Sounds like a promising start to a B-list sci-fi flick ...

What the heck is down there, anyway?

After Birth - Updated

A few fun things as spelled out by Charles Fernyhough:

* Newborns may hear echoes everywhere. As humans get older, our brains get better at filtering out echoes. But that ability takes time to develop, which leads many scientists to believe babies hear echoes off of everything - even in places we wouldn't normally consider - bedrooms, cars, etc.

* Baby brains are a big cognitive stew. Adult brains are split up. Specific areas govern specific functions. Not so in Baby Huey. Show him a picture, for example, and sparks go off in the region of the brain normally reserved for smell. Yes, this could mean Huey "smells" light and "hears" color, but scholars aren't sure.

* Your baby's brain is at war with itself. As newborns develop, two parts of their brains battle for control -- the subcortical region (the lesser developed, primal area) and the cortical region (which is more highly evolved). "Fixations" develop develop between the two and express themselves as prolonged blank stares or periods of silence.

Then there's this whole thing about crying babies, where NPR's Nell Greenfieldboyce tells us how the mother's native tongue may influence the distinctive sound of the newborn's first cries. Pretty amazing stuff.

SPACE: The Multiverse

Okay so let me try to explain this in a sentence.
Basically, there's an infinite number of yous and they're all reading this right now.
A shame, isn't it?
But take heart, there's also an infinite number of yous reading a blog that's doesn't suck, so all is not lost.
Anyway, that's pretty much string theory and the mutliverse in a nutshell.
It all boils down to this -- on a canvas with infinite space and a finite number of atoms, there's bound to be some repetition. In fact, there's bound to be a whole lotta of repetition.
And this repetition has spawned an army of doppelganger yous -- an infinite legion armed with every single one of your memories, experiences, thoughts and dreams. Then, of course, there's the infinite number of variations on you. (So take heart lovesick friends, in one universe you actually do get that dream girl or guy. Just not here, sorry.)
I'd encourage you all to go check out the radio lab podcast. Brain Greene, as always, is very lucid and clear in his explanation of this far out concept. It's a broadcast I've listened to at least a dozen times since downloading it over a year ago. And it's one I keep coming back to and learning from.
Next on the list of heady scientific topics to tackle: dark matter. It's basically the "air" pushing the balloon of the universe apart. Beyond that, I have no clue.

Ever Wondered How Differential Gear Works?

Yeah, me neither.
But if you want to find out ... this might be one of the best tutorials out there. Thanks 1930s!

Scary: We're all walking blind ...

... No really.
According to an article published in New Scientist, the average human loses about 6 seconds of information per minute due to blinking.
That's pretty amazing considering how the numbers add up. Take, for example, a typical person with a waking time of about 16 hours. Using the 6 second rule, they're missing out on a staggering 96 minutes of visual information every day. Math nerds, feel free to check me on this, but I think I did the equation right.
So what's going on when your waking brain is on a visual holiday? Well, I'd like to think it's the special time when elves from the parallel 11th dimension visit our world, steal our shoes and Slim Jims and roast bratwurst sausages on our grills, but ... unfortunately it seems the actual answer is a bit simpler. Your brain's just trying to process all that visual data it's taking in.
And most humans process this visual data in remarkably similar ways. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Tokyo, discovered that, in groups, people tend to unconsciously adapt collective blinking patterns.
Researchers studied subjects during movies and found they tended to blink nearly in unison. They would hold back their eyelids during intense action sequences so as not to miss a moment, but when the drama died down, they'd nearly all breathe (or blink, in this case) a collective sigh of relief.
Oh and on a sidenote, if you feel scandalized about the rising price of movie tickets - here's some more salt to rub in the wound. You know that 150-minute film you paid $10.50 for? Well you're going to miss about 15 minutes of it due to blinking. Sorry.

Journal Reference: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/

Science: Warp bubbles - 'Star Trek' becoming reality?

The good news is two U.S. scientists claim they've found a way to travel faster than the speed of light.
The bad news is we may have to sacrifice Jupiter to get the energy to do it.
The link to the article can be found over at ABC News, but the trick basically works like this: Scientists would need to create a warp bubble by manipulating dark energy and the 11th dimension. Simple, right?
Hardly.
But the idea jives with physics, at least theoretically speaking.
See the problem with faster than light (FTL) travel is that according to Einstein (who's pretty much the go-to-guy for this stuff) it can't be done.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, any object -- be it a planet or a speck of dust -- requires an infinite amount of energy to reach light speeds.
There's one problem with that idea though -- since the 1970s scientists have observed the very universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.
So what gives?
In recent years, scientists have pinned dark matter as the culprit, saying this mysterious (and presumably massless) substance is somehow propelling our universe's expansion at warp speeds.
So by manipulating this material, scientists suspect objects in our universe could, in effect, ride a dark matter "wave" to faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. Much like a surfer rides a wave at the beach.
All we'd have to do is create a massless dark matter bubble and piggyback inside that through the universe.
Thus, FTL travel falls in line with Einstein's theory of relativity and everyone's happy, right?
Well, maybe not.
The amount of energy needed to manipulate dark matter and create a warp bubble is would be nothing short of phenomenal. Roughly on par with the total mass of Jupiter, scientists say. And that's just the initial kick. To keep the ship moving through space, more and more energy would be required.
There's also the theory's reliance on string theory, which is unproven at best and a theory many physicists are decrying at a misguided "theory of everything" that will be disproved in the coming decades.
So, right now at least, the world of Star Trek seems to be pretty far off.
But theoretically, the idea of zipping to distant star systems does seem possible. And that's good news for all us science fiction fiends.

SCIENCE: Tabula rasa and what it means to be human

Imagine the ability to erase a traumatic childhood memory, curb an addiction or control a fear -- all with the flick of a few neurons.
For years, such an idea has been subjugated to the realm of speculative fiction and Hollywood, but now, thanks to new advances in neuroscience, yesterday's fantasy is becoming today's reality.
Naturally this reality is raising a host of ethical questions.
Will people want to have their memories erased? If Jane Doe decides to scrub a memory of her infant son's death, would Jane Doe still in fact be Jane Doe? Is it not the summation of our experiences that defines who we are? Or will the conveniences of science change how humanity defines individuality?
These questions are nothing new.
In 2007, Time Magazine posted an engaging feature by Dr. Scott Haig, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in New York City.
Haig was faced with a troubling ethical dilemma when his patient, "Ellen," refused to undergo anesthesia for an operation on a lump growing on her collarbone.
Haig was able to convince Ellen to allow an anesthesiologist in the room during the operation, but with the stipulation that he was to be used only if the surgery went horribly wrong.
Unfortunately, things did go wrong when doctors from pathology mistakenly called Haig over the operating room intercom.
At full volume they unabashedly relayed the troubling news -- it was cancer, very, very bad cancer -- as a fully-lucid Ellen stared on in disbelief.
That lucidity quickly gave way to panic. Ellen began screaming and begged to know what this diagnosis meant not only for her, but for her children.
Within seconds the anesthesiologist injected Ellen's IV with propofol, a drug that both puts patients under and erases their most recent memories.
Haig relates:

The drug, sometimes called "milk of amnesia," stings some patients sharply in the veins, but what it also does is erase your last few minutes. (Think of the "neuralyzer" from the Men in Black movies.) Oh, and it puts you to sleep. An amazing molecule, a great anesthesiologist and a great save.

Not everyone agreed. I looked up at three sets of eyes, the nurses' eyes, that bored into Frank (the anesthesiologist) and me accusingly. How can you do that? they demanded to know. Don't you need consent or at least fill out some kind of form before you steal a patient's last 10 minutes? But all I could say was, "Awesome job, Frank." Somehow with that, and with the calm sleep on their patient's face, we were given not forgiveness, but a reprieve.

Ten minutes later Ellen woke up, happy and even-keeled, not even knowing she'd been asleep. From the recovery room she was home in time for dinner. "The procedure went smoothly, but we'll have to wait for the final pathology reports," I said, which was not exactly the whole truth, but it let me get the oncology people cued up, a proper diagnosis, and Ellen herself emotionally prepared. I would give her the bad news at a more appropriate time.

Eventually, Ellen died because of the tumor, but Haig said she never learned of the horrifying mix up in the hospital. Ellen died not knowing doctors stole part of her memory.

Haig continues:

Over a decade later, I'm still not sure that was right.

Questions of withholding bad news, wiping out bad memories — plastering over wayward cracks in our minds with chemicals — are answered thousands of times everyday, without ever being asked. Ethics committees and experts exist in our hospitals, but what they have to say counts precious little down in the trenches, where intercoms fail and human minds treat human minds, in real time. You would think, by now, that the distinction between treatments using words (or ideas) and chemicals (or electric currents) is starting to blur. (If an hour of psychotherapy accomplishes the same thing as 20 mg of Prozac — that is, a boost in mood and serotonin levels — is there a difference?) But it is not. Everyone I know who deals with medicines that affect minds seems to operate with a very clear functional distinction between personhood — the realm of virtue, vice, responsibility and creativity — and brain chemistry. That distinction was clear in the eyes of my nurses that day. Something more important than a chemical balance in Ellen's brain had been violated — only a little and, obviously, with benevolent intent. But it hadn't been as simple as pushing a rewind button. Something there had borne the unmistakable quality of wrong.

In a few decades, Haig's extraordinary tale may become an everyday decision for doctors around the world.
Consciousness, the core essence of what defines us as individuals -- an immutable, ever-evolving inner essence forged over decades of life experience -- could become as fleeting as the oil filters in an automobile.
It's a scary prospect.
The inner depths of the mind, previously reachable only by the pinnacles of humanity's art, literature and experience could now be altered at the whim of a doctor's scalpel.
The possibilities are legion. The benefits, potentially endless.
But so are the pitfalls.
As neuroscience climbs to new heights this must always be remembered.
Scientists must always be willing to ask, "Are we really ready?"

SPACE: Star supernovas; scientists baffled

Scientists may have to rework some of their theories on solar evolution following the unexpected explosion of a massive star a million times brighter than our sun.
The surprise supernova, which can be viewed here, took place roughly 215-million light years from Earth in the NGC-266 galaxy. Hubble telescope photos dating back to 1997 show the star as very luminous, but stable. In 2005, however, photographs show the star went nova.
Space.com reports:

"This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising," said Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel.

According to theory, the doomed star, about 100 times our sun's mass, was not mature enough to have evolved a massive iron core of nuclear fusion ash, considered a prerequisite for a core implosion that triggers the sort of supernova blast that was seen.

The unexpected explosion could mean other stars may behave in ways not previously expected, including one relatively close to home, known as Eta Carinae, just 7,500 light-years away and in our own Milky Way galaxy. Extremely massive and luminous stars topping 100 solar masses, such as Eta Carinae, are expected to lose their entire hydrogen envelopes prior to their ultimate explosions as supernovae.

"These observations demonstrate that many details in the evolution and fate of LBVs remain a mystery," said Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. "We should continue to keep an eye on Eta Carinae, it may surprise us yet again,"

"The progenitor identification shows that, at least in some cases, massive stars explode before losing most of their hydrogen envelope, suggesting that the evolution of the core and the evolution of the envelope are less coupled than previously thought, a finding which may require a revision of stellar evolution theory," said study co-author Douglas Leonard from San Diego State University.

Science: Great Moments in De-evolution

Don't expect to be sprouting a new tail anytime soon, but a recent study publicized in New Scientist says so-called "junk DNA" may resurface in future humans.

"A gene that is active in humans today died out during our primate evolution and came back to life again. This is the first time such a 'resurrection' event has been identified, researchers say."

The article continues ...

"Humans have many genes that are at present non-functional, often considered 'junk DNA' (see our feature Recipes for life: How genes evolve). Up to 60% of the genes associated with the sense of smell lie idle in humans, for instance. It is conceivable, says Bekpen, that other currently non-functional genes stored in our genome might become active again. 'Don't count them out until they're completely deleted,' he says."

ODD: WTC Hero to be cloned

Okay so this is creepy, but awesome nonetheless ...

Apparently, scientists planning to clone "Trakr," a German shepherd who was one of the dogs sniffing out survivors trapped in rubble following the World Trade Center disaster in New York in 2001.

Here's a snippet of the Associated Free Press's report:

Trakr, a German shepherd who lives with his owner James Symington in Los Angeles, was picked by BioArts International as the most "clone-worthy" canine in a competition offering an owner a free chance to replicate their pet.

In the next month, BioArts said it would transport a sample of Trakr's DNA to the South Korean lab of its partner, the Sooam Biotech Research Foundation, and the clone could be ready by the end of this year.

"Trakr means the world to me," Symington said. "To know that part of him is going to live on is just beyond words. It's the greatest gift I've ever received."

That's sweet and all, but I have to admit I'm about this close to going into panic mode.

What if an army of cloned, pissed off sniffer dogs break free after years of experiments in some "Area Bow-Wow" and start to run amok in our streets? EVERYBODY PANIC.