In the Field of God: Higgs Boson Evidence Strengthening

Hi Readers,

A table of the elementary particles in the Standard Model. Image from Wikimedia.org.

After the seminal paper and extensive news coverage last year, Physicists and public alike have been waiting to here if the Higgs boson-like particle observed is in fact the elusive god particle. Further analysis of the data obtained so far has strengthened the likelihood that the observed particle is increasing. First of all what is the Higgs boson or god particle?

We are all made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. We have all learned this in high school science. What fewer of us know is that protons, neutrons and neutrons break down further into smaller units called elementary particles. Electrons are elementary particles in themselves.

Each elementary particle has a mass. Well actually they don't. The Standard Model of Particle Physics says that all elementary particles are massless. What gives particles the impression that they have have is the Higgs Boson. Before I lose you, imagine a celebrity (the elementary particle) gets off a plane and while walking through the airport (the Higgs Field) an aggregation of fans (the Higgs Bosons within the Higgs Field) forms. The size of that aggregation in this analogy is the same as the observed mass of an elementary particle.

In just the same way as different celebrities cause different sized aggregations to form, different elementary particles attract different amounts of Higgs Bosons which affect its observed mass. This is all theoretical, however, as the Higgs Boson has never been observed in experiments. That brings us back to why the research at CERN is so important.

If the Higgs Boson is confirmed through these experiments, the Standard Model of Particle Physics can be confirmed and we will be another [significant] step closer to under standing our universe.

Until next time,
Jay

Reference article
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/sci-tech/higgs-boson-the-god-particle-discovered-by-cern/story-fn5iztw3-1226597689277

Growing Pains: Unravelling the Size of Our Universe

Hi Readers,

I stumbled across this really interesting paper the other day. The article described how using new techniques, a team of scientists have managed to accurately measure the distance to our nearest neighbouring galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud. Such data is not only astounding but also necessary for improving our knowledge of the universe.

The Large Magellanic Cloud. Image taken from Wikipedia.

The true values of knowing that the Large Magellanic Cloud is 163, 000 lights years from our own Milky Way galaxy is that now we can more accurately measure the distance to other further galaxies and even the size of the universe. The team who made this important discovery have used the stars, specifically dual stars, as markers like candles. Then the distance of these stars from the Earth was determined by observing the changes in brightness of the light emitted as they moved in their respective systems. Much how you can guess the distance from a car you are at night time. This has large implications for our understanding of the size of the universe and its rate of expansion.

By measuring the rate that galaxies are moving away from eachother, we can infer the rate of expansion of our universe. Understanding the rate of  expansion of our universe can help us to unravel the secrets of Dark Matter and Dark Energy; two very important factors of the life of our universe since the Big Bang.

Dark Matter as we understand it is the invisible scaffolding of our universe. It holds everything together and in place. Dark Energy on the other hand works as an opposing and ever-expanding force driving galaxies apart. It is Dark Energy therefore that is what thought to cause the inexplicable phenomenon of the universe expanding. Having accurate measurements between galaxies over time will provide strong evidence for 1) the existence of Dark Energy and 2) show that the galaxies used to be closer together providing evidence for the Big Bang Theory.

This incredible finding is one of many more equally incredible steps required to unravel the endless mysterious of our Universe.

Until next time,
Jay

Article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130306134016.htm

De-extinction: Reversing our human wrongs

Hi Readers,

This article (link below) caught my attention this week. The article reintroduced the long debated question; should we use cloning to bring extinct animal species back to life?

A picture of Dolly the first cloned mammal. Image taken from www.guardian.co.uk

Ever since the triumphant birth of Dolly the sheep in 1996 (and likely much before that as well) the scientific community has been struggling with the idea to use cloning techniques to bring back extinct animals. This concept has been dubbed de-extinction. It seems to be one of the logical progressions or evolution of cloning techniques to use our rapidly expanding knowledge and technology to help revive the long list of animals we have caused to die out.

A quick search on the IUCN Red List for Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) reveals that at least 795 species are now considered extinct throughout the time man has been on the Earth. Of that, 705 animal species occupy the list (90 species of plant are extinct) of which 77 species are mammals and 130 species are birds. Of these are species like the Tasmanian tiger, moa, dodo and Steller's sea cow. While extinction is a natural process for evolution, the impact of humans on animal species is catastrophic at best. Humans have accelerated the rate at which animals are dying out for various reason such as habitat degradation and introducing foreign species. As the blood on our hands increases we find ourselves at a point that our technology can potentially use cloning techniques to help undo our wrongs. But should we?

To clone an animal requires DNA of that species. DNA rapidly degrades after death so only exceptionally well preserved specimens or those collected and stored by humans can be used (sorry no dinosaurs are going to be made any time soon). That, however, is not the main issue of de-extinction. The main issues lie rather in the ethical conundrum. Is it wrong of us to play "God"? Is a resurrected animal the same species it was or just a very good replica? What damage will be done reintroducing an animal into the ecosystem? What animals do we bring back? Why not use the resources required to resurrect an extinct species for saving an endangered species?

The Yangtze River dolphin. declared extinct in 2006 after not trace of the animal was seen following a 45 day survey. The priniciple cause of its demise were overfishing, damming and sub aquatic sonar pollution. Image taken from www.fxdirectory.info.

The answers to these questions are not easy to find and may never truly be found. We live in an age where we as a species have a true power and gift of knowledge. How we use this knowledge and power is of paramount importance not only to us but to the Earth we cohabit with all the rest of the life on this planet. De-extinction is a wonderfully exciting and promising revelation. We must make sure that if we proceed to try and bring back species that have been declared extinct that we are doing it for the right reasons and not just because we have a guilty conscience.

Until next time,
Jay

Reference article
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130305-science-animals-extinct-species-revival-deextinction-debate-tedx/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20130306news-extspec&utm_campaign=Content

The Hairy Truth of Bigfoot: DNA evidence presented

Hi Readers,

An image from Roger Pattinson and Robert Gimlin's famous 1967 film.

 

I was given a very interesting article to read the other day. Ketchum et al. have presented a unique paper in which they argue that they have DNA evidence for the existence of bigfoot. What it equally as interesting is the almost violent backlash that this paper has caused from the scientific community. The study of hitherto unproven animals is called cryptozoology. The bigfoot is one of the most high profile example of a creature that has been obsessed over by cryptozoologists, along with others like the Loch Ness Monster, Bray Rd Beast and Yeti.

By and large cryptozoology is regarded as an illegitimate and laughable branch of science. This is an unfortunate reputation as the field of cryptozoology has yielded some significant finds in the past. These include the komodo dragon, giant squid, panda, coelacanth and okapi. The not-entirely undeserved negative reputation of cryptozoology comes from the bulk of work done in the field which shows poor scientific conduct, radical, speculative assumptions and bold statements. Ketchum et al.'s paper is an unfortunate case of the latter scenario.

Panda. Image taken from jezebel.com

Ketchum and colleagues tested purported hair, blood and tissue samples from the bigfoot, or Sasquatch, for DNA sequencing and morphological similarities to known animals species. The results presented are very interesting. DNA sequencing showed that most samples were human except for a few where new genes were sequenced that did not match any other animal previously sequenced. The morphology of hair samples also showed that they were mostly human with a few inconsistencies. These findings are exciting and if  conducted and presented to a higher scientific standard would have been an incredibly significant finding and potentially the greatest success for cryptozoology to date.

Komodo Dragon. Image taken from www.venomdoc.com

 The main issue with this paper is that purported sasquatch samples have not been taken and collected in a controlled manner and are therefore unaccountable. Their is only anecdotal evidence provided incessantly throughout the paper that states the samples are indeed from a sasquatch. Ketchum et al. also give into the temptation of speculation when discussing their results which is a big no-no in science. It is argued that the aforementioned DNA and hair sample results conclusively prove the existence of bigfoot in North America. Also they go as far as to say that they have evidence of human-sasquatch hybridisation. This is wild speculation at its best. Because of the unaccountability of the sample origins, there is no credible link whatsoever that the samples used in this study are from a sasquatch. What is evident is that novel hair and DNA samples have been characterised that show similarities to primates including humans. That is all.

In addition to the above, Ketchum et al.'s paper is that it is not written in scientific prose or even presented in the right format for a scientific paper. Papers are written in a conventional style so that the ideas contained within it are clearly organised and follow a logical flow (Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion). The end result being that a person reading the paper is able to see precisely what the research aimed to do, what was achieved by doing the project and how this adds to the human body of knowledge. Ketchum's paper does not follow a clear style of writing melding results and methods into the introduction area and discussing/interpresting the results at basically every opportunity they can. This makes for a confusing read and gives an err of inexperience at scientific writing.

In summation, Ketchum and colleagues have presented novel human like hair and DNA samples. This is a significant finding however, poor scientific conduct, equally poor writing and outrageous speculation impede this paper ever being taken seriously. This is a fine example of poor science which further tarnishes the credibility and reputation of the field of cryptozoology.

Until next time,
Jay

Press article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/bigfoot-dna-controversy-science-journal_n_2711676.html

Journal homepage
http://www.denovojournal.com/#!special-issue/crrc