please copy and paste this link to your address bar n enjoy
thanks
http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2008/mad-scientists/mad-scientists.html
Month: June 2010
Physics of the Impossible
Theoretical physicist and string theorist Michio Kaku shares his thoughts on time travel, matter-fabricators and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Also, be sure to check out Professor Kaku’s latest book, Physics of the Impossible, available from Doubleday.
1. If time machines exist, can we ever hope to meet our older, or younger, selves?
A. That is a big “if.” But assuming they exist, then there is hope that we might meet our older or younger selves, but they won’t be exactly “us.” The river of time, I believe, may fork into two rivers if we travel in time.
Hence, if we jump from one time line to another time line, we may meet ourselves in the past, but these people won’t really be “us.” They will be genetically identical to us, but will be a younger or older version of ourself in a parallel universe. Hence, we won’t have any time paradoxes. So if we change the past, we change someone else’s past, who is genetically identical to us, but is not really “us.” Of course, we won’t know for sure until we finally build a time machine. (In fact, I give a blueprint for a time machine in my book, Physics of the Impossible, which is consistent with all known physics.)
2. Since we haven’t ever met any time travelers from the future, does that mean they will never be invented?
A. No. Perhaps we are not interesting to them. We think we are so great that they will want to visit us, but maybe we are too primitive for them. After all, if we see an anthill, do we go down to the ants and say “I bring you beads. I bring you trinkets. Take me to your leader”? Some of us may even have the urge to step on them.
But the technological distance between an ant and us may be small compared to the technological chasm between us and a time-faring civilization. They may be thousands to millions of years ahead of us in technology, and hence have no interest in visiting us. But one day, if someone knocks on your door and says she is your great-great-great-granddaughter, do not slam the door. Perhaps in the far future our descendants will develop time machines, and want to visit their illustrious ancestors.
3. Are fears of robots taking over the world, Terminator-style, ever founded in reality?
A. Yes, robots may eventually take over the world. But we will have plenty of warning. Right now, robots have the intelligence of a cockroach. A retarded, stupid cockroach. Our most advanced robots take about six hours just to walk around a strange room. It may be years to decades before they are as smart as a mouse, then a rabbit, then a dog or cat, and finally a monkey. By the time they have the intelligence of a monkey, they can be dangerous, since they will have agendas of their own. But we will have plenty of warning. By the time they are as smart as a monkey, I think we should put a chip in their brains to turn them off when they have murderous thoughts. The key is that we will have plenty of time before these robot creations become truly sentient and conscious, with their own goals and desires.
4. Would you have your brain “downloaded” into a computer? Could it mean eternal life? Or would it be like being one of the heads in bell jars in Futurama?
A. Living in a bell jar is not my idea of “living.” However, in the far future, merging with our robot creations may be a better alternative. In this case, we could have superhuman powers, live forever and explore the universe in near-invulnerable bodies. There is no law of physics preventing this. In fact, if we ever make contact with an advanced civilization in space, we should not be surprised if they have already altered their genetics and biological organs. In fact, I would be surprised if a civilization a million years more advanced than us has not modified their bodies genetically and mechanically. Just to live on distant worlds and harsh environments, they may have to alter their bodies in this way. And also remember that we must leave the Earth in the far future, due to ice ages (perhaps 10,000 years in the future), meteor impacts (perhaps 10 million years in the future) and the death of the sun itself (5 billion years from now). And when we do, it will be absolutely essential that we modify ourselves, or perish. There is no other choice.
5. What is the first thing you would make if you had your own matter-fabricator?
A. Some people may ask for diamonds, gold bullions or truckloads of cash. However, I have never desired to be wealthy. Money does not interest me. I’ve always wanted something that a replicator can never create: ideas. Wealth is something that corrupts and dies with you. But ideas can live forever and change the world.
6. Are there any TV series or films that you feel got it right in terms of portraying the future, or time travel?
A. The movie 2001 was off in terms of a timetable by perhaps a century, but it was the most realistic portrayal of an encounter with an extraterrestrial civilization. An advanced civilization is not going to send Capt. Kirk in a huge, expensive star ship. This is inefficient. More likely, they will send robot probes, which land on distant moons. (Moons are stable over billions of years.) They will then create a robot factory capable of reproducing themselves by the millions. Then they will shoot off to distant moons, and create even more robot factories. Starting with just one robot, eventually there is a sphere of trillions of these robots, expanding at near the speed of light, exploring the galaxy. This may sound fantastic, but it is happening in your body.
This probe can be a virus, which can colonize trillions of your cells in a matter of two weeks, giving you a cold. In the same way, these robot probes can explore the entire galaxy in just 100,000 years. Then they will wait until an intelligent species rises from the primeval swamp. This is the basic plot line behind 2001, the most realistic encounter with ET.
In fact, Kubrick originally interviewed scientists for the beginning of his movie, explaining all of this. But then he cut these interviews from his film at the last minute.
7. What was your homemade atom-crasher made from?
A. When I was 16, I went to Westinghouse, got 22 miles of copper wire and 400 pounds of transformer steel, and built a 2.3 million-electron-volt atom smasher in my mom’s garage. The magnets produced 10,000 gauss of magnetism (which is enough to pull the fillings out of your teeth if you get too close). When I plugged it in, it consumed 6,000 watts of power, so I blew out all the circuit breakers in the house. My mom would ask herself, “why couldn’t I have a kid who plays basketball? or baseball?” But I never regretted building an atom smasher, because it helped me to get a scholarship to Harvard, where I could fulfill my dreams.
8. Can you summarize The Theory of Everything?
A. All physical knowledge today can be summarized in two theories: the quantum theory (which describes electricity and magnetism and the nuclear forces) and relativity (which describes gravity). The quantum theory describes the world of the very small inside the atom, while relativity describes the world of the very large (e.g. expanding universes and black holes).
The Theory of Everything should unite these two theories into a single, coherent theory. Einstein spent 30 years of his life chasing after this theory, which would allow him to “read the Mind of God,” but he failed. Today, our best (and only) candidate is called string theory, which is what I do for a living.
And this summer, the Large Hadron Collider (the largest atom smasher in the world) will be turned on, and we hope to test the periphery of this theory. If proven correct, it will be the crowning achievement of 2,000 years of science, ever since the Greeks asked the question, what is the world made of?
9. Do you feel the knowledge that you’ve gathered through the years has allowed you to see the world differently from when you were, say, a college student?
A. Yes. When I was a kid, I used to read a lot of science fiction. I used to wonder about time travel, parallel universes, anti-matter, the fourth dimension, etc. But eventually, I realized that I would wind up as a crackpot, always babbling about pseudo-scientific theories, unless I got serious and “paid my dues,” i.e., unless I learned the most advanced mathematics and physics. Today, after years of doing research on the most advanced physics in the world, I know the precise boundary where advanced physics ends and science fiction ends. That’s one reason I wrote the book, Physics of the Impossible, so that I could tell young people whether certain technologies were possible in the future or not.
10. How does the rest of the world view the U.S.’s take on science?
A. Let’s put politics aside and just talk about science. I do a lot of lecturing around the world, and wherever I go, I am surprised that people admire and envy the science created in the U.S. It’s surprising to me, since the U.S. has the worst educational system known to science. U.S. kids score near the very bottom in almost every math and physics exam. So why doesn’t the U.S. collapse as a technological nation? The U.S. does a miserable job in educating the average student, but the U.S. has two secret weapons that other nations don’t have. The first is the H1B visa (the genius visa), which puts high-tech immigrants on the fast track right to a green card and Silicon Valley, where they go on to create entirely new industries. Fifty percent of Silicon Valley is actually foreign born. This is the brain drain. The second is that our education system selects out the exceptional student. In the East, there is the expression, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” In the U.S., we have the expression, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” The U.S. educational system does nurture exceptional, creative talent, which is the weak spot in many Asian societies.
Restricting Calories in Primates Fights Aging
You probably thought that we’d run out of cute monkey pictures, but no. Once again, Story of the Week brings you another important scientific breakthrough involving our diminutive, hirsute distant cousins.
So, shout it from the treetops: A new paper on rhesus monkeys, suggests that humans might be able to fend off diseases associated with aging– as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and brain atrophy–by following a special diet containing 30 percent fewer calories than usual.
The research—actually, two related studies, to be precise—was conducted by a team led by Ricki J. Coleman and Richard Weindruch from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center at the University of Wisconsin. The group also included staffers from the Veterans Administration’s William S. Middleton Veterans Hospital. It was funded by the National Institute on Aging.
“We have been able to show that caloric restriction can slow the aging process in a primate species,” explained Dr. Weindruch, according to a university press release. “We observed that caloric restriction reduced the risk of developing an age-related disease by a factor of three and increased survival.”
Begun in 1989 with a cohort of 30 rhesus macaques to chart the health effects of the reduced-calorie diet, the study expanded in 1994 with the addition of 46 more rhesus macaques. All of the animals in the study were enrolled as adults at ages ranging from 7 to 14 years. Today, 33 animals remain in the study. Of those, 13 are given free rein at the dinner table, and 20 are on a calorie-restricted diet.
During the 20-year course of the study, half of the animals permitted to eat freely have survived, while 80 percent of the monkeys given the same diet, but with 30 percent fewer calories, are still alive.
Rhesus macaques have an average life span of about 27 years in captivity. The oldest animal currently in the study is 29 years.
In terms of overall animal health, Weindruch noted, the restricted diet leads to longer lifespan and improved quality of life in old age. “There is a major effect of caloric restriction in increasing survival if you look at deaths due to the diseases of aging,” he said.
The incidence of cancerous tumors and cardiovascular disease in animals on a restricted diet was less than half that seen in animals permitted to eat freely. Remarkably, while diabetes or impaired glucose regulation is common in monkeys that can eat all they want, it has yet to be observed in any animal on a restricted diet.
“So far, we’ve seen the complete prevention of diabetes,” Weindruch said.
The calorie-restricted monkeys also had healthier brains than the control group. Sterling Johnson, a University of Wisconsin neuroscientist and one of the study authors, noted that cutting calories seemed to preserve brain volume against shrinkage. In particular, the regions responsible for motor control and executive functions such as working memory and problem solving were in better condition.
In a New York Times article, Weindruch said the research was “very good news” for people. “It says much of the biology of caloric restriction is translatable into primates, which makes it more likely it would apply to humans,” he said.
The Times noted that although humans might find it difficult to cut their calories as sharply as the monkeys did, biologists have been looking for drugs that might mimic the effects of caloric restriction, conferring the gain without the pain. One of these drugs is resveratrol, a substance found in red wine, though in quantities too small to have any effect.
Is Time Travel Possible?
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity says that time travel is perfectly possible — if you’re going forward. Finding a way to travel backwards requires breaking the speed of light, which so far seems impossible. But now, strange-but-true phenomena such as quantum nonlocality, where particles instantly teleport across vast distances, may give us a way to make the dream of traveling back and forth through time a reality. Step into a time machine and rewrite history, bring loved ones back to life, control our destinies. But if we succeed, what are the consequences of such freedom? Will we get trapped in a plethora of paradoxes and multiple universes that will destroy the fabric of the universe?
Make Rocket-Powered Toy Cars
1. Some small toy cars
2. Estes A10-PT model rocket engines
3. 32-gauge wire
4. Coffee stirrer
5. Glue
6. 100 ft or more of string
7. Estes Race Controller – with a significant length of wire
8. Alligator clips
Steps:
Wrap the wire around the vehicle to secure the ‘engine’ safely during ignition.
Cut a small groove in the bottom of the car.
Cut the coffee stirrer to size and glue it in place.
Run the string through the coffee stirrer secure both ends to something stationary.
Attach the Estes Race Controller to the rocket igniters with the alligator clips.
Get a safe distance away from the car and rocket and ignite. 
Do not stand behind the rocket, do not aim the rocket-powered car at a person!
Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe
How many planets exists which might support life? Indeed, what is required for life to exist? How does life start? How does it evolve, and what fabulous creatures can evolution produce? How often do intelligent creatures appear in the giant tapestry of life? It is exactly these questions, and all of them, which are being addressed by the scientists of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe.
Directed by Dr. David Morrison, the center brings together leading researchers in a field often called “astrobiology,” the study of life in the universe.
Our team focuses on a wide set of disciplines ranging from observing and modeling the precursors of life in the depths of outer space to studies of Earth, where we are attempting to learn more about how life began and how its many diverse forms have survived and evolved.
Appropriate to the sweeping scope of this research, we have many partners in our work including NASA, the National Science Foundation, and major universities.
Carl Sagan Center Projects and the Drake Equation
Each Carl Sagan Center research project is related in some way to understanding the origins of life or the extent to which life may be present beyond Earth. Devised as a means to inform SETI research, the Drake Equation addresses broad areas of scientific research, and each project relates to one or more factors in the Equation.
Carl Sagan Center Funding
Nearly all Life in the Universe scientists generate their own funding through outside grants, usually from NASA or the National Science Foundation. The SETI Institute’s excellent management and demonstrated ability to minimize overhead thereby maximizing funds available to conduct the actual research has helped the Institute build a strong reputation as an efficient home for researchers.
How did life begin on Earth? How many stars have planets and how many of these planets might support life? Scientists in the SETI Institute’s Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe explores these and other fundamental questions through a research program consisting of more than 30 externally funded, peer-reviewed projects. Sagan Center principal investigators conduct basic research into a field often known as astrobiology.
Cloning and characterization of a new BRCA1 variant: A role for BRCT domains in apoptosis
BRCA1 is a tumor-suppressor gene responsible for hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Characterization of alternately spliced forms of BRCA1 may identify the region of the gene responsible for its function. Here, we cloned and characterized a new BRCA1 splicing variant from the breast cancer cell line ZR-75-30. This transcript, named BRCA1-E1aA-Δ2-17, lacks most exons found in full-length BRCA1, but maintains the original reading frame. We detected expression of the BRCA1-E1aA-Δ2-17 transcript in several human cell lines and tumor tissues, and the fusion protein GFP-BRCA1-E1aA-Δ2-17 localized to the nucleus. Likewise, overexpression of the BRCA1-E1aA-Δ2-17 transcript resulted in cell death as measured by the MTT assay, and fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS) assays confirmed that this was caused by cellular apoptosis. Our data imply that BRCT domains of the BRCA1 play a role in the cellular apoptosis we observed, and suggest that elucidating the specific function of each of the domains could aid in understanding the exact role of the BRCA1 tumor suppressor.
source:
More Evidence Against Rosiglitazone
Rosiglitazone continues to compare unfavorably with other diabetes therapies in two studies released online Monday.
Updating their 2007 meta-analysis, researchers again found that rosiglitazone significantly increased the risk for myocardial infarction, while there was no increase in risk for cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. The update appears in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Writing in JAMA, researchers present their analysis of cardiovascular and mortality risks in a retrospective cohort of over 200,000 Medicare patients. The subjects had started treatment with either rosiglitazone or pioglitazone and were followed for up to 3 years (median, 105 days). Compared with patients taking pioglitazone, those on rosiglitazone had higher risks for stroke, heart failure, and death. Risk for MI did not differ between the groups. The authors calculate a number needed to harm of 60 patients treated for 1 year.
JAMA‘s editorialist suggests as one option the “removal of rosiglitazone from the US market.” (In July, FDA advisors will meet to discuss whether to keep the drug on the market.)
bill gates n Steve jobs :exclusive interview
Will Humans Be Extinct Within 100 Years?
Is the clock of doom ticking for mankind? Yes, says an eminent 95-year-old scientist from Australia. Professor Frank Fenner — the same scientist who brought the myxomatosis virus to rabbits to control their numbers in the 1950’s — is acutely aware of the impact of overpopulation and shortage of resources.
Widely regarded as the World Health Organization’s (WHO) finest hour, in 1980 Fenner announced to the World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated.
In an interview with The Australian, the well-respected microbiologist expressed his pessimism for our future. “We’re going to become extinct,” he said. “Whatever we do now is too late.”
After all the hype surrounding the pseudoscience of 2012, I’ve become a bit numb to “yet another” warning of doomsday, but when a scientist of Fenner’s caliber goes on the record to say mankind will die off, it’s hard not to listen.
“Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years,” he said. “A lot of other animals will, too. It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.”
Although efforts are under way to mitigate the worst effects of overpopulation and climate change, Fenner believes it is futile, that our fate is sealed.
The world’s population is forecast to balloon to 7 billion next year, putting a terrible strain on food and water supplies. So much so that Fenner predicts “food wars” in the coming decades as nations fight to secure dwindling supplies. Global droughts continue to ravage farmland, intensifying widespread malnutrition and poverty.
Climate change is a big driving factor behind his warning and, in Fenner’s opinion, we’ve passed the point of no return. Although we have the scientific ability to tackle global problems, it’s the lack of political will to do anything before the planet turns into a dust bowl that’s the problem.
Although these warnings aren’t without merit, I see Fenner’s belief that all of mankind may not exist in a century to be overly pessimistic. It’s not that I doubt the world will be a very different place in 100 years, it’s just that he hasn’t considered the technological factors of what makes humans human.
Granted, we’re not very good at looking after our planet, and we are in a dire predicament, but thinking we’ll be extinct in less than a century is a little over the top. There being a “collapse of civilization” or “rapid population decline” might be a better forecast.
Extinction occurs when every single member of a species dies, so unless a succession of global catastrophes (pandemics, runaway global warming, nuclear wars, collapse of resources, throw in an asteroid impact) happened at the same time, a small number of our descendants should still be able to eke out an existence in sheltered pockets around the planet.
In a paper published in the journal Futures last year, researchers approached the question: Human Extinction: How Could It Happen?
“The human race is unlikely to become extinct without a combination of difficult, severe and catastrophic events,” said Tobin Lopes, of the University of Colorado Denver, in an interview with Discovery News. He added that his team “were very surprised about how difficult it was to come up with plausible scenarios in which the entire human race would become extinct.”
Sure, we could be faced with a “perfect storm” of catastrophes leading to a mass extinction, but I think it will be more likely that we’ll adapt quickly, using technology not necessarily to reverse the damage we have caused, but to support life in a hostile new world.
But this is as speculative as Fenner’s gloomy forecast. I suspect the realities of living on a warming planet with a spiraling population and dwindling resources will remain unknown for some time yet. However, if our continuing abuse of resources continues at this rate unchecked, we can be anything but optimistic about our species’ future.
ARYAN'S BLOG 