Science

Quasars Show that Time was Slower in the Early Days of the Universe

Artist’s rendering of the accretion disc in ULAS J1120+0641, a very distant quasar powered by a supermassive black hole with a mass two billion times that of the Sun. Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

(Astronomy) A team of astronomers led by Geraint Lewis, the astrophysics professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Physics, have recently proven that time in the early days of the universe, roughly 1 billion years ago, was significantly slower than time at the present day. By looking at quasars, incredibly active supermassive black holes, the team was able to determine how much the present universe has sped up compared to the distant past. This claim also buttresses Albert Einstein’s General Theory of relativity, which states that the passage of time was slower for the distant universe in the past.

Five times slower. That’s how slow Professor Lewis’ team found time to be in the universe’s earliest stage. To quote Professor Lewis: “If you were there, in this infant universe, one second would seem like one second — but from our position, more than 12 billion years into the future, that early time appears to drag.”

This discovery will have a massive impact on other astronomers. Understanding the passage of time in the beginning of the universe can help them not only figure out the endgame of the universe, but also such questions as How was the universe formed? and Are there other universes besides ours?

      A solution to the Ails of Chemotherapy?

      600,000 deaths. That’s how many casualties were estimated in 2021 by a foe we can’t so much as see with the naked eye: cancer. The dreaded illness that, since the foundation of modern medicine, humanity seems unable to tackle and extinguish permanently. Despite the advancement of technology (specifically in the medical sector), it seems as if we are a ways off from adequately dealing with it on a global scale. 

      That isn’t to say that there aren’t methods to deal with this disease. Chemotherapy for instance is one such remedy. It decimates cancerous cells, but does so with a massive risk to the body it’s done to, through also killing the necessary (good) cells humans need in the process. This treatment results in patients becoming immunocompromised. This label not only increases the risk of people contracting diseases, but it also increases the potential for these common ailments (such as the common cold or the flu for instance) to quickly turn to a hospital visit because of a life-threatening concern. 

      Described by those who administer chemotherapy as a double-edged sword, it appeared doubtful that the negative effects of chemotherapy could ever be reduced. After all, it took so long for this treatment to even be discovered according to modern medicine, reinforcing the notion that humanity’s war against cancer seems to have arrived at a stalemate.

      Then came a new discovery: stem cell transplants. This method seemed to solve the problems that chemotherapy generated by administering stem cells to the vein. This enables the cells to travel to the bone marrow and then become new cells that are necessary for human health, such as platelets (which help out with blood clots), to white blood cells (which assists the immune system and helps the body fight infection) to even red blood cells (which helps facilitate oxygen throughout the body). 

      Proponents of this method claim that this is an instrumental tool for humanity in its battle against cancer due to its ability to assist cancer patients after chemotherapy, which is widely considered to be the most prevalent form of cancer treatment. Although it may not be the final product, it does certainly pose questions that may pave the way toward achieving even more technological advancements in this war. 

      That’s not to say that there aren’t those who are against this method however. Some argue their stance as one where this treatment excludes the common man: stem cell transplants are incredibly expensive due to their highly advanced technological nature. This high price tag prevents the vast majority of cancer patients from being able to access this potentially life-saving treatment, pushing the ethical dilemma concerning both wealth and the ability to save a life (if not multiple). Others who are against this cite that it too comes with some drawbacks much like chemotherapy in the form of side effects. From bleeding to increased risk of infection (which is what it’s partially designed to combat), it too poses a set of risks that cannot be ignored in the eyes of some. 

      Image credit: bioinformant.com, depiction of stem cells.

      Regardless of your stance on this matter, there is a middle ground: this innovation, despite all of its shortcomings, has advanced the battle against cancer in many ways beyond just one. Beyond helping people achieve some sense of normalcy in their lives through alleviating the impacts of chemotherapy, it also grants hope to those who have (or can obtain) access to this treatment. Modern medicine, just like how it conquered measles and rubella and countless other diseases, will hopefully beat this one too.

      1. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/stem-cell-transplant
      2. https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2021.html

      Microplastics are everywhere — but are they dangerous?

      Originally perceived as a marine issue, with oceanographers estimating a total of 15–51 trillion microplastic particles floating on surface waters worldwide, scientists have recently discovered that these tiny particles can contaminate rivers, soils and air. Furthermore, these minuscule particles have been found in a range of food, human stool, and even made their way into some of Earth’s most remote regions; including the poles, the equator, and even Mount Everest.

      Plastics are a group of materials, either synthetic or naturally occurring; used in numerous applications in our daily life. They are the third most abundant material, after concrete and steel, and are used in countless sectors; ranging from medicine to transport.

      Microplastics are microscopic fragments of plastic debris, that usually emerge from plastic litter due to sunlight exposure, which causes the material to degrade and weaken over time; they can also come from plastic items due to wear and tear. For instance, up to 1.5 million microfibres, a type of microplastic, can be released per kilogram of clothing during a wash. Remarkably, even opening a plastic bottle can create thousands of microplastics. One may ask, are humans ingesting these minute particles?

      The short answer is: yes, with the discovery of microplastics found in stool verifying this question. As of today, microplastics have been found in foods and drinks, mainly bottled and tap water, salt, dust, and more. According to a study conducted in Queensland, researchers studied samples of rice from different countries around the world, detecting microplastics in every sample; whether the rice was grown in Thailand, India, Pakistan, or Australia, and packaged in plastic or paper. In an interview, Dr Jake O’Brien, a lead author for Environmental Health Sciences, states “Washing the rice reduced the amount of plastic likely to be ingested. But the study used special filtered water for rinsing, and most households only have access to tap water; which contains microplastics.”

      There currently isn’t enough evidence to say that microplastics are harmful, as the topic is relatively new. A lack of information and research surrounding the phenomenon is scarce, as scientists aim to establish an evidence base. Prof Ian Musgrave, a toxicologist at the University of Adelaide, expresses “Knowing if microplastics are harmful to humans is hard to untangle when we are exposed to so many other substances. While we are consuming things that have tiny amounts of microplastics, we don’t absorb them. But because we can’t demonstrate damage, that’s not a reason to be casual.” Additionally, this explains why multiple studies on the ingestion of microplastics by marine animals, can’t completely isolate the impact microplastics have against all the other pollution and pressure they are exposed to in the environment, as it’s difficult to perform.

      Likewise, there are emerging studies on the effects of ingesting high levels of microplastics in rats and mice, concluding that high levels of microplastic accumulation can affect reproduction. Nevertheless, it is more likely that the smaller the particles the greater the potential to cause harm, as smaller specks have an easier chance of entering cells or tissues; however, quantifying these issues and understanding where they come from is a challenge.

      While the debate is still ongoing as to whether microplastic could cause harm, you may still wish to limit your exposure. To limit your exposure, you can drink filtered tap water, and choose natural-based products over plastic for yourself and your environment will help reduce microplastic exposure. Overall, minimising microplastic exposure globally requires a substantial effort to limit the release of plastics, and microplastics, to the environment. Reducing plastic waste, washing your clothes less often, and bringing your own bag whilst shopping; all can contribute to limiting plastic release and even production; thus decreasing microplastic exposure.

      Whatever the solution, it’s important that it’s better for both the planet and people.

      Lab-grown meat: Incredible or Inedible?

      Scientists are currently cultivating proteins from the stem cells of livestock and poultry in labs in a bid to create more sustainable meat, but will anyone want to eat it?

      Lab-grown meat, although a promising concept, has been slow to hit the mainstream. The notion is to grow meat, within laboratory conditions, by extracting stem cells from live animals and installing them into a bioreactor (vessel-like device), where salts, vitamins, sugars, and proteins are added. The oxygen-rich temperature-controlled environment allows the stem cells to multiply dramatically; eventually differentiating into muscle fibres that cluster together, aided by scaffolding material.

      Numerous start-ups and companies have invested millions into this innovative technology. Eat Just, valued at $1.2 billion, was founded by Josh Tetrick in 2011, and the company began the development of lab-grown chicken in 2016. “With the aid of a 1,200-liter bioreactor, the cells can develop into meat at a rapid rate with the whole process taking around 14 days. For comparison, the production of farm-based chicken is a 45-day process”, states the CEO of Eat Just. Evidently, lab-grown meat rivals the production of farm-based alternatives; by providing a more efficient development procedure.

      Currently, the meat industry slaughters tens of billions of animals every year, and meat consumption is expected to increase by more than 70% by the year 2050; according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. At the current state, lab-grown meat products will struggle to satisfy these demands. To put this into perspective, to produce enough meat to feed everyone in Singapore, Eat Just would need to use 10,000-litre bioreactors, over more this process is currently more expensive than traditional farming methods. However, with increased funding, it might soon become a reality.

      Despite these challenges, the advancement of lab-grown meat products will continue, promising a wealth of benefits. Lab-grown meat is drug-free, cruelty-free, more environmentally friendly, and sustainable. One report estimates that lab-produced meats could lower greenhouse emissions by 78–96%, 99% less land use, and 82–96% less water consumption. It is, without a doubt, more sustainable than traditional meat farming.

      In spite of all adversities, at the end of last year, restaurant 1880 in Singapore became the first in the world to serve lab-grown meat, after approval from the country’s food agency on the sale of cultured meat. This poses as a huge stepping stone for the future of lab-grown meat. One estimate by US consultancy firm Kearney suggests that 35 per cent of all meat consumed globally will be cell-based by 2040.

      In an earlier interview, Josh Tetrick (founder of EatJust) expresses, “Working in partnership with the broader agriculture sector and forward-thinking policymakers, companies like ours can help meet the increased demand for animal protein as our population climbs to 9.7 billion by 2050.”

      It is beyond dispute that the status quo is not sustainable. So, do we have the appetite for change?