Science Flash: Dark Matter Even More Complicated?

Dark matter and dark energy never really made sense to me, but then again, I think that's because no one really knows much about it. Anyway, it just got more complicated.

Is Unknow Force in Universe Acting on Dark Matter?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm

To sum up my history in the pursuit of dark matter and energy, I knew before August 2009 that dark matter basically was unknown "stuff" in the universe (actually, it's the majority of stuff in the universe) and it acted on visible matter, so our galaxies can stay together and not fly apart, since it exerts gravitational effects. Dark energy is like the opposite of gravity, but again, it's called "dark" because they don't really know what to call it-or even what it is, seeing as the "opposite of gravity" is just a wild guess. Then, I read two books by Michio Kaku about all of the bizarrities of physics. He started to throw in negative matter and energy, which is really bizarre, and then I got really confused. All I could glean from that discussion was that nobody really knows what dark matter is, and that we walk through it all the time (it's omnipresent!) yet it doesn't interact with us (that is, while we can catch things like air in a balloon, or "interacting" with it, we can't do the same with dark matter. Bearing this in mind, I shall try my very best to figure out what the article is talking about and explain it as well.

The article starts with saying that there is "an unexpected link between mysterious 'dark matter' and the visible stars and gas in galaxies that could revolutionise our current understanding of gravity." How gravity got in there is beyond me, because the first part is a whopper in the first place. Dr. Hongsheng Zhao then suggests that there is an unknown force in the universe acting on dark matter. (Although I have to say: aren't there enough complicated forces already? Do we really need another one?) I'll get back to this later, though, because the article describes it more clearly later on.

The next paragraph then is basically what I said in my first paragraph, but to illustrate my point of what I was saying earlier, here are some citations: It says that "only 4% of the universe is made of known material," which means there's a lot of unknown stuff (gases, stars, quasars, and all of that doesn't count as "unknown") in the universe. It also says that "a solid understanding of dark matter as well as direct evidence of its existence has remained elusive," which basically means they flat out don't know what dark matter is and can't really prove that there is "dark matter" at all.

After that, we really start getting into the hard part of the article. It says that the team researching this thinks that the interactions (but remember, we walk through the stuff all the time without even knowing we are, so this is pretty significant) between normal matter and dark matter "could be more important and more complex than previously thought," or that dark matter isn't just keeping our galaxies together, it could be doing other things as well- or it might not even exist at all, it could be a new force. Dr. Benoit Famaey basically explains, as I see it, that dark matter is doing an intricate balancing act throughout the entire universe, and that the dark matter "acts" in a way that it seems to "know" where the visible matter in the universe. Dr. Zhao allows us to visualize it by saying that it's like going to a zoo with all sorts of animals at different ages and finding that they all have the same backbone weight- so an elephant and a monkey have the same backbone weight. In the universe, even though all the galaxies are like different animals that are at different ages, they seem to all have the "fingerprints" of an "invisible fifth force." Then, it says that this force might solve a mystery I mentioned earlier: dark energy (We're just back to square one). Of course, if you aren't sastified with that craziness, they also say that it could also lead to a revision and a whole new outlook of gravity (quick history: Newton discovered gravity, Einstein revised it to make it better.) I can't quite grasp this (if anyone who knows physics can explain, I'd be very grateful) because, from what I know about the universe, it's hard enough to grasp the size of the universe (let's just say it's so incredibly big I've given up trying to imagine it), let alone what's in it. My opinion summed up on all of this: it's all mind-boggling, really complicated, and immensely bizarre craziness! That's why I like it.

Got Science?

Need a topic for current events? I found this insanely amusing (although I have no idea why).

Clean Smells Promote Moral Behavior

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091025091148.htm

Here are some questions that I had when I read it:

Why do clean smells promote moral behavior?

How did anyone seriously consider doing this experiment in the first place?

If humans were made by nature, then where's the Windex in nature?

If you need help with your "opinion," here are some suggestions:

1. 
   
   Do you agree that clean smells (or Windex) make you behave better? If it were me, and I was sitting in a room full of Windex, I'd be rather irritated because artificial smells like Windex and perfume make my nose feel funny.
2. 
   
   Why would clean smells make people behave better? It doesn't have to be a serious or correct explanation, it's just what you think. Of course, if it were me, I'd say that.... never mind.
   
   Just to make this clear, this article is for people to use for their current events. In other words, I was too lazy to type up my opinion and a summary and all of that for this article, but it was too interesting to pass by. (Okay, okay, it was really because Sunnyd asked me to, but I was lazy too!) It's relatively easy to relate to, doesn't have a whole lot of neurology or the stuff that I usually like, and invites those "Ooh, once there was this time when..." kind of stories that are great for supporting your opinion and connecting them to real life. This is not one of my current events articles, it's for you.
   
   
   I'm not going to elaborate on these links in great detail, but I'msure someone will be interested in these:

Professor Sees 70 Percent Chance For Yankees to Win 2009 World Series

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091027170850.htm

(Sorry, kokopelli1015) For those baseball (it is baseball, right? Not football?) fans. I didn't even try to make any sense of it.

Changes In Brain Chemicals Mark Shifts In Infant Learning

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026125359.htm

This has to do with the Maslow that we're learning about in Social Studies. Quite interesting.

Science Articles

http://www.sciencedaily.com

I generally go on this website (that's where all of these articles are from) for news. There is an overwhelming amount of articles here on many, many branches of science, so looking here is a surefire way to get a good article.

Thoughts For the Weekend- 10/16 and 10/23

10/16-
How close to the ceiling does a fly have to be before he flips over and lands on the ceiling?

I highly doubt that a fly (or any living organism) can sustain flying upside for any period of time, so the fly probably has to be really, really close and just grab the ceiling, or it could do a sort of miniature loop-de-loop manuever and land on the ceiling at the peak of the loop.

10/23-
Who tastes dog food when it has a 'new & improved' flavor?

If you ask me, the "new and improved flavor" is just an advertising ploy. Dry dog food is dry dog food, and I don't think dogs really care about tiny differences in the flavor of dog food- unless it's some good old meat, it isn't anything special. Of course, maybe there are actual people who would go through testing the dog food, but "improved" is a relative term and anything put out there can be called "new." My mom suggested that perhaps they do testing in which they put two different types of dog food out for a dog, and the dog would choose what it wants to eat, but again, dogs can't really communicate its opinions of the food, and it probably doesn't matter to them anyways.

Science Book, Take a Look: Going Nuts?

This book is not about psychology, but its somewhat more scientific counterpart: Neurology, or the science of the brain. There are many, many strange tales of patients with diseases of the brain...

Newton's Madness: Further Tales of Clinical Neurology

by Harold L. Klawans, M.D.

I found this a really engaging read. They're basically the stories of patients (well, most) that the author encountered as a neurologist who works in a hospital and diagnoses people. Some of the diseases many people know about, like a stroke, while others aren't so common. He explains how he does things pretty clearly (hey, this isn't for doctors but everyday folk like you and me) although all the chemicals like dopamine and serotonin and other big fancy medical terms (with the exception of morbidly obese, which I think most people know) can make your head spin if you try to keep track of them all (which I didn't). My favorite chapter in the book was chapter 18, "The Girl with the Dancing Eyes," which was simply hilarious- or at least the first half was. I won't tell anything about this chapter except this tidbit: bouncing guinea pigs. An example of the type of diseases, or rather, problems with the brain (by far not the most exotic, though) that the author discusses was a stroke, in the first chapter. While a stroke is pretty basic knowledge, the stroke that the author has to diagnose belongs to none other but one of his mother's very close friends- "Aunt Betty." In this case, the stroke patient was taken to the hospital, but the patient had no idea what was wrong! Aunt Betty had lost all control and feeling in her left arm or hand- in fact, when the author held it up for her to see, she thought it was the neurologist's hand, not her own. The author later goes on to explain this more thoroughly.

Here are some tips if you do read this book:
First, read all the quotes that the chapter starts out with. You probably should for all books, but these are really interesting (same goes for the Michio Kaku books, he has some awesome quotes in there).
Second, read all the author's notes at the end of the chapter. There are hidden goodies in there that are definately worth reading, especially in Chapter 18.
Third, and this goes for most of the books I would put up, this is not a quick read. It is a book written for adults, and while it's not super long, it definately needs you to take your time and read it. If you need a book for Lit, don't read this just for the 10 points- or rather, read a fantasy book for the 10 points and read this for the sake of reading (which you should be doing in the first place).
Fourth, I have a question that I would be very grateful if someone could answer: this book has an entire chapter devoted to Sherlock Holmes, his possible drug addiction, and how he probably visited Dr. Sigmund Freud during the three years that he "disappeared." So, considering that Sigmund Freud existed and real people don't really get visits from fictional characters all that often, was Sherlock Holmes real? Kokopelli1015 said that Sherlock Holmes didn't, but that makes everything make less sense. Not that I don't believe Kokopelli1015, but if you happen to read the book or just know about Sherlock Holmes, feel free to share your opinion on this topic (or anything in the book).

Science Book, Take A Look: "Real" Science Fiction!

Calling all lovers of sci-fi, physics, science, and bizarre facts!

Here are two (non-fiction) books worth reading:

Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku

Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku

(For those who watch the science channel, Michio Kaku is the Asian-ish, probably Japanese, guy with the white hair that shows up a lot.)

I put these two books together because they have a bit of an overlap in what they talk about. Physics of the Impossible is primarily about "impossible" technologies. He classifies them into three groups: class one, or something possible in the next couple of centuries, class two, something that's possible but is so far away that it's basically science fiction to us (well, it all seems like sci-fi anyways) and class three, or the truly impossible (although only two things, telling the future and perpetual motion machines, fall into this category). Of course, being the co founder of string theory, he likes to talk quite a bit about the awe-inspiring "theory of everything," aka string theory or M-theory. However, this is primarily about the "impossible"- time travel, invisibility, force fields, and other things that seem magic to us. For those who like Star Trek (I never saw it), he also makes a lot of references to Star Trek as well. I highly recommend this to people who like science-fiction: it's just as weird, but true as well!

Parallel Worlds delves deeper into the "theory of everything" and all the strings (string theory, get it?) attached. He discusses parallel universes, quantum mechanics, baby universes, and of course, string, or rather, M-theory. (Just to clear things up, the "theory of everything" is like the holy grail of physics. M-theory, the m standing for membrane, is the latest version of string theory, which people hope is the new theory of everything.) This is just as bizarre and a little harder to grasp than Physics of the Impossible, so I recommend you read Physics of the Impossible first if you are interested in both of them. This book's bizarreness comes from all of those wacky theories. For instance, just as a little taste, quantum mechanics can imply that there is a slight probability that we could suddenly disappear and reappear on Mars from the uncertainty principle- thankfully, the probability of this is so small that you'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for this to happen, so saying that your homework disappeared due to the uncertainty principle is not a reasonable excuse for not having your homework.

Overall, these two books are very, very interesting- but two warnings: first, don't read them one after the other, but put a book in between. They have quite a bit of an overlap in material, so while the info will sink in better the next time, it will be repetitive. Also, don't read too much of this stuff: it gave me a weird dream about disappearing into a parallel universe, and I've been wondering about parallel universes and how we would tell the difference between a parallel universe where we originated from and one where the only difference is something like a butterfly not existing- good food for thought, but still really creepy.

Science Flash: Flies with Fake Flashbacks?

I remember discussing with a friend of mine how weird it would be if we could manipulate our own dreams not so long ago. Of course, manipulating dreams implies that we could manipulate other things in our heads as well- not quite a good thing in the wrong hands, but a cool concept. Now, it seems as though scientists are starting to get there.

Scientists Give Flies False Memories

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091015123552.htm

This article was about a group of scientists who managed to isolate a couple of neurons (12, to be exact) and manipulate them in a fly so that it would create false memories to avoid a specific odor. If you ask me, this is pretty amazing. Think of it this way: usually, if you watch documentaries or look at brain diagrams, you can see only the sections of the brain that is activated when doing a specific task. These sections contain a lot of neurons that all work together. Think of it this way: the brain of a fly (which I'd guess is really, really small, not to offend the fly) has a few thousand neurons. Humans, who are larger, have a large brain in proportion to our bodies, and have pretty sophisticated brains as well, would have a lot of neurons- just to put things in proportion. Memory, especially, is really complex: whenever we recall a memory, it isn't stored in one part of the brain. Rather, if I were to remember, say, what I ate for breakfast, I would remember the taste, smell, feel, sounds, what it looked like, the words associated with those images and other perceptions, and all these different sections contain many, many neurons that work together to "remember" this event (makes you appreciate your breakfast a lot more, doesn't it?). Now, bearing this in mind, these scientists managed to isolate 12 neurons in the entire brain of the fly (bearing a few thousand neurons) and stimulate these neurons to give the fly an unpleasant memory. Doesn't that just blow you away?

In the article, they also discuss an interesting point that I find is worthwhile to contemplate: intelligence from something, well, non-intelligent: "the physical interactions between cells and molecules." What they mean is that all of our "intelligence" can be reduced to what happens between our neurons- the capability to create memories, have thoughts, and carry out other advanced functions. So, in a sense, I can type this article because of the reactions and interactions between the neurons in my brain. I think it's kind of like how the computer can do all of the things it does from 1's and 0's, or how we can form so many words from the letters of the alphabet- creating complex things from simple materials. Still, my question is: if we messed with those "physical interactions," would that mean we are messing with our brains?

The article also discusses another point in the last paragraph that has to do with my question: the fly of a brain can probably tell us a lot about how more complicated brains like ours work. As we look more into how brains work, in simple and complex organisms, will there come a time when we can manipulate our own brains? When we can choose what we dream at night, or "delete" memories, or even mess with ourselves so much that we become completely different? While such precise control as choosing our dreams is probably far in the future (hopefully), we are already messing with our minds- and fixing them as well, in some cases. Take drugs, for instance. When people smoke, the nicotine can go to our brain and coat our neurons in an unhealthy layer of the stuff- slowing down our thoughts and messing with our brains, in way. Conversely, when our brain lacks certain chemicals, we can now "fix" ourselves, at least for a while, by supplying that chemical. For instance, people with Parkinson's disease, a disease that slowly destroys neurons in the brain (in a book I read, one patient described it as being a lizard that is cold and frozen, and needs the sun to warm it up to move) making movement more and more difficult. One of the reasons for this is the lack of dopamine, a chemical produced in the brain that isn't being produced as readily in people in Parkinson's disease. Neurologists can prescribe such patients with L-Dopa, which will turn into dopamine when it gets into the brain, fixing it for a while. Of course, as the disease progresses, the L-Dopa will help less and less, until they eventually succumb to the disease. However, we are still fiddling with our brains in that way.

For now, scientists are only creating false memories in flies, so there's no need to worry about whether our memories are genuine or not- although we create false ones ourselves anyways. (I would launch into a story about an online lecture I heard a bit of while doing research for a memory presentation, but I'm afraid I'll put some unwary person to sleep). While the thought of controlling minds scares me, this discovery still excites me: after all, we are just beginning to tap into the power of our minds. Who knows what people will discover in the field of neurology?

Literature: Why are people mean to each other?

Why are people mean to each other? For instance, we saw in class a news clip about a boy that was set on fire by his "friends" because they stole his father's bike. There is no logical reason for such an act of violence, yet it was done. Why?



I believe man is mean to each other because of two reasons: competition and insecurities. First off, competing for survival is an animal instinct that forces us to be aware of our resources, and figure out ways to get them before other people do. Of course, nowadays, most people don't have to compete as vigorously for resources, but it still exists. So, people bully each other to get want they want. It's like the id we're learning about in social studies. People will do anything to satisfy their needs, and don't care about others. For instance, Jack in Lord of the Flies starts to care about nothing but the "hunt," and feels no responsibility for the fire, or the littluns, or the other things that have to get done that don't get done. Also, people do it to relieve themselves of their insecurities: guilt, doubt, regret, worry, stress, etc. Everyone has them: we all regret things, worry about things, but we can usually handle these things. However, when they start to eat at us, people react differently. Some may find ways to deal with it, others do something about it, while others may have more negative reactions: breakdowns, depression, or putting on to someone else's shoulders: the blame game, violence, etc. This is when humanity starts becoming inhuman. For example, Jack in Lord of the Flies probably knows that he needs to be responsible, listen to Piggy and Ralph's reason, and start thinking about things other than the hunt. However, he doesn't: and he probably feels a bit of doubt about that. He deals with it by hating Piggy because Piggy has reason and is a thinker. We also see in one of the meetings that he starts acting violently, fighting with Piggy and hitting him in the stomach. I think that these reasons are why people are mean to each other. However, we can't stop being mean to each other because it is caused by fundamental flaws in human nature: we will always have insecurities, we will always have to compete for ways to survive, and unless we can find more efficient (and nicer) ways to deal with this problems as a whole, bullying will continue to happen. It's part of humanity today, and it won't disappear unless mankind addresses it as a whole.

Literature: Summer Reading

I read A Gift of Magic by Lois Duncan for my summer reading assignment. The book was about how Nancy, the main character, has to adapt to her parent's divorce and living in a settled home. She has ESP, or a gift of magic, from her grandmother. Her grandmother also gave some other gifts: the gift of dancing to Kirby, Nancy's sister, the gift of music to Brendon, Nancy's brother, a house to Nancy's mom, and the gift of storytelling to the author, Nancy's "stepsister." I imagine the author to be an interesting person, in a sense. Since she wrote a whole book on a story with the main character having ESP, she probably believes in some type of "magic," or is at least interested in it. In fact, I suppose she could be like kokopelli1015, since people who read/write usually know a fairly decent amount of interesting things, are pretty easy-going, and have a lot of creativity, which is what Lois Duncan seems to have. Also, she probably went through some tough times in her life, since divorce is a pretty rocky topic to write about.

Science Flash: The Nocebo Effect

I know that everyone's heard of the placebo effect: two groups are given a pill, they are both told that it is the real thing, but one group is actually given a sugar pill. The sugar pill group feels better for some reason, which we call the placebo effect. However, there appears to be a reverse for this: the Nocebo Effect.

The Flip Side of Placebos: The Nocebo Effect

By John Cloud

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1929869,00.html

The placebo effect is when something happens, like taking medicine, and we think that we will get better, and we do, even if the medicine wasn't real. It's like fooling yourself into getting better. In fact, placebo in Latin means, "I shall please," as the article says. However, the opposite of this is the nocebo effect, or "to do harm" in Latin.

The article says that "A nocebo response occurs when the suggestion of a negative effect of an intervention leads to an actual negative outcome." In other words, when someone says something negative, like "That flu shot is going to hurt really badly," then the flu shot will seem to hurt really badly. Also, the negative effects will usually be related to the drug taken, like if the "doctor" says it's likely to cause nausea, then a lot of people will say, "I'm feeling sick." Basically, it's mind over matter in a negative way.

Nobody really knows why the placebo and nocebo effect works. There are probably dozens of theories, but any of them could be right- or wrong. One explanation that the article mentions is that perhaps the worry caused by all the warnings causes the brain to issue certain commands, causing, for instance, pains in the stomach. Another explanation of the (positive) placebo effect is that it evokes certain chemicals, starting the body's own "health-care system," as they say. I think that perhaps the real explanation will be a combination of the two. After all, our thoughts do influence our body. For example, there was a documentary about stress that explained how it can cause numerous health problems. For instance, stomach ulcers were originally thought to be caused by stress. However, they later discovered that it was actually a type of bacteria that caused it, to the great relief of many doctors (an amusing clip goes something like this: "Doc, my stomach really hurts." After diagnosing the patient with stomach ulcers, the doctor, faced with the fact that stress caused them, says, "How's your attitude lately?.... You need to work on your attitude." The patient replies, "I should work on finding a new doctor.") After more research many years later, though, they find that stress causes the body to halt or slow down certain functions, since stress was originally the "flee for your life!" response. One of those functions is repairing the stomach wall (after all, if a lion is after you, you don't really care about your stomach lining at the moment) and chronic stress would, in turn, greatly weaken the stomach wall, causing it to be vulnerable to bacteria and ulcers. So, mind over body really is a genuine thing that we should consider.

Mind over matter is an interesting topic, but what do we do when we don't want our "mind" to rule over our body? The article offers a simple solution: placebo and nocebo is simply a trick of the mind. To outwit it, we must be aware of the effects: in other words, it's "mind over mind."

Welcome Scientists

My favorite subject is science because it is interesting and I've loved it since I was little. The best book I've ever read is Dragon Slippers, though I'll probably say other books are the best as well. My favorite food to buy in the cafeteria is pasta. On the weekend, when all the chores and homework are done, I like to read a book. If I won a free airline ticket to anywhere in the world, I would go to China, since I heard there's interesting food there, and the culture is very unique. My favorite color is red, not because it's lucky, but because it's bright and seems energetic. If I had a pet, it would be a dog, and I'd name it Allegra. This year, if I work hard enough, I hope to learn a lot and be ready for the coming year.