The science behind the zombie fungus from 'The Last of Us'

YOURI BENADJAOUD and DR. JOHN BROWNSTEIN
Sun, February 5, 2023 at 7:03 AM MST·4 min read

The hit HBO series "The Last Of Us" describes a post-pandemic world devastated by a mass outbreak of a "zombie fungus" that infects and takes over the mind of its hosts. Originally a video game, the popular show was recently renewed for a second season.

Although its premise is science fiction, the fungus in the show is actually based in scientific reality.
Is the 'zombie' fungus real?

Cordyceps – the so-called "zombie fungus" – is a real fungus and is sometimes used in treatments and therapeutics in Chinese herbal medicine.

MORE: Fungal disease on the rise in West possibly tied to changing climate patterns: Experts

Although cordyceps does not infect humans, it does infect a wide range of insects.

PHOTO: Scene from 'The Last of Us.' (Liane Hentscher/HBO)

In ants, cordyceps slowly infects its victims by mind-controlling the host to migrate to a humid climate where the conditions are perfect for its growth. Once a suitable environment has been found, the ant will dig its jaws into a plant and await death.

The fungus will then slowly consume the ant while eventually sending out its own spores – a sort of antenna to enthrall and trap future victims.
Could the 'zombie fungus' threaten human health?

There are thousands of species of cordyceps each designed to infect a particular species – luckily, humans aren't one of them. The human body's immune system is more advanced than that of an ant and has a higher internal temperature, which would protect it from cordyceps infection.

MORE: Review: 'The Last of Us' is a triumph of ferocity and feeling that grabs you and won't let go

However, other fungi have made their presence known throughout human history. Ergot poisoning, also dubbed "St. Anthony's Fire," is caused by the contamination of grain and has been attributed to mass hysteria events such as the Salem Witch trials in the 17th century, Matthew Fisher, Ph.D., a professor of fungal disease epidemiology at the Imperial College School of Public Health, said.

While some fungi have been known to cause hallucinations on very rare occasions, "a human manipulating cordyceps is vanishingly unlikely," Fisher said.

Scientists said that while there are approximately 150,000 species of fungi – with a few million yet to be discovered – only about 200 are known to infect humans.

PHOTO: Scene from 'The Last of Us.' (Liane Hentscher/HBO)

How do fungi currently affect human health?

Fungal infections are responsible for over 150 million severe cases and an estimated 1.7 million deaths per year worldwide, according to one study.

Researchers estimate that nearly a billion people have skin, nail and hair fungal infections annually. More serious fungal infections usually appear in people with other underlying health problems such as asthma, AIDS, cancer, organ transplant recipients and those on corticosteroid therapies.

MORE: More disease, more suicide: Study shows human cost of climate change

In a detailed report, the World Health Organization warned in October, 2022, of 19 fungal pathogens representing the greatest threat to public health.

Yet, fungal infections receive less than 1.5% of infectious disease funding while killing more people than tuberculosis – a leading infectious disease killer worldwide.

"It's really shocking that research on fungal pathogens is so underfunded. Biohazardous threats are much broader than just bacteria and viruses," Jessica Malaty Rivera, infectious disease epidemiologist and research fellow at Boston Children's Hospital and The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told ABC News.
Will there be a pandemic caused by fungal infections?

While some fungi can be transmitted from person to person, they generally do not spread as easily or quickly as viruses. Additionally, the human body's immune response and the availability of antifungal medications make it less likely that a fungus would be able to cause a global outbreak.

Stock photo of cordyceps mushroom in a laboratory.

It is unlikely that a single fungus would cause a global pandemic on the same scale that we've seen with COVID-19. Viruses typically spread through respiratory droplets whereas fungal infections spread through direct skin-to-skin contact or from sharing items.

Despite a low possibility of spurring a worldwide pandemic, the global burden of fungal infections remains high. "Many of these infections can be incredibly difficult to treat and have high mortality rates," Rivera said.
Is climate change making things worse?

While it is highly unlikely climate change would lead to a zombie-like apocalypse according to experts, the warming of the globe continues to pose a threat to global health.

Research has shown that global pandemics from infectious diseases may become more common as habitats continue to bleed into one another and animals are exposed to species they have never interacted with before, while the space between humans and the natural world shrinks.

MORE: Increasingly warming planet jeopardizes human health, major report warns

A new study also found that when scientists increased the temperature of a particular fungus was exposed to, the pathogen could adapt with certain genetic changes.

"These mobile elements are likely to contribute to adaptation in the environment and during an infection," postdoctoral researcher Asiya Gusa Ph.D. of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology in the Duke School of Medicine said in a press release accompanied with the study. The research may suggest that pathogenic fungi can adapt to the planet's warmer temperatures as well – highlighting the danger of global warming.

"It is clear that in a warmer wetter world, we are going to be exposed to more [fungi] than ever before – signs of this were seen during Hurricane Katrina – and this is going to pose an increased public health stress," Fisher said.

"If we are going to really tackle climate change, we have to get more specific about the impact it has on public health," Rivera said.

The science behind the zombie fungus from 'The Last of Us' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

"The Colour out of Space" by H. P. Lovecraft

https://www.hplovecraft.com › writings › texts › fiction

Aug 20, 2009 — It was just a colour out of space—a frightful messenger from unformed realms of infinity beyond all Nature as we know it; from realms whose mere ...

Backlash over idea to use 'brain dead' women for surrogate pregnancies

Jennifer Savin
Mon, February 6, 2023 

Backlash at 'brain dead women' as surrogates ideaGetty Images

An idea put forward by a professor to help those struggling with fertility issues has been met with major backlash: Professor Anna Smajdor suggested that 'brain dead women' could have their bodies used to house surrogate pregnancies for those unable, or unwilling, to carry a baby of their own.

Some objecting raised concerns that, should the hypothetical proposal ever be put in place in the real world, that women could have their bodies used without consent, however this is not the case put forward by Smajdor in her study (which was published in the medical journal Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). Due to some viral tweets on the matter, some of which appear to be ill-informed due to poorly worded tabloid stories, it's certainly sparked a wider conversation on the ethics around surrogacy and organ donation.

The associate professor floats the idea of a set-up similar to the organ donor register, in that a woman would need to consent to having her body used for pregnancy prior to such a thing taking place. Smajdor calls her idea "whole body gestational donation" or WBGD – and says it is one "deserves serious consideration". The idea was also shared by the Colombian Medical College, who later backtracked and apologised for doing so.

In her paper, Smajdor argues that "we already know pregnancies can be successfully carried to term in brain dead women" and suggests "there is no obvious medical reason why initiating such pregnancies would not be possible", referencing the question of ethics within the world of surrogacy as it exists today.

Getty Images

Continuing on, the professor said, "Since we are happy to accept that organ donors are dead enough to donate, we should have no objections to WBGD on these grounds. WBGD donors are as dead as other donors – no more, no less. Since we are happy to prolong the somatic survival of already pregnant brain-dead women, to initiate pregnancy among eligible brain-dead donors should not trouble us unduly.

"Of course, this proposal may seem shocking to some people. Nevertheless, as I have shown, if we accept that our current approach to organ donation and reproductive medicine are sound, WBGD donation seems to follow relatively smoothly from procedures that we are already undertaking separately."

The definition of brain dead (via the NHS) is "a person who is brain dead is legally confirmed as dead, they have no chance of recovery because their body is unable to survive without artificial life support".

Tweeting about the proposal from Smajdor, one person said, "Do we really live in a time where as a cis woman I have to state if I'm ever in a coma and ruled 'brain dead' I do not condone/consent/want my body to be used to grow babies as a surrogate? Denying my humanity and using me as a host? A strong no!"

Another, actor Nathalie Emmanuel, also commented on the proposal, tweeting, "Today, I saw a headline in the UK about whether women who are 'brain dead' could have their bodies used to grow babies in their bodies as surrogates without their consent. A second about prisoners in the US potentially being able to reduce their sentence by donating organs… We are done for. This is some dystopian… sci-fi… scary sh*t. This was too much for one day." [N.B: In Smajdor's proposal, consent would need to be obtained from women before any attempt at a surrogate pregnancy]

Colombian member of Congress, Jennifer Pedraza, described the argument as misogynistic, saying, "Women are not utensils to be thrown away after use, women have human rights, even if some people forget this."

Others raised concerns over how healthy a pregnancy via a surrogate in such poor health could really be.

The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution by ...

https://teoriaevolutiva.files.wordpress.com › firest...

PDF

In THE DIALECTIC OF SEX: THE CASE FOR FEMINIST. REVOLUTION, Shulamith Firestone cuts into the prejudice against women (and children)--amplified through the.

130 pages

The Dialectic of Sex, after the Post-1960s | Cultural Politics

https://read.dukeupress.edu › cultural-politics › article › T...

by M Lane-McKinley · 2019 · Cited by 3 — A key artifact of the political contradictions and utopian problematics of women's liberation and the tradition of radical feminism at the ...

Shulamith Firestone: The Dialectic of Sex - Brooklyn Institute ...

https://thebrooklyninstitute.com › Current Courses

In 1970, at the age of 25, Firestone published her utopian manifesto The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution before disappearing forever from the ...

CRISPR CRITTER

Scientists are modifying catfish with alligator DNA to create hybrids for human consumption

Hannah Getahun
Sun, February 5, 2023 

Getty Images

Scientists at Auburn University injected alligator DNA into farm-raised catfish.

The scientists found that the fish were more resistant to disease and less likely to reproduce.

They hope the new and less disease-prone catfish will one day be sold for human consumption.

Life finds a way: Geneticists have created disease-resistant catfish using alligator DNA — and they may one day become a part of our diet.

A group of scientists at Auburn University published a paper in January detailing their efforts to genetically modify catfish with the cathelicidin gene of an alligator.

Cathelicidin, found in the intestines, is an antimicrobial peptide responsible for helping organisms fight diseases.

The gene, which was added using CRISPR, heightened disease resistance among the catfish in comparison to wild catfish. Researchers noted that the survival rates of the catfish were "two- and five-fold higher" in an interview with MIT Technology Review.

Because researchers added the cathelicidin to a gene for a reproductive hormone, it also reduced the catfish's ability to reproduce, which they said was important to prevent genetic contamination of the hybrid fish with wild catfish.

The authors noted some uncertainties in using CRISPR technology — primarily used and studied in mammals— on fish. The paper has not yet been peer-reviewed.

However, researchers hope that the alligator and catfish gene-editing can be used in tandem with other catfish breeding techniques to help farmers with their catfish yields.

In 2021, an estimated 307 million pounds of live catfish were produced in the US, primarily in the south. Catfish make up over 50% of US demand for farm-raised fish.

The process of farming them is resource-intensive. Diseases spread among catfish due to lack of space on the farms where they're raised. Around 45% of catfish fingerlings die as a result of infectious diseases. Fish in general are also becoming less resistant to antibiotics.

Although consumers may be uncomfortable with the idea of their catfish sharing DNA with an alligator, Rex Dunham and Baofeng Su, two of the lead researchers of the study, told MTR that the hybrid meat would be perfectly safe.

"I would eat it in a heartbeat," Dunham told MTR.

CRISPR CRITTER
Scientists Are Reincarnating The Woolly Mammoth To Return In 4 Years

Tim Newcomb
Sun, February 5, 2023

Scientists Reincarnating the Woolly Mammoth

TheCrimsonMonkey - Getty Images

Colossal recently added $60 million in funding to move toward a 2027 de-extinction of the woolly mammoth.

The Dallas-based company is now working to edit the genes for the reincarnation of the mammal.


Colossal planned to reintroduce the woolly mammoth into Russia, but that may shift.

The long-dead woolly mammoth will make its return from extinction by 2027, says Colossal, the biotech company actively working to reincarnate the ancient beast.

Last year, the Dallas-based firm scored an additional $60 million in funding to continue the, well, mammoth gene-editing work it started in 2021. If successful, not only will Colossal bring back an extinct species—one the company dubs a cold-resistant elephant—but it will also reintroduce the woolly mammoth to the same ecosystem in which it once lived in an effort to fight climate change, according to a recent Medium post.

Colossal calls the woolly mammoth’s vast migration patterns an active part of preserving the health of the Arctic, and so bringing the animal back to life can have a beneficial impact on the health of the world’s ecosystem. While Colossal originally hoped to reintroduce the woolly mammoth into Siberia, the company may explore other options based on the current political framework of the world.

The woolly mammoth’s DNA is a 99.6 percent match of the Asian elephant, which leads Colossal to believe it’s well on its way toward achieving its goal. “In the minds of many, this creature is gone forever,” the company says. “But not in the minds of our scientists, nor the labs of our company. We’re already in the process of the de-extinction of the Woolly Mammoth. Our teams have collected viable DNA samples and are editing the genes that will allow this wonderful megafauna to once again thunder through the Arctic.”

Through gene editing, Colossal scientists will eventually create an embryo of a woolly mammoth. They will place the embryo in an African elephant to take advantage of its size and allow it to give birth to the new woolly mammoth. The eventual goal is to then repopulate parts of the Arctic with the new woolly mammoth and strengthen local plant life with the migration patterns and dietary habits of the beast.

If Colossal proves successful on reincarnating the woolly mammoth—ditto the thylacine, also known as the Tasmanian tiger—expect a variety of new ethical questions to arise on how to handle the creature and potential reintroduction issues.

What is the lawsuit against CVS and Walmart? Chains targeted over homeopathic product sales

Bailey Schulz, USA TODAY
Mon, February 6, 2023

Looking for a cold remedy at your local pharmacy? Be careful what you choose: Experts warn that some options on the shelves may be no better than sugar pills.

CVS and Walmart are in the midst of a court battle for selling FDA-approved, over-the-counter medications alongside homeopathic products, a form of alternative medicine based on diluted ingredients.

The Center for Inquiry, the nonprofit that filed the lawsuits, argues that this sort of product placement is misleading and presents homeopathic products as equivalent alternatives to science-based medicines.

There is little evidence that shows homeopathic products are effective, according to the National Institutes of Health. And while experts say most are harmless, the Food and Drug Administration warns that it cannot ensure their safety or effectiveness.

“Over-the-counter medication has to have been proven safe and effective for the condition that it's purported to treat,” said Kelly Karpa, a former pharmacist and a professor in East Tennessee State University's department of medical education. “(Whereas homeopathic products) had their own set of conditions under which they can be marketed. They kind of bypassed all of that safety and efficacy.”

Gas stove bans explained: Are natural gas stoves actually a 'hazard'? Why are they suddenly controversial?

Fed interest rate decision: Central bank hikes by 0.25 percentage point to tame inflation
What are homeopathic medicinal products?

Homeopathy is an alternative medical practice first developed in the late 1700s. Practitioners believe that a substance that causes symptoms in a healthy person can be used to treat symptoms and illnesses, according to the FDA.

For example: Since cutting onions can make eyes water, a homeopathic treatment for itching or watering eyes would be diluted red onion.

Unlike pharmacology, which follows the idea that a higher dosage usually leads to a greater response, homeopathy believes that the more diluted a substance, the more potent it is.

The concern some medical professionals have is that homeopathy products may contain toxic substances that are not diluted enough.

"The good thing about most of the products is that most of them are safe because they're so diluted," said Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor in the department of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University Medical Center. But if it fails to weaken a toxic substance enough, "that could be an issue."

Sunscreen recall: Banana Boat expands sunscreen spray recall over cancer-causing chemical benzene
Is homeopathic medicine effective?

A 2015 paper from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council based on 176 individual studies found “no health conditions for which there was reliable evidence that homeopathy was effective."

“Homeopathy had never had any hardcore data behind it that was consistent with what we currently recognize as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that clearly indicates efficacy,” Karpa said.

Fugh-Berman notes that most homeopathic products are harmless and may even provide a placebo effect, but she has issues with them being sold on store shelves alongside FDA-approved medications.

“Homeopathic preparations should be available for those who know what they are and want to use them, but no one should inadvertently buy sugar pills,” she said.

In this Nov. 5, 2020 file photo, a woman pushes a shopping cart to enter a Walmart in Rolling Meadows, Ill.

Fed slows pace of rate hikes: Fed raises rates a quarter point. What that means for your finances.
Are homeopathic products FDA approved?

Homeopathic products are typically labeled as homeopathic and have ingredients listed in terms of dilution, such as 1x or 2c.

The FDA warns that there are currently no products labeled as homeopathic that are FDA-approved, and says the agency cannot ensure these drugs meet standards for safety, effectiveness, and quality. Nevertheless, sales have increased in recent years.

The agency in December said it intends to prioritize enforcement and regulatory actions for certain homeopathic products that "potentially pose a higher risk to public health."

There have been safety issues with homeopathic products in the past. In 2017, the FDA sent out a note that it had found elevated levels of the toxic substance belladonna in certain homeopathic teething tablets.

The following year, the agency alerted consumers to a recall of certain homeopathic products for humans and pets because of microbial contamination.

“I used to look at homeopathic products as: It probably won't hurt you. Even if it's just a placebo, it might help you,” Karpa said. But “there's also a risk of delaying appropriate treatment. And I think that in and of itself can be harmful.”

Samsung smartphone: Samsung's new Galaxy S23 smartphones boast new processors, better cameras

Exxon Mobil earnings: Exxon Mobil reports record annual profits for 2022; White House calls earnings 'outrageous'
What’s the status of CFI’s lawsuits?

Last month, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied requests for a rehearing from CVS and Walmart.

“We disagree with the ruling,” reads a statement from Marci Burks, director of corporate affairs for Walmart. “We take allegations like these seriously and look forward to defending this case in the Superior Court.”

CVS did not respond to a request for comment.

Nick Little, vice president and general counsel for the Center for Inquiry (CFI), says if the case does go to trial, that likely won't occur until late this year or early 2024.

"The individual stores are responsible for how they market (these products), how they represent them to customers," Little said. "We want to see all the major chains make this change."

You can follow USA TODAY reporter Bailey Schulz on Twitter @bailey_schulz and subscribe to our free Daily Money newsletter here for personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: CVS, Walmart sued over homeopathic products. What are they?

Finally, Some Good News About Egg Prices

Dennis Lee
Mon, February 6, 2023 

hands holding eggs at grocery store

Just when we thought we’d be paying high prices for eggs forever, there’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon: NPR reports that wholesale egg prices are finally starting to come back down. Citing data from the USDA, NPR says that in the Midwest, the wholesale price for a dozen eggs dropped $0.58 to a total of $3.29 per dozen at the end of January.

Note that these are wholesale prices, which means you might not have seen much improvement in your grocery bill just yet. But if this trend continues, you should see some relief at the supermarket soon. Bakers and breakfast lovers, rejoice.

The initial cause of the jump in egg prices was due to a 2022 avian flu outbreak, which ripped through domestic egg-laying bird populations. In many cases, entire flocks were culled, causing supplies to drop drastically—which, in turn, caused the price of the remaining eggs to spike. Unfortunately, the outbreak is still in progress, with no clear end in sight.

This particular strain of the avian flu has been particularly unforgiving. Typically wild birds afflicted with the virus don’t usually see much sickness, but poultry scientist Phillip Clauer at Penn State College of Agricultural Science told NPR that the current outbreak is different.

“We’re seeing symptoms and we’re seeing mortality in some of the wild birds,” Clauer said. “This time around, it’s more deadly.”

Despite the nastiness of the outbreak, no one should be worried that it will cause widespread illness among humans. The avian flu doesn’t often jump to people, and though one person in Colorado was reported infected last spring, they were largely asymptomatic and recovered with the aid of antiviral medication.

So why has it taken so long for things to level off? Well, when a flock gets destroyed, farmers need to start practically from scratch, starting from chicks, which can take 16 to 18 weeks, according to Dr. Yuko Sato, a veterinarian at Iowa State University. Essentially the market is recovering from an unwelcome jolt in the system, and it can’t do so any faster than its current pace.

It’s also likely that we’ll never really see bargain-bin prices for eggs anymore, even after poultry populations recover. Inflation is still an ongoing issue, so baseline prices are still likely to be higher than we all remember from the good ol’ days (remember a dollar a dozen, anyone?). Still, we’ll take relief where we can get it, so keep an eye out at the grocery store. As for me, I think I’ll celebrate with an egg salad sandwich.

 The Takeout

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/02/fact-focus-egg-shortage-breeds-chicken.html

FACT FOCUS: Egg shortage breeds chicken-feed conspiracies

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2023/02/major-leap-in-bird-virus-threatens-yet.html

‘Major Leap’ in Bird Virus Threatens Yet Another Pandemic

UK

Does the egg shortage spell the end for brunch? For the sake of the chickens, I hope so

Emma Beddington
Sun, 5 February 2023 

Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

Is brunch over? I hope so – like afternoon tea, it’s a stupid meal, sabotaging two perfectly good ones. Then there’s the queueing, all that sourdough massacring your soft palate, and dribbles of hollandaise, horribly reminiscent of baby posset. None of this has stopped people, but perhaps egg shortages will.

The UK egg drought never quite reached pandemic pasta proportions, but rationing was widespread through November and supply has not wholly recovered. The United States is now in the grip of acute shortages, with 60% year-on-year price rises, a dozen eggs reportedly reaching $18.

Why? Bird flu, of course, has meant huge culls of commercial flocks. But farmers say increased costs are equally, or more, to blame – energy and feed (the cost of raw materials has risen by 90% since 2019, according to the National Farmers’ Union). Major retailers remain unwilling to pay farmers a sustainable price for their goods – increased retail prices aren’t reflected in what farmers are getting – meaning many have concluded egg production is not economically viable.

I have hopes for the egg shortages and they go beyond outlawing hollandaise. The serious one is that it would be amazing if they let us face, and even challenge, the reality of intensive egg production. Is this a bait and switch: brunch provocation for hen welfare? Yes, sorry. But it is grim and it matters: “enriched” cages (giving each bird no more than a sheet of A4’s worth of space according to the RSPCA) are still legal and deprive birds of their natural scratching, flapping, dust-bathing behaviours. Barn-raised birds fracture bones moving around because they’re bred too heavy (86% of them, according to Henry Mance’s How to Love Animals). Then, regardless of the farming system, billions of male chicks are killed because there’s no use for them.

Hens aren’t supposed to produce eggs all year round. In the American hen-keeper and journalist Tove Danovich’s imminent book Under the Henfluence, she explains that, historically, “winter eggs” were a rare luxury, four or five times as expensive as summer ones. Now, artificial lighting keeps layers productive, giving us eggs on tap. That takes such a toll, UK producers only keep their hens for 72 weeks, on average. They aren’t sent to a sun-dappled orchard to peck out the rest of their days under the trees, if you’re wondering.

Cheap food has unacceptably high costs. Is that as bad as children dying from mould and malnutrition? Of course not. Millions of people don’t have the luxury of choice – especially now – and no one struggling to feed themselves and their loved ones should be thinking about this stuff. The problem is structural: our system is inhumane and it’s a disaster in waiting; a disaster that may have already happened. At minimum, intensive production has been instrumental in spreading the current, catastrophic bird flu strain.

My sillier hope is that, as the end times draw seemingly closer, backyard chicken keepers like me become the supply cornering barons of apocalypse narratives. I imagine myself sitting in a heavily guarded enclave, wearing a feathered cloak and stroking a pekin bantam, receiving supplicants hoping to exchange their treasured possessions (petrol, jewels, cashmere) for a single, precious egg. Finally, my girls would earn their keep and eggs would get their lustre back. Imagine how you’d revere an egg if it was as rare and luxurious as a truffle: imagine how differently you’d view the creature that produced it?

The only problem: my hens aren’t laying. They’re young, it’s winter and I chose them for aesthetics (they look like murderous Hollywood golden age widows), not productivity. In spring, they might manage an egg or two a day – between the six of them – at best. Since theirs are the only eggs I eat now, each one is a tiny miracle and a source of celebration. I’m fine with that. I don’t keep them for eggs, but because they’re funny, endearing and delightful to watch: they love digging for worms or dustbathing, wings spread in the sun; they have personalities and preferences. That’s how I know all hens deserve better.

• Emma Beddington is a Guardian columnist

Webb Telescope Spots a Small Asteroid From 62 Million Miles Away

Isaac Schultz
Mon, February 6, 2023 

An artist's illustration of the small, distant asteroid.

One of the solar system’s 1.1-million-plus asteroids was recently spotted by the Webb Space Telescope, from a distance of about 62 million miles. The asteroid is relatively small, making it a showcase of the new space observatory’s sharp vision.

The object is between 328 feet and 656 feet across, putting it in the same ballpark as the moonlet Dimorphos or the Roman Colosseum. Dimorphos is the space rock struck by NASA’s DART mission in September.

These objects are pretty small by asteroid standards. Asteroids can be 600 miles wide, according to Britannica, and the newly spotted one is among the smallest ever detected in the main belt.

Webb and the Hubble Space Telescope both observed the aftermath of the DART impact, showing that the space-based observatories can see such small bodies. But Dimorphos and its larger companion, Didymos, are just 6.8 million miles away. (Just.) The newly imaged asteroid is nearly 10 times more distant.

Researchers using Webb data were not searching for the asteroid; they happened upon it in calibration data from the MIRI instrument, Webb’s mid-infrared imager. MIRI was imaging a main-belt asteroid named 10920 1998 BC1, which was discovered 25 years ago. The smaller body of the newfound asteroid intervened.

An artist’s concept of Dimorphos and the Colosseum. The newly discovered asteroid is about the same size.

“We — completely unexpectedly — detected a small asteroid in publicly available MIRI calibration observations,” said Thomas Müller, an astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany, in an ESA release. “The measurements are some of the first MIRI measurements targeting the ecliptic plane and our work suggests that many, new objects will be detected with this instrument.”

To confirm that the object is indeed a previously unknown asteroid, the team will do followup studies on some of the background stars in the MIRI image, to get a better idea of the object’s orbit. Those studies may turn up yet more hitherto-unknown, petite planetesimals.

“This is a fantastic result which highlights the capabilities of MIRI to serendipitously detect a previously undetectable size of asteroid in the main belt,” said Bryan Holler, Webb support scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute, in the ESA release. “Repeats of these observations are in the process of being scheduled, and we are fully expecting new asteroid interlopers in those images!”

Dedicated—that is to say, intentional—observations of very small bodies in the future could see Webb spotting asteroids less than a kilometer across, according to the same release.

Given that Webb was designed to see clear across the universe, to some of the oldest light we can see, it is a marvel that it can also view objects so small as well.

More: New Hubble and Webb Images Capture Aftermath of DART Asteroid Smash Up

Gizmodo

WAITING FOR GODEL
Do we live in a rotating universe? If we did, we could travel back in time


Paul Sutter
Mon, February 6, 2023 

Does the universe rotate?

We know that planets rotate, but what about the universe as a whole? No, the universe doesn't appear to rotate; if it did, time travel into the past might be possible.

Although people throughout antiquity had argued that the heavens rotate around the world, in 1949, mathematician Kurt Gödel was the first to provide a modern formulation of a rotating universe. He used the language of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity to do so, as a way of honoring his friend and neighbor at Princeton, Einstein himself.

But this process of academic "honoring" went in a different direction than you might suspect, because Gödel used the example of a rotating universe to show that general relativity was incomplete.

Related: Was Einstein wrong? The case against space-time theory

Gödel's model of a rotating universe was rather artificial. Besides the rotation, his universe contained only one ingredient: a negative cosmological constant that resisted the centrifugal force of that rotation to keep the universe static.

But the artificial nature of that universe didn't bother Gödel. Instead, his main point was that general relativity allowed for the possibility of a rotating universe at all. And Gödel used his rotating universe to show that general relativity allowed for time travel into the past, which should be forbidden.
Taking the universe out for a spin

Living in a rotating universe would be strange indeed. For one, all observers would consider themselves the center of rotation. This means that if you parked yourself somewhere and ensured that you were absolutely still, you would see the universe wheeling around you. But if you picked up and moved anywhere else, even to a distant galaxy, you would always still see the universe rotating around your new position.

This is incredibly hard to visualize, but it's not much different from the idea that in an expanding universe, all observers see themselves as the center of expansion.

The farther you go from any one observer, the greater the rate of rotation. And this isn't merely a rotation of stuff but a rotation of space-time itself. This means that light, which is always forced to follow the curvature of space-time, makes for some strange journeys. A beam of light sent out from an observer will curve away as it gets swept up in the rotation of space-time. At some distant point, the rotation will be too much, and the light will turn around and return to the observer.

This means there's a limit to how far you can see in a rotating universe, and beyond that, all you'll observe is duplicate images of your own past self.

This strange behavior doesn't apply only to light. If you were to get in a rocket and blast off through a rotating universe, you, too, would get caught up in the rotation. And because of that rotation, your movement would double back on itself. When you returned to your starting point, however, you would find yourself arriving before you had left.

In a manner of speaking, a rotating universe would be capable of rotating your future into your own past, allowing you to travel back in time.
Sitting still

This was Gödel's major objection to general relativity. That theory, being our ultimate understanding of space and time, should not allow for backward time travel, because time travel into the past violates our notions of causality and introduces all sorts of nasty time-travel paradoxes. The fact that relativity did not automatically make time travel impossible signaled to Gödel that Einstein's theory was incomplete.

Thankfully, we see no signs that we live in a rotating universe. If the cosmos were rotating, then light coming from opposite directions of the sky would be redshifted in one direction and have an equivalent amount of blueshifting in the other. Astronomers have applied this test to surveys of distant galaxies and even to the cosmic microwave background, which is the light left over from when the cosmos was only 380,000 years old. The conclusion of these tests is that if the universe is rotating, it's doing so at a rate of less than 10^-17 degrees per century.

Related stories:

— Is time travel possible?

— Why time-traveling tachyons probably don't exist

— What is the grandfather paradox?

But Gödel's objection still stands. Since 1949, physicists have concocted other ways for general relativity to allow for backward time travel, wormholes, faster-than-light-speed "warp drive" (known as Alcubierre drive), and special paths around infinitely long cylinders. But all those contrivances rely on some sort of exotic physics that breaks our understanding of how the universe works, like matter with negative mass.

But Gödel's rotating universe is simply a matter of observational test, not a fundamental break with known physics. We could have found ourselves in a rotating universe just as easily as we find ourselves in an expanding one. There's nothing in our knowledge of physics that prevents this kind of universe from existing, so there's nothing in our knowledge of physics that prevents backward time travel.

Perhaps Gödel is right, and we have more to learn about the universe.

Learn more by listening to the "Ask A Spaceman" podcast, available on iTunes and askaspaceman.com. Ask your own question on Twitter using #AskASpaceman or by following Paul @PaulMattSutter and facebook.com/PaulMattSutter.

Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or on Facebook.

Sam Smith Needs to Burn Their Devil Top Hat, Immediately

Coleman Spilde
Mon, February 6, 2023 

Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

Conservative Twitter mouthpieces spent last night tightening their arthritis braces and clacking away at their phone screens for hours, following Sam Smith’s three-minute performance at the Grammys. Smith and fellow queer pop sensation Kim Petras joined forces on music’s biggest stage to perform their hit song “Unholy,” amidst waves of pyrotechnics and dancers clad in entirely red outfits with long, black wigs.

The number was a clear attempt to generate a little buzz by harkening back to a time when pop stars were actually inflammatory, not just playing dress-up with different aesthetics. Madonna—one such legitimately provocative artist—said as much when she introduced the performance: “Are you ready for a little controversy?”

Apparently, some people were indeed ready for a Sam Smith squabble!

“Demons are teaching your kids to worship Satan,” conservative podcaster Liz Wheeler tweeted after the performance. “I could throw up.” Meanwhile, the performance itself was about as blasphemous as a case of the church giggles. It was all show, with no story or clear concept. In fact, the most offensive thing about Smith's brief tenure on stage was something that most people seem to be overlooking: their god-awfully ugly hat.

After Petras performed her verse—the sole, marginally listenable part of “Unholy”—the telecast cameras cut back to Smith at center stage, now donning a red top hat with devil horns on it. It is perhaps one of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen a pop star wear, and I was there when Kesha was still braiding feathers into her hair, so that’s saying something. Meanwhile, Twitter was buzzing before the ceremony even began, with users calling the (cute!) jumpsuit Harry Styles wore on the red carpet a “clown costume.” And to that I say, I see your Ringling Brothers circus jumpsuit and raise you Sam Smith looking like a Super Mario villain.

It’s not that I don’t understand the purpose of the hat within the performance’s flimsy context. It’s just that it’s so damn hideous that it doesn’t matter. The hat interferes with Smith’s undeniable vocal talent! When I see that hat come out, everything else around it goes black. I can only make out the blurry silhouette of a ridiculous top hat with devil horns.

From Cringey Fans to Baffling Wins, the Grammys Fumbled the Bag Yet Again

Not one person has ever looked good in a top hat, and certainly not one worn smack-diddly-doo atop their noggin. Even Marlene Dietrich had the good sense to tilt that shit 45 degrees! I’m unsure as to why Sam Smith thinks that adding some corny, Halloweeny iconography to their look is going to be the thing that really ties it all together.

If this was the first time we had seen this hat, I could forgive the faux pas. Hell, I could even let them off with a warning if it were the second. But this is the third time I’ve had to bear witness to a version of this millinery monstrosity. And my patience is wearing thin! This ghastly chapeau is just the latest entry into Sam Smith’s canon of public-facing style that’s beginning to verge on the Billy Porter-ian. Smith and Porter both seem to enjoy the sensation of raiding a high school drama department’s costume collection and throwing on whatever they can find for an appearance. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not.

I feel I should note here that, when it comes to Smith’s personal style, I actually enjoy most of their outfit choices. Their Instagram account is awash in things that I would absolutely wear myself, and I have so much respect for their bravery when it comes to dressing. It’s not easy, by any means, to be a queer person and step out in whatever you want.

And I’ll even give some credence to the abhorrent top hat for being a non-gendered accessory. It’s not the typically hetero-male backward cap, and it doesn’t have the soft-yet-fluid femininity of something like a beret. Hats are hats; they should be free of a rigid and outdated perception of gender. But unfortunately, that’s not necessarily how it works. And the result that Smith has given us, while seemingly trying to find a middle ground, is the worst of both worlds.

Sam Smith Haters, Admit It: Their Transformation Is Glorious

Smith’s Grammy outfit was the latest topic in the weeks of debate over their fashion choices. I have no interest in contributing to the reductive and useless diatribe that has been permeating the cultural conversation when it comes to Smith’s style. Their most recent music video, for their new song “I’m Not Here to Make Friends,” has sparked debate over Smith’s choice to wear a corset that leaves their chest uncovered. Anyone looking to police someone else’s body won’t find an ally here. If you’re concerned about that, you’ve got much more pressing issues to address than the devil-horned top hat.

However, I will do all I can to fight against this hellish helmet. If I never see the horned top hat again, it will still be too soon. If I had to guess, I’d say that the conceit behind Smith and Petras’ Grammy performance was to allude to conservative media’s damning of their respective queer identities as demonic—“unholy,” if you will. If that’s the case, the actual execution was severely lacking in the proper visual and aesthetic cohesion to pull that off. But hey, I guess that in the end, it still did the job.


Smith managed to piss people off with even the most lacking of sartorial taste. Leave it to the right-wing “spokespeople” and their legions of followers who spent $8 on Twitter Blue verified checkmarks to be baited by Party City couture.