science

14958 readers
229 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1
55
rules discussion (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by laverabe@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
 
 

I've seen a few complaints over the past few weeks about there being a lot of psuedoscience, and there has been a fair amount of reports.

I figured it would be a good idea to update the rules on the sidebar to clearly lay out what is and isn't allowed.

I think a tagging system might help to keep down on the spam and elevate real scientific sources. These are just a draft and more rules could be added in the future if they are needed.

Current draft (work in progress, add suggestions in comments):


A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

Submission Rules:

  1. All posts must be flagged with an appropriate tag and must be scientific in nature. All posts not following these guidelines will be removed.
  2. All posts must be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, unless flagged as news or discussion. No pseudoscience.
  3. No self-promotion, blogspam, videos, or memes. See list of unapproved sources below.

Comment Rules:

  1. Civility to other users, be kind.
  2. See rule #1.
  3. Please stay on the original topic in the post. New topics should be referred to a new post/discussion thread.
  4. See rule #1 again. Personal attacks, trolling, or aggression to other users will result in a ban.
  5. Report incivility, trolling, or otherwise bad actors. We are human so we only see what is reported.

Flag Options

  1. [Peer reviewed]
  2. [News]
  3. [Discussion]

List of potential predatory journals & publishers (do not post from these sources)

List of unapproved sources:

  • Psypost
  • Sciencealert
  • (any other popsci site that uses titles generally regarded as clickbait)

Original draft:

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

Submission Rules:

  1. All posts must be flagged with an appropriate tag and must be scientific in nature. All posts not following these guidelines will be removed.
  2. All posts must be peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, unless flagged as news or discussion. No pseudoscience.
  3. No self-promotion, blogspam, videos, or memes.

Comment Rules:

  1. Civility to other users, be kind.
  2. See rule #1.
  3. Please stay on the original topic in the post. New topics should be referred to a new post/discussion thread.
  4. See rule #1 again. Personal attacks, trolling, or aggression to other users will result in a ban.
  5. Report incivility, trolling, or otherwise bad actors. We are human so we only see what is reported.

Flag Options

  1. [Peer reviewed]
  2. [News]
  3. [Discussion]

List of potential predatory journals & publishers (do not post from these sources)


I'm not on 24/7 but I'll try to update these when I get a chance.

2
3
 
 

Google has made an eyebrow-raising claim, saying that its new quantum chip may be tapping into parallel universes to achieve its results.

The search giant recently unveiled a new quantum computer chip, dubbed Willow, which — on a specific benchmark, at least — the company says can outperform any supercomputer in the world.

"Willow’s performance on this benchmark is astonishing," Google Quantum AI founder Hartmut Neven wrote in a blog post announcing the chip. "It performed a computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10²⁵ or 10 septillion years."

"This mind-boggling number exceeds known timescales in physics and vastly exceeds the age of the universe," he argued. "It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch."

Deutsch is a physicist who laid out his multiverse hypothesis in a 1997 book called "The Fabric of Reality," in which he suggested that quantum computers' calculations take place across multiple universes at the same time.

Put another way, Google is suggesting that its chip is so fast that its computations may have taken place across parallel universes — a bombastic statement that unsurprisingly drew plenty of skepticism online.

For one, the calculation Willow was tasked to solve wasn't really anything useful to anybody.

"The particular calculation in question is to produce a random distribution," German physicist and science communicator Sabine Hossenfelder tweeted in response to Google's announcement. "The result of this calculation has no practical use."

"They use this particular problem because it has been formally proven (with some technical caveats) that the calculation is difficult to do on a conventional computer (because it uses a lot of entanglement)," she added. "That also allows them to say things like 'this would have taken a septillion years on a conventional computer' etc."

Willow is a 100-qubit, or quantum-bit, chip. Unlike conventional computers, which use zeroes and ones for a binary system, quantum computers rely on qubits, which can be on, off, or — counterintuitively — both thanks to quantum entanglement, the mysterious phenomenon that allows particles to influence each other's states even when separated by distance.

"It's exactly the same calculation that they did in 2019 on a circa 50 qubit chip," Hossenfelder wrote.

At the time, Google made a similarly bombastic claim, arguing that it had achieved "quantum supremacy," or "the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, regardless of whether those tasks are useful," as John Preskill, who first coined the term in 2012, wrote in a 2019 Quanta Magazine column.

That last part appears to be particularly relevant, given Google's latest claim.

"So while the announcement is super impressive from a scientific point of view and all, the consequences for everyday life are zero," Hossenfelder argued. "Estimates say that we will need about 1 million qubits for practically useful applications and we're still about 1 million qubits away from that."

The physicist also suggested that such wild claims may eventually "evaporate because some other group finds a clever way to do it on a conventional computer after all."

Google's claim of quantum supremacy drew immediate criticism in 2019, sparking a years-long feud between the company and quantum computing rival IBM. At the time, IBM researchers charged that Google had exaggerated its claims.

In a 2023 follow-up blog post, IBM researchers argued that the problem Google's quantum computer was instructed to solve in 2019 could be "performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far greater fidelity."

"This is in fact a conservative, worst-case estimate, and we expect that with additional refinements the classical cost of the simulation can be further reduced," the researchers wrote at the time.

In short, there's still a good reason to believe that Google's latest claim that Willow could be operating in the multiverse will be debunked. Apart from Deutsch's interpretation, researchers have also suggested that quantum particles are instead in a state of all positions before measurement, a theory known as the Copenhagen interpretation.

Where all of this leaves Google's breakthrough and its significance remains debatable.

But the company is already looking far ahead, promising to continue to scale up Willow to a point where it may actually become useful.

"This is the most convincing prototype for a scalable logical qubit built to date," Neven wrote in the announcement. "It’s a strong sign that useful, very large quantum computers can indeed be built."

4
 
 

This is a rather detailed investigation by folks at WSJ into the business endeavors of David Sinclair, renowned celebrity scientist at Harvard Medical School (and kind-of a known fraudster among the field)

It's... interesting to say the least. Not strictly science-science per-se, but I hope this is informative to at least some of you. Personally as someone interested in aging research, I find it valuable to see what all the snake oil salesmen are doing so I know what not to get too mentally engaged in...

Link is de-paywalled. Original link at WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness/david-sinclair-reverse-aging-failed-business-8bc4a43d

A blog report by scientific misconduct sleuth Leonid Schneider, with references to a lot of other bonkers things Sinclair did: https://forbetterscience.com/2024/12/13/schneider-shorts-13-12-2024-most-lying-deceiving-person-in-the-world/

5
6
 
 

Abstract:

Working from home has become standard for employees with a university degree. The most common scheme, which has been adopted by around 100 million employees in Europe and North America, is a hybrid schedule, in which individuals spend a mix of days at home and at work each week1,2. However, the effects of hybrid working on employees and firms have been debated, and some executives argue that it damages productivity, innovation and career development3,4,5. Here we ran a six-month randomized control trial investigating the effects of hybrid working from home on 1,612 employees in a Chinese technology company in 2021–2022. We found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced quit rates by one-third. The reduction in quit rates was significant for non-managers, female employees and those with long commutes. Null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working did not affect performance grades over the next two years of reviews. We found no evidence for a difference in promotions over the next two years overall, or for any major employee subgroup. Finally, null equivalence tests showed that hybrid working had no effect on the lines of code written by computer-engineer employees. We also found that the 395 managers in the experiment revised their surveyed views about the effect of hybrid working on productivity, from a perceived negative effect (−2.6% on average) before the experiment to a perceived positive one (+1.0%) after the experiment. These results indicate that a hybrid schedule with two days a week working from home does not damage performance.

7
 
 

Testosterone plays important roles in reproductive behaviour in many species. Despite a common belief that testosterone regulates fluctuations in human sexual desire, there is little direct evidence that relates within-person changes in natural testosterone production to within-person changes in sexual desire. Here, we measured daily salivary testosterone concentrations from 41 adult men for one month, along with daily self-reports of sexual desire (n = 759 observations for the main analyses). We analysed concurrent relationships between within-person changes in testosterone and desire, and also lagged relationships that were analysed using a continuous-time modelling framework. We found no evidence for significant, positive relationships between testosterone and desire, which argues against the notion that day-to-day changes in eugonadal men’s baseline testosterone regulates changes in their sexual desire. However, additional analyses provided preliminary evidence for a positive relationship between testosterone and self-reported courtship effort, particularly on days when single participants interacted with potential romantic partners. Our findings add original evidence regarding day-to-day associations between testosterone and desire, and suggest that testosterone above minimum threshold concentrations does not increase sexual desire. We propose that the evolved functions of testosterone in human males are more closely associated with courtship efforts than with sexual desire.

8
9
10
11
 
 

Google DeepMind has developed the first artificial intelligence (AI) model of its kind to predict the weather more accurately than the best system currently in use... The system, called GenCast, is described today in Nature.

Conventional forecasts, including those from ENS, are based on mathematical models that simulate the laws of physics governing Earth’s atmosphere... GenCast, by contrast, has been trained only on historical weather data...

So yeah DeepMind is fucking going at it again.

Interestingly the model architecture seems to heavily integrate Bayesian maximum likelihood estimation in addition to their usual GNN-based deep learning approaches, which I didn't know is even possible. Their methods section states "[o]ur innovation in this work is an MLWP-based Forecast model, and we adopt a traditional NWP-based State inference approach

I'm not super familiar with Bayesian methods though so if anyone can add some more information I'd appreciate it

References:

12
 
 

Researchers studying ageing disagree on just about everything — including what ageing is, whether it is a disease and when it starts — according to a survey of about 100 scientists working in the field.

[Gladyshev] decided to survey participants at an international conference on ageing in Newry, Maine, in 2022, to better understand the views of those researching the topic. Respondents included early-career researchers, established scientists and industry professionals. The results are described in PNAS Nexus today.

Most researchers are clear in their own minds about what ageing is — but their perspectives don’t align with those of others, says Gladyshev. “People joke in the field that there are more theories than people.” Despite this, Gladyshev says he was surprised by the scale of the problem.

Particular interesting to me since I've met Dr. Gladyshev in-person and have discussed this very problem with him...

The DOI link is broken, so here is the actual cited paper (open access):

Gladyshev VA et al. Disagreement on foundational principles of biological aging. PNAS Nexus (2024). https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/12/pgae499/7913315

13
 
 

there are multiple groundbreaking things in here, absolutely amazing article and extremely inspiring news.

14
15
16
17
18
 
 

19
20
 
 

I don't have a background in science, I learned of the 2021 study as a footnote in a book I'm reading.

I'm curious to see what more attention this will get over the coming years.

21
22
23
24
 
 

Space weather experts say auroras could be visible from 10 p.m. EST Thursday to 1 a.m. Friday EST, though it’s difficult to pin down an exact window. Updated forecasts may be available as the event draws closer on NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center website or an aurora forecasting app.

25
74
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by W4nd3r3r@lemmy.ml to c/science@lemmy.world
 
 

The results of a recent study suggest that, if there is no deficit of the hormone, supplements are unlikely to improve a man’s libido

view more: next ›