Category: Science

It’s 156 billion light years across. That’s the current estimate. “How can that be,” you ask, “if the universe is only supposed to be about 13.7 billion years old? How could it grow to such a size in so short a time?”

The answer that is proposed is that the universe didn’t simply start flying out from the Big Bang. It did that–the theory goes–but there is supposed to be more to it. The universe also is inflating like a balloon, so the space that the energy from the Big Bang rushed into has inflated and continues to inflate, allowing the universe to grow larger than mere expansion at the speed of light would allow.

If it helps, think of an ant walking on the surface of a balloon. The ant himself can only go so fast, but if the balloon he’s standing on is expanding, he can cover much more distance than he could under his own power. The same way, a light particle can only fly through space so fast (186,000 miles per second), but if the space it is travelling through is itself is expanding, the light particle (or wave–whatever) will cover more distance.

At least that’s the theory.

If it’s true, it’s one more reason why the universe is moving apart too rapidly for its gravity to overcome its outward momentum and pull it back in on itself. That means that the universe can’t be an eternally oscillating thing with no beginning that undergoes an endless cycle of expansions and collapses.

In other words, the new finding is supportive of the idea that the universe had a beginning and thus was created.

Today’s rare transit of the sun by Venus gave scientists the world over the chance to directly observe the size of the two bodies in relation to each other.

“Sometimes Venus looks larger than it does at other times,” said Whit Labcoat, director of research into the planetary sizes at Mt. Wilson Observatory, “but that’s because it’s a lot closer to the earth than the sun is–at least some of the time. Other times Venus seems very tiny. That phenomenon occurs when it is on the other side of the sun from us.”

“Studies have found that objects appear larger when they are nearer and smaller when they are farther away,” he added.

By contrast, the sun never chances its apparent size in the sky. “Scientists believe that is because the earth is in orbit around the sun,” Labcoat explained. “So it never much changes its distance from the sun. At least, that’s the theory.”

“What this event does is let us directly compare the size of Venus to the size of the sun, because right now Venus is in front of the sun. It’s still closer to earth than the sun is, but even so we can see that th sun is much, much larger than Venus.”

Others took a less scientific approach to the rare astronomical phenomenon.

“How come the sun had a black dot in it?” Dorcas Tam, 7, asked in Hong Kong.

Looks like they may have spotted a planet in the process of forming, and the way it is forming may cause some revision in the understanding of how planets normally form.

Get the scoop.

A group of Swedish scientists have announced that they have figured out (or rather, confirmed) part of the cause of aging: mutations in the mitochondria of our cells.

By implication, if a way can be found to protect the mitochondria from these mutations, folks might live longer.

Or we could all just move to Sweden . . . land of natural cryogenic suspension.

Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun.

Here’s the scoop: The earth’s albedo (i.e., the amount of light it reflects) is increasing. It had been doing down. Now it’s going up. Scientists don’t know why.

Since a higher albedo means a cooler planet, maybe it’s a sign that global warming ain’t gonna warm. Maybe it’s all a big cycle.

Or maybe not.

Was refreshing to see the scientists in the story saying that their findings neither confirm nor disconfirm the greenhouse effect and that more study is needed. A little scholarly caution does the soul a world of good.

I don’t like ties.

Never have.

(Except, I do like bolo ties, of which I have quite a collection.)

Thus I am natively sympathetic to this story, which suggests that doctors shouldn’t wear ties on the grounds that they might spread diseases to patients.

Trouble is, if there is one thing I like even less than ties, it’s junk science. This article is qualifies as either junk science or at least junk reporting of science.

The article discusses a study that found that “Clinicians were eight times more likely to wear a tie carrying bacteria than by hospital security staff.”

If that’s the only finding of the study then it’s junk science. For this to constitute a real reason for doctors not to wear ties, one needs more than that. In particular, one would want some direct evidence that ties pass diseases (e.g., a finding that doctors who regularly wore ties had a higher rate of cross-patient infections than doctors who did not wear ties).

However, even in the absence of that one would want an indication that the amount of bacteria on the ties had been controlled against the amount of bacteria on the people. In other words, maybe doctors have more bacteria on their ties than security guards because doctors have more bacteria on them in general than security guards. In this case, leaving the tie at home wouldn’t really help unless the doctor left all his other clothes and his person at home as well when treating patients–unless there was, again, evidence that ties spread disease more than other parts of the doctor (such as his hands) or his clothing.

Now, maybe the original study accounted for factors such as these. If so, the study wouldn’t be an example of junk science but the story would be an example of junk reporting of science.

For more info on junk science, see JunkScience.Com

Oh yeah, did I mention that this entry was about junk science?

I don’t like ties.

Never have.

(Except, I do like bolo ties, of which I have quite a collection.)

Thus I am natively sympathetic to this story, which suggests that doctors shouldn’t wear ties on the grounds that they might spread diseases to patients.

Trouble is, if there is one thing I like even less than ties, it’s junk science. This article is qualifies as either junk science or at least junk reporting of science.

The article discusses a study that found that “Clinicians were eight times more likely to wear a tie carrying bacteria than by hospital security staff.”

If that’s the only finding of the study then it’s junk science. For this to constitute a real reason for doctors not to wear ties, one needs more than that. In particular, one would want some direct evidence that ties pass diseases (e.g., a finding that doctors who regularly wore ties had a higher rate of cross-patient infections than doctors who did not wear ties).

However, even in the absence of that one would want an indication that the amount of bacteria on the ties had been controlled against the amount of bacteria on the people. In other words, maybe doctors have more bacteria on their ties than security guards because doctors have more bacteria on them in general than security guards. In this case, leaving the tie at home wouldn’t really help unless the doctor left all his other clothes and his person at home as well when treating patients–unless there was, again, evidence that ties spread disease more than other parts of the doctor (such as his hands) or his clothing.

Now, maybe the original study accounted for factors such as these. If so, the study wouldn’t be an example of junk science but the story would be an example of junk reporting of science.

For more info on junk science, see JunkScience.Com

Oh yeah, did I mention that this entry was about junk science?

When I was a boy, I remember seeing a film adaptation of Beauty and the Beast (no, not the Disney version; this was a black and white made long before that), in which as a sign of his love the Beast intimidated a rosebush all night until it gave him a blue rose for Beauty–not a purple rose or a kind-of-blue rose, but a true blue rose.

I don’t know whether this is in the book (since I’ve never read it), but apparently the search for a true, blue rose is a major fascination of rose growers.

Now, it is being reported, scientists are on the verge of making one. It turns out that some scientists doing research on liver enzymes found a gene that, it is thought, will turn roses blue once it is inserted into their genetic code.

If it works, I’ll certainly order some.

When I was a boy, I remember seeing a film adaptation of Beauty and the Beast (no, not the Disney version; this was a black and white made long before that), in which as a sign of his love the Beast intimidated a rosebush all night until it gave him a blue rose for Beauty–not a purple rose or a kind-of-blue rose, but a true blue rose.

I don’t know whether this is in the book (since I’ve never read it), but apparently the search for a true, blue rose is a major fascination of rose growers.

Now, it is being reported, scientists are on the verge of making one. It turns out that some scientists doing research on liver enzymes found a gene that, it is thought, will turn roses blue once it is inserted into their genetic code.

If it works, I’ll certainly order some.

The bald eagle population has risen by almost a factor of twenty and they no longer qualify as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. This is a double victory (a) because a species has been saved and (b) because the species in question is a national symbol.

You’d think that this would be good news.

But some environmentalists aren’t pleased. When people first started talking about de-listing the bald eagle, some environmentalists were concerned. They didn’t want any species ever de-listed. They acted as if they wanted the endangered and threatened species lists to be a one-way list that could only gain but never lose members.

Now it remains to be seen whether the same environmentalists will try to accuse the Bush administration for “shooting the national symbol” by admitting that the bald eagle is no longer threatened.

In the mean time . . .

USA! USA! USA!