and structures of once-living creatures that died and were buried, typically in muddy environments. Over time, their decaying tissues were transformed into rocky material that can preserve their form for many millions of years — making fossils the key evidence biologists use to reconstruct the history of life on earth.So, what are microfossils? As the name suggests, they are microscopic fossils, preserved by time and chance in the same way as the larger fossils we see in museums. As the University of California Museum of Paleontology notes, while microfossils represent a broad range of once-living forms, unlike larger fossils, they are studied as a single discipline because of the special techniques needed to extract them and the microscopes needed to observe them.Microfossils have long been recognized as an important field of study. Most recently, as SciTechDaily reports, microfossils found in Western Australia have shed new light on a linked pair of the most important episodes in the history of life on Earth: the appearance of oxygen as a major component of Earth's atmosphere and the emergence of complex lifeforms, such as plants and animals.The new findings not only shed new light on the history of life here on earth, but also have implications for the search for life on other planets.Living with OxygenOxygen is the second-largest component of Earth's atmosphere (after nitrogen), and we are accustomed to thinking of it as the stuff of life. It is also one of the most violently reactive substances known to science.In the presence of oxygen and a spark, anything that can burn, will burn. While not technically combustible, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, it will "actively support the burning of combustible materials. Some materials that will not burn in air will burn in oxygen. Materials that burn in air will burn more vigorously in oxygen."The same reactivity that makes oxygen a prime rocket propellant also makes it intensely corrosive: It can break down steel into a powder of rust. For this reason, most planetary atmospheres contain only trace amounts of it. Any free oxygen quickly reacts with other gases, or with surface material (as with Mars, where iron in surface rocks reacted with oxygen to produce its rusty color).Earth today is the great exception, with oxygen-rich air, but early Earth, like other planets, had almost no oxygen in its atmosphere. According to the American Society for Microbiology, life on Earth initially evolved in this nearly oxygen-free environment.Over time, however, terrestrial organisms called cyanobacteria evolved the ability to capture energy from sunlight by photosynthesis — a process that also caused them to release oxygen into the air. As these organisms thrived, they released oxygen faster than it could combine with other gases or be locked up in surface rocks. The amount of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere began to rise sharply, an episode that, per Earth.com, is dubbed the Great Oxidation Event.This affected life on Earth in two ways. On the one hand, oxygen is such reactive, corrosive stuff that it may have acted as a poison and wiped out much of anaerobic life, creating an extinction event. On the other hand, an atmosphere filled with rocket propellant in gaseous form provided an immensely powerful energy source that living forms might be able to harness. And so, they did.Revisiting EvolutionBiologists classify Earth's early life as prokaryotes, anaerobic lifeforms that do not use oxygen and are often poisoned by it. But as atmospheric oxygen levels crept up, a new class of organisms, eukaryotes, evolved that not only could resist the corrosive effects of oxygen but could also utilize it to gain energy. In turn, this powerful new energy source allowed more complex life to evolve, leading to multicellular lifeforms.Until now, however, scientists were only able to infer that this evolutionary sequence must have happened. The results are all around us, but the evidence has been too sparse to tell us when or how it happened.What are microfossils doing to change this impasse? The transition began when, per SciTechDaily, Erica Barlow, then an undergraduate at the University of New South Wales in Australia, discovered rocks that were rich in ancient, well-preserved microfossils.Barlow — now an affiliate research professor at Penn State and lead author of a study that's revisiting evolution — summarizes what she found. The microfossils "have a remarkable similarity" to modern algae. Most of us don't think of algae as "complex life," but they are far more complex than prokaryotes, such as bacteria.Says Barlow, this similarity "hints at the fossil being possibly an early eukaryotic fossil. That's a big claim and something that needs more work, but it raises an exciting question that the community can build on and test."Adds co-author Christopher House, a professor at Penn State, "These specific fossils are remarkably well-preserved, which allowed for the combined study of their morphology, composition and complexity. The results provide a great window into a changing biosphere billions of years ago."We are still in the first stages of studying and understanding the new finds, but they have already pushed back the beginnings of complex life by some 750 million years to 2.4 billion years ago in the midst of the Great Oxidation Event. For the first time, we are glimpsing this crucial stage of evolution as it happened — not just its aftermath.Atmospheric Oxygen and Worlds BeyondThe significance of the findings extends far beyond earth. NASA is developing a technique that will allow its orbiting James Webb Space Telescope to detect earthlike levels of oxygen in the atmospheres of exoplanets — worlds orbiting stars light-years beyond the sun.Scientists have long understood that atmospheric oxygen would be a powerful telltale signature that a planet may harbor life. This is precisely because it is so reactive that it must be constantly replenished to be present in significant amounts.As Science Alert cautions, this signal is not totally conclusive: there are chemical processes that might replenish atmospheric oxygen without life playing any role. On the flip side, an exoplanet might have a thriving ecosystem of life forms resembling prokaryotes, but unless it has undergone an oxygen catastrophe it will have no detectable atmospheric oxygen.Yet the detection of oxygen in an exoplanet atmosphere will surely get the attention of scientists since it's a strong indicator that the planet may be an abode of complex life. And, as Space.com reports, another research team recently noted that an earthlike atmosphere must contain at least 18% oxygen in order to support open flames.This matters because any civilization would need fire in order to produce metals or harness the local equivalent of fossil fuels for energy. Even if intelligent lifeforms can exist at lower oxygen levels, without fire they would find it very difficult to develop a technological civilization.We are still a few technological revolutions away from being able to search for microfossils (or any other fossils) on planets orbiting other suns. But microfossils and orbiting telescopes are both tools for growing our understanding of life, oxygen, and planetary atmospheres.Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.

What Are Microfossils, and What Can They Tell Us About Evolution?

Last February, an Atlas booster rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral. Less than an hour after launch, the Centaur top stage released its payload on an orbit that will take it to the planet Venus.  But as Space News reports, the spacecraft is not intended to explore Venus. Instead, it will use the planet as a gravitational slingshot on its way to its real objective, a pair of destinations that no human has ever yet seen: the north and south polar regions of the sun.  The Solar Orbiter, a joint project of NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), is only the second mission ever launched to explore the sun's upper latitudes and polar zone. But according to Space News, the only previous mission, the ESA/NASA Ulysses probe of the '90s, didn't carry a camera. Thus, the Solar Orbiter mission will provide us with our first actual images of the solar polar zone.  Exploring the Sun's Turbulent Poles  At first blush, the very idea of the sun having north and south poles sounds odd, almost contradictory. After all we think of Earth's polar zone as cold, something the sun emphatically is not. But every rotating object has an axis of rotation, accompanied by north and south poles, and the sun is no exception.  Because the sun produces its own heat, its poles are as hot as the rest of the solar surface, around 10,000 degrees F. But the sun's polar zones are interesting to scientists for other reasons, says Discover magazine. The sun's rotation produces a powerful magnetic field, aligned with the solar poles. And the sun's magnetic field is the driving force of solar eruptions, visible from Earth as sunspots, that can both endanger space travelers and disrupt radio communications here on Earth.  All of which means that direct observation of the sun's polar zones will not only be interesting and kind of awesome (though at 10,000 degrees, it won't exactly be cool), but could also provide insights into some of the most disruptive solar phenomena.  A Long Climb to the Good Seats  So if the Solar Orbiter mission is intended to study the sun, why is it heading for Venus? It's all about location, and good locations for looking down at the solar poles aren't easy to reach. Earth, along with Venus and most everything else in the solar system, orbits in nearly the same plane as the sun's equator.  Reaching good look-down positions "above" the sun's polar zone thus requires enormous energy — much more than any booster rocket can deliver. But NASA has gotten very good at devising bank-shot orbits that make the most of the gravitational slingshot effect.  According to Discover, the Solar Orbiter will make multiple passes by Venus over the next two years to pump itself into a high-inclination orbit, giving a good view of the solar poles. In addition, says Discover, its orbit will sometimes get closer to the sun than Mercury. The spacecraft thus carries a heat shield to protect itself from 1,000-degree temperatures during its closest approaches.  "Touching" the Sun   But the Solar Orbiter mission is only half of a spacecraft team that is gearing up for what one scientist quoted by Space News described as a "kind of a golden age for solar physics."  The other half of the team, NASA's Parker Solar Probe mission, launched in 2018, will carry a heavily shielded suite of instruments within 4 million miles of the solar surface, at a hurtling velocity of about 125 miles per second.  The Parker Solar Probe does not carry a camera, perhaps because direct sunlight at that distance would incinerate it before it could snap any pictures. But other instruments, protected behind a heat shield, will be able to measure conditions so close to the sun as to be inside the solar corona that we see during a solar eclipse.  With high angle shots and close-ups alike, the sun is sitting for its scientific portrait like never before. 

Solar Orbiter Mission Takes Aim at Sun's Polar Zone

Scientific discoveries don't always require new technologies or costly equipment. Sometimes all that is needed is careful observers looking in the right place at the right time. That is how amateur astronomers and professionals recently teamed up to discover glowing "dunes" in the night sky — revealing new and different types of aurora borealis that previously lurked, visible but unnoticed, in the northern night sky. Northern Lights The aurora, often called the northern lights, is produced, explains Science Alert, when charged particles from the sun, trapped in Earth's magnetic field, pass through Earth's upper atmosphere. The particles knock electrons off of atoms in the atmosphere, ionizing them and thus triggering the eerie but lovely glow of an aurora. Because Earth's magnetic field is concentrated toward the magnetic poles, auroras are most often seen from high northern latitudes, in regions like Canada or Scandinavia. (They appear in the far southern sky as well, but few people live in places where southern-sky auroral displays can be seen.) Even in northern latitudes, the aurora can be elusive. Nights are cold, and because solar particles are correlated to the 11-year sunspot cycle, auroral displays are rare except during the most active phases of the cycle. When Professionals and Amateurs Team Up Minna Palmroth, a physicist at the University of Helsinki, was so drawn to the elusive beauty of the aurora that in 2018 she wrote a popular guidebook for Finnish aurora-watchers. In the process of compiling the book, which outlined the different types of aurora borealis, she got in touch with experienced amateur aurora-watchers. As Business Insider describes, these observers reported that they had seen some auroral displays that were not shown in the book, and did not quite match any of the known different types of aurora borealis. Palmroth's book project thus launched a new research project as well, with professionals and amateur observers working side by side. The most common type of auroral display resembles a glowing curtain in the night sky, with light seeming to stream down from a bright upper edge. The auroras that Palmroth's amateur colleagues were observing looked quite different, like frozen horizontal waves across the sky — hence the name dunes for this new (to us) type of aurora. This is not the first time in recent years that auroras have delivered surprises. In 2017, according to separate reports in Science Alert, observers in Canada noticed yet another unusual aurora-like display, which researchers dubbed Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement, or STEVE for short. Scientists now believe that STEVE is not technically a true aurora, but a related phenomenon of the upper atmosphere. Surprises From the "Ignorosphere"  Compared to purely astronomical phenomena, from planets to supernovae, the aurora borealis and related sky displays are right in our backyard. The various different types of aurora borealis are observed at altitudes between 50 and 100 miles — just short of 65 miles, in the case of dunes. But as close as this is by astronomical standards, Earth's upper atmosphere is exceptionally difficult to explore and study. The altitudes at which auroras appear are too high for aircraft or even balloons to reach, but too low for orbiting satellites. This region is so hard to study, says Gizmodo, that scientists have dubbed it the "ignorosphere." Dunes and other different types of aurora borealis are not only beautiful, they also provide an opportunity for scientists to study this hard-to-reach region of the upper atmosphere. A Fascinating Bore Dune auroras, in particular, are now believed to result from a phenomenon called a mesopheric bore, named by analogy to the tidal bore produced by tides flowing up a river. In the case of a mesopheric bore, oxygen atoms pushed higher in the atmosphere give rise to the distinctive frozen-wave glow of a dune aurora. But most of all, both dune auroras and STEVE show that Earth's upper atmosphere still has plenty of surprises still waiting to be discovered. The "ignorosphere" is being ignored no longer. And exploring it doesn't require a spacecraft or even a telescope — just experienced eyes and a warm jacket for those cold northern nights.

Researchers Discover Different Types of Aurora Borealis

Over the past few years astronomers have been observing — and seeking to explain — brief, powerful pulses of radio noise emanating from distant regions of the cosmos. The pulses, known as Fast Radio Bursts or FRBs, are so sudden and brief (in the millisecond range) that they vanish almost at the moment we detect them, making them hard to study. Recently, though, a team of astronomers caught an FRB in a repeat performance. This allowed them to pinpoint its location, which in turn could link FRBs to some of the most spectacular events in the universe: superluminous supernovae. When Stars Blow Up Supernovae are exploding stars, and a typical supernova may outshine all the rest of the stars in a moderate-sized galaxy for a few weeks. In recent decades, though, astronomers came to realize that some supernova explosions, called superluminous supernovae, are up to a hundred times brighter, briefly outshining all the stars in a large galaxy. One such superluminous supernova, called PTF10hgi, is believed to have triggered the repeat FRB. "It was so bright that if it had taken place in the Andromeda Galaxy [a mere 2 million light-years away] it would have been visible to the naked eye," notes Scientific American. It caused no stir at the time (7.5 years ago, according to Sky & Telescope) only because it blew up in a much more distant galaxy, a billion and a half light-years away. What we see as a supernova is actually a collapsing star; the expanding fireball we observe is roughly equivalent to the cloud of dust rising from a demolished building. The interior of the star may collapse entirely, forming a black hole, or it may form a neutron star, a stellar cinder a few miles across but roughly as massive as the sun. Spinning Up an FRB In some cases, the newly formed neutron star may be spinning so fast — thousands of rotations per second — that its magnetic field transfers the spinning star's enormous torque to the surrounding nebula formed by the star's former outer layers. Such a rapidly spinning neutron star is called a magnetar because it produces immensely powerful magnetic fields in space. And, says Sky & Telescope, the magnetic transfer of energy from the magnetar to its surrounding nebula can further heat and brighten the nebula — enough to turn an ordinary supernova into a superluminous supernova. Most of this energy transfer happens in the first weeks after the explosion, but the rotating magnetic fields in space continue to pump energy into the nebula. Calculations show that this energy transfer would be just the thing to produce FRB pulses, even decades after the initial explosion. These calculations also indicate that the magnetar's energy should keep the nebula explosion glowing, resulting in a persistent radio signal as well as the FRB bursts. The Power of Prediction All of these indicators came together for a research team including Harvard astronomer Tarraneh Eftekhari, lead author of their findings report. The repeat FRB, known as FRB 121102, took place 3 billion light-years away in a distinctive type of galaxy, one with low metallicity and a high rate of star formation — a pattern associated with superluminous supernovae. And while the superluminous supernova PTF10hgi was in a different galaxy only half as far away, examination with the Very Large Array radio telescope showed that it is surrounded by a persistent radio source. A similar persistent source coincides with the location of the repeat FRB. All of this is circumstantial evidence. But as AAS Nova reports, the research team has one more powerful weapon at its disposal. The researchers were able to predict, based on their detailed observations, how FRB 121102 should behave over the next few years. This will allow what AAS Nova describes as a robust test of the magnetar theory of FRBs. Meanwhile, a recently discovered second repeating FRB may add further insights to our understanding of the links between superluminous supernovae and FRBs.  The jury is still out on our understanding of FRBs and superluminous supernovae — but the evidence is starting to pile up as new investigative tools are becoming available.

Distant Superluminous Supernovae Light Up the Radio Sky

Scientists have received mysterious signals from space for the last decade. Are these perplexing signals really E.T. phoning home? Or a scrambled message from a galaxy far, far away? Dubbed "fast radio bursts," the origin of this phenomenon has remained a mystery — until now. What Are Fast Radio Bursts? The latest astronomy research has found the origin of a fast radio burst in a dwarf galaxy some 3 billion light-years away, according to Astronomy. The source of the radio waves, once thought to be extraterrestrial contact, was hard to pin down because the signals only lasted for a fraction of a second. Since FRBs were first discovered in 2007, astronomers have struggled to understand the science behind the phenomenon. Are FRBs a sign of alien life? Residual signals from a long-ago civilization traversing the vast blackness of space? Or perhaps signs of catastrophic cosmological upheaval? Finding Clues to Distant Mysteries The mystery began to unravel when an international group of researchers discovered FRB 121102. Unlike any of the previously discovered FRBs, this radio wave periodically repeated, which allowed scientists to home in on the source, according to Smithsonian Magazine. Thingiverse details how to print a 3-D copy of the radio burst that visually depicts the peaks and dips of the transmission. In 2012, Arecibo Observatory's radio telescope was the first to take note of FRB 121102. Then, using the Very Large Array — 27 movable radio dish antennas located in New Mexico — researchers captured a series of nine radio bursts over the next six months. The 8.19-meter Gemini North Telescope, located in Hawaii, confirmed the source of the radio bursts was a dwarf galaxy 3 billion light-years away, Popular Mechanics reported. Researchers presented their findings in Nature and at the 231st meeting of the American Astronomical Society, delivering an unprecedented level of detail on the elusive FRB, captured at the Arecibo Observatory.  The current theory is that the source of FRB 121102 is a young neutron star — the leftover of a giant star that exploded in a supernova. The neutron star could be engulfed in gas and debris from the supernova. Other dwarf galaxies similar to FRB 121102's have been found to be home to violent astronomical events, such as "'superluminous supernovae and long gamma-ray bursts,'" according to interviews with the research team published in Popular Mechanics. The FRB's don't appear to be pulsars, or rotating neutron stars that emit radio waves on a predictable interval. Searching for More Answers Future research will build on the fact that nearly all of the light from FRB 121102 is polarized (or oriented in the same direction), unlike most other objects that emit unpolarized light in random directions. Emitting polarized light requires the presence of a strong magnetic field, such those given off by massive black holes. Another source could be a magnetar, a type of neutron star formed when a large star consumes all its fuel and collapses in on itself, according to Space.com. Is it safe to rule out extraterrestrial contact? At this point, it is unclear if FRB 121102 is unique, or if there are other repeating radio sources to be discovered. Astronomy reports that 10,000 FRBs occur every day, so we may have an answer soon. 

Astronomers Closer to Solving the Mystery of Fast Radio Bursts

What does ordinary table salt have to do with Jupiter's moon Europa and the destination of NASA's upcoming Europa Clipper mission? As often happens in space science, the answer to this question is straightforward, but the implications are breathtaking. The detection of sodium chloride on the surface of Europa lends support to the theory that Europa not only has an underground ocean, but that this ocean contains the building blocks of life, and perhaps its own ecosystem of living organisms. All of which means that the Europa Clipper mission just might provide the first direct evidence that perhaps we are not alone. Misbehavior of the Gods First, a little background. As Space.com recounts, the four large moons of Jupiter, including Europa, were discovered by Galileo using his homemade telescope in January 1610. They are still collectively called the Galilean moons, but he simply numbered them. As Business Insider tells us, it fell to another astronomer to give them individual names. That astronomer, Simon Marius chose to name them for four of the Roman mythological god Jupiter's many romantic conquests. In order of distance from Jupiter, they are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. And as Business Insider also wryly notes, NASA is not above a little scientific mythology of its own. Another mission currently investigating Jupiter and its moon system is named Juno, after Jupiter's mythological (and very jealous) wife. Science Fiction Lends a Hand, and So Does NASA By the early 20th century, a new scientific mythology took form: science fiction. The moon and Mars usually played the starring role in early science fiction, but as Popular Science details, the four big moons of Jupiter, including Europa, got their share of attention. That is about where things stood until the 1970s, when space missions provided our first close-up views of these distant worlds — and spectacular views they were. As Space.com describes, each of the four big moons turns out to have very different surface features: from Io, the most volcanically active object in the solar system, to Callisto, the most heavily cratered. Jupiter's moon Europa does not have volcanoes and practically no craters. In fact, scientists determined that the surface of Europa cannot be more than about 160 million years old (even though Europa itself is nearly as old as the solar system, about 4.5 billion years). Some force, it seems, is continually "repaving" the surface of Europa. Not only is the surface being continually renewed; it is also almost completely flat. The most conspicuous surface features are linear markings, like scratches or cracks. A Hidden Ocean â€¦ One type of force, gravitational tides, turns out to account for both Io's volcanoes and Europa's flat, cracked surface. Tidal forces generated by Jupiter itself and the other moons subject all of the moons to flexing, which, over millions of years, heats them up internally. Thus, the inner moons, especially — Io and Europa — are much warmer internally than you would expect of worlds so far from the sun. When they formed, much of their material was water ice. The interior of Io is so hot that the ice long ago vaporized and escaped into space. Europa, not so close to Jupiter, only got hot enough to melt the ice. Per Geology.com, the result was and is a layer of liquid water believed to be as much as 60 miles deep — several times deeper than the deepest spot in Earth's oceans. A thin layer of ice, only a few miles thick at most, covers this ocean, which contains more water than all of Earth's oceans combined. â€¦ Of Salt Water All of which brings us back to that recent detection of sodium chloride (or in layman's terms, table salt) on Europa. Liquid water anywhere always gets the attention of researchers, because it seems to be an ideal environment for life. But water by itself is not enough: For life, you also need its building blocks and nutrients, most of which are to be found in rocks. If Europa's underground ocean is salt water, reports Phys.org, it must be in contact with rock, and surely contains many other dissolved substances, making the prospects for life that much stronger. And for a final touch, says Scientific American, these results indicate that liquid water must sometimes reach very close to the surface, or even break through before freezing, which could make detecting life on Jupiter's moon Europa that much easier. Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are, too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman and consider joining our team.

Jupiter's Moon Europa: A Moon With an Ocean — and Possibly Life

A group of physicists made a funky pattern and shined a light on it. The result? There's been a new kind of matter discovered, and we've taken another step toward better understanding how the universe works.
The Subatomic Ingredients of Bosonic Matter
Physicists from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) collaborated with scientists at Arizona State University and the National Institute for Materials Science in Japan to create a new type of matter. The material is a crystal made of bosonic particles called excitons.
Fermion + Fermion = Exciton?
In quantum physics, there are two main types of subatomic particles that are classified by their behavior:

 Fermions, or matter particles (such as electrons), don't like to stay together. They have half-integer spins — a fundamental property that describes a particle's angular momentum.
 Bosons, or force carriers (such as photons), can occupy the same energy level, or quantum state. They have a whole integer spin of zero or one.

Excitons are tightly bound electron-hole pairs. They are quasiparticles, like a pocket of energy.
As journalist David Nield explains in ScienceAlert, "Two fermions — a negatively charged electron and a positively charged opposite 'hole' where an electron could be — can bind to form an exciton with a full integer spin, which then is able to function as a boson particle."
We know more about fermions because they interact with each other through electrostatic force, so scientists have been able to set up more experiments focused on them. Bosons, however, have been trickier to pin down.
"Conventionally, people have spent most of their efforts to understand what happens when you put many fermions together," said the paper's lead author, Chenhao Jin, in a UCSB statement. "The main thrust of our work is that we basically made a new material out of interacting bosons."
A New Way to Study Elusive Bosons
Engineers could eventually use the newly discovered bosonic correlated insulator for real-world applications, such as making new and improved electronic components. This new material could also lead scientists to create other new materials.
But as exciting as it is that scientists have discovered a new kind of matter, how they found it could be more important than the discovery itself. The experiment could provide a good way to study bosons in real materials instead of synthetic systems.
Method Over Matter
Here's how they did it: They layered two latices on top of each other, with one turned slightly askew to create a moiré pattern. This type of pattern mixing is considered interference and can distort the imagery in photographs and other media — but the physicists used it to their advantage.
One of the latices was tungsten disulfide, which provided electrons. The other, tungsten diselenide, had the holes. The scientists shined strong lights on the moiré pattern to initiate exciton interactions. This technique is called "pump-probe spectroscopy" in laboratory lingo. The researchers then observed while excitons developed and interacted with each other.
Eventually, these excitons reached a certain density, at which point they could not move anymore, and in the end, the dense excitons were in a crystalline state with an insulating effect. In other words, they created a new kind of matter.
"We know that some materials have very bizarre properties," Jin said. "And one goal of condensed matter physics is to understand why they have these rich properties and find ways to make these behaviors come out more reliably."
Even if nobody makes anything out of this new kind of matter discovered, this type of fundamental research often leads to other discoveries. It also helps expand our understanding of what the universe is made of and how it all behaves.

Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.


New Kind of Matter Discovered: A Bosonic Correlated Insulator

When light is manipulated in a laboratory, it can create beautiful patterns that are just as unique and picturesque as a snowflake. These patterns aren't just for show though; they serve an important purpose. As Northrop Grumman's Matthew O'Donnell explained, when you combine two or more vortices of light, they create petal patterns, which can create an "alphabet" for transmitting information — even quantum information — over large distances. "If we ignore the fact that light is made up of discrete particles called photons and treat light as electromagnetic waves, then planar light consists of electromagnetic waves that are wiggling together in synchrony as the light propagates forward, much like a marching band in a parade moves together in lock-step along a boulevard," O'Donnell said. "Vortices are different than plane waves in that the waves that make up the vortex are out of phase with respect to each other in just the right way so that the light propagates in a kind of tornado," he added. When you combine two or more petal patterns, they form interference patterns. These patterns consist of millions and millions of photons, said O'Donnell. If you have entangled photons or entangled optical vortices, that "opens up a new world of quantum communication, quantum encryption and quantum computing," he noted. How does this work? According to O'Donnell: "The idea of both these technologies is to leverage a resource known as entanglement only available by working at the discrete level of nature described by quantum theory. The quantum resource of entanglement allows technology to surpass limits normally constraining it from reaching a higher level of performance. Only quantum technology can operate at the absolute physical limit allowed by nature." For instance, take quantum computing. A quantum computer with fewer than 100 qubits — quantum bits — is known in many cases to outperform even the most powerful mainframe computers. A conventional computer performs calculations by performing operations on bits that can take on the value of either one or zero, nothing in between. (Bits are the fundamental units of computation, similar to how the whole numbers are manipulated to perform arithmetic.)  A quantum computer, on the other hand, performs calculations by operating on qubits which may take on the value of zero, one, or both at the same time. The latter situation is called being in a superposition of one and zero — something that can only happen in quantum.  Furthermore, unlike bits, qubits can be "entangled" with each other (another feature that is unique to quantum) to form a powerful computational network that can outperform any size of networked conventional computer cores. Now, petal patterns can be used as quantum bits. But, instead of being limited to superpositions of one and zero, petal patterns can be created as superpositions of tens or hundreds of different states. Imagine the complex networks that can be formed by entangling petal patterns with each other.  If you're interested in a career pursuing scientific advances like this, check out our available positions.

Petal Patterns May Fuel Quantum Computing

During summer 2016, a 12-year-old boy in Siberia died from a puzzling disease linked to thawing permafrost. Scientific American reported that 20 other people in the same remote area were diagnosed with the same disease; another 80 were hospitalized with suspicious symptoms. Then, more than 2,300 reindeer were found dead because of this disease.   The cause? Anthrax.   Thawing Permafrost Releases Anthrax   Most Americans associate anthrax with a white, powdery substance used to poison other people via the mail. However, anthrax is an infectious disease caused by the bacterium bacillus anthracis. Anthrax is usually spread by contact with the bacterium's spores, which often occur in infected animals. In the case of remote Siberia, scientists believe that the infection began in a reindeer that died 75 years ago, according to The Washington Post.   Scientific American warned that when permafrost — a permanently frozen layer of soil — begins to thaw because of the Earth's changing temperatures, previously frozen spores that cause deadly diseases can be released into the air. These spores can get into the water and soil, and may eventually enter a community's food supply.   In Siberia, a heatwave caused melting permafrost. Then came water and bubbling methane in the permafrost fields. Record fires lit up Russian grasslands, according to The Washington Post. The anthrax bacteria, which lay dormant and frozen for 75 years, thawed. Reindeer started to die. Reindeer herders fell ill. Eventually, the entire community found itself in quarantine.   Global Warming and Dormant Diseases   Scientific American noted that researchers have been predicting that warmer temperatures could cause permafrost to thaw, initiating a new spread of dormant diseases. When permafrost thaws, whatever is frozen also thaws, meaning ancient bacteria could be released into the environment more frequently as the Earth's temperatures increase.    The release of these dormant diseases depends on how deeply the permafrost melts and how high temperatures go. It also depends on how strong the type of frozen bacteria is: some microorganisms can't survive in the cold for very long, while others, like anthrax, seem built for long-term freezes.   Viruses also have the potential to survive for a long time in frozen Earth layers. It is possible, if not probable, that viruses that infected humans on a large scale (such as smallpox or the Spanish flu) could return. In 2014, two scientists resurrected the largest virus ever seen from a 30,000-year-old chunk of ice, according to Nature. The disease was still infectious, despite the time that had passed.   Cause for Concern?   Research published in Global Health Action warned that scientists should carefully monitor permafrost conditions, especially in areas where anthrax outbreaks have occurred in the past. Many scientists are doing just that. Janet Jansson of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory uses molecular approaches to study the microbial communities that live in soil and sediments, specifically in permafrost. Paul F. Shuster and his team of scientists found significant stores of mercury in permafrost sites in Arctic regions, according to Geophysical Research Letters. In Woods Hole, Massachusetts, scientists are drilling into permafrost cores to see what they can find, hoping to offset the surprise release of new deadly diseases, said the New York Times.   Overall, the threat of thawing depends upon which microorganisms are unearthed. The risk of releasing dormant diseases also depends upon how warm our planet gets and how much our climate changes in the coming years. Heat waves could thaw permafrost more quickly than expected, so more research will be required before we are fully prepared.

Thawing Permafrost May Reawaken Dormant Diseases

Plankton don't get the credit they deserve. Despite weighing at just 1% of the world's photosynthetic biomass, these predominantly unicellular protists account for almost 50% of photosynthetic production, making them a very big deal that comes in a very small package. Researchers tackling genetics in microscopic marine life recently unlocked a new gene editing tool that could help us better understand plankton biology and leverage their promising potential to keep oceans clean. Photo Finish Also called phytoplankton, from the Greek phylo (plant) and plankton (to drift or wander), these sort-of-fauna floaters play an incredibly important role in Earth's ecosystem at large thanks to their unparalleled diversity. As noted by the NASA Earth Observatory, it's hard to nail down a single plankton definition — some are bacteria, some are protists and many are single-celled plants. And that's not all. Zooplankton are tiny animals that feed on phytoplankton and become food for fish and other species, while even smaller subsets — bacterioplankton and virioplankton — are also making oceanic rounds. Mass-wise they're not a big deal, but their sheer volume makes them valuable thanks to massive photosynthetic output; they're one of the world's most important producers of oxygen, according to National Geographic. They're also critical in the carbon cycle: Plankton remove approximately 10 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year and then transfer that carbon to sea life, lakes and deeper ocean layers. Given their role as food for larger marine life, photosynthesis front-runners and carbon collectors, there's no doubt that plankton play a critical role in environmental regulation — but their genetic makeup remains largely mysterious. The Plankton Problem Climate change is now driving zooplankton adrift, pushing them toward the poles as marine temperatures increase. According to Dr. Lukas Jonkers, however, "We think that these findings are indicative of what is happening in marine ecosystems. If you take that assumption, it means that most species have moved their distribution." If that's the case, it means plankton of all types are now on the move, but there's no guarantee that they can handle the differing season lengths and light conditions that come with more northerly or southerly latitudes. Best case? Similar shifts in sea life distributions, which could have knock-on effects for the fishing industry at scale. Worst case? Shrinking species population as once-abundant plankton becomes perilously difficult to find. The genetics of microscopic marine life also pose potential problems. As the NASA piece notes, some plankton species are biotoxic and create so-called "red blooms," which are massive plankton growths that can kill both marine life and humans who ingest contaminated seafood. Even non-toxic blooms can cause critical conundrums when substantial amounts of plankton die simultaneously. The resulting deadfall sinks toward ocean or lake floors and is set upon by bacteria, which use available oxygen to power their process of decomposition. The issue? This depletes all available water-borne oxygen to create a "dead zone" that kills marine life. As noted by Science Daily, new algorithms make it possible to observe and assess the impact of phytoplankton blooms across the globe using satellites to provide evolving data on water quality and potentially toxic hot spots. Scientific Sea Change While satellite imaging lets researchers observe the outer life of plankton populations, the complex genetics in microscopic marine life have made looking inward more challenging. According to a new study published in Nature Methods,  researchers from the University of East Anglia were able to deliver and express foreign DNA in 13 species that have never before transformed. They were also able to evaluate the potential cause of non-transformation in 17 other species; in turn, laying the foundation for an expanded understanding of genomes discovered in plankton. The sheer variety of plankton potential — from antibacterial compounds to antiviral and antifungal solutions — makes this a worthwhile endeavor. If scientists can create reliable methods to modify phytoplankton, it should be possible to reduce their toxic impact, better control their bloom cycle and even increase the photosynthetic output — all critical in the fight to keep our oceans blue and our terra firma green. As noted by Science Magainze, the international research team used a variety of methods to modify plankton DNA. For some species, shooting tiny gold or tungsten particles covered with DNA through cell walls produced the best result. For others, jolts of electricity made cell walls "leaky" and allowed new DNA to seep through. Specific protist successes included modification of a fish-killing toxic plankton species, and one that infects both mollusks and amphibians. While these discoveries don't present a complete understanding of the genetics in microscopic marine life, they provide a key testing protocol: By modifying genetic structure and then observing how plankton react, teams could uncover ways to boost antibiotic resistance or lower infectious impact. According to lead UK study author Thomas Mock, "These insights will improve our understanding about their role in the oceans, and they are invaluable for biotechnological applications such as building factories for biofuel or the production of bioactive compounds." Blue Genes, Green Benefits Genomes discovered in plankton play a critical role in the management of marine life, the consistency of carbon and the output of oxygen worldwide. But these small-scale big hitters remain most mysterious thanks to the sheer volume and variety of species worldwide. New gene-editing efforts, however, may help unlock promising plankton potential to deliver positive environmental and economic outcomes.

Genetics in Microscopic Marine Life: The Plankton Potential

To explore the boundaries of science fiction and the real world of science, technology and engineering, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Los Angeles-Las Vegas Section recently hosted an event in California called "Sci-Fi vs Sci-Tech." Aerospace engineer Aldo Spadoni attended the event as a panelist and moderator.  Humanity has embarked on a Second Space Age, fueled by new technology developments and both private and government space exploration initiatives. What has inspired people to push the boundaries of human imagination and accomplishment? Science fiction films and television shows like "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" have always been a major source of fascination and inspiration; they've also influenced many to pursue sci-tech careers. "Sci-Fi vs Sci-Tech" was organized by Ken Lui, AIAA LA-LV Section events chairman, with support from Robert Friend, LA-LV Section chairman. The event featured a panel of experts including Rod Pyle, space author and historian; Rick Sternbach, space and science fiction artist; Harriet Brettle, CalTech planetary sciences graduate student; Madhu Thangavelu, USC professor; Dr. Rostislav Spektor, project leader and research scientist; and Allan Grosvenor, senior aerodynamics engineer. The meeting began with a look back at the Apollo 11 Moon landing and Viking 1 Mars landing, in celebration of the 49th and 42nd anniversaries of those events, respectively. On hand were former Apollo and Viking program engineers Robert L. Norcross Jr. and Gary Moir; they provided first-hand recollections of the many challenges involved while working on these amazing programs. Back to the Future The event was well attended, with great audience interaction and wide-ranging discussions. Pyle started with a look at past visions of the future, providing examples from the 1930s and 1940s including humanoid robots, flying cars and cities in the sky. "I thought it might be instructive to look at how we envisioned the future in decades past, and from this, we might learn something about how to look ahead. While these early visions had some elements of accuracy, our future turned out to be much more about miniaturization, digitization, big city congestion and a turn to rampant consumerism. But we do have GPS and texting," he said with a wink. Humans Versus Robots The panelists fielded a number of questions related to the human role in space exploration. The space environment remains extremely hostile to humans, so why continue to pursue human space exploration at great expense and risk? At least for the immediate future, humans have proven to be far more adept and flexible than robots at onsite data gathering and assessment. Beyond exploration, venturing into space is also about assuring human survival by establishing permanent colonies. Thangavelu provided some insights into how we might safely live and thrive on the Moon. Most science fiction films typically portray future humans that appear and behave much the same as they do now. In the future, however, spacefaring humans might be drastically altered to better function in the space environment. Imagine human minds downloaded into miniaturized robots, which Pyle likened to "robotic cockroaches with human brains." The Challenges Ahead The panelists generally agreed that an expanded human presence in the solar system will require the ability to travel quickly, safely and efficiently. Spektor provided an overview of promising advances in electric/plasma rocket propulsion technology. Other options discussed included nuclear thermal and pulse rockets, and laser-driven solar sails that could potentially push tiny micro-spacecraft on interstellar missions. Science fiction films are not always optimistic, and there has been a general trend toward dystopian visions of the future. Pyle noted that "we can and should do better, looking to the future and clearing a path for what we might achieve if we can spot some aspirational, pro-social goals." The Frontiers of Imagination Science fiction can still portray a positive future with characters overcoming adversity, inspiring interest in space exploration and the pursuit of technical careers. "As an artist who has worked in both science fiction as well as real sci-tech, I am amazed and excited about the ways that the two areas inform and inspire each other," Sternbach said. "Scientific observations and innovations in real technology drive science fiction to imagine what might be possible. At the same time, dreams of new air and space vehicles, destinations, materials and processes help scientists and engineers bring those dreams into reality," Sternbach added. Attendees were treated to a surprise visit by none other than Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who shared his ideas for efficient space transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the Earth and moon. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Los Angeles-Las Vegas Section plans to host similar local events in the future.

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Explores Sci-Fi Versus Sci-Tech

Key Takeaways  80% of the oceans are unmapped and unexplored. New species are still being discovered in the ocean depths. Analysis of ocean floor and deep sea data frequently show strange phenomena.Are aliens in the ocean? The answer may surprise you — or it won't, since the chances of this sunken sea evidence being tied to extraterrestrials are slim to none. Still, it's worth taking a deeper dive to discover exactly what's down there and consider potential alien alternatives.Water, Water EverywhereDespite accounting for more than 70% of our planet's surface, 80% of our oceans are "unmapped, unobserved, and unexplored," according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.So, it's no surprise that scientists are constantly coming across new ocean oddities. Consider work from Brazilian ichthyologist Luiz Rocha, whose work in the "twilight zone" (depths between 200 and 500 feet deep where the light is dim and the temperature is cold) has uncovered more than 30 new species. There's also the recently discovered "water world," properly called TOI-1452b, a planet that could feature a giant, global liquid ocean. Researchers plan to take a closer look at this watery wonder using the James Webb Space Telescope.Put simply? No matter where we look, there's water. And if it's so important to us, maybe it's critical for alien life. And maybe, just maybe, they've been here all along.Hole-y Moley!Let's get down to it.First on our list of possible alien evidence is the discovery of a circular seafloor hill 352 miles off the coast of Lima. The hill is 4.2 miles in diameter and, based on images taken from Google Earth, appears to be out of place with the rest of the rough ocean floor topography. Its seemingly perfect circle shape has led to speculation that a crashed alien ship is hiding underneath, but chances are slim.Why? First, the sighting came from a website that regularly claims natural phenomena are proof positive of alien existence. Second, the picture was generated using Google Earth, which itself uses multiple data sources stitched together to create ocean-floor images. As a result, visual artifacts are common.Next up are the holes discovered by a remotely operated vehicle along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is part of the world's largest mountain range. During a dive on July 23, 2022, the vehicle found "tracks" of holes on the sea floor. The holes appear at repeating distances and are surrounded by small mounds of sediment, suggesting that someone — or something — is responsible for their creation. This isn't the first hole happening, either. In 2004, a team from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service found similar sets of holes and sediment while exploring the ocean floor. The likely explanation? "Lebensspuren," which is German for "life traces" and suggests that the holes may be the work of living marine organisms.Not surprisingly, some alien enthusiasts have taken the repetitive nature of the pattern and ascribed it to alien life. While that's not beyond the realm of possibility, it does seem a bit strange that aliens would focus their time and effort on making small ocean-floor holes for humans to find. Other explanations include some type of natural phenomena, or even human excavation and research efforts that may have distributed deep-sea sediment.Trawling for TechAlong with aliens that have existed undetected for centuries on the sea floor, there's also speculation that alien technology may have crash-landed in our oceans. That's what Professor Avi Loeb of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics suggests. He's focused on a meteor that hit Earth's atmosphere in 2014 and then exploded into fragments that rained down over the Pacific Ocean. Loeb contends that object CNEOS 2014-01-08 was moving at 40 kilometers per second and was "moving much too fast to be bound to the sun." As a result, he says it predates Oumuamua, detected in 2017, as the first interstellar object passing through our solar system.Loeb now has his sights set on exploring the ocean floor to see if he can find traces of this object and determine if they might actually be alien technology. Not surprisingly, the plan was met with skepticism. Why? First, there's the fact that it's exceedingly difficult to take accurate measurements of head-on speed before meteors crash into the atmosphere, meaning the object in question may not be interstellar. Second, any debris remaining after the impact would be extremely small — a few grams or less — and there's no way to pinpoint a specific search area. In other words, this really is a needle in a haystack - or drop in the ocean - situation.Are there aliens in the ocean? Probably not. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking. If nothing else, there's an opportunity for even more exciting sea-floor surprises.Northrop Grumman's uncrewed systems help push the boundaries of deep sea exploration and security. Learn more.

Aliens in the Ocean: Is Sea-ing Believing?

Pest control in the skies over the Florida Keys is taking on a distinctive buzz this year. Thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes are being released to evaluate their impact on local populations. As a strategy, releasing modified mosquitoes into the wild could help to reduce arbovirus infections such as Zika virus, chikungunya and dengue. Since climate change is already expanding the range of many disease-bearing flying vectors into the United States, scientists and clinicians alike are eager to find out if this strategy is a winner. Pest Control Over the Florida Keys In April, the first ever release of genetically modified mosquitoes in the U.S. launched, according to Nature. Tens of thousands of eggs carrying modified Aedes aegypti males were placed in secret locations around Monroe County's Cudjoe Key, Ramrod Key and Vaca Key. These males, each carrying a gene that's lethal to female larval development, will hatch and fly off to interact with the resident population. In breeding with the locals, they'll create generations where the females do not survive. Within several rounds of breeding, the number of female A. aegypti will hopefully decline to a point where the wild population itself is severely suppressed. Additionally, since it's only the females of this species that bites, Scientific American notes that this should also reduce transmission of serious arbovirus diseases such as dengue, chikungunya and Zika virus. Genetic Modification Tech at Work The bioengineering tech at work in the modified A. aegypti males buzzing around the Florida Keys is highly specific. Science Magazine describes how the modification adds a tetracycline transcriptional activator variant (tTAV) gene to the male genome. The engineered males carry the dominant lethal gene that they transmit to female offspring. In the lab, the gene's lethality is suppressed simply by adding the antibiotic tetracycline to the mosquitoes' food. Since this is not available in the wild, lethality activates and renders the females non-viable. The Centers for Disease Control notes that, although this is the first time this has been deployed over U.S. soil, more than one billion genetically modified mosquitoes have been released safely and successfully in other areas around the world. Brazil, the Cayman Islands and Malaysia have all been involved in trials carried out by U.K.-based firm Oxitec, testing the technology's ability to control wild populations and suppress arbovirus transmission. An Engineered Future to Pest Control Globally, according to the number of people killed, mosquitoes are the world's deadliest animal. As CNET notes, mosquitoes kill more people than sharks, snakes, hippos and even humans per year — all due to the transmission of fatal and debilitating viral diseases. With the expansion of flying insect vector ranges due to global warming, as well as the increasing resistance to insecticides, public health strategies have had to evolve to protect people effectively. Genetic modification (GM) is only one approach, but it does seem to be more efficient than traditional methods, such as insecticide use or releasing irradiated insects to suppress populations. Insecticide gets tricky once species become resistant. And irradiation, although successful at sterilizing males, needs huge numbers of insects for success because the process renders them weaker than unmodified males. The World Health Organization (WHO) has accepted GM, advising that it avoids increased insecticide use due to resistance. The Oxitec approach, known as Release of Insects carrying a Dominant Lethal (RIDL), is one GM technique. Other high-tech tools for insect control include infecting breeding populations with debilitating Wolbachia bacteria species, modifying insect foods for lethality and other precision molecular approaches. For example, Bt maize suppresses local insect populations by giving them something poisonous to chew on. Nature describes how the engineered maize species kills off caterpillars and grubs by incorporating a protein derived from a common soil bacterium that kills the pests and is harmless to people. When the larvae start feeding, they ingest the toxic Cry proteins and die rapidly, so the crop is protected. Another GM approach uses highly specific CRISPR targeting. Researchers created populations containing the Cas-9 targeting modification alongside individuals with the guide RNA targets. A BioRxiv preprint describes how the scientists homed in on genes that destroyed functionality in both male and female A. aegyptii populations. Using CRISPR, they disrupted spermatogenesis and attacked the gene responsible for flight. Not only did the genetically modified mosquitoes produce sterile males, but they also created non-viable females. Without being able to fly, female mosquitoes could not mate or reproduce. Furthermore, because they also could not search for humans for a blood meal, this modification could also impact disease transmission. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Genetically Modified Mosquitoes Tackle the World's Deadliest Animal

Einstein famously called it "spooky action at a distance"; the notion that obtaining information about one particle in an entangled pair provides information about the other, no matter how far they are apart. Often called one of the trickiest ideas in science, quantum entanglement has given rise to a host of arguments and experiments — from possibly dead cats to many-worlds concepts and quantum time tweaks — that further complicate the issue, making it even harder to unpack and understand. Let's simplify the spooky and help settle the score with a quick look at the quantum condition. State of the Union Understanding quantum entanglement starts with the quantum state. All photons — the ideal particle for quantum questions since they can be reliably split into entangled pairs — exist simultaneously in multiple states. It's called quantum superposition: The idea that all states are potentially possible until a photon is observed or measured. Simple, right? Not so fast. When it comes to entangled pairs, measuring one tells you something about the other: For example, if the first one you measure spins up, its pair must spin down — no matter where it's located — giving rise to Einstein's spooky action statement. But here's the thing: We're already familiar with this framework. Science Alert likens it to finding one glove of a set. If it's a right-handed glove you know the other has to be left-handed, even if you can't see it to confirm the observation. If you've misplaced the pair and you're searching the house, the gloves are in superpositional state; they could be either left- or right-handed. Once you find one, however, you collapse this condition and confirm the configuration of both. Quantum entanglement isn't quite this easy; while knowing some states provides 100% certainty about the action of the paired particle, most offer only a probability, making another state only more or less likely for the entangled entity. Still, this means the more scientists learn about one particle, the greater their body of knowledge about the other — instantaneously — no matter where it's located in the universe. But this also poses a problem, since it seemingly violates the notion that nothing — not even information — can travel faster than the speed of light. What You See — And What You Get The action of observation is fundamental for science. Measurement allows for greater accuracy and understanding, but in a quantum entanglement scenario, measurement seemingly has an impact on the properties of particles themselves. This doesn't dovetail with classic conceptualizations of the world, or what physicist John Bell called "realism" — that the properties of objects remain consistent regardless of observation. But even before the deep dive into quantum mechanics, issues were cropping up around the edges of classical construction: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that as the position of a particle is more precisely determined, momentum predictions suffer a precision loss — and vice versa. At first glance, this makes it seem like the act of observation changes the behavior of the particle itself; instead, it simply precludes our ability to obtain all knowledge simultaneously. Quantum entanglement poses the same problem. If particles exist in "real" states, their properties shouldn't be affected by measurement or observation; knowing something about one of a pair shouldn't tell you anything about the other. To test this theory, scientists sent pairs of photons toward detectors located a significant distance apart. If both had the same polarization, they should reach the detectors. If not, at least one would be blocked. Under a quantum view of the universe, entangled pairs should show higher polarization correlations than if they're governed by classical conditions — and that's exactly what happens. Some criticism has suggested that scientists' decision about the angle of approach to each detector wasn't entirely random, in effect imposing outside, unknown constraints on the experiment. To solve this issue, one team used a random measurement setting based on the wavelength of light detected from high-redshift quasars, effectively removing any human hubris. The results? Higher state correlation than would be expected under classical models. Spooky Security As noted by Scientific American, the idea of entanglement offers potential benefits for information security. Scientists at the University of Bristol have now created and deployed an eight node quantum network that spans 17 kilometers and empowers secure communication using what's called quantum key distribution (QKD). Consider those most classic of communicators: Alice and Bob. In a QKD model, Alice and Bob use a pair of entangled photons to create a private key. Both randomly perform a set of measurements, compare the results and select the measurement subset that gives them the same results as the basis for their quantum key. Scaling this up has proven problematic, however, since adding "Charlie" to the mix without having him go through Bob to get to Alice required separate links to both. While this only requires three links for three end nodes, the volume increases rapidly — eight-node networks need 28 links and 100-node networks require 4,950. The Bristol team solved this problem by creating a central source model that allows direct connection between any two nodes without the need to pass through other users, in turn making spooky security both possible and potentially profitable. Closing the Quantum Loophole Ultimately, the quantum conundrum comes down to free will. The idea that measuring one particle property seemingly influences the probability of its paired partners' state isn't an easy thing for humans to handle, since it seems to violate the core concepts of our universe: Information can't travel faster than light, and measurement shouldn't preclude specific properties for either particle pair. But just like the case of the missing glove, there's no compulsion in collapsing the quantum state — instead, more information about preexisting conditions has simply been confirmed. Spooky? Undoubtedly. Solid science? Absolutely.

Quantum Entanglement: Simplifying the Science of Spooky Action

As visual representations of scientific concepts go, the periodic table is hard to beat. It's easily recognizable, relatively simple to understand and for the last 150 years has acted as a reliable roadmap to help chemists uncover new elements and expand the sum of human knowledge. The American Chemical Society (ACS) described it as "perhaps as foundational to chemistry as the discovery of DNA has been to biology." But Dmitri Mendeleev's elemental Excel spreadsheet has also become a kind of cultural touchstone. Tables of every size and shape are easily available. Want a colored-coded representation of key elemental groups? No problem. Need a dog-themed periodic table of the EleMUTTS? Of course! Want to learn the periodic table through a song set to the tune of Jacques Offenbach's "Infernal Galop"? Of course you do. It's no surprise, then, that the United Nations decided the table's sesquicentennial was worth recognizing: According to the official UNESCO website, 2019 is the International Year of the Periodic Table. So let's dive in — how did Mendeleev develop his table? How well does it stand up under pressure? And what happens when the table's not big enough for all the elements at the party? Let's Table This Discussion As noted by the Royal Society of Chemistry, Dmitri Mendeleev wasn't the first scientist who attempted to group the elements into some type of easily recognizable framework. In 1789, Antoine Lavoisier classified elements by their properties (gases, metals, non-metals and earths). In 1865, John Newlands noticed similarities in elements of atomic weights that differed by seven. He called it the "Law of Octaves," later known as the "Periodic Law." Mendeleev noticed that certain types of elements regularly reoccurred when elements were arranged according to atomic weight — reactive non-metals were directly followed by light reactive metals and less reactive light metals. He wasn't afraid to move elements around the table based on their behavior, says the Royal Society of Chemistry. This ran counter to the notion that elements should be ordered by atomic weight, but it produced better far results. For example, nickel is lighter than cobalt but better aligns with palladium — located in the next row down — than rhodium. Choosing action over atomic weight made Mendeleev's table much more accurate, especially after protons were discovered; when classified according the number of protons in the nucleus, Mendeleev's table was spot-on, according to the Royal Society of Chemistry. The table's biggest benefit was predictability. Elements directly above or below each other in columns — or "groups" — share similar characteristics. For example, the alkali metals of the first column "usually carry a +1 charge in reactions, react vigorously with water, and combine readily with nonmetals," as noted by ThoughtCo. Those in the same row — or "period" — share the highest unexcited electron energy level. The table helped paved the way for a better understanding of chemical reactions work, predict outcomes when combining elements of differing groups or periods, and helped pave the way to discover new elements. Filling In the Gaps Along with his Law of Octaves, John Newlands also created a version of the periodic table. The problem? Keeping the pattern meant cramming multiple elements into the same space and hoping for the best. Needless to say, the Chemical Society was not impressed. Mendeleev, meanwhile, knew he didn't have all the answers. So whenever he came across a potential gap in his table, he left it alone. What's more, he predicted that new elements would be found to close these gaps — and sure enough, they were. He knew there should be an element after aluminum (which he called "eka-aluminium") but since no known elements had the right properties, he left the space blank. He also predicted the properties of eka-aluminium, which included an atomic weight of around 68, a solid density of 6.0 grams per centimeter cubed and a valency of three. In 1875, Paul-é‰mile Lecoq de Boisbaudran discovered gallium, which had an atomic weight of 69.72, a density of 5.9 grams per centimeter cubed and a valency of three — just as Mendeleev predicted, says the Royal Society of Chemistry. Also of note was the discovery of the noble gases by William Ramsay. While some saw them as contradictions to Mendeleev's work, further research found their natural home as the final group on the periodic table. What's Next for the Nature of the Universe? Chemists have been regularly adding new elements to the table. As noted by JSTOR Daily, the table currently caps out at element 118 — oganesson — a noble gas that has a half-life of just 0.89 milliseconds. Work is already underway to find elements 119 and 120 but as oganesson's short-lived existence makes clear, this isn't an easy task. Starting with element 105, rutherfordium, artificial preparation is required and researchers have very little time to observe any inherent properties before decay occurs. There are predictions that an "island of stability" will be found — a group of elements with exceptionally stable nuclei because their nuclear shells are filled with the "magic number" of protons or neutrons. According to the JSTOR piece, 184 neutrons is the next predicted magic number. New elements may also be found using technologies from other disciplines, such as the soon-to-launch James Webb telescope, which will observe and help analyze distant gas clouds. Just because we can't produce super-heavy, super-stable elements here on Earth, that doesn't mean some ancient gas cloud isn't out there doing great work. And while we're at it, let's go really far out on a scientific limb: According to Phys.org, a new paper suggests that once elements chunk their way up over an atomic weight of 300, the rules of normal matter may break down. Here's the idea: Normal, or baryonic, matter is made of protons and neutrons that contain bound quark triplets. Past 300, there's speculation that elements may be composed of "freely flowing 'up' and 'down' quarks" that aren't bound into triplets. This up down quark matter (udQM) would be stable for super-heavy elements beyond the end of the periodic table and could exist on a "continent" — not just an island! — of stability. Don't Mendeleev Me Here Mendeleev's work was a critical jumping-off point for the advancement of chemistry, technology and scientific speculation. As our brief history of the periodic table shows, however, this isn't a find-and-forget situation: There's always more room for elements left off the first draft (and even some that might be too big for our current table). Along with recognition through 2019's International Year of the Periodic Table, Mendeleev himself was immortalized in Element 101: a metallic radioactive transuranic element in the actinide series that was discovered in 1955 and named mendelevium in honor of his work.

It's Elementary: A Brief History of the Periodic Table

This Thanksgiving, whether you're making savory dinner rolls or sweet apple pie, the success of your meal will depend on the science of baking. Baking is both an art and a science. Bakers can experiment with flavors and alternative ingredients, but most of your favorite Thanksgiving baked goods start with the same basic formula. As science enthusiasts, there's no better way to celebrate Thanksgiving than to break down the chemical and molecular interactions behind our favorite desserts. Solid Flour provides the basic structure for everything from the crustiest French bread to the puffiest pastry. It's made of starches and protein called gluten. When you mix flour and water together, the proteins combine to form an elastic web called a gluten network. This gluten web traps air bubbles, while the starch sets as it heats to add support to the structure, according to The Spruce Eats. Different recipes call for different types of flour because of the protein content. Bread flour, for example, has a higher protein content, which gives it a strong gluten network and sturdy structure. Cake flour has lower protein content, which produces a weaker gluten network and fluffier end product, according to kitchn. While gluten networks are helpful for providing structure, too much gluten formation can give your baked goods a tough texture. Mixing dough helps these networks form, which is why we knead bread dough (to make it strong and stretchy) and avoid overmixing cakes, cookies and quick breads like banana breads. Shortening ingredients such as butter, oils and fats help limit gluten formation, because fat repels the water that gluten networks require. When you cut butter into flour, for example, it coats the flour and repels the water-based ingredients that you'll add next. This avoids activating too many proteins at once, shortening the gluten formation so that you end up with softer, more tender pastries. According to the Spruce Eats, fat also helps make cake fluffy. When you cream sugar and butter, the mixing process creates small pockets of air where the sharp edges of the sugar crystals interact with the fat. Liquid Water allows ingredients such as yeast or baking soda to do their jobs. It also hydrates gluten so that the dough can take shape. Eggs serve several purposes in baking, such as binding the other ingredients together and providing structure since they start as liquid but become more solid when they are heated. Some recipes call for separating the yolk from the white because they each have different properties. The yolks are filled with nutrients and fat, which adds to the pastry's flavor and texture. Yolks contain an emulsifier called lecithin that brings water-based liquids and oil together, even though they usually repel each other. This process helps mix the ingredients together so that they are distributed evenly throughout the batter. It's important to set the oven to the correct temperature because yolk proteins unfold and gel together when heated. When whipped, the water and protein in egg whites incorporates air bubbles that make a foam to lift dough and give it a fluffy, delicate texture. When whipped egg whites are heated in an oven, the air inside them will expand, further rising the dough, according to kitchn. Gas Leavening, or making the dough rise, is an essential aspect of the science of baking. When liquid ingredients are heated in the oven, they emit some steam that helps lift the dough. Typically, though, a specific leavening ingredient such as yeast or baking soda will be added to baked goods. This is where you must measure ingredients as precise as a chemist measuring materials for a science experiment. Too much leavening agent will make the bubbles so big that they'll pop and leave you with a flat baked good, according to The Spruce Eats. On the other hand, if you don't add enough leavening agents, you'll end up with a dense end product. A single-celled fungus called yeast is the classic leavening ingredient. It is such an ancient pantry staple that in August 2019, scientists collected 4,500-year-old yeast from ancient Egyptian pottery. Smithsonian reports that the scientists used the ancient yeast to bake a loaf of bread. Yeast works by absorbing sugar and excreting carbon dioxide gas, which makes the dough rise according to Fine Cooking. Yeast contributes to the bread's flavor, because during the fermentation process, yeast breaks down large starch molecules into smaller, flavorful simple sugars. Yeast helps develop the gluten network and strengthen the dough. When yeast releases gas into the dough, protein and water molecules are pushed together, which, just like kneading the dough, gives them another opportunity to form gluten. While yeast requires patience, baking powder works instantly. Baking powder contains a dry acid and baking soda, which is also known as sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3). According to ThoughtCo., baking soda (a salt) reacts with acidic ingredients and heat, which creates carbon dioxide as a byproduct. As soon as baking soda touches a water-based ingredient (milk, eggs, etc.), a chemical reaction occurs and gas bubbles start to release. This is why it's important to avoid overmixing or leaving the batter out of the oven for too long. When you bite into your Thanksgiving baked goods, think about the chemical and molecular interactions that make them so delicious. The aroma, color, flavor and texture all start at the molecular level. Recipes should be followed in order, just like you would follow the procedure of a science experiment. If you skip steps or go out of order, you'll miss out on essential chemical reactions. This could leave you with deflated bread or dense muffins. A perfectly browned pie crust doesn't happen by luck — it's the science of baking. 

Breaking Down the Science of Baking

The most common materials in the world, including plastic, steel, glass or wood have distinct molecular and chemical properties that give them intrinsic qualities, such as strength, flexibility or transparency. But an entirely different class of materials, called metamaterials, are coming onto the scene.  Artificially engineered, these materials have unique geometries and physical structures that can manipulate any mechanical or electromagnetic wave that passes through them. Metamaterials can perform a host of futuristic tricks; they can absorb sound waves to produce silence, bend light to create invisibility cloak technology and dampen seismic waves to safeguard a building against an earthquake.  Metamaterial applications are numerous, but here are five of the coolest.  Sound Silencers  If you've ever traveled by train or plane, you know the thunderous noise large engines can make. Industrial noise occurs in factories, too — it even emits from the fan in your refrigerator. Some scientists, like Yun Jing and his colleagues at North Carolina State University, are building metamaterials to quiet these large machines.  In the journal of the Annual Review of Materials Research, Jing describes a material he designed that behaves like a kind of sound cage. Gaps in the cage are large enough to allow air to pass through but small enough that sound waves become trapped inside. Soundproof and ventilated, the cage could keep engine noise to a minimum.  Sonar Deflectors  In the deep ocean, submarines crews use sound waves, or sonar, to detect other seafaring vessels. But what if you have a stealth mission ahead of you and you don't want to be detected? Talk to engineer Amanda Hanford and her team at Pennsylvania State University. They designed a metamaterial device that renders objects invisible to sound. If the hull of a submarine were covered in this material, it would force the energy from oncoming sound waves to spread around the object, instead of bouncing off and returning a signal, reports the BBC.  Earthquake Dampeners  Earthquakes have injured or killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world since 2000, reports Our World in Data, and the annual damage earthquakes cause to infrastructure is in the billions of dollars. Researchers are looking at various applications of metamaterials to soften the blow of these violently shaking natural disasters.  One method involves building blocks called robotic meta-atoms, developed by a group of physicists from the University of Amsterdam, says PhysOrg. Each tiny device vibrates on a unique spring, causing the concentric rippling energy passing over it to shift and move in only one direction. That dissipates the wave in one direction and amplifies it in another. A device made from these meta-atoms could potentially redirect the energy of a seismic wave away from a building and in a safer direction.  Heat Shields  Dozens of space companies and agencies are currently drafting plans to send satellites and spaceships into orbit and beyond. Once outside Earth's protective atmosphere, spacecraft electronics become vulnerable to infrared heat and radiation from the sun. Current methods to protect them involve radiator panels made from quartz tiles. But these tiles are heavy, adding to the cost of launches.  Last year, researchers from the University of Southampton announced they had developed a thin, lightweight coating from metamaterials designed to radiate infrared heat away from spacecraft. Called a metamaterial optical solar reflector, or a meta-OSR, the material is made from metal oxide, a material commonly used for transparent electrical contacts. The team created a pattern in the surface of the material to bend each electromagnetic wave in the infrared spectrum away from it and also reflect sunlight.  Invisibility Cloaks  Scientists are closer than ever to creating an invisibility cloak that competes with Harry Potter's.  In research published last year in the journal Optica, researches led by engineer José© Azaé±a reported that they had developed invisibility cloak technology in the form of a spectral cloaking device that could make objects invisible in daylight. The device, called an optical filter, manipulates the various frequencies of visible light, such as the red, blue and green wavelengths of light seen in a rainbow.  The filter works by shifting one frequency of light to another as the light passes through the object, reports Tech Times. Once the light wave has passed, it returns to its original state. For instance, the filter would shift the red wavelength of light passing over a red apple to another frequency, rendering the apple invisible. Such a filter could be used to cloak military operations, but it could also be used in the telecommunications industries to improve radio signals.  Each year, scientists improve upon the technology of metamaterials, remarkably engineered coatings, devices and components. These structures, which are typically microscopic or smaller, allow scientists to control mechanical and electromagnetic waves in novel and surprising ways. From saving lives to shielding covert operations from enemy eyes, these materials push the limits of light and sound and will take humans into a future we haven't yet imagined.        

Engineered Metamaterials Could Lead to Invisibility Cloak Technology

Fast radio bursts, or FRBs, are one of the most exciting unsolved mysteries in astronomy today. FRBs are incredibly powerful flares of short-wavelength radio waves from space. Each one is the result of an event that lasted just a few milliseconds but produced as much as 500 million times the energy our sun does over a comparable amount of time. Fast Radio Burst (FRB) Basics Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum — which includes infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma rays — and, therefore, travel through space at the speed of light. The first FRB was discovered in 2007 by an astronomer at West Virginia University who was looking through old data from a radio telescope in Australia. The millisecond-long blip seemed to originate from outside the universe. Dozens more FRBs were later found, but most were one-off events that were detected once and never repeated. This made FRBs impossible to predict, difficult to observe and extremely challenging to trace to a specific source. Without more information, researchers could only speculate about the astronomical events that might trigger such intense radio bursts. A Repeating FRB One FRB (named FRB 121102) was identified as repeating in 2016. Researchers pointed a large radio telescope to the location of a previously observed FRB and found that the signal repeated every few weeks or so, as explained by the SETI Institute. This repetition helped scientists trace the source of the FRB to a dwarf galaxy 3 billion light-years away. The massive distance traveled by this FRB indicated that it was the result of an incredibly energetic event. Furthermore, the fact that FRBs last only a few milliseconds means that the objects producing them can't be much bigger than 200 miles across, which is the distance that radio waves can travel in that time. Therefore, the source of FRBs must be extremely dense, compact objects that are considerably smaller than an ordinary star. Possibilities included supernovas, colliding black holes and magnetars, which are collapsed stellar corpses that possess the strongest magnetic fields in the universe. More (Digital) Eyes on the Sky Before 2017, astronomers had detected a total of approximately 140 fast radio bursts. That number quickly increased when the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) telescope became operational. As explained in Nature, CHIME is a giant telescope with no moving parts that scans the sky as Earth rotates. Digital image processing allows it to "look" in thousands of different directions at the same time. Between 2018 and 2019, CHIME detected 535 FRBs. Analysis revealed that the FRBs originated from across the universe and fell into two distinct categories. The majority of the 535 bursts were one-off events, while 61 were "repeaters" that came from 18 different sources. The repeaters typically lasted at least three times longer and emitted a much narrower band of radio frequencies. These findings suggest that FRBs are the result of at least two distinct astrophysical phenomena. The one-off FRBs are likely the result of cataclysmic events, such as the collision of two neutron stars or magnetic storms in young magnetars. The repeaters require more complex explanations, none of which have been verified. Most of the repeaters are unpredictable, but two are known to have a regular cycle. The first repeater ever identified (FRB 121102) is now known to follow a cycle of 90 days of FRB activity followed by 67 days of silence. This repeater is incredibly active; ScienceAlert reported that 122 bursts were detected in a one-hour period. The second repeater with a regular cycle is named FRB 20180916B, which repeats every 16.35 days. An FRB From Within the Milky Way In April 2020, astronomers detected an FRB that came from our own galaxy. As explained in Astronomy, the magnetar SGR 1935+2154 started emitting X-rays from its location near the center of our galaxy some 30,000 light-years away. Eager to catch the show, astronomers focused their telescopes and were able to catch X-rays, gamma rays and a fast radio burst that was named FRB 200428. The FRB lasted just 1.5 milliseconds, was the closest FRB ever detected and was 3,000 times brighter than any previously observed magnetar radio signal. While magnetars had been a favored contender to explain FRBs, this was the first evidence that they can actually produce radio waves powerful enough to account for the signals. This Milky Way magnetar did not release as much energy as would be required for the FRBs from millions or billions of light-years away, so it's possible that FRBs detected from outside our galaxy come from younger, more active magnetars. FRBs From the Spiral Arms of Galaxies In May 2021, astronomers used the excellent resolution of the Hubble Space Telescope to trace the source of five FRBs to the spiral arms of five distant galaxies, as reported by NASA. These galaxies are located 400 million to 9 billion light-years away and are described as "[mostly] massive, relatively young and still forming stars." This is consistent with the idea that FRBs originate from young magnetar outbursts. But just when it seemed that the mystery of fast radio bursts was mostly solved, the universe had another surprise in store. An FRB From an Old Neighborhood In 2021, National Geographic described how a repeating FRB (named FRB 20200120E) was traced to a globular cluster, which is one of the most ancient objects in the observable universe. Globular clusters are dense collections of very old stars and don't seem to contain the kinds of stars that can collapse into magnetars. This discovery has forced astronomers to explain how a population of old, quiet stars can generate such powerful blasts. Possible explanations include other types of stellar corpses, but there's currently no supporting evidence for that theory. This FRB example highlights how powerful radio waves from space might come from a variety of different sources. Identifying these sources will take powerful equipment, ingenious software and creative minds. Being on the forefront of change, especially regarding space, physics, and engineering has been part of the Northrop Grumman culture for generations. Click here to search jobs in these areas of scientific innovation.

Radio Bursts Hint at Powerful Blasts From Billions of Light-Years Away

Key Takeaways  Big Bang and Inflation Theory mean that bubble or alternate universes may be on a collision course with us. Alternate universes could be outer or inner parallel universes, accessed through space travel or through our minds. Travel to an inner universe could be easier than to an outer."Star Trek." "Inception." "The Matrix." Even "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" leveraged the idea of an alternative universe to create compelling stories. Are these alternate universes nothing more than sci-fi worlds, or are they grounded in scientific reality? If so, could inter-universal travel agencies ever emerge to offer round-trip tours of parallel points of interest?Alternate Universe Basics and Multiverse TheoryNot surprisingly, scientists can't agree on an alternate universe theory, often called multiverse theory. Physicists like Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University suggest that the Big Bang led to rapid inflation that's not constant across the universe. While inflation has largely ceased within our cosmological view, some remote areas of the universe are still expanding, in turn driving the creation of "bubble" universes that quickly expand and begin to move away. Theoretically, it should be possible to observe evidence of a collision between our universe and another.Other PermutationsAccording to Live Science, other experts argue that the potential number of universes is much smaller than the 10500 predicted by string theory because many of them won't have the requisite amount of dark energy to drive universal inflation, while others will collapse under their own weight. Some theorists posit "daughter universes," where new universes created every time a choice is made and see us constantly traveling to alternate versions of reality without realizing it, said Online Star Register. For the purpose of potential travel, however, two broad categories exist: outer and inner universes.Outer UniversesOuter universes exist outside the human mind. "Star Trek's" mirror universe is a good example of a daughter universe gone awry; differing choices in the past led to a universe in which humanity didn't form a benevolent space-faring federation but a capricious and malicious empire. Characters periodically travel to this universe using either transporter technology or, in the show's most recent iteration, the so-called "Spore Drive." An 1884 story by Edwin A. Abbot called "Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions" took another approach by suggesting a living, breathing universe with only two dimensions.Inner UniversesIn addition to sci-fi worlds that exist beyond the stars, movies such as "The Matrix" and "Inception" suggest universes that are a product of human consciousness. In "Inception," the lead character specializes in infiltrating people's dreams to retrieve important information by using the phenomenon of "lucid dreaming," which makes it possible to recognize you're in a dream and control your actions. The film ends with the protagonist being reunited with his children — but fades to black before confirming if he's in the real world or still dreaming."The Matrix," meanwhile, features an apocalyptic universe where humans have been conquered by intelligent machines. The machines use mankind as batteries, simulating a familiar Earth reality where humans are actually trapped in gel-filled cylinders and connected to a global power network. This ties into the notion of Simulation Theory; as Fast Company noted, it's possible that our universe is nothing more than a simulation run by advanced aliens or future humans — we may be the inner universe of some other civilization.Making the Big TripPotential for parallel universes? Check. Multiple interpretations of what constitutes a parallel universe? Check. But is it possible to make the trip?When it comes to inner universes, maybe. Penn State University noted there is some science tied to lucid dreaming, but permanently inhabiting that state is problematic since human bodies need food and water to survive. As for a simulation-type universe, we may already be trapped inside.Traveling to outer universes may be more problematic, despite new research from the University of Durham, which suggests a wider variety of life-supporting universes than previously thought — their theoretical models show that "adding dark energy, up to a few hundred times the amount observed in our Universe, would actually have a modest impact upon star and planet formation." So what does travel look like? It's not transporters or spore drives: According to Futurism, theoretical physicist Michio Kaku suggests our universe will eventually wind up in a "big freeze" as expansion slows and stops; combined with technology, this may allow inter-universe transport. Neil deGrasse Tyson, meanwhile, says it may be possible to easily move from universes with more dimensions to those with less — we may already be doing so without realizing it.Sci-Fi Worlds RoundupDo other universes exist? Probably. Can you book a trip? If they're inside your head — or if we're already in a simulation — yes. Outside is more difficult. While we may be constantly traveling through daughter universes, "Star Trek"-like inter-universe trips won't show up on travel websites anytime soon.Find out how the James Webb space telescope is giving us a great view of the universe.

Sci-Fi or Reality? Travel Tips for an Alternate Universe

In 2018, Kilauea had its largest eruption in centuries. Because the volcano, which is located on the big island of Hawai'i, is easily accessible, it's closely monitored by scientists. During this massive volcanic eruption, scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) were able to collect data on what was occurring. They discovered that this eruption was so much larger than usual because of a particular seismic event. According to a new study published in Nature, the collapse of Kilauea's caldera likely occurred because of the volcano's vents. Understanding Caldera Collapse When a volcano eruption occurs, sometimes a large depression, known as a caldera, will form. According to National Geographic, this happens because the magma inside the volcano provides support to the sides. After a volcano erupts, the magma chamber empties, eliminating that support. The sides of the volcano can collapse inward, forming a caldera. This can happen in an instant, with a violent eruption, or more slowly, as is the case with the caldera in the Kilauea volcano on Hawai'i. When scientists Alberto Roman and Paul Lundgren at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory looked at the data coming out of Kilauea's massive 2018 eruption, they wanted to know why it was the volcano's largest in over 200 years. They were also interested in what specific mechanisms caused it. The answer to the first question was relatively easy — the volcano eruption was so large due to caldera collapse. As the caldera fell into the volcano, the large block of rocks became stuck inside the volcano, building the pressure inside. According to Scientific American, during the 2018 volcano eruption at Kilauea, scientists were directly able to connect increases in lava flow from the building pressure to the eventual collapse of the caldera. The effects were seen within minutes of collapse up to 40 kilometers away from the volcano, and the "pressure pulses" created surges in lava flow that lasted for hours. What Triggers Caldera Collapse? The more difficult question, though, is what actually are the mechanisms that trigger the collapse of the caldera? According to a study published in Science, the Kilauea caldera collapsed after a very "small fraction" of the magma within the volcano was evacuated. This means that volcanoes don't need the magma chamber to be anywhere close to empty before calderas collapse. How, then, can we evaluate the mechanisms of what conditions lead to caldera collapse? It's an important question because it will allow scientists to better predict how forceful a volcanic eruption will be. It can also assist in better understanding the levels of lava flow and how large the rift zone — which are the weak points of the volcano through which lava can erupt — will be. Understanding the mechanisms of caldera collapse will help scientists understand the short-, medium- and long-term effects of volcano eruptions, especially in populated areas around the volcano. Kilauea is a shield volcano, which means that it is large, gently sloping and forms the shape of a shield. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, these volcanoes not only erupt at the summit, but they can also erupt in multiple of the aforementioned rift zones that radiate out from the summit and join together as they flow outward. The scientists at NASA's JPL were able to put together a model of collapse based on the data from the 2018 eruption. They found that these rift zone vents, which are openings within the volcano's structure further down from the caldera, were the culprit. As lava flowed through these vents, the magma was released. The caldera collapsed after it lost this support structure during the volcano eruption. The rock falling into the magma chamber subsequently pressurized the lava flow, creating pressure pulses that increased the severity of the eruption. Life-Saving Science Knowing what triggers the collapse of a volcano's caldera is crucial, especially in heavily populated regions such as the area around Kilauea on Hawai'i. "If we see an eruption at a low-elevation vent, that is a red flag or warning that caldera collapse is possible," said Alberto Roman in the NASA release. "Similarly, if we detect earthquakes consistent with the slipping of the caldera rock block, we now know that the eruption will likely be much larger than usual." If scientists can predict the severity of an eruption, that means they can let officials know if evacuations are needed — helping local populations prepare and potentially saving lives. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology and engineering.

Scientists Just Discovered a Hidden Force Behind Volcanic Eruption

Particle physics is on a quest to uncover the fundamental components of the universe by analyzing, cataloging and measuring the particles that combine to create everything. This is no easy task — the sheer variety and variability of these physical firmaments makes this a constantly changing puzzle that can seem utterly inscrutable until a new secret is unlocked. Now, new research into the muon — a small, electron-like particle 200 times heavier than its negatively charged cousin — may point the way to the next particle pivot: wobbles. Standard Operating Procedure To help make sense of the universe and how it operates, scientists created the Standard Model. This wasn't an easy task, either. As SciTechDaily notes, while the electron was discovered in 1897, the last piece of the current framework — the Higgs boson — wasn't confirmed until 2012. The model provides a way to reconcile three of the four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. It also highlights the role of quarks and leptons as the building blocks of all matter, including the familiar trio of protons, neutrons and electrons. Work on the Standard Model has pinpointed that photons play a role in carrying electromagnetism, while the strong force relies on gluons to ensure atomic nuclei stability and the weak force leverages W and Z bosons to drive the powerful nuclear processes that keep stars burning for billions of years. However, despite its utility, the Standard Model has a blind spot: gravity. While the model does a great job describing which particles underpin the other three fundamental forces, gravity is conspicuously absent. That's because scientists have never been able to tie a specific particle to the creation and distribution of gravity. While it plays a critical role in the operation of our universe — from counterbalancing the expansive tendencies of nuclear reactions within our sun to keeping our feet firmly planted on planet Earth — this seemingly simple attractive operation has historically resisted any in-depth understanding. But new muon measurements may change all that. Cracking the Code What's important to remember about scientists — and particle physicists specifically — is that they're never satisfied with the status quo. While the Standard Model provides a starting point for understanding the universe, obvious gaps in the current framework mean there's more work to be done. In practice, this work is about finding novel approaches to potentially break the model by conducting experiments, taking measurements and then comparing the results to what the model predicts. The challenge? For years, the model has been coming up with the right answers, much to the frustration of physicists who know there's something missing. Repeated experiments using different particle approaches have churned out accurate measurement after accurate measurement — until now. Recent follow-up work on previous muon experiments using more advanced equipment suggests a crack in the current model and offers hope that scientists may have finally found the key to a new revolution in particle physics. Meet the Muon So, what exactly is a muon? Think electron, but heavier. Much heavier — 200 times heavier, in fact. As Science Daily notes, both muons and electrons "are essentially tiny magnets with their own magnetic field." However, unlike electrons, muons are far less stable, only existing for a few millionths of a second before they decay. It's also difficult to observe muons even during their brief time here, since the vacuum they occupy isn't empty. "It's your cappuccino-foam version of the vacuum, where there's virtual particles winking in and out of existence all the time," Lawrence Gibbons, who led the Cornell team involved in the new research, told Science Daily. "And that turns out to affect the strength of the magnetic field of a muon." Thanks to work done at CERN in 1959, followed by more precise experiments in 1966 and 1969, and then another round at Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1999, researchers finally found something: disconnect between observed and predicted magnetic measurements when muons made their way into this vacuum. New efforts at Fermilab with more precise and advanced equipment have confirmed these findings — and may pave the way for a much more massive muon impact. Let's Get Physics-al The work at CERN, Brookhaven and Fermilab all focus on the same thing: the g-2 value of muon, which represents the amount they "wobble" via vacuum interactions. As Fermilab particle physicist Jessica Esquivel notes, this wobble is called the precession frequency. "When muons go into a magnetic field, they precess, or they spin like a spinning top," she tells Vox. To measure precession, the Fermilab efforts used a powerful particle accelerator — capable of creating 20 times more muons than those used previously at CERN — to shoot an intense beam of muons into highly sensitive detectors, which measured their precession frequency. As the Standard Model predicted, this precession occurs when muons collide with virtual particles, which Esquivel describes as "sort of like ghosts of actual particles." "We have photons that kind of pop in and out and they're just kind of like there, but not really there," she told Vox. However, despite this here-and-gone-again strangeness, these virtual particles have a physical impact on muon wobbles. But this is where it gets really weird: Experiments at Fermilab confirm that muons are wobbling more than they should be, according to the Standard Model. Even more exciting? Scientists don't know why. Wobbling Our Way Forward The lack of certainty here is what makes these experimental results so interesting. Under the Standard Model, muon g-2 values are explainable using current particle interactions and should produce predictable results. However, the Fermilab efforts suggest that something else is causing this extra wobble — something that lies outside the current functional framework, as Esquivel and her colleagues told Vox. And while there's already been some discussion of this "breaking" the Standard Model, it's more like filling in the details where data was clearly missing. Esquivel likens it to the addition of elements to the periodic table.  "Even back then," she told Vox, "they had spots where they knew an element should go, but they hadn't been able to see it yet. That's essentially where we're at now." In practice, this muon movement opens the door to a host of potential particle operations. This unexpected wobble might be caused by interaction with long-predicted dark matter or dark energy particles, or it could help to establish a particle-based link to the outlying fourth fundamental force of gravity. Esquivel puts the impact of this motion measurement simply: "It's once-in-a-lifetime. We're chasing new physics and we're so close, we can taste it." One muon meal, extra wobble — coming right up! Being on the forefront of change, especially regarding space, physics and engineering has been part of the Northrop Grumman culture for generations. Click here to search jobs in these areas of scientific innovation.

Meet the Muon: Wobbling Its Way Into Particle Physics History

More than 84 million Americans own pets, and they're spending $95 billion on food, treats, supplies and vet care every year. Talk to most owners and it's clear this cash outlay is tied to care — pets are part of the family and provide a fundamental, emotional bond.  So it's no surprise that we've often wondered if our four-legged, furry friends feel the same things — and express them the same way — as their human housemates. So let's settle the debate once and for all: Do animals have facial expressions? Do animals experience the same emotions as humans?  Emotional Impact  The worst case scenario for animal-loving humans hoping for a shared emotional bond? That pet-based emotional permutations don't match our own experience — what if our creature companions are just playing along for food, treats or belly rubs?  As noted by the Greater Good Magazine from UC Berkeley, there's almost certainly some continuity across the feeling framework. Research with chimpanzees revealed gestures designed to comfort dying elders and sooth crying infants. In one case, primatologist Frans de Waal taught a young female chimpanzee how to bottle-feed and burp her baby when she couldn't produce enough milk.  Research from the University of Lincoln, meanwhile, found that dogs are not only able to differentiate between emotional states in humans, but can also recognize specific emotions by combining visual and auditory cues. To test their capacity for emotional recognition, dogs were shown angry or happy facial expressions and played audio clips of similarly pleased or annoyed human beings — but the two cues didn't always match. The team discovered that dogs spent "significantly longer" looking at facial expressions when sight and sound aligned. The research team puts it simply: "Our study shows that dogs have the ability to integrate two different sources of sensory information into a coherent perception of emotion in both humans and dogs."  Pets can also communicate emotions with relative ease — dogs are often seen slouching down and looking at the floor after being scolded, indicating guilt, while cats are thought to display feelings of contentment when curled up and purring on their owner's lap. This is where emotional waters get murky, however; while emotions are described by de Waal as "bodily and mental states," feelings are "internal subjective states." In other words, while animals have evolved to recognize and respond to human experience with appropriate emotional responses, it's impossible to know exactly how they feel.  Face the Music  Emotions are one thing, but do animals have facial expressions? And if so, are they analogous to our own? The answer is simple: sort of.  As noted by Quartz, researchers have reliably identified signs of pain recognition in mice, rats, rabbits, horses and sheep because they have a similar "pain face" — tightened eyes, flattened cheeks and tensed mouths. According to The Scientist, meanwhile, recent AI work was able to decode seven specific facial expressions in mice including disgust, pleasure, pain, fear, sickness and flight. They're very similar — probably not something you'd notice at a glance — but they suggest a certain commonality to creature facial functions.  Cats also have facial expressions but as noted by The Washington Post, an online survey found that humans aren't so hot at connecting emotional dots. The survey featured close-up videos of cat faces without any sound and asked participants to classify the expression as positive or negative. Just 13% of test-takers scored over 75% — the average score was under 60%.  There's also evidence that different animals — such as dogs and horses — share common facial expressions when playing, even when people aren't present. According to Discover, dogs and horses both displayed the relaxed, open-mouthed expression common among mammals when playing and "rapidly imitated each other's facial expressions, the first time such mimicry was seen between species." This expression equivalence helps reduce the chances of misconstrued intent and avoids potential displays of aggression.  The Eyes Have It  When it comes to facial expressions, it's also worth pointing out a particular quirk found in our canine companions: puppy dog eyes. Famous for melting hearts, these arched eyebrows and wide gazes make dogs seem like cute human infants and tap into our natural predisposition to protect such sweet creatures.  But it turns out pups may not be quite so precious after all. As noted by a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), "Domestication transformed the facial muscle anatomy of dogs specifically for facial communication with humans." When the musculature of dog and wolf heads were compared, researchers found that domesticated dogs had developed an eyebrow muscle specifically designed to deliver a devastating puppy face — and get exactly what they want.  All the Feels  Do animals experience the same emotions as humans?  It's more accurate to say that animals have evolved to recognize and respond to human emotions and facial expressions by displaying behavior we associate with specific states of feeling. While it's not a perfect match, it's close enough to count — although we can't ask cats, dogs, birds or bunnies exactly how they feel about their two-legged friends, their interest in learning our emotional tells and creating key connections make them both sensitive and steadfast companions. 

Once More, With Fur-ling: Do Animals Have Facial Expressions?

If chicken or beef is grown in a laboratory, is it still considered meat? A food startup in San Francisco called Just has created the first slaughter-free chicken nugget, grown from cells of a chicken feather. The chicken that it came from is still alive and free, and taste testers from the BBC and Fast Company agree that it tastes like chicken. The ability to grow meat without livestock could be revolutionary, but it is a new concept that is still being defined. What's in a Name? Cell-cultured meat is also referred to as lab-grown meat, clean meat, in vitro meat, imitation meat, synthetic meat and artificial meat. Science reported that the definition of meat was discussed at an FDA meeting in July 2018 to discuss safety and regulation. Some groups, such as the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, said the term "meat" is being misused. "Meat scientists do not have enough information about cultured tissue to determine whether it should be called meat, or how it should be regulated," said Rhonda Miller, a meat scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station, speaking on behalf of the American Meat Science Association. According to Science, she also raised several questions: "Does cultured meat spoil at the same rate as conventional meat? Does it allow the same growth of potentially harmful microbes? Is its shelf life the same? Does it have the same nutritional qualities?" This argument isn't just about semantics — the way we define meat will help determine regulation and how soon this new food can be sold to consumers. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates most food, but the Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the farming industry, which includes meat products. In November 2018, the USDA and FDA announced that the two agencies would jointly oversee the production of cell-cultured meat products. In the new plan, the FDA will oversee "cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation," and then the USDA will "oversee the production and labeling of food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry." How and Why Companies Are Growing Meat in Labs Proponents say that lab-grown meat will help stop the slaughter of animals and protect the environment; industrial farming contributes to greenhouse gas emissions such as methane through agricultural waste and nitrous oxide via fertilizer use, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, just like many emerging technologies, it isn't ready for mass consumption yet. According to the BBC, Just can grow a chicken nugget in a bioreactor in only two days, but this accomplishment is the result of years of research and development. The lab-grown meat is not yet commercially available, but Just CEO Josh Tetrick told the BBC it would be on the menu at restaurants soon. Fast Company explained that the basic techniques for growing meat have actually been used in medical research for decades, such as in tissue engineering of organs for drug discovery. At Just, scientists isolate cells that have been harvested from an animal (such as a chicken feather). The best cells are placed in flasks with a liquid medium that feeds them and a machine shakes them to encourage growth. Other people are doing similar work. In 2013, a Dutch scientist created a lab-grown hamburger, which unfortunately cost $300,000, according to the BBC. Now, Just and a handful of other companies — Future Meat Technologies, Impossible Foods (creator of "The Impossible Burger") and Beyond Meat, to name a few — are seeking to lower the cost of cultured meat by, for example, searching for cheaper ingredients to feed the meat cells. Impossible Burgers are sold in some grocery stores and usually retail for between $8.99 and $9.99 for a 12 ounce pack. At Just, a large robot and data scientists collect data from all of the machines in the lab to identify the best ingredients. Meanwhile, researchers continue to grow meat inside a bioreactor that produces a cell paste. Vitor Santo, a senior scientist in cellular agriculture at Just, told Fast Company, "This is what we then deliver to our team of chefs to tell us if the cells are a good candidate or not for the final product." Unexpected Advocates for Cell-Cultured Meat UN Environment awarded the Champions of the Earth Award to cultured meat companies Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat in September 2018 for their contributions toward sustainable development goals. The organization reports that a University of Michigan research study found that a Beyond Burger required 99 percent less water and 93 percent less land to produce than a conventional beef hamburger. Producing the burger generated 90 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions and used 46 percent less energy than its beef equivalent. The BBC reported that not only have technology billionaires Bill Gates and Richard Branson invested in lab-grown meat, but even the biggest meat processor in the United States, Tyson Foods, is shifting from being a meat company to a protein company.

Cell-Cultured Meat: How To Make a Chicken Nugget Without a Chicken

In a high plateau of the Andes Mountains in Peru, archaeologists were at an excavation site looking for artifacts when they uncovered the remains of a big game hunter. The skeleton, which they called WMP6, seemed especially important because it was buried with an extensive kit of stone weapons and blades. "Everybody was talking about how this was a great chief, a big man," archaeologist Randy Haas told Science. But upon closer inspection, the archaeologists realized the bones were lighter and more slender than expected, which made them wonder if the hunter could have been female. Their study suggests that our early hunter-gatherer ancestors might have structured their society with more gender equality than previously thought. The Female Hunter The high status hunter was, in fact, a young woman. These ancient bones suggest that women warriors were responsible for hunting down and catching large Andean animals such as vicué±a and deer. But how can we be so sure? The excavation site, called Wilamaya Patjxa, is located at an altitude of 12,877 feet. After 9,000 years, there wasn't much left of WMP6 — just fragments of a skull, teeth and partial leg bones, according to the study in ScienceAdvances. The archeologists used a new forensic technique to confirm that the bones belonged to a female hunter. In addition to using the standard methods for studying ancient bones, they also analyzed the skeleton's tooth enamel to find out whether it had a male or female version of a protein called amelogenin. Even if the skeleton was female, how could the researchers be sure that she was a leading hunter? Certainly, the hunting tools were a clue. She was buried with blades and stone projectiles that were likely the tips of spears, darts or arrows. Her toolkit was extensive, while a nearby male skeleton was buried with only a few hunting tools. It is possible that her tools were a gift or had another symbolic meaning, but it's more likely that she was a hunter. The researchers studied isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in the woman's teeth, which revealed that she ate a typical hunter's diet of animal meat and plants. Archaic Gender Roles  This recent discovery challenges common assumptions about the gendered division of labor throughout history and today. This wasn't the first time we've heard about a female big game hunter. But previously, women warriors were considered outliers. Our modern understanding of hunter-gatherer societies typically assumes that men went into the wild to do the dangerous work of hunting while women gathered edible plants and took care of the children.  However, in their study, the researchers point out how early economies that relied on big game would have encouraged participation from "all able individuals," no matter the gender. Plus, they suggest that childcare duties were likely shared among the community, which would have given women the opportunity to hunt.  They explored this hypothesis by reviewing previous reports of similar ancient remains in academic journals — and they found nearly half of the big game hunters were female. Based on this evidence, they wrote, "Early big-game hunting was likely gender neutral or nearly so." There is disagreement among experts on this subject, with others suggesting that only 10% of hunters were women, as the New York Times reports. Additional research should help to clear up this question and help us understand human history. Perhaps by better understanding our ancestors, we can dispel stereotypes about men and women in the modern workplace.

Ancient Woman Found in Peru: Was She a Powerful Big Game Hunter?

More than 13 billion years ago, a supermassive black hole produced storm winds that blew through a young galaxy at speeds of up to a million miles per hour. The galaxy, now known as HSC J124353.93+010038.5 (shortened for convenience to J1243+0100) may have a supremely colorless official name — but in the early days of the universe, it must have been a very dramatic place. Galactic-scale storm winds have been observed before, but never in a galaxy so far away — 13.1 billion light years, to be exact. This means we're seeing it as it was 13.1 billion years ago when the universe itself was less than a billion years old. And finding storm winds in such a young galaxy, in the early universe, tends to confirm something that astronomers have wondered about: Galaxies and their central supermassive black holes must have developed together, each helping to shape the other. A Matter of Balance Galaxies and supermassive black holes are clearly related; most galaxies have this kind of black hole at their center. But determining exactly how they are related has proven tricky. As Techexplorist reports, a team of researchers recently tackled this question. On the implications for how galaxies develop, lead author of the research paper Takuma Izumi noted, "This is an important question because it is related to an important problem in astronomy: How did galaxies and supermassive black holes coevolve?" According to Universe Today, the most widespread view has been that galactic winds arose at a later "starburst" stage of galactic development, when large numbers of bright stars would form and their combined radiation could drive a cosmic "wind" of energetic particles, similar to the solar wind but on a vastly larger scale. But the newly discovered wind blowing through J1243+0100 suggests that a supermassive black hole can drive powerful galactic storm winds much earlier than the starburst era. As Science Daily reports, the research team that made the discovery began by searching for very distant (and thus very early) galaxies with Japan's Subaru Telescope, then they zeroed in on J1243+0100 with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, or ALMA, in Chile. What they found was not only a very turbulent, stormy, young galaxy — but also a striking "coincidence" that is probably no coincidence at all. The supermassive black hole at the core of J1243+0100 has about 300 million times the mass of the sun. The galactic bulge of J1243+0100 itself has a mass of some 30 billion suns, a hundred times heavier. This is roughly the same proportion of supermassive black-hole mass to surrounding galaxy mass that is observed in our own Milky Way galaxy and other nearby galaxies. The new findings suggest that this proportional pattern is built deep into the formation process of galaxies — and operated even in the early universe. But why? Falling In, Blowing Out The answer may relate to the seeming paradox that supermassive black holes — notorious for having gravity so powerful that not even light can escape — are some of the brightest objects in the universe. The reason is that as streams of falling matter plunge toward a black hole, they collide with other streams, and these collisions release enormous energy — enough to drive a blast of particles outward, even as other particles are falling inward. As the outward storm wind builds up, it can finally choke off the streams of falling matter. This in turn limits the further growth of the supermassive black hole and eventually causes the storm wind itself to die down. Thus, the gravitational infall and storm winds' outward blast can produce a long-term balance, leading to the observed result of a consistent mass ratio between the supermassive black hole and galactic bulge — for both mature galaxies like our Milky Way and distant young ones like J1243+0100. One swallow does not make a summer, and observation of one remote galaxy in the dawn of the universe does not make a conclusive result. The research program is ongoing, examining dozens of other distant galaxies for telltale signs of storm winds. But the discovery of storm winds in J1243+0100 does point toward a greater understanding of the balancing forces that have shaped the galaxies we see around us, including our own. Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are, too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman and consider joining our team.

A Supermassive Black Hole Storm May Reveal Secrets About the Early Universe

Were there aquatic dinosaurs roaming the oceans once upon a time? And if there were, what did they look like? In short, they did exist millions of years ago, and thanks to the fossil record, we have a pretty good idea of what they looked like. From toothier versions of today's dolphins to enormous Komodo-dragon-like sea monsters, these fabulous beasts once ruled the seas. Did Dinosaurs Live in Water? Before diving into the prehistoric world of aquatic dinosaurs, it's best to lay one myth to rest. Yes, there were dinosaurs that hunted the seas and lakes, but that's because they could, not because they had to. At one time, it was proposed that certain dinosaurs were so large that they needed to immerse themselves in lakes and other large bodies of water to provide enough buoyancy to stay upright. You've probably seen this in school textbooks and other illustrations, where a brachiosaurus or diplodocus peers out of a primeval lake, munching a mouthful of mossy greens. This isn't the truest depiction, as explained in The Smithsonian Magazine. Examination of fossil records shows that there's good evidence to support the notion that large dinosaurs did not need to stand armpit deep in water to stay upright. For example, clear fossil footprints track ancient creatures that stomped across soft mud at the banks of rivers and lakes. Footprints gradually became more tip-toe as water buoyancy took over, with the reverse taking place on the opposing bank when the ancient beasts lumbered out. Another pointer is dinosaur bone density. As The Guardian points out, most fully aquatic animals have dense bones, which help them submerge. Aquatic dinosaurs had much lower density, and some even had air pockets in their bones, which means they would have bobbed around on the surface, unable to stand on the lake bed. Although they didn't have inbuilt snorkels, many dinosaurs did have upward-flaring nostrils that would have been handy for semi-submerged life. However, this still doesn't point toward the creatures being fully aquatic to cope with bulk. Rather, it only serves as evidence that dinosaurs, like other animals, fully exploited the various habitats available to them in their search for food. So, were there aquatic dinosaurs that did live the entirety of their life submerged? Spinosaurus, the First Water-Loving Dinosaur? In April 2020, National Geographic reported the discovery of a water-loving dinosaur in the Moroccan Sahara with a snout like a modern crocodile and conical teeth to keep slippery fish from getting away. The fossilized skeleton, found in what would have been one of the abundant river systems that once covered this modern-day desert region, had several features that showed the cretaceous theropod was well equipped for aquatic life 95 to 100 million years ago. The spinosaur not only had bones dense enough to help with buoyancy, but when paleontologists uncovered its tail, they found bony struts sticking out from the vertebrae. Reconstruction shows that this gave the spinosaur a tail like an oar, which could be used to propel the aquatic dinosaurs through the water. Furthermore, the articulation between the vertebrae showed that the kind of flexion this enabled was similar to that of other animals that swim. Plesiosaurs, Still With Us Today? Another recently uncovered Moroccan Sahara fossil shows that plesiosaurs were also aquatic dinosaurs. Science Direct describes how paleontologists found scattered bone and teeth remnants in the ancient river systems showing that these animals could also move between salt water and fresh water. The fossilized teeth indicate that plesiosaurs not only ate armored river fish but also spent a considerable amount of time living and hunting in fresh water. According to the BBC, plesiosaurs died out around 66 million years ago — but then again, maybe the myths about the Loch Ness Monster are true. (Spoiler alert: Probably not). Mosasaurus, the Film Star If you remember a particular film scene from a summer blockbuster about dinosaurs —where a giant water monster erupts from below to grab a great white shark before crashing back and showering the crowd with water, that's the cinematic version of a mosasaurus. The real version was around 56 feet long (just over 17 meters), which is similar in size to a megalodon. The mosasaurus lived during the Cretaceous period, around 145.5 to 65.5 million years ago. As NewsWeek notes, these weren't truly dinosaurs but reptiles and distant relatives of today's iguana. Science Daily describes fossil skeletons found in Morocco as having a short, wide muzzle and looking like a Komodo dragon with flippers. The fossil records of this species show a shark-like fin tail for moving through water, as well as a set of palatal teeth. This secondary row of huge conical teeth helped the Mosasaurus prevent prey from escaping once they were grabbed. Tooth evidence shows that the mosasaurus ate more than just fish, as damage to teeth and healed fractures in jaw bones show that larger animals were munched as prey, and that the mosasaurus lived a violent life as an ocean apex predator. Ichthyosaur, the Sea Dragon An ichthyosaur fossil found in a Rutland Water excavation in the UK shows that the 180-million-year-old sea dragon had a 2-meter (around 6 feet) skull that weighed around one metric ton (over 2,000 pounds). The 10-meter (around 33 feet) specimen is the largest, most complete ichthyosaur fossil skeleton ever found, though The Guardian notes that this species could be anywhere from 1 to 25 meters long. This prehistoric reptile, which was alive during the Jurassic period, became extinct around 90 million years ago. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Were There Aquatic Dinosaurs?

Could the end of the world be closer than we think? Earth is predicted to move out of the sun's habitable zone in a few billion years; however, computer modeling by a team of scientists published in Nature Geoscience brings forward mass mammalian extinction to only 250 million years away. Their estimates show that the formation of the supercontinent, Pangea Ultima, will render life on Earth inhospitable to mammals simply due to its size.Earth's Surface on the MoveThe surface of our planet and its landmasses are on the move. They always have been, and our current configuration of continents is not only temporary but also evolving. Plate tectonics are making the Atlantic Ocean wider, the Pacific is shrinking and, eventually, the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia will be next-door neighbors. Walking across them or taking a road trip will be easy — if we're still around.This continual movement is because the land is only a thin crust on top of a molten core. Currents form underneath the crust, caused by convection and temperature changes in the molten rock, which are making the continents drift a few centimeters (around an inch) each year.Pangea UltimaAs described in The Conversation, the last supercontinent to exist was Pangea, which formed around 310 million years ago. Using computer modeling, it's possible to speculate what the next configurations will be. These vary from single masses straddling the equator or the North Pole to land masses where existing continents encircle ocean remnants as huge inland lakes.The most likely configurations to settle next are Novopangea, a consolidation of all current landmasses, or Pangea Ultima, where a much smaller Atlantic Ocean exists as an inland sea. It's the latter that researchers have used as their model to explore what life might be like on Earth 250 million years in the future.Climate ImpactThe impact on climate by the continental cluster will be extreme, according to the supercomputer simulation model. This will be due to the sheer size of the landmass itself as well as how it is formed.As plate tectonics push the continents together over the crust, a lot of energy will be released as increased volcanic activity. According to CNN, volcanic eruptions will release even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse effect we're already seeing due to burning fossil fuels.This accelerated greenhouse gassing will combine with a brighter sun, which will be sending more energy our way 250 million years in the future. As temperatures rise, the new aggregation will impact the climate due to its sheer size alone — the landmass will alter ocean currents and the circulation of warm air and water, which will, in turn, alter weather patterns. The Guardian describes how an increase in humidity at the coastal zones will be matched by increasingly arid environments in the interior of the landmass.Mass Extinction EventThe last mass extinction event happened around 66 million years ago with an asteroid crashing into the planet. The research team predicts that Pangea Ultima will cause another mass extinction, this time for mammals as less landmass remains inhabitable. Despite its enormous size, only around 8% to 16% of the new landmass will be okay for mammals to live on.Predictions show the average temperatures rising to between 40 °C and 50 °C (~104 °F and 122 °F). At these temperatures over prolonged periods, mammals cannot survive. Combined with increased humidity, they simply cannot sweat enough to regulate body temperature and will die from heat stroke. Furthermore, at these temperatures, it's not only mammals that suffer — plants don't cope well in extreme heat. Above 40°C, they do not thrive, and above 60 °C, they suffer irreparable damage.Without viable plants, the mammal food chain is disrupted at the source. Mammal mass extinction is the result.What Comes After Pangea Ultima?Climate change due to the supercontinent wouldn't be the first time that humans have been forced into extinction; it may be the reason why modern humans survived, while other species of hominids perished. Will our own species be able to adapt and survive the dramatic increase in climate extremes?On a brighter note, the information gleaned from the computer simulation will help us look for a new planet to live on. It's already identified clues to the influence of tectonic events on mass extinctions and climate change that might make it easier for researchers to sift through data in the search for habitable exoplanets.Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.

Pangea Ultima — the Supercontinent Marking the End of Humanity

There are five Platonic solids: the tetrahedron, hexahedron (cube), octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron. They're a unique group of three-dimensional shapes that have identical polygons on each face and the same number of polygons meeting at each corner. These same-surface solids aren't new to the mathematical party — they're called "Platonic" because Athenian philosopher Plato famously associated them with elements of nature — but they still remain a source a mathematical mystery. Now, a new dodecahedron discovery is shaking up the five solids framework with pathway permutation.   Solid Gold   So, what sets a Platonic solid apart from other shapes? It's all about repetition. Each Platonic solid has the same polygon on every face and the same number of polygons touching at each corner (which is called a vertex), and the internal angles of these meeting points add up to less than 360 degrees.   For an easy example, consider the cube. It has six sides, each of which is a square, with three squares meeting at each corner. Each internal angle is 90 degrees, meaning that the total at each vertex is 270 degrees. Three of the other five Platonic solids — the tetrahedron, octahedron and icosahedron — have triangles on each face, while the dodecahedron has pentagons.   Here's a quick breakdown:     Tetrahedron — four triangle faces, three triangles meet at each corner with combined angles of 180 degrees  Hexahedron (cube) — six square faces, three squares meet at each corner with combined angles of 270 degrees  Octahedron — eight triangle faces, four triangles meet at each corner with combined angles of 240 degrees  Dodecahedron — 12 pentagon faces, three pentagons meet at each corner with combined angles of 324 degrees  Icosahedron — 20 triangle faces, five triangles meet at each corner with combined angles of 300 degrees    Five for Fighting   Why five? Why not ten, twenty or a thousand Platonic solids?   The answer is simple, if not immediately obvious: internal angles. Consider a hexagon, which has internal angles of 120 degrees at each corner. To create a three-dimensional polygon, at least three faces need to touch, meaning the internal angle of identical hexagon vertices is 360 degrees (3é—120) and the shape goes flat. The same problem happens if we add more corners to the existing line of Platonic solids — while three pentagons meeting give a combined angle of 324 degrees at 108 degrees each, adding one more corner bumps this up to 432 degrees and makes creating a cohesive polygon impossible.   While it's possible to solve this angle problem by changing the shape of some sides to bring internal totals under 360 degrees, the solid is no longer uniform. Despite mathematical efforts to prove otherwise over two millennia, there are only five shapes that satisfy all three conditions: identical faces, uniform corner connections and combined vertex angles less than 360 degrees.   Found in Translation   Despite the ample time to study the five Platonic solids, questions still remain. One of the most popular centers on corners and pathways: Is it possible to stand at the corner of any Platonic solid, walk in a straight line, and arrive back at your starting point without passing through any other corners along the way? Recent research found that no such corner-to-corner or "geodesic" paths exist across tetrahedrons, octahedrons, icosahedrons or cubes. But what about pentagon-based dodecahedrons?   As it turns out, there are an infinite number of ways to start at a corner, walk across a dodecahedron and end up back where you started, all without crossing your own path. Research published in Experimental Mathematics, three mathematicians — Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino and Patrick Hooper — found "exactly 31 equivalence classes of closed saddle connections" that can be used as the basis for non-overlapping routes. They relied on the use of computer algorithms to create what are known as "translation surfaces."   These surfaces start as Platonic solids that have been pulled apart at the corners to lie flat. Each iteration of this lay-flat surface is called a "net" and offers a staring point for our potential Platonic path. When this path reaches the edge of the net, another net is added, rotated by some multiple of 36 degrees to represent the next circuit around the dodecahedron. Lay out 10 nets and you've covered all 360 degrees, meaning the 11th net is effectively the same as the first and can be joined to its corresponding counterpart on the first net to produce a complete translation surface.   Using advanced computer modeling, the team was able to calculate all possible paths from all possible corners and demonstrate that there are, in fact, a host of non-crossing, verified dodecahedron routes that lead away from and back to the same vertex.   Shaping the Future   While the mathematical and statistical modeling that underpins investigation into the five Platonic shapes may not capture public interest like the ongoing evolution of more well-known theories of quantum mechanics and relativity, research makes it clear that even well-known and seemingly well-understood frameworks still contain secrets that could help shape our understanding of the physical world. 

Pathway Passion: Dodecahedron Discovery Shakes Up Five Platonic Solids Framework

Tricks of the light aside, for a celestial body to be seen during the day, it has to compete with the sun. Not many objects can outshine our main sequence star in its own system. A few supernovas have been so bright that they've been visible during the day. Meteors, if they are big enough, flare like giant torches as they burn through the atmosphere. And here and there across history, a comet rivaling the sun in brilliance has streaked across the sky, terrifying Earth-dwellers.
Then there is the moon. It breaks all the rules. Long before humans understood the orbital plane of the Earth and the stars, how many ancient people looked up at the moon and thought - what even is that thing?
Trickster or Rockstar
It's not hard to see why the moon had our species scratching their collective heads for millennia. It's nearly constant, phasing in and out every 27 days. But in most other ways, the moon makes less sense than anything else in the sky. How can it look as bright as firelight, but also seem solid? Why can we sometimes see the moon during the day, sometimes see it at night and sometimes not at all? What are those strange patterns across the surface, and why do they never change? Why doesn't the moon follow the same path across the sky as the sun, planets and stars? And why does it occasionally, seemingly out of nowhere, turn red?
In previous eras of human history, the amount of moon information possessed by modern eighth-graders would have made them legends. Or landed them in jail.
Around 600 BCE, Anaxagoras proposed to his fellow Athenians that the moon was not a deity but rather a rock — one that had been flung from the Earth. The sun, likewise, was solid and also burning. Rather than making its own power, the moon reflected the burning sun's light. This celestial setup allowed Anaxagoras and anyone of like mind to correctly predict that when the orbital planes of the three solid objects lined up, solar and lunar eclipses would be the result.
Seeing Is Believing
Suffice to say, Athenians were not entirely of like mind. Many ancients found it easier to imagine a god stationed in the sky than a highly reflective rock — one placed up there for unclear reasons by known forces. Why this rock never came down, why it continued to phase and how it remained unphased by weather seemed equally unfathomable. These days, basic knowledge of astronomy is a birthright. But 2600 years ago, it was simpler to arrest Anaxagoras for heresy than to understand that lunar phases are an optical illusion: that when the sun sets in the west as the moon rises in the east, the moon appears full only because we are standing in-between two distant, differently-sized bodies. Telescopes, invented more than a thousand years after Anaxagoras died in exile, allowed us to easily see craters, rocky planes and other imperfections in the sphere that was once believed to be a god.
Then, of course, we went there.
Post-Apollo, lunar knowledge is commonplace. Using a tennis ball and a flashlight, two school kids standing in a dark room can easily demonstrate phases of the moon. The child playing the sun stands still with the flashlight shining straight away from them. The other child playing the Earth faces the flashlight, trying not to squint too much. They hold the tennis ball in front of them with their left arm outstretched, then they rotate 90 degrees to the left. Presto: They can only see 25% of the illuminated moon. The moon/tennis ball is 50% illuminated, but the child only sees one illuminated quarter of it from their position. We see the same illuminated quarter from Earth during first-quarter moons.
Meanwhile, all the children standing around the child with the flashlight can see 50% of the moon lit up, as it always is. As the child with the tennis ball continues to rotate to their left, they will be able to see more of the moon lit up, too. It all looks the same from the sun's perspective. From the perspective of the child with the tennis ball, the day is going from noon to sunset, and the moon is waxing toward full as time fast-forwards through one whole week.
As the World Turns
Why can we see the moon during the day? Why is it crescent at dawn, first-quarter at noon and full at sunset? All this can be demonstrated in only a few minutes. But don't let the humbleness of the flashlight and the tennis ball fool you. Understanding this interaction of rotating bodies requires a surprisingly advanced appreciation of geometry. Entire civilizations rose and fell before simple demonstrations such as this were deemed more compelling than pantheons filled with drama, intrigue and interpersonal strife.
Speaking of which: The orbital plane of the moon relative to the Earth can be demonstrated with the same simple setup. If the moon's orbital plane were exactly the same as the one the Earth uses to travel around the sun, we would have lunar and solar eclipses every month. Instead, we only have them every so often. That's because the orbital plane of the moon is offset from Earth's orbital plane by about 5 degrees. To demonstrate this, instead of standing straight up, the child holding the tennis ball in front of them should slump a little to the left, as if one ear were heavier than the other. Or they could let their arm holding the ball wobble while they spin it. Either way, the ball should sink slightly below the line of the flashlight beam, then float slightly above it. As the child spins around in place with the tennis ball slightly offset, they'll create a solar eclipse only every so often, when their wonky orbit happens to dash directly in front of the flashlight beam.
New Gods
As easy as that, two lightly equipped children can blow eons of mythology out of the sky. At least, the part of moon mythology that explains how the sun is a god in a chariot, a dragon or any other mystical moon persona. In the era of lunar cam live-streams and satellite constellations, it's easier than ever before to see how the moon is 50% illuminated at all times. Yet, wherever you are on Earth, night or day, Northern or Southern Hemisphere, the same rules apply now as they did then. Whatever phase you are in — be it crescent, first quarter, waxing gibbous, full, waning gibbous, third quarter, waning crescent or new — you'll see the part of the half-lit moon that faces you now.
Thousands of years ago, even those who understood the physics of the Earth-moon-sun system could never have imagined how we see the moon today. How when clouds crowd the sky and snow falls on our rooftops, we can call up a perfectly clear view of the lunar surface. How, at any given moment, we can ask a glowing box in our hand to show us the crater Anaxagoras as seen by an orbiting spacecraft. Partly lit by the sun, partly concealed in shadow, the rock thrown into space continues to challenge us to rise above assumptions, superstitions and the comfort of not knowing, and to look back at the whole, imperfect form of the Earth as it hovers above the horizon.
Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are, too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman and consider joining our team.

Tails From the Orbital Plane: Why We Can See the Moon During the Day

If you've spent any time looking into diets that promote weight loss, you've likely heard of "negative calorie foods." These are foods that supposedly require more energy to digest than they provide in calories. A common example is celery — a crunchy vegetable filled with fiber and water that provides just six calories per stalk, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's searchable database.But is it really possible to have foods with negative calories?Negative Calorie Food CandidatesMost of the so-called "negative calorie foods" are vegetables and fruits with high water and fiber content. The lowest calorie foods are vegetables, which typically have less sugar than fruits. Listed below are the number of calories in 100 grams of some common vegetables and fruits, and some meat and dairy items. The foods are listed from fewest to most calories, with the water content included in parentheses. 	Celery: 14 calories (95% water) 	Zucchini: 17 calories (95% water) 	Tomatoes: 18 calories (94% water) 	Green peppers: 20 calories (94% water) 	Romaine lettuce: 20 calories (95% water) 	Spinach: 23 calories (91% water) 	Watermelon: 30 calories (91% water) 	Strawberries: 32 calories (91% water) 	Broccoli: 34 calories (89% water) 	Grapefruit: 39 calories (90% water) 	Peaches: 39 calories (89% water) 	Onions: 40 calories (89% water) 	Carrots: 41 calories (89% water) 	Blueberries: 57 calories (84% water) 	Apples: 60 calories (85% water) 	Whole milk yogurt: 78 calories (85% water) 	Roasted chicken breast: 79 calories (77% water) 	Baked potato: 93 calories (75% water) 	85% lean ground beef: 232 calories (60% water) 	Cheddar cheese: 409 calories (36% water)People react in different ways to different diets, and if you are interested in changing your weight, you should consult a dietician. But on a basic level, if someone is looking to maintain or lose weight, an advantage of high fiber veggies and fruits is they fill you up and take longer to digest than highly processed foods. Therefore, they don't provide a lot of calories but prevent you from feeling hungry — which helps you eat less. Many fruits and vegetables are rich in vitamins and minerals, and are thus an essential part of a healthy diet.However, limiting yourself to just a few low-calorie foods is inadvisable, according to the Mayo Clinic, because you can easily miss out on essential nutrients including protein and fat. The UK National Health Service generally recommends 2,000 calories a day for women and 2,500 calories a day for men. If you decided to limit yourself to foods that contain roughly 20 calories per 100 grams (~200 calories per 1 kilogram), you would need to consume about 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of those foods a day to maintain your weight. That's about 17 heads of romaine lettuce or 61 large green peppers. So it's certainly possible to lose weight by consuming lots of veggies and fruits, but you'd want to mix it up by including other foods with different nutrients.All of this still doesn't quite answer the question of whether there are foods with negative calories, or foods that require more energy to digest than they provide in calories.Energy Required to Digest FoodEating food and digesting food takes energy. In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the act of chewing gum burns 11 calories per hour. A stalk of celery provides 6 calories, which would be offset by a half hour of chewing. Clearly, the act of chewing isn't enough to make celery a negative calorie food.What about the energy required to digest food, absorb the nutrients and dispose of the waste? According to a review published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, approximately 60% of a person's total daily energy expenditure is used for "basal metabolism," or the energy required to operate your various organ systems at rest. After eating, researchers have studied the "thermic effect of food," or when your metabolism increases after eating because your body is using energy to digest the food, absorb the nutrients and dispose of the waste. This increase in energy use after eating accounts for approximately 10% of total energy expenditure. The remaining ~30% of daily energy expenditure is used for the other activities of daily life — standing, walking, reading, socializing, preparing meals, intentional exercise, remembering website passwords, etc.For someone consuming 2,000 calories a day, 10% of total energy expenditure is 200 calories, which would be expected to go toward digesting and processing food. Assuming that nothing else changes when you decrease the number of calories consumed — which is unlikely to be true — eating a negative calorie diet would require eating less than 200 calories a day. That's less than four medium-sized apples. Yikes!Of course, eating and digesting would be impossible if it weren't for the "basal metabolism" that maintains all of your organ systems — the brain, cardiovascular system, digestive system, liver, kidney, skeletal muscle, immune system and so on. So eat your fruits and veggies as part of a healthy diet, and don't worry too much about the "negative calorie" label.Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Do Negative Calorie Foods Exist?

You likely think about what to eat every single day. After all, it's one of the basic requirements you need to survive. Yet you may not ruminate on what happens to your food after you eat it. How does the body break down food anyway? How do you process what you eat and how does your body use the nutrients? How long does it take?This article will examine the ins and outs (pun intended) of food digestion, including how digestion happens, what occurs within your body when you eat, how your system processes different ingredients and digestion time.How Is Food Digested?The digestive system is larger than you think. According to Johns Hopkins, it consists of "the mouth, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, gallbladder, small intestine, large intestine and anus." All of these organs work together to ensure you can digest the food you eat.The process of digestion starts before you take a single bite — your sense of smell triggers extra saliva, which has enzymes that start the long process. The pancreas produces those enzymes, and after you swallow food, those enzymes mix with other digestive juices in your stomach. This watery mixture then moves to your small intestine, where the nutrients are extracted, and whatever is left moves through your large intestine and is excreted through the anus.Do Different Foods Digest at Different Rates?This description of digestion seems quite simple, but in reality it's quite complicated. The process of digestion takes, on average, several hours. You know that recommendation to eat protein to feel full? That's because protein, along with fat, takes longer to digest than carbohydrates.The type of food you're eating has a huge effect on the amount of time it takes to digest. Liquids are the fastest — water leaves the stomach in just 10 minutes. More complex liquids take up to an hour, while carbs like pasta and rice can take just 30 minutes. Add protein into the mix? You're looking at two to four hours, possibly even longer. Proteins take longer to digest because breaking them down into their component amino acids takes more time than digesting carbs or other foods.What Impacts Digestion Time? Is Faster Better?It's not just the kind of food you're eating that impacts digestion time. Other factors include what time of day you eat, gender (women digest more slowly than men), and age (the aging process slows down digestion, which is part of the reason elderly people have to keep an eye on their digestive health).Your body's natural circadian rhythms are also tied to your digestive system — eating when your body expects you to eat means that digestion happens faster. If you decide to eat a lot at 1 a.m., your digestive system likely isn't expecting it, and will process that food more slowly. Digestion is a very individualized process that varies from person to person; it's even possible that your body type has a significant impact on how you digest food.The rate of digestion could also provide health benefits. Generally speaking, the faster the digestion time, the better. Studies have shown that slower transit time through your digestive system is linked to increased harmful bacteria. Conventional thinking is that the more gut bacteria you have, the healthier your digestive system, but it turns out that isn't actually always the case. Longer digestion time and food sitting too long within your large intestine can produce harmful bacteria.If you want to prioritize your digestive health and pay attention to how your body breaks down food, eat a balanced diet (with lean proteins and fiber) and stay hydrated. Eat on a regular schedule, exercise regularly (digestion requires energy, after all!), sleep well, and keep stress and anxiety levels low.Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

How Does the Body Break Down Food?

We take it for granted that the sky is blue — but is that a matter of fact or a matter of perspective? Colorblindness is more common than you might think: About one in 12 men and one in 200 women experience the condition, according to Healthline. A deeper look at what it means to be colorblind can help us better understand the way others see the world, and maybe teach us something about vision itself. How Vision Works Vision begins in the retina, which is an important membrane that lines the surface of the back of the eye. The retina is made of several layers of tissue, including a layer of photoreceptors — the specialized cells that absorb light (photons) and convert it into signals that are sent to the brain to create an image. Scienceline explains that two types of photoreceptors help us see: rods and cones. Rods distinguish between black and white (and help us see in the dark), while cones work in bright light, allowing you to see color. People with normal vision have three types of cones that each detect a certain range of color: red, blue and green. In other words, different types of cones detect certain wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. Colorblindness, which can also be called color vision deficiency, happens when the pigments in those light-sensitive cones are missing or not working properly. Therefore, when a person has missing or dysfunctional pigments in their retina's cones, they may perceive colors differently than most people do. Often, people with colorblindness see colors less intensely and therefore have trouble distinguishing one color from another. In rare cases, people with severe color blindness may not see colors at all, or they could also have symptoms such as involuntary eye movements (nystagmus) or sensitivity to light, according to the National Eye Institute. Types of Colorblindness Most people are aware that colorblindness exists, but medical providers can help to diagnose the specific condition so that patients are aware of how their eyes affect their perception of colors. There are four main types of colorblindness. The variety depends on which cones are affected and whether the cones are dysfunctional or missing altogether. 1. Anomalous Trichromacy People who have anomalous trichromacy have all three types of cones, but one type doesn't work properly. Most commonly, people have trouble telling the difference between red and green or have trouble seeing the difference between some shades of red, yellow and green. Sometimes, the effects are so mild that people don't even realize they are colorblind. There are subcategories between different types of red-green colorblindness, according to Healthline. For example, people with protanomaly have the long wavelength cones ("L" cones), but the cones are dysfunctional, which causes red to look like green. Deuteranomaly, on the other hand, causes the opposite issues; the medium wavelength cones ("M" cones) of the eye are dysfunctional, causing green to look redder. 2. Dichromacy While anomalous trichromacy can make it hard to put together a puzzle or coordinate an outfit, dichromacy is a more serious version of color blindness. People with this condition don't just have dysfunctional cones. Rather, they are lacking a type of cone altogether, which means they can't see an entire section of the rainbow. 3. Monochromacy In monochromacy, two of the three cone types are missing. This rare condition can cause people to see mostly blurry images in black, white and shades of gray. According to MedlinePlus, not only do people who have blue cone monochromacy see fuzzy colorless images, but they also experience sensitivity to light (photophobia), nystagmus and nearsightedness (myopia). 4. Achromatopsia Complete colorblindness, also called achromatopsia, is a rare disorder in which all the cones are either missing or dysfunctional. In this case, people who are colorblind experience a complete lack of color vision, plus additional vision problems. (Note: Some experts consider blue cone monochromacy to be a form of achromatopsia because it involves vision impairment.) What Causes Colorblindness Most forms of colorblindness are genetic. In other words, most people who are colorblind inherited a gene for the condition from their parents. The genes associated with colorblindness are recessive and carried on the X chromosome, according to Scienceline, which explains why this condition is more common in males. Females typically have two X chromosomes, so even if they have a recessive colorblind gene, their other dominant gene can override it. However, males usually have only one X chromosome, so if they inherit the gene, they will be colorblind. Specifically, MedlinePlus explains that mutations in the OPN1LW, OPN1MW and OPN1SW genes cause color blindness. Genetic changes involving any of these genes can lead to an absence of cones or to the production of abnormal pigments or defective cones. Although most colorblindness is genetic, it can also be caused by damage to the eye or the brain. Colorblindness has been linked to:   Alcoholism  Congenital diseases  Cataracts  Side effects of medicine (such as chloroquine, which is used to treat malaria)  Diseases involving the retina  Exposure to toxic chemicals, such as organic solvents  Outlooks and Treatments Most of the time, colorblindness is mild and not considered a disability. It is a common condition, especially among white men. There is no cure, but according to NEI, most people who are colorblind are able to adjust and don't have problems with everyday activities. Treatments can include special eyewear that can help individuals differentiate colors. There are also apps where people can take pictures to identify colors. Plus, depending on what causes colorblindness (such as a side effect of a medicine), it could be temporary. Emerging gene therapy research could also provide some new ways to treat colorblindness. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

What Does It Mean to Be Colorblind?

Rainbows are the stuff of myth and legend. They're impossible to ignore — these sudden arcs of vivid colors streaming across the horizon naturally inspire a sense of awe and wonder. The also awaken our scientific curiosity with questions about the form and function of these fantastic phenomena. So let's dive into the science of the stunning: How are rainbows formed? What types exist? And what does it all mean? Mastering Meteorological Magic The basic rainbow recipe is simple: water and light. But creating the ideal end result isn't a question of whether you mix the basic ingredients well enough — it's a question of weather. As noted by the Met Office, two environmental conditions are required to reveal a rainbow:   The sun must be 42 degrees (or less) above the horizon  Water droplets — typically in the form of rain or fog — must be present  Sunlight entering a water droplet is refracted (bent), with each color in the visible spectrum refracting at a different angle due to differing wavelengths. These multiple rays of light are then partially reflected off the inside edge of the droplet and refracted again when leaving. If the sun is more than 42 degrees above the horizon from the observer's point of view, the refraction won't be significant enough to produce a rainbow. If the sun is below 42 degrees and there's enough water in the air, refracted light will naturally spread out into a familiar spectrum based on its wavelength. Red light has the longest wavelength at 650 nanometers and appears along the rainbow's top edge. Violet has the shortest wavelength at 400 nanometers and appears at the bottom. The position and shape of rainbows depend on observer location. For example, observers on the ground at sunset will often see what appears to be a complete arch with clear terminations on each end. Someone looking down from a plane at the same time may see a complete circle. In both cases, the center of a rainbow is the anti-solar point, which is directly opposite the sun. ROY G. BIV, Redux The familiar mnemonic device makes it easy to remember the classic rainbow color spectrum — Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo and Violet — though differentiating between blue and indigo with the naked eye is no easy task. Roy G. BIV pairs up nicely with what's know as a primary rainbow, which is created "when sunlight strikes raindrops in front of a viewer at a precise angle (42 degrees)," according to National Geographic. But this isn't the only rainbow reality. In fact, multiple rainbow variations exist, including:   Double Rainbows: Double rainbows happen when light is reflected twice inside raindrops creating a faint, reverse-spectrum image above the primary rainbow.  High-Order Rainbows: Rainbows produced by second, third or fourth reflections of light are called higher-order rainbows. For example, a tertiary rainbow is the third reflection of light within water droplets and is seen when facing the sun. Tertiary rainbows are much broader and fainter than their primary or secondary siblings.  Twinned Rainbows: Unlike a double rainbow, twinned rainbows are two distinct, standard-spectrum rainbows produced when sunlight strikes an air mass containing water droplets with multiple shapes and sizes.  Supernumerary Rainbows: These rainbows are pastel-colored and can be seen under the inner arch of a primary rainbow. They occur when light rays interact across small water droplets of similar size.  Red Rainbows: Next on the list of rainbow variations are these monochrome manifestations. They form at sunrise or sunset when shorter color wavelengths — such as blue, indigo and violet — are scattered in the atmosphere and only red remains visible.  Moonbows: A moonbow is a much fainter primary rainbow produced when sunlight reflected by the moon refracts through water droplets.  Of Signs and Symbols Beyond their visual impact, rainbows also carry cultural impact. In Judeo-Christian culture, for example, rainbows appeared to Noah after the great flood as a sign of hope for better times. There's also the oft-repeated legend of leprechauns guarding pots of gold. As noted by the BBC, these Irish tricksters supposedly grabbed gold from Vikings and will hand it over to treasure hunters who find the rainbow's end. The problem? Perceived location and length vary with difference, making this an impossible task. In Australia, aboriginal groups of the Pennefather River see the rainbow as a multi-colored serpent with the power to protect them from rain, while some Hindu traditions view the rainbow as a tool used by Indra, the god of thunder and war, to shoot arrows of lightning. In Norse mythology, meanwhile, the rainbow (or bifrost) was a burning bridge connecting Midgard and Asgard, the kingdoms of men and gods. And in Japan, land was formed from the ocean of chaos after creators descended from the rainbow bridge of heaven. Seeing Is Believing Environmental interactions in Earth's atmosphere produce incredible results — from terrifying lightning storms and powerful waterspouts to stunning rainbows and beautiful aurora borealis. And while there's a perfectly rational expiation to the question "how are rainbows formed?", empirical evidence doesn't negate emotional response. Instead, it highlights the human condition: the sometimes powerful, sometimes paradoxical balance of stunning beauty and scientific truth. 

Science of the Stunning: How Are Rainbows Formed?

Are humans shifting the rotational axis of Earth? The Anthropocene is the most recent period in Earth's history when human activity started to impact the climate, but could that activity be having more of an effect than simply making the planet hotter?
The answer is yes — human activity is actually changing how our planet spins in space. Over the last hundred years, we've been moving so much water from land to sea that we've shifted how Earth spins on its axis.
Deep water from aquifers that feed into many irrigation systems is not being replenished, and this is putting the planet out of balance. Researchers reporting in Geophysical Research Letters describe how the North Pole shifted eastward toward Greenland between 1993 and 2010, and a whopping 78.48 centimeters (approximately 31 inches) is due to irrigation.
As ScienceNews explains, this would make groundwater depletion the second-biggest cause of polar drift. Even something as simple as an irrigation system can have a major effect on the planet as a whole.
What Is Polar Drift?
Polar drift is the normal tendency of the poles on this planet to wander around a bit. For example, USA Today describes that both poles, North and South, have shifted approximately 13 feet since 1980. Most of this is quite natural and seasonal with changes in ocean salinity and weather patterns.
The two poles are electromagnetic phenomena created from the earth's composition. There's a sea of molten metal surrounding Earth's solid iron core, and currents in the layer set up electrical currents. As these currents fluctuate, the positions of the magnetic poles change. These are not fixed in position and can move around according to the geomagnetic properties of Earth.
There's also a geographical location to the poles based on the axis that Earth rotates on, with the North and South poles being diametrically opposite each other.
The Main Causes of Polar Drift
As described by NASA, the rotational axis of Earth is subject to variation and wobble. Three causes for this variation and wobble have been identified, with the most recent research pointing to irrigation as its second-largest contributor.
In addition to mantle convection, a large cause of polar drift comes from glacial rebound. As the glaciers melted, they released weight from the land mass, and this altered the way the planet spins on its axis. More recently, it's Greenland that's been making the difference — or, more correctly, the ice sheets covering it.
During the last century, temperatures rose enough to melt ice that's the weight of more than 20 million Empire State Buildings weight. This reduced pressure on the country from glacial rebound. Unweighting Greenland is geographically important — the off-axis location of the land mass in relation to the North Pole exerts a bigger influence on spin than it would if it were located closer to the North Pole.
Water Is Heavy
Glacial rebound also sent huge volumes of water into the oceans as if Greenland was one large irrigation system. The meltwater runoff in the oceans has raised sea levels in the same way irrigation is impacting polar drift.
Water is heavy. The gravitational pull of the moon affects water in the ocean, causing the tides to ebb and flow. It also creates a bulge in the ocean surface that causes drag and slows the planet's rotation. The impact that irrigation has had between 1993 and 2010 is to raise sea levels by around six millimeters (almost a quarter of an inch).
That change is heavy enough to cause polar drift and influence the rotational axis of Earth. The Guardian explains it as a change in the mass distribution of the planet and points out that climate change is, therefore, altering the way Earth spins.
Is Irrigation a Problem?
There are benefits from irrigation that outweigh its impact on polar drift. For example, agriculture in arid areas relies heavily on water being brought to the crops artificially. Without it, food security and crop production are in danger. National Geographic estimates approximately 18% of the land used for growing crops is irrigated.
In addition, irrigation has a cooling effect and can boost humidity. It also increases rainfall, which in turn, increases river flow.
While scientists think that the effect of irrigation on polar drift is irreversible, its influence is minor. The change in the rotational axis of Earth could change the length of the day, but this would only be in milliseconds, so even though it may sound concerning, it's nothing to lose sleep over. Irrigation must continue, and the planet will keep turning.

Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.


What's Shifting the Rotational Axis of Earth?

Microbes (also called microorganisms) are not only all around us — they are also inside us. Vast colonies of microorganisms inhabit our digestive system and other tissues, where their activity is vital to our life and health. Though invisible to the naked eye, and never even imagined until the microscope revealed them, microorganisms are not only ubiquitous but often easily cultivated. As ScienceAlert explains, wipe down practically any surface, dab the wipe in a Petri dish, keep the Petri dish warm and cozy for a few days, and you will cultivate colonies of microorganisms to show off to your friends with a handy microscope. The ease of finding and cultivating microorganisms is good news for microbiologists: They have no shortage of microbes to study. They've also been able to apply tools such as genomics to examine the genetic material of microorganisms, sequencing their DNA in the same way as geneticists who study the human genome or those of other plants and animals. Examining in the Wild There is a hitch: Not all microorganisms thrive equally well in the artificial environment of a Petri dish. Thus, the gathering process outlined above, even in sophisticated versions, does not give us a cross section of microbes but only those that thrive in a lab. As a result, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), traditional methods of microorganism cultivation and study tend to give us "laboratory knowledge" of these microscopic creatures. Even in our microscopes, we see them only in highly artificial conditions, not living and acting within their natural ecosystem. This is a serious limitation, rather like trying to understand the behavior and ecology of tigers, if the only tigers you could study were in a zoo. When Genomics Goes Meta To get around this limitation, microbiologists have devised an approach called metagenomics, which examines the gene sequences not of individual specimens but of entire ecological communities. And, per ScienceAlert, this technique has begun to yield spectacular results — most recently the discovery of 12,000 species of microbes that had never been observed in a lab. Such a large-scale discovery was possible because more than ten thousand metagenomes, or group samples, were collected from all parts of the world, across land and sea, providing researchers with an unmatched range and variety of ecosystems. According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, the term "metagenomics" combines "genomics," a.k.a. the study of gene sequencing and effects, with "meta", which denotes multiplicity. (In various contexts it can also mean "more," "beyond," or "transcending.") Separately, the NCBI notes that metagenomics is "both a set of research techniques, comprising many related approaches and methods, and a research field" — the branch of microbiology that uses those techniques to microbe ecosystems rather than only at individual microorganisms. Putting a Jigsaw Puzzle Through a Blender All of this has its own challenges. As Jacinta Bowler of ScienceAlert rather vividly puts it, the process "sounds like trying to reassemble a jigsaw puzzle that's been put through the blender." But this is not the first time that scientists have confronted similar problems. From dinosaurs to our own hominid ancestors, animal species have been reconstructed from scattered bone fragments. Similar achievements abound across scientific disciplines. What scientists in all field do when confronted with a mass of scattered bits of evidence is look for patterns and use them to group the finds. In metagenomics, this pattern-matching process is known as "binning." Metagenomics is in the process of transforming microbiology, which through the 20th century worked primarily with cultured microorganisms. Only gradually did microbiologists fully grasp the degree to which the natural environment is dominated by microbes never found in the lab. A review from the American Society for Microbiology describes this transformation as a "culture divide" between studying "wild" versus culture-grown microbes. But in the big picture this "culture divide" reflects not just the development of new technologies but also a growing understanding that living organisms and systems can only be understood in an ecological context shaped by their interactions with one another. 

A World of Microbes Revealed by Metagenomics

A planet is nearly disappearing before our eyes. Its atmosphere is so hot from its nearby sun that it is gradually being blown off into the depths of space. And the evaporating exoplanet, which NASA identified as GJ 3470b, is not alone in facing a catastrophic future. Another slowly disappearing planet, GJ 436b, is also losing its atmosphere to space, though at a more gradual rate. Yet another world is facing an even more spectacular and catastrophic fate. The evaporating exoplanets may leave behind rocky cinders of themselves, still orbiting their parent stars. But WASP-12b, according to Sky &Telescope, appears doomed to total disintegration when it spirals into its parent star in a cosmically brief 3 million years. Two planets have already disappeared: The University of California at Santa Cruz reported that a double star system called BD +20 307, located some 300 light-years from Earth, contains large quantities of heated dust — the likely result of a recent collision of exoplanets. Planets, Planets, Everywhere One disappearing planet might be a cosmic fluke. Nearly half a dozen disappearing planets suggests a trend — perhaps an alarming one. The good news is that these results are a sign that there are a lot of planets out there. Northrop Grumman's Robert Lockwood, project manager of TESS, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite said, "The single most important thing to understand about exoplanets is that they are everywhere. The number and variety of planets is far beyond anything we expected to see." The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia expanded upon this: there are 4,150 confirmed planets beyond our solar system, orbiting in 3,083 planetary systems, 675 of which are known to have more than one planet. With so many planets being observed, it is still amazing — but not surprising — that some are headed for a spectacular end. Shadow Dances Perhaps the only thing more remarkable than discovering so many planets is that we have done it without ever actually seeing them. (Sometimes, in astronomy, discovery is all about the things you can't see.) As Lockwood explains, at our current level of technology, astronomers rely on indirect effects to detect planets beyond the solar system. The most common detection method, used by TESS, detects the slight dimming of distant stars as their planets pass in front of them. This is a bit like detecting a runner at night by noting the lights that momentarily blink out. Other detection methods are even more oblique. Finding Doomed Worlds Our methods of identifying doomed planets — or their aftermath — are equally oblique. As Sky & Telescope reported, the death spiral of WASP 12b was detected by timing its successive orbits. Its orbital period is gradually getting shorter. While still under investigation, the pattern strongly suggests orbital decay due to tidal forces. In the cases of the evaporating planets, said Futurity.org, astronomers began by noticing an odd and suspicious pattern. Our current methods of detecting planets work best for planets orbiting close to their parent stars, so we have detected a large number of "hot" planets. But both giant "hot Jupiters" and small "hot Earths" seem to be more common than intermediate sized "hot Neptunes." Since large planets are believed to be composed of mostly gaseous or volatile materials, while small ones are rocky (and therefore much more heat-resistant), one prevailing theory is that hot planets, close to their parent stars, are subject to losing their atmospheres. The idea is that Jupiter-sized hot giants are big enough to retain their atmospheres for billions of years, but smaller, Neptune-sized worlds may have their atmospheres largely eroded. And measurements show excess amounts of gas surrounding stars with "hot" exoplanets — confirming that the star is eroding away at the planet's atmosphere, making it a disappearing planet. Similar traces of stellar litter, for example, according to Science Alert, excess dust around BD +20 307 provided the telltale sign that something produced an enormous amount of dust in the recent past, an exoplanet collision being the most likely culprit. Starting next year, when NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is launched into orbit and begins observations, exoplanet investigators will be able to observe exoplanets more directly — including those planets disappearing before our eyes.

The Case of the Disappearing Planet

The Black Death, a pandemic that swept Europe and Asia in 1346 to 1353, killed much of the population, according to History Today. Outbreaks continued to occur every few generations in Europe, the Middle East, Northern Africa and Asia for the next 500 years.
Despite its huge impact on human history, exactly what caused the Black Death — the original source of the infectious Yersinia pestis bacteria — has been unclear. A recent study published in Nature used ancient DNA to pinpoint the source of the Black Death, offering insights that could help mitigate current and future pandemics, including COVID-19.
A Look Back at the Plague
The plague can be transmitted through airborne particles and the bite of infected fleas, which feed on rats that have long been blamed as the source of the Black Death. The plague bacteria first attack the lymphatic system, causing painful swelling of the lymph nodes in the groin, armpits or neck. This stage is called bubonic plague because of the swollen buboes that ooze pus and bleed.
The infection goes on to cause fever, chills, vomiting, diarrhea and agonizing pain. Without antibiotic treatment, about 60% of patients die, as explained by Frontiers in Microbiology. The bacteria can spread to the lungs and become highly infectious pneumonic plague, which has a mortality rate of 90–95%. It can also spread to the blood and become septicemic plague, which is nearly 100% lethal.
The History of the Black Death
The known history of the Black Death in Europe starts in Crimea, which is a peninsula on the Black Sea. Ships could sail from the Black Sea through Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey) and into the Mediterranean Sea to access much of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East.
In October 1347, some trade ships from Crimea docked in Sicily. Many of the sailors on board were already dead, and the others were covered in the swollen buboes of bubonic plague, according to HISTORY. The ships were turned away, but the damage was done. The Black Death had entered Europe and would spread by land and by ship, carried by rats and their fleas.
Before the plague arrived in Sicily in 1347, there were stories of a "Great Pestilence" that was ravaging China, India, Persia, Syria and Egypt. The historical records here are less clear, so the origins of the Black Death remained a mystery for 675 years.
Tracing the Source
As reported in Nature, an international team of historians, archaeologists and geneticists headed to Central Asia. This is where Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries reside north of India, west of China and south of Russia. In present-day Kyrgyzstan, there are two cemeteries that had an unusually large number of burials in 1338 and 1339 and tombstones indicating that the cause of death was "pestilence."
Could this area have been the source of the Black Death that decimated Europe from 1346 to 1353? By sequencing ancient DNA from these grave sites, the research team was able to confirm the presence of plague. Furthermore, they were able to obtain the complete DNA sequence of the plague bacteria responsible for those deaths and compare it to other DNA sequences for Y. pestis.
The previously identified DNA sequences fall into four major groups, which are the result of a "Big Bang" mutation event associated with the start of the Black Death. The ancient DNA sequence fit perfectly at the base of the plague family tree. These results provide good evidence that the source of the Black Death was in Central Asia.
Plague Reservoirs Are Keeping the Bacteria Alive
Plague is not primarily a disease of humans and would die out if there were only human hosts. However, plague bacteria survive within wild rodent populations around the world in so-called plague reservoirs. Therefore, the "pestilence" noted on ancient tombstones in present-day Kyrgyzstan must have come from a plague reservoir if it was truly what caused the Black Death. Indeed, researchers found that the ancient plague DNA sequence closely matches the sequence of Y. pestis found recently in nearby wild rodent populations.
The presence of animal reservoirs makes it nearly impossible to completely irradiate plague. According to the World Health Organization, there are still cases of plague every year, mostly in Africa during the epidemic season. Luckily, antibiotics now provide an effective treatment.
The Death Tolls of 3 Major Pandemics
In Europe from 1347 to 1352, the Black Death killed an estimated 25–30 million people out of a population of 80 million, according to World History. That's around 30–40% of the European population. It's estimated that the Black Death was responsible for an additional 25 million deaths in Asia and North Africa, as explained in National Geographic.
For comparison, the 1918 flu pandemic claimed an estimated 17.4 million lives (.95% of the worldwide population at the time), according to the most recent (2018) estimates by Spreeuwenberg et al. as reported by Our World in Data.
As of February 2023, COVID-19 has caused more than 6.5 million deaths in a global population of 8 billion people (0.23% of the global population), according to the World Health Organization. This number is based on 7.5 million deaths officially attributed to COVID-19 and an estimate of unreported deaths.
Lessons for COVID-19 and Future Pandemics
Just as plague reservoirs allow plague to return to healthy populations, viral reservoirs are of grave concern for COVID-19. The virus that causes COVID-19 can infect a variety of animals, including bats, white-tailed deer, farmed mink and domestic cats and dogs.
As explained in Nature, viral reservoirs could be the source of new variants of COVID-19, such as the highly infectious Omicron variant. The Omicron variant has an astonishing 50 mutations compared to the original virus that emerged from Wuhan, China. What is truly remarkable is that these 50 mutations were not detected gradually — despite sequencing millions of COVID-19 samples — but showed up in the tested population all at once. A leading theory is that Omicron evolved in an animal reservoir, such as rats, and was then transmitted to humans.
Experts agree that the next pandemic is inevitable and that the only question is when. As such, it would be wise to gain a better understanding of the source of infectious diseases today so we can better protect against them tomorrow.
 
Are you interested in all things related to science and technology? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Ancient DNA Reveals What Caused the Black Death

Dreams are often fleeting memories that play across our minds just as we're emerging from sleep. Unless we awake with a jolt from a vicious nightmare, pulse racing and body trembling at impending danger, we're unlikely to remember much of what we've dreamed about. There's often a feeling that we've had a dream, but for most of us, we're most likely to wake up asking, "Why can't I remember my dreams?"
Although a lot is known about brain activity during REM sleep, science isn't completely certain how or why we dream. Let's explore what we do know.
Dreaming While You Sleep
Dreams have a checkered history. There are no magic answers to help us with dream recall, but humans have always sought to give meaning to these mysterious phenomena. At various points in history, they've been explained as prophecy, messages from the gods and symbolic behavioral events in modern psychology. Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, for example, both assumed there was a lot of hidden meaning relevant to daily life in our dreams that could explain certain psychological issues.
Scientific research still hasn't pinpointed the reason for dreaming; oneirology, the science of dreams, suggests that it may help with problem-solving, while lucid dreaming is often associated with creativity. According to Beatles folklore, Paul McCartney came up with the music for "Yesterday" and "Let It Be" while dreaming.
Whatever purpose dreaming fulfills, it's present in both rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and non-REM (NREM) sleep. According to a study by the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Sleep Medicine and Research, dreams during early REM-phase sleep tend to be erratic and worrying, whereas in later-stage REM sleep, dreaming is usually more pleasant and comforting. NREM dreams can be more abstract. And though we don't know why we dream, going without them can spell trouble — researchers have found that losing REM sleep can cause memory issues and limit the ability to recall.
In short, brain activity during REM sleep could have a more vital function than simply keeping us entertained while unconscious.
Does Brain Activity During REM Sleep Explain Dreams?
There are two phases during sleep: REM and NREM, which cycle alternately through the night. NREM sleep takes up about 75% to 80% of sleep time. At first, the NREM-REM sleep cycle lasts between 70 and 100 minutes. As sleep progresses, the cycles take longer, and we spend longer in REM sleep, too.
There's distinct brain activity during each of the stages. For example, during REM sleep, your muscles and reflexes relax. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, we spend around two hours of our sleep in a dream state. The relaxation of your muscles and reflexes during REM means we can dream without acting them out — we're effectively immobilized as our dreams play out.
Our bodies may be in quiet mode, but what's happening in the brain as we dream? According to BBC's Science Focus, there's activity going on in our brains even though we're asleep and dreaming. Brain activity during REM sleep includes the activation of regions associated with fears and emotions. Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings have shown great activity in the limbic system (emotions) and amygdala (fear).
The cerebral cortex and the visual cortex, especially, have also shown heightened activity — this is thought to be associated with the content of the dream itself. It makes sense, as our dreams are often fantastical visual arrays that make little sense. Reduced activity in the frontal lobes could point to the suspension of critical thought processes, so we just accept the craziness going on behind our twitching eyelids.
Change in brain activity witnessed from the outside, through EEG, may give researchers an eye into what a dream is about. As reported by The Guardian, researchers found activation of brain areas associated with dreaming about faces, for example, is marked by activity in the facial recognition zone. This supports the idea that dreaming is something that takes place while we're asleep rather than something that just happens when we wake up.
But Why Can't I Remember My Dreams?
Unless they wake up during a dream, most people have no memory of what was happening. Even if they seem really vivid, their memory soon fades and becomes fragmentary. Medical News Today suggests that fluctuating neurotransmitter levels could be the reason — varying levels of acetylcholine and norepinephrine may interfere with dream recall. There are also differences in brain anatomy in people who remembered their dreams more easily.
BBC Future has some tips if you want to remember those exciting adventures your mind took you on while asleep, and it's all about how you wake up. They suggest a gentle start to the day will help you recall those fragile and jumbled visions. Rather than leaping out of bed at the first alarm, spend some time in stillness without opening your eyes as you wake, slowly gathering up the strands of the dream into a memory.
If this doesn't help, don't feel too bad. Almost everyone struggles with remembering their dreams, and it seems more research may need to be done to discover why — and how to potentially boost dream recall.
Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.

Why Can't I Remember My Dreams?

Key Takeaways  Big Bang Theory attempts to explain how the universe began. Inflation after the Big Bang creates the size of the universe, but could also create a multiverse. Other theories for the birth of the universe suggest that there was nothing before Big Bang or that inflation did not start or stop.A lot can happen in a universe in 13.8 billion years, and scientists have indeed kept busy studying the wide breadth of events that shaped our cosmos.But one event that had seemed widely accepted — the Big Bang theory — has come under close scrutiny by some cosmologists. They call into question not just when the universe started but also how it all began. So, how did the universe start? Others leap beyond the theory altogether and claim there was no beginning; the universe has always been there. Another camp believes there could be several universes, and we just happen to be in the one with pizza and beer.The history of the universe is a product of some hard science, but it also has many "wiggle room" theories to account for unknown and inexplicable phenomenon. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that not everyone buys the idea of a big bang-type spark to life as we know it. Apparently, there's more "there" to the out-there of our universe.How Did the Universe Start?As the title of the popular TV show "Big Bang Theory" illustrates, the idea of an explosion of sorts to produce a universe has taken hold as the dominant concept of how our place of existence started. When schoolchildren learn about cosmic creation, they are usually taught the underpinnings of the Big Bang.It's posited that immediately after this big spark, we would have seen a 10 billion-degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons, photons and neutrinos cooling off. As the piping fresh hot universe cooled, either the neutrons decayed into electrons or protons, or they combined with protons to create an isotope of hydrogen. Further cooling led to more combinations: electrons merged with nuclei to form neutral atoms and also change what was a murky celestial backdrop into a transparent one that could be later discerned by modern scientists. Those photons formed an afterglow that's known as cosmic background radiation. That's the part of this creation show that can be observed today."The first three minutes of the universe is an exciting place," said Leslie Brown, an associate professor of physics at Connecticut College. "We're looking at the guts of a star. We're looking at thermonuclear fusion, and that's where our elements come from. The two elements made during those moments are hydrogen and helium." Those elements, in fact, comprise nearly all of the nuclear matter in our universe. Scientists say the abundance of hydrogen and helium helped determine the speed with which the universe expanded.And that's another chapter in the Big Bang story: just as quickly as the universe formed, it rapidly expanded, as if a newborn suddenly filled out to the size of an NBA power forward. To put it into perspective, try to picture the infinite jumble of stuff that was created after the Big Bang. That pack of stuff has a defining term— the "singularity"— that could also be the name of a rock group. The analogy is fitting. Like any rock group that is full of distinctive personalities, the neutrons, protons and anti-electrons that made up the singularity were perhaps too homogeneous for their own good. The singularity separated and moved on — far on — only a second or so after the Big Bang. (And people think the Beatles broke up too soon.)Thanks to a temporary shot of dark energy, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, separating all the stuff and placing stars and planets in particular places, giving us the home we have today and explaining why all of the radiation around us smoothed.Determining What Came Before the BangThe Big Bang story satisfies many people, but not all. After all, with much to review in a 13.8-billion-year history, there is a lot of room for more questions and countering opinions. Did anything happen before the Big Bang? Did something really come from nothing? It's a celestial wrinkle on the age-old chicken-or-egg question.First, it's difficult to even determine what happened in that flash of time after the Big Bang — the instances before the pieces of the singularity went their separate ways. Scientists can confidently piece together what happened 1 trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang but are hard-pressed to measure that sliver of time before then. That's largely because after the singularity ended, all of those free electrons would have caused the photons (or light) to scatter and create an opaque backdrop. "If you go back that far, the temperature is so hot, everything is ionized," Brown said.So why would cosmologists try to take an even bigger leap and attempt to learn what happened prior to the Big Bang? For that matter, how can they even determine if there was a pre-Big Bang existence? Well, for one, they're not taking too much of a leap because as with anything as old as the universe, nothing is an irrefutable fact, not even the original singularity. The science allows for meaningful theories, mild conjecture and even wild stabs in the dark. It can all seem confusing, especially when you study theories that diverge from the concept of an initial singularity. Those theories are attempting to go beyond an accepted starting point, so such thinking seems counter-intuitive, like trying to envision your life before your cells formed in the womb."The singularity in space-time," Brown said, "causes humans problems because we want to know what was before that. It's hard to think there was nothing before that."Added David Mattingly, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy at the University of New Hampshire: "The conclusions we draw about the universe are speculative and interesting philosophically. But you have to realize there is no confirmed scientific belief this is the way it all began."Drinking Coffee in Another UniverseWith no universal consensus on the universe, a cold war has started among some cosmologists. As Brown and Mattingly can attest, and as The Atlantic reported, some of the pioneers of the theory of cosmic inflation have continued to flesh out their viewpoint since first publicizing it in the 1980s. But one of those cosmologists, Princeton professor Paul Steinhardt, left the group, much as matter left the initial singularity. In 2017, Steinhardt and other contemporaries argued that inflation can't be considered an empirically scientific theory. Instead, they say inflation could unfold in so many ways that a single observation can't be a gold standard. (To needle those original inflation proponents, Steinhardt and his cohorts said the inflation advocates actually know the error of their ways. The inflation camp got as hot as the sun over that charge.)An idea that popped out of the inflation theory is what drove Steinhardt to leave his inflation friends. That idea holds that we are in one of many universes. The models supporting inflation contend it never really stopped or, for that matter, never really began. Inflation, the thinking goes, is eternal. As The Atlantic explained, while inflation largely stopped in the section of space we can observe, there are areas in the universe where the power of inflation creates another universe with its own physics. There, another pocket forms and you have yet another universe.Tufts University physics professor Alex Vilenkin expounds on the infinite multiverse theory by offering that a replica of a person is on a replica of Earth somewhere else. But there are twists to that theory, as a Stanford Magazine article from 2007 explained in a way that holds true 13 years later: In another universe, you are the same but are speaking a different language. In another universe, you're not a writer but a cancer researcher. In some universes, you're nothing at all because there is nothing at all there.A Field That Keeps Cosmologists BusyRenown theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking had fun with the history of the universe by claiming it's a history unlike any other because it has no start and end dates. There was no Big Bang or even a pre-Big Bang because, Hawking told an audience at the Vatican in 1981, there is no beginning and there will be no end. "There ought to be something very special about the boundary conditions of the universe, and what can be more special than the condition that there is no boundary?"Collaborating with physicist James Hartle, Hawking compared the universe to a shuttlecock. As QuantaMagazine describes: "a shuttlecock has a diameter of zero at its bottommost point and gradually widens on the way up." Like a shuttlecock, "the universe, according to the no-boundary proposal, smoothly expanded from a point of zero size."This "wave function of the universe" encompasses the past, present and future all at once. For those who believe in the divinity of a higher power, Hawking and Hartle's theory squashes any notion of creation, a creator or any transition from a time before.All this speculation keeps Brown and Mattingly enthralled with their work and fuels their and many others' drive to continue looking for answers. "It's cool to think about," Mattingly said. "Does the universe go on forever?"Our expertise in space runs deep. Learn more about the James Webb Space Telescope — the largest, most complex and powerful space telescope ever built.

Big Bang Theory Called Into Question by Cosmologists

In 1961, meteorologist Edward Lorenz, experimenting with computer simulations for weather prediction, made a slight tweak to one of the input variables for a simulation run. As MIT Technology Review recounts, he rounded off a value of 0.506127 to 0.506, restarted the program and stepped out to get a cup of coffee while the simulation ran. When he got back and checked the results, he was startled to find that this tiny change to one input parameter had not just modified the resulting simulated weather, but completely transformed it. His discovery, later dubbed the butterfly effect theory after the nearly imperceptible results of a butterfly flapping its wings, would go on — in the best butterfly-effect manner — to completely transform scientists' understanding of nature by giving rise to chaos theory.  So, what is the butterfly effect exactly? What Is the Butterfly Effect? In the 1960s, scientists' conceptions of how nature worked were still deeply shaped by Sir Isaac Newton's conception of an orderly, essentially predictable universe. As American Scientist reports, the philosopher Pierre-Simon Laplace had argued in the 18th century that if we knew the laws of nature and made sufficiently precise observations, "nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to [our] eyes." Lorenz was not initially concerned with the broad philosophical implications of his unexpected simulation result. For him, a little unpredictability in weather simulation was good news. In previous tests, as MIT Technology Review explains, his simulated weather was too predictable, tending to repeat the same patterns over and over. Real weather, as we know, is full of surprises. To be useful, weather predictions needed to predict the unexpected rain showers, not just the ones obviously coming. In fact, Lorenz's discovery would build the foundation for modern computer weather simulations, which commonly employ an "ensemble" of simulation runs, with slightly varying input conditions, to test the range of likely weather possibilities. Goodbye Seagulls, Hello Butterflies Meanwhile, news of Lorenz's work gradually spread from meteorologists to the broader scientific community. He had originally described what we now call the butterfly effect as "a seagull causing a storm." In 1972, he gave a presentation to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, entitled "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" The change from seagulls to butterflies was suggested by another meteorologist, Philip Merilees. The butterfly effect theory now had a name that perhaps helped it capture the imaginations of both scientists and the public: What could seem more delicate and easy to miss than the flap of a butterfly's wing? Butterflies of Doom?  But there may have been more to butterflies than their image of delicacy. As Gizmodo notes, in 1952, nearly a decade before Lorenz's surprising computer run, science fiction writer Ray Bradbury published a time travel story called "A Sound of Thunder." In the story, a traveler into the dinosaur-era past carelessly steps off a marked trail and crushes a butterfly. When the characters return to the present day, the world has been dreadfully altered by the cascading effects of that butterfly's death. (No source, alas, explicitly tells us whether the theory's name was inspired by Bradbury's story.) Butterflies of Uncertainty Whatever the source of the name, the TV Tropes website explores how popular culture has taken up the butterfly effect theory with enthusiasm, though (not for the first or last time) the pop culture version of the theory is not always exactly what the scientists had in mind. Thus, there is no way to use this information to trigger a vast result from a minute initial action. Instead, chaos theory, aka the butterfly effect theory, shows why we cannot fully predict the future.

The Butterfly Effect Theory and the Limits of Predictability

Key Takeaways  Viruses need hosts for long-term survival. During space flight, humans can transmit viruses to fellow travellers. Immunosupression during prolonged space flight can reactivate dormant viral infection.Viruses are everywhere. Some don't infect humans, while some — such as the common cold — cause minor, irritating symptoms.Others are both contagious and potentially critical. Today, we're facing challenges with respiratory illnesses that spread rapidly and don't easily relent.What if we could get away from it all — far, far away — and slip the surly bonds of Earth to avoid the impact of on-planet pathogens? It's an interesting idea, but what's the prognosis: Can viruses survive in space?Inside/OutThere are actually two questions here: Can viruses survive inside the pressurized, low-gravity environment of the shuttles or stations — and can they survive in the cold and unforgiving darkness outside?The first answer is easy: Absolutely. Astronauts already infected when they blast off into space spread viruses to their fellow fliers, and viruses can easily jump from host to host in the earthlike environment of space shuttles or the International Space Station (ISS).When it comes to viruses outside these constructed confines, the answer gets more complicated. As noted by BBC Science Focus, viruses can't survive for long without viable host; most can live for hours in the air and days on indoor surfaces at room temperatures. And that's under ideal conditions. Even the toughest, nastiest pathogen would find it problematic to stay alive in the freezing dark of space.Viruses inside objects — such as asteroids — may fare better. While they still need hosts to survive long-term, research published in Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews (available through NCBI) indicates that even when these space rocks rip through atmospheres and their outer crusts reach temperatures topping 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, microorganisms located deeper inside these objects could survive.Leaving Earth? Welcome to LockdownIllness in space is undeniably awful. Imagine feeling sick enough to vomit, and then realizing that lacking appreciable gravity, your sudden upchuck will cause the contents of your stomach to go everywhere — up, down, left, right and anywhere else it can reach. Yikes.What's more, there's no easy access to medical technology onboard orbiting vessels. While it's possible to virtually connect with earthbound doctors for medical advice, any serious infectious issues would spread at speed through a closed environment.As noted by Space, several astronauts on the Apollo 7, 8 and 9 missions were sick with colds. The virus quickly spread among the crew, depleted available medical supplies, and caused crew members to forgo wearing protective helmets when re-entering the atmosphere. It makes sense; the pressure pain caused by colds when landing in a plane is bad enough — imagine the change when dropping 62 miles to the Earth's surface at 17,500 miles per hour.To reduce the risk of illness in space, NASA has implemented a mandatory pre-flight quarantine that includes limited, monitored contact with other people. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.Reactivation RisksViruses also pose a unique risk for space travelers: reactivation. As noted by NASA research published in Frontiers in Microbiology, both astronauts on shuttle missions and those on the ISS demonstrated latent herpes virus reactivation. While most of the shed viral DNA was asymptomatic, live and infectious virus shedding was also detected. According to Dr. Satish K. Mehta, one author of the study, spaceflight causes "a rise in the secretion of stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, which are known to change the immune system." As a result, immune cells become less effective during off-Earth missions, and this immunosuppression can persist for up to 60 days after astronauts return home.This makes the idea of escaping Earth to avoid problematic pathogens less-than-ideal: Even if you're not showing symptoms, existing viruses you've already endured could make a reappearance as your immune system struggles to adapt.Just Say NaNOThankfully, it's not all bad news. Recent advances in nanotechnology show promise to help mitigate the impact and control the spread of viruses. Work from the Potsdamn Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, and the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science shows that with the right approach, flexible nanotech compounds can help reduce the efficacy of infection by up to 90%.Further development of this technology could help boost disease defenses by bridging the gap between regular immune functioning and the stressed-out systems of astronauts rocketing their way into outer space.Spaced OutCan viruses survive in space? The prognosis: Yes and no.Outside the confines of the ISS or shuttle, even the most resilient respiratory illnesses will have a tough time, but inside pressurized metal transports there's a different story. Astronauts can easily bring colds or flu from home — and infect fellow crew mates — while seemingly long-dead diseases can reemerge as immune systems struggle with the stress of space-based living.Bottom line? Space is no virus vacation. While you're probably protected from alien pathogens, what you're already packing could make an outer space adventure very, very uncomfortable.Our pioneering spirit is backed by a legacy of expertise that began at the dawn of the space age. Learn more about Northrop Grumman programs for human space flight and logistics.

Can Viruses Survive in Space? The Pathogen Particle Prognosis

Quantum mechanics is quantitatively strange, describing probability-based phenomena across a host of atomic processes. This atypical action is typically odd at small scales, but there's an exception: superfluid. This macro-scale manifestation comes with unique properties and massive scientific potential.       The Fundamentals       The concept of superfluidity was first explored by Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen and Don Misener in two 1938 papers. As noted by Nature, the trio discovered that when liquid helium-4 was cooled below its "lambda point" of 2.17 kelvins (K), the typically colorless liquid known as He-I became He-II — a liquid with no friction, no viscosity and the ability to "creep" up the sides of any holding container.       What was going on? The explanation rests with Bose-Einstein condensate, which Scientific American defines as a process "in which individual particles overlap until they behave like one big particle." Under the right conditions fundamental particles known as bosons can "condense" and begin acting in unison rather than exhibiting the typical randomness associated with particulate probabilities. Helium-4 atoms are composite bosons made up of six fermions — two protons, two neutrons and two electrons — and subject to this condensed state under super-cooled conditions.       Worth noting? The absent friction is analogous to superconductivity; as noted by Nobel Prize-winning physics professor Anthony Leggett, "according to our modern understanding, superconductivity is nothing more than superfluidity occurring in an electrically charged system." Just as superfluid liquid can flow seemingly forever without friction, an electric current can do the same in superconductor systems, potentially continuing "for a time much longer than the age of the universe."       Second Sounds and Strange Stars       Frictionless fluidity across a non-viscous volume is only the first of condensed helium's superpowers. Along with the ability to creep upward along any surface and escape through microscopic cracks, this ultra-cold element also displays:         Quantum Critical Velocity: As noted by the New World Encyclopedia, if superfluid is placed in a rotating chamber, it remains perfectly stable until reaching critical angular velocity. It then begins to rotate in quantized vortices — unlike normal liquids, it doesn't rotate uniformly and can only spin at specific rates. If more speed is added, more vortices will form.  Mega Thermal Conductivity: No other substance can currently match He-II's thermal conductivity, which is 1 million times greater than He-1. Why? Second sound. This phenomena occurs when heat moves like a wave — similar to the propagation of sound through air — rather than via diffusion.        Although helium-4 is the most common superfluid, it's possible to coax helium-3 into the same state. New research also suggests that other elements could be super-cooled to create a fermionic condensate with superfluidic properties. With the search for new chemical elements and the so-called "island of stability," there's plenty of room an entire league of super-powered subatomic standouts.       There's also strong evidence that pulsars — rapidly-spinning neutron stars — are made of spinning superfluids surrounded by two crustal layers. Repeated detection of rotational anomalies in these pulsars suggests that some of the superfluid core may occasionally move outward and strike the outer crust, causing a temporary speed increase. Other inner-core superfluid then catches this outlier and reduces rotation to normal values.       Turning Up the Heat       Beyond their unique properties, there is also offer some practical potential.       In chemistry, helium-4 is being used as a quantum solvent for Superfluid Helium Droplet Spectroscopy (SHeDS). Single molecules placed in He-II solvents exhibit their gas-phase characteristics, allowing more precise observation and measurement of molecular properties.       Researchers from Cornell University are also working on a long-held scientific goal: high-temperature superfluidity. The term "high" is relative to the starting state superfluids, many of which hover around 1 K (or -457.87 F). By using an exciton — an electron paired with an electron "hole," which is the absence of an electron where one could exist in atomic lattice, causing a net positive charge — the Cornell-led team was able to raise minimum condensation temperature from just above absolute zero to 100 K, or -279.67 F.       While this is a far cry from room-temperature superfluidity, postdoctoral researcher Zefang Wang notes that "the realization of an exciton condensate at much higher temperature than earlier studies provides an exciting opportunity to explore this quantum phase of matter at significantly less stringent experimental conditions." In practice, more stable quantum states comprised of condensed excitons could be used to create new lighting technologies that are both brighter and more efficient than current LEDs.       Smooth Operator       At super-low temperatures, helium-4 isotopes exhibit unique fluidic properties. Lacking friction and viscosity, these smooth superfluids have changed our understanding of superconductor mechanics, paved the way for improved stellar science and are expanding the potential for room-temperature quantum technologies.    

It's Absurd, It's Insane, It's ... Superfluid!

Key Takeaways  Teleportation is possible, but it's complicated. The speed of teleportation is limited by the speed of light. Scientists have been able to teleport particles on the subatomic level through quantum entanglement.As we watch shows like Star Trek and marvel at the transporter, which teleports people across long distances and even between planets, it's natural to wonder: Is teleportation possible?The short answer is yes, technically, but the process is incredibly complicated, and it may not take the form of what we see in science fiction, especially with regard to teleporting humans.Let's explore what is currently known about the science of teleportation, and whether humans might one day be able to travel using this wonder of physics.Why Is Teleportation Difficult To Achieve?Science fiction might make teleportation look easy, but that much is certainly fiction. True teleportation would need to happen instantaneously — the second a person dematerialized, they would immediately appear at their destination. The problem with this is simple: According to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which means disappearing from one place and reappearing in a flash somewhere else simply isn't possible.But what about the next best thing? If we can't send an actual person at the speed of light, can we at least send their information, effectively teleporting their biological makeup somewhere else?To do this, a system would first have to scan the location of each atom in a person's body and note what kind of atom it is. That information would then have to be transmitted from the location where the scan happens (presumably the departure location) to the receiving location almost instantaneously. Finally, the system at the receiving location would have to interpret that information and reassemble those atoms. Photons travel at the speed of light, so this could work. However, the idea of such a method poses some larger questions of ethics that would also need to be addressed.The Problem with Human TeleportationThere is one overarching philosophical question that could complicate human teleportation: If all that transmits from one place to another is a person's information, not their actual atoms, does that mean the human at the destination is the same person who was dematerialized at the starting point? Does the original person cease to exist, only to be replaced on the receiving end by a perfect replica of the original human? Has the teleported person effectively died? It's important to consider whether any proposed method of teleporting humans would actually involve killing and then recreating the traveler, as many people would likely take issue with such an approach.Another problem with teleportation relates to quantum theory. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that we can't know everything about an atom and also pinpoint exactly where it will be, and we would need to do both to recreate the exact same person on the other end of the teleporter.The Promise of Subatomic TeleportationSo is teleportation possible at all? Yes. Scientists have been able to achieve teleportation of a single particle.In recent years, scientists and researchers have been able to teleport particles on the subatomic level through quantum entanglement, which occurs when the properties of one quantum particle affect another particle that's located somewhere else. This is enabled by a third particle that "instantly 'teleports' its state to the two entangled particles," according to the National Science Foundation. If you are a fan of Mass Effect, the long-distance Quantum Entanglement Communicator from the second and third games in the trilogy work in precisely this way.We still have much to learn about the potential of teleportation, and quantum entanglement could revolutionize how we approach quantum computing. However, the fact that scientists have been able to teleport subatomic particles doesn't mean human teleportation is a possibility. There's no actual information being transported in this case, just observation of the state of these linked particles. Many scientists believe we may never be able to teleport a human, as it would likely require too much information that would be impossible to obtain and replicate with exactness. For now, it seems human teleportation will remain a matter of science fiction, not science fact.Discover how Northrop Grumman teams are constantly questioning, problem-solving and creating new ways to tackle seemingly impossible challenges.

Teleporting Humans: Science Fiction or Fact?

 In the late 1960s, up-and-coming New Jersey painter Phil Weisgerber ventured out to southern California in his twenties and landed a job within one of the U.S. government's most sensitive and closely guarded industries. Over the next 40-plus years, he would go on to become one of the most influential and well-respected conceptual artists in Northrop Grumman's history. In October of last year, I had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Weisgerber in his studio and discuss his colorful life and career. Following is a transcript of my interview with this talented artist.
 Adam: Today is October 31, 2016, and I'm sitting in Phil Weisgerber's home in Redondo Beach, California. So Phil, I'm just going to start at the beginning and walk through your life and career essentially. There are no wrong answers.
 Phil: Good. I don't want to fail a test or anything.
 Adam: I read that you grew up in New Jersey. What was that like?
 Phil: I always thought I was going to live there. I love New Jersey. I go back there for three or four months every year. Most of my family is there and my girlfriend Maria lives there. I just like the smell of it. I grew up in a wilderness area known as the ""Great Swamp."" I worked for hunt clubs and as a guide out in the swamp until I was about 20 and moved to California.
 Adam: I imagine the surrounding beauty influenced a lot of your work.
 Phil: Most of the landscapes that you see around us are paintings of the swamps. I paint them for myself but I sell them as well. I tend to paint what I want and not care if anybody buys them or not. They sell eventually.
 Adam: You attended the National Academy School of Fine Arts and Design in New York City. Was it a difficult transition to go there from such a wide-open space?
 Phil: I stayed in New Jersey because I was only 25 miles from New York. I would take the train in every morning. But yes, I loved walking around in the city before or after class. I had no idea what I was going to do. I had these scholarships from high school so I figured I might as well use them to attend the National Academy.
 Adam: Do you have any favorite artists or people you draw inspiration from?
 Phil: I studied Rembrandt for so long and I always liked his style. Even though satellites and landscapes don't look like Rembrandt, I'm always thinking of Rembrandt. When I was at the National Academy, this one instructor (who looked like he could have known Rembrandt) said that he studied under Rembrandt. The Metropolitan had a huge collection of Rembrandt paintings so I would do just like he said and go down and study the Rembrandts. It was only walking distance. I had special access so I could go down to the basements and the vaults and look at things that weren't on display.
 Adam: What was your motivation to move to Los Angeles?
 Phil: It was actually an art teacher in high school who prompted me to apply to the Art Center School in Los Angeles. In the National Academy, all you really did was nudes: figure painting in the morning and figure drawing in the afternoon. The instructors were world famous. I had no idea what I wanted to do but my high school teacher said, ""I want you to go to California and go to school at Art Center,"" and I didn't even know what for. But I did come out and was accepted.
 
 Photo by Alex Evers, Northrop Grumman
 Adam: After Art Center, what led you into aerospace and defense?
 Phil: I think it was because it was the first place that hired me. I called major companies in Southern California that might have an art department. I was ready to go back to New Jersey but needed money to get back there. A guy at Purolator was going to hire me in Thousand Oaks but I never got a degree from Art Center, only a Certificate of Completion. I could have gotten the degree if I'd taken two more classes but the head of the department said, ""You don't really need the degree. Your work will speak for itself."" So, after I filled out the paperwork at Purolator, the receptionist said, ""You didn't put down your degree."" I said, ""I don't have one."" She threw my application in the trash and said, ""We don't hire anyone without a degree."" I called TRW [Thompson Ramo Wooldridge — the space branch of which was purchased by Northrop Grumman for $7.8 billion in 2002] and they asked me to come in, but then the art director from Purolator called me and asked why I didn't show up for my interview. I said, ""I don't have a degree."" And he said, ""You went to Art Center, right?"" And I said, ""Yeah."" And he said, ""Well, I'd have hired you anyway. You didn't need a degree. "" Well, I didn't know that at the time. I was 24 years old and didn't know how the work world worked.
 Adam: So describe what it was like to go from Art Center to working at a massive aerospace corporation.
 Phil: When I started at TRW, I was in the Presentation Art Department and did speedball lettering for four or five years, which I had never done before.
 Adam: Can you describe that process a bit?
 Phil: We would produce these 30 by 40-inch flip charts with India ink and speedball pens. They would use these for presentations. We also did pastel work. If there were illustrations on the charts, we always did them in pastels. I won an award for one of those pastels back in 1969. There were five or so established artists at TRW and they did all the color work. Anything painted was usually done by John Desatoff or Frank Warren and a few others. It wasn't until about 1980, when everybody was so busy that somebody came to me and asked if I could do a satellite painting. I did it in three days and it was very well received. That got my foot in the door and afterward I produced most of the color illustrations. And then my work won some international awards and garnered attention from TRW and customers.
 Adam: Can you describe the creative process of how you would work with the customer to come up with a painting?
 Phil: A lot of them started as conceptual drawings. Some of the products had no plans, no blueprints, and we'd draw them up; others had engineering drawings. I would do a lot of roughs and that was the fun part — the conceptual drawings and paintings. Sometimes I would do up to 10 or 15 of them with different varieties of painting to choose from.
 Adam: So would you establish which rough to start from and then bring it back to your studio and start painting?
 Phil: I never did oil at TRW. Everything was done in gouache which is an opaque watercolor. Once a rough was done and approved, I'd refine the rough a little bit or give them a transitional painting. When that was approved, I would paint the finish. The fun part was doing the roughs and solving a problem. A lot of them were a challenge to show what the customer wanted to show. Often the roughs were more dynamic because you could splash a highlight that was bigger than the subject on it and make it look really good.
 Adam: Do any of the paintings really jump out at you as favorites?
 Phil: Yes. Actually, when President Reagan was in office, I liked a lot of the Star Wars program art. There were all these Brilliant Pebbles and autonomous things flying around in space. It was fun figuring out a lot of them because often you had to go back to the engineers and find out what the orbits were and how high they were to make the pictures right. There were other ones that were fun. I ended up doing a lot of these long pieces that just evolve from one thing into another. Such as this timeline that starts with the Big Bang and ends with AXAF.
 Adam: And what is the size of that one, for our readers?
 Phil: It's about 60 inches by 8 inches.
 Adam: It's gorgeous.
 Phil: A lot of these have gone through transitions. Sometimes over a 10-year period, I would work on that same piece of art. Instead of doing a new one each time, I would take out the old one and wipe part of it off. That's one thing about gouache — you can just wipe off what's on there with a wet cloth and have a clean board to work over. It would save the company a lot of money and me a lot of time. The gouache was the worst media I had ever seen when I was going to art school. Depending on how you used it, it could dry lighter or darker and it would never dry the same color. It took so many years but after working with it for forty years at TRW, it became the easiest paint to use. You could mix your colors up and it would look like it was three values different and you'd put it down and it would dry right up to the same color. I felt really proud of that — that something I hated so much at school turned into my favorite medium.
 Adam: Your work has been featured at Northrop Grumman, NASA, the Pentagon and Smithsonian, among others. You've been covered in Popular Science, Global Defense Review, Aviation Weekly. Even Steven Spielberg owns some of your work. Are there any specific milestones that stand out to you as career accomplishments, or experiences that are particularly memorable?
 Phil: The company travel was fun. I also traveled with the Air Force to the Middle East and Europe as a member of the Air Force art program. One time in Iraq, I remember I was walking to go see the Temple of Ur and a guy telling me, ""Remember to stay on the tank tracks."" I asked, ""Why?"" And he said, ""Because there's live ordnances out there."" I said, ""Yeah, I don't need to see the temple that bad."" It was an experience just seeing a whole other part of life — the way they live in that region.
 
 Photo by Alex Evers, Northrop Grumman
 Adam: Tell me about your relationship with the company's customers. What was it like for a free-spirit artist working for the military?
 Phil: The Air Force would fly you to AF bases all over the country and they'd treat you real nice. My part was to paint something for the Air Force that showed their impact around the world. Over the years I've painted a guy releasing a weather balloon ... another one was a moose up in Alaska. And I would paint missiles, launch facilities, satellites and space paintings.
 The Air Force had a lot to do with the space program. When I was in England at Lakenheath Air Force Base, I did a painting of a distant F-15 at the top with all these flowers in the foreground. The painting, which was called ""End of Runway Lakenheath,"" went over well.
 Even with TRW, I'd go up to Vandenberg to do research for when they were building SLC-6 for the shuttle launches. I was out with this guy and I kept telling him to stop the car because I wanted to take pictures of the flowers. After about the third stop he said, ""You seem more interested in the flowers then the buildings we're going to."" And I said, ""To tell you the truth, I am."" So he said, ""Well, let me go get the four-wheel drive."" He came back with the four-wheel drive and we spent the rest of the afternoon riding all over Vandenberg taking pictures of landscapes. I said, ""I really like this."" He said, ""If you ever want to come up again, call me."" And I used to go up and see him and we'd just go out for rides all over the place and shoot the landscape.
 Adam: It's not just the aerospace industry that appreciated your talent. Tell me how Steven Spielberg ended up with one of your works?
 Phil: It was a gift from a man that I was doing some freelance for, who happened to know Steven Spielberg really well. He bought one of my prints to take to a dinner party at Norman Lear's house to give to Spielberg as a gift. I understand Spielberg actually liked my version of E.T. hugging the Earth and said it was one of his favorite versions of E.T. And that's how Spielberg ended up with my work.
 Adam: Well, you've accomplished so much over your amazing career, but are there any dream projects that remain to be done?
 Phil: I guess my dream project would be to have the incentive to do any of the ones that are already in my head. I have reference pieces that I shoot all over the country when I'm out, and I'd like to do a lot more paintings. I still like painting the swamps; it's still one of my favorite subjects.
 Phil Weisgerber passed away peacefully in his home on January 13, 2017, surrounded by family. His legacy includes four children, three grandchildren, and his art.

From New Jersey Swamps to Top Secret Satellites: An Appreciation of the Life and Work of Phil Weisgerber

Key Takeaways  NASA martian rover missions have found opals on ancient lake beds. Opals, which form in the presence of silica and water, have been found in fracture halos widespread across the Mars survey areas. Abundance could indicate stores of water on Mars.For more than a decade, NASA's Curiosity rover has been exploring Mars, analyzing the surface of Gale Crater, where a lake once existed in the early days of Mars. Recent study of both new and old Curiosity images has revealed signs that, long after the lake itself dried up, enough underground water remained in the former lakebed to form the semiprecious gemstone opalAn opal gemstone found on Mars evokes classic science fiction images of grizzled Martian prospectors searching for mother lodes and fending off claim jumpers. While people may one day wear jewelry from Mars, the current excitement isn't about bling; as Space.com reports, it could be a sign of a substance on Mars that's even more precious than opal gemstones: water.The first hints of opal gemstones on Mars, according to Metal Tech News, were detected as early as 2008 by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, but these early detections from space gave no hints of the concentration level of "opal-like minerals" that might be found on Mars.Observing a Network of Fracture HalosThe Curiosity rover has provided much closer views of a type of feature called a fracture halo: an area of lighter-colored material surrounding fractures in a rock surface. The lighter coloring of the halo is the sheen of opal, essentially the same sheen that makes opal a semiprecious stone.As fracture halos continued to turn up in the images sent back from Curiosity, it became clear to mission scientists that not only was gemstone discovered on Mars, but these fractures were also widespread on the planet. A search back through the archive of images already taken by Curiosity showed even more.Says researcher Travis Gabriel, per Interesting Engineering, "Our new analysis of archival data showed striking similarity between all of the fracture halos we've observed much later in the mission. Seeing that these fracture networks were so widespread and likely chock-full of opal was incredible."Seeing Through Rock With NeutronsWhile most of Curiosity's instruments, like its cameras, were intended for investigation of the immediate surface, it carries one instrument that could be used to "see" down into the subsurface fractures that the halos surround. This instrument, called Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons (DAN), measures the speed of neutrons that are kicked off the surface of Mars by high-energy cosmic rays from space. The DAN readings, according to Live Science, have shown that some of the neutrons detected have been slowed down by interacting with hydrogen atoms — a telltale sign of the presence of water.Opal gemstones are formed by a solution of silica and water; on Earth, this formation process can take place in hot springs or on the seabed. Today, the open surface of Mars, which is nearly unprotected by its thin atmosphere, is fiercely hostile to life, bombarded by the same radiation that kicks loose the neutrons detected by DAN. This has been the case throughout the "modern" era of Mars, which extends back some 2.9 billion years. But even a slight distance underground — for example, in a rock fracture — conditions would have been far more benign. If enough water remained in the fractures to form opals, even millions of years after the lake above had evaporated, life may also have persisted there.The Implications of Finding Water on MarsOpal gemstones, and the water that helped to form them, have breathtaking implications for the ongoing search for life on Mars. Some of the effects will be almost immediate. Even as Curiosity continues exploring Gale Crater, another NASA Mars rover, Perseverance, is currently exploring another crater that was an ancient lakebed: Jezero Crater. Its mission is now being adjusted to look for signs of fracture halos and opals in Jezero Crater.Looking forward, the widespread presence of opal found on Mars could provide a boon for future missions, in addition to being a research objective. The reason is that, in spite of being a gemstone, opal is technically not quite a "mineral." It does not have a rigid crystal structure, and with proper processing, some of the water in it can be recovered. According to EarthSky, researchers estimate that a single square meter of fracture halo material, down to a depth of one foot, could contain a gallon and a half of recoverable water.The polar regions of Mars were already known to be rich in water ice, while Gale Crater is near the Martian equator. If recoverable subsurface water is widely available in equatorial regions of Mars, it could be a boon for astronauts during future long-term missions to Mars. This, in turn, could bring us another step closer to wearing bling from Mars.Learn how Northrop Grumman innovation is driving space exploration and discovery.

Opal Gemstone Found on Mars: Another Sign of Martian Water

Key Takeaways  Parapsychology, the study of psychic powers and other extrasensory phenomena, began in the 1930s. Research has failed to prove the ability to influence objects (telekinesis) or people (psychokinesis) by the power of the mind. Although mind power may be not proven, new technologies offer a way for human minds to connect with and control the world around us.Are psychic abilities the next step on humans' evolutionary path? Brain research says this is an unlikely outcome.But it's not all bad news. Emerging technologies may pave the way for human telekinetic abilities, which — surprisingly — are different than their close cousins, psychokinetic powers. Here's a look at how these two techniques differ, what parapsychology has to say about human potential and how tech could make these powers possible.Mind Over MatterWhat is the difference between psychokinesis and telekinesis? For starters, both rely on the power of your mind to control the world around you. Where they differ, however, is in what exactly you're controlling. Put simply, in the case of psychokinesis, your powers influence someone's mind to take action. With telekinesis, you have the ability to manipulate objects directly.Here's an example to highlight the difference:It's been a long day, and you finally sit down on the couch to relax with your partner and watch some TV. The show you're watching ends, but you don't want to watch what's showing next — and wouldn't you know it, the remote is out of reach on the far side of your coffee table. Sure, you could get up, walk all the way over there, get the remote and walk back. Or, you could use your powers.If you've got psychokinesis, you introduce a small suggestion into your partner's mind: They should get the remote. And while they're at it, they may as well grab a snack.If you've got telekinesis, your power lets you directly manipulate the remote, levitating it off the table and into your hand. Then, you open the cupboard, bring out a bowl, fill it with snacks and gently float it over to the couch. In both cases, the outcome is the same, but the mental mechanism differs.A Parapsychology PrimerParapsychology is the study of psychic powers and other extrasensory phenomena, according to Psychology Today. Efforts to scientifically assess the human capacity for psychic powers began in the 1930s at Duke University with Joseph Banks Rhine. Along with his colleagues, Rhine conducted experiments with card-guessing and dice-rolling to see if it was possible for people to predict outcomes in advance.Common areas of study of parapsychologists include precognition (seeing the future), telepathy (communicating mind-to-mind) and clairvoyance (the ability to perceive things happening in distant locations), along with telekinesis and psychokinesis.Despite nearly a century of study, however, parapsychologists remain largely empty-handed when it comes to evidence. According to Psychology Today, some studies, such as Daryl Bem's experiments with word recall, suggested that people could "feel the future," but subsequent research could not replicate the results. This is a consistent problem for the discipline. Although one-off experiments often show promising data, repeated trials under the same conditions don't produce the same outcomes.Work on both telekinesis and psychokinesis has delivered similarly underwhelming results. While body language and emotional intelligence can help humans influence the minds of other humans nearby, this fits firmly into regular psychology rather than parapsychology. When it comes to moving objects with our minds, meanwhile, supposed magicians such as Uri Geller spent decades trying to convince audiences he could bend spoons with his mind. Spoiler alert: He could not.A piece from Medium points out that our thoughts themselves can be considered telekinetic in that the activation of neurons causes them to move. Since these neurons have mass, they affect other pieces of matter in your brain, meaning you've effectively "moved" something with your mind.Telekinesis Goes TechWhile there's no evidence for para-powered telekinesis, technology offers a way to make the dream of moving things with our minds a reality. Known as brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), Scientific American explains that this tech relies on grids of electrodes implanted into the brain's cortex. These electrodes record the behavior of neurons as they fire and then translate this neuron behavior into thoughts and actions.This isn't just speculation: BCIs allow patients to interact with software applications or move prosthetic devices. New research from Caltech shows that advanced BCIs can predict a patient's internal monologue — the things we think but don't say — with a high degree of accuracy, which could help develop devices that let non-vocal patients speak.It's worth noting that BCIs are a work in progress. Consider that, currently, accurate BCI readings rely on cutting a portion of the skull to implant electrodes. Efforts are underway, however, to produce non-invasive alternatives capable of collecting brain data through layered materials, such as skin and hair. There are also concerns about the impact of BCI development on humankind at scale. While existing frameworks are highly specialized and training algorithm models take years, mass-produced alternatives could make limited telekinesis an option for almost anyone.In an article for The Conversation, philosophers John Kendall Hawkins and Sandy Boucher of the University of New England discuss the emergence of the "technological singularity," which sees AI technology and humans irrevocably intertwined. They contend that BCIs could be the first step on the road to this singularity — and that there's no going back.To sum up: While there's no evidence for latent psychic abilities that empower psycho- or telekinesis, new technologies may offer a way for human minds to connect with and control the world around us.Industry 4.0 gives the ability to interact with data and designs by extending a person's reality to interact in a completely immersive virtual environment. Learn how engineers can now examine designs in a virtual environment much earlier in the design life cycle.

What Is the Difference Between Psychokinesis and Telekinesis?

Key Takeaways

    Big Bang and Inflation Theory explain how our universe began and how parallel 'bubble' universes could exist.
    String Theory smooths out some of the mathematical inconsistencies of Big Bang and Inflation, setting up the possibility of four types of parallel universe.
    Looking at all possible combinations mathematically explains how likely it is for identical universes to exist.

The Start of Our Universe: Inflation Theory and the Big Bang Theory
Our universe most likely started with a Big Bang, a theory that was first proposed in 1931 and is now widely accepted by the scientific community thanks to strong evidence that's since been discovered supporting it. However, there were some aspects of the Big Bang that could not be explained until inflation theory was introduced in the 1980s, according to NASA.
Inflation theory explains what happened in the tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang. More than 13.8 billion years ago, everything that we know was a tiny, subatomic speck. Then, the speck inflated faster than the speed of light in all directions. As inflation slowed, a flood of matter and radiation appeared, creating the Big Bang fireball that allowed for the formation of atoms and molecules and, eventually, stars and galaxies pulled together by gravity.
During cosmic inflation, the universe was filled with energy inherent to space itself, as Big Think explains. This allowed the universe to expand at an exponential rate, with more distant locations moving ever more quickly away. Our observations of the observable universe are consistent with this theory of inflation.
The end of inflation is triggered by quantum processes that occur at different times in different places. The regions where inflation ends are thought to pinch off to form a bubble universe. The bubble universe experiences a similar Big Bang and may form a universe like ours. It could also form a universe with entirely different particles and different laws of physics.
All bubble universes — including our own — continue to grow and are thought to remain separated from other bubble universes because of the space created by continuing inflation. This means no two bubble universes will ever interact or collide, and it's possible that inflation is still continuing somewhere in the multiverse.
How Does String Theory Fit In?
Another key aspect of parallel universe theories comes from string theory, which is currently the best option for smoothing out the mathematical inconsistencies that arise when Albert Einstein's theory of relativity (to explain big things) is combined with quantum mechanics (to explain small things). String theory attempts to explain the entire universe — from subatomic particles to the laws of speed and gravity — in terms of really small strings that vibrate in 10 or 11 dimensions.
String theory allows different bubble universes to have vastly different physical properties, including different types of matter and different laws of physics. When combined with inflation theory, which allows for an unlimited number of bubbles, it provides an explanation for why our universe is so exquisitely well-suited for life. Essentially, we got lucky and ended up in the right universe out of a near-infinite number of possibilities.
Breaking Down the Four Types of Parallel Universe Theories
Physicists are considering four basic types of parallel universes, as Professor Max Tegmark of MIT explains:

    Level 1: This type of parallel universe assumes that space is infinite and that the laws of physics always remain the same. Somewhere in this infinite space, there are other planets, solar systems and even galaxies similar to ours because there is a limited number of ways the same building blocks can arrange themselves. Our "universe" is defined as what humans can currently observe, while any parallel universe would statistically be a great distance away. This parallel universe theory is largely uncontroversial among scientists since many observations and well-supported theories suggest a universe that is immensely large, and perhaps truly infinite.
    Level 2: This type of parallel universe would allow for regions of space where the basic laws of physics are the same but where there may be different physical constants, different particles and even a different number of dimensions. These universes would arise when cosmic inflation produces different bubble universes.
    Level 3: This type of parallel universe is commonly seen in movies and books, where an alternate universe arises from a change that is small (e.g., stopping to pet a dog) or large (e.g., taking a job in a different state). The underlying scientific theory arises from an interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is a mathematical description of subatomic particles. Specifically, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics states that, for every possible quantum option, there is a universe where that option is realized (e.g., leading to one world where you stop to pet a dog and another world where you do not).
    Level 4: This type of parallel universe is the most extreme of all, where other universes are governed by completely different physical laws that would be described by completely different mathematical equations. It combines the bubble universes predicted by inflation theory with the vastly different physical properties allowed by string theory.

What Are the Chances of Another You?
The observable universe contains an estimated 1090 particles, including protons and neutrinos. The interactions among these 1090 particles over the past 13.8 billion years (since the Big Bang) have led to you and all of your life experiences.
The odds of there being another "you" in a parallel universe have been calculated by determining the likelihood of 1090 particles having the exact same interactions over the course of 13.8 billion years. The estimated number of possible outcomes was (1090)!, which works out to a 2,477-digit number. In contrast, the number of universes created through exponential inflation over the same 13.8 billion years was estimated to be 1050, which is only a 51-digit number.
In essence, this means that, since the number of possible outcomes from interacting particles increases faster than the number of possible universes arising from inflation, there is likely no parallel universe identical to our own.
While it can be entertaining to imagine what would have happened if you had taken the other job or if you'd caught a different flight, for example, it's perhaps more important to remember that we will face similar decisions today and every day in the future. Let's make the most of this exceptional universe.
Although a parallel universe with another you likely doesn't exist, the hunt for Earth-like planets continues; learn how Northrop Grumman is accelerating the hunt for exoplanets with Starshade.


Parallel Universe Theory: What Are the Chances of Another You?

The Rydberg sensor is a technology rooted in the fundamental structure of nature on the smallest scales that points to a complete revolution in the detection of radio waves. And it may be coming soon to that cell phone in your hand.
The current cell phone radio frequency network is an engineering marvel that most of us never think twice (or even once) about — except when a call gets dropped and we find ourselves talking into dead air. The engineers who designed and operate the cellular network work very hard to maintain it, but let's take a look at this new technology and how it may change cell service forever.
Switching Heavy Traffic
As outlined by UCSB, a cellular handset (aka your phone) contains a compact, low-powered two-way radio, with sufficient range to connect to a nearby "base station" mounted on a cellular tower. The base station, in turn, uses higher-powered long-range equipment to connect to broader regional and global networks.
The whole point of this system is to enable users to move around freely, including moving from one base station's reception area to another's. According to Dr. Sid Ghosh of Northrop Grumman, the normal sequence of operations when making a phone call on the move is as follows:

    You make a call and your phone connects to and communicates with the nearest cell tower.
    If you move, you step out of the range of the first tower.
    Your phone seamlessly connects to another nearby tower.
    You continue your call completely unaware that this just happened.

All of this works impressively well, says Ghosh, and a call being dropped during handoff is "quite rare." But mobility does put challenging demands on cell phone radio frequency technology. "When you are driving or on a train," explains Ghosh, "the handovers tend to get tricky since the user may not be optimally located for cell tower coverage."
Even if dropped calls are rare, multiply the basic technology challenge by the number of calls being made, and the problem of dropped calls and generally poor cell phone reception becomes serious — especially when it's your call that gets dropped or garbled.
The Antenna Fiddling Challenge
A key component of any radio frequency detector is the antenna that picks up the signal. This is, in principle, simply a length of wire. If the wire is the right length and oriented in the right direction, the electric field of passing radio waves will trigger an electric current in the wire, which can be detected and amplified.
This has been the principle of every standard radio receiver since, as noted by the AAAS, Heinrich Hertz first demonstrated and reported on the existence of radio waves in 1889. But it is not ideal for rapid and frequent handoffs from one cell phone radio frequency base station to the next. The thing about antennas is that their ability to pick up a signal depends on the antenna's physical size and geometry, which need to be adjusted to pick up a signal well.
Anyone who's moved a radio around to improve reception or fiddled with old-fashioned TV rabbit ears will appreciate that this can be tricky. But as Ghosh explains, quantum physics now provides an entirely different way of detecting radio waves that can revolutionize cell phone reception.
Giant Atoms and a Tiny Detector
Under the right circumstances and hit with the right frequency of laser light, atoms of rare alkaline metals, such as cesium and rubidium, can swell up enormously to a diameter of about 1/25,000 of an inch — still submicroscopic but about 10,000 times the size of ordinary atoms.
This atomic bloat is an effect of quantum mechanics. The atomic nucleus is unchanged, but the orbits of its outermost electrons are "pumped up" by the laser and pushed outward to the atom's far outer envelope, where they are only tenuously bound to the nucleus. This loose binding makes these outer electrons extremely sensitive to electric fields, such as those produced by radio waves.
In effect, the radio signal's fluctuating signal "jiggles" the loosely bound outer electrons, producing changes in the optical spectrum of the Rydberg atoms, and an optical sensor can detect these spectrum changes. It adds up to a nifty physics bank shot: radio waves jiggle the outer electrons of Rydberg atoms, producing spectrum changes in the (vastly shorter wavelength) optical band.
Moving Beyond the Antenna
What makes this one weird physics trick so important to radio technology is that — unlike any conventional radio antenna — Rydberg atoms do not need to be arranged in a particular length or pointing in a particular direction to pick up a signal. The only thing that needs to be adjusted is the frequency of laser light used to pump up the Rydberg atoms. This property drew the particular interest of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), most famous for having developed the internet.
Changing a laser frequency is a much faster and simpler process than physically adjusting the size and orientation of an antenna, particularly when the receiver is on the move and must continually switch frequency as it passes from base station to base station. Size also matters when it comes to mobile radio devices. Conventional antennas need to be proportionate in size to the radio waves they are intended to detect — a major constraint on the available radio frequency spectrum when it comes to devices, like cell phones, that must be physically compact.
In contrast, explains Ghosh, "Rydberg atoms can act as electrically small antennas and detect the modulation of a carrier wave. They can detect and demodulate AM, FM and phase modulation over a broad range of carrier frequencies, making them a promising platform for advanced communication receivers."
Moreover, he adds, "the Rydberg receiver is frequency agnostic over a wide range of operating frequencies, and thus, the size of a Rydberg receiver does not need to scale with operating frequency to maintain optimal performance." The current standard for Rydberg sensor elements, notes Ghosh, is that the sensor must fit inside one cubic centimeter. This is far more compact than most conventional antennas.
The Future of Rydberg Sensors
The Rydberg sensor technology is currently still in its research and development stage in the Quantum Apertures program. But as Ghosh outlines, the gas cell technology for producing Rydberg atoms is maturing rapidly, while similar rapid development is taking place in "adjacent peripheral technology development … in the commercial optical communication domain that's helping move the concept of a Rydberg receiver toward a viable product that can operate over a wide range of frequencies in various application scenarios."
As reported by EE Times, the wide scope of capabilities offered by Rydberg sensor technology has drawn the interest of NASA as well as DARPA, pointing toward space-based as well as ground-based applications. The possible range of applications is enormous, but few are more ubiquitous than the cell phone network, which makes it likely that people will soon be holding Rydberg sensor technology in their hands. But with improved reliability and performance, they'll probably spend even less time thinking about the technological marvel they're holding than they do now.
 
Are you interested in all things related to technology? We are, too. Learn more about life at Northrop Grumman, and check out our career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology and engineering. 

Transforming Cell Phone Radio Frequency

Today, we know that the universe is mostly made of hydrogen and helium. However, the person who discovered what stars are made of, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, never got the accolades she deserved.  So, who was this unsung hero of astronomy?  Who Was Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin? Cecilia Helena Payne was born in Wendover, England, on May 10, 1900. She was always interested in science from a young age, but she grew up in a time and place that didn't allow women to become scientists. According to ScienceNews, when she was a teenager, school administrators told her to leave because they couldn't meet her math and science needs.  Next, she attended the University of Cambridge, where she attempted to study physics and astronomy, but the university didn't encourage her talents, nor did it award her a degree for completing her studies.  Cecilia went to the United States to round out her academic career, and in 1925 she became the first person to earn a Ph.D. in astronomy from Radcliffe College, a women's college that is now part of Harvard University. According to her obituary in Harvard's archives, the prominent astronomer Otto Struve called her research "the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy." Her doctoral thesis was a turning point in her career and in astronomy, although her claims were so shocking that colleagues dismissed them at first. At the time, the common belief was that the stars were made of the same elements as Earth. Through meticulous observation, Payne demonstrated that the sun is actually mostly made of hydrogen and helium. The key to Payne's research was spectroscopy, which NASA explains involves breaking the light from a single material into its component colors the way a prism splits white light into a rainbow. First, Payne developed a way to quantify the intensity of absorption lines, the lines that astronomers use to identify elements based on their unique signature. Then, she spent her days and nights going through Harvard's extensive library of spectra to analyze hundreds of stars, according to Famous Scientists. She used ionization theory to build a temperature scale for stars based on their intensities, which allowed her to calculate the chemical composition of the stars. A Shocking Discovery About the Universe She was surprised to discover that all stars had similar compositions. Contrary to popular belief, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin found out what stars are made of: hydrogen and helium. These elements were so abundant in stars that there was more hydrogen and helium than all the other elements combined. This was such an outlandish conclusion that her thesis supervisor Harold Shapley and the highly influential astronomer Henry Norris Russell both said that she must have made a mistake. As a result, Payne-Gaposchkin downplayed her conclusion. In 1925, she printed her thesis as a book called Stellar Atmospheres. Four years later, Russell published a paper (now archived by Harvard) in which he detailed the abundance of hydrogen and helium in the sun. Astronomers continued to build on her work, eventually agreeing that stars are mostly made of hydrogen.  Today, we understand that the sun is made of 91% hydrogen and 8.87% helium. Everything else — all the other elements combined — makes up only 0.13% of the composition of the sun. By analyzing the composition of stars, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin changed the way we understand the universe. And she accomplished this during a time when women were overtly excluded from science. According to ScienceNews, she taught at Harvard for nearly 20 years before being listed in the course catalog. Eventually, she became the first woman to be full professor at Harvard, and the first woman to chair a department at the prestigious university. Ironically, in 1977, she received the highest honor of the American Astronomical Society, the Henry Norris Russell Lectureship, which celebrates lifetime achievement in astronomy. According to her obituary, near the end of her life, Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin wrote:   "Young people, especially young women, often ask me for advice. Here it is, valeat quantum.  Do not undertake a scientific career in quest of fame or money. There are easier and better ways to reach them. Undertake it only if nothing else will satisfy you; for nothing else is probably what you will receive. Your reward will be the widening of the horizon as you climb. And if you achieve that reward you will ask no other." 

Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin Discovered What Stars Are Made Of

The ultimate road trip is coming up thanks to the next stage in Pangaea theory. Even though today's continents formed by breaking apart from a massive supercontinent millions of years ago, according to The Conversation, plate tectonics predict that we could all be very close neighbors once again.  But don't book time off quite yet: Novopangea, as the potential supercontinent is called, is around 200 to 250 million years away.   What Was Pangaea?  Pangaea, from the Greek pangaia, which means "all the Earth," once contained almost the whole landmass on the planet. Pangaea theory, according to National Geographic, suggested that the tectonic plates forming the planet's outer crust slid over the inner layers until they merged as a landmass surrounded by a massive ocean called Panthalassa.  Movement didn't stop there though.  Driven by rift formation and subduction, the plates and their landmasses continued drifting, eventually breaking up Pangaea. The Geological Society noted that this formed the current arrangement of continents and oceans around 50 million years ago, when India collided with Eurasia to form the Himalayas.  Pangaea's Discovery  The discovery of Pangaea hinges on a series of coincidences that pushed earth scientists to dig deep into our planet's history. Anyone who has looked at a world map can't help but notice how neatly South America fits into the west coast of Africa. According to Scientific American, there are a number of clues that led researchers to consider that our continents and land masses are not fixed in location and have indeed been on the move since formation.  One finding shows that the iron-rich rocks formed from lava vary in their orientation around the world. As the lava cools, the rocks magnetize and line up according to the Earth's magnetic field. Geological survey shows that the orientations vary by location, suggesting that the original lines of formation have shifted as the landmasses moved around over the millennia.  Additionally, LiveScience noted similarities between coal deposits in North America and Poland, and that the age and type of rocks found across the Appalachian ranges match those found in the Scottish Highlands. Fossil records also show the same species popping up in areas that are now far apart.  Future Supercontinent Travel Itineraries  These findings strongly support Pangaea theory in that at one time in Earth's history, the animals that became those fossils could simply walk from one area to another unhampered by oceans to cross. And thanks to plate tectonics, seen in action as spectacular volcanic eruption and lava outflow forming new land, we're likely to see this again.  The tectonic plates are still moving at a rate of a few centimeters per year, according to The Conversation. This also means that with enough time, another supercontinent could form. Novopangea is one proposal, where the continents merge again as the Atlantic Ocean continues to open and the Pacific closes. Pack your Bags?  Traveling across a massive continent regardless of configuration will be quite different to a road trip today. Expect new mountain ranges thrown up by the squeeze from each continental collision. Local and global climate will also change.  When Pangaea split, ocean currents altered direction and strength affecting movement of warm air and water around the planet. As the continents come together again, systems such as the Gulf Stream will alter course or disappear.  Although modern human migration did take advantage of land bridges, it happened too late to exploit the lack of ocean borders brought about by Pangaea theory. The Smithsonian documented human migration of modern hominids at around 80,000 years ago when our early ancestors left to colonize the ancient world beyond Africa. However, maybe our descendants will take advantage of landmass contiguity, benefiting from a new Pangaea for a global road trip in the (very) distant future. 

Pangaea Theory Has Earth's Surface on the Move

Key Takeaways  Antiretroviral therapy for AIDS stops symptoms but doesn't cure the disease. Stem cell treatments appear to have cured two men with HIV infection. The stem cell transplants gave the recipients the ability to stop cells being infected with the HIV virus.Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been traced as far back as a century ago, but it wasn't identified until the 1980s, when it captured public attention for causing a sweeping wave of deaths.About 32 million people have died from HIV and AIDS, which is the term for the range of conditions caused by the virus. A cure for HIV has so far been elusive, but hope has flickered anew because two people who received a stem cell transplant are now clear of the disease. Hope, though, can be held with only great reservation because of beliefs in previous efforts for a cure that failed. Not to mention, stem cell transplants are risky for those who don't have cancer.Still, any bit of hope for an end to HIV means that work for a cure continues apace, giving the nearly 38 million people living with the disease something to hold onto."Berlin" and "London" Patients Are CuredAntiretroviral therapy medicine controls HIV and prevents complications, but it's not a remedy. When HIV patients are cured, the world stops to take notice. And the world did just that in 2007, when it was announced someone identified only as the "Berlin Patient" had fully healed from HIV. He was named as such because the announcement was made in the capital of Germany, and he also lived and was treated there.He initially sought anonymity, but in 2015 revealed his identity: Timothy Ray Brown, an American. "I did not want to be the only person in the world cured of HIV; I wanted other HIV patients to join my club," Brown wrote in an AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses article.A leukemia patient, Brown had a stem cell transplant from a donor with a specific genetic mutation that was resistant to HIV. It is believed the transplant populated Brown's body with cells that are unaffected by the virus. He was also cured of leukemia.Now, a second cured HIV patient has come forward. In 2019, the virologist Adam Gupta and colleagues revealed that the "London Patient" had received transplanted bone marrow to treat lymphoma and similarly had been healed of HIV, as outlined in a paper they wrote for The Lancet HIV. As seen with Brown, donated bone marrow carried a mutation that blocked HIV from entering the cells of the London Patient, essentially replacing his deficient immune system with one that could fight the virus. His lymphoma is in remission.Earlier this year, the mystery patient revealed himself: Adam Castillejo, a native of Venezuela who now lives in London. "This is a unique position to be in, a unique and very humbling position," he told the New York Times in an article that disclosed his identity. "I want to be an ambassador of hope."Stem Cell Transplant a Risky ResponseThe curing of Brown and Castillejo offers only slim hope for HIV patients. But many will take that window of opportunity, narrow as it is. "It's really important that it wasn't a one-off, it wasn't a fluke," Richard Jefferys, a director at Treatment Action Group, an advocacy organization, told the Times. "That's been an important step for the field."Gupta and his colleagues calculated that the probability of Castillejo staying in remission is 99% if at least 90% of his HIV-susceptible cells retain the bone marrow donor's CCR5-delta-32 mutation, known as chimerism, as reported by Aidsmap, a publication of NAM, a charity for HIV and AIDS. When last tested, 99% of Castillejo's peripheral T cells had maintained chimerism.Still, notwithstanding the successful cases, others in the field urge caution. For instance, in response to The Lancet HIV publication of Gupta and his colleagues' findings, experts from the Doherty Institute in Melbourne wrote that while the development "is certainly exciting and encouraging...in the end, only time will tell," according to Aidsmap.As other experts have advised, this type of stem cell transplant is a high-risk procedure and not a viable medical option for HIV patients who don't have cancer. But, as Aidsmap noted, researchers are trying to mimic the same effect of chimerism by using gene therapy to delete CCR5 receptors from a person's T cells or stem cells that create immune cells.New Developments, New HopeWhile a distant possibility despite the successful transplant cases, a cure for HIV doesn't seem as distant to those who have the virus and benefit from knowing there is even a small chance. Such experiments speak to effort, which leads to progress despite failures.Consider how at this year's Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, it was announced that a four-year-old with HIV had successful antiretroviral therapy that started two days after birth. The child has now been in remission for three years.Regenerative medicine and the use of stem cell-derived assembloids that mimic organs and body systems in the petri dish might be the way forward to finding cures for intractable diseases. Find out more.

A Stem Cell Transplant Has Cured Two HIV Patients

Diversity and inclusion often arise as critical elements in education and the workplace. These people-centric concepts carry benefits beyond the human element alone — studies have shown that allowing a more diverse range of input fosters creative problem solving and leads to better outcomes. Garnering a diverse range of perspectives and backgrounds leads to richer discussions and ultimately fosters innovation, laying the foundation for higher profitability. Defining Diversity and Inclusion Diversity involves engaging a range of types of people. Members of a diverse group may vary in their race, gender, ethnicity, culture, disability, religion, age and sexual orientation. It can also include diversity of thought, bringing together people with unique areas of expertise. For example, if NASA needs a new spacecraft, they wouldn't only speak with the manufacturer. They would also include diverse experts on astrophysics, rocket science, engineering and other fields. Furthermore, simply having a diverse group of people is only the beginning. The biggest benefits arise when people from diverse backgrounds are not only present but also treated equitably and heard as an equal voice. When thinking about diversity and inclusion, it's helpful to understand how systems were designed with the priorities of dominant groups in mind. Thinking critically about the origins of systems — such as educational systems or a business organization — can help reveal areas for improvement. 3 Benefits of Diversity Many of the benefits of diversity are difficult to measure concretely. Doing the right thing, creating an equitable environment and enjoying deeper connections are all worthwhile reasons to embrace diversity and inclusion. But for the sake of argument, we will look at three of the most measurable results of diversity: innovation, performance and profitability. 1. Innovation When you need to solve a problem, the benefits of diversity become clear. For example, in a global crisis such as a pandemic or a natural disaster, international collaboration is crucial. On a smaller scale, if a company aims to invent or discover a new technology, it stands to reason that they wouldn't want a homogeneous group of experts but rather a dynamic group that fosters creativity. Hearing different perspectives — even if they conflict with our ideas — helps ignite new ideas. Researchers from Stanford University proved this point and highlighted what is lost when systems don't truly include diverse perspectives in an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). They analyzed data from Ph.D. dissertations in the United States and found that "demographically underrepresented students innovate at higher rates than majority students, but their novel contributions are discounted and less likely to earn them academic positions." Katherine W. Phillips, an ethics expert from Columbia Business School, described in Scientific American how a social experiment showed racially diverse groups were better able to solve a murder mystery than homogenous groups. The benefits aren't only because people with different backgrounds bring unique perspectives that can lead to solving the problem (or, in this case, figuring out the mystery). The exercise of being around different people helps everyone challenge their viewpoints, in turn leading to more creative solutions. "Being with similar others leads us to think we all hold the same information and share the same perspective," she wrote. "This perspective, which stopped the all-white groups from effectively processing the information, is what hinders creativity and innovation." 2. Performance It can be difficult to measure performance, so a team of researchers used a performance metric that is common in academia: citations. In academic publications, the number of times that a research paper is cited by other researchers can be an indicator of the paper's success. In a forthcoming Columbia Law Review study (currently available at an open-access online repository of pre-prints called SSRN), researchers analyzed 13,000 articles published in various law reviews over 60 years and found that "law reviews that adopt diversity policies see the median citations to their volumes increase by roughly 23 percent in the five years after adoption." In other words, more diversity correlates with better performance. The researchers conclude, "If diverse groups of student editors perform better than non-diverse groups, it lends credibility to the idea that diverse student bodies, diverse faculties, diverse teams of attorneys, and diverse teams of employees generally would all perform better." 3. Profitability Diversity and inclusion promote innovation and better performance — in other words, they're good for a company's bottom line. Harvard Business Review describes research on the venture capital industry that found that diversity "significantly improves" financial measures such as profitable investments and overall fund returns. A comprehensive report from global management consulting firm McKinsey & Company finds that not only is there a solid business case for diversity and inclusion, but diverse executive teams are associated with better financial performance over time. According to their analysis, the most diverse companies are more likely to outperform their peers on profitability. For example, companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability than companies with the least diversity. A Worthy Challenge Addressing gaps in diversity and inclusion can be a long path, but it is a worthwhile effort. Learning to navigate conflict and discomfort when people from different backgrounds come together represents a long-term investment. Studies — as well as real experiences — prove again and again the value of taking steps to promote diversity and inclusion in education and at work. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology and engineering.

Diversity and Inclusion Create Better Outcomes: A Look at the Science

While the existence of dino dentists might have improved saurian species' quality of life (though, good luck getting a T-Rex to wait half an hour after a fluoride treatment before eating), great teeth aren't a remedy for sudden asteroid impacts. But fossilized dinosaur teeth do offer a glimpse into evolutionary history, helping paleontologists understand dino diets and critical evolutionary impacts. So, sit back and open wide, because we're heading back to the Jurassic period for some dental detective work. Tooth or Dare Despite their historical distance, dinosaurs remain a compelling study scenario for humankind: What did they look like? What did they eat? And how did they evolve over their millions of years on planet Earth? While this curiosity often results in a rallying cry to apply science and technological know-how to bring back a new generation of genetically-engineered dinos, this is both incredibly difficult and — as Jurassic Park made abundantly clear — dangerous. Thankfully, there's a better and safer way to discover more about our prehistoric pals: fossilized dinosaur teeth. Why? Because teeth are built with a bone and enamel combination that stays extremely well preserved. Dental archeologist Debbie Guatelli-Steinberg recently told NPR, "It's kind of convenient because teeth hold so much information." Not only does the shape and design of a dino tooth indicate its likely purpose, but calcified bacterial remnants and microscopic pitting can help identify what dinosaurs were eating — and how they ate it. Peter Ungar, an anthropologist at the University of Arkansas, delved into this dental microwear analysis to discover what animals ate by analyzing what food did to their teeth. He also leaned into a great dental pun, calling this chomp-and-chew history a "foodprint." Worth noting? When it comes to any dental detective work, Ungar makes it clear that teeth are typically adapted to the toughest part of an animal's diet rather than what it eats all the time. As he put it, "If you eat Jell-O almost every day of the year, but sometimes you need to eat rocks ... you want teeth that can eat rocks." Bite Me! So, what did dinosaurs really eat? And how did they eat it? While the jagged, steak knife-edged chompers of large predators such as the T-Rex have been studied in-depth, that's just the shallow end of the prehistoric pond. Consider recent work from the University of Alberta, which examined the Saurornitholestes, a small meat-eating dinosaur. Potential recreations suggest that it looked sort of a like a goose with a terrifying dino makeover. Analysis of scratches left on fossilized teeth showed that the dinosaur likely bit down and then pulled its head backward when chomping on prey. According to Ryan Wilkinson, co-author of a paper that examined the Saurornitholestes and two similar, small meat-eating dinosaurs — the Dromaeosaurus and the Troodon — the motion is best described as "puncture and pull," which helped these creatures grab onto prey and then tear off pieces of meat. The team also discovered differences across these three similar species. Analysis of Troodon fossils showed differences in their smaller teeth, called denticles, suggesting that if they struggled while prey fought back hard, the thrashing motion could more easily break these teeth than those of Dromaeosaurus or Saurornitholestes. As a result, Troodon likely went after slower, smaller prey that was less likely to cause dental destruction. Prehistoric Periodontology Analysis of dinosaur teeth also provides critical insight into vertebrate evolution. While mammals were generally thought to have more complex tooth structures than their reptilian cousins, recent examination of fossils from Changchunsarus Parvus, a small herbivorous dinosaur found in China, found evolved tooth development in this early species of ornithopod. Not only did C. Parvus teeth show evidence of more advanced "wavy enamel" similar to that of later ornithopods, but they also developed a unique tooth replacement method that allowed continual recycling of teeth without disrupting the mouth's overall shearing surface. Meanwhile, work on preserved teeth and jaws from Captorithus Aguti — a reptile that lived before the age of dinosaurs — showed evidence of increased right-side jaw wear indicating the potential for functional brain asymmetry, which is a critical feature of vertebrate evolution at scale. Food for Thought Fossilized dinosaur teeth offer a bite-sized look into the history and evolution of Earth's lizard overlords. Perhaps the same will be said someday of human molars and munchers left behind after our own apocalypse — but what will those looking back think of our fossilized fragments? Depending on the evolution of current diets and our ability to overcome general apathy toward dental service delivery, human history might offer the whole tooth — or nothing but the tooth.

Dental Detectives: Dinosaur Teeth Deliver Details on Diets

Mars is getting a lot of media coverage lately. From NASA's latest launch to talks of a Red Planet settlement, there's growing interest in space travel to Mars and what it could mean for humanity as a whole. Setting questions of logistics and legality aside, if we really could colonize Mars, what would a fun day out look like on the fourth rock from the sun? Here's a speculative sightseeing itinerary for your first Red Planet road trip. Laying the Groundwork If you're road tripping on the Red Planet, you can't just hop in a tour bus and hit the road. Lower Martian gravity — coming in at just 37% of Earth's pull — means uneven terrain and hilly regions would pose more of a problem than they would in familiar 1-g territory. Dust may also be a problem, assuming we haven't entirely terraformed Mars by the time of your excursion. Any sightseeing vehicle would need the ability to keep dust out and deal with any particulate matter that makes its way into critical components. Finally, you'll either need self-enclosed transport that provides breathable oxygen or a reliable spacesuit to keep yourself from suffocating in the planet's minimal atmosphere. And on Your Left... With these essentials squared away, the tour can get started. First stop: the landing site. This would almost certainly be the least exciting part of your tour. As Matt Golombek of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab puts it, any great landing site for space travel to Mars will be a "smooth, flat, boring place." It makes sense, since flat and wide-open landing zones make it easier to safely set down spacecraft and reduce the risk of something going wrong. Consider NASA's latest rover, Perseverance, which will touch down on Mars in February 2021. Its planned landing site is Jezero crater, which is just north of the equator and 28 miles in diameter. This area was likely once flooded with liquid water, and it may contain evidence of ancient organic matter. After a quick spin around the colony landing zone, it's time to hit the biggest tourist attractions on Mars, including:   Olympus Mons — "Big" is the operative word here. This shield volcano is the size of Arizona and three times taller than Mount Everest, coming in at 16 miles (25.75 km) high. Because the mountain has a side slope of just five degrees, hands-on tourist groups could climb to the summit and see the 53-mile wide depression caused by magma draining out of ancient rocky chambers.  Valles Marineris — Mars also boasts the biggest valley in our solar system, the valles marineris. It's four times the length of the Grand Canyon, and it was likely formed thanks to substantial volcanic activity in the Red Planet's Tharsis region.  Medusae Fossae — Wind-sculpted rocks in this region have given rise to speculation about ancient Martian aliens. While the more plausible explanation is volcanic eruptions followed by substantial weathering over time, this is still a can't-miss stop for any tour.  The North and South Poles — For more extreme Martian adventurers, polar trips could prove popular. Thanks to the planet's thin atmosphere, temperatures at the poles drop to a frigid minus 195 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter, which is cold enough to condense airborne carbon dioxide into ice. In the summer, the planet's north pole gets warm enough to sublimate this CO, creating a more familiar water ice cap.  The Undiscovered Country All aboard for the magical mystery tour! While digital topographical mapping of Mars is complete, robotic rovers have only visited a small portion of the Red Planet's points of interest. One region that has yet to be explored fully is Cydonia, which contains "the Face on Mars." Pictures of this landform were originally captured on April 8th, 2001 by the Mars Global Surveyor, and sharp-eyed observers quickly noted its resemblance to a human face. While this structure is almost certainly of natural origin, exploration trips to Cydonia could be a big draw for Martian tourist companies. Another option is Martian cave diving. As Scientific American notes, surface imaging has identified more than 1,000 caves in the Tharsis Bulge region that may be good candidates for human colonies due to their width, depth and access to lava tube "skylights" — or they might contain evidence of unknown alien civilizations. Either way, this would be a memorable trip. No Refunds The notion of people going to Mars has long captured the imagination of governments and private businesses alike. Some ambitious entrepreneurs are even selling Mars "land deeds," which are great novelty gifts with zero legal value. However, it's worth noting that, for the first nouveau-Martians, the trip will almost certainly be one-way. Even if crews make it to the surface of Mars and set up colonies without any accidental loss of life, Mars landings aren't exactly known for their soft touch. Any spacecraft that lands on the planet would likely take substantial damage on impact and then be purposely cannibalized for parts to help build a new human future on the Red Planet. For the first people going to Mars, it seems there will be no refunds and no returns, but these Martian explorers could help lay the foundation for one of humanity's greatest achievements: a self-sustaining off-world habitat. And who knows — in fifty years you might be able to book a quick ride on the Earth-to-Mars express and reserve your spot in a rollicking Red Planet road trip.

Red Planet Road Trip: Space Travel to Mars Meets Speculative Sightseeing

 Since the 19th century, the term "gold rush" has reminded us of that uniquely human drive to seek out riches in desolate areas no matter the risk. Whether it was the intrepid forty-niners traveling west to scavenge California's Sacramento Valley or searching the Black Hills of South Dakota in 1874, people have ventured far and wide to find treasures that exceed our wildest dreams. Now, asteroid mining is on track to be a potential treasure trove of resources for our generation. While the quest for gold has diminished since the 18th and 19th centuries, our desire to search far and wide for riches hasn't — we're just looking in a different direction. Riches and Resources Abound?  Asteroid mining has been on the minds of space exploration companies a lot lately, and for good reason. On top of boosting the economy of private space exploration and getting humans more engaged with their galactic surroundings, there may be actual treasures waiting to be found on asteroids: palladium and platinum. Some classes of asteroids are estimated to carry almost one ton of extractable platinum group metals, a quantity that alone could be worth upwards of $50 million. Finding these metals on Earth would require a dig of about 4,000 miles, so the benefits they could provide to our current and future status might be worth the trouble of mining in space.  Palladium is a key component of many pieces of machinery, used to make them run cleanly and more efficiently. The metal is used in catalytic converters, which convert about 90 percent of harmful automobile exhaust fumes into less noxious ones, as well as groundwater treatment and hydrogen purification. Palladium also works as a key part of fuel cells that react to hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Aside from metal, there's also the potential to find carbonaceous chondrite asteroids. These C-type asteroids have been cited as the original source of water found on Earth. Water collected from asteroids can provide hydration to astronauts, oxygen for life support and hydrogen and oxygen-based fuel for rockets. Eyes on the Prize and in the Sky  Despite the potential reward, mining asteroids does pose some situational challenges, especially when it comes to deciding which ones are worth pursuing and which will be the space version of fool's gold. Gold rush miners didn't have experts to tell them when a potential dig would lead to a dud, but their asteroid-mining descendants do: astronomers. Martin Elvis, an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian, says that tools like the Magellan 6.5-meter telescopes in Chile could be used to characterize which asteroids might be valuable in about one to two minutes. According to Elvis, 85 percent of the asteroids could be ruled out based on color, leaving only 15 percent as prospective mining areas for exploratory missions.  Enable targeting cookies to view this content.  Planetary Resources, the private company backed by investors like Google's Larry Page and filmmaker James Cameron, plans to build a fleet of small, simple telescopes with the sole focus of hunting for asteroids. Lightweight, cost-effective telescopes and space crafts, similar to Northrop Grumman's line of Eagle Spacecraft products, are cheaper to make than larger government-funded ones, and can be launched in numbers, making it easier to replace a broken unit.  Once a prospective asteroid has been spotted, the plan is to launch tiny probe bots that can latch on to the asteroids using an anchor. Because smaller asteroids don't carry their own field of gravity, the best way to do this is through the deployment tiny drills that can secure themselves into the surface to dock the bot. When docked, the bot would analyze the rock for valuable metals and could potentially attach a tracker to the asteroid to find it again later if further testing is needed. At this point, harvesting becomes the most significant challenge to overcome.  Where collecting water vapors from a C-type asteroid is relatively simple, retrieving metals will prove to be more complicated. Harry McSween, geoscientist at the University of Tennessee and chair of the surface composition group for NASA's Dawn asteroid probe, worries that anchoring to these bodies would be difficult, as would trying to cut a piece off for processing. But John Lewis, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona, thinks that if the asteroids are composed of enough metal, samples could be collected using a magnet.  While still riddled with uncertainty and roadblocks, the path to mining asteroids for riches and resources we need (or just want) is getting clearer. With the evolution of private space exploration, the partnerships between intrepid university researchers and unwavering human determination, the next discovery phase of unknown treasure is closer and more feasible than ever before.

Asteroid Mining and the Gold Rush of the 21st Century

Imagine setting up a mining operation in outer space and drilling into an asteroid for precious metals. It may sound like something straight out of a science fiction movie like "Armageddon," but space mining is becoming a real industry that'll power both exploration of the solar system and industries here on Earth. Part of the lure is a potential mineral bonanza: UK-based startup Asteroid Mining Corporation estimated that some metallic asteroids could contain 10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum. Such mother lodes could address shortages of precious metals for IT and other industries on Earth, but they could also be used for space-based manufacturing, drastically reducing the construction cost of space stations. Deep Space Gold Rush In the U.S., larger companies are already competing to stake their claims amid the hundreds of thousands of asteroids in the solar system. Deep Space Industries, based in Silicon Valley, broke down the job of asteroid mining into four phases: prospecting, harvesting, processing and manufacturing. Proven know-how already exists to send spacecraft to acquire samples from asteroids — Japan's Hayabusa probe landed on asteroid 25143 Itokawa in 2005, retrieved granular samples and returned them to Earth five years later after a journey of some 6 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) noted. However, the cost remains astronomical. NASA explained that its OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, launched in 2016, is to rendezvous with asteroid Bennu in 2018 in a sample-retrieval mission with a price tag of about $800 million, excluding the launch vehicle cost. Redmond, Washington-based Planetary Resources will send multiple spacecraft to asteroids to test samples for water, according to Wired, which it sees as both useful for human space colonies and as a material for rocket propellant. When the company began in 2009, people chuckled at the concept of space mining, but the startup has attracted funding from the likes of Google founder Larry Page and the government of Luxembourg. That funding was part of an investment aimed to launch the company's first commercial prospecting mission by 2020. "We're hardwired to think in terms of scarcity and competition," Planetary Resources CEO Chris Lewicki told Wired. "But in space, these limits don't apply. Exploiting them gives us the opportunity to think about how much more there is to develop and share. There are resources there beyond our comprehension." Space Mining 101 If you're contemplating a new degree, the academic sector is beginning to cultivate the human brainpower needed for deep space mining. In 2018, the renowned Colorado School of Mines will launch a graduate program in planetary resources, focusing on the feasibility of extracting minerals, metals, gases and water from heavenly bodies to power space exploration. The program is the first of its kind in the world. The idea is that space mining could make missions more independent and efficient while saving resources at home. The initial focus will be designing robots and automated processing facilities that can extract raw materials and prepare them to be used as engine fuel. "At some point, we will be able to refuel in space, so we can keep that spacecraft flying," Angel Abbud-Madrid, director of the Mines Center for Space Resources, told The Denver Post. "We can cut our dependency on Earth." There are numerous efforts underway to dramatically expand exploration and colonization of space in the 21st century, and celestial mining, in one form or another, will be a necessary step to reduce costs. Space mining should be a promising industry in the coming decades.

Minerals From Space Mining Could Power Exploration and Industry

The South Pacific is home to new islands that seemingly appear out of nothing. Volcanoes erupt below the ocean's surface, spewing hot lava that eventually cools down and hardens, becoming an island. As volcanic activity creates new land formations across the globe, scientists study these brand-new islands to learn how our planet was formed, as well as other planets and moons in the solar system. Land Appearing Out of Nowhere Most of the South Pacific's volcanic landforms wash away in a couple months, but a new island that formed in 2015 in the island nation of Tonga is lasting long enough for scientists to investigate. According to Space.com, the island, unofficially called Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai, formed when an undersea volcano erupted in December 2014 through January 2015. Scientists kept an eye on the island before it even formed and used satellite imagery to watch it slowly rise out of the ocean. The newborn island comprises dramatic cliffs, a crater lake and new plant life. The land provides a peek into our planet's past, demonstrating in real time what it's like when new land develops. NASA scientists suggest that the island could be our best replica of ancient Mars. Jim Garvin, chief scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Center explained, "We have an eruption on Earth with an accelerated erosion because it's in a marine environment, but on Mars, that environment may have been very ephemeral. By looking at these things in more detail, we can start to put time constraints on â€¦ the persistence of water, [which] is a holy grail on Mars." According to the National Park Service (NPS), the HawaiÊ»i Volcanoes National Park displays the results of at least 70 million years of volcanism, migration and evolution, and active volcanoes are still adding to the island of HawaiÊ»i. These changes can cause drama on Earth, where we're used to divvying up land. When volcanic eruptions create new land, who owns it? Vice reports Hawai'i is continuously expanding, with lava flows not only covering existing land but also spilling into the ocean creating new masses called lava extensions. This ever-changing landscape has caused disputes over ownership, but new land belongs to the state. How Scientists Study Volcanic Landforms Iceland's volcanoes hold hints about the chemical reactions that occur when lava interacts with ice, as scientists suspect it does on Jupiter's moon Europa. In an attempt to determine how planets and moons evolved, planetary scientists from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center are studying the lava fields of Iceland's glacier-covered volcanoes, according to Phys.org. They're measuring temperatures, drilling through ice and using a technique called Raman spectroscopy to analyze the chemistry of the ice. The information they gather will help them understand Earth and beyond. There are volcanoes throughout the solar system. For example, the moon's dark patches indicate inactive volcanoes, and there are remnants of volcanoes on Mercury, Venus and Mars. "You can use Earth science to study volcanoes on this planet and then apply that knowledge to the Moon, Mars and other bodies," Patrick L. Whelley, a Goddard planetary geologist told Phys.org. "Plus, we don't have the luxury of watching volcanic eruptions up close anywhere besides Earth." Iceland is a good substitute for Mars because they are both covered in a volcanic rock called basalt. According to Phys.org, Iceland grew from continual volcanic eruptions in the last 15 to 20 million years. Geological Discoveries Beyond Earth Today's geological discoveries hint at our solar system's geological past. By figuring out the best techniques for analyzing volcanic landforms in the South Pacific islands and Iceland, scientists are also helping to develop methods that could be deployed on future space missions to dig into the origins of planets and moons throughout our solar system.

Volcanic Landforms Reveal Clues About Planetary Origins

What is reality? Author Philip K. Dick offers a succinct definition: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." It's a solid starting point — even if you don't believe in gravity, you'll still fall down if you trip. But this definition doesn't account for a universe of hidden interactions and seemingly irreconcilable operations, one that gets stranger and stranger the more we poke and prod. And poke and prod we do, eternally. The quest to understand reality dates back millennia, starting with heavenly explanations for natural phenomena that steadily drifted toward more observation-driven assessments and eventually moved into the realm of intellectual theory-crafting. But are we any closer to a complete explanation? Physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek thinks so, offering an account of "fundamental lessons we can learn from the study of the physical world" in his book, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality. For Wilczek, our universe is composed of just a few ingredients governed by similarly few laws, but with minor differences in distribution or condition driving vastly different outcomes. "The world is simple and complex, logical and weird, lawful and chaotic," he writes. His work also does what great books do — create more questions than answers. Let's see what we can do about that as we dive into the fundamental and frustrating concept of reality with a look at where we've been, what we've discovered and what comes next. Get Me a Philosopher, STAT! Lacking scientific specifics and given the pervasive oddity of the universe, discussions of reality have often been confined to the realm of philosophy, which afforded the ability to swing for the metaphysical fences and — perhaps more importantly — explore human nature itself. Consider the 1892 paper "What Is Reality?" by philosopher David G. Richie. In it, he suggests that the ultimate reality isn't physical law or observable phenomena but rather the "potentiality" of thought itself. "Unfortunately," he notes, "the uncritical metaphysics of the ordinary and of the scientific understanding do not generally take the notion of potentiality quite seriously. Hence it is necessary to take the longer route of philosophical criticism." It's an intriguing supposition, and one that reflects a substantive portion of the human experience. The problem? It also reinforces the human-centric nature of philosophy itself: the efforts we take to ensure we don't feel too small given the scale of the universe and our place in it. But to understand reality, we need to think bigger. Fours Majeure The first frameworks of human understanding of the universe relied on divine action. Thunderstorms? The gods are getting angry. Poor harvest? Probably the work of an offended or mischievous deity. Eclipse? Something has gone very, very wrong in the vaults of heaven. And then came the Greeks, who proposed a new way of looking at the world. They defined four fundamental elements — earth, fire, air and water — and suggested that all matter was made of these elements in differing proportions. This quadratic quantity didn't last long, however. Aristotle soon added the element of "aether" that supposedly held the stars and planets. Early scientific experiments, such as those conducted by Empedocles, helped to differentiate between air and aether. By inverting a bowl filled with air in water, he showed that the air didn't simply vanish, suggesting that it a) wasn't aether and b) was actually something. Worth noting? While the Greeks often get credit, they weren't alone in their elemental assertion — the ancient Chinese culture came to similar conclusions, as did those of Persia and Japan, according to The Five Elements in the Literary Heritage of Iran and Japan: A Comparative Study. While the four-element framework was simplistic and eventually gave way to a much more precise understanding of chemical components and object interactions, it represented one of the first forays into a physical rather than philosophical understanding of reality. He Ain't Heavy, He's Fundamental No discussion of our physical universe is complete without a nod to Isaac Newton. While the apple story is almost certainly apocryphal, the fact remains that Newton suggested something no one had ever thought of: gravity. It seems strange now, but in the late 17th century there was no concept of gravity, no universal law that explained why we don't simply float away into the aether at random. In his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Newton laid out his case for gravity, suggesting that all objects exerted this attractive force on one another — and that the more mass they had, the bigger the force. This notion was incredibly handy, because it let scientists calculate the trajectory of thrown objects, account for the moon's orbit around the Earth and quantify the interplanetary relationships in our solar system. However, Newton did run into trouble when it came to explaining the mechanism of gravity, arguing that while it "must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws," he was uncertain exactly how this agent operated. Lack of complete understanding aside, Newton's work paved the way for one of the biggest shifts in our comprehension of reality: the four fundamental forces, which help to explain almost everything that happens in our universe. As Space.com outlines, they are:   Gravity: The classic. Newton described this force as an attraction between two objects, and while later work found this isn't quite accurate, gravity is the most easily observed and conceptually understood force.  The electromagnetic force: Also called the Lorentz force, electromagnetism describes the interaction between charged particles. While electric and magnetic interactions were originally seen as separate, ongoing scientific work found that charged particle interactions also generated magnetic fields, fundamentally connecting these two forces.  The weak force: The weak nuclear force is responsible for particle decay, which causes subatomic particles to change type over time. This decay is critical to the process of nuclear fusion that powers our sun, and it occurs at specific, measurable rates governed by the subatomic composition of elements.  The strong force: The strong nuclear force holds subatomic particles together and is six thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity, according to HyperPhysics. While it only operates at very small distances (10^ -15 meters or less), it offers massive destructive and productive potential when particle bonds are broken or new bonds are forcibly created.  Throwing Curveballs And then there's Albert Einstein. It seems he's always there, lurking in the science shadows — and he plays a critical role in our understanding of reality thanks to his theory of relativity. Einstein's work was predicated in part by Niels Bohr's concept of complementarity, which he used to help explain the results of Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment. This experiment showed that light had the properties of both particle and wave. Complementarity suggests that this wave/particle duality are both accurate descriptions of the same reality that "complement" rather than oppose one another — instead, human limitations in observation and interpretation make these results appear irreconcilable. The theory of relativity expanded this concept to the universe at scale, suggesting that any measurements involving time and space are relative to both the location and motion of the observer. This is especially relevant to gravity, which Einstein suggested was not an instantaneous, attractive force between two objects but rather a curvature of spacetime determined by an object's mass. The bigger the object, the bigger the curve and the more substantive the gravitational force. So substantive, in fact, that observers close to a massive object would find time itself slowing down relative to the passage of time experienced by more distant observers. Einstein's curvature theory, while significantly more complex, has also been consistently accurate in describing the movement of light around massive objects, including planets, stars and even black holes. And it has fundamentally changed the way we view the nature of reality and the universe. Discovering the Real Deal: A History of Trial and Error So, what does this continual conversation around the nature of reality suggest? That trial and error are essential to the process of understanding. It makes sense, then, that discussions of reality have historically been relegated to philosophers. While scientists recognize the value of revising theories based on new evidence, the seeming lack of evidence for many fundamental forces has provided an ever-frustrating framework. Even Einstein — absolute out-of-the-box thinker that he was — didn't believe that gravitational waves caused by accelerating mass would ever be detected. But on September 14, 2015, all the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) captured evidence of gravitational waves produced when two black holes collided, according to Science Alert. Since they were 1.3 billion light-years away, the signal took some time to arrive and was perilously tiny when it finally crossed our paths. And this is hardly the end of our efforts to understand reality. Consider the ongoing discussions about dark matter, dark energy, string theory, quantum mechanics and worm holes — just when we think we've unlocked the secrets of how the universe works, it turns out we've only peeled back another layer, and what's inside makes absolutely no sense. Strangely enough, it's the very unpredictability and unwillingness of the universe to give up its secrets that keeps us so obsessed. It's our nature; we're easily adaptable, even more easily bored and constantly looking for new challenges, new opportunities and new questions to explore. Asking "what is reality?" — over and over and over and over again — not only gives us something to do with these big brains of ours, but it also helps us understand both our universe and ourselves just a little bit better. Being on the forefront of change, especially regarding space, physics and engineering, has been part of the Northrop Grumman culture for generations. Click here to search jobs in these areas of scientific innovation.

What Is Reality? Your Quick-Start Guide to the Nature of the Universe

The universe is full of bright and shiny objects, including the occasional glittering space gem. Closer to home, luminous moons with ancient ice in their shadowed craters bounce light back at passing satellites whose solar panels seem to flash and flare when tilted at certain angles. Buried among these are a class of rarer objects that sparkle, but they aren't stars, planets, or even spacecraft. Gemstones in space might not glitter when their ancient crystals of carbon, sand and metal reflect the light from nearby suns, but rare space gems found inside meteorites from India, Russia and Sudan provide us with an unparalleled view of processes at work inside distant worlds. All That Glitters Is Not Gold Humankind has long been aware that precious materials rain down from the heavens. The metal dagger buried with King Tut, for example, was made of "iron from heaven" — a blend of iron, nickel and cobalt found only in meteorites. It was prized by the ancient Egyptians as durable material for weapons and tools. To prove that the "iron-from-heaven" dagger really did fall from the stars, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. Fluorescence is a type of atomic fingerprint. Because every element has a slightly different configuration of electrons, every element absorbs and then releases energy a bit differently. To test what the dagger was made of without even touching it, scientists bombarded the dagger with X-rays then watched, using a detector, to see how the metal in the dagger would absorb then re-emit the energy. The dagger contained iron, 11 nickel and cobalt. What's most important about this is that this particular combination does not occur on Earth. Researchers can look for space gems in a similar way. Using X-Ray diffraction (which watches how a crystal scatters light instead of how a metal absorbs it), researchers discovered nanodiamonds in pieces of a meteorite that had exploded over Sudan in 2008. Nanodiamonds are crystals made of carbon. As is the case with Earth diamonds, space gem diamonds form in places without oxygen. The reason is simple: if you let the forming carbon crystals touch oxygen, they turn into graphite — the mineral used in pencils. Natural Earth diamonds are formed 150 to 700 km down from the surface. Here, the carbon crystals endure immense pressure, and in the absence of oxygen, they form into their unique double-pyramid shape. These non-metallic carbon crystals are then carried to the Earth's surface by volcanic eruptions or shifts in tectonic plates. Occasionally, erosion of land by rain, wind and rivers may reveal where diamonds were formed millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago. Space gems — diamonds, sapphires, rubies and opals — may form the same way, deep inside faraway planets. If there's no water or oxygen around, and the planet is massive enough to create crushing pressure, it is possible for a space gem to form in the atmosphere of a gas giant. This possibility has led to discussions about whether the weather on Saturn includes diamond rain. Carbon formed in the presence of oxygen in one part of Saturn's atmosphere is crushed first into graphite and then into diamond as it falls toward the center of the planet. Diamonds formed in this way are hypothesized to be able to reach about a centimeter in size, uncut. Shine On Because they form in gas and not rock, space gems born in the atmospheres of stars are typically tiny — so tiny that rather than falling inward they would be blown outward on solar winds. Such nanodiamonds have been found via microscopy in stony meteorites. Their double-pyramid crystal patterns prove that wherever they came from in the galaxy, there was a lot of pressure and little to no oxygen. The space dust that streams down on us all day, every day, includes bits and pieces of all kinds of precious, semi-precious, and common materials made in the outer layers of our sun and billions of other stars. Larger diamonds also rain down on Earth from time to time. In 2021, NASA geologists found two 10-micron diamonds in a meteorite that fell in Sutter's Mill, California. While these two were much larger than the usual nanodiamonds, 10 microns is still very small: about 1/10th the diameter of a human hair. Diamonds are not the only gemstones in space. Opals — specifically fire opals — have been found on Mars. In stark contrast to how diamonds can be used as evidence of the absence of water and oxygen, opal crystals form in the presence of liquid. The discovery of fire opal crystals near a deposit of another substance, ferrihydrite, has been used as evidence that water and rock interacted for extended periods of time on the surface of Mars. It would be quite something if the 50 tons of space debris falling on us every day carried with it diamonds big enough to see with the naked eye. Sadly, large space gems are much rarer than that, at least around here. However, nanodiamonds might well be a feature of every star with carbon in its atmosphere, giving the entire visible universe yet another reason to shine on. Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman and consider joining our team.

Space Gem or Fools Gold? The Search for Diamonds in the Sky

In the direction of the springtime constellation Boé¶tes lies what may be the largest structural feature in the universe: an arc of galaxies extending some 3.3 billion light years. The possible structure, now simply called the Great Arc, is more than nine billion light years distant — millions of times farther than the visible stars of Boé¶tes, such as the bright red giant Arcturus. Astronomers are not yet sure whether the Great Arc is a true physical structure or a mere visual coincidence. But if it is real, the Great Arc is not simply colossal; it also poses a challenge to the Cosmological Principle, a basic conception of the universe that dates back to Albert Einstein. "Oh, Look at This" The (possible!) discovery of this vast and problematic assemblage of galaxies grew out of an ongoing project to map the distant regions of the universe. According to Science News, the mapping project uses light from thousands of very remote quasars — bright, compact galactic cores so far away that they appear in the telescope as starlike points of light. As the light from these quasars passes through space on its way to Earth, some of that light is absorbed by atoms in intermediate galaxies. Thus, we can determine their presence and composition even without directly imaging them. As British PhD candidate Alexia Lopez examined the data from the survey, she began to find hints of a pattern. As Livescience recounts, Lopez described it as "sort of a hint of a big arc." She showed the findings to her doctoral advisor. "Oh, look at this," she exclaimed. Her advisor, Roger Clowes, suggested running some statistical tests to determine whether the Great Arc is a true physical structure or a mere visual coincidence. Such visual effects are common, such as the constellation Boé¶tes itself, made up of unrelated stars that merely happen to form a distinctive pattern as seen from Earth. The statistical tests came back showing only a 0.0003 chance of the Great Arc being a mere coincidence. Too Big to Fit? If the Great Arc is real, it poses a major challenge to Einstein's Cosmological Principle, which has been a key concept in cosmology for a hundred years. In a nutshell, the Cosmological Principle holds that the universe, when examined on the largest scale, looks more or less the same no matter what direction you look in. Per Sci-News, the principle holds that the largest true structures in the universe should be no more than about 1.2 billion light years across — little more than a third the size of the Great Arc. Albert Einstein first introduced the Cosmological Principle in order to simplify mathematical calculations, but it has done so well at explaining the universe we observe that astronomers would be very reluctant to abandon it. In the interview with Livescience, cosmologist Daniel Pomaré¨de, co-discoverer of another anomalously large cosmic structure — the South Pole Wall, spoke of the key role the Cosmological Principle plays in our understanding of the universe. "It would be very bold to say that it will be replaced by something else," he said. According to Sci-News, astrophysicist Subir Sarkar noted that "our eye has a tendency to pick up patterns," wryly adding that some people have claimed to see Stephen Hawking's initials in the cosmic background radiation, the oldest light in the universe. Lopez agreed that the Great Arc poses a challenge. But evidence continues to grow for the existence of oversized cosmic structures such as the South Pole Wall and the Great Arc. In a Futurism article, Lopez also noted that if confirmed, her finding "would overturn cosmology as we know it." She added that "our standard model, not to put it too heavily, kind of falls through." And there — pending further research — the matter stands. A powerful theory, and a growing hint of contradicting facts: business as usual on the frontiers of cosmology. Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are, too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman and consider joining our team. 

An Arc of Galaxies Three Billion Light-Years Long May Challenge Cosmology

It can be hard to imagine what happens to common molecules under the extreme conditions on other planets. For example, Earthlings know water as an essential ingredient for life that exists as a solid, liquid and gas. However, scientists examining how water behaves under different conditions have identified about 20 different types of ice. The most recent addition to this list is "superionic ice," which is thought to be the main form of ice on water-rich planets like Uranus and Neptune. A Solid and a Liquid Superionic ice is unique because the oxygen atoms lock into place like a solid, but the hydrogen atoms give up their electrons to become positively charged ions that flow through the oxygen lattice like a fluid. Because the water molecules break apart — unlike other known types of ice — some scientists consider it a new state of matter rather than a new phase of water. The existence of superionic ice was first proposed in 1988 based on theoretical calculations, as reported in Physical Review Letters. The highly unusual structure suggested that it could conduct electricity like a metal, with the swimming hydrogen ions playing the role usually assumed by electrons. The fluidity of the hydrogen ions would also allow this ice to absorb a lot of heat before melting. Therefore, it would remain a solid at temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun, which exist at the core of large planets.  Experimental Confirmation In 2019, scientists were finally able to create the extreme temperatures and pressures required to produce this type of ice in a laboratory and published the results in Nature. The technique involved blasting a water droplet with a high-pressure shock wave, raising the pressure to 100-400 gigapascals and the temperature to 2,000-3,000 Kelvin. For comparison, the center of the Earth has a pressure of 360 gigapascals, and the surface of the Sun has a temperature of 5,778 Kelvin. Superionic ice formed under these experimental conditions but only lasted for about 20 nanoseconds (20 billionths of a second). That was enough time to use X-ray diffraction to confirm the predicted structure of the oxygen lattice, and a few additional features. In November 2021, a different research group developed a more reliable method for producing this new form of ice, as Nature Physics reports. They squeezed a water droplet between two diamonds and then blasted it with powerful lasers to achieve temperatures and pressures similar to what exists at the center of the Earth. This method produced ice that lasted for microseconds (millionths of a second) instead of just nanoseconds (billionths of a second), allowing it to be studied in more detail. The most surprising finding was that superionic ice formed at much lower pressures than originally expected (20 gigapascals versus 50 gigapascals). Using these methods, scientists have also confirmed that superionic ice is stable up to 5,000 Kelvin, conducts electricity, is extremely dense, is dark because the swimming hydrogen ions block light from passing through, and returns to being liquid water when conditions are reversed. Additional experiments will test viscosity, chemical stability and how the ice behaves when it's mixed with salt and other molecules like methane and ammonia, which are known to exist on water-rich planets. Explaining the Mysteries of Uranus and Neptune This newly discovered ice forms under conditions similar to those found at the center of Neptune and Uranus, which are chemically very similar planets. These ice giants are now thought to have gaseous, mixed-chemical outer shells, a liquid layer of ionized water below and a solid layer of superionic ice comprising the bulk of their interiors and rocky centers. If this is true, superionic ice might be the most common form of water in our solar system. This planetary structure could explain the unusual features of the magnetic fields that surround Uranus and Neptune. The other planets in our solar system with strong magnetic fields have clearly defined north and south poles, like Earth. According to Quanta magazine, these strongly defined north and south poles are due to interior regions of conductive fluids that rise and swirl as the planet rotates. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune have more than two poles, and they don't align well with the planets' rotation. One possible explanation is that these planets might have large solid cores surrounded by a thin liquid layer responsible for generating these odd magnetic fields. However, the idea of a large solid core didn't seem realistic because of the huge amounts of water on these planets. Now, the characterization of superionic ice makes this a real possibility, as it can get extremely hot but remain a solid. Discovering this new material sheds light on just how much there is still to discover in space and here at home. Interested in all things in outer space and exploration? We are too. Take a look at open positions at Northrop Grumman, and consider joining our team.

Superionic Ice May Be the Most Common Form of Water in the Solar System

The field of regenerative medicine seeks to replace, engineer or regenerate human and animal cells, tissues or organs with the goal of establishing or restoring normal function. Researchers hope that stem cells — the body's master cells, from which all cells with specialized functions are generated — may one day be used to treat and cure many severe human diseases. Now, a recent study published in Nature may have moved the field significantly closer to reaching that goal. Mimicking Nature A research team at Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) led by Professor Kunyoo Shin in Pohang, South Korea, was able to create multi-layered miniature organs called assembloids that precisely mimic human tissues, SciTechDaily reports. The breakthrough represents a first for regenerative medicine. "These assembloids are the world's first in-vitro reconstituted organoids," Eunjee Kim, the first author of the paper, told SciTechDaily. "We can precisely model a variety of complex intractable diseases such as cancer, degenerative diseases, and various neurological diseases including schizophrenia and autism, and understand the pathogenesis of such diseases to ultimately develop better therapeutic options." Organoids — often called miniature organs — are organ-like tissues derived from stem cells that imitate the structure and function of human organs. Unfortunately, they're not able to mimic the mature structure of organs because they lack critical interactions between various types of cells within the tissue microenvironment. Hence, the POSTECH team's decision to take a different approach to their regenerative medicine research. Taking a New Approach Shin's team focused on creating multi-cellular bladder tissues and tumor tissues as a way to study various bladder diseases, including bladder cancer. "We generated three-layered bladder assembloids by creating the epithelial (surface) layer with stem cell-derived organoids, the stromal layer (cell layer just below the epithelia layer) with stromal fibroblasts and endothelial cells, and the muscle layer with smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells," Shin said in a recent interview for Now. The POSTECH team also created patient-specific tumor assembloids by reconstituting tumor-cell-derived bladder tumor organoids with various types of cells found in tissue stroma and the tissue microenvironment, he added. Endothelial cells form the barrier between vessels and tissue and control the flow of substances and fluid into and out of a tissue. To create the bladder assembloids, Shin's team first isolated urothelial stem cells from primary tissues and embedded them in matrix gel to generate 3D bladder organoids. They also isolated other cells such as stromal fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells from the bladder, then cultured and expanded them in vitro (outside of the human body). For the tumor assembloids, they isolated tumor cells from human bladder tumor tissues, then embedded them in matrix gel to generate bladder tumor organoids. They also isolated cancer-associated fibroblasts from bladder tumor tissues from several patients, then cultured and expanded the fibroblasts in vitro. The various types of tissues and cells were then reconstituted to generate the bladder and tumor assembloids — a process that takes less than 10 minutes per assembloid, Shin said. Each assembloid is about 1 to 2 millimeters wide. Following the Signals Through testing, Shin's team discovered that the patient-specific tumor assembloids they produced perfectly mimicked the behavior of in vivo (within the human body) tumors. They used these assembloids to study the pathological characteristics of tumors. "Previous studies in our laboratory have suggested that signaling feedback between epithelial tumor cells and stromal cells play an important role in tumor plasticity and tumor subtype determination," commented Shin. He added that the team used the tumor assembloids and genetic engineering technologies to discover mechanisms by which signals from the tumor microenvironment determine the plasticity of tumor cells. "We think we can pharmacologically inhibit or activate the signaling between tumor and stromal cells with certain drugs," Shin enthused based on his team's findings. "By modulating these signals, it's possible to change the course of illness by inhibiting the growth of the tumor [â€¦] or changing an aggressive type of tumor to a less aggressive type." According to Shin, other scientists have tried creating human organs by fusing multiple organoids, but the results of those other studies have not been released. Assembloids, he emphasized, are not fusions of organoids but rather miniature organs created by reconstituting organoid tissue and various types of cells found in tissue stroma and the tissue microenvironment. The reconstitution process creates complex interactions among various types of cells, which can induce tissue maturation and generate mature organs. Regenerating the Future Shin is cautiously optimistic about what his team's work in assembloids will mean for the future of regenerative medicine. "Reconstitution of assembloids using cells from patients with intractable diseases such as cancer, degenerative disease or neurological diseases will enable patient-specific disease modeling," he suggested. "By using high-throughput drug screening on those patient-derived assembloids, we'll be able to develop patient-specific treatments for those diseases." However, to get there, Shin says his team will need to optimize the methods they use to obtain enough cells of the appropriate type from each patient to generate patient-specific assembloids. "Ultimately," he promised, "we will make our technology applicable to all human organs including the brain to develop better therapeutic options for precise and personalized therapy for many human diseases." Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology and engineering.

Could Regenerative Medicine Breakthrough Help Cure Intractable Diseases?

Sixty-five million years ago wasn't a great time to be a dinosaur.   After nearly 165 million years of evolution and expansion across Earth's surface, the Chicxulub impactor swung into our solar system. This 6-mile-wide asteroid slammed into what's now the northern coast of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, causing the Chicxulub crater and creating an inhospitable environment for the planet's previous inhabitants.   But is that the whole story? While some scientists see Chicxulub as the "smoking gun" of dino destruction, others are less convinced about the notion of asteroid Armageddon.   What's in a Name?   The crater and impactor get their monikers from the town of Chicxulub, the closest human settlement to the site. The dinosaur-destroying object itself, however, is sometimes called a comet, meteor or asteroid. But what's the difference?   Simply put, it's a matter of size. While there's no standardized measurement, meteors, meteorites and micrometeoroids are typically small, ranging from the size of pebbles down to grains of sand. Asteroids and comets, meanwhile, aren't fooling around: Massive asteroids such as Ceres — measuring a substantial 592 miles in diameter — are considered dwarf planets. While the Chicxulub impactor wasn't quite so big, its 6-mile size was enough to change the course of life on Earth.   Later, Crater   Evidence of the impact crater was first found in 1978 by Antonio Camargo and Glen Penfield, but they weren't able to directly connect their observations to an asteroid impact. In 1980, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez and his son, Walter Alvarez, suggested that increased deposits of iridium in 66-million-year-old clay — an element extremely rare on Earth but often found in space — lent credence to the Chicxulub crater theory. In 1990, evidence including melt spherules and shocked quartz were found at the impact site, indicating the presence of massive heat and pressure caused by an asteroid impact.   Later investigations also revealed a ring of buried, circular hills that contain granite rocks "out of order" with other sedimentary strata. This "peak ring" is common on other planets after impacts but hadn't been directly observed on Earth — it occurs when rock such as granite is superheated and begins flowing like liquid. In the case of Chicxulub, rock likely rebounded into a 10-meter tall tower before collapsing under its own weight and spreading out to form a ring of "hills" around the central impact site.   Today's Forecast? Terrible   While the initial outcomes of asteroid impact were awful — including massive waves, huge tsunamis, coastal wildfires and a massive heat pulse that could be felt more than 900 miles away — things only got worse from there. Part of the problem came from the fact that this was a worst-case scenario: Not only did the asteroid hit with a steeply-inclined trajectory — 45 to 60 degrees to horizontal, according to Nature — it also crash-landed near a coastline. If the Chicxulub impactor had come in a little less hot or hit farther out to sea, the outcome might have been problematic rather than pandemoneum.   This leads to the biggest problem with our prehistoric impactor: climate change. Not the current kind that comes with political and scientific push-pull, but the kind that likely caused a drop in temperature almost immediately thanks to volcanic aerosols. While temperature levels returned to near-normal in a matter of years, it took decades to overcome initial impact deficits. Not surprisingly, this wasn't ideal for dinosaurs — almost overnight, their habitats worldwide were destroyed.   Let's Talk Traps   There's no denying the massive impact — both figuratively and literally — of the Chicxulub impactor. But while its massive size seems like the kind of thing that ends arguments, the confirmation of out-of-this-world cratering started an entirely new set of speculations around exactly what killed the dinosaurs.   It all comes down to the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary, which marks the transition from one historical period to the next and ushers in the framework for more familiar terrestrial life. Though an explosion with the force of 100 million tons of TNT can't possibly be good for life on Earth, there's evidence to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by up to 300,000 years and can't be the direct cause of dinosaur demise.   Volcanoes are another option — wild volcanism is historically associated with significant extinction events, and as noted by Ars Technica, the end of the Cretaceous period saw massive eruptions along the Deccan Traps, in turn burying most of what's now India under lava and causing significant climatic change. While variable volcanism actually drives temperature increases that could offset some of the asteroid-induced atmospheric occlusion, volcanic ash poses its own problems for dinosaurs just trying to survive. While both asteroid and exploding mountains likely contributed to the end of dinosaur existence, that doesn't stop experts and amateurs from championing their personal best-fit theory for Cretaceous calamity.   Significant Impact   Meteors and asteroids play an undeniable role in Earth's history, ranging from the mildly curious — such as King Tut's meteorite dagger — to the massively catastrophic, such as the Chicxulub impactor. And while debate remains over the exact level of disparate dinosaur destruction caused by this outer space interloper, there's no denying that dinosaurs can lay claim to one of the worst days in Earth's history. 

The Chicxulub Crater: Of Asteroids and Armageddon

 May is National Inventors Month, celebrating the drive and determination of forward thinkers who go beyond the expected to create new and disruptive technologies. And while it's always beneficial to look forward and consider "what's next" for innovation, it's also worth considering what's current (and what's come before) — here's a look at seven inventions changing our world for the better.1) The Wheel (Asia) Every list has to start somewhere, and what better place to kick off a list of influential inventions than with the foundation of them all, the wheel. Credit goes to the Mesopotamians around 3500 B.C., who figured out that round was better than square when it came to — well, just about everything. Today it's almost impossible to find technologies that haven't been influenced by this circular design, from vehicle tires and spinning gears to the fans and moving parts needed to empower modern tech advancements.2) Plant-powered Lighting (South America) Jumping to present day, consider the work of Universidad de Ingenieria y Tecnologia (UTEC). This Peruvian institution of higher learning created the Plantalamparas, a lamp that captures the electrons produced when plant waste decomposes in soil, then stores them in batteries and uses them to power LED bulbs. In a country where 42 percent of rural households don't have electricity, this is a huge step forward.3) The Frazier Lens (Australia) This one comes from our friends Down Under — Australian inventor Jim Frazier created a deep-focus lens that allowed both the subject and background to be in focus at the same time. Before Frazier's invention, moviemakers had to pick one or the other, but his contribution offered the best of both worlds. He won an Academy Award for his invention in 1998, and the lens is still used around the world for film and television projects. 4) Illness-detecting Jackets (Africa) In Uganda, 27,000 children under age 5 die of pneumonia every year. Part of the problem? Many cases are misdiagnosed as malaria, causing proper treatment to be delayed or never administered. But Ugandan engineer Brian Turyabagye developed a solution, known as the Mamaope jacket. It works like this: An app-connected stethoscope is put into a vest and used to record the patient's temperature and breathing rate. Then, audio files are analyzed for telltale signs of pneumonia, yielding diagnosis rates three to four times faster than typical examinations and significantly reducing human error.5) The Internet (North America) In the 1960s, researchers working for the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) developed ARPANET, an internal communications network that used the concept of "packet switching" to transmit information. The rest is history — ARPANET was the predecessor of the modern internet, which now serves as the backbone of global communication and information transfer and is driving the adoption of new innovations such as the Internet of Things (IoT).6) Paper Transistors (Europe) Transistors are made of silicon, right? Portuguese scientists Elvira Fortunato and Rodrigo Martins have another idea: cheap, disposable paper-based transistors for electronic devices. The transistors use biodegradable, flexible paper as their foundation, and Fortunato's team has rebuilt an ink-jet printer to print out new transistors for solar cells, displays and biosensors. Not only does paper allow for cheap and rapid production but there's minimal waste when products reach end of life.7) Particles FROM BEYOND (Antarctica) Antarctica isn't known for its inventions, but there have been a number of remarkable discoveries made near the South Pole. As noted by the National Science Foundation, the "IceCube" detection tool confirmed the existence of high-energy neutrinos, which likely originated from outside the solar system, thanks to the uniquely undisturbed nature of the Antarctic environment. The takeaway? Great inventions have no boundaries. And while necessity remains the mother of invention, the unique combination of human creativity and the drive to create a better world provides ample room for new discoveries, new innovation and new global impact. If you are looking for a company that'll let you be a part of the next great invention, check out these careers.

International Innovations: 7 Inventions Changing Our World

Brain—computer interface (BCI) technologies are making headlines. In November, for example, IEEE Spectrum pointed to in-situ use of interface devices that let paralyzed patients control tablets with their thoughts alone. Let's tackle the basics of this mind over matter machinery — How does a BCI work? What else can this technology do? — and consider the key challenges of unlocking human potential. Interface in Action There's capital for the BCI market; Medgadget notes a predicted 11 percent compound annual growth rate over the next five years as medical technology companies look for ways to translate evolving brain science into marketable devices. But what exactly is a brain—computer interface? How does a BCI work? The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) offers a concise explanation: "Brain—computer interfaces (BCIs) acquire brain signals, analyze them, and translate them into commands that are relayed to output devices that carry out desired actions." The primary goal of these devices? To assist patients with neuromuscular disorders by enhancing or replacing useful motor functions and other actions. Once the realm of science fiction, an improved understanding of brain pathways and functions makes it possible for BCIs to "translate" simple commands that are then relayed to output devices via microelectrode arrays and sensors installed into specific areas of the brain related to hand movement, hand-eye-coordination or speech. Initial efforts allowed users to select letters from a screen to spell simple words, which were spoken aloud by a synthesizer — as noted by Scientific American, famed cosmologist Stephen Hawking used a system of this type. First-generation BCIs were often unwieldy, requiring multiple cables, large signal receiver boxes and substantial user training to ensure accuracy and reliability. More investment in BCI is now driving greater patient uptake and improvements to device functionality. Existing Applications A new research initiative from Stanford University, known as "BrainGate," recently demonstrated that BCI devices can be used by tetraplegic people to control commercial tablets. According to Discover, this brain—computer interface can decode brain activity associated with hand movement, which is then transmitted to a Bluetooth interface controlling a virtual mouse. Trial subjects said the BCI-tablet connection became "second nature" — one participant shopped for groceries online, another texted friends and family and the third was able to create music on a digital keyboard. Also in development? Speech BCI. As Scientific American points out, electrode degradation and technology limitations hampered previous attempts, which often struggled to interpret the "silent" speech of brain connections with more than 40 percent accuracy. New research out of Columbia University and the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, however, has been able to reliably achieve 75 percent intelligibility. Brain Drain So what's holding BCI back? According to the NCBI, there are three main challenges:   Hardware: BCIs need hardware "that is convenient, portable, safe, and able to function in all environments."  Testing: Brain—computer interfaces must be validated across long-term studies using real-world patients to develop viable new use models.  Reliability:  Interface technology must develop to a point where performance "approaches the reliability of natural muscle-based function."  Other challenges include the invasive nature of implanting microelectrode arrays (MEAs) into brain tissue, the natural degradation of these MEAs over time — within a year, most begin to fail — and the potential for bacterial or viral infection after repeated MEA surgeries. Electronic Evolution Despite the challenges, however, optimism in the field remains high, and new research continues to produce results. According to Science Daily, current areas of focus for BCI include "brain-controlled, computer-guided hand movements" that may empower electrical-stimulation—based prosthetics, visual and electronic feedback for stroke patients to help recover motor function and the use of new techniques such as "dynamic current steering," which can restore limited vision to blind people. Unlocked Potential Mobile device control, artificial limb movement and adaptive speech translation were the stuff of science fiction ten years ago. Now, new brain—computer interface technologies are harnessing the power of the mind over matter to deliver untapped human potential.

Mind Over Matter: The Promise of Brain—Computer Interface Technologies

If you're reading this sentence, there's a good chance you're using corrective lenses like glasses or contacts. After all, Statista reports that over 60% of U.S. adults wear prescription eyeglasses. For many people, glasses or contacts are essential to engaging in the activities of daily life, such as recognizing faces and objects, reading, driving and navigating screens. While modern lifestyles have contributed to the need for glasses earlier in life — as explained in the journal Nature — there's a long history of human eyesight deteriorating with age. The Roman orator Cicero (106-43 BC) lamented that he needed his slaves to read texts to him aloud. Just a generation later, the Roman philosopher Seneca (4 BC to 65 AD) is said to have used a glass globe of water to assist with reading. Early corrective lenses were not glasses to be worn on the face, but similar to magnifying glasses that could be held over objects of interest. This Roman knowledge of magnification would be lost among Europeans during the medieval period, and it might have been lost entirely if not for the work of Arab scholars, as The American Biology Teacher notes. How Do Corrective Lenses Work? Corrective lenses work by altering the direction of incoming light waves so that an image is focused when it hits the retina at the back of the eye. Common vision problems include nearsightedness, farsightedness and presbyopia. Nearsightedness is when nearby objects appear clear, but faraway objects appear blurry. This occurs when the eyeball is too long, which leads to light waves focusing in front of the retina. Farsightedness is when faraway objects appear clear, but nearby objects appear blurry. This can occur when the eyeball is too short, so the focal point of light is behind the retina. Farsightedness can also be caused by presbyopia, which is when the lens near the front of the eye loses elasticity and cannot adjust to adequately focus on nearby objects. Presbyopia often develops in middle age. Who Invented Glasses? Around 1000 AD, Italian monks developed and used polished domes of transparent quartz as reading stones. These could magnify text and correct for farsightedness, as explained in the journal Survey of Ophthalmology. An unknown Italian inventor developed corrective lenses for glasses around 1285 AD. Glass-blown lenses were secured into frames made of wood, leather or animal horn. The glasses were then held in front of the face with one hand or clipped onto the nose. A painting from 1352 depicting monks reading and writing manuscripts shows one using a magnifying glass while another wears glasses, according to Survey of Ophthalmology. At that time, monks were some of the only people who learned to read and write. Around 1440, the invention of the printing press made reading more accessible and increased the demand for glasses. In the 1600s, Spanish craftsmen added ribbon so that glasses could be looped over the ears. Other noteworthy styles included the monocle (for one eye only), the lorgnette (which was held in front of the eyes with a long handle) and scissor-glasses (which could be folded). In 1730, English optician Edward Scarlette added rigid temples that extended over the ears, which is the most common style today. In 1784, Benjamin Franklin invented bifocals by cutting and joining together convex and concave lenses, which allowed him to see near and far without switching glasses. Who Invented Contacts? Contact lenses are thin corrective lenses worn "in contact" with the eye. They work in essentially the same way as glasses, according to All About Vision: by refracting incoming light so that an image is focused when it hits the retina. For people who are nearsighted, the lenses are thicker on the outer edges and thinner in the middle, just like concave lenses for glasses. For farsightedness, the thickest part of the lens is in the middle, just like convex lenses for glasses. Contacts can be much thinner than eyeglass lenses because they rest directly on the eye. "Who invented corrective lenses" is a complex question to answer. Like many scientific discoveries, there were many important steps toward creating the first contact lens. Leonardo da Vinci is given credit for the concept of contact lenses, as described by Lenstore. His sketches from 1508 show a person placing their face in a curved glass bowl filled with water to see objects on the other side more clearly. The water would be in contact with the eyes, so technically it's a contact lens. In 1636, after reviewing da Vinci's work, Frenchman René© Descartes proposed placing a glass tube filled with liquid in direct contact with the cornea to correct vision. In 1801, English scientist Thomas Young used Descartes' idea to create a 1/4-inch-long, water-filled glass tube that he secured to his own eye with wax. Despite these brave efforts, the technology just wasn't there yet. In 1887, a German artificial eye maker started making contact lenses out of glass. The lenses covered all available parts of the eye, including the whites. The glass was heavy, no oxygen could pass through it, and wearers could not close their eyes over the lenses. As you might imagine, these contacts could only be worn for a few hours at a time before they became excruciatingly painful. In 1936, the first plastic contact lenses were produced, which were much lighter and safer than glass contact lenses. However, they still covered the entire eye and were made of a hard plastic that didn't absorb water and didn't allow much oxygen to pass through. Thus, they were only comfortable for short periods of time. In 1948, a manufacturing mistake led to the discovery that contact lenses covering just the cornea (the colored part of the eye) would stay in place while the wearer blinked and looked around. These smaller lenses were far more comfortable. In 1971, the first contact lenses made of soft plastic were introduced. They were even more comfortable and allowed oxygen to reach the surface of the eye. Today, more than 90% of contact lens prescriptions are for soft lenses. Manufacturers continue to make improvements to glasses and contacts for health, comfort and style. More than 700 years after their invention, glasses are perhaps more essential than ever. By allowing people to easily read, write and learn, corrective lenses have undoubtably contributed much to new technologies being developed to maintain, restore and enhance our senses. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

The History of Corrective Lenses

What's the origin of life on Earth? It's an incredibly old mystery we still don't have the answer to. What we do know is that life began on this planet sometime between 4.5 billion years ago — the age of the Earth — and 3.4 billion years ago, which is the age of the oldest fossils we've found, according to New Scientist. Previously, scientists had been unsure of whether the chemical process that got life started occurred all at once as a sort of Big Bang or happened more gradually. But now, a study recently published in Nature is introducing a new story of what started life on Earth. According to the scientists who authored this paper, lightning strikes may have been the literal spark that got life started on our planet. The Prevailing Theory: Meteorites As Space.com points out, phosphorous is one of the building blocks of life and may have been the fuel that propelled the chemical reactions that lead to the development of life. But this element is a solid at room temperature and mostly found in rocks. How, then, was it released in order to propel the formation of life? Until now, the prevailing theory has been that phosphorous may have arrived on early Earth through meteorite impacts, according to a study from the University of South Florida. This theory says that these space rocks contained schreibersite, which dissolves in water. If these meteorites crashed into the ocean, the phosphorous would have been released, spurring the creation of life. However, there's a problem with this theory: Researchers have posited that there weren't enough meteorite impacts during this period in Earth's history to create enough phosphorous to jump-start the chemical reaction for life. As a result, scientists have been looking for alternative explanations for the origins of life on this planet. Lightning Strikes as a Source of Phosphorous There's an abundance of phosphorous within Earth's rocks — more than enough to jump-start life — but outside of meteorites, these components are not soluble in water. Therefore, there's no way for the phosphorous to escape. Fulgurite, which is created when lightning strikes Earth, contains phosphorous that is taken from surrounding rocks. And it does, in fact, dissolve in water, as MIT Technology Review explains. The Earth had volatile weather during this period of its history, and lightning impacted the Earth's surface trillions of times. The authors of the new Nature study determined that there would have been more than enough phosphorous released to be key to the origin of life on Earth — forming 10-1000 kg of phosphide and 100-10,000 kg of phosphite and hypophosphite per year. Not only could lightning strikes have been a major source of phosphorous for the creation of early life, but these storms occurred regularly, primarily in tropical regions of the Earth. That means there was a continual supply of phosphorous to ensure that chemical reactions had enough fuel to progress. Life on Other Planets This discovery is especially important because understanding what started life on Earth can help us understand how it might develop on other worlds. We've already used phosphorous as a key factor when it comes to looking for life on other planets. For example, a well-publicized study in 2020 announced the discovery of phosphine gas in Venus's atmosphere, as the New York Times reports. This revelation led many to pronounce that we were well on our way to discovering life on our sister planet. But since then, many have cast doubt on the claim, as three separate studies have since failed to come to the same conclusion and did not find phosphine in Venus's atmosphere, according to National Geographic. Even if Venus does not harbor life, it's important to understand the source of the phosphorous that jump-started life on this world, so we can look at other planets with heavy lightning activity as possible candidates for the development of life. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery in science, technology and engineering.

Lightning Could Hold the Key to the Origin of Life on Earth

When wine connoisseurs discuss the complex flavors of a particular wine, they are sharing a multisensory experience that involves more brain regions than almost any other human activity. Whether you find this discussion engaging or annoying will depend on your personal experiences with the benefits of wine and wine connoisseurs. Nonetheless, the process of savoring wine is surprisingly complex and has led Yale neuroscientist Gordon M. Shepherd to write a book, Neuroenology: How the Brain Creates the Taste of Wine, which builds on his previous book, Neurogastronomy: How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why It Matters. Shepherd uses the experience of wine tasting to better understand sensory perception, which involves detecting, recognizing, characterizing and responding to stimuli. Wine tasting is an especially attractive process to study because it involves all five major sensory systems: sight, smell, taste, touch and even hearing. Sensory Perception Flavor is created by the brain in the same way color is created by the brain using different wavelengths of light and their surroundings. No two people see color in exactly the same way. For example, some people have perceived a dress in a particular photo as white and gold while others say it's blue and black, as explained by the BBC. Other sensory systems — like pain — also involve the brain interpreting stimuli in ways that we typically can't control. In wine tasting, connoisseurs have become more aware of the different stimuli involved and have learned to use them in ways that elevate the experience. So does wine make you smarter? Maybe, but only if you savor what you are drinking. The Wine Tasting Process In wine tasting, the experience starts before any wine is poured. The taster will anticipate the event based on past experiences and develop other expectations based on visual cues, conversations and imagination. This mounts as the bottle of wine is presented, popped open and poured into a glass, activating even more memories of past wine experiences. A connoisseur often then moves the glass to inspect the wine for color and turbidity. This visual inspection influences the expected flavor, which is why wineries invest so much in glass bottles, fancy labels and old-fashioned corks. Next, a swirl of the glass releases aromas from the wine. The taster may lift the glass to their nose and take a deep breath in, engaging their sense of smell. At this point, experienced wine drinkers might be salivating at the imagined taste. The actual tasting then finally happens by taking just a sip and holding it in the mouth. This floods the taste and touch receptors on the tongue with sensory input. Connoisseurs might swirl the wine around their mouth with their tongue to expose all their taste buds to the drink, trying to detect what they can: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami (savoriness). The flavor of the wine can be further enhanced by breathing in through the lips to aerate the wine in the mouth. Volatile molecules released by the wine are carried up the back of the throat to smell receptors in the nose, especially as the taster then breathes out through their nose. This is referred to as retronasal smell. More than any other sense, smell is linked with memory — like the smell of your grandmother's cooking or freshly cut grass. The final step is ingestion, which is a conscious decision that closes the passage between the nose and the mouth, dampening the flavor. Once swallowing is complete, the flavor of the wine continues to linger. Throughout the process, experienced wine tasters are working to fit this particular experience with previous ones, evoking a collection of memories of taste, smell, sight, touch and sound. And all of this is further enhanced by conversations with other tasters, food and music. Flavor involves all the sensory systems of the head and upper body as well as and the muscles of the tongue, jaw and cheeks. It also activates the central brain systems for smell recognition, memory, emotion, motivation, reward and language. So does wine make you smarter? Yes, much like other sensory experiences that engage many areas of your brain can make you smarter — such as being a connoisseur of music, sports or food. Other Benefits of Wine It's important to note that excessive alcohol consumption can lead to well-documented health problems, including liver damage, obesity, increased risk of cancer and stroke, depression, and addiction. However there is some evidence that moderate consumption has some benefits. Wine tasting is an enjoyable experience for many people, which can help improve mental health. Numerous studies also suggest that alcohol consumption can improve physical health if done in moderation, which is defined as no more than one glass a day for women and two glasses a day for men. Benefits may include a reduced risk of heart attacks, strokes, Parkinson's disease, cognitive decline and a number of cancers. Other studies suggest that moderate alcohol consumption may improve memory, boost creativity and help you live longer. A 2017 study published in The Journal of Psychopharmacology, for example, found that students learning Dutch as a new language performed better if they had a pint of beer first. A 2018 study on mice published in Scientific Reports found that low levels of alcohol consumption can lower inflammation in the brain and help clear away toxins, including those linked to Alzheimer's disease. A 2019 article in Molecules explains that moderate red wine consumption reduced risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including blood pressure and "bad" LDL cholesterol. If you enjoy savoring wine in moderation, you can take comfort in knowing that you are engaging your brain in a very mindful activity. Are you interested in science and innovation? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

The Benefits of Wine Include Activating Multiple Brain Regions

Why did humans lose their fur? It's a hairy subject, one bristling with more questions than answers as scientists try to resolve the fuzzy picture of human evolution into something more clean shaven. It's a strange shift: Why would our ancestors shed long locks in favor of naked bodies? And is this our final evolutionary iteration — or are we on track for completely hair-free forms?  Follicle Follies  Compared to most primates, humans are little more than pink, sweaty blobs of fat and water. Despite this follicular fallout, however, we remain obsessed with hair — many people will spend more than $100,000 in their lifetime having unwanted hair removed.  Part of the explanation for our depilation comes from an inhibitor protein known as Dickkopf 2 (Dkk2), according to Smithsonian Magazine. Recent rabbit research focused on plantar skin — the underside of the wrist in humans and the footpads in many other mammals — found both hair-covered plantar pads and a lack of Dkk2. And when mice with hairless plantar regions were given Dkk2-blocking mutations, they began sprouting fur.  As noted by Sarah Miller, dermatology professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Perelman School of Medicine and co-senior author of the study, however, "Dkk2 is enough to prevent hair from growing, but not to get rid of all control mechanisms. There's a lot more to look at."  Occam's Razor  While abundant Dkk2 delivery might help explain how humans became hairless, a bigger question remains: Why did humans lose their fur? As it turns out, explaining our denuded development is no easy task.  According to Scientific American, one popular theory is the "aquatic ape" — as protohumans began foraging in shallow lakes and rivers for food, fur both impeded their movement and made it hard to retain heat. As a result, we shed the fur and gained fat as protection. The problem? Fossil records for this aqua-loving ape are elusive, making it an outside contender for the fuzz-loss function.  Another option is the sweaty savanna suggestion; the notion that as humans moved out of forests and into the hot sun of savannas, hairy hominid bodies weren't a great way to stay cool. As a result, we dropped the hair and gained sweat glands to offset the heat. Fire is the caveat here: Hairless bodies would keep us cool during the day but wouldn't do the same at night — fire-building skills would have been essential to keep now-smooth bodies from freezing in the dark.  Other work suggests that parasite problems may have been the catalyst for our hair-free forms. Since hair offers an ideal habitat for everything from ticks and lice to flies — which could carry killer bacteria or viruses — clear skin made it easier for humans to stay healthy, along with increasing our ability to make and grip the tools needed to build fires and shelters. Holdover hair — often found on our heads and in pubic areas — remained to fill specific functions. Follicles on top helped protect human heads from overheating, while pubic proliferation may have continued to produce and deliver pheromones.  A Future Without Fuzz?  So what makes the cut in the next step of human evolution? Are we on track for entirely hairless bodies?  The answer may depend on feeling more than function. While it makes sense that climate change could conspire to reduce our follicle count, there's only so far a hot Earth can take us before sweating won't solve the problem; as a result, hair on our heads likely won't disappear anytime soon. Work from evolutionary neurobiologist Mark Changizi, however, suggests that hair loss may have helped human communication by making it easier for us to recognize emotional and physical states. The theory is bolstered by the presence of three cones in human eyes — receptors that help see color — rather than two.  More cones means the ability to see greater ranges of color, something that wouldn't be necessary for hunting fish or animals but would allow humans to better understand each other — so long as their heads were mostly hairless. From babies' skin turning color if they're sick or injured to the flush of anger, non-follicular faces may have empowered emotional communication.  Here, human-driven evolution, especially in the area of wearable and integrated technology, may pave the way for more follicle fallout. If devices do most of the talking for us, increased emotional attenuation may be advantageous for the continuing success of humankind at scale.  When it comes to the hairy question of why humans lost their fur, there's no single answer: From aquatic apes to superior sweating, parasite protection and emotional empowerment, being fur-free is fraught with evolutionary potential. 

Naked and Afraid? The Functional Fur Forfeit of Human Evolution

Plant-based diets are becoming more popular as both moral and methodological objections to meat intensify, but what if the flora we feast on has finally had enough? Recent data suggests that under the right conditions — such as physical damage or drought — plants emit ultrasonic "screams" between 20 and 100 kilohertz that can be heard up to 4 inches away. And while angry agriculture such as frustrated foxtails or downright disappointed dandelions don't pose much threat to humankind, carnivorous plants are another story. Could this greenery gone wild ever decide that a human-based diet was the best way to both get healthy and exact its leafy revenge? Here's what you need to know about killer carnivorous plants. What's for Dinner? Carnivorous plants are often called insectivorous plants — instead of simply subsisting on sunlight, water and soil, these plants pursue insects to supplement their diet. Some wait passively for bugs to fall into their pitcher-like traps, while others actively seek out their next meal. Consider the Venus flytrap: This well-known creature catcher snaps its "jaws" shut when tiny hairs are brushed twice in quick succession by an unsuspecting insect. The penchant of these plants for more violent nutrient-nabbing isn't a question of malice: As noted by the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, these plants typically develop in wetlands "that have little or no drainage and low levels of essential plant nutrients." By adding insects to their daily dietary requirements, these plants can survive — and thrive — even in less-than-ideal conditions. But not all carnivorous plants keep to insect kind: According to a recent paper published by Canadian researchers in the Ecology Society of America (ESA) journal, pitcher plants in Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park are now consuming baby salamanders, while other pitcher plants prey on small frogs unfortunate enough to go looking for food or shelter in their cup-shaped leaves. Some overly-ambitious flora have been known to eat rats — although the Atlas Obscura notes this is "akin to a human trying to eat a whole cow." Not impossible, but incredibly difficult. This certainly ups the "creep" factor of this greedy greenery — are they slowly moving up the food chain, waiting for their chance to bite back? The Art of Misdirection While insectivorous plants differ in their approach to snagging another snack, they all share a common approach: misdirection. The tropical pitcher plant Nepenthes lowii smells sweet to attract bugs, but its slippery surface causes them to lose their footing and fall inside, trapping them for digestion. Other pitcher plants accumulate water to make a tempting pit-stop for small fliers — once inside the waxy surface of species like Nepenthes alata make it impossible for bugs to climb out, even as enzymes steal their precious nutrients. The South African king sundew (Drosera regia) displays tiny translucent globules that look like water to lure in unsuspecting spiders. Instead, unlucky arachnids encounter thick mucilage globules that become ever more sticky as the spider struggles; when it finally gives up, a long tentacle transports it to the leaf's center where the eight-legged lunch is turned into a nutrient soup thanks to burning acids and enzymes. Plants like the Cobra Lily, meanwhile, use translucent leaf windows to trick flying insects when they enter the snake-like shape — bugs think they're flying out when they're actually flying toward their doom. It's another strike for carnivorous plants: Lying is part of the game when they're competing for survival. Could we get fooled? Purple People Eaters Plants do pose a threat to humans — but it's not because we're their preferred dietary staple. As noted by Gizmodo, our biggest problems come from poisonous plants; humans eating berries or leaves that contain chemicals like cardiac glycosides that can cause (you guessed it) cardiac arrest or tiny spears of calcium oxalate that cause oral irritation, drooling, swelling and potentially asphyxiation if airways become blocked. Any plant attempting to eat people would find itself overmatched; even small children are too big for plants to digest, and their leaves simply aren't strong enough to constrain human beings. Still, there's an interesting thought experiment here: Under what conditions could we find ourselves at the business end of hungry herbs? The nutrient-poor nature of most carnivorous plant habitats give us our first clue. If ecological damage accelerates on Earth — or if another global war erupts — existing farmland could be virtually wiped out, paving the way for meat-eating plants. And while sweet-smelling flowers might not catch our attention in a resource-scarce world, we'd certainly be tempted by the prospect of clean, abundant water. A host of Drosera regia could pose a tempting target for thirsty humans; if we lost our footing and fell, weakened from hunger and dehydration, into a field of ferocious flora, it could kick off a new craze among the plant carnivores: the people diet. Bottom line? Carnivorous plants pose no immediate or pending threat to humans, despite our regular consumption of their soil-sucking brethren. Still, extreme circumstances breed extreme outcomes — if you ever find yourself in a post-apocalyptic nutrient-poor bog and spot a shimmering sea of crystal-clear water, you might just be a meal in the making. 

Greenery Gone Wild: Could Carnivorous Plants Consume ... People?

Scientists have created an ultrasensitive torque detector that could measure a counterintuitive quantum effect called vacuum friction. While we may think of a vacuum as being truly empty and therefore frictionless, physicists have theorized that friction is possible in a vacuum. Now, a laser-based detector could prove whether the theory is true.  A Few Contradictory Definitions Friction is the force that resists the relative motion of one thing against another. Or, in more technical terms, friction "corresponds to wasted energy and therefore determines the efficiency and useful lifetime of all moving systems, from biological to aeronautical," according to Science Advances. In the simplest terms, a vacuum is a space without matter (remember, air is matter — it's just not very dense). Scientists can create a vacuum on Earth by using a vacuum pump to remove the air from a sealed container or by reducing the pressure using a fast flow of fluid, according to Britannica. Given these definitions, the idea of vacuum friction doesn't make sense. How can friction exist in a frictionless environment? Vacuum friction is a quantum effect where an object spinning in a vacuum experiences drag even though it's surrounded by nothingness, according to Science News. Why? Scientists suggest that even when there isn't any matter present, drag can be caused by the ever-present electromagnetic fields that constantly appear and disappear. It would be great to confirm this weird quantum effect, but it would be so subtle and on such a small scale that it's extremely difficult to measure. Torque Detector to the Rescue A team of physicists at Purdue University may have the answer. Phys.org reports that the Purdue scientists built the world's most sensitive torque measuring device. They suspended a speck of twirling dust in a laser beam inside a vacuum. Then they used another laser to alternate the torque and test its sensitivity. The device is made of a silica nanoparticle (that's the dust) suspended inside of a vacuum chamber by a laser beam. The physicists fired a pulsating, circularly polarized laser beam at the nanoparticle for 100 seconds at a time. This made the particle spin 300 billion times per minute, making it the fastest human-made rotor in the world. According to Science News, the torque detector can measure tiny twisting forces, and it is the most sensitive torque detector ever — 700 times as sensitive as the next best sensor. Just how sensitive is it? In the lab, the sensor could measure torques as tiny as 0.4 trillionths of a quadrillionth of a newton-meter, a unit of torque. For context, Science News explains that it takes about one newton-meter of torque to twist a cap off a soda bottle. Quantum Mechanics in Practice According to the researchers at Purdue, the nano-torque detector will help measure and investigate several aspects of quantum theory. Not only will it help unveil vacuum friction, but it could also measure other related effects. It could eventually measure the Casmir effect and nanoscale magnetism. With a better understanding of these quantum effects in the future, engineers could use them to develop and control nanoelectronic devices.

Torque Detector Could Determine if Vacuum Friction Is Possible

Carbon nanotubes, or CNTs, are cylinders of pure carbon with nearly mythical properties. Depending on the angle at which the carbon layer is rolled into cylinders, a carbon nanotube can have perfect electrical conductivity, be a semiconductor or be non-conducting. According to Nanowerk, CNTs can be 400 times stronger than steel at one-sixth the weight, and have better thermal conductivity than diamond. They are extremely resistant to corrosion, and the hollow interior can be filled with pharmaceuticals, water molecules or other nanomaterials to shield them from the surrounding environment. A Solution for Tangled Tubes Ever since Sumio Iijima discovered carbon nanotubes in 1991, researchers have been working to literally untangle their potential. CNTs can be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times longer than they are wide, which makes them prone to tangling during synthesis. The diameter of a carbon nanotube can be less than one nanometer (10-9 meters) or more than 100 nanometers, and the length can range from micrometers (10-6 meters) to millimeters (10-3). Carbon nanotubes are manufactured at a large scale, with highly tangled forms being used in composite materials for sporting goods, bullet-proof vests, boats, cars and aircraft. In order to unlock the full potential of carbon nanotubes, they need to be untangled and assembled into precise structures. A new solvent reported in Science Advances now allows high quality CNTs to be used in advanced manufacturing processes such as 3D printing. Challenges of the Nanoscale The challenge of untangling CNTs is explained by Eric Barnes, a Northrop Grumman Fellow specializing in additive manufacturing and 3D printing who was not involved in the study: "Carbon nanotubes exist in the realm that starts to be governed by nanophysics. In this realm, mass-driven properties like gravity and inertia slowly become less dominating, and elements of quantum physics begin to exert influence," he explained. "We find that things like Van der Waals attractive forces (attraction between molecules that leads to effects like surface tension) can become an asset or a liability. If you are a gecko lizard, the nanoscale structures on the pads of your feet allow you to take advantage of the Van der Waals attractive forces to walk up a sheet of glass. If you are wanting to disperse a nanomaterial into a fluid — such as a resin — the Van der Waals forces may cause your nanotubes to clump together." CNTs are often dissolved in "superacids," such as oleum or chlorosulfonic acid (CSA), which give the sidewalls of the CNT a partial positive charge without permanently changing their structure. This positive charge causes adjacent CNTs to repel each other and move into solution, which allows the carbon nanotubes to be detangled further while remaining at high enough concentrations to be extruded through a needle to produce high performance materials. Unfortunately, these superacids are incompatible with many manufacturing processes and commonly used plastics. A Gentle Touch Unlocks Possibilities Researchers found that two weaker acids, p-toluenesulfonic acid (pToS) or methanesulfonic acid (MSA), had the same effect on CNTs when mixed with a small amount of oleum, which is also known as fuming sulfuric acid. These acids can be used in die coating, screen printing and injection molding with common substrates, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polycarbonate plastics, according to Barnes. PToS is a solid that melts at 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit), which is particularly useful for 3D printing because the materials can be processed at moderate temperature and then solidified by cooling. The researchers found that MSA is best for fiber spinning and roll-to-roll production (for example, printing copies of an electrical device on a roll of flexible plastic). After printing, the acid solvent can easily be removed by submersing it in water. It can then be recycled, reducing the cost and environmental impact of producing CNTs. The oleum still requires special handling, but when it's diluted with the milder acids it can be used on unventilated bench tops with common plastics. According to Barnes "This novel approach allows for direct write of CNT structures by transforming the disarranged CNTs into precise, functional morphologies." These 3D printed structures "could potentially be used to carry electrical currents within a multifunctional aerospace structure. The ability to apply the CNTs to polycarbonate and polyester fabric indicates the potential for textiles containing CNT sensors for human health monitoring." In short, the possibilities are endless. Are you interested in all things related to technology? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Untangling the Possibilities for Carbon Nanotubes

If you see someone in distress, will you help them? We all like to consider ourselves to be good people, but when we're caught in the moment, we freeze. What is the bystander effect? For more than 50 years, psychologists have observed this phenomenon again and again in experiments and in real life. The research overwhelmingly shows the more people that are present when there's an emergency, the less likely they are to help. What Is the Bystander Effect? Scientific studies have shown that in one-on-one situations, people will help each other out. However, when there are more witnesses, people are less likely to help. Research suggests that this seemingly cruel behavior is part of human nature. In fact, the tendency toward group apathy may be wired into our brains. According to the Association for Psychological Science (APS), neuroscientists have observed the following brain response in bystander effect experiments:   When bystanders observed someone who was hurt or in danger, it activated their premotor cortex, which should have prepared them to help. But the presence of many bystanders also increased their personal distress. This triggers the "fight or flight" survival instinct, which can override their feelings of sympathy for the victim and prevent bystanders from helping out.  A higher number of bystanders is associated with decreased activity in the postcentral gyrus and the medial prefrontal cortex, the areas of the brain that are associated with helping responses.  Participants in one study watched a video in which an old woman collapsed. When there were more witnesses, there was decreased activity in the part of the brain that directs "prosocial behavior," the medial prefrontal cortex.  What Causes the Bystander Effect? Psychologists started studying the bystander effect after a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of a crowd in 1964, according to Mindful.org. After this incident, John Darley and Bibb Latané© conducted several experiments at New York University to find out why a crowd of seemingly decent people didn't help. In one study, they asked participants to fill out a survey. While they were completing the survey, dark smoke started to enter the room. When participants were alone when this happened, 75% of them reported the smoke. If two other people were in the room, only 38% reported the smoke. The same researchers conducted additional experiments in which 70% of people helped a woman in distress when they were the only witness, but only 40% helped when there were additional bystanders. Since then, many additional studies have confirmed the bystander effect is real. Several psychological factors are involved in what causes the bystander effect, according to Mindful.org and APS. Diffusion of responsibility is the concept that when more people are around, we assume that someone else (perhaps with more expertise) will help. Deindividuation is the phenomenon in which large crowds create a sense of anonymity, which can increase antisocial behavior. Pluralistic ignorance describes the fact that when nobody is helping, you assume it isn't an emergency. Furthermore, evaluation apprehension is the fear of being judged for doing something different from the crowd. When other witnesses don't react to an emergency, it sends a social cue that help isn't needed. Implicit racial bias makes the bystander effect even worse. The Washington Post describes a study in which researchers analyzed millions of emergency calls. They found that Black patients were half as likely to receive help from bystanders before paramedics arrive. How to Counteract the Bystander Effect Is it possible to overcome this selfish behavior? One factor that may help, according to Mindful.org, is reputational cost. This term describes the fact that people are more likely to intervene if they think they'll look bad if they don't help. Experts suggest that if victims call out an individual for help, it increases the likelihood that bystanders will take action. Some people are able to fight the bystander effect and become good Samaritans. According to Discover Magazine, psychologists use the term "moral rebels" to describe people who take action to help, even when the status quo is inaction. These rebels tend to have certain personality traits (high self-esteem, conviction in their values) and a level of authority or skill, such as doctors, nurses, soldiers and firefighters. The next time you're a bystander, Discover suggests asking yourself this question: if you act, will it matter? Taking it one step further, ask yourself what will happen if you do nothing at all.

What Is the Bystander Effect?

Are humans born with "intelligence" genes, or is human intelligence determined by environmental factors, such as economic status or easy access to education?    When a team of researchers set out to answer this question, they discovered that more than 500 genes were associated with intelligence. The results, published in Nature Genetics, indicate that intelligence is much more complex than previously thought.   How Can We Test Intelligence?        Intelligence, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is the ability to learn new information and apply it to different situations. Despite this simple definition, many elements of intelligence are difficult to nail down.   Does intelligence live in the synapses of the brain, or somewhere else entirely? The New York Times reports that psychologists have tested various mental capabilities, such as memorization and verbal skills, but test results did not definitively determine the factors behind different intelligence levels. The New York Times adds that part of the issue is that "Standard intelligence tests can take a long time to complete, making it hard to gather results on huge numbers of people. Scientists can try combining smaller studies, but they often have to merge different tests together, potentially masking the effects of genes." Additionally, an individual's intelligence can be affected by various factors, such as exposure to chemicals, sickness or economic status, Vice says. Is there a better way to measure someone's intelligence? Scientists believe that the answer lies in DNA.            Enable targeting cookies to view this content.   Do Intelligence Genes Exist?       The University of Edinburgh recently released a statement announcing that more than 500 genes were found linked to intelligence. Harvard University partnered with the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton to study the DNA of more than 240,000 people. The researchers determined that genes associated with intelligence could also control biological processes, with some genes even affecting longevity.  As Ian Deary of the Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology notes, "We know that environments and genes both contribute to the differences we observe in people's intelligence. This study adds to what we know about which genes influence intelligence, and suggests that health and intelligence are related in part because some of the same genes influence them." These results, published in Molecular Psychiatry, are illuminating, but also indicate that intelligence on the genetic level is far more complicated than once assumed.    The Future of Genetic Engineering    Research into the genetic components of various traits and conditions has already reshaped medicine. Genetic tests can help women prevent diseases such as breast cancer by revealing if they have a mutation that may put them at increased risk. Prenatal or preimplantation testing helps ensure that a child won't be born with a devastating genetic condition.  By learning which genetic mutations drive cancers, researchers have been able to use the drugs that work most efficiently to stop them, opening up a new field called precision medicine, according to the National Institute of Health.  There is even speculation that genetic engineering can improve human intelligence or produce the new evolution of superhumans. What's Next?  Scientists are still learning about intelligence genes. Once they learn more, however, the applications are myriad. One fairly immediate use for this knowledge will be to create techniques that can help children's intellectual development, with progress traceable genetically, according to The New York Times. Technology, rapidly making inroads in education, can dramatically shape what those interventions look like. Further down the line, scientists can engineer the genes, changing one or two to reduce the likelihood that someone will have a learning disability.                Before they can get there, though, there is still a lot more research to do.                                          

More than 500 Intelligence Genes Discovered

Key Takeaways  Telekinesis (Greek for "mind" and "motion") is the ability to move objects with your mind. There's no evidence of telekinesis in humans; popular "telekinetics" like Uri Geller have been debunked as frauds. The development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) may provide powers akin to telekinesis by giving users direct control over computers and other devices.The human mind is an amazing thing: 100 billion neurons make it possible for us to walk, talk, think, create, build — the list is virtually endless. Human nature, meanwhile, inspires us to want more, to push the boundaries of brainpower and discover new skills. Some of the most sought-after of those skills include telekinesis, an ability that lets us interact with physical objects using only our thoughts.The hope for evolved human potential has spawned a host of pop-culture characters capable of wielding psychokinetic powers with both benign and deadly intent. From wise-beyond-her-years Matilda Wormwood to the aggrieved Carrie White — not to mention the entire Jedi order — telekinetic powers occupy a special place in the human cultural lexicon. The concept is also getting a signal boost thanks to 80s-era TV hit "Stranger Things" and one of its powerful protagonists, Eleven. (Heads up: this article contains "Stranger Things" spoilers.)Could humans eventually evolve abilities like Eleven? What is telekinesis, exactly? Do documented cases already exist? What role does technology play in these (possible) next stages of human evolution? Read on — or use your telekinetic abilities to instantly download the article into your brain. Either way works, but if you choose the latter, do us all a favor and take some detailed notes on how you did it, OK?Talking TelekinesisWhat is telekinesis? The term comes from the Greek words for "mind" and "motion." At its most basic, telekinesis — also known as psychokinesis (PK) — is the power to move objects with your mind. Strength often varies from user to user depending on the origin of their powers, training, age, and so on. As noted by Bustle, the character of Eleven in "Stranger Things" is able to throw large objects, turn electronic devices on and off, break glass and affect the bodily functions of other human beings. She's also able to access other dimensions — including the Void and the Upside Down — which appear to overlap one another in time (and possibly space) in a kind of multiverse configuration.The caveat? For most telekinetics, performing feats of mind over matter is incredibly taxing: Luke Skywalker struggled to lift his X-Wing out of Dagobah's swamp (though Yoda had no problem), and Eleven gets nose bleeds whenever she pushes her limits. When we last saw the "Stranger Things" gang, Eleven used her powers to close the portal between our world and the Upside Down, trapping the Mind Flayer on the other side and protecting the citizens of Hawkins. For its part, the Flayer looked on from its Upside Down domain, watching the Snow Ball dance and keeping an eye on those meddlesome kids.While much of the show has focused on Eleven's personal development after her Hawkins Lab breakout, she's also demonstrated considerable telekinetic evolution, suggesting that her powers aren't done developing. Sure, they're the result of unethical CIA experiments and sensory deprivation, but the groundwork is there: What if Eleven is just a small-screen simulacrum of powerful humans that have existed in hiding throughout history?A Brief History of Mind MagicSpoiler alert: There's no documented evidence that telekinetic powers are real. A quick search will turn up hundreds of videos online, but they simply don't have the scientific rigor to offer anything of substance. As noted by neuroscience professor Mark Breedlove in a recent EarthSky article, while "Stranger Things" does capture the 1980s government fascination with discovering human mind-powers, real life outcomes didn't match those of the show. No conclusive evidence was ever found to support telekinetic abilities.Some well-known "telekinetics" like Uri Geller have gained infamy for using sleight-of-hand illusions to replicate mental powers, but this hasn't dissuaded telekinetic studies entirely. As noted by Live Science, researchers have shifted their effort to "micro-PK," which is the ability to affect very small objects or outcomes over time. Again, these efforts have been unsuccessful.The Next Level?So maybe moving objects with our minds is out of reach right now — but what about in the future? Could the next stages of human evolution include PK abilities? From a purely biological standpoint, probably not. There's nothing in our environment that would compel that kind of evolution, and since we can't identify which genes — if any — might govern Eleven-type powers, attempting to modify genetic code would be unethical at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.But it's not all bad news. As noted by Psychology Today, technology could help bridge the gap between mind and matter by leveraging brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) to allow direct control over computers and other connected devices without the need for tactile or voice interaction. Some efforts focus on creating direct brain/device links to treat conditions such as blindness or paralysis, while others are developing thought-to-text solutions that allow users to instantly compose texts or emails. No, it's not exactly Eleven closing the portal to the Upside Down, but remember — she started out crushing Coke cans in a hospital gown. Mind-meld emails might seem unimpressive but could pave the way for a brave new world of telekinetic powers.Bottom line? "Stranger Things" is a nostalgic treat and Eleven is amazing, but don't expect to follow her gray matter road map anytime soon.No telekinesis? No problem — use your brain to help drive digital transformation. Learn more about Northrop Grumman's work in digital transformation.

Are Telekinetic Powers the Next Step in Human Evolution?

When did humans learn to be friendly? It's an important question. While big brains helped humans outlast evolutionary competitors, such as the Neanderthals, smarts weren't enough to secure our primacy at scale. By trading aggression for cooperation, early hominid groups were able to develop tactics that allowed them to both survive — and thrive. But what prompted the formation of friendly frameworks in human evolution, and how did this friend zone help us zero in on beneficial human behavior? Friendly Competition According to Popular Science, friendliness and cooperation are the cornerstones of successful human evolution. Put simply, the friendliest were most fit for survival. Here's why: While the popular interpretation of Darwin's concept is to imagine "fitness" as describing the biggest, strongest and most aggressive individuals, survival of the fittest only refers to survival itself, both in the moment and by creating viable offspring. While aggression might offer greater access to food and mates, it's also inherently stressful and dangerous. Aggressive humans could be injured or killed and, without the help of others, faced weakened immune systems from the stress of continually protecting their primary status. By working together, humans were able to accomplish more with less risk — and there's now evidence to suggest that we "self-domesticated" our facial features over time by selecting mates that were more amicable than aggressive. And while some of our earliest expressions, such as disgust or fear, were driven by optical needs — disgust caused a narrowing of the eyes to improve focus while fear did the opposite to improve field of vision — more intricate displays of cooperation or comfort were developed to help nurture the "good" side of our nature and encourage human beings to work in concert rather than in conflict. Facing the Music The fundamental functions of friendliness start with facial expressions. Consider one of our most common cooperative markers: the smile. As Scientific American notes, many primate species consider bared teeth an aggressive gesture, especially if lips are curled and teeth are apart. Meanwhile, when lips are relaxed and teeth are together, submission is the likely supposition. For humans, smiles likely started as a way to showcase mutual submission — a willingness to work together — and evolved into the ubiquitous expression we use today. Worth noting? Not all smiles are genuine. While babies naturally smile in response to pleasurable stimuli, adults can deliberately obfuscate true intentions by smiling to gain initial trust rather than taking any direct cooperative action. So, when did humans learn to be friendly? In a BBC interview, anthropologist Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London noted, "As the last surviving species of humans on the planet, it is tempting to assume our modern faces sit at the tip of our evolutionary branch." This theory was originally supported by a supposedly common ancestor — Homo heidelbergensis — that lived 500,000 years ago and had a face midway between that of modern humans and those of Neanderthals. But a more recent discovery in Spain found a new species of hominin, called Homo antecessor, that lived more than 850,000 years ago and displayed facial construction much closer to that of modern humans. While there's no absolute certainty here, it seems that common human facial features may have existed far earlier than originally thought. The Robot Revolution How does the world end? Not with a bang, but with a friend request. Humans aren't just interested in person-to-person friendliness. We also want to mimic the same function in robots. According to Brian Scassellati, professor of computer science, cognitive science and mechanical engineering and director of Yale University's Social Robotics Lab, "Robots that engage with people are absolutely the future. There's no question that's where robotics is moving." From caring contraptions that help children learn to winning workers that positively interact with other staff, mankind is committed to moving friendship forward — even if it means hard-coding it into human analogues. This speaks to the evolutionary impact of friendliness: the drive to cooperate — rather than compete — to advance the species as a whole. While individualism remains a sought-after quality for personal advancement, humans can't deny the power of positive interactions in large groups, even if those groups are partially artificial. In fact, there's a case to be made here that the robot revolution is our next evolutionary step. Sure, having super-strength or telekinetic powers would be fantastic, but these aren't realistic outcomes. Humankind's greatest strength — the development and deployment of new technologies — offers the opportunity to make minds in our ideal image, friendship and all. Share and Share Alike Small groups of early humans did well with aggressive leaders and insular behavior. But as big brains became the evolutionary exemplar, cooperation replaced conflict as the "fittest" function for ongoing survival. Faces formed the front lines of friendliness, fueling our drive for self-domestication that made working together — even when we don't see eye-to-eye — better than staying apart. 

Human Evolution: Welcome to the Friend Zone

Why do we have fingers on our hands, and not on our heads? Hox genes. These are responsible for putting body parts in the right locations. They are like the body's genetic blueprint, and they're not just for humans. These genes are the foundation of the head-to-tail organization in other animals, too, such as flies, worms and mice. Occasionally, something goes awry, which can cause an insect to grow legs out of its head instead of antennae or genetic disorders in humans, such as malformed hands or feet. What Are Hox Genes? First, let's understand the bigger picture. Hox genes are a subset of Homeobox genes, which are a subset of Homeotic genes, the master regulators that control the development of whole-body segments or structures, according to Khan Academy. When they are overactivated or inactivated by a mutation, body structures such as limbs can still develop, but they may end up in the wrong place. For example, normal insect anatomy means that a bug should have six legs growing out of its thorax, antennae growing out of its head and wings on its back. But a genetic mutation could mess up the normal body plan (the basic structure of the animal) and cause a peculiar-looking insect that may not be able to fly. How They Were Discovered According to Stanford University's The Dish on Science, Thomas Hunt Morgan discovered the Hox gene family in 1915. Scientists in his research lab noticed that some fruit flies had an extra set of wings. They investigated and found the gene that caused the mutation and named it the Hox gene. During this era, William Bateson, the British biologist who founded and named the science of genetics, also made similar observations in other organisms. He studied:   Crayfish with extra oviducts (reproductive tubes)  Bees with legs where antennae should have been  Humans with extra fingers, toes or ribs  Broader Implications In the century since Hox genes were discovered, scientists have continued to investigate how these genes create blueprints for our bodies and why they sometimes go wrong. In 2019, Technology Networks reported that an international group of researchers found a method that can systematically identify the role each Hox gene plays in a developing fruit fly. "The genome, which contains thousands of genes and millions of letters of DNA, is the most complicated code ever written," said Richard Mann, PhD, one of the researchers. "Deciphering this code has proven so difficult because evolution wrote it in fits and starts over hundreds of millions of years. [This] study offers a key to cracking that code, bringing us closer than ever to understanding how Hox genes build a healthy body, or how this process gets disrupted in disease." Not only do these genes play an important role in embryo development, but they also seem to have a role in certain types of cancers, such as leukemia, according to News Medical. Further research on these mysterious genes could help us understand both human and animal genetics — and maybe even provide the foundational science needed to cure certain genetic disorders and other diseases.

Hox Genes: The Blueprint for Your Body

Key Takeaways  Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe, and is found mostly stuck to stardust. On Earth, breathable oxygen forms around 20% of the atmosphere, and it's gravity that keeps it from floating off into space. At altitude, Earth's oxygen is hoovered up by the vacuum of space.In space, no one can hear you scream, and as every grade school student knows, it's because there's no air to carry sound waves. Since around 350 BC, we've suspected — and more recently confirmed — that space is a vacuum. But what happens to oxygen in space?Although NASA and other space agencies were well-prepared with spacesuits before sending astronauts into space, determining what happens to oxygen in space has been less clear. However, the study of the atmosphere — or, more correctly, the lack of atmosphere — in space has recently shown that molecular oxygen does exist there, but only in two locations so far.Clearly, despite it being the third most abundant element in the universe, breathable oxygen is in extremely short supply once you leave our planet. But are the implications of this? And what can we learn from this fact?Early Study of the Atmosphere Predicted the Void of SpaceWhat happens to oxygen in space could not be confirmed by direct observation at first, as crewed spaceflight did not happen until the latter half of the 20th century. Instead, the lack of oxygen in space was initially predicted by deduction, observation and a lot of climbing.Our planet is surrounded by a shell of atmosphere. Layers of air comprising nitrogen, carbon dioxide and other gases, such as oxygen, support life on the planet. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) describes how early scientists measured the change in the atmosphere as you get farther from Earth's surface.In 1648, two scientists, Blaise Pascal and his brother-in-law Florin Perier, carried a one-meter glass column of mercury to the top of a mountain. This early Torricelli barometer showed them that air pressure decreased with altitude. In 1787, further research carried out by another researcher who risked altitude sickness on Mont Blanc, Europe's highest mountain, showed that, along with the drop in air pressure, temperature also decreased.These findings suggested that our atmosphere was breaking free of gravity and vanishing into a vacuum of space, which was further confirmed with daring balloon flights higher and higher into the atmosphere. Risking death, early scientists demonstrated not only that air pressure was lower at higher altitudes but also that oxygen levels four miles up into the atmosphere were so reduced that they were almost incompatible with life.Further study of the atmosphere at greater elevation, carried out with uncrewed weather balloons, confirmed that there's less oxygen in the upper layers of our atmosphere and the air pressure is lower there.Where Does Oxygen Come From?Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe, so in theory, space should be full of it. However, the space between the planets, stars and other celestial bodies is only thinly populated with dust, gas and radiation. Despite decades of astronomy, molecular oxygen (the stuff you can breathe, comprising two atoms, O2, joined together) is almost nonexistent. As Science.org notes, in space, hydrogen molecules, H2, outnumber O2 by a million to one.On Earth, O2 is abundant. It's formed by plants, algae and phytoplankton during photosynthesis as they take in CO2 and convert it into energy. Breathable oxygen forms around 20% of the atmosphere, and gravity keeps it closely bound to the planet, but in the upper layers, the pull isn't so strong, and the vacuum of space hoovers it up. Oxygen floating off into space at altitude is why most mountaineers need to carry reserves with them to summit Everest.Oxygen does exist in space, though the Goddard Space Flight Center notes that it wasn't formed during the Big Bang. Instead, it arrived due to nuclear fusion reactions in the newly formed stars. As the stars consumed hydrogen and helium, they created carbon and oxygen. At the end of a star's life, these elements — the building blocks of carbon-based life — are hurled into space.So, yes, we do come from stardust, but it's also stardust that's hoarding the oxygen molecules out in space.What Happens to Oxygen in Space?Oxygen was discovered in the 1770s, but astronomers have only recently discovered where to find it in space. And the reason for it being so elusive is stardust.NASA reported in 2015 that infrared detectors at the European Space Agency's Herschel Observatory found molecular oxygen in only two places in the universe: the Orion Nebula and the Rho Ophiuchi cloud. The reason for this scarcity could be that oxygen is much stickier than it was once thought to be.A recent study that simulated space dust cloud conditions here on Earth found that the binding energy for elemental oxygen is around twice as strong as expected. In the clouds of stardust, this strong attachment means that the oxygen atoms themselves are not free to combine and form breathable O2. When they're tightly bound to the grains of space dust, they join with hydrogen instead to form H2O, or water, which then freezes.Although individual oxygen atoms are common around the stars that create them, stardust quickly gathers them up and doesn't easily let go. When you look up at the stars at night, remember this fact, and it may give you some comfort knowing a little more about how our universe works and what happens to oxygen way up there.Discover how depth and breadth of mission experience in developing leading-edge space technologies plays a vital role in the quest to answer compelling questions about the origins of our universe.

What Happens to Oxygen in Space?

While it may have felt like an eternity, effective treatments for COVID-19 have been discovered quite quickly with the help of miniature lab-grown organs called organoids.What Are Organoids?These tiny lab-grown organs are less than a centimeter wide and typically grown in plastic Petri dishes. As an article in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology explains, organoids come from stem cells, which are commonly derived from adult skin cells that have been treated so that they revert to an undifferentiated state. It's like erasing a computer hard drive and starting over. When these stem cells are treated with just the right combination of molecules in just the right order, they will divide to produce the different cell types of the appropriate organ system. These cells will self-organize into a tiny 3D structure with roughly the appropriate structure—with certain cells on the outside, other cells on the inside, some cells forming tubes, etc. In this way, scientists can produce tiny models of lungs, stomachs, intestines, brains, hearts, kidneys, and more.Moreover, these tiny organs can be produced with specific variations in the DNA sequence that might make someone more or less susceptible to a disease such as COVID-19. These organoids can be used to identify effective viral infection treatments before they are given to humans.Organoids and the Fight Against COVID-19The first COVID-19 patients provided an initial understanding of how COVID-19 affects the human body and produces symptoms. Infection in the lungs can cause pneumonia and acute respiratory distress. Infection in the gastrointestinal system can cause nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. As COVID-19 became a global pandemic, an unfortunate deluge of patients soon revealed less-common effects on the brain, heart, kidney and other organ systems.An army of medical professionals on the front lines were doing everything they could to treat the patients in front of them, trying not to become patients themselves, and reporting what they were learning about the disease. Meanwhile, an army of scientists were working in the lab to understand how the COVID-19 virus binds specific proteins and infects specific cells and testing which viral infection treatments might be effective. While patient samples provided some information, laboratory experiments with organoids were essential for accelerating our collective understanding of which small molecules, antibodies and vaccines were effective against COVID-19, as an article in Nature Methods explains.The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020, according to the CDC. On May 1, 2020, the antiviral drug Veklury (remdesivir) was approved as a COVID-19 treatment by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through an Emergency Use Authorization, and then fully approved on October 22, 2020, for patients 12 and older. This rapid approval would likely not have been possible without the use of organoids in the earliest studies.Brain organoids have played an essential role in understanding how the COVID-19 virus infects and affects the brain. This has led to the discovery that infection of brain organoids can be prevented by antibodies that bind a protein called ACE2, or by administering spinal fluid from someone with an active COVID-19 infection. The ACE2 protein was also found to be associated with COVID-19 infection in kidney and liver organoids. By using liver organoids generated from individuals with a specific liver condition (nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), it was discovered these individuals are much more likely to have their liver cells infected by the COVID-19 virus. While preventing COVID-19 infection in miniature lab-grown brains or other organoids isn't the same as effectively preventing or treating infection in an actual human, it's certainly a small step that will help us find our way to that larger goal.Organoids earned their stripes during the COVID-19 pandemic and will be on the front lines of medical treatment research for years to come.Are you interested in science and innovation? We are too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Organoids: Lab-Grown Organs in the Fight Against COVID-19

Key Takeaways Arctic exploration is more feasible due to climate change. Climate change is threatening traditional Arctic landscapes by melting ice on land and in the ocean. Exploration is at the micro as well as macro level, with microbial finds and plant history discovery topping the list.Not only is climate change melting glaciers in the Arctic and negatively impacting sea levels, but reduced sea ice is also challenging polar animals by interfering with the food web, closing down traditional hunting strategies and potentially disrupting ocean phytoplanktons. These effects and an increase in traffic for Arctic exploration are local problems with a global impact.Conversely, polar exploration also benefits from thawing ice. Increased access to field sites is revealing the historical record of climate cycles, while microbes living deep within the ice give clues to antibiotic resistance and survival tactics.Arctic Ice at Sea and on LandThe Arctic is defined as the region lying north of the Arctic Circle (66° 34'), where there is no sunset on the summer solstice or sunrise on the winter solstice. The Arctic is also described as the lands north of the tree line, including northern latitudes where summer temperatures do not rise above 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit). In this region, ice is found all over the Arctic Ocean or as glaciers or ice caps on the land around its perimeter.While sea ice melt doesn't contribute to rising ocean levels, water from thawing glaciers and ice caps does. Due to global warming, glaciers are melting at much faster rates. CNN reports that if the whole Greenland ice sheet melts (approximately 1.71 million square kilometers, or 660,000 square miles), sea levels will rise around 7 meters, or 23 feet. But regardless of where it's found, ice coverage in the Arctic can be an obstacle to polar exploration.Polar Exploration Takes Advantage of Melting IceAs the ice melts, nations gain easier access to polar exploration. Benefits include safer, faster shipping lanes and easier resource survey and extraction. There's even potential for renewable energy production and sustainable fish harvesting.Geographical lists energy sources such as oil and gas, in addition to precious and rare earth metals, sparking interest. Untouched fossil fuel reserves here may contain around 22% of the undiscovered but technically accessible deposits globally.Arctic permafrost — the rock and soil that stays permanently frozen year-round — is also thawing and opening up areas for resource exploration and extraction. However, this is causing problems with infrastructure, such as roads.Ice Melt Uncovers Historical Climate RecordsIce melt also opens up areas for scientific discovery — researchers have found valuable data as the Arctic ice recedes. Samples need to be quickly collected before warmer conditions destroy the evidence. Columbia Climate School describes ice cores from Greenland that show climate change in the past led to abundant plant life on the island.These historical plant records show that previous episodes of global warming led to profound changes in vegetation, giving insight into how our planet could respond to climate change. The National Snow and Ice Data Center calls the current conditions "the new abnormal," with less Arctic sea ice and warmer conditions overall.Cautious Next Steps for Polar ExplorationResearchers have also found microbes alive in thawing ice samples, including 30,000-year-old viruses still capable of infection after their deep freeze. Rising temperatures risk reawakening old diseases. Permafrost contains animal carcasses that didn't get a chance to decompose in sub-zero temperatures, so any disease-causing pathogens can survive and spread when these resurface. Some pathogens, like anthrax, survive long periods of freezing by creating indestructible but infective spores.CNN postulates that the next pandemic might thaw out from permafrost, reporting on results from a genomic study of samples from Lake Hazen in the arctic that shows virus presence. Awareness of these hazards could help protect workers mining the new resources.And once reanimated, ancient microbes get busy producing carbon dioxide and methane greenhouse gases. Permafrost thaw also releases toxic metals, such as mercury. The U.S. National Park Service notes that this release of metals and organics is hitting Arctic waterways hard. In addition to quite literally rusting up streams, the materials released from permafrost are driving out fish and other aquatic species by altering water chemistry.Potential for New MedicineColumbia Climate School describes finding microbes that have developed characteristics to survive extreme cold. These include new bacteriophages that attack other microbes and bacteria that can digest oil.Research could also be valuable to medicine. Arctic ice could be an excellent repository for novel genomic material. Even though they haven't been exposed to modern commercial antibiotics, some ancient bacteria contain antimicrobial resistance genes. While this is worrying in terms of potential disease risk, genomic research could benefit from learning about these novel resistance mechanisms and allied virulence factors as targets for new drugs.Arctic exploration isn't always about adventures at sea and drilling for resources — some of the new finds could be invisible to the naked eye.Leadership in environmental sustainability and climate change is our priority at Northrop Grumman. Learn more about our commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.

Arctic Exploration Opens Up with Climate Change

How are planets formed? Until recently, astronomers who study our planets and alien exoplanets thought they knew. Now, a discovery of a six-exoplanet star system some 200 light-years away named TOI-178 is challenging planetary formation theories. Five of the system's six planets revolve around their central sun in predictable patterns that repeat, with some planets aligning every few orbits. This seemingly well-choreographed dance, called "orbital resonance" or "chain of resonance," has rarely been observed in the universe. But the curiosity doesn't stop there. Even though the exoplanets have consistent, resonant orbits, their individual densities vary widely. "It appears there is a planet as dense as the Earth right next to a very fluffy planet with half the density of Neptune, followed by a planet with the density of Neptune," team member and astronomer Nathan Hara of the University of Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement for the European Southern Observatory (ESO). "It is not what we are used to." As the scientists explained in the study published in the scientific journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, the TOI-178 system formed "contrary to what one would expect from simple formation and evolution models" and will provide "important clues" to the formation of other systems. Detecting Alien Planets To date, astronomers have confirmed the existence of more than 4,000 exoplanets, with thousands of other candidates on deck, according to NASA. The alien planet nearest to Earth is Proxima Centauri b, as EarthSky notes. It orbits the star Proxima Centauri, located 4.2 light-years away. (One light-year equals 6 trillion miles.) Because exoplanets are so distant from Earth, astronomers cannot observe them through conventional telescopes. Most exoplanets are found by using specialized instruments on ground-based observatories and orbiting satellites that can detect light coming from alien worlds. One method involves imaging the temporary dimming of light coming from the central star as one of its exoplanets passes in front of it. Another method involves detecting slight wobbles in the central star's light spectrum as the gravity from one of the orbiting exoplanets tugs on it. The team that investigated TOI-178, led by Adrien Leleu from the University of Geneva and the University of Bern in Switzerland, used both of these methods to study the motion of the planets, as ESO reports. Researchers analyzed data from a host of astronomical instruments, including the European Space Agency's CHEOPS satellite, the ground-based ESPRESSO instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope array and other instruments sited at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile. From the data, the astronomers uncovered a trove of important details. The six planets orbit their star much faster than planets do in our own solar system. The innermost planet in TOI-178 circles the star in just a couple of days. The slowest one does it in less than an Earth month. The sizes of the TOI-178 planets range from about one to three times the size of Earth, while their masses are 1.5 to 8 times the mass of Earth, according to ESO. Although similar to our solar system in some ways, the positions of the planets and how they behave are out of this world. Orbital Resonance In our own solar system, only two examples of orbital resonance occur, ScienceAlert notes. The first lies with Pluto and Neptune: For every two orbits Pluto makes around the Sun, Neptune makes three. That's a ratio of two to three, referred to as a 2:3 resonance. The three moons of Jupiter also form a chain of resonance. For every single orbit Ganymede makes around Jupiter, Europa makes two trips and Io makes four — a 1:2:4 resonance. Elsewhere in the universe, other star systems have planets linked in a chain of resonance. The Kepler-80 system has five exoplanets in a resonance chain of 4:6:9:12:18. The TRAPPIST-1 system has a seven-exoplanet resonance chain of 2:3:4:6:9:15:24, as ScienceAlert reports. But ESO notes that the five planets in TOI-178 "follow a much more complex chain of resonance, one of the longest yet discovered in a system of planets." The innermost of those five exoplanets completes 18 orbits for every three orbits of the outermost. The entire chain is 3:4:6:9:18. To better comprehend TOI-178's orderly chain of resonance, ESO created an animation of the orbits that is scored with musical notes attributed to each planet. The note rings when a planet completes either one full or one-half orbit. When planets align at these points in their orbits, they chime in harmonic resonance. Their orderly resonance provides clues about TOI-178's past, according to team member Yann Alibert from the University of Bern. "The orbits in this system are very well-ordered, which tells us that this system has evolved quite gently since its birth," Alibert said in the ESO press release. If another object had impacted a planet in the system earlier in its life, the configuration of orbits would have been disrupted. How Are Planets Formed? Although TOI-178's planetary orbits display an orderly chain of resonance, the composition of those planets is anything but tidy. The rocky planets are much larger than those in our own solar system, and the gas planets are much smaller, ESO notes. And unlike our own solar system, where the planets are neatly arranged from dense inner planets to less-dense outer planets, TOI-178 has rocky planets right next to gassy ones. "In the few systems we know where the planets orbit in this resonant rhythm, the densities of the planets gradually decrease as we move away from the star, and it is also what we expect from theory," Leleu told SciTechDaily. According to NASA, the basic theory of planetary formation goes like this: Our solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago from a dense cloud of interstellar gas and dust that may have collapsed due to some external force, such as a shock wave from a nearby supernova. As the disk of material continued to spin, it pulled in more and more material until pressure in the core forced hydrogen atoms to combine and form helium, which released a tremendous amount of energy. A Sun was born. Eventually, the disk pulled in more matter, which clumped together to form planets and moons. Nearest the Sun, only rocky material could withstand the heat of the new star, while ice, liquid or gas settled into the outer regions of the solar system. How or why TOI-178's planets seem to break the norm is still puzzling. Other questions remain, such as why only five of the six planets orbit in resonance. Leleu and his team continue to parse the data, looking for additional clues and even additional planets. "We might find more planets that could be in the habitable zone — where liquid water might be present on the surface of a planet — which begins outside of the orbits of the planets that we discovered to date," Leleu told the European Space Agency. Although the discovery leaves the door open on several mysteries, it also throws into question how our own solar system formed. Did our planets once have harmonic resonance in the way TOI-178's planets have? Leleu told Phys.org that he thinks the implications could impact some of our most fundamental assumptions. "This contrast between the rhythmic harmony of the orbital motion and the disorderly densities certainly challenges our understanding of the formation and evolution of planetary systems," he said.

A Six-Exoplanet System Challenges Assumptions of How Planets Form

Deep in the universe, cataclysms are rattling the fabric of space and time. Massively accelerating events, such as colliding black holes, orbiting neutron stars, exploding stars and more, create gravitational waves that, like ripples from a stone tossed into a pond, radiate out from the source. Until recently, the existence of these features was only a theory put forth by Albert Einstein. He surmised that they were invisible and moved at the speed of light. In September 2015, scientists using extremely sensitive U.S.-based instruments, collectively called the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), detected these ripples in spacetime for the first time. They were coming from two black holes that had crashed into each other about 1.3 billion years ago. Shortly after the discovery, an Indian initiative in gravitational-wave observations was approved, and the country's government committed to constructing a third advanced interferometer. It will be built in the country's Hingoli District, on the opposite side of the globe from the U.S.-based detectors in Washington and Louisiana. The three-pronged network will greatly expand the area of sky scientists can search, increase the number of sources they can spot and allow them to triangulate incoming data from space to better pinpoint the location of highly energetic cosmic events, according to the California Institute of Technology. What they learn will open a new window on the universe and the past from which humans fundamentally arose. Doing the Wave Peering into space goes back millennia to when humans first looked up to the stars. They relied on visible light in the early days, observing objects with their eyes and through telescopes. Advances in technology eventually allowed scientists to study other energetic parts of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, including infrared, X-rays, radio waves, microwaves and more. But gravitational waves are different. "They are as distinct from EM radiation as hearing is to vision," reports Caltech. The information they carry isn't comparable to anything else scientists currently have access to. For instance, unlike electromagnetic radiation, gravitational waves interact weakly with matter. This means they aren't impeded by planets, stars, galaxies or other objects as they ripple across spacetime. As a result, the information they carry is free of the distortions commonplace in EM-based data. New insights gleaned from the features can eventually explain two big mysteries in the universe: gravity and dark energy. Although gravity keeps planets in orbit and prevents objects on Earth from floating up into space, it's not well understood. It's the weakest force in the universe and is many billions of times weaker than the electromagnetic force that holds atoms together, according to Stanford University. How and why is still theoretical. Dark energy is another enigma. Scientists theorize that it makes up 60 percent of space and is responsible for the expansion of the universe, according to NASA. (Dark matter makes up roughly 27 percent of space.) But scientists have never observed dark energy, and their theories remain unproven. How LIGO Works The interferometer instruments that make up LIGO need to be huge and extremely sensitive because these cosmic waves are so weak. They're all shaped like an "L," with each arm extending 2.5 miles. The arms are 10 feet wide and 12 feet tall, and house a steel vacuum tube that's about four feet wide. Laser beams are shot down the vacuum tubes. When a wave passes over Earth, it squeezes and stretches spacetime, causing one of the beams to slightly lengthen and the other beam to shorten. Mirrors and sensors, including a photodetector, pick up the infinitesimal change, according to NASA. Having more than one instrument increases the amount of data being gathered. Placing the instruments far apart improves the location detection accuracy. It's analogous to finding an active mobile phone by using three different cellphone towers to ping the phone. As the signals propagate in concentric circles from the tower, they only intersect at one spot — the phone. "LIGO India is out of the plane of the other three advanced gravitational-wave interferometers. Thus, it will help narrow down the on-sky location of the gravitational waves tremendously and give a big boost to the astronomers hunting for the light," Mansi Kasliwal, assistant professor of astronomy and the leader of a LIGO effort at Caltech, said in a press release. An Indian initiative in gravitational-wave observations will serve as the third advanced interferometer to pinpoint colossal accelerating objects. Certain vibrational signatures from the waves generated will provide clues to the type of cataclysms. Scientists have identified four unique fingerprints: continuous, such as those produced by neutron stars; compact binary inspiral, such as those from pairs of white dwarf stars, black holes, or neutron stars that are orbiting each other; stochastic, which are small, random waves; and burst, which define unexpected or surprising waves. A Global Collaboration Like all major scientific endeavors, LIGO-India will involve research teams from different cultural backgrounds and political values coming together for a common goal. A consortium of Indian research institutions will work closely with the LIGO Laboratory in the United States, and different interferometers in Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom. A team of Indian scientists has already been collaborating with U.S.-based LIGO scientists, says Nature. According to Ajit Kembhavi, emeritus professor at IUCAA Pune and chair of the LIGO-India site-selection committee, India has a long tradition of research in general relativity, gravitational waves and data analysis. New discoveries and insights are inevitable. Once LIGO scientists pinpoint the source of a great cataclysm, other scientists will point more conventional instruments in that direction. Telescopes, X-ray observers, and radio wave and microwave detectors will add more data and insight. The project will likely also raise questions scientists haven't thought to ask. "Any time you turn on some new type of telescope or microscope, you discover things you couldn't anticipate," LIGO Laboratory Executive Director David Reitze said in a press release. "So, while there will be certain sources of gravitational waves that we expect to see, the really exciting part is what we did not predict and what we did not expect to see."

How Gravitational Waves Will Help Decipher Mysteries of the Universe

In the great classroom of physics — otherwise known as the universe — gravity doesn't work or play well with the three other fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, the weak force and the strong force.   These three forces are enormously powerful but operate mainly over short distances. Most important to physicists, all three can be neatly explained by the theory of quantum mechanics.   Gravity is different. Physicists can't quite wrap their heads around the graviton, the quantum particle of gravity that's almost impossible to detect.   Needless to say, all of this makes gravity — and the search for the graviton — a core challenge of contemporary physics.   The Odd Force Out   On the one hand, compared to the other fundamental forces of nature, gravity is incredibly weak. The weak nuclear force makes nuclear bombs explode, while magnetism (which is much weaker) allows a toy magnet to pick up a steel needle against the whole gravitational force of the Earth.   But weak as it is, gravity dominates the universe because all mass, including mysterious dark matter, produces gravity. The force of gravity makes the Earth and other planets round. In fact, without gravity, there would be no objects in the universe, only an ever-thinner gas of individual particles.   All of which makes the search for a theory of quantum gravity a very big deal.   Black Holes and Unsolvable Messes   The core challenge for physicists is that gravitons are exceedingly difficult to detect because gravity is so weak. In fact, per Scientific American, detecting the graviton the old fashioned way, by observation of particle collisions in a classical atom smasher, is outright impossible. The device would need to be so big and massive that it would collapse into a black hole.   Even if it still worked, we'd never get the results.   There are other complications as well, as Space.com pointed out. Physicists working in quantum mechanics have come up with a mathematical tool called renormalization that can be used to gauge the interaction of quantum particles on the subatomic scale. But because gravity involves changing the shape of space, introducing gravitons to the renormalization equations makes them go haywire.   Physicist Netta Engelhardt said this "effectively means that you need an infinite number of experiments to determine anything," which, she noted, is "not a realistic theory."   The Cheshire Cat's Grin   The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy labeled the development of the physical theory of quantum gravity as "under construction."   But physicists are still looking for clever ways that may allow us to confirm the existence of the graviton without ever actually detecting one.   As Quanta magazine described, this hat trick would work by showing that two microdiamonds have become entangled — linked together in their properties by quantum effects — as a result of the tiny gravitational force exerted between them. Physicist Miles Blencowe described it as detecting "the grin of the Cheshire cat," proving that quantum gravity exists.   At the same time, reported Physics World, a research team is using the motions of the planets to pin down a maximum limit to the mass of the graviton. Observations of the solar system over the last 100 plus years show that gravitons must have a mass at most about a trillion trillion times less than the mass of a neutrino, the least massive particle we know about for sure.   Progress in science is hardly ever straightforward or easy. It is full of workarounds, hat tricks, and making the most of circumstantial evidence, which is what makes it so interesting. 

The Graviton: The Quantum Particle That Makes the World Round

When a new zombie virus discovered due to permafrost melting made its way into headlines in March 2023, it caused concern. Some wondered if this meant we were on the brink of another worldwide health crisis. Here's a look at what researchers have brought back from the (near) dead, and how this undead infection could relate to public health.
What Is a Zombie Virus?
A zombie virus is a virus frozen in time. They're often caught up in permafrost after hitching a ride in the immune system of a long-deceased animal or insect. If these viruses are thawed out and introduced into a suitable host, however, they can effectively resurrect and get back to doing what they do best: infecting organisms.
According to Scientific American, zombie virus genomes could play a positive role in disease treatment. These genomes are byproducts of viral infections that are no longer capable of reproducing on their own. If they're introduced to cells compromised by other infections, they can hijack existing viruses and use them to replicate, in effect reducing the overall viral load. In healthy cells, meanwhile, these zombies have no effect. While research on zombie virus benefits remains in the early stages, the work suggests that not all zombies are out for brains.
Playing the Long Game: A Virus Threat 48,500 Years in the Making
How long can a virus survive and then be brought back to life in melting permafrost? If you said 50,000 years, you were just 1,500 years off the mark.
This is because permafrost offers the ideal environment to keep viruses in stasis. Not only is the temperature cold, but it's also oxygen-free and doesn't let in light. In other words, the energy sources needed to help the virus replicate — or kill it completely — are absent in permafrost.
As climate change drives rising temperatures, however, the top layers of permafrost are beginning to melt. This has made it possible for researchers like Jean-Michel Claverie, Emeritus professor of genomics at the School of Medicine of Aix-Marseille University, to obtain and revive virus samples that are tens of thousands of years old. Most recently, he discovered five new families of viruses in samples ranging from 48,500 years old and found in the soil of an underground lake to those discovered in a 27,000-year-old wooly mammoth's stomach contents and coat.
The biggest threat posed by these viruses? A lack of natural human immunity. Since we've never encountered these viruses, our immune systems have no natural defense against their infection vectors. As a result, it's possible that these old issues could become modern problems. This isn't without precedent: Consider the impact of the European colonization of the Americas, which led to massive outbreaks of diseases, such as smallpox and influenza.
Is Permafrost Melting a Public Health Risk?
Yes and no. So far, the viruses reanimated by scientists are only capable of infecting amoebas. While it's possible that less-permanent permafrost could bring human- and animal-infecting viruses back to life, Claverie notes that any unearthed microbes would be "quick to decay once they're exposed to heat, UV light and oxygen." Claverie also points out that, while humans might lack the inherent ability to combat zombie infections, the chance of infection itself is "extremely low" because these viruses have never encountered a modern human immune system.
While the chances of a zombie virus going viral are slim, however, they're never zero. Increasing temperatures mean that more permafrost is melting more quickly, which means that more zombie viruses are getting a second shot. As the COVID-19 pandemic made perfectly clear, it doesn't take much for a new virus to spread once it successfully infects an immune system that lacks effective defenses.
In short, while the new zombie virus discovered doesn't spell disaster for humankind, it does speak to the second-order effects of climate change. If we're not careful, crop and coastline loss could be the precursors to an unopposed, undead viral vector.
 
Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.

Grave Concerns: New Zombie Virus Discovered Due to Permafrost Melting

Who wouldn't want psychic powers? From moving objects with your mind and reading people's thoughts to even taking flight, psychic abilities have long fascinated human beings.



But are psychic abilities real? Let's dive into the showmanship, sensation — and possibly science — behind these mental marvels.



Fake It to Make It: The Power Paradox



Psychic powers don't just offer a new way to interact with the world around you; if you're smart and savvy, they make it possible to move massive amounts of money from other people's pockets into your own. Just ask Uri Geller, who spent decades convincing people he could bend spoons with his mind — and happily taking their money to watch him do it.



Or look at supposed psychics, such as the infamous Miss Cleo, who claimed to be a Jamaican shaman and advised viewers to, "Call me, now." Not only were calls answered by actors rather than mind-readers, but customers were also charged significant amounts of money for calls that were advertised as free. In 2002, the company responsible for the service was charged by the Federal Trade Commission.



In some cases, it's our own bias that leads us to believe in extraordinary abilities, and this is especially true when it comes to psychics. It works like this: A psychic says something vague enough to apply to a client's life and circumstance. The more the psychic talks, the more accurate they seem to be, and clients come to believe they have special knowledge. In actuality, this is the Forer Effect, also called the Barnum Effect. As human beings, we naturally see the world through the lens of our own experience. When supposed psychics offer generalized descriptions of personality traits or human experiences, we often believe they apply specifically to us.



Psychic projects, like MKUltra and Star Gate, both involved giving participants — sometimes without their knowledge or consent — doses of LSD to see what would happen. In the case of MKUltra, the goal was to develop mind-control techniques. For Star Gate, psychic powers were the priority. Both efforts came to naught, however, and as noted by Science Focus, the project records have been destroyed.



Put simply, people want powers. Whether to generate cash flow, supposedly help people or gain a tactical advantage, there's always interest in expanding our mental roadmap.



Are Psychic Abilities Real? What the Science Says



In short, no, at least not based on the data available.



For many of us, this isn't the answer we want: Who among us hasn't had the fleeting thought that if we concentrate hard enough we could move objects with our minds or figure out what someone was thinking?



Genetic testing, however, has shown no evidence of psychic abilities. A 2021 study of more than 3,000 global participants "did not yield significant results when probing coding sequences in DNA." Or consider the case of a famous 2011 experiment by Dr. Daryl Bem of Cornell University, which seemed to suggest that participants in a word memorization test were better at remembering words they would be told to recall in the future. It was a compelling, groundbreaking result — that was never effectively replicated.



This isn't to say there aren't scientists working on psychic research. Dr. Dean Radin, currently the Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Science, has argued that, instead of everything in the universe being made of matter or energy, including the mind, everything is made of mind, including matter. He's claimed that experiments with a random number generator have showed the human ability to influence the outcome and that psychic ability is distributed on a normal population curve, with some people having extraordinary talents, some having none and most of the population landing in the middle.



Mind Your Business



While scientific study hasn't turned up any evidence of psychic abilities, that doesn't make their discovery impossible. Consider the ongoing identification of smaller particle types, with each new layer seemingly the last until a new one was uncovered. While it's unlikely, new testing methods may pinpoint the origin and mechanisms of psychic powers.



Worth remembering, however, are the words of Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." While one-off studies may show some indication that mental magic is real, the lack of research repeatability suggests that either we're not capable of measuring the right data — or the data doesn't exist.



Ultimately, the human fascination with psychic powers isn't going anywhere. From TV shows and movies that depict superpowered people to entrepreneurs who use their "powers" to move money from people's wallets into their pockets, we're endlessly fascinated with what our brains may hold beneath the surface.



Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.





Are Psychic Abilities Real? Exploring the Science of Superpowers

Nature offers gifts every day, from horizon-stretching sunsets to blazing autumn foliage, zippy little hummingbirds and even funny cat videos. But nature can reveal more than what can be seen by the naked eye: when you look very closely, you can see nature rivaling — or surpassing — human efficiency. Observing these intricate processes, forms and characteristics can inspire and influence the systems that humans create and rely on.
Sometimes, nature's influences seem obvious, like how birds in flight led to the creation of airplanes. Other times, wellsprings of ideas can be surprising. The single-celled slime mold, for example, provides insight into how a city can make its roads better conduits for travel. Just as a routine sunset can occasionally reveal a new perspective, finding intelligent patterns and behaviors in biology can be a source of inspiration.
Biomimicry Borrows Nature's 3.8-Billion-Year-Old Secrets
Engineers and scientists study nature for answers because its systems may have already arrived at an answer. This look outward is known as biomimicry. It's a popular approach in architecture, environmental conservation, construction, robotics and other fields. With technology being able to design and manufacture all sorts of materials today, it's getting easier to shape solutions that were first shown to work in nature.
The nonprofit Biomimicry Institute sees the act of replicating nature as a way for humans to survive and thrive on a planet stressed by human-made climate change. While innovators look to biomimicry to create something efficient and effective, the people at the institute believe that, along the way, they also form a connection with the natural world.
As the president of the Biomimicry Institute told GreenBiz, "It's the process of looking at something like a leaf, and trying to figure out how to make a better solar cell. ... After 3.8 billion years, life has learned what works and what's appropriate on the planet, and right now that's what the people trying to redesign our world are looking for."
Nature in Action by Plane, Train or Whale Back
Perhaps the most famous example of nature's influence is the Wright brothers' observations of birds helping to get their Wright Flyer I in the air. Other aspiring aviators also looked to nature's winged creatures for inspiration, but it was the Wrights' study of birds gliding in circles that allowed them to master a critical aspect of flying. They got their plane to balance and turn in the air by warping the wings in opposite directions to change the amount of lift generated by each side, something they observed in vultures, according to Smithsonian Magazine.
Decades later, observing birds also helped to get another innovative mode of transportation not off the ground but to move faster — and more quietly. Reaching speeds of almost 200 miles per hour, the Shinkansen bullet train would make a sonic boom when it exited a tunnel. Innovators had been trying to work out how to eliminate it, and one birdwatching engineer noticed a potential parallel in a kingfisher's long beak that allows it to dive into water without making a splash. So, the Shinkansen underwent a facelift. With a 50-foot-long beak-shaped nose, the train no longer booms, faces less wind resistance and travels faster.
Solving problems isn't just for the birds, though. The water habits of the suckerfish inspired a scientific breakthrough in how to attach trackers to animals in the wild. Known for traveling oceans on the backs of whales, rays and sharks, suckerfish were observed not tightly grasping the skin to hang on, but rather hovering slightly above it. Their position forms a low-pressure zone that sucks the two close together, even on a full-speed ride. This realization inspired researchers to create a biomimetic sucker to track whales and other mammals that has better adhesion than previous trackers.
Looking at Slime Mold, Frog Tongues and More
The slime mold physarum polycephalum grows as a greenish-yellow system of veins that form a tubular network. The network transfers nutrients throughout the organism, first "foraging" broadly over an area, then refining the network to improve the movement of the nutrients.
Researchers believe this level of slime mold intelligence could provide a model for improving city planning, according to Phys.org. A University of Toronto research team created a computer model that simulates the way slime mold constructs its network. They based the model on metrics that speak to architects, city planners and others who might find these lessons from slime mold intelligence beneficial to their design process.
If that seems like a bit of a leap, consider how the super-fast tongues of frogs inspired Georgia Tech University researchers, according to CBS News. Amazed at how a frog's tongue could move fast and not lose its grip on flies and other tasty objects, the researchers are learning how frog saliva could lead to the development of new adhesives.
What else could scientists and engineers learn from nature? According to the Biomimicry Institute, the ladybug's compact and foldable wings can inspire aeronautics and space technology. The anglerfish's ability to manipulate light could lead to new ultra-black materials and bio-inspired lamps. And the spines of sloths can illustrate how to balance compression and tension.
Of course, the energy-saving and purposeful leisureliness of sloths themselves could improve the movements of robotics. That would be a study anyone could enjoy — slowly.
 
Are you interested in all things related to science and technology? We are, too. Check out Northrop Grumman career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

From Slime Mold to Sloths: Biomimicry Inspires Real-World Applications

Greenland just recorded its warmest temperature in 1,000 years. According to a recent study published in Nature, cores taken from the Greenland ice sheet over the last decade show a 1.5 °C increase compared to climate reconstructions of the past millennia.
 
What, exactly, does this Greenland average temperature tracking mean for ice caps, sea levels and the world at large? Here's the hot take.
 
 
 
Getting Warmer — What's Happening in Greenland?
 
 
 
As noted by The Washington Post, 2023 temperatures in Greenland are significantly above average, with some areas smashing previous records. For example, Greenland's capital city, Nuuk, saw temperatures hit 59.4 °F (15.2 °C) on March 5, breaking both the previous March and April records of 55.7 °F (13.2 °C) and 58.2 °F (14.6 °C), respectively. Compared to the average temperature this time of year, this high is even higher: Typically, Nuuk comes in at 23 °F (-5 °C) in March. The new record is fully 32 degrees (18 degrees in Celsius) above normal.
 
 
 
Farther north, temperatures are even more extreme, with some areas of Greenland seeing a 50 °F (28 °C) jump over seasonal averages. This country-wide warming trend is linked to what's known as the "Greenland block" — a zone of high pressure that isn't going anywhere, causing the air beneath it to sink and warm. The block may be tied to a sudden warming trend in Earth's stratosphere that disrupted the polar vortex in February and pushed colder air further south.
 
 
 
The result is a dual concern for Greenland: Not only are current temperatures significantly above recent averages, but millennial measurements are also on the rise, suggesting this is more than a one-off hot spell.
 
 
 
Ice Cap Concerns: Sea-ing the Impact
 
 
 
What does Greenland global warming mean for the country's ice caps and the world at large? In a word: melting — and lots of it.
 
 
 
Current data suggests that melting already underway will cause sea levels worldwide to rise about 10.6 inches. As SciTechDaily points out, however, this is a low estimate. If Greenland continues to see record-breaking temperatures, it's possible for sea levels to rise by 30 inches or more. This estimate only includes the increase from Greenland — melting of other Atlantic ice sheets could add to this total.
 
 
 
For humankind, this melt means problems. First up are the direct effects on people who live in low-lying coastal areas. With more than 680 million people living at or very near sea level, these rising waters could spell disaster for small communities and big cities alike as infrastructure ends up permanently underwater or battered by continual coastal floods.
 
 
 
There are also growing concerns about what we may find under the ice as it melts. Some of what's revealed may be valuable, such as precious metals or fossil fuels that have remained untouched for millennia. But thawing ice sheets may uncover bacteria, viruses and pollutants that could cause problems for humans. According to a study published in Nature Climate Change in September 2021, one gram of permafrost may contain thousands of dormant microbes. While most of these microbes are likely harmless to humans, some could be viruses we've never seen or ancient diseases that could make a concerning comeback.
 
 
 
Consider a report from Siberia in 2016: As noted by NPR, dozens of people were hospitalized and one child died after an outbreak of anthrax. The culprit? An infected reindeer frozen in permafrost for 75 years until a heatwave hit. When it thawed, the anthrax bacteria became active and covered the nearby tundra in spores. Other reindeer picked up the anthrax and were then killed and eaten by humans, kickstarting the outbreak.
 
 
 
The effect of global warming on Greenland also comes with concerns about pollutants, such as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which haven't been used for decades but are trapped in layers of permafrost. As icemelt continues, these chemicals could leech into seawater and circulate around the globe.
 
 
 
Reducing the Effects of Global Warming on Greenland
 
 
 
Is there anything we can do about Greenland average temperature issues? Yes and no. Put simply, there's no going back. Melting ice can't suddenly be reversed, and rising sea levels would take decades to fix.
 
 
 
But it's not all bad news. According to Horizon, the E.U.'s Research and Innovation Magazine, while Greenland's ice sheet is melting, the driving component of this phase is air temperature — the hotter the air, the more the ice melts. Sea ice-melt, meanwhile, is tied to water temperature, and with water temperatures rising more quickly than their atmospheric counterparts, even significant changes in sea ice volumes didn't have a marked effect on Greenland ice sheets. In an experiment that assumed a 15 °C worldwide temperature increase, all sea ice disappeared, but the ice sheets remained relatively intact for centuries. This suggests that, while action is needed, there may still be time to save most of Greenland's ice.
 
 
 
Accomplishing this goal, however, isn't easy. One suggestion is spraying sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere through a process known as stratospheric aerosol injection. Also called solar radiation modification or solar geoengineering, the plan is straightforward: Pack aircraft full of SO2, launch them into the stratosphere, release the payloads and then repeat the process each year for 15 years. Once the SO2 is in the atmosphere, it would reflect some of the sun's heat back into space in much the same way as ash from large volcanic eruptions. Done right, this process could cut the impact of global warming in half. The caveat? It can't reverse the damage that's already been done.
 
 
 
Ice, Ice Maybe?
 
 
 
When it comes to the effect of global warming on Greenland, ongoing icemelt is a significant concern — rising sea levels could pose problems for coastal settlements, while long-frozen chemicals and viruses could cause worldwide harm.
 
While there may still be time to prevent the worst, it's imperative that we take action now, even in the form of an SO2 stopgap, as we work on more permanent temperature management tactics.
 
 
 
Are you interested in science and innovation? We are, too. Learn more about our people and life at Northrop Grumman, or check out our career opportunities to see how you can be a part of defining possible.
 
 
 
 

Greenland Average Temperature Tracking Reveals Worrisome Warming

Francis Crick was a biologist and neuroscientist whose story is intertwined with the fascinating history of DNA discovery. Crick is best known for discovering the helix structure of DNA, a discovery that changed the face of science as we know it.    Early Life   Crick was born on June 8, 1916, in Northampton, England. After primary school, he headed to University College London in 1937, where he studied physics and earned his Ph.D. in 1954, according to Biography.com.   Crick's scientific career was unfortunately interrupted by World War II. During this period, he joined a military research team focused on the development of magnetic and acoustic mines. This work was interesting to him, according to the National Library of Medicine, but not interesting enough to keep him on a military track after the war ended. After the war, Crick moved to Cambridge to study biology with the support of a scholarship from the Medical Research Council.   The History of DNA Discovery   In 1951, Francis Crick met an American scientist named James Watson at the Cavendish Lab in Cambridge, which is where their famed collaboration began. In 1953, the duo constructed a model of the double helix shape we now associate with DNA. They speculated that if you split one side of the ladder from the other, each side would become a pattern for a new strand of DNA. This explanation was later used to inform the scientific understanding of how genes are replicated, Biography.com noted.   Who Received the Credit?   Crick and Watson became known as the scientists who discovered DNA's double helix structure after they published a groundbreaking paper in Nature in April 1953. However, their research relied primarily on work from the lesser known female chemist Rosalind Franklin. Franklin would not receive credit for her contribution to the research until after her death. Her male colleague, Maurice Wilkins, shared her research with Crick and Watson without her consent, while Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize for their DNA work in 1962.   Crick's Legacy   While minor changes have been made to the Watson and Crick model of DNA, it remains otherwise similar to its original construction from 1953. Based on Watson and Crick's research, we know that DNA is a double-stranded helix. We also know that the two strands are connected by hydrogen bonds, with A bases mostly paired with Ts, while C bases are mostly paired with Gs. Nature also noted that most DNA double helices are right-handed and anti-parallel.   Crick continued to study molecular biology for the remainder of his life, and he wrote several books on the topic. He won many other prestigious science awards, including the Prix Charles Leopold Meyer of the French Academy of Sciences in 1961 and the Award of Merit of the Gairdner Foundation in 1962. He died in La Jolla, California in 2004 at the age of 88. 

Francis Crick and the History of DNA Discovery

The club-wielding, wild-haired caveman is a staple of modern myth and entertainment. Despite an evolving body of research that shows our ancestors as more human and less animal-like than previously believed, there's something about the concept of cavemen and cavewomen that remains deeply rooted in our psyche.
But where did cavemen come from? Where did they first appear, what were they really like and what definitively set them apart from their animal counterparts? Grab your club, heft your spear and let's go hunt down the answers.
When Did Humans First Appear on Earth?
According to Smithsonian Magazine, analysis of teeth and bones from Spain's Sima de los Huesos — the Pit of Bones — suggested that a common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens lived between 550,000 and 750,000 years ago. The broad range is because genetic analysis isn't like carbon dating. Instead, scientists use what's known as the molecular clock to backtrack the evolution of Neanderthal DNA found in the Pit of Bones and determine when it might have overlapped with Homo sapiens.
When it comes to the oldest version of our current human lineage, the timeline moves up substantially to around 300,000 years. This is in line with what we expect from evolution — a common Neanderthal/human ancestor that appeared approximately 600,000 years ago followed by genetic differentiation as members of the group spread out across different continents and climates.
While both Neanderthals and our own ancestors initially flourished, it was Homo sapiens who eventually became the dominant hominid species. Research suggests several possible explanations for this outcome, including infighting among Neanderthal groups and dwindling food supplies as climate change caused the extinction of some Neanderthal sustenance staples.
As noted by the Natural History Museum, however, there's evidence to suggest that interbreeding between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals may have also contributed to their extinction. While interbreeding occurred regularly, there's a lack of Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in modern humans. Since this DNA only comes from the female parent, it suggests that successful births were more likely with male Neanderthals and female Homo sapiens, in effect creating a scenario in which offspring are only produced in one direction.
The Dual-Track Concept
So, where did cavemen come from? Studies have typically suggested a tree-like genome model that sees Homo sapiens evolving from a single ancestral population somewhere in Africa. The exact location of this ancestor population has changed over time, with some scientists suggesting eastern or southern Africa as the Homo sapiens' starting point.
Problems arise, however, when trying to reconcile evidence of Homo sapiens habitation across the African continent at least 300,000 years ago. While a single ancestor model makes sense on paper, it starts to fall apart given the sheer scope of human migration.
To help shed light on our history, an international research team examined 290 genomes of people from southern, eastern and western Africa, along with Eurasia. The results of the study suggest that instead of a single Homo sapiens ancestor, merger events created two groups that gave rise to our caveman cousins.
The first merger occurred around 120,000 years ago and gave rise to the Khoe-San population of southern Africa. The second occurred approximately 100,000 years ago and accounts for the ancestors of eastern and western Africans, along with populations outside of Africa.
The Social-Cognitive Separation
Before digging deeper, let's stop and think about what makes us human. Common theories include tool use and brain capacity, but studies with human children and their chimpanzee cousins show a commonality of intellect and ability — up to a certain point.
The differentiator comes in humans' ability to combine cognitive capacity and social strategy. For example, while both toddlers and chimpanzees were able to mimic the actions of another of their species, once human children mastered their given task, they began experimenting, while chimpanzees made no effort to move beyond the basics.
Sometimes called the "ratchet effect," it's the idea that humans continuously improve on tools or techniques used by their predecessors, and over time, these improvements ratchet up to create much more effective variations. As Scientific American points out, this might start with a lobbed stone projectile, which becomes a spear, then a bow and arrow, then a bullet and, eventually, a ballistic missile.
But intellect only tells half of the story. The other ability that sets humans apart is social mind-reading. It works like this: While both chimps and humans are social species capable of cooperation, only humans can make cognitive leaps that are implied rather than explicit. In one experiment, infants used blocks on a plate to make a tower. When the available supply of blocks ran out, the children pointed at the plate, which signaled to adults that the child wanted more. Chimpanzees doing the same task would use all available blocks and then simply stop.
In addition, human children quickly learn to read other humans' emotions and work together to achieve common goals. While chimps have some of this capability, their mind-reading is used for competition — information learned about another chimpanzee is used to outcompete them for food or mates.
Put simply, what makes us human isn't what we are, but what we do.
Have Club, Will Travel
When did humans first appear on Earth? Turns out that humanity as we know it didn't start with a straight line. Instead, we share a common ancestor with Neanderthals that's likely more than half a million years old. What's more, cavemen didn't come from a single ancestral lineage — in fact, at least two populations are now thought to underpin the modern human condition.
Perhaps most telling, however, is what sets us apart from our nearest living relatives: the ability to cooperate for the common good using a combination of social skills, the drive to experiment and the willingness to work out a compromise.
Are you interested science and innovation? We are, too. Check out what life is like at Northrop Grumman, or explore career opportunities to see how you can participate in this fascinating time of discovery.

Where Did Cavemen Come From? New Studies Suggest a Dual-Track Model 

The 19th century gave rise to a chemical revolution as the pace of scientific discoveries accelerated rapidly across Europe. Perhaps the most well known is Mendeleev's periodic table — his attempt to bring order and structure to the chaotic state of elemental composition. But just as chemical reactions don't happen in isolation, Mendeleev's work was predicated on earlier efforts and refined by contemporary work, specifically that of Julius Lothar Meyer. Never heard of him? You're not alone — so, let's dig in and discover why he deserves his seat at the periodic table. Getting a Leg Up A table with one leg won't stand up. Two is a balancing nightmare, and while triangular construction offers better support, four is far and away the best choice when it comes to keeping things stable. The same holds true of our periodic counterpart. While Mendeleev gets much-deserved credit for his conceptualization of the period table — specifically for his realization that gaps were required to account for as-yet-undiscovered elements and his willingness to "swap" elements based on their behavior instead of their presumed atomic weight — he wasn't alone in the effort. First to the periodic party was Alexandre Bé©guyer de Chancourtois, a French geology professor who created the "telluric screw." This 3D plot represented elements on the outside of a cylinder such that one turn of the screw represented an atomic weight increase of 16 and an alignment with a similar, heavier element. While Chancourtois' method missed the mark on some chemical trends, it was the first conceptualization of similar elements appearing at periodic atomic weights. The next leg came from British chemist John Newlands. He noticed that elements with weights that differed by seven often had similar properties and grouped them accordingly, using what he called the "Law of Octaves," although his version had seven steps to music's more common eight. The problem? Instead of leaving gaps for new discoveries, Newlands crammed multiple elements into single boxes to fit his pattern, leading to push back from other scientists and refusal by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) to publish his paper. Claims that he had discovered the pattern first fell on deaf ears when Mendeleev's table was published, but he was posthumously honored by the RSC with a plaque declaring him the "discoverer of the Periodic Law for the chemical elements." Last but not least in our elemental infrastructure effort? Julius Lothar Meyer. Meyer's Moment On August 19th, 2020, search giant Google celebrated the anniversary of Meyer's 190th birthday by featuring this work in their popular Google Doodle, leading to an uptick in users clicking through to discover exactly who Meyer was — and why he mattered. Put simply, Meyer came up with his own version of the periodic table at the same time as Mendeleev, as Inverse explains. It wasn't quite as elegant or well spaced, but it offered a similar structure. The problem? Meyer was unaware of Mendeleev's work and published his own version a year after Mendeleev's effort. While both scientists shared a teacher in Robert Busen at the University of Heidelberg, they were students five years apart. After completing their studies, the older Meyer stayed in Germany and the younger Mendeleev went back to Russia. With similar training and similar interests, they both took on the task of creating a periodic table — but Mendeleev got there first. Meyer's table looked similar to Mendeleev's, with vertical lines representing elements with identical valance numbers, although he didn't account for gaps in the same way as Mendeleev. However, what he did do was recognize the periodic nature of elements when atomic volume was plotted against atomic weight. The Google Doodle offered a recreation of his graph, which showed a clear repeating pattern and helped to shape modern understanding of elemental interactions. In 1882, both Meyer and Mendeleev were awarded the Royal Society's Davy Medal in recognition for their contributions to chemistry. Periodic Potential Just as Francis Crick and James Watson are often credited with the "discovery" of DNA but had a lot of help along the way from Rosalind Franklin, Mendeleev didn't build an elemental table in isolation, and work is still ongoing. Consider the efforts of Henry Mosley. Six years after Mendeleev's death in 1913, Mosley found a way to precisely measure atomic numbers: by firing an X-ray gun at element samples and measuring the resulting wavelength. He discovered that when the square root of this result was plotted for each element, it matched atomic number estimates and offered a way to precisely determine an element's place in the table. More recent work on extending the periodic table resulted in the creation of elements that don't occur naturally, which helped to fill in the largely-absent seventh row. And even this isn't the end. As ThoughtCo explains, evidence suggests the existence of an "island of stability" in elements with much higher atomic numbers than we can currently create. Unlike current efforts that are synthesized and almost immediately vanish, these new elements should be stable for much longer. Bottom line? While Mendeleev created much of the supporting structure for the familiar element framework, he's not the only builder. Sure, his work earns him pride of place at the head of the table, but contemporaries including Alexandre Bé©guyer de Chancourtois, John Newlands and Julius Lothar Meyer all deserve a seat.

Interested in a career with Northrop Grumman? Check out our open positions.