Latest news with #OxfordLanguages
NDTV
4 days ago
- Health
- NDTV
New Model Helps To Figure Out Which Distant Planets May Host Life
The search for life beyond Earth is a key driver of modern astronomy and planetary science. The U.S. is building multiple major telescopes and planetary probes to advance this search. However, the signs of life – called biosignatures – that scientists may find will likely be difficult to interpret. Figuring out where exactly to look also remains challenging. I am an astrophysicist and astrobiologist with over 20 years of experience studying extrasolar planets – which are planets beyond our solar system. My colleagues and I have developed a new approach that will identify the most interesting planets or moons to search for life and help interpret potential biosignatures. We do this by modeling how different organisms may fare in different environments, informed by studies of limits of life on Earth. New Telescopes To Search For Life Astronomers are developing plans and technology for increasingly powerful space telescopes. For instance, NASA is working on its proposed Habitable Worlds Observatory, which would take ultrasharp images that directly show the planets orbiting nearby stars. My colleagues and I are developing another concept, the Nautilus space telescope constellation, which is designed to study hundreds of potentially Earthlike planets as they pass in front of their host stars. These and other future telescopes aim to provide more sensitive studies of more alien worlds. Their development prompts two important questions: 'Where to look?' and 'Are the environments where we think we see signs of life actually habitable?' The strongly disputed claims of potential signs of life in the exoplanet K2-18b, announced in April 2025, and previous similar claims in Venus, show how difficult it is to conclusively identify the presence of life from remote-sensing data. When Is An Alien World Habitable? Oxford Languages defines 'habitable' as 'suitable or good enough to live in.' But how do scientists know what is 'good enough to live in' for extraterrestrial organisms? Could alien microbes frolic in lakes of boiling acid or frigid liquid methane, or float in water droplets in Venus' upper atmosphere? To keep it simple, NASA's mantra has been 'follow the water.' This makes sense – water is essential for all Earth life we know of. A planet with liquid water would also have a temperate environment. It wouldn't be so cold that it slows down chemical reactions, nor would it be so hot that it destroys the complex molecules necessary for life. However, with astronomers' rapidly growing capabilities for characterizing alien worlds, astrobiologists need an approach that is more quantitative and nuanced than the water or no-water classification. A Community Effort As part of the NASA-funded Alien Earths project that I lead, astrobiologist Rory Barnes and I worked on this problem with a group of experts – astrobiologists, planetary scientists, exoplanet experts, ecologists, biologists and chemists – drawn from the largest network of exoplanet and astrobiology researchers, NASA's Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS. Over a hundred colleagues provided us with ideas, and two questions came up often: First, how do we know what life needs, if we do not understand the full range of extraterrestrial life? Scientists know a lot about life on Earth, but most astrobiologists agree that more exotic types of life – perhaps based on different combinations of chemical elements and solvents – are possible. How do we determine what conditions those other types of life may require? Second, the approach has to work with incomplete data. Potential sites for life beyond Earth – 'extrasolar habitats' – are very difficult to study directly, and often impossible to visit and sample. For example, the Martian subsurface remains mostly out of our reach. Places like Jupiter's moon Europa's and Saturn's Moon Enceladus' subsurface oceans and all extrasolar planets remain practically unreachable. Scientists study them indirectly, often only using remote observations. These measurements can't tell you as much as actual samples would. To make matters worse, measurements often have uncertainties. For example, we may be only 88% confident that water vapor is present in an exoplanet's atmosphere. Our framework has to be able to work with small amounts of data and handle uncertainties. And, we need to accept that the answers will often not be black or white. A New Approach To Habitability The new approach, called the quantitative habitability framework, has two distinguishing features: First, we moved away from trying to answer the vague 'habitable to life' question and narrowed it to a more specific and practically answerable question: Would the conditions in the habitat – as we know them – allow a specific (known or yet unknown) species or ecosystem to survive? Even on Earth, organisms require different conditions to survive – there are no camels in Antarctica. By talking about specific organisms, we made the question easier to answer. Second, the quantitative habitability framework does not insist on black-or-white answers. It compares computer models to calculate a probabilistic answer. Instead of assuming that liquid water is a key limiting factor, we compare our understanding of the conditions an organism requires (the 'organism model') with our understanding of the conditions present in the environment (the 'habitat model'). Both have uncertainties. Our understanding of each can be incomplete. Yet, we can handle the uncertainties mathematically. By comparing the two models, we can determine the probability that an organism and a habitat are compatible. As a simplistic example, our habitat model for Antarctica may state that temperatures are often below freezing. And our organism model for a camel may state that it does not survive long in cold temperatures. Unsurprisingly, we would correctly predict a near-zero probability that Antarctica is a good habitat for camels. We had a blast working on this project. To study the limits of life, we collected literature data on extreme organisms, from insects that live in the Himalayas at high altitudes and low temperatures to microorganisms that flourish in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and feed on chemical energy. We explored, via our models, whether they may survive in the Martian subsurface or in Europa's oceans. We also investigated if marine bacteria that produce oxygen in Earth's oceans could potentially survive on known extrasolar planets. Although comprehensive and detailed, this approach makes important simplifications. For example, it does not yet model how life may shape the planet, nor does it account for the full array of nutrients organisms may need. These simplifications are by design. In most of the environments we currently study, we know too little about the conditions to meaningfully attempt such models – except for some solar system bodies, such as Saturn's Enceladus. The quantitative habitability framework allows my team to answer questions like whether astrobiologists might be interested in a subsurface location on Mars, given the available data, or whether astronomers should turn their telescopes to planet A or planet B while searching for life. Our framework is available as an open-source computer model, which astrobiologists can now readily use and further develop to help with current and future projects. If scientists do detect a potential signature of life, this approach can help assess if the environment where it is detected can actually support the type of life that leads to the signature detected. Our next steps will be to build a database of terrestrial organisms that live in extreme environments and represent the limits of life. To this data, we can also add models for hypothetical alien life. By integrating those into the quantitative habitability framework, we will be able to work out scenarios, interpret new data coming from other worlds and guide the search for signatures of life beyond Earth – in our solar system and beyond. (Authors: Daniel Apai, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences, University of Arizona) (Disclosure Statement: Daniel Apai receives funding from NASA, Heising-Simons Foundation, Department of Defense, Space Telescope Science Institute, and the University of Arizona, and leads the NASA-funded Alien Earths astrobiology research team that developed the framework described here. He is affiliated with the Steward Observatory and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of The University of Arizona)
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
New model helps to figure out which distant planets may host life
The search for life beyond Earth is a key driver of modern astronomy and planetary science. The U.S. is building multiple major telescopes and planetary probes to advance this search. However, the signs of life – called biosignatures – that scientists may find will likely be difficult to interpret. Figuring out where exactly to look also remains challenging. I am an astrophysicist and astrobiologist with over 20 years of experience studying extrasolar planets – which are planets beyond our solar system. My colleagues and I have developed a new approach that will identify the most interesting planets or moons to search for life and help interpret potential biosignatures. We do this by modeling how different organisms may fare in different environments, informed by studies of limits of life on Earth. Astronomers are developing plans and technology for increasingly powerful space telescopes. For instance, NASA is working on its proposed Habitable Worlds Observatory, which would take ultrasharp images that directly show the planets orbiting nearby stars. My colleagues and I are developing another concept, the Nautilus space telescope constellation, which is designed to study hundreds of potentially Earthlike planets as they pass in front of their host stars. These and other future telescopes aim to provide more sensitive studies of more alien worlds. Their development prompts two important questions: 'Where to look?' and 'Are the environments where we think we see signs of life actually habitable?' The strongly disputed claims of potential signs of life in the exoplanet K2-18b, announced in April 2025, and previous similar claims in Venus, show how difficult it is to conclusively identify the presence of life from remote-sensing data. Oxford Languages defines 'habitable' as 'suitable or good enough to live in.' But how do scientists know what is 'good enough to live in' for extraterrestrial organisms? Could alien microbes frolic in lakes of boiling acid or frigid liquid methane, or float in water droplets in Venus' upper atmosphere? To keep it simple, NASA's mantra has been 'follow the water.' This makes sense – water is essential for all Earth life we know of. A planet with liquid water would also have a temperate environment. It wouldn't be so cold that it slows down chemical reactions, nor would it be so hot that it destroys the complex molecules necessary for life. However, with astronomers' rapidly growing capabilities for characterizing alien worlds, astrobiologists need an approach that is more quantitative and nuanced than the water or no-water classification. As part of the NASA-funded Alien Earths project that I lead, astrobiologist Rory Barnes and I worked on this problem with a group of experts – astrobiologists, planetary scientists, exoplanet experts, ecologists, biologists and chemists – drawn from the largest network of exoplanet and astrobiology researchers, NASA's Nexus for Exoplanet System Science, or NExSS. Over a hundred colleagues provided us with ideas, and two questions came up often: First, how do we know what life needs, if we do not understand the full range of extraterrestrial life? Scientists know a lot about life on Earth, but most astrobiologists agree that more exotic types of life – perhaps based on different combinations of chemical elements and solvents – are possible. How do we determine what conditions those other types of life may require? Second, the approach has to work with incomplete data. Potential sites for life beyond Earth – 'extrasolar habitats' – are very difficult to study directly, and often impossible to visit and sample. For example, the Martian subsurface remains mostly out of our reach. Places like Jupiter's moon Europa's and Saturn's Moon Enceladus' subsurface oceans and all extrasolar planets remain practically unreachable. Scientists study them indirectly, often only using remote observations. These measurements can't tell you as much as actual samples would. To make matters worse, measurements often have uncertainties. For example, we may be only 88% confident that water vapor is present in an exoplanet's atmosphere. Our framework has to be able to work with small amounts of data and handle uncertainties. And, we need to accept that the answers will often not be black or white. The new approach, called the quantitative habitability framework, has two distinguishing features: First, we moved away from trying to answer the vague 'habitable to life' question and narrowed it to a more specific and practically answerable question: Would the conditions in the habitat – as we know them – allow a specific (known or yet unknown) species or ecosystem to survive? Even on Earth, organisms require different conditions to survive – there are no camels in Antarctica. By talking about specific organisms, we made the question easier to answer. Second, the quantitative habitability framework does not insist on black-or-white answers. It compares computer models to calculate a probabilistic answer. Instead of assuming that liquid water is a key limiting factor, we compare our understanding of the conditions an organism requires (the 'organism model') with our understanding of the conditions present in the environment (the 'habitat model'). Both have uncertainties. Our understanding of each can be incomplete. Yet, we can handle the uncertainties mathematically. By comparing the two models, we can determine the probability that an organism and a habitat are compatible. As a simplistic example, our habitat model for Antarctica may state that temperatures are often below freezing. And our organism model for a camel may state that it does not survive long in cold temperatures. Unsurprisingly, we would correctly predict a near-zero probability that Antarctica is a good habitat for camels. We had a blast working on this project. To study the limits of life, we collected literature data on extreme organisms, from insects that live in the Himalayas at high altitudes and low temperatures to microorganisms that flourish in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor and feed on chemical energy. We explored, via our models, whether they may survive in the Martian subsurface or in Europa's oceans. We also investigated if marine bacteria that produce oxygen in Earth's oceans could potentially survive on known extrasolar planets. Although comprehensive and detailed, this approach makes important simplifications. For example, it does not yet model how life may shape the planet, nor does it account for the full array of nutrients organisms may need. These simplifications are by design. In most of the environments we currently study, we know too little about the conditions to meaningfully attempt such models – except for some solar system bodies, such as Saturn's Enceladus. The quantitative habitability framework allows my team to answer questions like whether astrobiologists might be interested in a subsurface location on Mars, given the available data, or whether astronomers should turn their telescopes to planet A or planet B while searching for life. Our framework is available as an open-source computer model, which astrobiologists can now readily use and further develop to help with current and future projects. If scientists do detect a potential signature of life, this approach can help assess if the environment where it is detected can actually support the type of life that leads to the signature detected. Our next steps will be to build a database of terrestrial organisms that live in extreme environments and represent the limits of life. To this data, we can also add models for hypothetical alien life. By integrating those into the quantitative habitability framework, we will be able to work out scenarios, interpret new data coming from other worlds and guide the search for signatures of life beyond Earth – in our solar system and beyond. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Daniel Apai, University of Arizona Read more: Are we alone in the universe? 4 essential reads on potential contact with aliens 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' − an astronomer explains how much evidence scientists need to claim discoveries like extraterrestrial life Extraterrestrial life may look nothing like life on Earth − so astrobiologists are coming up with a framework to study how complex systems evolve Daniel Apai receives funding from NASA, Heising-Simons Foundation, Department of Defense, Space Telescope Science Institute, and the University of Arizona, and leads the NASA-funded Alien Earths astrobiology research team that developed the framework described here. He is affiliated with the Steward Observatory and Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of The University of Arizona.
The National
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
From the editor: David Lammy's 'clickbait' jibe won't silence us
Politicians say all kinds of things about The National. This is a side effect of having a strong political stance and holding actual values. We are all very used to it and actually, we often laugh about various insults in the newsroom. I remember Anas Sarwar claiming we blamed the SNP's poor Rutherglen by-election result on poor weather ... which was absolute nonsense. It was pretty amusing for those of us staying up until the wee hours covering the count, though. I can recall Michael Gove saying we were the worst newspaper in the world, which was quite entertaining. A newspaper hated by Michael Gove is a newspaper I'd like to be a part of, and I reckon plenty Scots feel the same way. That's why we put up the billboards. Then there's all the usual suspects having a go at us on social media. Murdo Fraser always seems to be personally victimised by whatever we're covering. There's historic beef with Alex Cole-Hamilton. Politicians of all colours in the Better Together rainbow have had their say, and we've never been massively troubled by it. However this week, I was genuinely infuriated by the words of a senior UK Government figure. There was nothing to laugh about here. In describing a news story we broke as "clickbait", David Lammy attempted to discredit us and silence us on the most important story of our times – Israel's genocide in Gaza. The story was about how the Labour Government, in the last quarter of 2024, exported more weapons to Israel than the Tories did from 2020-23. We broke this news last Thursday and it was widely shared, including by independent MP Zarah Sultana. She brought the figures (which came from the UK Government themselves) up to Lammy in the Commons this week, and he accused the MP of sharing "clickbait" online. The official Oxford Languages definition of "clickbait" is: "Content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page." Labour would know plenty about this. For instance, many years ago Keir Starmer shared his infamous 10 pledges website, hoping to attract attention from potential voters within the Labour membership pool before swiftly backtracking on all of his promises and deleting it when it became politically awkward. Labour also shared fancy graphics promising cheaper energy bills, hoping for clicks and engagement, before doing precisely nothing as energy bills continued rising when they came to power. What is not clickbait, however, is well-researched stories, based on official verified figures. Even when it is shared by a news outlet that you don't like because it actually bothers to hold you accountable. We at The National stand by our story. How many of Labour's claims can they stand by? To dismiss such a serious matter as the export of arms to a state which is clearly breaching international human rights law as "clickbait" shows us how intellectually lazy this class of government ministers is, and how morally bankrupt they are. You can say "clickbait" as many times as you want, Dave. It doesn't change the facts. You exported more weapons in three months than the Tories did in three years. If you want to be complicit in Israel's assault on Gaza, at least have the guts to own it.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Alamak! Malaysian loanwords ‘mat rempit', ‘tapau' and ‘terror' among new additions to Oxford English Dictionary
OXFORD, March 27 – Oxford Languages has announced today its latest update to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), featuring several loanwords from Malaysia. In a statement, OED said among the newly included words is 'alamak' — an exclamation expressing surprise, shock, dismay, or outrage. It said the origins of the word — borrowed from Malay and first recorded in 1952 — are uncertain but may stem from Arabic and Portuguese expressions. A similar interjection, 'alamah,' exists in Kristang, a Malay-Portuguese creole. 'It could have come from ala 'highest, exalted', from the Arabic aʿlā 'higher, highest' or Allah 'god', from Arabic allāh, combined with mak 'mother', perhaps originally after the Portuguese expression Mãe de Deus, literally 'Mother of God', Santa Mãe, literally 'Holy Mother', or another similar utterance,' it said. Several food-related terms have also been added, reflecting the influence of Malay cuisine such as 'ketupat' (first recorded in 1886) refers to a diamond-shaped rice cake wrapped in woven palm leaves, commonly served with satay or festive meals. 'Otak-otak' (1929) describes a dish of ground fish mixed with spices and coconut milk, wrapped in banana or palm leaves, and cooked by steaming or grilling. 'Nasi lemak' (1935), a dish of coconut milk-cooked rice with various garnishes, and 'kaya toast' (1989), a toasted bread sandwich with butter and kaya (a coconut and egg jam), also made the list. Other newly recognised food terms include 'half-boiled egg' (1931), an egg cooked briefly in hot water and seasoned with soy sauce and pepper, and 'tapau' (1997), a term derived from Cantonese meaning to pack food for takeaway. Meanwhile, two dishes with Anglicised names — 'fish head curry' (1972) and 'steamboat' (1960) — have also been included. Beyond food, the update features 'mat rempit' (2004), describing young men involved in illegal motorcycle racing in Malaysia. The word 'terror', first recorded in 1977, is also listed as an adjective in Malaysian English, meaning either 'terrible' or, in a positive sense, 'admirable' or 'excellent.' This word is sometimes spelled 'terer' in colloquial Malay, to distinguish it from the original English word. The full list of words: alamak, int. fish head curry, n. half-boiled egg, n. kaya, n.2 kaya toast, n. ketupat, n. mat rempit, n. nasi lemak, n. otak-otak, n. steamboat, n. tapau, v. terror, adj.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Divided Rutherford County Library System board bans transgender books focused on minors
Divided Rutherford County Library System Board members both angered and pleased a packed audience Monday by voting to remove books that "promote" transgender issues pertaining to minors. The majority of the voluntary board followed the lead of appointed member Cody York to "remove material that promotes, encourages, advocates for or normalizes transgenderism or 'gender confusion' in minors." "We need to protect children," York said with the support of about half of those in the audience. The Rutherford County Courthouse drew over 200 people on both sides of the issue, filling audience seats and lining the meeting room floor and balcony. They applauded, cheered, whistled and shouted — for and against — as speeches were given. Jessica Robertson of Murfreesboro was among 10 speakers during public comment to address the issue. She voiced her agreement with audience members holding signs that said, "Leave it on the shelf." "As the mother of a transgender child, the attempted erasure of my child in a public setting such as the library by members of this board is deplorable," Robertson told the board. "I am outraged by the audacity in the belief that this action item is acceptable in any way." Six out of 10 speakers opposed removing the books from the shelves. Robertson wore a T-shirt with words that say, "All Genders are Valid." She sat in the audience next to a fellow book freedom supporter Heather Ahmie, who held a sign with words and letters in different colors to tell the board this message: "More Pride, Less Prejudice, Ban Bigotry, Not Books." 'We are banished': Rutherford schools book banning upsets free speech advocates Many in the audience applauded and cheered for the comments and decisions of York and the majority of the board. Fellow library board members who agreed with York in removing the books are Marzee Woodward, Dina Piazza, Susan Quesenberry and Sam Huddleston, who's an assistant city manager for Murfreesboro. Three board members opposed the decision: Kory Wells, vice chairman Rollie Holden and Benjamin Groce, a Smyrna attorney who mentioned concerns about the book removal decisions being unconstitutional. Chairman Phil King abstains from voting unless there's a tie. Prior to the vote to remove books about "transgenderism," the same five majority of board members also voted to remove the picture book, "Me & My Dysphoria Monster" from the library system. The book is by author Laura Kate Dale and Illustrated by Ang Hui Qing. Wells and Groce opposed the removal of the book. Holden abstained. First Amendment issue: Library supporters upset by board pulling 4 books say they're 'fighting against censorship' Public comment speaker Robertson also questioned the board's use of "transgenderism" in banning books. "The word 'transgenderism' is considered derogatory, but you may already know that and that's why you chose to use it," Robertson told the board. "Now I am going to define the word bigotry as found on the Oxford Languages website: 'Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group." The decision by the board also offended Chris Sanders, executive director of two advocacy groups promoting equal rights for LGBTQ+ people, Tennessee Equality Project and Tennessee Equality Project Foundation. "We used to talk about an informed democracy," Sanders said. "Last night's actions by the Library Board indicate some people in positions of authority are abandoning that idea by removing books about a whole group of people. The public deserves accurate information, particularly about trans people right now because of the concerted efforts to vilify them." This is a developing story. Reach reporter Scott Broden with news tips or questions by emailing him at sbroden@ Follow him on Twitter @ScottBroden. To support his work with The Daily News Journal, sign up for a digital subscription. Kory Wells This article originally appeared on Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Rutherford County Library System board bans books on 'transgenderism'
