It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Yep, probably the most exciting discovery for me considering the Breit-Wheeler theory is almost a century old and it was eventually deemed impossible to actually test it by Breit And Wheeler themselves, yet now scientists have found a revolutionary technique, albeit inefficient, that confirms their theory is in fact demonstrable, and that it really is possible to convert light to matter.
The current and main downside of this newfound method though is that it would require an IMMENSE amount of energy to create an almost disproportionately small amount of matter (e=mc2), realistically giving it no practical implications (yet). Despite that, these are still very promising findings.
Regarding the "artificial photosynthesis":
This is easily a bad thing more than good. If anything, it provides another argument for cutting down forest. If we can create artificial photosynthesis, then the only reason for keeping forests are to support the ecosystem, and those two points together aren't really keeping the forest from being destroyed.
Perhaps the only good thing is the ability to carry out other reactions. If we need a medicine made, throw it out in the sun and voila. It cuts out the need to transmit electricity for the purposes of molecular engineering. Also, if there's an artificial surface that really can't be made "green". A roof with moss or plants on it, photosynthesizing naturally would be much more ideal than a black one with artificial, possibly poisonous enzymes.
In the short term, for greenhouse-gas removal, it may be good, but in the long term, stabilization of the ecosystems would be much, much more beneficial.
MiomoRegarding the "artificial photosynthesis":
This is easily a bad thing more than good. If anything, it provides another argument for cutting down forest. If we can create artificial photosynthesis, then the only reason for keeping forests are to support the ecosystem, and those two points together aren't really keeping the forest from being destroyed.
Perhaps the only good thing is the ability to carry out other reactions. If we need a medicine made, throw it out in the sun and voila. It cuts out the need to transmit electricity for the purposes of molecular engineering. Also, if there's an artificial surface that really can't be made "green". A roof with moss or plants on it, photosynthesizing naturally would be much more ideal than a black one with artificial, possibly poisonous enzymes.
In the short term, for greenhouse-gas removal, it may be good, but in the long term, stabilization of the ecosystems would be much, much more beneficial.
I'm not sure whether I'd consider this more of a bad thing than good, seeing as there are many profitable and beneficial uses for such a process that we cannot really weigh up with the supposed cons yet considering the whole idea's infancy, but I do wholeheartedly agree with what you've said about it's possible ecological implications.
Like with the idea of turning light into matter though, this particular process of artificial photosynthesis is impressive in the lab, but it's highly unlikely it would ever be used on an industrial, commercial scale (mainly due to the expense). Though again, very useful research.
the surgeons attempting to slow down the body one is sick. they are trialing it out at a hospital in pittsburgh on patients that are pretty much going to die because they dont have enough time to do the surgery. with this new method, they can slow down the body for like 2 hours, giving the surgeons time to save the patient. so sick
theBearJewThat suspended animation shit is nuts. Still don't really understand what they are doing..
They are rapidly inducing controlled hypothermia by administering a large dose of a chilled saline solution into the body to put it's organs in a suspended state for a (current) maximum of 4 hours, designed mainly for, but not restricted to, medical/surgical purposes. Very cool stuff, if you don't mind me saying
Peter.the surgeons attempting to slow down the body one is sick. they are trialing it out at a hospital in pittsburgh on patients that are pretty much going to die because they dont have enough time to do the surgery. with this new method, they can slow down the body for like 2 hours, giving the surgeons time to save the patient. so sick
Also, for those wondering about the teleportation bit, as it's sort of misleadingly phrased, it's essentially to do with quantum computing. Semi-simply put, it is the combination of classic communication channels and quantum entanglement, enabling the transmission of quantum information from one location to another with a 100% success rate, all the while with virtually unbreakable encryption.
Meh, its pretty much just pop science and they post a lot of shitty stuff. People should check out From Quarks to Quasars, some really cool articles on there. The writer also takes really theoretical questions from readers and gives great explanations which are pretty fun to read if you're into that shit
That is awesome, and very encouraging. Search and destroy, instead of poisoning the whole body. Seems like a proper step in the right direction, finally, which is quite resfreshing
las.That is awesome, and very encouraging. Search and destroy, instead of poisoning the whole body. Seems like a proper step in the right direction, finally, which is quite resfreshing
I don't know why but all these titles annoy me so much. No doubt cause they're all blown way out of proportion.
For example "scientists regrow adult tooth using lasers"
No, they did no such thing. They managed to cause stem cells in rats to form dentin using lasers. It's still a huge breakthrough, but is nowhere close to how laymen sensationalize it to be.
VinnieFI don't know why but all these titles annoy me so much. No doubt cause they're all blown way out of proportion.
For example "scientists regrow adult tooth using lasers"
No, they did no such thing. They managed to cause stem cells in rats to form dentin using lasers. It's still a huge breakthrough, but is nowhere close to how laymen sensationalize it to be.
The headlines are sensational, like I've said, but you're sort of wrong. They've tested this on mammal and human cells, with remarkably promising results on both. Additionally, whilst this method won't and can't apply to the other essential components of the tooth (enamel, pulp, cementum etc.), dentin is the structural bulk of the tooth, and the ability to differentiate stemcells into dentin itself by stimulation is a huge step forward in tooth repair and maintenance.
Another important thing to consider that you're not acknowledging or understanding is how broad the possible implications of something like this could be, mainly in it's potential use on other forms of tissue, which is equally as exciting.
By the looks of it, too, human trials should be taking place within the next couple of years.
I can give you (from my understanding of it) a more comprehensive explanation of the process, if you'd like?
Obviously these headlines should be taken with a grain of salt, but don't prematurely accuse them of lacking substance if you don't have an actual understanding of what they're talking about.
The headlines are sensational, like I've said, but you're sort of wrong. They've tested this on mammal and human cells, with remarkably promising results on both. Additionally, whilst this method won't and can't apply to the other essential components of the tooth (enamel, pulp, cementum etc.), dentin is the structural bulk of the tooth, and the ability to differentiate stemcells into dentin itself by stimulation is a huge step forward in tooth repair and maintenance.
Another important thing to consider that you're not acknowledging or understanding is how broad the possible implications of something like this could be, mainly in it's potential use on other forms of tissue, which is equally as exciting.
By the looks of it, too, human trials should be taking place within the next couple of years.
I can give you (from my understanding of it) a more comprehensive explanation of the process, if you'd like?
Obviously these headlines should be taken with a grain of salt, but don't prematurely accuse them of lacking substance if you don't have an actual understanding of what they're talking about.
Right, they tested it with promising results. They haven't actually "regrown adult teeth from stem cells" as it says. Unless you think artificially growing muscle tissue, for example, is the same as regrowing a body.
But please, I don't understand what they're talking about so give me a more comprehensive explanation.
And I would argue that headline is factually incorrect. If someone managed to grow cellulose artificially (maybe they can), and the article title was "trees grown artificially in lab" then that would be factually incorrect. Just like saying you've grown teeth when really you've grown dentin is factually incorrect.
But still, it's cool stuff. They headlines do definitely blow it a bit out of proportion. I'm sure if I looked into the others this would be true for 1/2 of them at least.
VinnieFRight, they tested it with promising results. They haven't actually "regrown adult teeth from stem cells" as it says. Unless you think artificially growing muscle tissue, for example, is the same as regrowing a body.
But please, I don't understand what they're talking about so give me a more comprehensive explanation.
And I would argue that headline is factually incorrect. If someone managed to grow cellulose artificially (maybe they can), and the article title was "trees grown artificially in lab" then that would be factually incorrect. Just like saying you've grown teeth when really you've grown dentin is factually incorrect.
But still, it's cool stuff. They headlines do definitely blow it a bit out of proportion. I'm sure if I looked into the others this would be true for 1/2 of them at least.
...But they have. I think you're still slightly confused. Claiming they've regrown teeth isn't saying they've regrown a full tooth, full stop. I'm not sure how that's so difficult for you to get? Regarding growing muscle tissue, if someone were to say they've grown body, that would be perfectly fine. If they were to say 'a body', that would be incorrect. This headline is an example of the former. Do you see the difference?
Your other example definitely lends itself to your argument too, though thankfully it's made your misunderstanding a bit clearer. Again, dentin is essentially the mass of the tooth, giving support and structure to the other major components. The same cannot be practically said for some microscopic sugar molecule in and with trees, or, I can imagine, anything else it is a part of.
We may have to agree to disagree. The headlines are sensational, but they aren't wrong
And by all means, if it's that important to you, go on your little sentence phrasing tirade; I can't see you accomplishing much though. Keep it out of this thread too, please.
The memory one is highly sensational and quite misleading. The Theia theory has not been confirmed either, there's only vast amounts of evidence supporting the hypothesis. Other than that, another exciting week
las.Again, dentin is essentially the mass of the tooth, giving support and structure to the other major components. The same cannot be practically said for some microscopic sugar molecule in and with trees, or, I can imagine, anything else it is a part of.
...but, that's exactly what cellulose is. it's what gives support and structure to a tree. It's the closest analog to dentin in a tooth.
So even to follow your wording, you certainly wouldn't say you're "regrowing trees" if all you're doing is creating cellulose.
Title is poorly written and misleading. Dunno why you're defending it, not like you wrote it.
