You are sitting still, more or less, but the galaxy beneath you is not. The Milky Way and its neighbours are tearing through space at more than two million kilometres an hour, and that motion is not random. It is the result of a tug-of-war: distant concentrations of mass pulling us forward, and a vast, near-empty region of space effectively shoving us from behind.

The speed is real and measured. The direction tells a story about how matter is spread across the universe.

How we know we are moving

The yardstick is the cosmic microwave background, the faint afterglow of the early universe that fills the sky in every direction. If we were truly at rest, it would look the same temperature all around us. It does not. It reads very slightly hotter in one direction and cooler in the opposite one, a pattern called the dipole, and that asymmetry is a Doppler effect caused by our own movement into it, much as the pitch of a siren rises as it races toward you.

Read off that dipole, the Local Group of galaxies is moving at about 631 kilometres a second relative to the background, which works out to roughly 2.3 million kilometres an hour. We are not drifting. We are racing.

The pull ahead

Some of that motion has a long-known cause. In the direction we are heading lies the Great Attractor, a concentration of mass partly hidden behind the dust of our own galactic disc, which is why it took so long to make sense of. Beyond it sits something larger still, the Shapley Concentration, the densest collection of galaxy clusters in our part of the universe.

These overdense regions do what mass does. They pull, and the Local Group is being drawn toward them across hundreds of millions of light-years.

The push behind

The pull was only half the picture, and the other half is stranger. In 2017, a team led by Yehuda Hoffman mapped the local flow of galaxies and found that the motion is also being driven by a huge, sparsely populated region on the opposite side, which they named the Dipole Repeller.

A void cannot literally push anything. But gravity is a competition between directions, and a region with very little matter exerts very little pull. With density on one side and near-emptiness on the other, the net effect is that we drift away from the emptiness as surely as if it were pushing, falling toward the fuller side of the sky. The 2017 work found that this push and the pull ahead are of roughly equal importance.

What it actually means

None of this is the galaxy falling toward a single dramatic point. It is the Local Group riding the large-scale lumpiness of the cosmos, sliding down the gentle gradient from where matter is thin toward where it is thick.

The map is still being sharpened. The Great Attractor lies in the so-called Zone of Avoidance, the band of sky our own galaxy blocks from view, so it is awkward to study, and the Dipole Repeller is inferred from models of how thousands of galaxies are flowing rather than from a clear photograph of nothing. The broad conclusion, that we are caught between a distant abundance of mass and a distant absence of it, is well supported. The fine detail is still being filled in.

It is a strange thing to sit with. The ground feels still, the sky looks fixed, and all the while the entire galaxy is being carried across the universe at a speed no human machine has ever approached, pulled by what is out there and pushed by what is not.

The post Our galaxy and its neighbours are racing through space at more than two million kilometres an hour, caught in a tug-of-war between the gravity of distant superclusters ahead and a vast, near-empty void shoving us from behind appeared first on Space Daily.

CLICCA QUI PER CONTINUARE A LEGGERE

Widow's Bay, the delightfully eccentric new comedic horror series from Apple TV, is easily one of the best new series of the year. There's a reason everyone from Guillero del Toro and Ben Stiller to Damon Lindelolf (Lost) is raving about the show. It's an eminently binge-able, addictive series that pays tribute to all the classic horror tropes while reinventing them in surprising ways. Think Stephen King meets Parks and Recreation, with a dash of Twin Peaks—except Widow's Bay is very much its own refreshingly original beast.

(Some spoilers below but no major reveals.)

Tom Loftis (Matthew Rhys) is a widower and mayor of Widow's Bay, a quirky little seaside town that has a colorfully bizarre history marked by periodic tragedies. Tom is eager to elevate the town into a trendy summer tourist destination. But the arrival of New York Times travel writer Arthur Lloyd (Bashir Salahuddin), who has the clout to make Tom's aspirations for Widow's Bay come true, coincides with the onset of a mysterious fog. Local resident Wyck (Stephen Root) warns Tom that the fog is an omen that the island is "waking up," meaning more supernatural occurrences are bound to happen.

Read full article

Comments

How many times do you check your email on a normal workday? Be honest. Not the number you’d like to say, the real one, counting every quick glance at the phone and every tab you flick back to between actual tasks.

Some research suggests this little habit might have an effect on wellbeing and stress. 

A quick note before we go further: I’m a writer, not a psychologist or a clinician, and what follows is me reading and thinking about one study, not handing out advice. The research here is drawn from a particular group of people, so treat it as a useful clue about how attention and stress interact, not a rule about your life.

In 2014, Kostadin Kushlev, then a PhD candidate, and Elizabeth Dunn at the University of British Columbia ran a two-week field experiment to test something simple. Does checking email less often make you feel better? They published it the following year in Computers in Human Behavior as “Checking email less frequently reduces stress.”

They recruited 124 adults, about two-thirds of them students, the rest a mix of financial analysts, medical professionals and others. Over two weeks, each person spent one week checking email as often as they liked, and another week limited to three times a day. Which week came first was decided at random. So everyone was their own comparison, living both ways.

You might expect the finding to be about getting more done. Fewer interruptions, more output, that sort of thing. That isn’t what they measured, and it isn’t what jumped out.

What they found was that people felt calmer during the limited week. Participants reported significantly lower daily stress when they were checking less, and lower stress in turn predicted higher well-being across a range of measures. Kushlev put it as plainly as it can be put. “Our findings showed that people felt less stressed when they checked their email less often.”

It’s one two-week study of 124 mostly young people, so it’s a clue rather than a verdict, but the mechanism it points to has shown up in other workplace research too.

The stress relief didn’t come from clearing the inbox faster or replying the moment something landed. It came from checking less often, full stop. The authors point at attention fragmentation, the cost of constantly breaking off what you’re doing to glance at something else, not the speed of your replies.

I know that cost intimately, because I lose to it most days. A Slack message comes in while I’m writing. I tell myself I’ll just glance. I glance, I answer, I come back to the document, and then I sit there for a while staring at the half-finished sentence, trying to remember where I was going with it. The message took ten seconds. Getting back into the writing takes a lot longer.

I’ve built a small fortress against this, with mixed success. The phone goes in another room. I close every tab before I start. No social media open while I work. None of it makes me disciplined. The systems leak, I break my own rules, and some mornings the fortress is more of a fence. But the principle holds: the cost is the interruption itself, not whether the email was urgent.

There’s a wrinkle that makes the study more honest, not less. The people in the limited week mostly couldn’t actually hit three times a day. They checked a mean of about 4.7 times, well above the target, against a baseline of about 15 checks on a normal workday. Kushlev was upfront about it: “Most participants in our study found it quite difficult to check their email only a few times a day.”

So the lower stress showed up in people who tried and largely fell short. That’s encouraging, because most of us are going to fall short too. You don’t have to be a monk about it. Cutting from fifteen-odd checks toward five seems to do something, even if three stays out of reach. As Kushlev framed it, drawing on his own study, “people find it difficult to resist the temptation of checking email, and yet resisting this temptation reduces their stress.”

Kushlev says he changed his own habit after the study. He now checks email in chunks several times a day, rather than constantly responding to messages as they arrive. That’s the one lever from all of this I’ve actually pulled, and the one I plan on keeping — not three times a day, just in chunks, with the inbox shut in between, getting back to whatever I was supposed to be doing before the next glance.

If the low hum of being always-on has tipped into something heavier than email annoyance, a chat with a qualified therapist is worth far more than anything I can offer here.

The post Researchers had 124 adults cut their email checking to three times a day — what dropped wasn’t their workload, it was their daily stress appeared first on Space Daily.

NARWAL FLOW 2, FLOW E FREO Z10 ULTRA

The notebooks Marie Curie filled with her research are still dangerous to touch. More than a century after she wrote in them, the pages remain radioactively contaminated, mostly with radium-226, and the original volumes are kept under strict radiation controls. To read them at the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, where they are stored in lead-lined boxes, you sign a liability waiver and put on protective clothing first.

This is not a curiosity of preservation. It is a direct consequence of the physics Curie helped uncover.

Why a notebook stays dangerous

The contamination is dominated by radium-226, and the key number is its half-life: about 1,600 years. A half-life is the time it takes for half of a radioactive substance to decay away. After a hundred years, radium-226 has barely begun, only a few per cent of it is gone, which is why a century has done almost nothing to make these pages safer. It also decays into a chain of further radioactive products, including radon gas, so the contamination is not one substance sitting quietly but a small, self-renewing source.

On that timescale, estimates suggest the notebooks will stay hazardous to handle freely until around the year 3500. The ink and paper are ordinary. What soaked into them is not.

How a notebook gets contaminated

Curie worked with radium and polonium by hand, every day, at a time when no one understood what that exposure did. She and her husband Pierre had isolated the two elements in 1898, and she coined the term radioactivity itself, but the harm in what they were handling was simply not yet known. She stirred glowing solutions, carried test tubes of radioactive material in her pockets, and is said to have kept a sample by her bed because she liked its glow.

In a laboratory like that, radioactive dust gets onto everything: the bench, the door handles, the pages of the notebook open beside the work. It was not just her papers. Her furniture, her cookbook, and her clothing carry the same contamination, and her old laboratory in Paris was not fully decontaminated until 1991, nearly sixty years after her death.

The controls around them

So the library treats them as what they are, low-level radioactive objects of immense historical value. They sit in boxes lined with lead, because radium-226 and its decay products emit gamma radiation that ordinary materials do not stop. A researcher who wants to consult an original signs an acknowledgement of the risk and works under protection. The notebooks form part of a wider Curie collection the library holds, available to scholars only on those terms.

The hazard is real but modest if handled correctly, which is the point of the controls. The waiver is less about a single dangerous afternoon than about making sure no one treats a radioactive artefact as if it were just an old book.

A record of what was not yet known

There is something fitting, and sad, in all of this. The notebooks are the working record of the woman who gave us the word radioactivity, and they are radioactive because she did the work before anyone, including her, grasped the cost.

Curie died in 1934 of a blood disorder widely linked to her years of exposure. Her pages will go on quietly emitting radiation for another fifteen centuries, long after the science they describe became common knowledge, a physical reminder of how new and how dangerous that knowledge once was. By the time the pages can finally be handled bare-handed, they will have outlasted her by the better part of two thousand years.

The post The notebooks Marie Curie used in her research remain radioactively contaminated more than a hundred years later. Some Curie papers have been found contaminated with radium-226, an isotope with a half-life of about 1,600 years, and original volumes are kept under strict radiation-protection controls before anyone can handle them. appeared first on Space Daily.