blu3rsx:

16-Year-Old Egyptian Scientist Finds Way to Turn Plastic Waste Into $78 Million of Biofuel

What Azza proposes is to break down the plastic polymers found in drinks bottles and general waste and turn them into biofuel feedstock. (This is the bulk raw material that generally used for producing biofuel.) It should be noted that this is not a particularly new idea, but what makes Azza stand out from the crowd is the catalyst that she is proposing. She says that she has found a high-yield catalyst called aluminosilicate, that will break down plastic waste and also produce gaseous products like methane, propane and ethane, which can then be converted into ethanol.

Read more.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

the-science-llama:

If Earth Had Rings

First off, they would be really pretty to look at. They would also dominate the sky in both night and day at exactly the same place as they would never rise nor set. And at night you would see the Earth’s shadow swing across the rings, like in the 4th photo here.

However, life would be very different on Earth if this were the case. Nocturnal animals would have a hard time being nocturnal, as the light reflecting from the rings would illuminate the night.

Because we are closer to the Sun than Saturn is, the rings would be more rocky than ice, making them less bright but still pretty bright. In fact, you would see far less stars at night (living anywhere other than the equator or the arctic circle) because of the light pollution and not to mention ruin most meteor showers because of that.

During the day the rings would block sunlight in certain regions of the planet creating wild weather cycles and effecting plant life as well. So basically, they would be definitely pretty to look at but they would also make a whole lot of things screwy.

Illustrations by Ron Miller // io9
— Click the photos for captions

(via lord-kitschener)

the-science-llama:

Butterfly and Moth Wings

Tim Holt on why we still see the number of females in STEM fields fall way behind their male counterparts. Also see how geography paved the way for women in science.

(↬ gender and science)

(Source: explore-blog, via scinerds)

mothernaturenetwork:

Your office will never waste paper again with Oriental’s White Goat machine, which converts normal paper into toilet paper. Simply insert about 40 sheets of paper, and in 30 minutes you’ll receive a freshly made roll of toilet paper. The machine shreds the paper, dissolves it in water, thins it out and then dries it and winds it around a roll. According to Oriental, it costs about 12 cents to churn out one roll.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

ikenbot:

The Lagoon Nebula - Infrared and Optical Comparison

This infrared image of the Lagoon nebula contrasts heavily with traditional images taken in visible light. Such images primarily display the striking magenta colour from glowing Hydrogen gas, as well as large dark obscuring clouds of dust.

The infrared part of the spectrum penetrates these clouds better and reveals complex details and thousands of young stars that are otherwise completely invisible. These stars shine primarily in the infrared and appear as golden red in this image. Only a minority of these are visible in traditional optical images. — Rolf Wahl Olsen

(via scinerds)

languageek:

The Speed of Language - Found on visual.ly

(via zulenha)

fuckyeahfluiddynamics:

Literature is full of descriptions of monstrous whirlpools like Charybdis, which threatens Homer’s Odysseus. While it’s not unusual to see a small free vortex in bodies of water, most people would chalk boat-swallowing maelstroms up to literary device. But it turns out that, while there may not be permanent Hollywood-style whirlpools, there are several places in the world where the local tides, currents, and topology combine to produce turbulence, dangerously vortical waters, and even standing vortices on a regular basis. 

One example is the Corryvreckan, between the islands of Jura and Scarba off Scotland. In this narrow strait, Atlantic currents are funneled down a deep hole and then thrust upward by a pinnacle of rock that rises some 170 m to only 30 m below the surface. The swift waters and unusual topology produce strong turbulence near the surface and whirlpools pop up throughout the strait. Other “permanent” maelstroms, such as those in Norway and Japan, arise from tidal interactions with similar structures rising from the sea floor.

For more, check out this Smithsonian article, Gjevik et al., Moe et al., and the videos linked above! (Photo credits: Manipula, Tokushima Gov’t, Wikimedia, and W. Baxter; requested by @kb8s)

(via scinerds)

technoccult:

Klint Finley

Here’s my article for Wired about why so many scientists ended up working in the tech industry:

Tech companies are snapping up scientists with backgrounds in fields like physics, mathematics and bioscience — people we might expect to be busy curing cancer, saving the environment or discovering the origin of the universe. It’s easy to be cynical about this. “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads,” former Facebook data scientist Jeff Hammerbacher told Business Week in 2010. But it’s happening for a reason.

It’s not that tech companies need people with PhDs. Many of the best data scientists in the business only have bachelor’s degrees. It turns out that many scientists are moving into tech because opportunities aren’t as prevalent as you might think.

The U.S. produced 100,000 PhDs between 2005 and 2009, while creating only 16,000 new professorships, according to data cited by The Economist. Though we’re used to hearing about PhDs in the humanities ending up as low-paid adjunct professors or baristas, we tend to expect another fate for people who major in fields like bioscience or physics. But even the natural sciences produce more PhDs than professorships. […]

Those that do land jobs are often frustrated. “Scientists spend more time chasing funding than thinking about the science,” Berkolz says. And because funding sources are so risk adverse, the type of research funded tends to be conservative. “Scientists are supposed to be all about falsifiability,” Miller says. “But your job as a professor is to never be wrong. It’s hard to be intellectually experimental when you’re a scientist.”

Full Story: Wired Enterprise: Shouldn’t All Those Internet Scientists Be Curing Cancer?

I think this is also probably why some researchers fabricate experimental data.

(via scinerds)

ikenbot:

Black Hole Firewall: Trouble On The Edge

Ever wondered what happens to things as they are consumed by the black hole, the left over matter of dead stars? For a time, it used to be okay to assume matter was destroyed once it entered into a black hole, spaghettified and all.. but it turned out that this couldn’t be further away from the truth. NewScientists Anil Ananthaswamy has a wonderful 3 page piece getting into full details of this history and what questions scientists are asking now. If you love black holes, this is a definite recommend. Although registration (completely free!) is required to view the whole article. It’s pretty insightful and accurately presents the problems currently being faced with how black holes do what they do:

“Paradoxes are good in physics,” reflects John Preskill. “They help to point the way towards important discoveries.” Quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theories of relativity offer plenty to choose from. There’s the cat that can be dead and alive at the same time. Or the Back to the Future-style time traveller who kills his own grandfather, rendering his own birth impossible. Or the twins who disagree on their age after one returns from a near light-speed trip to a neighbouring star. Each perplexing scenario forces us to examine the fine print of the problem, thereby advancing our understanding of the theory behind it. A case in point is Einstein, whose own theories came from trying to resolve the paradoxes of his time.

Image: Ring of fireSam Chivers

Now Preskill, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is scratching his head over the latest one to surface. Nicknamed the black hole firewall paradox, it comes about when you consider what happens to someone falling into a black hole.

With the nearest black hole more than 1000 light years away, the question is very much a theoretical one. Yet just by studying such a possibility, physicists are hoping to make a breakthrough in their efforts to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of quantum gravity – one of the most intractable problems in physics today.

Black holes have long been fertile breeding grounds for paradoxes. Back in 1974, Stephen Hawking, along with Jacob Bekenstein of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel, famously showed that black holes are not entirely black. Instead, they radiate energy known as Hawking radiation comprising photons and other quantum particles – an agonisingly slow process that eventually causes the black hole to evaporate completely.

Hawking spotted a problem with this picture. The radiation seemed so random that he surmised it couldn’t carry any information about the stuff that had fallen in. So as the black hole evaporates, the information it holds must eventually disappear. Yet this is in direct conflict with a central tenet of quantum physics, which says that information cannot be destroyed. The black hole information paradox was born.

Over the decades, physicists have struggled with this paradox. Hawking thought that black holes destroyed information and the answer was to question quantum mechanics. Others disagreed. After all, Hawking’s idea came from his efforts to meld general relativity and quantum mechanics – a mathematical feat so elusive that he was forced to make approximations. Preskill even made a bet with Hawking that black holes don’t destroy information.

Several arguments suggest that Hawking was wrong. One of the most compelling comes from thinking about what happens as the evaporating black hole gets smaller and smaller. If information can’t escape or be destroyed, then more and more has to be stored in an ever-shrinking volume. But if this is the case, quantum theory says the probability for making a tiny black hole increases from virtually nothing to almost infinity wherever matter collides against matter. “You should have seen it at the Large Hadron Collider, you should have seen it at Fermilab, you should have seen it in tiny room-sized particle accelerators from the 1930s,” says Don Marolf, a theorist at the University of California in Santa Barbara (UCSB). “You should see it when you go and jump up and down on the grass.”

Obviously that hasn’t happened. The other possibility – that matter and the information it carries can leak out from a black hole – is unlikely. Any material that falls in would need to travel faster than light to escape the black hole’s fearsome gravity.

Perhaps, instead, the answer lies with the Hawking radiation itself. Maybe it isn’t so featureless. “A common reaction was that Hawking had simply been careless,” says Joseph Polchinski, also at UCSB. “It wasn’t that information was lost, it was that he hadn’t kept track of it enough.”

Yet all early efforts to do away with the paradox proved unsuccessful. “Hawking had identified a really deep problem,” says Polchinski.

As it happened, Hawking changed his mind in 2004, partly due to work by an Argentinian physicist called Juan Maldacena (see “Hawking’s change of heart”). Black holes don’t destroy information after all, he conceded. He honoured the bet he made with Preskill and presented him with an encyclopaedia of baseball, which Preskill likened to a black hole, because it was heavy and it took effort to get information out of it.

Into The Abyss..

[Full Article]

(via scinerds)