To a certain degree, as they mentioned in the article regarding the casimir effect. While one cannot keep out the quantum foam entirely, it can be restricted to specific wavelengths by altering the volume of the space.
Consider this fact, some light waves like radio are large enough that a lot of matter is essentially invisible to their propagation; the radio waves just pass right by without any interactions. This becomes a similar problem when we try and measure such small quantum phenomena like zero-point energy. The quantum energy could be so small that they're invisible to our detectors, but are in fact still there - the two scales simple cannot interact in a measurable way. So, there'd like still be some quantum energy, just less and less until our detectors could not interact with the incredibly small quanta for measurement.
Nope, they actually appear and disappear. The idea is that even in vacuum there's a certain amount of background energy and that energy can randomly turn into matter-antimatter pairs in what is basically the inverse of matter-antimatter annihilation.
Jain’s team then built artificial-intelligence models that were able to stitch the microscope images together to reconstruct the whole sample in 3D.
The map is so large that most of it has yet to be manually checked, and it could still contain errors created by the process of stitching so many images together. “Hundreds of cells have been ‘proofread’, but that’s obviously a few per cent of the 50,000 cells in there,” says Jain.
Ah so it's not a real model, just an AI approximation.
It still seems like a real model to me. Just because they used a fancy computer to turn a sequence of 2d slices into a 3d representation doesn't mean it's not real.
Looking at NASA and Webb sites it appears this is a poorly cropped version of pictures from over a year ago, not something new like the article claims.
The article is coherent (it conveys the relevant info without contradicting itself) albeit poorly written. Most likely the result of someone getting really sloppy while writing it, perhaps sleep-deprived. But it doesn't read like AI stuff, nor a translation - cue to "Cova Negra cave" (lit. "Black Cave cave").
Researchers discovered the skeleton of a young Neanderthal man who was about six years old when he died. Although researchers were not sure what the child’s gender was, she was named Tina.
I can only really guess whether they're talking about one or two subjects here. In one sentence they call a six year old a man and gender them male, then in the next they gender them female and call them Tina. The pronouns keep switching back and forth.
Scientists noted that Tina’s survival to the age of six indicates that her team provided the necessary care for the child and her mother throughout this period.
Her team? Why does it show someone cared for the mother as well?
Yes when it comes to the relevant info. The anaphoric references are all over the place; he, her, she, man*, they all refer to the same fossil.
*not quite an anaphoric reference, I know. I'm still treating it as one.
I can only really guess whether they’re talking about one or two subjects here.
It's clearly one. Dated to be six years old, of unknown sex, nicknamed "Tina".
Why does it show someone cared for the mother as well?
This does not show lack of coherence. Instead it shows the same as the "is it?" from your comment: assuming that a piece of info is clear by context, when it isn't. [This happens all the time.]
That said, my guess (I'll repeat for emphasis: this is a guess): I think that this shows that they cared for the mother because, without doing so, the child would've died way, way earlier.
That all reads like bad AI writing to me.
I genuinely don't think so.
Modern LLMs typically don't leave sentence fragments like "on the territory of modern Spain. Years ago." They're consistent with anaphoric references, even when they don't make sense in the real world. And they don't screw up with prepositions, like switching "in" with "on". All those errors are typically human.
On the other hand, LLMs fail hard on a discursive level. They don't know the topic (in this case, the fossil). At least this error is not present here.
Based on that I think that a better explanation for why this text is so poorly written is "CBA". The author couldn't be arsed to review it. Myself wrote a lot of shit like this when drunk, sleepy, or in a rush.
I'll go a step further and say that the author likely speaks more than one language, and they were copying this stuff from some site in another language that has grammatical gender. I'm saying this because it explains why the anaphoric references are all over the place.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Wild chimpanzees eat plants that have pain-relieving and anti-bacterial properties to heal themselves, according to scientists.They described their “detective work” in the forests of Uganda - observing animals that appeared injured or sick to work out whether they were self-medicating with plants.When an injured animal sought out something specific from the forest to eat, the researchers collected samples of that plant and had it analysed.
Most of the plants tested turned out to have antibacterial properties.The scientists, who published their findings in the journal PLOS One, think the chimps could even help in the search for new medicines.
“We can't test everything in these forests for their medicinal properties, lead researcher Dr Elodie Freymann, from the University of Oxford, said.
“So why not test the plants that we have this information about - plants the chimps are seeking out?”Over the past four years, Dr Freymann has spent months at a time following and carefully observing two communities of wild chimpanzees in Budongo Central Forest Reserve.As well as looking for signs of pain - an animal limping or holding its body in an unusual way - she and her colleagues collected samples of droppings and urine to check for illness and infection.They paid particular attention when an injured or ill chimpanzee sought out something they do not normally eat - such as tree bark or fruit skin.“We were looking for these behavioural clues that the plants might be medicinal,” Dr Freymann explained.She described one particular chimp - a male - that had a badly wounded hand.
“He was the only chimp to seek out and eat these ferns.”The researchers collected and analysed the fern - a plant called Christella parasitica, which turned out to have potent anti-inflammatory properties.In total, the researchers collected 17 samples from 13 different plant species and sent them to be tested by Dr Fabien Schultz, at the Neubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany.That revealed that almost 90% of the extracts inhibited bacterial growth, and a third had natural anti-inflammatory properties, meaning they could reduce pain and promote healing.All the injured and ill chimps reported in this study fully recovered, Dr Freymann was happy to report.
“The one who ate ferns was using his hand again within the next few days,” she explained.“Of course, we can't 100% prove that any of these cases were a direct result of eating these resources,” she told BBC News.“But it highlights the medicinal knowledge that can be gained from observing other species in the wild and underscores the urgent need to preserve these ‘forest pharmacies’ for future generations.”
So I wonder, even if it's only appearing very briefly it's still going to exert some small gravitational effect. And who is to say the density of quantum foam is perfectly evenly distributed through the universe, within, through and between galaxies?
Could this be an alternative explanation to dark matter?
Would be nice if we could measure quantum-foam activity depending on gravity well intensity. Let's say somewhere around Venus and Pluto to compare (sun's well).
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it mass and energy is equivalent no? And it also still baffles us as to why rest mass and resultant mass from energy should be equivalent at all?
I read the article but I'm still confused how this works.
My understanding is the herpes virus DNA is integrated into our own. So once the gene editing molecules snip at the herpes virus damaging it, how does the chromosome get put back together?
Is it actually sniping at two places in the herpes genome in a way that the two ends match up and reform while cutting out a section in the middle?
Meganucleases can work in quite a few ways. Typically speaking cleaving describes a process in which a section of genome is removed (cutting in two places), but not always. The article doesn't go into too much detail of the specifics of the meganucleases used in this study, but the literature they cite might.
My understanding is the herpes virus DNA is integrated into our own.
I'm not sure about the technique here (I'm sure part of the process puts it back together), but I just wanted to denote that this is how all retroviruses work - they infect a cell and incorporate themselves into the DNA, which is then replicated by normal cell processes.
Our DNA is littered with the corpses of many such remnants, and if we can figure out how to stop Herpes, it would be a path to also stopping HIV.
That's a really good question, the article doesn't go into specifics.
Then the body’s own repair systems recognize the damaged DNA as foreign and get rid of it.
This is somewhat ambiguous. It could mean that human DNA polymerases see the damaged DNA, scroll backwards and forwards to the START and STOP codons, and break the bonds to snip out the bits of viral DNA. Then endogenous DNA ligases patch the ends together. It could mean that it affects DNA in the viral particles themselves (but from the context in the article I don't think this is the case). Or it could be the case that the process triggers apoptosis to eliminate the infected cells entirely; I don't think this is the case because then you have necrotic tissue all over the place, and given that we're talking about herpes viruses this means fragile skin in tender places... ouch. That's kind of like using thermite to roast a marshmallow: Fun but overkill and potentially hazardous.
What is the ontology of a concept or idea? If nothing doesn't exist materially but strictly conceptually, does it not exist or is there a different term one should employ to refer to it? 🤔
Redefining identity in terms of cell organization, would definitely solve some ethical issues like human cloning: different structures, different individuals.
Now, the remaining question would be, how to "read" the structure. We can sequence DNA from a tiny sample, but disassembling people wouldn't be... practical.
Science
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).