Astronomers Spot a Strangely Perfect Sphere Thousands of Light-Years Away
Scientists using radio wavelength data from the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) spotted a strangely symmetrical sphere located thousands of light-years away.
The 'sphere' is likely the result of a Type 1a supernova shockwave, though astronomers aren't sure exactly how far away the this supernova remnant is from Earth—either 7,175 light-years or 25,114 light-years.
Regardless of this distance discrepancy, the near-perfect spherical nature of the remnant gives scientists the opportunity to learn more about one of the most energetic events in the universe.
The amount humanity has learned about the cosmos in just the past century is truly staggering. A little over a century ago, American astronomer Edwin Hubble announced to the world that the Milky Way was actually just one galaxy among many in the known universe. Now, we know the universe contains hundreds of billions—if not trillions—of galaxies, and engineers have developed space-based telescopes capable of spying some of the oldest ones in existence.
Of course, that doesn't mean mysteries don't remain—both large and small. On the big side of the equation, dark matter and dark energy remain perplexing conundrums, but science's array of detectors often posit smaller puzzles. One such mystery is the curious case of supernova remnant (SNR) G305.4–2.2, nicknamed Teleios. A Greek word meaning 'perfect,' Telelios references the near-perfect symmetry of what appears to be a sphere of ejected star material—aka a supernova remnant.
Initially captured by the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), Teleios's origin isn't the real head-scratcher. Instead, scientists like Miroslav Filipović, an astrophysicist from Western Sydney University in Australia, are more perplexed by its near-perfect shape, an extreme rarity for such an SNR throughout the universe.
'The supernova remnant will be deformed by its environment over time,' Filipovic, along with a cadre of other Australian astrophysicists, wrote in an article on The Conversation in March. 'If one side of the explosion slams into an interstellar cloud, we'll see a squashed shape. So, a near-perfect circle in a messy universe is a special find.'
In an analysis submitted to the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia and published on the preprint server arXiv, Filipović—the lead author of the study—and his team discovered that Teleios only glows faintly in radio wavelengths. Armed with this information, the astronomers could reasonably deduce that Telelios originated from a Type 1a supernova, which typically form from binary star systems where one of the stars is a white dwarf. Because these types of supernovae are consistent in their peak brightness, astronomers have used them for decades to measure cosmic distances (with none other than the Hubble telescope among others).
However, in this instance, astronomers haven't been able to quite nail down Teleios's exact distance, but they've drawn up three best guesses. If it is the results of a Type 1a supernova, then its likely that this symmetrical mystery is either 7,175 light-years or 25,114 light-years away, making the sphere either 46 light-years across or 157 light-years across, respectively. This distance also reflects its age, meaning it's either less than 1,000 years old or greater than 10,000 years old. So, lots of room for further exploration.
The study also posits the idea that it could be a Type 1ax supernova where the supernova instead leaves behind a 'zombie star' remnant, according to Live Science. However, in this scenario, the supernova would be only 3,262 light-years away and around 11 light-years across.
Whatever the scenario, Teleios—which is just one of the many interesting things discovered by ASKAP—still presents a remarkable opportunity to learn more about supernovae.
'This presents us with an opportunity to make inferences about the initial supernova explosion, providing rare insight into one of the most energetic events in the universe,' Filipovic co-authors in The Conversation.
In 100 years from now, who knows what the universe might look like to our 22nd-century enlightened minds.
You Might Also Like
The Do's and Don'ts of Using Painter's Tape
The Best Portable BBQ Grills for Cooking Anywhere
Can a Smart Watch Prolong Your Life?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
New Guidance for Hypermobility Syndromes With GI Symptoms
An increase of patients presenting with the complex combination of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) with co-existing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and/or mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), has prompted the issuance of clinical practice guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) to help clinicians comprehend such cases. 'Recognizing and treating GI symptoms in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and comorbid POTS or MCAS present major challenges for clinicians, who often feel under equipped to address their needs,' the AGA reported in the update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Importantly, 'the poor understanding of these overlapping syndromes can lead to nonstandardized approaches to diagnostic evaluation and management,' the authors noted. 'Gastroenterology providers should be aware of the features of [these syndromes] to recognize the full complexity of patients presenting with multisystemic symptoms.' Hypermobility spectrum disorders, which include hEDS, are typically genetic, and patients experience pain along with joint hypermobility, or extreme flexibility of joints beyond the normal range of motion. With research showing that most of those patients — up to 98% — also experience GI symptoms, gastroenterologists may be encountering them more commonly than realized, Lucinda A. Harris, MD, of the Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, in Scottsdale, Arizona, explained to Medscape Medical News . 'As our knowledge in gastroenterology has progressed, we realize that hypermobility itself predisposes individuals to disorders of brain-gut interaction,' she said. 'We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to diagnosing patients with hypermobility.' Additionally, 'many of these patients have POTS, which has also been increasingly diagnosed,' Harris added. 'The strong overlap of these conditions prompted us to present this data.' With a lack of evidence-based understanding of the overlapping syndromes, the AGA's guidance does not carry formal ratings but is drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion. In addition to the key recommendation of being aware of the observed combination of syndromes, their recommendations include: Regarding testing: Testing for POTS/MCAS should be targeted to patients presenting with clinical manifestations of the disorders, but universal testing for POTS/MCAS in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders is not currently supported by the evidence, the guidance advises. Gastroenterologists seeing patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction should inquire about joint hypermobility and strongly consider incorporating the Beighton score for assessing joint hypermobility into their practice as a screening tool; if the screen is positive, gastroenterologists may consider applying 2017 diagnostic criteria to diagnose hEDS or offer appropriate referral to a specialist where resources are available, the AGA recommends. Medical management: Management of GI symptoms in hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and POTS/MCAS should focus on treating the most prominent GI symptoms and abnormal GI function test results. In addition to general disorders of gut-brain interactions and GI motility disorder treatment, management should also include treating any symptoms attributable to POTS and/or MCAS. Treatment of POTS may include increasing fluid and salt intake, exercise training, and use of compression garments. Special pharmacological treatments for volume expansion, heart rate control, and vasoconstriction with integrated care from multiple specialties (eg, cardiology, neurology) should be considered in patients who do not respond to conservative lifestyle measures. In patients presenting to gastroenterology providers, testing for mast cell disorders including MCAS should be considered in patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders and disorders of gut-brain interaction with episodic symptoms that suggest a more generalized mast cell disorder involving two or more physiological systems. However, current data does not support the use of these tests for routine evaluation of GI symptoms in all patients with hEDS or hypermobility spectrum disorders without clinical or laboratory evidence of a primary or secondary mast cell disorder, the AGA noted. Harris noted that patients presenting with gut-brain disorders are often mistakenly classified as having irritable bowel syndrome or dyspepsia, whereas these conditions may be affecting the GI disorders they have. 'For example, a patient with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome might have problems with constipation, which is impacted by pelvic floor dysfunction,' she explained. 'Due to their hypermobility, they may experience more pelvic floor descent than usual.' 'If we do not recognize this, the patient risks developing rectal prolapse or not effectively addressing their constipation.' Regarding patient characteristics, Harris noted that those with hEDS and POTS appear to more likely be women and tend to present in younger patients, aged 18-50 years. Of note, there is no genetic test for hEDS. 'The take-home point for clinicians should be to consider POTS and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome when encountering young female patients with symptoms of palpitations, hypermobility, and orthostatic intolerance,' she said. 'Recognizing hypermobility is crucial, not only for GI symptoms but also to prevent joint dislocations, tendon ruptures, and other connective tissue issues.' Clinicians are further urged to 'offer informed counseling, and guide patients away from unreliable sources or fragmented care to foster therapeutic relationships and evidence-based care,' the AGA added. Deciphering Gut-Brain Disorder Challenges Commenting to Medscape Medical News , Clair Francomano, MD, a professor of medical and molecular genetics at the Indiana University School of Medicine, in Indianapolis, said the new guidance sheds important light on the syndromes. 'I'm delighted to see this guidance offered through the AGA as it will encourage gastroenterologists to think of EDS, POTS and MCAS when they are evaluating patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction,' Francomano said. 'This should allow patients to receive more accurate and timely diagnoses and appropriate management.' Francomano noted that the Ehlers-Danlos Society, which provides information for clinicians and patients alike on the syndromes, and where she serves on the medical scientific board, has also been active in raising awareness. 'While co-occurrence of POTS and MCAS with EDS has in fact been recognized for many years, I do think awareness is increasing, in large part due to the advocacy and educational efforts of the Ehlers-Danlos Society,' she said. The take-home message? 'When clinicians see disorders of the gut-brain axis, POTS or MCAS, they should be thinking, 'Could this be related to joint hypermobility or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome?'' Francomano said.
The Hill
12 hours ago
- The Hill
Luna says lawmakers have evidence of ‘interdimensional beings'
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) said during a Wednesday podcast episode with Joe Rogan that lawmakers have seen evidence of 'interdimensional beings.' 'I think that they can actually operate through the time spaces that we currently have,' Luna said during the podcast. 'And that's not something that I came up with on my own. That's based on stuff that we've seen. That's based on information that we've been told,' she added. In February, Luna and Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) sent letters to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CIA Director John Ratcliffe requesting a briefing on all unidentified anomalous phenomena or UAP-related records in their possession, with the ultimate goal of 'deliver[ing] transparency to the American people.' She says through investigations, she's discovered otherworldly information. 'Based on testimony that would be based on witnesses that have come forward. But what I can tell you is just we're told that they were that, they've seen things,' Luna told Rogan. 'And what I can tell you without getting into classified conversations is that there have been incidences that I believe were very credible people have reported that there have been movement outside of time and space,' she continued. Luna said she's never seen a portal or a spaceship but was searching for documentation that could lead to more evidence of life beyond humans.
