Science
Looking at the world as it is, unencumbered by how we want it to be. Proudly hosted by @aviationdoctor.eth and co-modded by @eulerlagrange.eth @gmo @johncamkiran
EulerLagrange pfp
0 reply
2 recasts
9 reactions
EulerLagrange pfp
4 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
Mahatma Gandhi pfp
2 replies
1 recast
6 reactions
ionspired pfp
I wanted this to be true so much haha, so it made my scepticism present at the time of casting shut up. To debunk this the below resolution by GPT5 is sufficient I believe. My apologies đŸ„Č GPT5 sanity check: —————— ### 1. **What real atomic images look like** * The sharpest atomic-scale imaging methods today (STEM, TEM, STM, AFM, and more recently *ptychography*) **do produce images of individual atoms**. * But they **don’t look like glowing 3D spheres with neon light effects**. Instead, they usually look like grayscale dots or blobs, sometimes color-coded by scientists after the fact. * Example: In 2018, Oak Ridge National Lab achieved \~0.39 Å resolution with electron ptychography, revealing atomic lattice structures — it looked like a crystal lattice map, not like sci-fi glowing marbles. ### 2. **The posted image** * The image here looks highly stylized, almost like **digital art or a CGI rendering**. * Real microscopes don’t capture “atoms jiggling from heat” as glowing red sparks in 3D space. You’d need time-resolved ultrafast imaging to even approximate vibration, and it still wouldn’t look like this. ### 3. **The caption’s claims** * “Zoomed in 100 million times” → this number is more a catchy exaggeration; scientists normally report **angstrom or nanometer resolution**, not arbitrary zoom factors. * “Praseodymium atoms shine in pairs, scandium appears as bright single dots, oxygen glows faint red” → in reality, atoms don’t “shine” in visible colors. Imaging data is usually **intensity contrast** from electron scattering. Coloration is almost always false-color added later for interpretation. * The phrasing (“we’ve been wearing blurry glasses”) is sensationalist and not the tone you usually see in peer-reviewed research announcements. ### 4. **Verdict** This is **almost certainly fake / illustrative art**, not a genuine microscope image. * The underlying science (ptychography resolving atoms in PrScO₃) is real — there have been record-breaking results in that field. * But the **picture itself is not a true direct photograph of atoms**. It’s stylized imagery, probably AI-generated or CGI, meant to visually represent the claim. 🔎 **In short:** The research is plausible (ptychography can image atoms at insane resolution), but the glowing red “sci-fi” picture is not an authentic microscope capture.
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Alfie pfp
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
ionspired pfp
2 replies
1 recast
3 reactions
clone.fyi pfp
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Anuraj R pfp
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Mahatma Gandhi pfp
3 replies
0 recast
10 reactions
Thumbs Up pfp
2 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Justin Hunter pfp
0 reply
3 recasts
14 reactions
Pascaline | The Virtual Assitant pfp
1 reply
2 recasts
6 reactions
Patricia Lee pfp
I made a quick visit to the Aquarium of the Pacific while in LA. I spent most of the time gazing at their one resident Giant Pacific octopus. In this video, the water’s surface was creating a reflection of her. A mom next to me kept trying to explain to her two sons that this was just one octopus. But they were so certain there were two octopi in the tank, mistaking the reflection for a second octopus. Nothing she said could convince them. Seeing this moment through the children’s eyes got me thinking about the limits of our perception in general. Even with all of our incredible scientific tools that amplify our biological senses, there’s so much we don’t perceive or understand in our universe. The Giant Pacific octopus has nine brains. One in the center and one in each arm. The arms can process touch and movement on their own and then send information back. Its perception is spread out, not contained the way ours is. It can also see polarized light. To us, light is just brightness and color. To an octopus, the angle of the light waves creates extra contrasts and reveals hidden patterns on the surface of water or the sky. Other animals sense things we cannot without instruments. Bees and mantis shrimp see polarization. Birds and turtles feel Earth’s magnetic field. Sharks sense the electric glow of muscle. Snakes see heat. Elephants hear infrasound across miles. Bats and dolphins find their way with ultrasound. The tools we’ve built to sense the world as some animals biologically do are more translations, rather than lived perception. Ultimately we still have to look at that translated information from our instruments through the same basic senses we have always had. Data on a screen. The world is so much wider than our senses. Knowing this makes me feel such awe. I can’t help but wonder about the “second octopus” I am so certain I am seeing, but is actually something else entirely. It’s why for me science and spirituality feels so intertwined as practices. Both accept there are truths beyond what we can see. Both endeavor to seek such truths, even though we may never know them all.
21 replies
15 recasts
137 reactions
HiponaxđŸč pfp
Recent research indicates that in birds, sometimes the appearance and sexual organs do not align with the genetic sex (which is determined by chromosomes) — a phenomenon known as sex reversal — and it appears this can be relatively common. In a study examining nearly 500 birds from five common species in Australia, it was found that up to 6% of them exhibited such discrepancies. Most were genetically female birds with male sexual organs, but there was even one genetically male bird observed that had recently laid an egg. In humans, individuals with XX chromosomes are typically female, and those with XY are male. However, it's said that genes, not chromosomes, determine sex. For example, the SRY gene on the Y chromosome triggers the development of male traits. If someone lacks this gene, even with XY chromosomes, female traits will develop. Consequently, chromosomes aren't always the definitive factor in sex determination. Additionally, in certain species, cells can sometimes have different chromosomes, leading to the emergence of birds that possess both male and female characteristics; these are known as gynandromorph birds. Now, one of the follow-up questions is: What causes this discrepancy in birds? Full report from Science: https://Dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.zkfxy3w
1 reply
1 recast
2 reactions
Kristina pfp
Last week marked a milestone moment in Beijing with the launch of China’s first dedicated humanoid robot store. Designed to revolutionize robotics adoption, this flagship project tackles a critical industry gap: despite numerous manufacturers, most lack platforms to demonstrate their cutting-edge creations directly to consumers. By bridging this divide, the store elevates humanoid robots from lab curiosities to tangible, market-ready products. Visitors can experience hands-on test drives, observing robots performing everything from basic service tasks to complex operations before making purchases. The store also provides end-to-end support, including spare parts, repair services, and technical assistance -ensuring a seamless transition from showroom to real-world implementation. This holistic approach mirrors the automotive industry’s 4S model, but for the next generation of intelligent machines. Who wouldn’t be tempted by the chance to own an Einstein robot for under $100,000? Beyond the novelty factor, what’s truly remarkable is how quickly this future has arrived. As these robotic showrooms redefine retail in China, one can’t help but wonder: how soon before similar stores emerge in America or Europe? The age of consumer-facing humanoid robotics isn’t coming - it’s already here. 📍 Robot Mall. E-Town district, Beijing
1 reply
0 recast
4 reactions