PCS Wins Historic Battle Against Government Departments in the UK Supreme Court

21st November 2024Leave a Commenton PCS Wins Historic Battle Against Government Departments in the Supreme Court

“The attack on check-off was a naked attempt by the coalition government to bankrupt our union, thereby denying PCS members a collective voice in the workplace. It was a shameful period in the history of industrial relations in the civil service.”

Fran Heathcote, PCS Union General Secretary

The PCS Union has today (20 November) won a stunning victory in the Supreme Court against government departments that withdrew the check-off facility. The victory opens the door for the union to now claim substantial further damages.

In 2013, the then Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition government began its attempt to bankrupt PCS by removing check-off. The facility enabled members to have their union dues deducted from their salary by their employer, who then handed them over to the union. The government hoped that by withdrawing the facility, the union would go out of business.

Magnificent fightback

They were wrong. In a magnificent fightback by PCS members, representatives and staff, our members recommitted to the union in overwhelming numbers by signing up to direct debit to pay their subscriptions.

However, PCS took a significant financial hit in respect of members who did not re-sign. Accordingly, we pursued legal action over the issue, asserting that our members had a contractual right to check-off and that PCS was entitled to sue for damages as a third party to the contract.

We won a series of High Court victories against the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs, Home Office and Defra. The DWP settled the litigation by paying PCS £3million in damages. The other departments decided not to settle and took the case to the Court of Appeal.

In May 2023, the Court Of Appeal unanimously upheld the decisions in the courts below that our members had a contractual right to check-off. However, by a majority decision, they allowed an appeal from the employer to the effect that PCS was not entitled to enforce those contracts, closing off our route to further damages.

We appealed that element of the judgment to the Supreme Court. Today, five law lords of the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Court of Appeal majority had erred in its judgement; and confirmed that PCS is entitled to enforce the contracts, thereby reopening our route to further damages.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and there are no arguments in this case put forward by either side which fall within the jurisdiction of any international court. The legal arguments on the substantive issues are therefore at an end and, after a battle lasting more than a decade, we have comprehensively defeated the employer on all of them.

Damages to be determined

The only question now to be determined is how much the union will recover in damages.

After every victory in the courts, PCS wrote to the Cabinet Office asking them to engage in negotiations to settle this matter. They steadfastly refused to do so and the employer is now faced with a costly and unnecessary legal bill, on top of whatever damages that they will now need to pay the union.

We will again be writing to the Cabinet Office asking for central engagement to settle this matter once and for all.

Total vindication

Commenting on the victory, PCS General Secretary, Fran Heathcote, said: “Today’s decision in the Supreme Court is a total vindication of our position. The highest court in the land has comprehensively rejected the arguments put forward by the employer and has confirmed we were right.

“The attack on check-off was a naked attempt by the coalition government to bankrupt our union, thereby denying PCS members a collective voice in the workplace. It was a shameful period in the history of industrial relations in the civil service. We hope that the new government will signal its intent to improve matters by now doing the right thing and agreeing appropriate damages with us.

“I pay tribute to all PCS members, representatives and staff who saw off this attack. Our decade-long legal battle through the courts demonstrates our determination to ensure that our union will leave no stone unturned in fighting for justice.”

Ann Rooney, the lawyer at Thompsons Solicitors representing PCS, said: “This is a huge victory for PCS and its members. The decision sends a strong message to employers that they can’t just tear up agreements that workers rely on. It’s a win for fairness and for every union member who counts on their union to stand up for them.”

---

• You can read more about the ruling on the landmark case with this explainer by Thompsons Solicitors.
• You can follow the PCS members on Facebook, Twitter/X and Instagram.
• This article was originally published by the PCS Union on 20 November 2024.

Trump’s Election Is Also a Win for Tech’s Right-Wing “Warrior Class”

Silicon Valley has successfully rebranded military contracting as a proud national duty for the industry.

By Sam Biddle

November 17, 2024

Source: The Intercept




Donald Trump pitched himself to voters as a supposed anti-interventionist candidate of peace. But when he reenters the White House in January, at his side will be a phalanx of pro-military Silicon Valley investors, inventors, and executives eager to build the most sophisticated weapons the world has ever known.

During his last term, the U.S. tech sector tiptoed skittishly around Trump; longtime right-winger Peter Thiel stood as an outlier in his full-throated support of MAGA politics as other investors and executives largely winced and smiled politely. Back then, Silicon Valley still offered the public peaceful mission statements of improving the human condition, connecting people, and organizing information. Technology was supposed to help, never harm. No more: People like Thiel, Palmer Luckey, Trae Stephens, and Marc Andreessen make up a new vanguard of powerful tech figures who have unapologetically merged right-wing politics with a determination to furnish a MAGA-dominated United States with a constant flow of newer, better arms and surveillance tools.


Trump’s election marks an epochal victory not just for the right, but also for a growing conservative counterrevolution in American tech.

These men (as they tend to be) hold much in common beyond their support of Republican candidates: They share the belief that China represents an existential threat to the United States (an increasingly bipartisan belief, to be sure) and must be dominated technologically and militarily at all costs. They are united in their aversion, if not open hostility, to arguments that the pace of invention must be balanced against any moral consideration beyond winning. And they all stand to profit greatly from this new tech-driven arms race.

Trump’s election marks an epochal victory not just for the right, but also for a growing conservative counterrevolution in American tech that has successfully rebranded military contracting as the proud national duty of the American engineer, not a taboo to be dodged and hidden. Meta’s recent announcement that its Llama large language model can now be used by defense customers means that Apple is the last of the “Big Five” American tech firms — Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Meta — not engaged in military or intelligence contracting.

Elon Musk has drawn the lion’s share of media scrutiny (and Trump world credit) for throwing his fortune and digital influence behind the campaign. Over the years, the world’s richest man has become an enormously successful defense contractor via SpaceX, which has reaped billions selling access to rockets that the Pentagon hopes will someday rapidly ferry troops into battle. SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet has also become an indispensable American military tool, and the company is working on a constellation of bespoke spy satellites for U.S. intelligence agency use.

But Musk is just one part of a broader wave of militarists who will have Trump’s ear on policy matters.

After election day, Musk replied to a celebratory tweet from Palmer Luckey, a founder of Anduril, a $14 billion startup that got its start selling migrant-detecting surveillance towers for the southern border and now manufactures a growing line of lethal drones and missiles. “Very important to open DoD/Intel to entrepreneurial companies like yours,” Musk wrote. Anduril’s rise is inseparable from Trumpism: Luckey founded the firm in 2017 after he was fired by Meta for contributing to a pro-Trump organization. He has been outspoken in his support for Trump as both candidate and president, fundraising for him in both 2020 and 2024.

Big Tech historically worked hard to be viewed by the public as inhabiting the center-left, if not being apolitical altogether. But even that is changing. While Luckey was fired for merely supporting Trump’s first campaign, his former boss (and former liberal) Mark Zuckerberg publicly characterized Trump surviving the June assassination attempt as “bad ass” and quickly congratulated the president-elect on a “decisive victory.” Zuckerberg added that he is “looking forward to working with you and your administration.”

To some extent, none of this is new: Silicon Valley’s origin is one of militarism. The American computer and software economy was nurtured from birth by the explosive growth and endless money of the Cold War arms race and its insatiable appetite for private sector R&D. And despite the popular trope of liberal Google executives, the tech industry has always harbored a strong anti-labor, pro-business instinct that dovetails neatly with conservative politics. It would also be a mistake to think that Silicon Valley was ever truly in lockstep with progressive values. A 2014 political ad by Americans for a Conservative Direction, a defunct effort by Facebook to court the Republican Party, warned that “it’s wrong to have millions of people living in America illegally” and urged lawmakers to “secure our borders so this never happens again.” The notion of the Democrat-friendly wing of Big Tech as dovish is equally wrong: Former Google chair and longtime liberal donor Eric Schmidt is a leading China hawk and defense tech investor. Similarly, the Democratic Party itself hasn’t meaningfully distanced itself from militarism in recent history. The current wave of startups designing smaller, cheaper military drones follows the Obama administration’s eager mass adoption of the technology, and firms like Anduril and Palantir have thrived under Joe Biden.

What has changed is which views the tech industry is now comfortable expressing out loud.

A year after Luckey’s ouster from the virtual reality subsidiary he founded, Google became embroiled in what grew into an industry-wide upheaval over military contracting. After it was reported that the company sought to win Project Maven, a lucrative drone-targeting contract, employees who had come to the internet titan to work on consumer products like Search, Maps, and Gmail found themselves disturbed by the thought of contributing to a system that could kill people. Waves of protests pushed Google to abandon the Pentagon with its tail between its legs. Even Fei-Fei Li, then Google Cloud’s chief artificial intelligence and machine learning scientist, described the contract as a source of shame in internal emails obtained by the New York Times. “Weaponized AI is probably one of the most sensitized topics of AI — if not THE most. This is red meat to the media to find all ways to damage Google,” she wrote. “I don’t know what would happen if the media starts picking up a theme that Google is secretly building AI weapons or AI technologies to enable weapons for the Defense industry.”

It’s an exchange that reads deeply quaint today. The notion that the country’s talented engineers should build weapons is becoming fully mainstreamed. “Societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims,” Luckey explained in an on-campus talk about his company’s contributions to the Ukrainian war effort with Pepperdine University President Jim Gash. “You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don’t lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom.”

This “warrior class” mentality traces its genealogy to Peter Thiel, whose disciples, like Luckey, spread the gospel of a conservative-led arms race against China. “Everything that we’re doing, what the [Department of Defense] is doing, is preparing for a conflict with a great power like China in the Pacific,” Luckey told Bloomberg TV in a 2023 interview. At the Reagan National Defense Forum in 2019, Thiel, a lifelong techno-libertarian and Trump’s first major backer in tech, rejected the “ethical framing” of the question of whether to build weapons.” When it’s a choice between the U.S. and China, it is always the ethical decision to work with the U.S. government,” he said. Though Sinophobia is increasingly standard across party affiliations, it’s particularly frothing in the venture-backed warrior class. In 2019, Thiel claimed that Google had been “infiltrated by Chinese intelligence” and two years later suggested that bitcoin is “a Chinese financial weapon against the U.S.”

Thiel often embodies the self-contradiction of Trumpist foreign policy, decrying the use of taxpayer money on “faraway wars” while boosting companies that design weapons for exactly that. Like Trump, Thiel is a vocal opponent of Bush- and Obama-era adventurism in the Middle East as a source of nothing but regional chaos — though Thiel has remained silent on Trump’s large expansion of the Obama administration’s drone program and his assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani. In July, asked about the Israeli use of AI in the ongoing slaughter in Gaza, Thiel responded, “I defer to Israel.”

Thiel’s gravitational pull is felt across the whole of tech’s realignment toward militarism. Vice President-elect JD Vance worked at Mithril, another of Thiel’s investment firms, and used $15 million from his former boss to fund the 2022 Senate win that secured his national political bona fides. Vance would later go on to invest in Anduril. Founders Fund, Thiel’s main venture capital firm, has seeded the tech sector with influential figures friendly to both Trumpism and the Pentagon. Before, an investor or CEO who publicly embraced right-wing ideology and products designed to kill risked becoming an industry pariah. Today, he can be a CNBC guest.

An earlier adopter of MAGA, Thiel was also investing in and creating military- and intelligence-oriented companies before it was cool. He co-founded Palantir, which got its start helping facilitate spy agency and deportation raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Now part of the S&P 500, the company helps target military strikes for Ukraine and in January sealed a “strategic partnership for battle tech” with the Israeli Ministry of Defense, according to a press release.


Before, a tech investor or CEO who publicly embraced right-wing ideology and products designed to kill risked becoming an industry pariah. Today, he can be a CNBC guest.

The ripple effect of Palantir’s success has helped popularize defense tech and solidify its union with the American right. Thiel’s Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, also an Anduril investor, is reportedly helping Trump staff his new administration. Former Palantir employee and Anduril executive chair Trae Stephens joined the Trump transition team in 2016 and has suggested he would serve a second administration. As a member of the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, Thiel ally Jacob Helberg has been instrumental in whipping up anti-China fervor on Capitol Hill, helping push legislation to ban TikTok, and arguing for military adoption of AI technologies like those sold by his employer, Palantir, which markets itself as a bulwark against Chinese aggression. Although Palantir CEO Alex Karp is a self-described Democrat who said he planned to vote against Trump, he has derided progressivism as a “thin pagan religion” of wokeness, suggested pro-Palestine college protesters leave for North Korea, and continually advocating for an American arms buildup.

“Trump has surrounded himself with ‘techno-optimists’ — people who believe technology is the answer to every problem,” Brianna Rosen, a strategy and policy fellow at the University of Oxford and alumnus of the Obama National Security Council, told The Intercept. “Key members of his inner circle — leading tech executives — describe themselves in this way. The risk of techno-optimism in the military domain is that it focuses on how technology saves lives, rather than the real risks associated with military AI, such as the accelerated pace of targeting.”

The worldview of this corner of the tech industry is loud, if not always consistent. Foreign entanglements are bad, but the United States must be on perpetual war-footing against China. China itself is dangerous in part because it’s rapidly weaponizing AI, a current that threatens global stability, so the United States should do the very same, even harder, absent regulatory meddling.

Stephens’s 2022 admonition that “the business of war is the business of deterrence” argues that “peaceful outcomes are only achievable if we maintain our technological advantage in weapons systems” — an argument that overlooks the fact that the U.S. military’s overwhelming technological superiority failed to keep it out of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. In a recent interview with Wired, Stephens both criticized the revolving door between the federal government and Anduril competitors like Boeing while also stating that “it’s important that people come out of private industry to work on civil service projects, and I hope at some point I’ll have the opportunity to go back in and serve the government and American people.”

William Fitzgerald, the founder of Worker Agency, a communications and advocacy firm that has helped tech workers organize against military contracts, said this square is easily circled by right-wing tech hawks, whose pitch is centered on the glacial incompetence of the Department of Defense and blue-chip contractors like Lockheed and Raytheon. “Peter Thiel’s whole thing is to privatize the state,” Fitzgerald explained. Despite all of the rhetoric about avoiding foreign entanglements, a high-tech arms race is conducive to different kinds of wars, not fewer of them. “This alignment fits this narrative that we can do cheaper wars,” he said. “We won’t lose the men over there because we’ll have these drones.”

In this view, the opposition of Thiel and his ilk isn’t so much to forever wars, then, but rather whose hardware is being purchased forever.

The new conservative tech establishment seems in full agreement about the need for an era of techno-militarism. Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, the namesakes of one of Silicon Valley’s most storied and successful venture capital firms, poured millions into Trump’s reelection and have pushed hard to reorient the American tech sector toward fighting wars. In a “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” published last October, Andreessen wrote of defense contracting as a moral imperative. “We believe America and her allies should be strong and not weak. We believe national strength of liberal democracies flows from economic strength (financial power), cultural strength (soft power), and military strength (hard power). Economic, cultural, and military strength flow from technological strength.” The firm knows full well what it’s evoking through a naked embrace of strength as society’s greatest virtue: Listed among the “Patron Saints of Techno-Optimism” is Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, co-author of the 1919 Fascist Manifesto.

The venture capitalists’ document offers a clear rebuttal of employees’ moral qualms that pushed Google to ditch Project Maven. The manifesto dismisses basic notions of “ethics,” “safety,” and “social responsibility” as a “demoralization campaign” of “zombie ideas, many derived from Communism” pushed by “the enemy.” This is rhetoric that matches a brand Trump has worked to cultivate: aspirationally hypermasculine, unapologetically jingoistic, and horrified by an America whose potential to dominate the planet is imperiled by meddling foreigners and scolding woke co-workers.

“There’s a lot more volatility in the world, [and] there is more of a revolt against what some would deem ‘woke culture,’” said Michael Dempsey, managing partner at the New York-based venture capital firm Compound. “It’s just more in the zeitgeist now that companies shouldn’t be so heavily influenced by personal politics. Obviously that is the tech industry talking out of both sides of their mouth because we saw in this past election a bunch of people get very political and make donations from their firms.”


“It’s just more in the zeitgeist now that companies shouldn’t be so heavily influenced by personal politics. Obviously that is the tech industry talking out of both sides of their mouth.”

Despite skewing young (by national security standards), many in this rightward, pro-military orbit are cultural and religious traditionalists infused with the libertarian preferences of the Zynternet, a wildly popular online content scene that’s melded apolitical internet bro culture and a general aversion to anything considered vaguely “woke.” A recent Vanity Fair profile of the El Segundo tech scene, a hotbed of the burgeoning “military Zyndustrial complex” commonly known as “the Gundo,” described the city as “California’s freedom-loving, Bible-thumping hub of hard tech.” It paints a vivid scene of young engineers who eschewed the progressive dystopia of San Francisco they read about on Twitter and instead flocked to build “nuclear reactors and military weaponry designed to fight China” beneath “an American flag the size of a dumpster” and “a life-size poster of Jesus Christ smiling benevolently onto a bench press below.”

The American right’s hold over online culture in the form of podcasts, streamers, and other youth-friendly media has been central to both retaking Washington and bulldozing post-Maven sentiment, according to William Fitzgerald of Worker Agency. “I gotta hand it to the VCs, they’re really good at comms,” said Fitzgerald, who himself is former Google employee who helped leak critical information about the company’s involvement in Project Maven. “They’re really making sure that these Gundo bros are wrapping the American flag around them. It’s been fascinating to see them from 2019 to 2024 completely changing the culture among young tech workers.”

A wave of layoffs and firings of employees engaged in anti-military protests have been a boon for defense evangelists, Fitzgerald added. “The workers have been told to shut up, or they get fired.”

This rhetoric has been matched by a massive push by Andreessen Horowitz (already an Anduril investor) behind the fund’s “American Dynamism” portfolio, a collection of companies that leans heavily into new startups hoping to be the next Raytheon. These investments include ABL Space Systems, already contracting with the Air Force,; Epirus, which makes microwave directed-energy weapons; and Shield AI, which works on autonomous military drones. Following the election, David Ulevitch, who leads the fund’s American Dynamism team, retweeted a celebratory video montage interspersed with men firing flamethrowers, machine guns, jets, Hulk Hogan, and a fist-pumping post-assassination attempt Trump.

Even the appearance of more money and interest in defense tech could have a knock-on effect for startup founders hoping to chase what’s trendy. Dempsey said he expects investors and founder to “pattern-match to companies like Anduril and to a lesser extent SpaceX, believing that their outcomes will be the same.” The increased political and cultural friendliness toward weapons startups also coincides with high interest rates and growing interest in hardware companies, Dempsey explained, as software companies have lost their luster following years of growth driven by little more than cheap venture capital.

There’s every reason to believe a Trump-controlled Washington will give the tech industry, increasingly invested in militarized AI, what it wants. In July, the Washington Post reported the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute was working on a proposal to “Make America First in AI” by undoing regulatory burdens and encouraging military applications. Trump has already indicated he’ll reverse the Biden administration’s executive order on AI safety, which mandated safety testing and risk-based self-reporting by companies. Michael Kratsios, chief technology officer during the first Trump administration and managing director of Air Force contractor Scale AI, is reportedly advising Trump’s transition team on policy matters.

“‘Make America First in AI’ means the United States will move quickly, regardless of the costs, to maintain its competitive edge over China,” Brianna Rosen, the Oxford fellow, explained. “That translates into greater investment and fewer restrictions on military AI. Industry already leads AI development and deployment in the defense and intelligence sectors; that role has now been cemented.”

The mutual embrace of MAGA conservatism and weapons tech seems to already be paying off. After dumping $200 million into the Trump campaign’s terminal phase, Musk was quick to cash his chips in: On Thursday, the New York Times reported that he petitioned Trump SpaceX executives into positions at the Department of Defense before the election had even begun. Musk will also co-lead a nebulous new office dedicated to slashing federal spending. Rep. Matt Gaetz, brother-in-law to Luckey, now stands to be the country’s next attorney general. In a post-election interview with Bloomberg, Luckey shared that he is already advising the Trump transition team and endorses the current candidates for defense secretary. “We did well under Trump, and we did better under Biden,” he said of Anduril. “I think we will do even better now.”

Chickens Are Smarter Than You Think

Sy Montgomery

 November 18, 2024
FacebookTwitter\\Reddit

\\Emai

Hæn-fugul (hen), Book of Hours; England, c. 1300; Walters Art Museum, MS W.102, f. 77v.

People think they know lots about chickens, and you’d think they would: There are four living chickens for every living person in the world—and since chickens are domestic fowl (a separate subspecies from their wild ancestor, the red jungle fowl of Southeast Asia), all of them live among humans.

Still, chickens are rarely celebrated in our culture and seldom given the respect they deserve. I once sat next to a man on an airplane who detailed for me at length the attributes of the species: they are stupid, disgusting, filthy, cowardly, occasionally cannibalistic automatons, he said.

How had he acquired this opinion? It turned out he had worked at a factory farmwhere most chickens are raised for food in the United States in a dirty, overcrowded warehouse resembling a prison camp.

This is not the best place to get to know someone. Nor is a dinner plate. Yet, for most of us, our relationship with chickens is generally of a culinary nature. In fact, the first definition of the word “chicken” I encountered on the internet doesn’t even mention that it’s a bird. It’s “the flesh of a chicken used for food.”

According to the National Chicken Council, the average American eats more than one hundred pounds of chicken every year, making it the most popular meat consumed in the United States. Worldwide, some 70 billion birds yearly are roasted, boiled, Kentucky Fried, and turned into everything from McNuggets to the famous “Jewish penicillin,” chicken soup.

Over the decades of sharing my life with successive flocks of these affectionate, industrious, and resourceful birds, I’ve learned that almost everything people “know” about chickens is wrong.

At the Agway feed store, my friend Gretchen ordered 12 chicks of the same breed she’d first owned—Black Sex-Links—for my husband Howard and me. They are so named because the females can be identified upon hatching by their all-black color, averting the problem of raising a coop full of jealous roosters. She hand-raised them in a heated trailer on the farm.

Howard and I often visited them there, holding one or two peeping chicks in our hands, on our laps, or tucked into our sweaters, speaking softly to each so she would know us. When they were old enough—no longer balls of fluff but sleek, slim black miniatures of their eventual adult selves—they moved into our barn. Our travels in the Chicken Universe had begun.

At first, I was afraid they’d run away or become lost. We prepared a cozy, secure home for them on the bottom floor of our barn, with wood shavings scattered over the dirt floor, a dispenser for fresh water, a trough for chick feed, some low perches made from dowels, and a hay-lined nest box made from an old rabbit hutch left over from one of the barn’s previous denizens, in which they could, in the future, lay eggs.

Chickens need to be safely closed in at night to protect them from predators, but by day, we didn’t want to confine them; we wanted to give them free run of the yard. But how could they possibly understand that they lived here now?

Once we let them out, would they even recognize their space in the barn and go back in it? When I was in seventh grade, my family moved to a new house; on my first afternoon there, I literally got lost in my own backyard. Could these six-week-old chicks be expected to know better?

Gretchen assured me there would be no problem.

“Leave them in the pen for 24 hours,” she told me. “Then you can let them out, and they’ll stick around.

They’ll go back in again when it starts to get dark.”

“But how do they know?” I asked.

“They just do,” she said. “Chickens just know these things.”

When I found them all perched calmly back in their coop before dusk, I saw that Gretchen was right.

In fact, chickens know many things, some from the moment they are born. Like all members of the order in which they are classified, the Galliformes, or game birds, just-hatched baby chickens are astonishingly mature and mobile, able to walk, peck, and run only hours after leaving the egg.

This developmental strategy is called precocial. Like its opposite, the altricial strategy (employed by creatures such as humans and songbirds, who are born naked and helpless), the precocial strategy was sculpted by eons of adaptation to food and predators. If your nest is on the ground, as most game birds’ are, it’s a good idea to get your babies out of there as quickly as possible before someone comes to eat them. So newborn game birds hatch covered in down, eyes open, and leave the nest within 24 hours.

They followed me everywhere, first cheeping like the tinkling of little bells, then clucking in animated adult discussion. If I were hanging out the laundry, they would check what was in the laundry basket. If I were weeding a flower bed, they would join me, raking the soil with their strong, scaly feet, then stepping backward to see what was revealed. (Whenever I worked with soil, I suspect they assumed I was digging for worms.)

When Howard and I would eat at the picnic table under the big silver maple, the Ladies would accompany us. When my father-in-law came to help my husband build a pen for Christopher Hogwood, who was still a piglet, the Ladies milled underfoot to supervise every move. The hens were clearly interested in the project, pecking at the shiny nails, standing tall to better observe the use of tools, and clucking a running commentary all the while.

Before this experience, Howard’s dad would have been the first to say that he didn’t think chickens were that smart. But they changed his mind. After a few hours, I noticed he had begun addressing them. Picking up a hammer they were examining, he might say, directly and respectfully, “Pardon me, Ladies”—as if he were speaking to my mother-in-law and me when we got in the way. But when their human friends are inside, and this is much of the time, the Ladies explore on their own.

A chicken can move as fast as nine miles an hour, which can take you pretty far, and ours have always been free to go anywhere they like. But ours have intuited our property lines and confine their travels to its boundaries. They have never crossed the street. For years, they never hopped across the low stone wall separating our land from our closest neighbors. That came later—and it was not the result of any physical change in the landscape but the outcome of a change in social relationships among their human friends.

My travels in the Chicken Universe have been a portal to an unknown kingdom. We all see birds daily, and chickens are among the most familiar birds. Yet again and again, as I watch the hens and roosters in my life, I am reminded how movingly like us birds can be—and how thrillingly different.

This adapted excerpt is from What the Chicken Knows by Sy Montgomery (Atria Books, 2024) and is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) with permission from Atria Books. It was adapted and produced for the web by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Sy Montgomery is the author of Birdology (2010) and  The Hawk’s Way (2022).

SPACE / COSMOS

Egg-shaped galaxies may be aligned to the black holes at their hearts, astronomers find

The Conversation
November 18, 2024

The active galaxy Centaurus A, with jets emanating from the central black hole. ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray), CC BY

Black holes don’t have many identifying features. They come in one color (black) and one shape (spherical).

The main difference between black holes is mass: some weigh about as much as a star like our Sun, while others weigh around a million times more. Stellar-mass black holes can be found anywhere in a galaxy, but the really big ones (known as supermassive black holes) are found in the cores of galaxies.

These supermassive behemoths are still quite tiny when seen in cosmic perspective, typically containing only around 1% of their host galaxy’s mass and extending only to a millionth of its width

However, as we have just discovered, there is a surprising link between what goes on near the black hole and the shape of the entire galaxy that surrounds it. Our results are published in Nature Astronomy.

When black holes light up

Supermassive black holes are fairly rare. Our Milky Way galaxy has one at its centre (named Sagittarius A*), and many other galaxies also seem to host a single supermassive black hole at their core.


Under the right circumstances, dust and gas falling into these galactic cores can form a disk of hot material around the black hole. This “accretion disk” in turn generates a super-heated jet of charged particles that are ejected from the black hole at mind-boggling velocities, close to the speed of light.

When a supermassive black hole lights up like this, we call it a quasar.

How to watch a quasar

To get a good look at quasar jets, astronomers often use radio telescopes. In fact, we sometimes combine observations from multiple radio telescopes located in different parts of the world.

Using a technique called very long baseline interferometry, we can in effect make a single telescope the size of the entire Earth. This massive eye is much better at resolving fine detail than any individual telescope.

As a result, we can not only see objects and structures much smaller than we can with the naked eye, we can do better than the James Webb Space Telescope.



Black holes are millions of times smaller than galaxies, yet make jets that are pointed in the same direction as the entire galaxy. Optical image: NASA, ESA, R.M. Crockett (University of Oxford, U.K.), S. Kaviraj (Imperial College London and University of Oxford, U.K.), J. Silk (University of Oxford), M. Mutchler (Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, USA), R. O'Connell (University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA), and the WFC3 Scientific Oversight Committee. Top right: MOJAVE Collaboration, NRAO/NSF. Bottom right: Event Horizon Telescope / ESO (same as before) CC BY-SA

This is the technique that was used to make the first “black hole image” in 2019, showing the halo of light generated around the supermassive black hole hosted by the galaxy M87.


Quasar jets that can be detected using very long baseline interferometry can be millions of light years long and are almost always found in elliptical galaxies. Using very long baseline interferometry, we can observe them all the way down to a few light years or so from their black hole of origin.

The direction of the jet near its source tells us about the orientation of the accretion disk, and so potentially the properties of the black hole itself.

Connection to the host galaxy


What about the host galaxies? A galaxy is a three-dimensional object, formed of hundreds of billions of stars.

But it appears to us (observed in optical or infrared) in projection, either as an ellipse or a spiral. We can measure the shape of these galaxies, tracing the profile of starlight, and measure the long axis and short axis of the two-dimensional shape.

In our paper, we compared the direction of quasar jets with the direction of this shorter axis of the galaxy ellipse, and found that they tend to be pointing in the same direction. This alignment is more statistically significant than you would expect if they were both randomly oriented.

This is surprising, as the black hole is so small (the jets we measure are only a few light years in length) compared to the host galaxy (which can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of light years across).

It is surprising that such a relatively small object can affect, or be affected by, the environment on such large scales. We might expect to see a correlation between the jet and the local environment, but not with the whole galaxy.
How galaxies form

Does this have something to say about the way galaxies form?


Spiral galaxies are perhaps the most famous kind of galaxy, but sometimes they collide with other spirals and form elliptical galaxies. We see these three-dimensional egg-shaped blobs as two-dimensional ellipses on the sky.

The merger process triggers quasar activity in ways we don’t fully understand. As a result, almost all quasar jets that can be detected using very long baseline interferometry are hosted in elliptical galaxies.

The exact interpretation of our results remains mysterious, but is important in the context of the recent James Webb Space Telescope discovery of highly massive quasars (with massive black holes), which have formed much earlier in the universe than expected. Clearly, our understanding of how galaxies form and how black holes influence that needs to be updated.


David Parkinson, Research Scientist in Astrophysics, The University of Queensland and Jeffrey Hodgson, Assistant Professor in Astrophysics, Sejong University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

AnalySwift receives NASA STTR contract to transform spacecraft infrastructure for secondary uses during long-duration missions

Company and Purdue will develop composite heater layer and better engineering tools for composites

Purdue University

 

image: 

Kawai Kwok, an associate professor in Purdue University’s School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, will be the primary investigator on a project with commercial software provider AnalySwift LLC. NASA has awarded AnalySwift a $156,424 Phase I Small Business Technology Transfer contract for the research.

view more 

Credit: (Purdue University photo/Alan Cesar)

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. — AnalySwift LLC, a Purdue University-affiliated company, has received a Phase I STTR (Small Business Technology Transfer) contract from NASA worth $156,424.

Allan Wood, AnalySwift president and CEO, said the contract will fund two advancements: processes and hardware to disassemble spacecraft components and reassemble them for a secondary use, and software for multiphysics simulation and analysis of the involved thermoplastics.

Kawai Kwok, associate professor in Purdue’s School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, is the principal investigator.

Wood said long-duration crewed missions to the moon, Mars and beyond require infrastructure, such as trusses, to be constructed sustainably on these surfaces. But there are immense logistical challenges in transporting heavy and large payloads to space.

“The AnalySwift project proposes a novel method of disassembling and reassembling thermoplastic composite joints in space,” he said. “Our proposed method enables reconfiguration of truss structures in space, transitioning away from the current one-time use model to a scalable and sustainable approach.”

Kwok said spacecraft components could be quickly and easily repurposed into vastly different geometries.

“For example, a lunar lander support truss could become a vertical solar array support truss,” he said. “There are other applications, depending on mission needs using the same set of structural elements and innovative multiphysics modeling.”

Contract deliverables

Kwok said AnalySwift will develop a composite heater layer for the trusses and other infrastructure; it will be embedded with nanostructured carbon fillers. The layer will be made from the same thermoplastic matrix as the adhered composite parts. The layer will bring the matrix to the processing temperature for interface debonding by mechanical forces.

“Lightweight conductive nanocarbon thin films will be encapsulated inside semicrystalline thermoplastics such as PEEK (polyether ether ketone),” he said. “The disassembled struts and joints will be reassembled to the repurposed configuration via resistance welding using the same or additional heaters. The proposed in situ heating and reassembly method enables spacecraft components to be reutilized, which greatly reduces the logistical footprint to deliver technologies to space.”

Liang Zhang, senior research scientist at AnalySwift, said the company also will develop better engineering tools for composites, enabling reliable multiphysics simulation of their technique to repurpose lightweight structures made from thermoplastics.

“Theoretical and computational developments will include a new software tool or module, Thermoplastic Composites Multiphysics,” he said. “This multiphysics modeling framework will simulate the debonding and bonding processes of thermoplastic composite joint-strut interfaces using embedded carbon nanoheaters.”

Kwok said the framework has broader applications for thermoplastics.

“Advancements include developing multiphysics models and data for electrical heating and welding, including establishing relations between bonding strength and the process conditions of temperature, pressure and time,” he said. “More specifically, the disassembly and assembly processes of a nanocomposite is simulated using a third-party commercial finite element code with user subroutines defining the governing behavior of the material system.”

Zhang said AnalySwift’s multiphysics simulation tool will determine force, pressure and temperature histories during assembly and disassembly processes.

“More specifically, it will incrementally solve the constitutive relations as an initial value problem, extract temperature distributions at specific time points, and calculate the time and power required for completion,” he said.

Non-space applications

Wood said the processes and hardware advancements for disassembly and reassembly are more applicable to space applications, but the software has other potential uses.

“It can be particularly useful where simulation tools can improve utilization possibilities for high-performance thermoplastics,” he said. “Additional applications can be likely for aerospace, defense, automotive, marine, energy, electronics, sporting goods and medical devices. Applications also extend beyond simulation and into repair for thermoplastics.”

About AnalySwift

AnalySwift LLC is a provider of composite simulation software, which enables an unprecedented combination of efficiency and accuracy, including multiphysics structural and micromechanics modeling. Drawing on cutting-edge university technology, AnalySwift’s powerful solutions save orders of magnitude in computing time without a loss of accuracy so users can consider more design options and arrive at the best solution more quickly. The technologies deliver the accuracy of detailed 3D finite element analysis at the efficiency of simple engineering models. SwiftComp was developed at Purdue University and licensed from the Purdue Research Foundation. Contact AnalySwift at info@analyswift.com.

About Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization

The Purdue Innovates Office of Technology Commercialization operates one of the most comprehensive technology transfer programs among leading research universities in the U.S. Services provided by this office support the economic development initiatives of Purdue University and benefit the university’s academic activities through commercializing, licensing and protecting Purdue intellectual property. In fiscal year 2024, the office reported 145 deals finalized with 224 technologies signed, 466 invention disclosures received, and 290 U.S. and international patents received. The office is managed by the Purdue Research Foundation, a private, nonprofit foundation created to advance the mission of Purdue University. Contact otcip@prf.org for more information.

About Purdue University

Purdue University is a public research institution demonstrating excellence at scale. Ranked among top 10 public universities and with two colleges in the top four in the United States, Purdue discovers and disseminates knowledge with a quality and at a scale second to none. More than 105,000 students study at Purdue across modalities and locations, including nearly 50,000 in person on the West Lafayette campus. Committed to affordability and accessibility, Purdue’s main campus has frozen tuition 13 years in a row. See how Purdue never stops in the persistent pursuit of the next giant leap — including its first comprehensive urban campus in Indianapolis, the Mitch Daniels School of Business, Purdue Computes and the One Health initiative — at https://www.purdue.edu/president/strategic-initiatives.

Media contact: Steve Martin, sgmartin@prf.org

New idea may crack enigma of the Crab Nebula’s ‘zebra’ pattern

University of Kansas

 

image: 

Medvedev modeled wave diffraction off a circular reflecting region with radially varying index of refraction outside of it to better understand the Crab Nebula’s zebra pattern.

view more 

Credit: Mikhail Medvedev

LAWRENCE — A theoretical astrophysicist from the University of Kansas may have solved a nearly two-decade-old mystery over the origins of an unusual "zebra" pattern seen in high-frequency radio pulses from the Crab Nebula.

His findings have just been published in Physical Review Letters (PRL), among the most prestigious physics journals.

The Crab Nebula features a neutron star at its center that has formed into a 12-mile-wide pulsar pinwheeling electromagnetic radiation across the cosmos.

“The emission, which resembles a lighthouse beam, repeatedly sweeps past Earth as the star rotates,” said lead author Mikhail Medvedev, professor of physics & astronomy at KU. “We observe this as a pulsed emission, usually with one or two pulses per rotation. The specific pulsar I’m discussing is known as the Crab Pulsar, located in the center of the Crab Nebula 6,000 light years away from us.”

The Crab Nebula is the remnant of a supernova that appeared in 1054.

“Historical records, including Chinese accounts, describe an unusually bright star appearing in the sky,” said the KU researcher.

But unlike any other known pulsar, Medvedev said the Crab Pulsar features a zebra pattern — unusual band spacing in the electromagnetic spectrum proportional to band frequencies, and other weird features like high polarization and stability.

“It’s very bright, across practically all wave bands,” he said. “This is the only object we know of that produces the zebra pattern, and it only appears in a single emission component from the Crab Pulsar. The main pulse is a broadband pulse, typical of most pulsars, with other broadband components common to neutron stars. However, the high-frequency interpulse is unique, ranging between 5 and 30 gigahertz — frequencies similar to those in a microwave oven.”

Since this pattern was discovered in a 2007 paper, the KU researcher said the pattern had proved “baffling” for investigators.

“Researchers proposed various emission mechanisms, but none have convincingly explained the observed patterns,” he said.

Using data from the Crab Pulsar, Medvedev established a method using wave optics to gauge the density of the pulsar’s plasma – the “gas” of charged particles (electrons and positrons) — using a fringe pattern found in the electromagnetic pulses.

“If you have a screen and an electromagnetic wave passes by, the wave doesn’t propagate straight through,” Medvedev said. “In geometrical optics, shadows cast by obstacles would extend indefinitely — if you’re in the shadow, there’s no light; outside of it, you see light. But wave optics introduces a different behavior — waves bend around obstacles and interfere with each other, creating a sequence of bright and dim fringes due to constructive and destructive interference.”

This well-known fringe pattern phenomenon is caused by consistent constructive interference but has different characteristics when radio waves propagate around a neutron star.

“A typical diffraction pattern would produce evenly spaced fringes if we just had a neutron star as a shield,” the KU researcher said. “But here, the neutron star’s magnetic field generates charged particles constituting a dense plasma, which varies with distance from the star. As a radio wave propagates through the plasma, it passes through dilute areas but is reflected by dense plasma. This reflection varies by frequency: Low frequencies reflect at large radii, casting a bigger shadow, while high frequencies create smaller shadows, resulting in different fringe spacing.”

In this way, Medvedev determined the Crab Pulsar’s plasma matter causes diffraction in the electromagnetic pulses responsible for the neutron star’s singular zebra pattern.

“This model is the first one capable of measuring those parameters,” Medvedev said. “By analyzing the fringes, we can deduce the density and distribution of plasma in the magnetosphere. It's incredible because these observations allow us to convert fringe measurements into a density distribution of the plasma, essentially creating an image or performing tomography of the neutron star's magnetosphere.”

Next, Medvedev said his theory can be tested with collection of more data from the Crab Pulsar and fine-tuned by factoring in its powerful and strange gravitational and polarization effects. The new understanding of how a plasma matter alters a pulsar’s signal will change how astrophysicists understand other pulsars.

“The Crab Pulsar is somewhat unique — it’s relatively young by astronomical standards, only about a thousand years old, and highly energetic,” he said. “But it’s not alone; we know of hundreds of pulsars, with over a dozen that are also young. Known binary pulsars, which were used to test Einstein’s general relativity theory, can also be explored with the proposed method. This research can indeed broaden our understanding and observation techniques for pulsars, particularly young, energetic ones.”

---

Journal

Physical Review Letters

DOI

10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.205201 

We finally know where black holes get their magnetic fields: Their parents

Simulations of exploded highly magnetized stars collapsing into black holes reveal that they ‘pass down’ their magnetic fields to their newly formed black hole’s surrounding disk of swirling matter.

Simons Foundation

 

image: 

3D rendering of a rapidly spinning black hole's accretion disk and a resulting black hole-powered jet

view more 

Credit: Ore Gottlieb et al. (2024)

Black holes are one of the most enigmatic stellar objects. While best known for swallowing up their surroundings into a gravity pit from which nothing can escape, they can also shoot off powerful jets of charged particles, leading to explosive bursts of gamma rays that can release more energy in mere seconds than our sun will emit in its entire lifetime. For such a spectacular event to occur, a black hole needs to carry a powerful magnetic field. Where this magnetism comes from, however, has been a long-standing mystery.

Using calculations of black hole formation, scientists at the Flatiron Institute and their collaborators have finally found the origin of those magnetic fields: the collapsing parent stars of the black holes themselves. The researchers report their results November 18 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Black holes can form after a star explodes as a supernova, leaving behind a dense remnant core called a proto-neutron star.

“Proto-neutron stars are the mothers of black holes in that when they collapse, a black hole is born. What we are seeing is that as this black hole forms, the proto-neutron star’s surrounding disk will essentially pin its magnetic lines to the black hole,” says Ore Gottlieb, the study’s first author and a research fellow at the Flatiron Institute’s Center for Computational Astrophysics (CCA) in New York City. “It’s very exciting to finally understand this fundamental property of black holes and how they power gamma ray bursts — the most luminous explosions in the universe.”

Gottlieb co-authored the study with fellow CCA researchers Brian Metzger, Jared Goldberg, Matteo Cantiello and Mathieu Renzo.

The Magnetism Mystery

The team initially aimed to model a star’s journey from birth to collapse to black hole formation. With their simulations, the team planned to study outflows from the black hole, like jets that generate gamma ray bursts. However, Gottlieb’s team ran into a problem with the models.

“We were not sure how to model behavior of these magnetic fields during the collapse of the neutron star to the black hole,” Gottlieb says. “So, this was a question that I started to think about for the first time.”

There were a few theories surrounding black holes and their magnetism, but none seemed to add up when accounting for the power of a black hole’s jets and gamma ray bursts.

“What had been thought to be the case is that the magnetic fields of collapsing stars are collapsing into the black hole,” says Gottlieb. “During this collapse, these magnetic field lines are made stronger as they are compressed, so the density of the magnetic fields become higher.”

The problem with that explanation was that strong magnetism in the star causes the star to lose its rotation. And without rapid rotation, a newborn black hole can’t form an accretion disk — the flow of gas, plasma, dust and particles around a black hole — and could not produce the jets and gamma ray bursts we’ve observed.

“It appears to be mutually exclusive,” says Gottlieb. “You need two things for jets to form: a strong magnetic field and an accretion disk. But a magnetic field acquired by such compression won’t form an accretion disk, and if you reduce the magnetism to the point where the disk can form, then it’s not strong enough to produce the jets.”

This meant something else was going on, and the scientists aimed to find out what it was by going straight to the source: a black hole’s parent.

A Black Hole’s Magnetic Parent: The Neutron Star

The scientists realized that perhaps previous simulations of collapsing neutron stars weren’t giving the full picture.

“Past simulations have only considered isolated neutron stars and isolated black holes, where all magnetism is lost during the collapse. However, we found that these neutron stars have accretion disks of their own, just like black holes,” says Gottlieb. “And so, the idea is that maybe an accretion disk can save the magnetic field of the neutron star. This way, a black hole will form with the same magnetic field lines that threaded the neutron star.”

The team’s calculations showed that as a neutron star collapses, before all its magnetic field is swallowed up by the newly formed black hole, the neutron star’s disk is inherited by the black hole and its magnetic field lines become anchored.

“We ran calculations for the typical values that we expect to see in these systems, and in most cases, the timescale for black hole disk formation is shorter than that of the black hole losing its magnetism,” says Gottlieb. “So the disk enables the black hole to inherit a magnetic field from its mother, the neutron star.”

Implications Across the Cosmos

Gottlieb is excited about the new discovery not only because it solves a longstanding mystery but also because it opens the door for further studies of jets.

“This study changes the way we think about what types of systems can support jet formation because if we know that accretion disks imply magnetism, then in theory, all you need is an early disk formation to power jets,” he says. “I think it would be interesting for us to rethink all of the connections between populations of stars and jet formation now that we know this.”

Gottlieb credits team science and the capabilities at CCA for making this work possible.

“This was a multidisciplinary collaboration that enabled us to address this question from different directions and form a coherent picture of a star’s evolution post-collapse,” he says. “And the generous computational resources of CCA let us run simulations of the collapse more consistently than has ever been done before. I think these two aspects led to an innovative approach.”

ABOUT THE FLATIRON INSTITUTE

The Flatiron Institute is the research division of the Simons Foundation. The institute's mission is to advance scientific research through computational methods, including data analysis, theory, modeling and simulation. The institute's Center for Computational Astrophysics creates new computational frameworks that allow scientists to analyze big astronomical datasets and to understand complex, multi-scale physics in a cosmological context.

Black hole jets video [VIDEO] |

Black hole magnetism infographic (IMAGE)

Simons Foundation

Infographic explaining how black holes inherit their magnetism

Credit

Lucy Reading-Ikkanda / Simons Foundatio

Journal

The Astrophysical Journal Letters

DOI

10.3847/2041-8213/ad8563 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

She’s Got Her Mother’s Hair: Unveiling the Origin of Black Hole Magnetic Fields through Stellar to Collapsar Simulations

Article Publication Date

18-Nov-2024

New study reveals possible origins of dark matter in "Dark Big Bang" scenario

Colgate University

Hamilton, NY – Recent research by a student-faculty team at Colgate University unlocks new clues that could radically change the world’s understanding of the origin of dark matter.

Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy Cosmin Ilie and Richard Casey ’24 have explored an idea put forth by two scientists at the University of Texas at Austin, Katherine Freese and Martin Winkler, suggesting that dark matter may have originated from a separate “Dark Big Bang,” occurring shortly after the birth of the universe.

It is widely accepted that all the matter filling our universe (including dark matter) originated from one major event — the Big Bang. This corresponds to the end of the cosmic inflation period, when the vacuum energy that drove the very brief extreme expansion initial phase of our universe was converted into a hot plasma of radiation and particles. 

One of the most pressing mysteries is the origin and the nature of dark matter, which accounts for about 25% of the energy budget of the Universe today. While not yet directly detected in underground experiments, or observed in accelerators, the gravitational effects of dark matter have been firmly established on galactic and extragalactic scales. Moreover, dark matter leaves observable imprints on the electromagnetic afterglow of the Big Bang, the so-called cosmic microwave background radiation.  

In 2023, Freese and Winkler proposed that dark matter, unlike ordinary matter, may have arisen from a distinct Big Bang event, which could have taken place months after the conventional Big Bang [1]. In this model, dark matter particles are produced via the decay of a quantum field that  only couples to the Dark Sector and is initially trapped in a false metastable vacuum state.

In their recent study [2], Ilie and Casey explore and refine this Dark Big Bang model by determining all the possible scenarios for its realization that remain consistent with current experimental data. Most notably, their work uncovers a previously unexplored range of possible parameters that could explain dark matter’s origin. The study also determines the potential observable consequences of these new scenarios, particularly the generation of gravitational waves that could be detectable by future experiments.

“Detecting gravitational waves generated by the Dark Big Bang could provide crucial evidence for this new theory of dark matter,” said Ilie “With current experiments like the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA) and the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) on the horizon, we may soon have the tools to test this model in unprecedented ways.”

The 2023 detection of background gravitational waves by the NANOGrav collaboration, part of IPTA, could be linked to a realization of the Dark Big Bang. As future experiments provide more precise measurements, the study’s findings could help refine our understanding of the parameters governing the Dark Big Bang and potentially confirm it as the true origin of dark matter.

The implications of these discoveries could extend beyond dark matter, as they offer a new perspective on the early history of the universe and the forces that shaped its evolution. The search for answers to the mysteries of dark matter and its origins continues to drive research at the forefront of modern cosmology.

[1] Katherine Freese and Martin Winkler,  Phys.Rev.D 107 (2023) 8, 083522

[2] Richard Casey and Cosmin Ilie, Phys.Rev.D (2024) 110, 103522

---

Journal

Physical Review D

DOI

10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103522 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Dark sector tunneling field potentials for a dark big bang

Article Publication Date

15-Nov-2024