Wandering Adventure Party

What is your opinion on how much this applies to humans?

Yes, be delicate with your feet! Walking in nature is an active process that requires awareness, not a passive one, and Lichens are way easier to destroy than they look.

Electrons inside solid materials behave in a surprisingly similar way. When they gain extra energy (for instance, when the material is struck by other electrons), they can sometimes break free from the solid. This process has been known for decades and forms the basis of many technologies. However, until recently, scientists had been unable to calculate it with precision. Researchers from several groups at TU Wien have now found the solution. Just as the frog must find the right opening, an electron also needs to locate a specific “exit,” known as a “doorway state.”

…

The key discovery is that energy alone cannot determine whether an electron escapes. There are quantum states above the energy threshold that still fail to lead out of the material, a fact missing from earlier models. “From an energetic point of view, the electron is no longer bound to the solid. It has the energy of a free electron, yet it still remains spatially located where the solid is,” says Richard Wilhelm. The electron behaves like the frog that jumps high enough but fails to find the exit.

“The electrons must occupy very specific states – so-called doorway states,” explains Prof. Florian Libisch from the Institute for Theoretical Physics. “These states couple strongly to those that actually lead out of the solid. Not every state with sufficient energy is such a doorway state – only those that represent an ‘open door’ to the outside.”

Physicists uncover hidden “doorways” that let electrons escape

Scientists at TU Wien found that electrons need specific “doorway states” to escape solids, not just energy. The insight explains long-standing anomalies in experiments and unlocks new ways to engineer layered materials.

ScienceDaily (www.sciencedaily.com)

Using social media as an example, universities have a strong interest in promoting the work being done at their campuses far and wide. This is where traditional platforms fall short: algorithms typically prioritizing paid content, downrank off-site links, and prioritize sensational claims to drive engagement. When users are free from enshittification and can themselves control the platform’s algorithms, as they can on platforms like Bluesky, scientists get more engagement and find interactions are more useful.

Institutions play a pivotal role in encouraging the adoption of these alternatives, ranging from leveraging existing IT support to assist with account use and verification, all the way to shouldering some of the hosting with Mastodon instances and/or Bluesky PDS for official accounts. This support is good for the research, good for the university, and makes our systems of science more resilient to attacks on science and the instability of digital monocultures.

This subtle influence of intermediaries can also appear in other tools relied on by researchers, while there are a number of open alternatives and interoperable tools developed for everything from citation management, data hosting to online chat among collaborators. Individual scholars and research teams can implement these tools today, but real change depends on institutions investing in tech that puts community before shareholders.

However, scientists have NOT ruled out the possibility that we are living in a scam universe set up to rip us off.

When God was reached out to for comment he tried to sell the reporter on his new crypto coin and repeatedly pretended not to hear the question.

Have you not read How To Deafen A Moth? It is the sequel to How To Train A Dragon.

Are you asking about the logic or the idea of deafening the moths?

The logic is that if the moths show a preference when they can hear and none when they can’t hear it strongly suggests they no longer have a source of information to go of off that they valued, that being the sound of the plants.

So are moths!

Nature is unhinged.

Female moths can detect distress signals from plants and adjust their behaviour, according to new research from Tel Aviv University. This is the first clear evidence of plant-animal acoustic interaction, showing that moths actively respond to ultrasonic calls from stressed plants before deciding where to lay their eggs.

Plants under stress—such as dehydration or heat—emit ultrasonic signals in the 20 to 100 kilohertz range. Humans cannot hear these sounds, but moths can, using them to avoid laying eggs on plants that would provide poor conditions for their offspring.

Also see this article on the science behind plants emitting ultrasonic sounds when under stress (not a constant sound, more like pops).

Plants emit ultrasonic sounds in rapid bursts when stressed, scientists say

Thirsty or damaged plants produce up to 50 staccato pops in an hour, which nearby creatures may respond to, researchers find

the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)

“When these plants are in good shape, they produce less than one sound per hour, but when stressed they emit many more, sometimes 30 to 50 per hour,” said Prof Lilach Hadany, an evolutionary biologist and theoretician at Tel Aviv University.

“They are potentially important because other organisms could have evolved to hear these sounds and interpret them,” she added. “We are now testing both animals and plants to see if they respond.”

Hadany and her colleagues recorded sounds produced by tomato and tobacco plants raised in greenhouses. Healthy plants emitted clicks and pops, but the sounds came in far more rapid bursts when the plants were deprived of water or had their stems cut. The noises could be picked up 3-5 metres away.

At 40 to 80kHz, the sounds are too high-pitched for the human ear, which has an upper range of about 20kHz. But insects such as moths and small mammals including mice can detect such frequencies, raising the prospect that the noises might influence their behaviour.

^ this is what the headline study proves!

Ok so if I am a car mechanic and you bring your car into me because you have a weird sound with your car and I tell you “You better get this problem fixed, I am not sure what will happen if you let this part fully break but it isn’t going to be good, it is connected to a bunch of other parts of your car and may break them too.” and then you proceed to say “You are an idiot you can’t even tell me precisely what is going to happen!!!” and leave without getting your car fixed by me… am I really the fool here?

Climate Scientists are interested in predictions so far as they inform how they advise on the details of risk, but Climate Scientists don’t need any specific predictions to point out that pushing fundamental aspects of the Climate System of Earth out of whack will likely break a whole bunch of stuff.

It is like saying that because a windshield designer can’t predict EXACTLY how a windshield will shatter in a particular car crash that they obviously are full of shit otherwise they would be able to tell you perfectly where the crack will start on the windshield and in what pattern it will precisely crack before completely shattering.

The REASON Climate Scientists are drawn to study the climate is because it is beautifully complex, highly interconnected and fascinating. The reason anti-intellectuals like Trump are threatened by Climate Scientists is because at some level they understand this and it scares them that people could live in such an openminded way.

What cruel joke this all is ughhh.

How Academics Are Pushing Back on the Academic Publishing *Mafia.

Cartel?

Just don’t call it a business, that makes it seem way less shady than it is.

You can’t philosophically in the same precise way you can’t positively prove anything, you prove it is exceedingly improbable for reality not to be as you say it is.

When astronomers talk about “proving” things this is always what they mean, they prove something to the point that it would be near hilariously improbable for the simplicity of their theory to be somehow false compared to the contorted mishmash of other possible explanations that just don’t fit the evidence. That is all that can be really said, philosophically, in the sense that to love science is to never be fooled into thinking science can or should desire to do more.

The Colorado University Randomness Beacon (CURBy) relies on two entangled photons measured at two sites at the same time, 110 meters apart. The sequence of measurement is recorded publicly on a hash chain, which allows observers to detect any attempt to tamper with it. The research team generated random numbers 7,454 times in 40 days and found that a truly random number was generated 7,434 times, which they call a 99.7 percent success rate.