Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer‚ send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.How do crystals form&;#63; – Alyssa Marie‚ age 5‚ New MexicoScientifically speaking‚ the term “crystal” refers to any solid that has an ordered chemical structure. This means that its parts are arranged in a precisely ordered pattern‚ like bricks in a wall. The “bricks” can be cubes or more complex shapes.I’m an Earth scientist and a teacher‚ so I spend a lot of time thinking about minerals. These are solid substances that are found naturally in the ground and can’t be broken down further into different materials other than their constituent atoms. Rocks are mixtures of different minerals. All minerals are crystals‚ but not all crystals are minerals.Most rock shops sell mineral crystals that occur in nature. One is pyrite‚ which is known as fool’s gold because it looks like real gold. Some shops also feature showy‚ human-made crystals such as bismuth‚ a natural element that forms crystals when it is melted and cooled.Pyrite in black shale rock from a quarry in Indianapolis‚ Ind. James St. John/Flickr‚ CC BYWhy and how crystals formCrystals grow when molecules that are alike get close to each other and stick together‚ forming chemical bonds that act like Velcro between atoms. Mineral crystals cannot just start forming spontaneously – they need special conditions and a nucleation site to grow on. A nucleation site can be a rough edge of rock or a speck of dust that a molecule bumps into and sticks to‚ starting the crystallization chain reaction.At or near the Earth’s surface‚ many molecules are dissolved in water that flows through or over the ground. If there are enough molecules in the water that are alike‚ they will separate from the water as solids – a process called precipitation. If they have a nucleation site‚ they will stick to it and start to form crystals.Rock salt‚ which is actually a mineral called halite‚ grows this way. So does another mineral called travertine‚ which sometimes forms flat ledges in caves and around hot springs‚ where water causes chemical reactions between the rock and the air.You can make “salt stalactites” at home by growing salt crystals on a string. In this experiment‚ the string is the nucleation site. When you dissolve Epsom salts in water and lower a string into it‚ then leave it for several days‚ the water will slowly evaporate and leave the Epsom salts behind. As that happens‚ salt crystals precipitate out of the water and grow crystals on the string.Many places in the Earth’s crust are hot enough for rocks to melt into magma. As that magma cools down‚ mineral crystals grow from it‚ just like water freezing into ice cubes. These mineral crystals form at much higher temperatures than salt or travertine precipitating out of water.What crystals can tell scientistsEarth scientists can learn a lot from different types of crystals. For example‚ the presence of certain mineral crystals in rocks can reveal the rocks’ age. This dating method is called geochronology – literally‚ measuring the age of materials from the Earth.One of the most valued mineral crystals for geochronologists is zircon‚ which is so durable that it quite literally stands the test of time. The oldest zircons ever found come from Australia and are about 4.3 billion years old – almost as old as our planet itself. Scientists use the chemical changes recorded within zircons as they grew as a reliable “clock” to figure out how old the rocks containing them are.Some crystals‚ including zircons‚ have growth rings‚ like the rings of a tree‚ that form when layers of molecules accumulate as the mineral grows. These rings can tell scientists all kinds of things about the environment in which they grew. For example‚ changes in pressure‚ temperature and magma composition can all result in growth rings.Feldspar crystals with growth rings in granodiorite rock near Squamish‚ British Columbia. Natalie Bursztyn‚ CC BY-NDSometimes mineral crystals grow as high pressure and temperatures within the Earth’s crust change rocks from one type to another in a process called metamorphism. This process causes the elements and chemical bonds in the rock to rearrange themselves into new crystal structures. Lots of spectacular crystals grow in this way‚ including garnet‚ kyanite and staurolite.Amazing formsWhen a mineral precipitates from water or crystallizes from magma‚ the more space it has to grow‚ the bigger it can become. There is a cave in Mexico full of giant gypsum crystals‚ some of which are 40 feet (12 meters) long – the size of telephone poles.Especially showy mineral crystals are also valuable as gemstones for jewelry once they are cut into new shapes and polished. The highest price ever paid for a gemstone was $71.2 million for the CTF Pink Star diamond‚ which went up for auction in 2017 and sold in less than five minutes.Hello‚ curious kids&;#33; Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer&;#63; Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name‚ age and the city where you live.And since curiosity has no age limit – adults‚ let us know what you’re wondering‚ too. We won’t be able to answer every question‚ but we will do our best.Natalie Bursztyn‚ Lecturer in Geosciences‚ University of MontanaThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Most metal elements melt at temperatures of hundreds of degrees‚ but for mercury that is -38.9° C (-38.0° F). So why is this metal different from all others&;#63; It’s all about the outer electrons and a combination of factors that make them bond unusually poorly.The first thing to note is that the title question may not be entirely accurate. There may be two transuranic elements‚ which don’t appear in nature because they decay far too quickly to have survived from their creation in supernovae or kilonovae that are liquid at room temperature. The same short half-lives that mean they have to be produced artificially means we don’t get much time to study them. Copernicium and Flerovium are suspected of being liquid at room temperature‚ but since one lasts seconds before decaying‚ and the other even less‚ there’s a fair degree of uncertainty about this. We certainly haven’t been making a lot of either to study.Leaving these curiosities aside‚ mercury stands out among stable elements. At the simplest level‚ the reason is that mercury’s outermost electrons don’t bond to very strongly‚ weakening the pull between one mercury atom and another. That weakness means that as soon as mercury picks up even quite a modest amount of energy the organization of a solid breaks down and the atoms start moving around more freely.Another way to look at this is that when atoms bond together some of their kinetic energy is converted to the energy of the bond. There’s so little energy in mercury’s bonds with itself that it doesn’t take a lot of movement to break them apart. Since at the atomic level the random kinetic energy amounts to heat‚ mercury doesn’t need to be warm‚ let alone hot‚ to become liquid‚ but other metals‚ with more energy stored in their bonds‚ do. Mercury’s liquid status was known more than three thousand years ago‚ but it’s not something we would have predicted had the element only been discovered as the periodic table was being filled in. Most familiar liquids have quite low density‚ so encountering a liquid so far down the periodic table goes quite against our expectations. Its neighbors on the periodic table‚ gold‚ and thallium‚ melt at more than 1000 and 300 degrees centigrade respectively. It is useful though: mercury’s combination of density and being liquid is why it is so well suited to thermometers‚ barometers‚ and measuring blood pressure. So what is it about mercury’s outer electrons that lead to bonding so much weaker than its fellow metals&;#63; It turns out mercury is in a sweet spot on the table where three effects combine. The first is that its outer electron shell is full. It’s much easier for electrons in a partially filled shell to escape‚ becoming part of a fog of valence electrons that hold atoms together. Metals with more easily shared electrons to share around usually have higher melting points‚ certainly far higher than room temperature.Mercury isn’t the only metal with a full shell‚ however‚ so that can’t be the only reason. Both the other two factors cause the outer electrons of affected atoms to stay closer to their nucleus‚ interfering with their capacity to bond with other atoms.Members of the lanthanide series of elements‚ which share mercury’s sixth period on the periodic table‚ experience what is known as “lanthanide contraction”. The electrons of the 4f subshell shell don’t shield electrons further out from the positive charge of the nucleus as much as others‚ causing the outer electrons to be pulled inwards. Consequently‚ most of the elements in period 6 have atomic radii of similar size to those on the period above them‚ leading to much greater density.Moreover‚ mercury’s outer electrons experience a relativistic contraction‚ moving so fast that the effects of approaching the speed of light come into play. This is something that only really matters with heavier elements‚ since the greater mass accelerates the electrons more. Just as the planet mercury moves around the Sun faster than objects further out‚ electrons drawn close to the nucleus travel faster‚ in cases such as mercury fast enough for relativistic effects to matter.The combination of these two effects interferes with the bonding between mercury atoms. Besides keeping it liquid at room temperature‚ they ensure that when heated to the point that it forms a gas mercury atoms don’t pair up‚ like most elemental gases (think H2‚ O2 or N2). Instead‚ mercury atoms keep to themselves like the noble gases.

Antidepressant drugs have unfairly been the target of suspicion and stigma over the years‚ and there’s no doubt that for some people they can have life-changing effects. There are many different types‚ and they’re not only used to treat depression‚ so let’s break down what the latest science says about these medications.What conditions are antidepressants used for&;#63;Antidepressants are some of the most widely prescribed drugs‚ used by millions of people every day – but not all of these people will have a diagnosis of depression.Although depression is the most common condition these drugs are used for‚ they’re also often part of treatment for other mental health conditions like anxiety‚ post-traumatic stress disorder‚ and obsessive-compulsive disorder.Certain antidepressants – we’ll come on to the different classes in a minute – are also prescribed to treat chronic pain. People with conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome‚ trapped nerves‚ and neuropathic pain due to multiple sclerosis‚ can benefit from the use of specific antidepressants where traditional painkillers have not worked.Doctors may also try antidepressants for patients with non-neuropathic chronic pain‚ such as fibromyalgia‚ but some are moving away from this in light of evidence – such as a 2023 Cochrane review – that they may be no better than a placebo.And there’s another less obvious use for antidepressants. According to the UK’s National Health Service‚ some kids may be treated with antidepressants to help deal with bedwetting‚ as they can relax the muscles of the bladder and decrease the urge to urinate.What classes of antidepressants are there&;#63;SSRIs and SSNIsIf you’re diagnosed with depression and are offered the option of medication‚ the first drug your doctor will suggest will likely be an SSRI – a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. You may have heard some of the brand names of these drugs before‚ like Lexapro (escitalopram)‚ Prozac (fluoxetine)‚ and Zoloft (sertraline).Aside from having peculiar effects on fish‚ SSRIs work by stopping the transport of serotonin out of synapses‚ the spaces between neurons where messages pass‚ thereby increasing the amount of serotonin hanging around in the brain. A longstanding hypothesis in psychiatry states that low serotonin levels are partly to blame for depression.Although more recent research indicates that low serotonin alone may not be enough to cause depression in the first place‚ it does seem to play a role in relapses for those with the condition‚ so SSRIs will most likely remain a key part of the psychiatrist’s toolkit for some time to come.That doesn’t mean we can’t update them‚ though. There’s a newer class of drugs that work similarly to SSRIs‚ called serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). As well as helping boost serotonin levels‚ SNRIs also increase the levels of another neurochemical‚ norepinephrine (also called noradrenaline). Some examples of these drugs include venlafaxine and duloxetine – incidentally‚ one of the few that the 2023 Cochrane review found does seem to have some efficacy for non-neuropathic pain.While SSRIs and SNRIs are similar‚ patients may find the side effects of one class more difficult to tolerate than the other. And even within each class‚ the drugs vary in terms of the nuances of how they work in the body and how often you need to take them. Finding the best drug for each person is often a matter of trial and error.TCAsTricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) first came to market in the US in 1959‚ but since the advent of SSRIs‚ they’ve been considered a second-line treatment for depression. Drugs in this class include amitriptyline and imipramine‚ the first to be developed.The “tricyclic” refers to the three rings of atoms these drugs have in their chemical structures. Like SNRIs‚ they also work by blocking the uptake of serotonin and norepinephrine. TCAs have a low therapeutic index‚ meaning that even a small overdose could lead to dangerous symptoms. There’s also some evidence that TCAs tend to cause more side effects than SSRIs and are less well tolerated by patients overall.TCAs are the class of antidepressants that are usually prescribed for neuropathic pain‚ but the evidence on their efficacy is mixed. A 2015 Cochrane review looking specifically at amitriptyline found that it “probably does give really good pain relief” to a minority of people‚ so again it's likely to be a process of trial and error when searching for the best medications for a particular patient.Other classesThere are other antidepressants that doctors may turn to in specific cases‚ such as when other treatments have not worked.Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) are one example. Although they were the first antidepressants to be discovered‚ they have been used less and less as alternative drugs have been developed. A big reason for this is that they can interact with lots of other medications and certain foods. The symptoms of these interactions can be life-threatening for patients‚ but also tricky to spot for medical professionals.Some examples of MAOIs are selegiline and isocarboxazid. They work by targeting the enzyme monoamine oxidase‚ stopping it from breaking down serotonin‚ norepinephrine‚ and dopamine.There are also various drugs that can be classed as “atypical antidepressants”‚ which work in a variety of ways. But for all of these‚ the goal remains to keep as much serotonin‚ norepinephrine‚ and to a lesser extent dopamine‚ in the brain for as long as possible.    Why do some antidepressants take so long to kick in&;#63;One of the difficulties faced by patients when they start taking antidepressants is that they can take several weeks to start working. It’s a conundrum that has plagued the medical establishment.Some have argued this is evidence that the serotonin hypothesis is flawed‚ and that SSRIs only work in some people because they’re doing something else in the brain that we’ve not fully understood yet.Others have suggested that the lag is due to the brain’s homeostatic systems rebalancing things after an initial spike in serotonin when someone starts to take an SSRI. The brain responds by decreasing the production of the neurotransmitter for a time‚ meaning there’s no net increase in serotonin for several weeks while things settle down.But last year‚ one group of scientists put forward a new idea. Their study looked at the effects of one SSRI‚ escitalopram‚ in 32 people without any history of mental health disorders. After taking the drug or a placebo for three to five weeks‚ positron emission tomography (PET) scans revealed a time-dependent increase in new synapses forming in certain areas of the brain.Commenting on the study‚ cognitive neuroscientist Jonathan Roiser‚ who was not involved in the work‚ told Wired: “It's a different perspective to what's come before. It gives the additional weight to this idea that you need the cumulative changes over time in order to shift the environment to be more positive‚ which can then explain how people are then going to recover from depression.”The study was small and included only healthy people‚ so it’s too soon to draw broad conclusions yet. The authors told Wired that the next phase of their work is already underway‚ including studies on people with depression‚ so hopefully‚ more pieces of this puzzle will soon be falling into place.What’s the latest research into antidepressants&;#63;In the meantime‚ other exciting research is opening up the possibility of alternative antidepressant medications.One of the newest drugs on the block is esketamine – and if you’re thinking that name sounds familiar‚ you’d be right. Esketamine has a similar structure to ketamine‚ and its approval for use in treatment-resistant depression sparked excitement and controversy in equal measure.Esketamine is given in the form of a nasal spray. The drug kicks in quickly‚ orders of magnitude faster than an SSRI‚ so it’s designed to complement traditional medications by filling the gap until they start to work.Some scientists are also working on new compounds that refine our existing treatments even further. In 2022‚ a study reported on a drug called ZZL-7‚ which targets the serotonin system but – crucially – seems to be able to do so more quickly. That study was only on mice‚ however‚ so it’s a long way off use in human patients.Another big‚ exciting frontier in this field is the world of psychedelics. Psilocybin‚ the stuff that puts the magic in magic mushrooms‚ has been showing great potential for the most difficult-to-treat depression cases. How it works is still a matter of some debate‚ but now these drugs are becoming more accessible‚ both for research purposes and limited therapeutic uses‚ our understanding of them can only increase.    Drugs are not the only treatment option for depression; but with so many people around the world taking these medications every day‚ it’s good to be informed about what they are‚ how they work‚ and how this landscape could change in the coming years.All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current. The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice‚ diagnosis‚ or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions. 

Sometimes‚ car maintenance can feel like a full-time job. You’ve got to keep your engine oiled‚ your washer fluid filled‚ and your spark plugs… sparky&;#63; The list goes on. And underpinning all of them are four of the most finicky bastards you ever came across: your tires.Oh‚ they have too much air in the summer; and too little in the winter; they can blow out randomly on the highway sending you face-first into the hard shoulder if you’re lucky – the problems are never-ending. Which might make you wonder: why do we even bother having air in our tires at all&;#63;It’s not quite as silly a question as it sounds. After all‚ there are vehicles that don’t have air-filled tires: tanks‚ for example‚ or industrial vehicles like forklift trucks work perfectly fine without them. But when it comes to our cars‚ trucks‚ buses‚ and even airplanes‚ we stick with the tried-and-true-enough combination of rubber and a very particular amount of air.Well‚ it turns out there’s a very good reason for that.The first pneumatic tiresConsidering how long we’ve had the wheel‚ the idea of dressing them in puffy outerwear – side note: this is actually where the word “tire” comes from; it’s short for the wheel’s “attire” – is surprisingly recent. The first patent for a pneumatic tire – that is‚ one filled with air – was filed in the UK in 1845‚ by Robert William Thomson‚ of Middlesex‚ England. With his design‚ patented in the US in 1847‚ he wrote‚ “the wheels will in every part of their revolution present a cushion of air to the ground or rail or track on which they run.”“I […] have invented or discovered a new and useful Improvement in Carriage-Wheels‚ which is also applicable to other rolling bodies‚” he boasted. By “the application of elastic bearings round the tires of the wheels‚” he wrote – the tires‚ in this case‚ referring to the standard solid steel or rubber rims that would be welded to the outside of the wheels – the effect would be a “lessening [of] the power required to draw the carriages‚ rendering their motion easier‚ and diminishing the noise they make when in motion.”Of course‚ this was long before the invention of synthetic rubber‚ which makes up the majority of rubber used in the tire industry today‚ so Thomson recommends using “sulphurized caoutchouc or gutta-percha‚ and inflating it with air” for his design. But the idea is basically there: get some rubber‚ or a rubber-like substance‚ fill it with air‚ and let your butt thank you later.As inventions go‚ it was pretty much the holy grail: an easy‚ cheap tweak that would provide major improvements to people’s everyday lives. This is why it’s so strange that nothing came of it for decades – and in fact‚ it would take an entirely different inventor to actually get the tire game rolling.The quest for comfortWe might not know what inspired Thomson‚ but when it came to the next big name in the history of pneumatic tires‚ John Boyd Dunlop – yes‚ that Dunlop – his motive for filling rubber tubes with air and slapping them around some wheels was clear: it was for his kid.“John Boyd Dunlop was a Scottish veterinarian who had relocated from Scotland to Belfast‚” wrote cycling journalist and author Suze Clemitson in her 2017 book A History of Cycling in 100 Objects. “Watching his son labor over the cobbles on his tricycle he was inspired to invent – or re-invent – the pneumatic tire in a bid‚ as reports variously suggest‚ to save his son from constant headaches or a sore behind.”Like Thomson‚ his design used rubber treated with sulfur – a process developed in 1844 by Charles Goodyear‚ and now known as vulcanization – but unlike Thomson‚ Dunlop’s tires immediately took off. Why&;#63; For two main reasons: firstly‚ he actually produced and sold them‚ which definitely helps if you want to be commercially successful. But he also had a hefty dose of luck on his side: “The bicycle boom was at its height when Irish cycling champion Willie Hume purchased a set of Dunlops for his bike the following year‚” Clemitson explained. Hume became &;quot;the first ever rider to use pneumatic tires in competition and‚ it's said‚ never [lost] a race when riding on them.”So‚ intra-Scot inventor drama aside‚ we can already see two apparent advantages of using air-inflated tires over their solid predecessors: speed‚ and comfort. But why should that be the case&;#63;Why we fill tires with airWe know what you’re thinking: what an easy question‚ right&;#63; It’s the same reason we fill bouncy castles with air instead of letting kids jump about on big old lumps of steel and polymerized rubber.Aside from the obvious‚ there’s some pretty cool physics going on. As a gas‚ air can be compressed far more than any solid material – which is important‚ when you’re one of just four wheels bearing the weight of a 1‚600-kilogram-or-so car. Even lighter vehicles‚ like bikes‚ will inevitably deform the wheel slightly – which is a good thing‚ because it increases the amount of wheel on the road at any one time‚ in turn providing more traction for the vehicle – and it takes a lot less energy to do that with a tire filled with air than a solid one. This is why early adopters of Dunlop’s bicycle tires were so much faster than their competitors: they were easier to maneuver at higher speeds‚ for a lower energy cost.In physics terms‚ this is called the “rolling resistance”: the energy consumed by one tire per unit distance covered. To put it simply‚ a lower rolling resistance is better – and here‚ air-filled tires have the advantage over solid ones. That’s not just due to their malleability. It’s also because air is‚ well‚ lighter than solid rubber: “for the same deformation‚ the more massive an object is‚ the more it heats up‚” explains Michelin‚ and that heat loss translates to a higher rolling resistance.And all of these advantages are thrown into especially sharp relief when you’re trundling down the road at 60 miles per hour (97 kilometers per hour) and a stray pothole jumps out at you from nowhere. At those speeds‚ a sudden sharp obstacle would cause a huge jolt to a solid wheel‚ which could only absorb the shock locally; air‚ on the other hand‚ would dissipate the impact across the entire wheel‚ making for a smoother ride. Like we said: your butt will thank you later.Why don’t we fill tires with something else&;#63;So‚ we’ve figured out why gas-filled tires are better for most everyday purposes than solid ones – but should that gas necessarily be air&;#63;Well‚ if you ask some drivers – like a Formula 1 racer‚ for example – they’d say no. While air has many advantages‚ there are also a few drawbacks to filling your tires with it: it will gradually permeate through the rubber‚ for one thing‚ and it’s relatively sensitive to heat and moisture changes. That’s why we need to adjust it throughout the year – if the temperature outside drops by 10°C (18°F)‚ say‚ the pressure in your tires can drop in response by up to 0.14 bars (2 PSI).Now‚ for most of us‚ this really doesn’t mean much. But if you’re competing all over the world at speeds of 200 miles per hour (322 kilometers per hour)‚ there is a more high-tech option: fill your tires with nitrogen.As a “dry” gas‚ nitrogen removes the problem of moisture in your tires‚ making the pressure and compression of the tires more consistent. At the speeds those racers go at‚ those details can be life-saving – as anyone who’s ever had a blowout at a meager 60 or 70 mph (97 or 113 kmph) can only imagine.Like many high-octane tech modifications‚ the idea of nitrogen-filled tires is slowly spreading outside of the professional world and onto the highways. So‚ should you go out and drop your paycheck on a set of four N2 tires&;#63; Eh‚ probably not.“It’s true that there is a slower loss from nitrogen-filled tires‚” notes tire retailer Les Schwab. “But this improvement is slight […] It’s not enough to make a true difference in gas mileage or tire wear for people driving passenger vehicles.”And that makes sense. Air is already mostly nitrogen‚ after all – it’s about 78 percent nitrogen to just 21 percent oxygen‚ in fact – and the nitrogen you’d end up filling your tires with will top out at around 95 percent N2. “It’s never 100 percent‚” Les Schwab says.“Bottom line: Nitrogen will slow the amount of tire inflation loss to about one-third of what you’ll experience with air‚” they write. But “you’ll still need to check and top off your air roughly every other month to stay within the ideal inflation range.&;quot;“And you’ll spend far more than you’ll save on gas and tire tread life‚” they add. “You’re better off making simple tire maintenance part of your routine.”All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text‚ images‚ and links may be edited‚ removed‚ or added to at a later date to keep information current.  

Brains and computers might have similarities in some functions‚ namely calculating and organizing stuff‚ but they are very different. And their differences are structural. Computers are not built like brains – but could they be&;#63; This idea has been around for a while and researchers have now taken an important step forward. They built a device that acts like a synapse.The central nervous system is largely made of neurons or nerve cells. These send signals between one another using synapses‚ which are junctions between neurons where the information being carried is both transmitted and processed. They are fundamental to the function of brains.Synapses do that using ions‚ electrically charged atoms or molecules‚ dissolved in water. New work shows that it is possible to create an artificial synapse that also works with water and salts. Crucial to this is a device that's only as wide as two sheets of paper‚ called an iontronic memristor.Despite the complex name‚ its shape and behavior are straightforward. It is shaped like a cone and filled with a solution of water and salts. When it receives an electrical impulse the ions in the water move‚ changing the salt concentration. This is akin to what a real brain synapse does.&;quot;While artificial synapses capable of processing complex information already exist based on solid materials‚ we now show for the first time that this feat can also be accomplished using water and salt‚&;quot; lead author Tim Kamsma‚ a graduate researcher at Utrecht University‚ said in a statement. &;quot;We are effectively replicating neuronal behaviour using a system that employs the same medium as the brain.&;quot;The ionotronic memristor was developed by South Korean scientists and a chance encounter with Kamsma led to the collaboration. Together‚ they saw the possibility of using the device as a computational synapse. This is not a functioning computer‚ but it shows that it might be possible to construct a computer-like device that not only has synapses‚ but synapses that behave just like our own do.&;quot;It represents a crucial advancement toward computers not only capable of mimicking the communication patterns of the human brain but also utilizing the same medium‚&;quot; Kamsma added. &;quot;Perhaps this will ultimately pave the way for computing systems that replicate the extraordinary capabilities of the human brain more faithfully.&;quot;The study is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Unfortunately‚ bird flu shows no signs of slowing down. As well as infecting scores of bird life and even showing up in milk‚ the virus has been known to spread to mammalian species‚ including bears‚ and seals. Now‚ new research reports the first case of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus in a common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) observed in Florida. The clade of 2.3.4.4b A(H5N1) viruses has been seen in common dolphins (Delphinus delphis)‚ harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena)‚ and an Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus) in places such as Peru‚ the United Kingdom‚ Sweden‚ and Canada‚ highlighting how widespread this virus can be found in cetaceans. Some of the mammal species are suspected to have caught the virus through consuming infected birds. Examination of these carcasses and other species with the disease have shown meningoencephalitis‚ a condition involving swelling and inflammation of the area around the brain and spinal cord. This can cause unusual behaviors in the species that exhibit these symptoms prior to passing away. On March 29‚ 2022‚ a dolphin was reported to be in distress and trapped between a seawall and a dock piling near West Horseshoe Beach in Dixie County‚ Florida. The team arrived to find the dolphin had died despite attempts to free the dolphin from the channel. “We still don’t know where the dolphin got the virus and more research needs to be done‚” said Dr Richard Webby‚ who directs the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds at St. Jude’s‚ in a statement‚A postmortem revealed that the male dolphin was in a thin body condition‚ with an empty gastrointestinal tract and numerous lacerations to the body. On closer examination‚ the team discovered inflammation in the brain‚ in a similar manner to those previously seen in other mammal species. The presence of A(H5N1) was subsequently tested for and found in the brain tissue samples of the dolphin. Interestingly there was a low detection of HPAI in the lungs of the dolphin and the highest viral load was found in the brain tissues. This is similar to the harbor porpoise from Sweden‚ which also had meningoencephalitis. While this is worrying news‚ the presence of the virus in this species means officials and researchers can be better prepared for more cases. “Now‚ everybody’s going to be on guard for this‚” Dr Michael Walsh‚ a veterinarian at the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine and study co-author‚ told the New York Times. “And that’ll help tell us how serious this really is for cetaceans on the coastlines.”The paper is published in the journal Communications Biology.

The idea that SARS-CoV-2‚ the virus behind COVID-19‚ may be able to persist in the body long after the initial symptoms have faded has captivated scientists‚ especially those researching long COVID. A recent study has added another piece to this puzzle by demonstrating the persistence of viral proteins in blood plasma samples for up to 14 months after the initial infection.The research team obtained samples of frozen plasma from 171 adults who had been recruited for a study back in 2020. The vast majority were people who’d been infected early in the pandemic before vaccines against COVID-19 were a thing. Their samples were compared with plasma from 250 people collected pre-2020‚ in the halcyon days before COVID-19 entered our lives (remember those&;#63;).The detection platform was set up to look for signals from three SARS-CoV-2 antigens: the S1 surface protein‚ the nucleocapsid protein‚ and the spike protein.  In total‚ 660 specimens from the pandemic group were tested‚ covering timepoints of 3-6 months‚ 6-10 months‚ and 10-14 months after their original COVID-19 infections. Of the individuals within the group‚ 25 percent had one or more detectable antigens in at least one of their samples. The most frequently detected was the spike protein‚ followed by S1 and nucleocapsid‚ which had similar frequencies to each other.Patients who had been hospitalized when they originally had COVID-19 were almost twice as likely to have antigens present. Among those who did not receive hospital treatment‚ the people who self-reported worse health were also more likely to have positive antigen detection‚ suggesting a correlation with the severity of the acute phase of COVID.Linking their results with those from another study‚ which found replication-competent virus particles – i.e. virus that could still grow and infect cells – in the blood of a woman who had recently died from COVID‚ the authors write that their “findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 might seed distal sites through the bloodstream and establish protected reservoirs in some sites.”Alternatively‚ they suggest‚ it could be that those with more severe infections got a heftier dose of virus in the first place‚ meaning there was more of it around to potentially evade the immune system for longer.&;quot;The thing that I find so compelling about the data in this study is that there is a pretty striking relationship between how sick people were during their acute COVID infection and how likely they were to have evidence of antigen persistence‚&;quot; first author Dr Michael Peluso told Psychology Today. &;quot;To a clinician like me‚ that is very convincing‚ because intuitively‚ it makes sense that people who perhaps have a higher burden of virus upfront would be more likely to have a virus that sticks around.&;quot;In an appendix to their work‚ the authors detail several limitations of the study. Since the majority of the patients were infected before we had vaccines and antiviral treatments for the virus‚ it’s unclear whether these same results would be seen in people who caught COVID later on. It’s also possible some of the participants got reinfected with COVID without knowing‚ meaning that some of the antigen signals could be from later infections.However‚ the question of whether persistent SARS-CoV-2 may be related to either long COVID or complications later down the line remains an important one.“[O]ur data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2‚ in some form or location‚ persists for up to 14 months following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection‚” the authors conclude. “This persistence is influenced by the events of acute infection. These findings motivate an urgent research agenda regarding the clinical manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 persistence‚ specifically whether it is causally related to either post-acute chronic symptoms [...] or discrete incident complications.”The study is published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Pluto is a reasonably difficult object to study‚ lying beyond the orbit of Neptune (for the majority of its orbit) in the Kuiper Belt. Beyond sending a probe to the planet (which NASA did in 2015) we largely rely on stellar occultations to study the dwarf planet's atmosphere‚ when it passes in front of a bright star from our perspective.&;quot;For objects with an atmosphere‚ refraction plays an essential role to explain the drops of flux and the aureoles observed during these events‚&;quot; astronomer Bruno Sicardy explains in a 2022 paper published in Comptes Rendus Physique. &;quot;This can be used to [derive] key parameters of the atmospheres‚ such as their density‚ pressure and temperature profiles‚ as well as the presence of atmospheric gravity waves and zonal winds.&;quot;Pluto has an orbit lasting 248 years‚ meaning that it didn't even get to celebrate one Pluto year of being a planet from its discovery before it was downgraded in 2006.                                 As it orbits‚ its distance varies from between 49.3 astronomical units (AU) and 30 AU‚ with 1 AU being the average distance between the Earth and the Sun. At its farthest point from the Sun‚ average temperatures can fall as low as -233°C (-387°F)‚ while at its closest approach it can reach a balmy -223°C (-369°F). This temperature change‚ of course‚ has an effect on the planet's atmosphere.&;quot;When Pluto is close to the Sun‚ its surface ices sublimate (changing directly from solid to gas) and rise to temporarily form a thin atmosphere‚&;quot; NASA explains. &;quot;Pluto's low gravity (about 6 percent of Earth's) causes the atmosphere to be much more extended in altitude than our planet's atmosphere. Pluto becomes much colder during the part of each year when it is traveling far away from the Sun. During this time‚ the bulk of the planet's atmosphere may freeze and fall as snow to the surface.&;quot;That has been known about for some time. Since Pluto made its closest approach to the Sun‚ being closer to the Sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999‚ it has been moving away from our Solar System's main heat source‚ and as such we would expect its atmosphere to begin to contract. However‚ until 2018 observations showed that its surface pressure and atmospheric density continued to increase‚ which scientists put down to &;quot;thermal inertia&;quot;.“An analogy to this is the way the Sun heats up sand on a beach‚” said Southwest Research Institute Staff Scientist Dr. Leslie Young in a 2021 statement. “Sunlight is most intense at high noon‚ but the sand then continues soaking up the heat over course of the afternoon‚ so it is hottest in late afternoon. The continued persistence of Pluto’s atmosphere suggests that nitrogen ice reservoirs on Pluto’s surface were kept warm by stored heat under the surface. The new data suggests they are starting to cool.”A 2020 occultation provided further evidence of this contraction of Pluto's atmosphere‚ evidence that Pluto's nitrogen continues to be sublimated on the dwarf planet as it loses its stored-up heat‚ and heads towards the Plutonian winter.

That Tyrannosaurus rex might have been as intelligent as a baboon was posited by a 2023 study that used bony braincases to infer dinosaur smarts. It was an incredible and intimidating concept for a predator‚ but one that’s now been rebutted by a paper that claims in truth‚ T. rex was more comparable to a “smart giant crocodile”.A new study authored by an international team of 11 scientists took a magnifying glass to the methods used to predict the size and neuron count in dinosaur brains in the 2023 study from Herculano-Houzel. It found the methodology was unreliable‚ resulting in an incorrect estimation of neuron count and brain size‚ and shining a light on the complexity of endocast translation. &;quot;An endocast is simply a cast of the inner cavity of the braincase‚&;quot; explained study author Dr Kai Caspar to IFLScience. &;quot;It is therefore not equivalent to the brain itself. &;quot;&;quot;The information provided by an endocast differs between groups of animals and depends on how faithfully it captures the shape of the brain. In birds and mammals‚ the fit is typically very good. In living reptiles and most extinct dinosaurs‚ the brain only fills a fraction of the skull cavity‚ so that the shape and size of the endocast differs substantially from that of the actual brain.&;quot;A cast of a Tyrannosaurus rex braincase at the Australian Museum‚ Sydney.Image credit: Matt Martyniuk (Dinoguy2) - Own work‚ CC BY-SA 4.0‚ via WikimediaFurthermore‚ it’s the authors' view that neuron count alone isn’t enough data to work from when trying to infer the intelligence of an extinct animal. What evidence do you need to evaluate intelligence&;#63; We asked Caspar just that.&;quot;Ideally‚ the extinct animal in question would have close living relatives to compare it‚ too – something that is unfortunately missing for dinosaurs such as T. rex. Furthermore‚ anatomical data on the size but especially the proportions of the brain and its components‚ which can be derived from endocasts would be desirable.&;quot; I think it's absolutely reasonable to imagine a dinosaur like T. rex as social with long-term bonds (as in‚ with family members and with reproductive partners).Dr Darren Naish&;quot;Then‚ evidence from fossil trackways or feeding traces might shed further light on specific behaviors and social habits. Frustratingly‚ however‚ we simply need to admit that a lot of information about how exactly extinct animals behaved is lost to us.&;quot;The study presents revised estimates of encephalization (the development of large brain size relative to body size) and neuron counts in dinosaurs‚ using modeling informed by extant related species and an amended set of brain cavity measurements. These new estimates didn't paint a picture of intelligence to match macaques and baboons as proposed in Herculano-Houzel's work‚ instead being closer to a crocodile or lizard‚ which is still pretty incredible.                               “One of the things we really tried to make clear in our results is that being 'only' as smart as a lizard or crocodile is no bad thing in view of what we currently understand about the intelligence and behaviour of those animals‚” Dr Darren Naish told IFLScience. “By combining what we know of modern reptile behaviour with inferences from the fossil record‚ I think it's absolutely reasonable to imagine a dinosaur like T. rex as social with long-term bonds (as in‚ with family members and with reproductive partners)‚ as a co-operative animal that would have worked with other individuals of its species when it was advantageous‚ as an explorative‚ sometimes inquisitive animal‚ as capable of play and counting‚ and as a creature with complex body language and vocalisation that it used in sending signals.”T. rex lived at the end of the Late Cretaceous between 69 and 66 million years ago‚ and – regretfully – science hasn’t given us a real-life Jurassic Park just yet. Without it‚ we’re left with an incomplete fossil record to work from when trying to establish how extinct animals lived and behaved‚ so there’s bound to be some back and forth in our conclusions (just ask Spinosaurus). It’s all par for the course in palaeontology‚ and part of the joy of science‚ but as time goes by – and with close consideration of our methodology – there are plenty of new and remarkable discoveries on the horizon.                              “Our knowledge of the geological past is woefully incomplete‚ but things are improving all the time as new information is gleaned and new analyses are run: even at this point in history there is‚ frankly‚ still so much work to do and so much that remains poorly known or under-studied‚” added Naish. “Our vision of the past is constantly becoming more complex‚ more vibrant. But it's also important to remember that our view of the past is often biased‚ partly because we're still relying on stereotypes about the past‚ or because we often can't help but think that living things in the past were 'less good' than those of today.” “We now have a reason to challenge that view‚ and‚ in fact‚ there's quite a bit of data showing that extinct animals were often at least as capable of those of today‚ if not more so.”So‚ chin up‚ T. rex. Who needs to be a brainy baboon when you can be a terrible lizard&;#63;The study is published in The Anatomical Record.

Another day‚ another incredibly stupid conspiracy theory resurfaces on the Internet. According to various – for want of a better word – numbskulls‚ the Solar System has a second sun‚ hiding behind our real Sun.In the latest iteration of the conspiracy theory‚ posted to the Facebook group &;quot;Nibiru Followers Anonymous&;quot;‚ their evidence appears to be a haze of light sometimes seen around the Sun. In reality‚ these are the result of atmospheric phenomena known as &;quot;sun halos&;quot;.&;quot;A halo is a ring or light that forms around the Sun or Moon as the Sun or Moon light refracts off ice crystals present in a thin veil of cirrus clouds‚&;quot; the National Weather Service explains. &;quot;The halo is usually seen as a bright‚ white ring although sometimes it can have color.&;quot;As inane as the conspiracy theory is (think for a second why anybody would want to conceal the existence of a second sun)‚ there are stupider iterations. In 2016‚ astronomer Paul Cox was livestreaming a transit of Mercury across the Sun when an orb appeared on screen‚ likely an optical error.“You may be asking yourself‚ what is that large round thing to the right of the Sun&;#63; Well‚ that’s our second sun. I don’t know if you knew that we had a second sun‚&;quot; Cox said. “But there it is. It is normally hidden from view. NASA and other organisations usually hide that stuff away from us.”               Though a dry joke‚ it was leapt on by conspiracy theorists as proof of the second sun's existence. If we did have a second sun‚ you would know about it. Astronomers have studied the orbits of the planets for hundreds of years‚ and have built up a model of it. Slight disturbances in their orbits are noticed and have been used to discover other planets that are influencing their orbits through their gravity. We are simply not missing an object with the mass of a star within our Solar System.Unlike the Moon‚ which is tidally locked to Earth‚ the Sun rotates every 27 days‚ meaning we see the whole of it over the course of a month. A second sun would have to orbit the actual real Sun at precisely the right speed that it is never visible from Earth as it orbits‚ and even then spacecraft sent out into the Solar System would have seen it from their different vantage points. And they haven't‚ because there isn't one.[H/T: Fraudulent Astronomy Wall of Shame]