We do not begin nor end at the borders of our skin…

The brain has a weak electrical force around it that transmits information;

“Researchers in the US have recorded neural spikes travelling too slowly in the brain to be explained by conventional signalling mechanisms. In the absence of other plausible explanations, the scientists believe these brain waves are being transmitted by a weak electrical field, and they’ve been able to detect one of these in mice.

“Researchers have thought that the brain’s endogenous electrical fields are too weak to propagate wave transmission,” said Dominique Durand, a biomedical engineer at Case Western Reserve University. “But it appears the brain may be using the fields to communicate without synaptic transmissions, gap junctions or diffusion.”

Running computer simulations to model their hypothesis, the researchers found that electrical fields can mediate propagation across layers of neurons. While the field is of low amplitude (approximately 2–6 mV/mm), it’s able to excite and activate immediate neighbours, which subsequently activate more neurons, travelling across the brain at about 10 centimetres per second.


Welcome to my world 😉 Science can not even pin point "thinking" to the brain. I wrote this article in 2012;http://cosmosclan.blogspot.com.tr/2012/08/life-span-and-entropy.html

Posted by How to make a spacecraft / Uzay gemisi nasıl yapılır on Friday, January 15, 2016

Welcome to my world  Science can not even pin point “thinking” to the brain. I wrote this article in 2012;


(It is also available among my writings here; http://www.alphan.net/writings/ )

The collision model – Young proto-Earth, Theia & the Moon



Editor’s summary

The Moon is thought to have formed mainly from material within a giant impactor that struck the proto-Earth, so it seems odd that the compositions of the Moon and Earth are so similar, given the differing composition of other Solar System bodies. Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti et al. track the feeding zones of growing planets in a suite of computational simulations of planetary accretion and find that different planets formed in the same simulation have distinct compositions, but the compositions of giant impactors are more similar to the planets they impact. A significant fraction of planet–impactor pairs have virtually identical compositions. The authors conclude that the similarity in composition between the Earth and Moon could be a natural consequence of a late giant impact.


A primordial origin for the compositional similarity between the Earth and the Moon

Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti, Hagai B. Perets & Sean N. Raymond
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding authors
Nature 520, 212–215 (09 April 2015) doi:10.1038/nature14333
Received 10 November 2014 Accepted 10 February 2015


Most of the properties of the Earth–Moon system can be explained
by a collision between a planetary embryo (giant impactor) and the
growing Earth late in the accretion process1–3. Simulations show that
most of the material that eventually aggregates to form the Moon
originates from theimpactor1,4,5. However, analysis of the terrestrial
and lunar isotopic compositions show them to be highly similar6–11.
In contrast, the compositions of other Solar System bodies are significantly
different from those of the Earth and Moon 12–14, suggesting
that different Solar System bodies have distinct compositions. This
challenges the giant impact scenario, because the Moon-forming
impactor must then also be thought to have a composition different
from that of the proto-Earth. Here we track the feeding zones of
growing planets in a suite of simulations of planetary accretion 15, to
measure the composition of Moon-forming impactors.We find that
different planets formed in the same simulation have distinct compositions,
but the compositions of giant impactors are statistically
more similar to the planets they impact. A large fraction of planet–
impactor pairs have almost identical compositions. Thus, the similarityin
composition between the Earth and Moon could be a natural
consequence of a late giant impact.

Hit Me With Your Best Shot

Gravitational Lensing (Cosmic magnifying glass)

Ekran Alıntısı



Four versions of the same supernova explosion have been captured because a large galaxy between us and the event is distorting the path on which the light travels to reach us. The event not only makes visible a supernovae more distant than we normally see but provides the opportunity astronomers have been dreaming of to test three of the biggest questions in cosmology. Even more opportunities should arise in future.

One of the key predictions of General Relativity is that mass bends spacetime, and therefore light. Einstein predicted that very massive objects could focus light in a manner analogous with glass lenses, an effect finally observed in 1979.

Depending on the locations of the relevant objects we often see multiple images of the same distant quasar or galaxy. Since this light follows different paths to reach us the distance traveled on each will not be identical, so we are seeing some slightly delayed relative to the others. This makes little difference for an object whose brightness barely varies.

However, in 1964 Sjur Refsdal pointed out that different images of the same supernova would capture different moments in the explosion’s evolution, and might be used to test the rate at which the universe is expanding. Great efforts have been made to find such an example of such a valuable case. Dr Patrick Kelly of the University of California, Berkeley was looking for distant galaxies and came across the sight of four images of a nine billion year old supernova around a galaxy in the MACS J1149.6+2223 cluster.

Astronomers have glimpsed a far off and ancient star exploding, not once, but four times.

The exploding star, or supernova, was directly behind a cluster of huge galaxies, whose mass is so great that they warp space-time. This forms a cosmic magnifying glass that creates multiple images of the supernova, an effect first predicted by Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity 100 years ago.

Dr Brad Tucker from The Australian National University (ANU) says it’s a dream discovery for the team.

“It’s perfectly set up, you couldn’t have designed a better experiment,” said Dr Tucker, from ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

“You can test some of the biggest questions about Einstein’s theory of relativity all at once – it kills three birds with one stone.”

Astronomers have mounted searches for such a cosmic arrangement over the past 20 years. However, this discovery was made during a separate search for distant galaxies by Dr Patrick Kelly from University of California, Berkeley.

“It really threw me for a loop when I spotted the four images surrounding the galaxy – it was a complete surprise,” he said.

The lucky discovery allows not only testing of the Theory of Relativity, but gives information about the strength of gravity, and the amount of dark matter and dark energy in the universe.

Because the gravitational effect of the intervening galaxy cluster magnifies the supernova that would normally be too distant to see, it provides a window into the deep past, Dr Tucker said.

“It’s a relic of a simpler time, when the universe was still slowing down and dark energy was not doing crazy stuff,” he said.

“We can use that to work out how dark matter and dark energy have messed up the universe.”



Multiple images of a highly magnified supernova formed by an early-type cluster galaxy lens
SCIENCE06 MAR 2015 : 1123-1126
Light from a distant supernova at z = 1.491 is detected in four images after being deflected en route by gravitational forces.


In 1964, Refsdal hypothesized that a supernova whose light traversed multiple paths around a strong gravitational lens could be used to measure the rate of cosmic expansion. We report the discovery of such a system. In Hubble Space Telescope imaging, we have found four images of a single supernova forming an Einstein cross configuration around a redshift z = 0.54 elliptical galaxy in the MACS J1149.6+2223 cluster. The cluster’s gravitational potential also creates multiple images of the z = 1.49 spiral supernova host galaxy, and a future appearance of the supernova elsewhere in the cluster field is expected. The magnifications and staggered arrivals of the supernova images probe the cosmic expansion rate, as well as the distribution of matter in the galaxy and cluster lenses.

Cryogenic clocks will stay accurate for 16 BILLION years




Cryogenic optical lattice clocks

Ichiro Ushijima, Masao Takamoto, Manoj Das, Takuya Ohkubo & Hidetoshi Katori

Nature Photonics 9, 185–189 (2015) doi:10.1038/nphoton.2015.5
Received 13 May 2014 Accepted 06 January 2015 Published online 09 February 2015

The accuracy of atomic clocks relies on the superb reproducibility of atomic spectroscopy, which is accomplished by careful control and the elimination of environmental perturbations on atoms. To date, individual atomic clocks have achieved a 10−18 level of total uncertainties1, 2, but a two-clock comparison at the 10−18 level has yet to be demonstrated. Here, we demonstrate optical lattice clocks with 87Sr atoms interrogated in a cryogenic environment to address the blackbody radiation-induced frequency shift3, which remains the primary source of systematic uncertainty2, 4, 5, 6 and has initiated vigorous theoretical7, 8 and experimental9, 10 investigations. The systematic uncertainty for the cryogenic clock is evaluated to be 7.2 × 10−18, which is expedited by operating two such cryo-clocks synchronously11, 12. After 11 measurements performed over a month, statistical agreement between the two cryo-clocks reached 2.0 × 10−18. Such clocks’ reproducibility is a major step towards developing accurate clocks at the low 10−18 level, and is directly applicable as a means for relativistic geodesy13.


New ‘Cryogenic’ Clock Developed In Japan Accurate For 16 Billion Years

These new cryogenic clocks will stay accurate for 16 BILLION years

America’s Aging Nuclear Arsenal

America’s Aging Nuclear Arsenal and the ‘Earth-Shattering Kaboom’ | VICE News

For the past year, the aging US nuclear weapons arsenal has been the subject of a brewing controversy with all the makings of a major policy debate through the 2016 Presidential campaign. And if history is any indicator, the debate promises to turn into a really stupid stalemate.

Beginning in 2013, Associated Press reporter Robert Burns wrote an excellent series of articles detailing numerous problems with the US Air Force’s nuclear missile operators, including cheating on proficiency tests, drug abuse, and abysmal morale. 60 Minutes did a segment on the nuclear force, and last week the New York Times editorial board chimed in. Amid it all, the Department of Defense called for several reports to be compiled, lending a patina of seriousness to its flailing.

The subject will no doubt be a topic of discussion for months to come whenever, say, a potential presidential candidate or nominee for secretary of defense answers questions from reporters, constituents, or senators. But the discussion should not be framed around how to get rid of obsolete Cold War relics, as the Times implied. It should focus on the fact that every decrepit warhead brings us a little closer to actual war. Fought with nukes.

Writer of the Vice article:


Wrestling With an Aging Arsenal

AP investigates failures in safeguarding nuclear weapons

The Soviet Union Dumped Nuclear Submarines, Reactors, and Containers into the Ocean

russian subs
The Soviet Union Dumped a Bunch of Nuclear Submarines, Reactors, and Containers into the Ocean | VICE News

Two years ago, the Russian government provided a tally: two submarines, 14 reactors — five of which contain spent nuclear fuel — 19 other vessels sunk with radioactive waste on board, and about 17,000 containers holding radioactive waste. The last known dumping occurred in 1993.

Of particular concern are the two submarines, the K-27, which was dumped into the Kara Sea in 1981, and the K-159, which sunk in 2003 into the Barents Sea, while being towed for dismantling. After an expedition to the K-159 last summer, Russian authorities concluded that there was no unusual radioactivity.

“There was no extra radiation from that submarine,” Nils Bohmer, a nuclear expert at the Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental nonprofit, told VICE News. “But later the Russian authorities said that within 10 to 15 years, a decision had to be made whether or not the sub should be lifted.”