Category Archives: Quantum Physics

January 26, 2022

Two University of Rochester faculty members have been elected fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Nicholas Bigelow, the Lee A. DuBridge Professor of Physics and a professor of optics, and Michael Scott, the Arthur Gould Yates Professor of Engineering and also a professor in and chair of the computer science department, are among 564 members of the association recognized this year for their scientifically or socially distinguished efforts on behalf of the advancement of science or its applications.

Bigelow has helped advance the understanding of quantum physics and quantum optics through his pioneering research on the interactions between light and matter. His lab uses laser light to cool atoms to nearly absolute zero temperatures to better manipulate and study them.

Bigelows current projects include creating and manipulating Bose-Einstein condensatesa quantum state of matter made from an atomic gas cooled to temperatures close to absolute zeroand investigating the quantum nature of atom-photon interactions. This research has important applications in areas of quantum mechanics such as quantum computing and sensing. He is also director of the NASA-funded Consortium for Ultracold Atoms in Space and the principal investigator of cold atom experiments running aboard the International Space Station.

Bigelow joined the faculty of the University of Rochester in 1992 and served as chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy from 2008 to 2014.

He has twice received the Universitys Society of Physics Students Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching (in 1998 and 2006) and has held various positions in University governance and leadership, including serving as chair of the Board on Academic Honesty for the College from 1998 to 2004, chair of the University of Rochester Presidential Search Committee in 2004, cochair of the Universitys Middle States Accreditation Committee, and chair of the Faculty Senate.

Bigelow is a fellow of the American Physical Society and of Optica (formerly OSA, or the Optical Society of America).

Scotts widely cited research focuses primarily on systems software for parallel and distributed computing, including developing new ways to share data among concurrent activities, to automate its movement and placement, and to protect it from accidental loss or corruption.

He is best known as a cocreator of the MCS mutual exclusion lock and as the author of Programming Language Pragmatics, one of the definitive and most widely used textbooks on programming language design and implementation. Several algorithms from Scotts research group have been incorporated into the standard library of the Java programming language.

He is a fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). In 2006, he shared the Edsger W. Dijkstra Prize in Distributed Computing.

Scott, who joined the faculty in 1985, also chaired the Department of Computer Science from 1996 to 1999, and was interim chair for six months in 2007, and again in 2017. He received the Universitys Robert and Pamela Goergen Award for Distinguished Achievement and Artistry in Undergraduate Teaching in 2001, the William H. Riker Award for Graduate Teaching in 2020, and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Hajim School of Engineering & Applied Sciences in 2018.

He has played an active role in University governance, including serving as cochair of the Faculty Advisory Committee for the presidential search in 2018.

Ultimate vacuum chamber creates nothing

Nicholas Bigelows lab conducts experiments using a box of nothing, an ultimate vacuum chamber that allows researchers to interact with and manipulate atoms. But is nothing ever possible? How have scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians thought about the concept of nothing throughout history and up to the present?

Tags: Arts and Sciences, award, Department of Computer Science, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Institute of Optics, Michael Scott, Nicholas Bigelow

Category: Science & Technology

Read the original post:

Two Rochester researchers named AAAS fellows : NewsCenter - University of Rochester

Despite bold philosophical and scientific claims, theres still no good reason to doubt the existence of free will.

In the last several years, a number of prominent scientists have claimed that we have good scientific reason to believe that theres no such thing as free will that free will is an illusion. If this were true, it would be less than splendid. And it would be surprising, too, because it really seems like we have free will. It seems that what we do from moment to moment is determined by conscious decisions that we freely make.

We need to look very closely at the arguments that these scientists are putting forward to determine whether they really give us good reason to abandon our belief in free will. But before we do that, it would behoove us to have a look at a much older argument against free will an argument thats been around for centuries.

The older argument against free will is based on the assumption that determinism is true. Determinism is the view that every physical event is completely caused by prior events together with the laws of nature. Or, to put the point differently, its the view that every event has a cause that makes it happen in the one and only way that it could have happened.

If determinism is true, then as soon as the Big Bang took place 13 billion years ago, the entire history of the universe was already settled. Every event thats ever occurred was already predetermined before it occurred. And this includes human decisions. If determinism is true, then everything youve ever done every choice youve ever made was already predetermined before our solar system even existed. And if this is true, then it has obvious implications for free will.

Suppose that youre in an ice cream parlor, waiting in line, trying to decide whether to order chocolate or vanilla ice cream. And suppose that when you get to the front of the line, you decide to order chocolate. Was this choice a product of your free will? Well, if determinism is true, then your choice was completely caused by prior events. The immediate causes of the decision were neural events that occurred in your brain just prior to your choice. But, of course, if determinism is true, then those neural events that caused your decision had physical causes as well; they were caused by even earlier events events that occurred just before they did. And so on, stretching back into the past. We can follow this back to when you were a baby, to the very first events of your life. In fact, we can keep going back before that, because if determinism is true, then those first events were also caused by prior events. We can keep going back to events that occurred before you were even conceived, to events involving your mother and father and a bottle of Chianti.

If determinism is true, then as soon as the Big Bang took place 13 billion years ago, the entire history of the universe was already settled.

So if determinism is true, then it was already settled before you were born that you were going to order chocolate ice cream when you got to the front of the line. And, of course, the same can be said about all of our decisions, and it seems to follow from this that human beings do not have free will.

Lets call this the classical argument against free will. It proceeds by assuming that determinism is true and arguing from there that we dont have free will.

Theres a big problem with the classical argument against free will. It just assumes that determinism is true. The idea behind the argument seems to be that determinism is just a commonsense truism. But its actually not a commonsense truism. One of the main lessons of 20th-century physics is that we cant know by common sense, or by intuition, that determinism is true. Determinism is a controversial hypothesis about the workings of the physical world. We could only know that its true by doing some high-level physics. Moreover and this is another lesson of 20th-century physics as of right now, we dont have any good evidence for determinism. In other words, our best physical theories dont answer the question of whether determinism is true.

During the reign of classical physics (or Newtonian physics), it was widely believed that determinism was true. But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, physicists started to discover some problems with Newtons theory, and it was eventually replaced with a new theory quantum mechanics. (Actually, it was replaced by two new theories, namely, quantum mechanics and relativity theory. But relativity theory isnt relevant to the topic of free will.) Quantum mechanics has several strange and interesting features, but the one thats relevant to free will is that this new theory contains laws that are probabilistic rather than deterministic. We can understand what this means very easily. Roughly speaking, deterministic laws of nature look like this:

If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then you will get outcome O.

But quantum physics contains probabilistic laws that look like this:

If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then there are two different possible outcomes, namely, O1 and O2; moreover, theres a 50 percent chance that youll get outcome O1 and a 50 percent chance that youll get outcome O2.

Its important to notice what follows from this. Suppose that we take a physical system, put it into state S, and perform experiment E on it. Now suppose that when we perform this experiment, we get outcome O1. Finally, suppose we ask the following question: Why did we get outcome O1 instead of O2? The important point to notice is that quantum mechanics doesnt answer this question. It doesnt give us any explanation at all for why we got outcome O1 instead of O2. In other words, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, it could be that nothing caused us to get result O1; it could be that this just happened.

Now, Einstein famously thought that this couldnt be the whole story. Youve probably heard that he once said that God doesnt play dice with the universe. What he meant when he said this was that the fundamental laws of nature cant be probabilistic. The fundamental laws, Einstein thought, have to tell us what will happen next, not what will probably happen, or what might happen. So Einstein thought that there had to be a hidden layer of reality, below the quantum level, and that if we could find this hidden layer, we could get rid of the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics and replace them with deterministic laws, laws that tell us what will happen next, not just what will probably happen next. And, of course, if we could do this if we could find this hidden layer of reality and these deterministic laws of nature then we would be able to explain why we got outcome O1 instead of O2.

But a lot of other physicists most notably, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr disagreed with Einstein. They thought that the quantum layer of reality was the bottom layer. And they thought that the fundamental laws of nature or at any rate, some of these laws were probabilistic laws. But if this is right, then it means that at least some physical events arent deterministically caused by prior events. It means that some physical events just happen. For instance, if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then nothing caused us to get outcome O1 instead of O2; there was no reason why this happened; it just did.

The debate between determinists like Einstein and indeterminists like Heisenberg and Bohr has never been settled.

The debate between Einstein on the one hand and Heisenberg and Bohr on the other is crucially important to our discussion. Einstein is a determinist. If hes right, then every physical event is predetermined or in other words, completely caused by prior events. But if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then determinism is false. On their view, not every event is predetermined by the past and the laws of nature; some things just happen, for no reason at all. In other words, if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then indeterminism is true.

And heres the really important point for us. The debate between determinists like Einstein and indeterminists like Heisenberg and Bohr has never been settled. We dont have any good evidence for either view. Quantum mechanics is still our best theory of the subatomic world, but we just dont know whether theres another layer of reality, beneath the quantum layer. And so we dont know whether all physical events are completely caused by prior events. In other words, we dont know whether determinism or indeterminism is true. Future physicists might be able to settle this question, but as of right now, we dont know the answer.

But now notice that if we dont know whether determinism is true or false, then this completely undermines the classical argument against free will. That argument just assumed that determinism is true. But we now know that there is no good reason to believe this. The question of whether determinism is true is an open question for physicists. So the classical argument against free will is a failure it doesnt give us any good reason to conclude that we dont have free will.

Despite the failure of the classical argument, the enemies of free will are undeterred. They still think theres a powerful argument to be made against free will. In fact, they think there are two such arguments. Both of these arguments can be thought of as attempts to fix the classical argument, but they do this in completely different ways.

The first new-and-improved argument against free will which is a scientific argument starts with the observation that it doesnt matter whether the full-blown hypothesis of determinism is true because it doesnt matter whether all events are predetermined by prior events. All that matters is whether our decisions are predetermined by prior events. And the central claim of the first new-and-improved argument against free will is that we have good evidence (from studies performed by psychologists and neuroscientists) for thinking that, in fact, our decisions are predetermined by prior events.

The second new-and-improved argument against free will which is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument relies on the claim that it doesnt matter whether determinism is true because indeterminism is just as incompatible with free will as determinism is. The argument for this is based on the claim that if our decisions arent determined, then they arent caused by anything, which means that they occur randomly. And the central claim of the second new-and-improved argument against free will is that if our decisions occur randomly, then they just happen to us, and so theyre not the products of our free will.

My own view is that neither of these new-and-improved arguments succeeds in showing that we dont have free will. But it takes a lot of work to undermine these two arguments. In order to undermine the scientific argument, we need to explain why the relevant psychological and neuroscientific studies dont in fact show that we dont have free will. And in order to undermine the philosophical argument, we need to explain how a decision could be the product of someones free will how the outcome of the decision could be under the given persons control even if the decision wasnt caused by anything.

So, yes, this would all take a lot of work. Maybe I should write a book about it.

Mark Balaguer is Professor in the Department of Philosophy at California State University, Los Angeles. He is the author of several books, including Free Will, from which this article is adapted.

Follow this link:

Why the Classical Argument Against Free Will Is a Failure - The MIT Press Reader

About the Centre for Quantum Technologies

The Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) is a research centre of excellence in Singapore. It brings together physicists, computer scientists and engineers to do basic research on quantum physics and to build devices based on quantum phenomena. Experts in this new discipline of quantum technologies are applying their discoveries in computing, communications, and sensing.

CQT is hosted by the National University of Singapore and also has staff at Nanyang Technological University. With some 180 researchers and students, it offers a friendly and international work environment.

Learn more about CQT atwww.quantumlah.org.

Job Description

The candidate will help the research team working on quantum technologies with experiment preparation and support for the current research efforts. This includes data analysis, programming as well as CAD design. The candidate will be embedded in the research group and help with the day to day experimental work.

Job Requirements

Additional Information

At NUS, the health and safety of our staff and students is one of our utmost priorities and COVID-vaccination supports our commitment to ensure the safety of our community and to make NUS as safe and welcoming as possible. Many of our roles require significant amount of physical interactions with student / staff / public members. Even for job roles that can be performed remotely, there will be instances where on-campus presence is required.

With effect from 15 January 2022, based on Singapores legal requirements, unvaccinated workers will not be able work at the NUS premises. As such, we regret to inform that job applicants need to be fully COVID-19 vaccinated for successful employment with NUS.

MOM Updated advisory on COVID-vaccination at the Workplace, subject to changes in accordance with the national COVID-19 measures

Read the rest here:

Research Assistant, Experimentation, Centre for Quantum Technologies job with NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE | 279321 - Times Higher Education (THE)

NEW YORK (NYTIMES) - In the autumn of 2019, Google told the world it had reached "quantum supremacy". It was a significant scientific milestone that some compared to the first flight at Kitty Hawk.

Harnessing the mysterious powers of quantum mechanics, Google had built a computer that needed only 3 minutes and 20 seconds to perform a calculation that normal computers could not complete in 10,000 years.

But more than two years after Google's announcement, the world is still waiting for a quantum computer that actually does something useful. And it will most likely wait much longer. The world is also waiting for self-driving cars, flying cars, advanced artificial intelligence and brain implants that will let you control your computing devices using nothing but your thoughts.

Silicon Valley's hype machine has long been accused of churning ahead of reality. But in recent years, the tech industry's critics have noticed that its biggest promises - the ideas that really could change the world - seem farther and farther on the horizon. The great wealth generated by the industry in recent years has generally been thanks to ideas, like the iPhone and mobile apps, that arrived years ago.

Have the big thinkers of tech lost their mojo?

The answer, those big thinkers are quick to respond, is absolutely not. But the projects they are tackling are far more difficult than building a new app or disrupting another ageing industry. And if you look around, the tools that have helped you cope with almost two years of a pandemic - the home computers, the videoconferencing services and Wi-Fi, even the technology that aided researchers in the development of vaccines - have shown the industry has not exactly lost a step.

"Imagine the economic impact of the pandemic had there not been the infrastructure - the hardware and the software - that allowed so many white-collar workers to work from home and so many other parts of the economy to be conducted in a digitally mediated way," said Professor Margaret O'Mara from the University of Washington who specialises in the history of Silicon Valley.

As for the next big thing, the big thinkers say, give it time. Take quantum computing. Dr Jake Taylor, who oversaw quantum computing efforts for the White House and is now chief science officer at quantum start-up Riverlane, said building a quantum computer might be the hardest task ever undertaken. This is a machine that defies the physics of everyday life.

A quantum computer relies on the strange ways that some objects behave at the sub-atomic level or when exposed to extreme cold, like metal chilled to nearly 460 degrees below zero. If scientists merely try to read information from these quantum systems, they tend to break.

While building a quantum computer, Dr Taylor said, "you are constantly working against the fundamental tendency of nature".

The most important tech advances of the past few decades - the microchip, the Internet, the mouse-driven computer, the smartphone - were not defying physics. And they were allowed to gestate for years, even decades, inside government agencies and corporate research labs before ultimately reaching mass adoption.

"The age of mobile and cloud computing has created so many new business opportunities," Prof O'Mara said. "But now there are trickier problems."

Still, the loudest voices in Silicon Valley often discuss those trickier problems as if they were just another smartphone app. That can inflate expectations.

More:

Why is Silicon Valley still waiting for the next big thing? - The Straits Times

Ever since the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) nearly 60 years ago, scientists have been searching for a hint any hint of a crack in the faade of the hot Big Bang. At every step along the way, as our instruments became more sensitive and our observational reach extended farther than ever before, the Big Bangs predictions were borne out in spectacular fashion, one after another.

The Universes expansion and how that expansion changed over time was measured, and found to be precisely consistent with the expanding Universe predicted by physical cosmology. The spectrum of the CMB was measured, confirming it was the most perfect blackbody ever seen in the Universe. The initial cosmic abundances of the light elements and their isotopes were determined, and found to be in direct agreement with the predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. And the formation of large-scale structure and the growth of the cosmic web matched the Big Bangs predictions without exception.

But with the launches of WMAP and Planck, the small-scale imperfections in the CMB were measured, and one anomaly stood out: a cold spot that simply couldnt be explained based on the Universe we knew. At last, that mystery may finally be solved, as the culprit has been identified at long last: the largest supervoid in the nearby Universe. If this research holds up, it teaches us that our Universe is normal, after all, and that the CMB cold spot isnt an anomaly at all.

The fact that the CMB is so perfect is, itself, a modern wonder of the Universe. Everywhere we look, in all directions, its plain to see just how different the Universe is from place to place. Some regions of space are extremely rich in structure, with scores, hundreds, or even thousands of large galaxies all collected into the same gravitationally bound structure. Other locations still have galaxies, but theyre relatively sparsely located: in small groupings and collections scattered about through space. Still other places have only isolated galaxies, while in the least dense locations, there are no galaxies to be found at all for volumes that span tens or even hundreds of millions of light-years on a side.

And yet, the theory of Big Bang comes along with an inextricable prediction: that in the earliest stages of the hot Big Bang, the Universe must have been both isotropic, or the same in all directions, and homogeneous, or the same in all locations, to a tremendous degree of precision. It can only come into existence with tiny, minuscule imperfections, or regions of slightly greater-or-lesser density than average. Its only because of the tremendous amount of cosmic time that passes and the relentlessly attractive nature of the gravitational force that we have a rich, structure-filled Universe today.

The Cosmic Microwave Background was discovered back in the mid-1960s, and the early goals were to:

Over time, we were able to refine our measurements. Initially, the CMB was announced to be at 3.5 K, which then was revised to 3 K, then 2.7 K, and a little later, a third significant figure was added: 2.73 K. In the mid-to-late 1970s, a small, 1-part-in-800 imperfection was discovered: an artifact of our own motion through the Universe.

It wasnt until the 1990s that the first primordial imperfections were found, coming in at about the 1-part-in-30,000 level. At last, we had the observational evidence to not only confirm a Big Bang-consistent origin for the CMB, but to measure what sort of imperfections the Universe itself began with.

You see, the hot Big Bang, although it was the beginning of our observable Universe as we know it, wasnt the very beginning of everything. Theres a theory thats been around since the early 1980s cosmic inflation that posits a set of properties that the Universe possessed prior to the start of the hot Big Bang. According to inflation:

The only reason the Universe isnt perfectly, absolutely uniform everywhere is because the tiny fluctuations inherent to quantum physics, during this epoch of rapid expansion, can get stretched across the Universe, creating the overdense and underdense seeds of structure. From these initial seed fluctuations, the entire large-scale structure of the Universe can arise.

According to the theory of inflation, there should be a very specific set of fluctuations that the Universe starts with at the onset of the hot Big Bang. In particular:

All of these predictions have since been borne out and confirmed by observations, some to within the limits of our measurement precision and others quite spectacularly.

However, its always worth looking for anomalies, as no matter how thoroughly your predictions agree with reality, you must always put ahead, hoping to uncover something unexpected. After all, its the only way you can discover something new: by looking as youve never looked before. If you have specific predictions and expectations for what your Universe is going to look like, then anything that defies your expectations is at the very least worth a second look.

Perhaps the most unusual remaining feature that we see in the microwave sky, once we subtract out the effect of the Milky Way galaxy, is the fact that theres a cold spot that doesnt align with these theoretical explanations. Once weve quantified the types and scales of temperature fluctuations that ought to exist, we can correlate them together, and see how fluctuations on smaller and larger scales should be related.

In one particular region of space, we find that theres a very deep cold spot: about 70 microkelvin below the average temperature on a relatively large angular scale. Moreover, that cold spot appears to be encircled by a hotter-than-average region, making it even more anomalous. To many, the cold spot in the CMB represented a potential challenge to inflation and the standard cosmological model, as it wouldnt make sense if the Universe was somehow born with this anomalously low-temperature region.

Its important to recognize where these temperature fluctuations come from in the first place. The Universe, even at the start of the hot Big Bang, really is the exact same temperature everywhere. The thing thats different from location to location is the density of the Universe, and this is the component that has those 1-part-in-30,000 imperfections, as imprinted by inflation. The reason we observe the Universe to possess different temperatures in different regions of space is because of the phenomenon of gravitational redshift: matter curves space, and where space is more severely curved, light has to lose more energy to climb out of that gravitational potential well. In the astrophysics community, this is known as the Sachs-Wolfe effect, and its the primary cause of the temperature differences we observe in the CMB.

But theres another, more subtle effect: the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. As structure forms in the Universe, as gravitation brings more and more mass together, as clusters grow and voids form, and as the relative ratios of radiation, matter, and dark energy change with respect to one another, the gravitational effects of traveling into a certain region of space dont necessarily equal the gravitational effects of traveling out of that same region of space later on. The Universe evolves, structures form and become more matter-rich in some areas and more matter-poor in others, and any light passing through those regions is affected.

Imagine, if you will, that you have two different regions of space: a large-scale overdensity (like a supercluster) and a large-scale underdensity (like a great cosmic void). Now, imagine, just like in our real Universe, you have some form of dark energy: a component of the Universe that behaves differently from matter, and doesnt dilute in density as the Universe expands. Now, lets imagine what happens as the photon, traveling through space, encounters either a big overdensity or a big underdensity.

If something appears anomalously cold in the CMB, it could be because theres something wrong with our model of the Universe; thats of course the more interesting option. But it could also be, quite simply, because theres a large cosmic void in that location, and that void grew shallower as the light traveled through it because of dark energy.

Now, heres where the idea becomes testable: you cant point to a void thats too far away along the line-of-sight to explain it, because dark energy only becomes important for the Universes expansion over the past ~6 billion years or so. If one exists along this line-of-sight, it must be closer, at present, than 7.5 billion light-years.

So, what do we find when we go out and look?

Thats where the latest results from the Dark Energy Survey come in. Scientists were able to confirm that, yes, there is a supervoid there, and it may have a much higher-amplitude integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect that a typical underdensity does. While some underdensities were previously found at greater distances some 6-10 billion light-years away, they were determined to account for no more than ~20% of the effect. However, a 2015 study revealed a nearby supervoid right in that precise direction: 1.9 billion light-years away and about 0.5-1.0 billion light-years across. The most recent study confirms this void and measures its properties, finds that its the largest supervoid that exists since the onset of dark energys dominance, and suggests but doesnt yet prove that there is a causal relation between this late-time supervoid and the cold spot in the CMB.

There are many different ways to map out the large-scale structure of the Universe: from galaxy counts to gravitational lensing to the overall impact that the structure has on the background light emitted from various redshifts. In this particular case, it was the construction of a gravitational lensing map that confirmed the presence of this supervoid, which happens to be the emptiest large region of space in our nearby corner of the Universe. We cannot say for certain that this supervoid explains the full extend of the CMB cold spot, but its looking more and more likely that, once the presence of the supervoid is taken into account, what remains is no more anomalous than any other typical region of the sky.

The way well tell for sure, of course, is through better, deeper, higher-resolution imaging of this relatively large region of the sky, which spans somewhere around 40 square degrees. With the ESAs Euclid mission poised to launch just next year, in 2023, and with the Vera Rubin Observatory and NASAs Nancy Grace Roman Telescope expected to come online over the next few years, the critical data will soon be in our hands. After nearly two decades of wondering at what could have caused the CMB cold spot, we finally have our answer: the largest supervoid in the nearby Universe. All we need is a robust confirmation of what the present data strongly indicates, and this will be yet another cosmic challenge that our standard cosmological model is thoroughly capable of rising to.

Continued here:

Our Universe is normal! Its biggest anomaly, the CMB cold spot, is now explained - Big Think

Even though its only even odds that 2022 will turn out to be less of a disaster than 2021 (or 2020), at least 2022 is the best recent year for compiling a Top 10 list of science anniversaries.

Curiously, many of those anniversaries are of deaths: the astronomer William Herschel for instance, who died in 1822; Hermann Rorschach, Alexander Graham Bell and the mathematician Sophie Bryant (all in 1922); and Louis Leakey (1972).

But there are also some notable firsts (the original slide rule, for instance) and births, including the scientist who illuminated how science could save society from devastating infectious diseases. Honorable mentions go to the birthdays of physicists Rudolf Clausius (200th), Leon Lederman (100th) and C.N. Yang (100th). They just missed edging out the oldest anniversary, a death from an earlier millennium:

Abl-Abbs al-Fal ibn tim al-Nayrz was a Persian mathematician and astronomer, probably born around A.D. 865 in the town of Nayriz (in present-day Iran), which is why he became known as al-Nayrz. He died in 922 or thereabouts (close enough for Top 10 purposes). He got a job in Baghdad with the caliph al-Mutaid, writing treatises on math and weather, among other topics.

Unfortunately, many of al-Nayrzs writings were long ago lost. But other writers mention his works and report that he was a master of astronomy and geometry. Among his surviving works is a translation and commentary on Euclids Elements. Al-Nayrz also attempted a proof of Euclids famous postulate about parallel lines never meeting. One of Al-Nayrzs treatises for the caliph discussed how to determine the distance to upright objects. Had golf been invented yet, the caliph would have used such knowledge to calculate the distance to the flagstick without need of a GPS app.

Lewis Fry Richardson, a mathematician who later turned to psychology, worked early in his career at Englands National Peat Industries. He was given the task of calculating optimal designs of drainage systems for peat moss subjected to different amounts of rain. He worked out the equations and then realized they could be applied to other problems, such as predicting the weather.

In the years leading up to World War I, he worked on a book, to be titled Weather Prediction by Numerical Process. He showed how values for temperature, humidity, air pressure and other weather data from one day could be processed by his equations to make a forecast for the next day. He took a break to be an ambulance driver during the war and then finished his book, published in 1922.

As Science News-Letter reported that year, one U.S. Weather Bureau scientist believed the book to show that meteorology has become an exact science. Unfortunately, to make the next days forecast from one days data took Richardson six weeks of calculation time. Only decades later did modern electronic computers make the mathematics of weather forecasting practical, and sometimes useful.

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Thank you for signing up!

There was a problem signing you up.

William Oughtred, born in England in 1575, became a priest and part-time mathematician and tutor. In 1631 he wrote a book summarizing arithmetic and algebra, which became widely popular, later earning lavish praise from Isaac Newton.

Nine years before his book, Oughtred had designed the first slide rule. In 1614 John Napier had invented logarithms, showing how multiplication could be accomplished by addition. Six years later the astronomer Edmund Gunter had the bright idea of marking numbers on a straightedge proportional to their logarithms. Multiplication could then be performed by using a compass (the caliper kind, not for finding north) to find the answer by measuring the distances between the numbers to be multiplied.

In 1622, Oughtred had the even brighter idea of placing two such rulers next to each other. Sliding one along the other to properly position the numbers of interest allowed him to read the product of a multiplication right off one of the rulers. Oughtred later designed a circular slide rule, but one of his students claimed to have had that idea first, initiating a nasty priority dispute.

Further advances in slide rule design, incorporating things like cubes and trigonometric functions, made slide rules the premier computing devices of the 19th and 20th centuries UNTIL electronic calculators came along, sadly depriving slide rules the opportunity to make it to age 400. But some people alive today once used slide rules, and probably still have one in a box somewhere.

Maria Goeppert was born in what is now Poland in 1906. Encouraged by her father, a university professor, to pursue higher education, Maria chose mathematics. But in the mid-1920s her fascination with a newfangled idea called quantum mechanics induced her to shift to physics. After earning her Ph.D., she married a chemist (Joseph Mayer) and moved to the United States. She was allowed to teach classes where her husband was on the faculty (first at Johns Hopkins, later at Columbia and then Chicago) but not offered a job of her own. She was free to pursue research projects, though, often in collaboration with her husband or other scientists, and she produced important work on many topics at the interface of quantum physics and chemistry.

She was a master of the math needed to understand spectroscopy; her studies of the light emitted by the newly discovered transuranic elements in the 1940s showed that they belonged in a chemical family related to the rare-earth elements an essential clue to the proper positioning of the transuranics in the periodic table. After World War II, she began studying nuclear physics and soon deduced the existence of a shell-like structure for the arrangement of nucleons (protons and neutrons) in the atomic nucleus. Her findings complemented similar work by Hans Jensen, with whom she later collaborated in writing a book on the nuclear shell model. Jensen and Goeppert Mayer shared the 1963 Nobel in physics for that work.

Her shell model research was aided by a suggestion from Enrico Fermi, the physicist famous for his work on the secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. That was only fair, as when Fermi disappeared from Columbia University in 1941 to work on the bomb, Goeppert Mayer was hurriedly recruited to teach his class. In 1960, Goeppert Mayer finally was awarded a full-time primetime job of her own at the University of California, San Diego, but shortly thereafter she suffered a stroke, limiting her ability to do research in the years before her death in 1972.

Niels Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1922, the same year as the birth of his son Aage. Aage grew up surrounded by physicists (who came from around the world to study with his father) and so naturally became a physicist himself. During World War II, Aage accompanied his father to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project, afterwards returning to his native Denmark to earn his Ph.D. at the University of Copenhagen. During that time Aage turned his attention to a problem with the atomic nucleus.

His fathers theory that a nucleus behaves much like a drop of liquid had been applied successfully in explaining nuclear fission. But more recent work by Maria Goeppert Mayer (remember her?) showed that nuclei had an inner shell-like structure, suggesting ordered arrangements of individual particles, not collective, liquidlike behavior. Aage developed a new theoretical view, showing that his fathers view could be reconciled with Goeppert Mayers shell model. He then worked on experiments that corroborated it and shared the 1975 physics Nobel for the discovery of the connection between collective motion and particle motion in atomic nuclei and the development of the theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus based on this connection.

Born July 22, 1822 to a family of farmers in what is now the Czech Republic, Johann Mendel preferred higher education to farming, enrolling in a philosophy program properly complemented with math and physics. When the time came to return home and take charge of the family farm, he opted instead to enter a monastery (where he adopted the monastic name Gregor). He did not particularly enjoy his priestly duties, though, so he got a job as a teacher, which required him to enter the University of Vienna for advanced science education. There, in addition to more math and physics, he encountered botany. Later he returned to the monastery, where he applied his botanical skills to investigating patterns in the physical features of successive generations of pea plants.

In 1866 he published results implying the existence of differentiating characters (now known as genes) that combined in different ways when transmitted by parents to offspring. Apparently nobody very astute read his paper, not even Charles Darwin, who would have been intrigued by Mendels mention that his work was relevant to the history of the evolution of organic forms. Only at the dawn of the 20th century was Mendels work translated into English and then recognized for its importance to heredity, evolution and biology in general.

Of all the robotic spacecraft launched from Earth into space, Pioneer 10 was truly the pioneer. It was the first craft to fly beyond the orbit of Mars and the first to exceed the distance of the solar systems outermost planet, Neptune. Launched March 2, 1972, Pioneer 10s mission was to visit Jupiter to take some cool snapshots of the giant planet and a few of its moons. Pioneers escape velocity from Earth surpassed 51,000 kilometers per hour (about 32,000 miles per hour), at the time a solar system speed record for any flying machine or bird. After dodging asteroids (most of them anyway) on its journey, Pioneer 10 reached the solar systems largest planet in late 1973, passing within 131,000 kilometers (about 81,000 miles) on December 4.

Pioneer continued transmitting signals back to Earth until 1997, when budget cuts forced NASA to stop listening except for an occasional check-in. The very last signal came on January 23, 2003, from 7.6 billion miles away. By now Pioneer 10 is roughly 12 billion miles away, headed in the direction of the star Aldebaran. It will arrive in a mere 2 million years or so. If any Aldebaranians encountering it can decipher the sketches of a man and woman and the map revealing the point of origin, perhaps they will refuel it and send it back.

In a century of medical miracles, one of the earliest and most dramatic was the discovery of insulin for treating diabetes. Diabetes had been recognized as a serious disease in ancient times. By the 20th century, scientists suspected that the pancreas produced a substance that helped metabolize carbohydrates; a malfunctioning pancreas meant a person could not extract energy from carbohydrates in food, resulting in dangerously high blood sugar levels while depriving the body of needed energy. It was nearly always fatal in children, and adults diagnosed with diabetes could hope for only a few more years of life.

As Science News-Letter reported in 1922, diabetes ranked with cancer in fatality and incurability. But in that year, a young doctor reported success in treating diabetes with a substance secreted by the pancreas. That doctor, Frederick Banting, had tried the idea with dogs the year before and gave the first insulin injection to a human, a 14-year-old boy, in January 1922. Banting originally used insulin purified from animals; in the decades since, researchers have engineered more sophisticated forms for human use. But even with the animal insulin, success was so dramatic that Banting and his lab director John Macleod were awarded the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1923.

In its first year of providing news of science to the world, the organization then known as Science Service transmitted a weekly package of mimeographed pages (labeled Science News Bulletin) to newspapers and other media around the country. But soon other groups (such as libraries) as well as individuals began to request the package, and so Science Service initiated a new strategy with issue No. 50. On March 13, 1922, Science News-Letter was born, with a new masthead offering subscriptions for $5 per year, postpaid. Its first article: an account of a U.S. Department of Commerce report on the allocation of radio wavelengths. The report assured everybody that widespread use of radio for the broadcasting of public information and other matters of general interest would be forthcoming. In 1966 the magazine dropped Letter and became Science News, providing an excuse for another centennial celebration in 2066.

Born in France in December 1822, Louis Pasteur was not a precocious youth. His interests tended toward art, but later some inspiring lectures shifted his attention to chemistry, and he became one of the greatest chemists of all time. Also one of the greatest biologists. And although he received no medical education, he provided the foundation for modern medicines ability to fight disease.

Pasteurs understanding of microorganisms led to the recognition of their capacity to damage human health. His tenacity in conducting rigorous experiments and his pugnacious public promotion of his findings established the germ theory of disease and encouraged new methods of hygiene. Time after time he was called on to devise solutions for perplexing problems facing various industries. He saved the silk industry. He showed how to prevent wine from going sour, and how to make milk safe to drink. He devised vaccines for various diseases, including one to cure rabies. No one person in history is more responsible than Pasteur for preserving human health and preventing unnecessary deaths. He is lucky he was born 200 years ago, though. If he were around today, hed be getting death threats.

Originally posted here:

Here are the Top 10 science anniversaries of 2022 - Science News Magazine

Erwin Schrdinger

According to a December 2021 report from the Irish Times, the Nobel Prize-winning Austrian physicist Erwin Schrdinger was a pedophile.

To refresh memory: Schrdinger made many astounding contributions to the burgeoning fields of quantum physics, electrodynamics, molecular biology, and color theory. For example, nearly 100 years ago, he gave the world a way to calculate the probable energy and position of electrons in space and time. For non-scientists, the thought experiment now called Schrdinger's Cat is perhaps his most fun gift to science. Imagine a cat living in a sealed box that is equipped with a contraption that has a 50% chance of killing it via a random, subatomic event. Quantum physics deals in probabilities rather than fixed realities. Given this, the question Schrdinger posed was whether two probable states could exist at once. Could the cat in the box be simultaneously alive and dead? Having asked, Schrdinger also pointed out that there is a measurement problem that precludes answering his question with certainty. No one can learn if the cat exists simultaneously in two states of being because, the moment that anyone opens the box and looks in, the cat becomes either alive or dead.

Perhaps we all should have known. The evidence given by the Irish Times has been staring us in the face for almost a decade. Citing specific sources, the Irish Times article details two stories.

Ithi Junger. British astrophysicist John Gribbin reported in his 2013 biography Erwin Schrdinger and the Quantum Revolution that, at the age of 39, Schrdinger became enamored of 14-year-old Ithi, whom he was tutoring in math. As well as the maths, the lessons included a fair amount of petting and cuddling [as Schrdinger stated in his diary] and Schrdinger soon convinced himself that he was in love with Ithi. There is no evidence that things went beyond petting and cuddling when Ithi was 14, but before he died in 1961 Schrdinger admitted that hed impregnated her when she was 17. Her abortion left her sterile.

Barbara MacEntee. According to Schrdingers biographer Walter Moore (writing in 2015 in Schrdinger: Life and Thought), Schrdinger kept a list in his diary of the women and girls hed romanced. A 12-year-old named Barbara MacEntee was on it. Schrodinger approached her when he was 53 years old. Her astonished family asked a Catholic priest to intervene. As Moores biography explained, the priest had a serious word with [Schrdinger], and muttering dark imprecations, [Schrdinger] desisted from further attentions to Barbara, although he listed her among the unrequited loves of his life.

Quoting directly from Schrdingers diaries, Moore revealed that the physicist justified his attraction to girls by considering that, being a genius (which he believed no woman ever could be), he was naturally entitled. It seems to be the usual thing that men of strong, genuine intellectuality are immensely attracted only by women who, forming the very beginning of the intellectual series, are as nearly connected to the preferred springs of nature as they themselves. Nothing intermediate will do, since no woman will ever approach nearer to genius by intellectual education than some unintellectuals do by birth so to speak.

After reading the Irish Times article, I found myself emotionally agape. Wanting, perhaps, to preserve for myself the glory of Schrdingers scientific reputation, I tried to normalize his behavior. Searching out examples of pedophilia among other western cultural heroes, I learned that:

Edgar Allen Poe married his 13-year-old cousin.

As reported in the Paris Review, after his wife died, Mark Twain dabbled with angel-fish. (Thats what he called schoolgirls.) Theres no indisputable evidence of sexuality but there was an awful lot of promiscuous cuddling.

Horatio Alger, who wrote rags-to-riches stories about young, disadvantaged boys, was briefly a Unitarian minister. He was expelled from the ministry for boy-directed pederasty.

Rock and roll stars with sexual interests in very young girls have included Jerry Lee Lewis, who was 22 when he married his 13-year-old cousin. (Rumor has it that she still believed in Santa Claus.) A 24-year-old Elvis Presley dated Priscilla when she was 14.

Pedophilia is surprisingly common. The psychiatric professions Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V places its prevalence in the male population at 3%-5% and acknowledges that it is both highly resistant to treatment and less prevalent among women.

The DSM V has no listing for Pedophilia. Rather, it defines Pedophilic Disorder as a diagnosis assigned to adults (defined as age 16 and up) who have sexual desire for prepubescent children.

According to information published by Johns Hopkins All Children Hospital, puberty is not a now-you-see-it-now-you-dont kinda thing. For girls, the first signs can come at around age 8. For some girls, the transition into biological adulthood happens quickly. Even if it doesnt, it generally resolves by around age 16. For boys, puberty generally starts about two years later.

Thinking about Schrdinger in the context of the DSM V definition of Pedophilic Disorder, one point of confusion arose for me. At age 14 and age 12, Ithi and Barbara may have reached puberty already. Does that absolve his behavior with them in any way?

By modern standards, legally it does not. In Ireland, the age of sexual consent is now 17. In the United States, each of the 50 states has its own law that defines the age of consent as 16, 17, or 18.

Whats more, there are enormous differences between grown men and very young women in terms of social power and the sort of confidence necessary to make wise, safe, sexual choices.

This is all to say that pedophilia like that of Edwin Schrdinger is probably abhorrent any way you look at it.

In 2015, the Norwegian philosopher Ole Martin Moen of the University of Oslo wondered in the Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics about The Ethics of Pedophilia. According to Moen, pedophilia itself is a morally neutral sexual preference. It is the actions harming children that are immoral.

Being a pedophile is unfortunate for the pedophile himself, who will most likely not have a good sexual and romantic life.... he wrote.

Pedophile as victim seems a stretch even for someone like me who wants to preserve her image of Schrdinger as an intellectual hero. Moen, however, may have been serious about his pity the poor pedophile idea. He suggested a way in which society at large might save pedophiles from themselveswhile saving children from pedophiles. It could legalize ways for pedophiles to satisfy their compulsions with victimless entertainments like kiddie porn fiction and computer-generated images.

At least the use of computer-generated images would obviate the need for the truly repulsive act of posing real-life children in sexual ways. As Moet pointed out, though, a question of practicality remains. Would making use of such fiction and images satisfy pedophiles urges? Or might it instead encourage them to act out dangerously?

Moet cited research done in the 1990s that suggests that kiddie porn does not make pedophiles more prone to engage in real-world sex with children and that, indeed, it may give pedophiles a harmless outlet for their sexual urges. This idea seems to be buttressed by 1999 and 2011 research also cited by Moet; when Japan and the Czech Republic lifted their bans on kiddie porn, the rates of child rape dropped. From those two countries criminal justice experiences, Moet concluded that "Granted our current knowledge, it therefore seems that texts and computer-generated graphics with pedophilic content may result in less adult-child sex.

Schrdingers cat is both alive and dead until you open the box to look, whereupon it becomes either ... [+] alive or dead.

As helpful as such texts and graphics may turn out to be, I have trouble imagining a more divisive issue to raise state by state in todays America than whether governments should allowor perhaps even sponsorkiddie porn.

Meanwhile, Im still dealing with my shock about Erwin Schrdinger. For me right now, he exists in two states of being at once. In other words, Erwin Schrdinger has become Schrdingers Cat. He is both a beacon of scientific light and a monster. Both/and, not yet either/or. That being said, some behavior is just too putrid to tolerate. As the revelations about his behavior continue to curdle inside of me, one of those views will take precedence. Very soon, I suspect, I will say, Hes dead to me.

Link:

Schrdingers Pedophilia: The Cat Is Out Of The Bag (Box) - Forbes

dwelling Science Does science show that there is more between heaven and earth? Yes, says this philosopher

Kastrup lives in the Netherlands but was born in Brazil to a Danish father, a quantum physicist. He says that things observed in this area of physics are completely contrary to our intuition. Our intuition is that things have certain absolute properties: the scale has a certain weight and remains the same, before and after the measurement. However, this is not the case with elementary particles, Kastrup says in the podcast. According to him, quantum physics also shows that particles are in contact with each other, while this cannot be explained physically.

Kastrup says that pure materialism, where everything is made of matter, is indefensible. He argued it, but no one dared to do so anymore, he says.

The philosopher also deals with the phenomenon of consciousness, a concept that is not yet fully understood in psychology. Kastrup says Great podcast In research that shows, he says, that we are more than our brains. Man, according to him, is a spirit and not a substance in the brain.

Based on the work of Swiss neuroscientist Yolande Schlumpf, Kastrup talks about dissociation: A trauma can split your brain in two, he says. A part of you has different memories than another part. It is a defense mechanism. He says that disintegration is a natural process.

Take this to another level. I invite you to think of nature as a great mind, he says. And we are separate personalities of that soul. Everything is a product of disintegration. So what is death? This is the end of separation. It is a return to the soul. According to Kastrup, death is not the end.

Music fanatic. Professional problem solving. reader. Award-Winning TV Ninja.

Read the original here:

Does science show that there is more between heaven and earth? Yes, says this philosopher - Hardwood Paroxysm

State leaders and officials in the technology sector saw growth in cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and greater digital access among other advancements in 2021, and expect to see continued growth in those areas, in addition to data analytics, blockchain and other innovative technologies in 2022.

It was a year of remarkable firsts, said Douglas Hutchings, entrepreneur in residence for Innovate Arkansas at Winrock International. Humans flew a helicopter on Mars, quantum computing had its first commercial offering, a monkey was able to play pong with its brain, and we started making non-fungible tokens for all sorts of stuff. Arkansas researchers and companies continue to contribute to efforts in power electronics, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and blockchain which touch each of these.

Citing researchers such as Laurent Bellaiche and Alan Mantooth at the University of Arkansas, Hutchings also emphasized the progress made on quantum physics and compact electronics made to survive in harsh environments, as well as statewide efforts around artificial intelligence (AI).

The 2021 Arkansas Bioinformatics Consortium focused on harnessing the states growing AI expertise to push the boundaries of rapid health diagnosis, he added. Likewise, the emerging policy and legal framework for all things blockchain is being advanced the Blockchain Center of Excellence with notable publications by Carol Goforth and others. The excitement around the pace of technology development can be felt by both Arkansas legacy companies and the bustling entrepreneurial community.

In Fintech, questions continue to surround cryptocurrency and what it will ultimately look like in the future.

When you look at Fintech space specifically, clearly were trying to wrestle the issue of cryptocurrency and this asset class as to what is it and how are we going to use it, said Wayne Miller, executive director of the Venture Center. Its here to stay, I dont think theres any question about it. How its going to be ultimately regulated and accepted whether or not the government decides to build its own through a stablecoin or if Bitcoin is the most prevalent regardless, this is going to become part of our lives.

And leaders continue to explore ways for technology such as smartphones to expand opportunities for those underserved by banks.

As I talk to bankers today, if theres 5,000 people in your community, you have the opportunity through digital platforms today to have 5,000 branches, Miller said. If you look at the folks who are underbanked, unbanked, areas that are less privileged or underserved, one of the things they have is a cellular device. So how can we begin to leverage this technology in a way that helps them build wealth?

In 2022, leaders expect to see exploration into an array of technologies, including renewable energy.

The energy landscape continues to evolve at a tremendous pace, Hutchings said. Not many realize that Arkansas has leading policies around distributed generation which has resulted in rapid adoption of technologies like solar. The coming years are likely going to see similar adoption of energy storage due largely to the rapid scaling of electric vehicles.

Data analytics will continue to be a major focus, specifically around refined methods to collect and interpret data.

From supply chain to bioinformatics, we are awash in reams of data. Understanding industry needs all the way to the individual company-level remains quite challenging, said Bryan Barnhouse, chief executive officer for the Arkansas Research Alliance. Developing tools to answer questions about how its collected, cleaned, assessed, protected, distributed, etc. will be with us for the rest of our natural lives.

Blockchain technology is poised for broader application as well in the financial sector, according to Karl Schubert, professor of practice and associate director of the data science program at the University of Arkansas. Schubert said blockchain will have a serious effect in its ability to verify financial transactions at high speeds.

I believe that instituting blockchain into this process is going to create a more secure international financial backbone, and I think thats going to be huge, he said.

Errin Stanger, director of Winrock Internationals Arkansas Regional Innovation Hub, expects to see a continued focus on artificial intelligence and 5G this year, in addition to an array of renewable energy technologies.

In my opinion, I think we have just scratched the surface on AI but there are even more exciting developments around the corner, she said. I am also expecting continued growth around renewable energy. Energy-efficient buildings, electric cars and trucks, new technology on solar panels the list could go on and on.

While COVID-19 has disrupted the sector just as it has nearly every other sector and industry its also kicked technology development and adoption into a higher gear.

A lot of technology were seeing coming into play particularly touchless and wireless those things have existed, but I think adoption was slow, Miller said. And the pandemic really forced adoption and increased it over 60 percent.

COVID has also led to mainstreaming of remote work and greater digital equity in the state.

Remote work and remote learning lead to enhanced cloud capabilities and a focus on connectivity, Stanger said. I have noticed a strong focus in Arkansas on Digital Equity. We saw wide gaps in connectivity when our schools switched to virtual, and many homes across our state did not have the infrastructure to support online learning. The dedication to improving this across the state has heightened in the last 12 months.

If necessity is the mother of invention, then a global healthcare crises is the father who kicks discovery into high gear, Barnhouse said.

Editors note: Link here to connect to the State of the State section.

Original post:

State of the State 2022: State technology leaders reflect on 2021, look to 2022 - talkbusiness.net

HYDERABAD, India and SHENZHEN, China, Jan. 19, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- Excelra, a leading global Data & Analytics organization, today announced the partnership for its Global Online Structure Activity Relationship Database (GOSTAR) with XtalPi Inc., an AI-based pharmaceutical biotechnology company reinventing the industry's approach to drug research and development with its Intelligent Digital Drug Discovery and Development platform.

Excelra Logo

Excelra will provide ADMET datasets in the GOSTAR database to XtalPi Inc. as part of the partnership. GOSTAR's ADMET data will power XtalPi's predictive models. The data helps XtalPi with high precision and predictability to confidently tackle clinical failures of new chemical entities. The well-annotated, high-quality ADMET datasets of GOSTAR are built with a proprietary QMS-ISO certified curation process powered by NLP and human intelligence.

GOSTAR provides comprehensive information encompassing over 8 million compounds, manually curated from a variety of sources including patents and journal articles. The database contains over 29 million SAR associated data points. The well-structured relational database can be utilized for diverse applications across various stages of drug discovery and development lifecycle and aids in target validation, hit identification, early lead identification, and optimization.

Min Xu, Senior Scientist, Research Manager, XtalPi Inc., said, "In XtalPi Inc., we develop advanced AI-based algorithms to tackle the challenges in the drug design process. The size and quality of datasets are always a big concern for us to build high-accuracy predictive models. That is why we consider GOSTAR as a unique and precious resource. It has millions of data points covering different compounds' ADMET properties and is also trustful, structured, and updated. We highly recommend GOSTAR to whoever is involved in the innovation of drug design methodologies."

Story continues

Norman Azoulay, Product Leader, Excelra, said, "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning is bringing a paradigm shift to drug discovery and development. This partnership will help train XtalPi's models to accurately predict efficacy and safety parameters and to ultimately increase the success rate of drug design."

About XtalPi:

XtalPi is a pharmaceutical technology company that is reinventing the industry's approach to drug research and development with its Intelligent Digital Drug Discovery and Development platform. With tightly interwoven quantum physics, artificial intelligence, and high-performance cloud computing algorithms, XtalPi's platform provides accurate predictions on the physiochemical and pharmaceutical properties of small-molecule candidates for drug design, solid-form selection, and other critical aspects of drug development. XtalPi is dedicated to improving the efficiency, accuracy, and success rate of drug research and development, and contributing to a healthier society worldwide. To know more, visit http://www.xtalpi.com.

About Excelra:

Excelra's data and analytics solutions empower innovation in life sciences from molecule to market. The Excelra Edge comes from harmonizing heterogeneous data sets, applying innovative bioinformatics know-how and technologies to accelerate your drug discovery & development with reliable and result-oriented insights. Excelra's GOSTAR is available as an application for users to seek, find, and discover compounds. In addition, it is offered via APIs and as a downloadable dataset to power in-house libraries and machine learning models.

For more information about GOSTAR, visit http://www.gostardb.com

Cision

View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/xtalpi-partners-with-excelra-for-gostar-to-enhance-its-intelligent-digital-drug-discovery-and-development-platform-301462621.html

SOURCE Excelra Knowledge Solutions Pvt Ltd

Continued here:

XtalPi Partners with Excelra for GOSTAR to Enhance its Intelligent Digital Drug Discovery and Development platform - Yahoo Finance