Latest news with #TheConversation
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Experts ask where the center of the universe is
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. About a century ago, scientists were struggling to reconcile what seemed a contradiction in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. Published in 1915, and already widely accepted worldwide by physicists and mathematicians, the theory assumed the universe was static – unchanging, unmoving and immutable. In short, Einstein believed the size and shape of the universe today was, more or less, the same size and shape it had always been. But when astronomers looked into the night sky at faraway galaxies with powerful telescopes, they saw hints the universe was anything but that. These new observations suggested the opposite – that it was, instead, expanding. Scientists soon realized Einstein's theory didn't actually say the universe had to be static; the theory could support an expanding universe as well. Indeed, by using the same mathematical tools provided by Einstein's theory, scientists created new models that showed the universe was, in fact, dynamic and evolving. I've spent decades trying to understand general relativity, including in my current job as a physics professor teaching courses on the subject. I know wrapping your head around the idea of an ever-expanding universe can feel daunting – and part of the challenge is overriding your natural intuition about how things work. For instance, it's hard to imagine something as big as the universe not having a center at all, but physics says that's the reality. First, let's define what's meant by "expansion." On Earth, "expanding" means something is getting bigger. And in regard to the universe, that's true, sort of. Expansion might also mean "everything is getting farther from us," which is also true with regard to the universe. Point a telescope at distant galaxies and they all do appear to be moving away from us. What's more, the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving. Those galaxies also seem to be moving away from each other. So it's more accurate to say that everything in the universe is getting farther away from everything else, all at once. This idea is subtle but critical. It's easy to think about the creation of the universe like exploding fireworks: Start with a big bang, and then all the galaxies in the universe fly out in all directions from some central point. But that analogy isn't correct. Not only does it falsely imply that the expansion of the universe started from a single spot, which it didn't, but it also suggests that the galaxies are the things that are moving, which isn't entirely accurate. It's not so much the galaxies that are moving away from each other – it's the space between galaxies, the fabric of the universe itself, that's ever-expanding as time goes on. In other words, it's not really the galaxies themselves that are moving through the universe; it's more that the universe itself is carrying them farther away as it expands. A common analogy is to imagine sticking some dots on the surface of a balloon. As you blow air into the balloon, it expands. Because the dots are stuck on the surface of the balloon, they get farther apart. Though they may appear to move, the dots actually stay exactly where you put them, and the distance between them gets bigger simply by virtue of the balloon's expansion. Now think of the dots as galaxies and the balloon as the fabric of the universe, and you begin to get the picture. Unfortunately, while this analogy is a good start, it doesn't get the details quite right either. Important to any analogy is an understanding of its limitations. Some flaws are obvious: A balloon is small enough to fit in your hand – not so the universe. Another flaw is more subtle. The balloon has two parts: its latex surface and its air-filled interior. These two parts of the balloon are described differently in the language of mathematics. The balloon's surface is two-dimensional. If you were walking around on it, you could move forward, backward, left, or right, but you couldn't move up or down without leaving the surface. Now it might sound like we're naming four directions here – forward, backward, left and right – but those are just movements along two basic paths: side to side and front to back. That's what makes the surface two-dimensional – length and width. The inside of the balloon, on the other hand, is three-dimensional, so you'd be able to move freely in any direction, including up or down – length, width and height. This is where the confusion lies. The thing we think of as the "center" of the balloon is a point somewhere in its interior, in the air-filled space beneath the surface. But in this analogy, the universe is more like the latex surface of the balloon. The balloon's air-filled interior has no counterpart in our universe, so we can't use that part of the analogy – only the surface matters. So asking, "Where's the center of the universe?" is somewhat like asking, "Where's the center of the balloon's surface?' There simply isn't one. You could travel along the surface of the balloon in any direction, for as long as you like, and you'd never once reach a place you could call its center because you'd never actually leave the surface. In the same way, you could travel in any direction in the universe and would never find its center because, much like the surface of the balloon, it simply doesn't have one. Part of the reason this can be so challenging to comprehend is because of the way the universe is described in the language of mathematics. The surface of the balloon has two dimensions, and the balloon's interior has three, but the universe exists in four dimensions. Because it's not just about how things move in space, but how they move in time. Our brains are wired to think about space and time separately. But in the universe, they're interwoven into a single fabric, called 'space-time.' That unification changes the way the universe works relative to what our intuition expects. And this explanation doesn't even begin to answer the question of how something can be expanding indefinitely – scientists are still trying to puzzle out what powers this expansion. So in asking about the center of the universe, we're confronting the limits of our intuition. The answer we find – everything, expanding everywhere, all at once – is a glimpse of just how strange and beautiful our universe is. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Mint
5 hours ago
- Business
- Mint
US passes GENIUS Act: Could the new cryptocurrency law trigger the next global financial crisis?
On June 17, the US Senate passed the GENIUS Act, aiming to regulate a type of cryptocurrency known as 'stablecoins'. Even though this move is viewed as a big win for the cryptocurrency sector, a closer look at the law reveals how it could, quite easily, lead to the next global economic crash. People are increasingly investing in crypto because its volatile value can lead to huge returns on investment. For instance, Bitcoin (BTC), the oldest cryptocurrency on record, surged the most on Monday by climbing over $120,000 per BTC. Since the factors that determine its price are often unclear, crypto investment is essentially a roll of the dice. Making profits on crypto trading is often as likely as winning at roulette. The crypto industry realised that the high volatility and unpredictability of crypto currencies will pose a barrier in attracting more risk-averse investors, reported The Conversation. Hence, to create the appearance of stability, companies began to create 'stablecoins'—cryptocurrencies whose prices are pegged to another currency. In this case, the companies had to hold an equivalent amount of pegged currency in reserve so that the investors could sell the currencies anytime and demand the sale amount in that particular currency. Now that the GENIUS Act has passed through the US Senate, big companies like Amazon and Walmart are already planning to issue their own stablecoins for customers. Since the GENIUS Act will actively regulate stablecoins, people may believe that all stablecoins are equally safe. However, this is impossible to guarantee, and several questions remain about how businesses will leverage their own stablecoins to their advantage. The potential for stablecoins to trigger a financial crisis draws parallels to historical currency crises, where a country, instead of a company, issues a pegged currency. Argentina is one such example. From 1991 to 2002, the Argentinian Central Bank promised to exchange one peso for $1, but this artificial peg distorted trade and ultimately led to economic collapse when it was removed. If big US companies start issuing USD-pegged stablecoins during their successful period and later their finances take a turn for the worse, it would cause a bigger crisis in the market. The company would finance the coins with assets such as US treasury bills or bonds to guarantee the coin's value. The Conversation report points out that if one company collapses, it would set off a chain reaction. Investors would then start returning stablecoins, prompting the company to sell off its USD holdings (US treasury bills) to calm nervous investors. The impacts might soon start to ripple outwards. A selloff of US bonds would decrease the price of bonds themselves, causing US interest rates to spike. A sudden, unexpected, and drastic increase in US interest rates could easily translate into a global financial crisis, as banks and governments all around the world would suddenly face solvency crises. Despite the regulators ensuring that the companies have enough reserves to fulfil their promises if investors start to panic, there's a high chance that things might take a turn. Just a few years ago, they failed to notice that Silicon Valley Bank had too many assets at risk of an increase in interest rates, an oversight that caused the bank to collapse in 2023. It is therefore not difficult to imagine a situation where multiple companies are able to irresponsibly issue too many stablecoins. If this happens, the consequences could be dire, not just for the US, but for the entire global economy, the publication reported.
7NEWS
a day ago
- Politics
- 7NEWS
Does Donald Trump deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? We asked 5 experts
This article first appeared in The Conversation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formally nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. He says the president is 'forging peace as we speak, in one country, in one region after the other'. Trump, who has craved the award for years, sees himself as a global peacemaker in a raft of conflicts from Israel and Iran, to Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. With the conflict in Gaza still raging, we ask five experts – could Trump be rewarded with the world's most prestigious peace prize? Emma Shortis Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University. NO Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show. Of course Trump does not deserve it. That we're being forced to take this question seriously is yet another indication – as if we needed one – of his extraordinary ability to set and reset the terms of our politics. There is no peace in Gaza. Even if Trump announced another ceasefire tomorrow, it would not last. And it would not build genuine peace and security. Trump has neither the interest nor the attention span required to build long term peace. His administration is not willing to bear any of the costs or investments that come with genuine, lasting diplomacy. And he is not anti-war. There is no peace in Iran. Trump's bombing of Iran simply exacerbates his decision in 2018 to end nuclear negotiations with Tehran. It pushes the world closer to, not further from, nuclear catastrophe. Under the Trump administration, there will be no peace in the Middle East. Both the US and Israeli governments' approach to 'security' puts the region on a perpetual war footing. This approach assumes it is possible to bomb your way to peace – a 'peace' which both Trump and Netanyahu understand as total dominance and violent oppression. The Trump administration is deliberately undermining the institutions and principles of international and domestic law. He has deployed the military against American citizens. He is threatening the United States' traditional allies with trade wars and annexation. His administration's dismantling of USAID will result, according to one study, in the deaths of 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, by 2030. Indulging Trump's embarrassing desire for trophies might appease him for a short time. It would also strip the Nobel Peace Prize of any and all credibility, while endorsing Trump's trashing of the international rule of law. What kind of peace is that? Ali Mamouri Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University NO The nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize by a man who is facing charges of war crimes is an unprecedented and deeply dark irony that cannot be overlooked. Trump's role in brokering the Abraham Accords was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. It led to the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. But this achievement came at a significant cost. The accords deliberately sidelined the Palestinian issue, long recognised as the core of regional instability, and disregarded decades of international consensus on a two-state solution. Trump's administration openly supported Israeli policies widely considered to violate international law, including the expansion of illegal settlements and the proposed annexation of Palestinian territory. His silence in the face of a growing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was equally telling. Perhaps most disturbing was the tacit or explicit endorsement of proposals to forcibly relocate Palestinians to neighbouring Arab countries, a position that evokes ethnic cleansing and fundamentally undermines principles of justice, dignity and international law. In addition, there is Trump's unconditional support for Israel's military campaigns across the region, including his authorisation of attacks on Iranian civilian, military and nuclear infrastructure. The strikes lacked any clear legal basis, contributed further to regional instability and, according to Tehran, killed more than a thousand civilians. His broader disregard for international norms shattered decades of post-second world war diplomatic order and increased the risk of sustained and expanded conflict. Against this backdrop, any serious consideration of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize seems fundamentally at odds with its stated mission: to honour efforts that reduce conflict, uphold human rights and promote lasting peace. Whatever short-term diplomatic gains emerged from Trump's tenure are eclipsed by the legal, ethical and humanitarian consequences of his actions. Ian Parmeter Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University. NO Netanyahu's nomination of Donald Trump for one of the world's most coveted awards was clearly aimed at flattering the president. Trump is clearly angling for the laurel, which his first term predecessor, Barack Obama, won in his first year in office. Obama was awarded the prize in 2009 for promotion of nuclear non-proliferation and fostering a 'new climate' in international relations, particularly in reaching out to the Muslim world. Given neither of these ambitions have since borne fruit, what claims might Trump reasonably make at this stage of his second term? Trump has claimed credit for resolving two conflicts this year: the brief India–Pakistan clash that erupted after Pakistani militants killed 25 Indian tourists in Kashmir in May; and the long-running dispute between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disputes Trump brokered peace. He says the issue was resolved by negotiations between the two countries' militaries. With regards to the Rwanda–DRC conflict, the countries signed a peace agreement in the Oval Office in June. But critics argue Qatar played a significant role which the Trump administration has airbrushed out. Trump can legitimately argue his pressure on Israel and Iran forced a ceasefire in their 12-day war in June. But his big test is the Gaza war. For Trump to add this to his Nobel claim, he will need more than a ceasefire. The Biden administration brokered two ceasefires that enabled the release of significant numbers of hostages, but did not end the conflict. Trump would have to use his undoubted influence with Netanyahu to achieve more than a temporary pause. He would have to end the war definitively and effect the release of all Israeli hostages. Beyond that, if Trump could persuade Netanyahu to take serious steps towards negotiating a two-state solution, that would be a genuine Nobel-worthy achievement. Trump isn't there yet. Jasmine-Kim Westendorf Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict and Co-Director of the Initiative for Peacebuilding, The University of Melbourne. NO The Nobel Peace Prize recognises outstanding contributions to peace globally. Although controversial or politicised awards are not new, awardees are generally individuals or groups who've made significant contributions to a range of peace initiatives. They include reducing armed conflict, enhancing international cooperation, and human rights efforts that contribute to peace. Inspiring examples include anti-nuclear proliferation organisations and phenomenal women peacemakers. And Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege, who won in 2011 for their work trying to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. Trump has declared his 'proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier'. But he is neither. The president has fuelled escalating insecurity, violent conflict and human rights violations globally, and actively undermined international cooperation for peace. This includes the decision to sanction judges of the International Criminal Court. There has been a concerning trend towards using the Nobel Peace Prize to encourage certain political directions, rather than reward achievements. Barack Obama's 2008 Prize helped motivate his moves toward diplomacy and cooperation after the presidency of George W. Bush. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's 2018 award was for efforts to resolve the 20-year war with Eritrea. The peace prize encouraged Ahmed to fulfill his promise of democratic elections in 2020. Embarrassingly, within a year Ahmed launched a civil war that killed over 600,000 people and displaced 3 million more. This week's nomination follows efforts by global leaders to flatter Trump in order – they hope – to secure his goodwill. These motivations explain why Netanyahu has put forward Trump's name to the Nobel Committee. It comes at the very moment securing Trump's ongoing support during ceasefire negotiations is critical for Netanyahu's political survival. Trump has also been nominated by the government of Pakistan and by several Republican figures. Flattery is the currency Trump trades in. These nominations pander to a president who has bemoaned They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize […] It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me. Prizes to genuine peacemakers amplify their work and impact. 1984 winner Desmond Tutu said: 'One day no one was listening. The next, I was an oracle.' A Nobel can be a powerful force for peace. Trump is no peacemaker, he doesn't deserve one. Shahram Akbarzadeh Director, Middle East Studies Forum (MESF), Deakin University NO Benjamin Netanyahu would have us believe Donald Trump is a peacemaker. Nothing could be further from the truth. His record is stained with blood and misery. The fact Trump believes himself to be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize only attests to his illusions of grandeur in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The war in Gaza has gone into its 20th month because Trump did not use the levers at his control to bring the senseless war to a close. Some estimates put the true Gaza death toll at 100,000 people, and counting. They have been killed by American-made bombs Israel is dropping across the densely populated strip; from starvation because Israel has enforced a blockade of the Gaza Strip and prevented UN food delivery with the blessings of America; and from gunshots at food distribution centres, set up with US private security. All under Trump's watch. Trump could do something about this. Israel is the largest recipient of US aid, most of it military support. This has multiplied since Israel commenced its attack on Gaza in response to Hamas terrorism on October 7 2023. Trump has approved the transfer of US military hardware to Israel, knowing full well it was being used against a trapped and helpless population. This is not the act of a peacemaker. Now the Israeli government is planning to 'facilitate' population transfer of Gazans to other countries – a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. This is the textbook definition of genocide: deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of people. Trump legitimised this travesty of decency and international law by promising a Gaza Riviera. The outlandish extent of Trump's ideas would be laughable if their consequences were not so devastating. When Israel attacked Iran in the middle of nuclear talks, Trump had a momentary pause, before jumping to Netanyahu's aid and bombing Iran. He then claimed his action paved the way for peace. Trump's idea of peace is the peace of the graveyard. Disclosure statement: Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank. Ali Mamouri and Ian Parmeter do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Jasmine-Kim Westendorf has received funding from the Australian Research Council. Stream free on
Politico
a day ago
- Politico
Homan: 'If you're here illegally and have a kid, that's on you'
Homan: 'If you're here illegally and have a kid, that's on you' | The Conversation lead image
7NEWS
2 days ago
- Business
- 7NEWS
Trump has flagged 200 per cent tariffs on Australian pharmaceuticals. What do we produce here, and what's at risk?
This article first appeared in The Conversation. US President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on Australia's pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders. There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That's both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs. The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices. In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS. Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals The US is Australia's biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38 per cent of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year. About 87 per cent of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations. In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment. Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200 per cent. But he also said these would not be imposed for 'about a year, a year and a half' to allow negotiations to take place. If tariffs are eventually implemented, there are fears domestic manufacturing may suffer, with negative flow-on effects for Australian research and innovation in the sector. How does the PBS work? The PBS is an Australian government program aimed at providing affordable prescription medicines to Australians. It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion. Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness ('value for money') and estimated financial impact of new medications. If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable. How does the US system compare? This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies. The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries. In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period. This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires. In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available. Industry lobbying US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme 'undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments'. The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity. In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way. The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.
