Scientific Şehir

مبادرة تطوير المعالج الفيزيائي IOPTD
تدعوكم لحضور مؤتمرها العلمي الأول بعنوان ( أحدث تقنيات العلاج الفيزيائي )
بتاريخ 07/03/2020 في (قاعة مؤتمرات جامعة إسطنبول شهير ) وذلك بتمام الساعة 10:00 صباحا حتى الساعة 18:00 مساءًا بتوقيت مدينة إسطنبول.
بحضور عدد من إختصاصين العلاج الفيزيائي و الأطباء.

يتضمن الؤتمر ورشة عمل عن تقنية (كايروبراتيك)
في نهاية المؤتر تكريم المحاضرين
و تقديم شهادات مشاركة للمشاركين في هذا المؤتمر

Scietific Şehir will be calibrating with AFAQ student association to hold a Visual Studio course on the days 13 & 20 of Dec.
The course will be conducted in Arabic.

Now This is cool science!

Super Cool Science Experiments You Can Do At Home These are all super cool. Based on this BuzzFeed Post by Peggy Wang: http://www.buzzfeed.com/peggy/kids-science-experiments-that-adults-can-enjoy-too Music: ...

The Fibonacci sequence is a series of numbers where a number is found by adding up the two numbers before it. Starting with 0 and 1, the sequence goes 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, and so forth. Written as a rule, the expression is xn = xn-1 + xn-2.

If you take any two successive Fibonacci Numbers, their ratio is very close to the Golden Ratio "φ" which is approximately 1.618034... In fact, the bigger the pair of Fibonacci Numbers, the closer the approximation.

Fibonacci numbers actually appear in nature as well, from sunflowers to hurricanes to galaxies.

*The shapes of spiral galaxies, such as Messier 74, and hurricanes, such as Hurricane Irene, follow the Fibonacci sequence.

Credit: Left: NASA/ESA/Hubble Heritage Team. Right: NASA | NOAA | GOES Project

The nose knows a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) scents:

The human nose can detect more than a trillion different odors. Getting that number took a lot of smelly work. Fortunately, scientists found dozens of volunteers willing to help out.

There had been a long-standing claim that people could detect 10,000 different scents. That estimate was way small. The new research suggests the real number is 10,000 times bigger. Scientists had thought the old number might need revising. The new study certainly supports that.

“We’re visual animals, but this new report highlights humans’ superb sense of smell,” Noam Sobel told Science News. This neuroscientist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, did not work on the new study.

One trillion (1,000,000,000,000) is a huge number. Imagine every person on Earth gave off 140 distinct odors all his (or her) own. A single nose might be able to tell them all apart, based on the new numbers.

Our sense of smell may be even more refined than sight or sound. People can see several million different colors and hear roughly 340,000 tones, Leslie Vosshall told Science News. Vosshall is a geneticist at Rockefeller University in New York City. She led the new study published March 21 in Science.

Vosshall and her coworkers recruited 26 men and women to visit a lab and sniff. Then to sniff, and sniff, and sniff some more. Each person completed 264 different smell tests. Each time, the volunteers sniffed a trio of vials. Two contained the same odor. A third differed. The participants had to identify which one wasn't like the others.

Most odors in the real world contain a mix of molecules, each of which contributes some part of the final scent. Here, the scientists combined a selection of molecules to create the different scents. They chose various amounts from a group of 128 different chemicals to concoct the odors.

People could generally tell the difference between two scents that had been concocted from two completely different groups of molecules. Most people could even tell the difference between scents that shared half of the same molecules. But as the scents’ number of shared ingredients increased, people found it harder to tell scents apart.

No one in the study could tell the difference between two smells that shared 90 percent of the same molecules.

Based on those results, the scientists estimate that the average person can identify about a trillion different smells, each made from 30 separate odor molecules. However, the most sensitive smeller in the group could probably identify many more, the scientists say. Someone with a relatively insensitive nose would probably detect only about 80 million, they now suspect.

The study only used 128 odor molecules, far fewer than the number that exist in the real world. As such, one trillion is likely a low estimate for a sensitive nose, Andreas Keller told Science News. A coauthor of the new study, he also is a geneticist at Rockefeller.

Sobel told Science News that many animals also may be able to detect a trillion or more odors. However, scent-counting studies like this one haven't been conducted on smell-sensitive critters.

"The Mpemba Effect"

Sitting in front of you are two glasses of water that are identical except for one thing: The water on your left is hotter than the water on your right. Place both of these glasses in the freezer. Which will freeze faster? You’d think the colder glass on the right would, but that might not be the case. Hot water can freeze faster than cold water.

This odd effect is named after a Tanzanian student who observed it in 1986 while freezing milk to make ice cream. But some of history’s greatest thinkers—Aristotle, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes—had previously noted this phenomenon without being able to explain it. Aristotle mistakenly attributed it to what he called “antiperistasis,” the idea that a quality intensifies in the environment of its opposite quality.

Several factors contribute to the Mpemba Effect. The hot glass of water may lose a large amount of water from evaporation, leaving less water that needs to be cooled. Warmer water also holds less dissolved gas, which could cause the water to more easily develop convection currents, thereby making it easier for the water to freeze.

Another theory lies in the chemical bonds holding the water molecule together. A molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single oxygen atom. When water heats up, the molecules move apart, and the bonds can relax and give up some of their energy. This lets them cool faster than water that had not been heated to begin with.

The hippocampus is widely accepted to play a pivotal role in memory. Two influential theories offer competing accounts of its fundamental operating mechanism. The cognitive map theory posits a special role in mapping large-scale space, whereas the relational theory argues it supports amodal relational processing. Here, we pit the two theories against each other using a novel paradigm in which the relational processing involved in navigating in a city was matched with similar navigational and relational processing demands in a nonspatial (social) domain. During functional magnetic resonance imaging, participants determined the optimal route either between friends' homes or between the friends themselves using social connections. Separate brain networks were engaged preferentially during the two tasks, with hippocampal activation driven only by spatial relational processing. We conclude that the human hippocampus appears to have a bias toward the processing of spatial relationships, in accordance with the cognitive map theory. Our results both advance our understanding of the nature of the hippocampal contribution to memory and provide insights into how social networks are instantiated at the neural level.

It’s certainly possible to over-analyze a joke. But can the same be said for humor as a whole? Considering the abundant research on the topic, maybe not.

Scott Weems, a neuroscientist, takes readers on a wide-ranging tour that explains what humor is and why readers should care. Turns out, humor influences health and social well-being in many ways.

Humor improves interpersonal relationships, and studies show that simply watching a funny movie can lower stress, improve immune system response and even help viewers better solve problems.

The complexity of the human brain makes humor possible, Weems argues, and it also helps explain how some people can find a joke hilarious while others deem it grossly offensive.

Humor takes many forms — as many as 44 by one researcher’s count — but shares certain traits and themes. From puns and riddles to slapstick, humor is inherently subversive, Weems says, often treating serious subjects with frivolity or even rudeness. Prisoners of war and others in dire situations, for instance, often turn to dark humor.

Ha! isn’t a self-help guide to being funny, though a careful reader can find useful nuggets throughout. The funniest jokes carry a little edginess, but not too much. Surprise helps, too, whether it’s the incongruity of an elephant hiding in a cherry tree or the absolute improbability of Raquel Welch and the pope ending up in the same lifeboat.

The final chapter divulges Weems’ semisuccessful attempt at stand-up comedy. He got a few laughs, he says, but not where he expected them. Maybe practice does make perfect: The joke that got Weems the most laughs, and judged by one website’s readers as the best in the world, is a story that he had practiced many dozens, maybe hundreds, of times.

Good question

Why is glass transparent? - Mark Miodownik If you look through your glasses, binoculars or a window, you see the world on the other side. How is it that something so solid can be so invisible? Mark Miodownik melts the scientific secret behind amorphous solids.

Here you are guys some really interesting facts about the daily life of an astronaut.

Enjoy

Daily Life Of An Astronaut -- FAK #31 Subscribe (It's Free): http://bit.ly/10nP7dg Twitter: https://twitter.com/VsauceTwo *** CLICK "SHOW MORE" FOR LINKS AND SOURCES *** How Do Astronauts Sleep h...

This stunning image of a lightning strike over Kuwait was captured last December by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station (ISS) and released today (March 24) by NASA's Earth Observatory. The ISS recently installed a new instrument to help study the physics and composition of such bolts in detail on a daily basis.

Lightning bolts flash across Earth's atmosphere as often as 50 times per second, which adds up to about 4.3 million times a day and 1.5 billion times a year, NASA officials wrote in an image description. Some of those strikes emit gamma radiation — a type of radiation more commonly associated with exploding stars and nuclear fusion — in bursts known as terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs). The scientists will use the new lightning imagery and data from the ISS to try to understand what triggers lightning during storms in general, and what causes these rarer bursts of TGFs. [Electric Earth: Stunning Images of Lightning]

"The fact that TGFs exist at all is amazing," Doug Rowland, a space physicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center involved in this new lighting research, said in a statement. "The electron and gamma-ray energies in TGFs are usually the domain of nuclear explosions, solar flares, and supernovas. What a surprise to find them shooting out of the cold upper atmosphere of our own planet."

Researchers think these TGFs may be related to enigmatic red bursts of lightning called red sprites, which travel upward from thunderstorms and can take on ornate shapes that look like jellyfish. Red sprites are just one of several types of lightning that researchers are still working to understand the origin of. In fact, lightning, in general, is a mysterious phenomenon, with scientists still not sure exactly how lightning forms, though the working hypothesis suggests it forms when an updraft of warm air reaches a height where the temperature is just above freezing; at this point, ice crystals and frozen particles interact with each other to produce an electric charge separation; when that separation becomes great enough an electrical breakdown occurs — a lightning flash.

Source : http://www.space.com/25196-stunning-lightning-images-captured.html?cmpid=514630_20140325_20619474

The 5 big questions in brain science

On Wednesday, the U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues met to discuss the moral implications of brain science. The bioethics experts met at the request of President Barack Obama, who earlier this year called for the start of a $100 million federal Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.

Obama asked the bioethics council to look into what sort of moral dilemmas might arise from the newfound abilities to p*er into the workings of the human mind promised by his brain-mapping proposal, and by neuroscience overall.

What are the big questions? We asked Hank Greely, a bioethics and genetics expert at Stanford University's Law School, what he sees as being the five big questions in neuroscience. Here are his insights:

1. Prediction: using neuroscience to predict peoples' fate or actions.

We are spending a lot of research dollars on the question of whether Dad, or I, will get Alzheimer's. What is going to happen when we can really predict that? There will be tremendous implications for families and the medical system, in terms of intervention or treatment.

Another question is crime. What about when we can tell whose brains indicate they are more likely to commit or recommit a crime when people are released from jail? Who is going to recommend or deny a brain scan for every criminal case?

Most likely, these brain results will just be added to other evidence in criminal cases. But if neuroscience adds yet another predictive element to when releases [from prison occur] or sentences end, it will have big effects on preventive retention or preventive therapy for the incarcerated.

2. Mind reading: using neuroscience as a lie detector or to see emotional states.

When I first started saying "mind reading," I thought a lot of my neuroscientist friends would object. But many of them say, yes, that is right, it is like that. A study involving MIT undergraduates was able to tell when they were visualizing a face or a place with 85 percent accuracy, for example. That's pretty good.

Where this will really make a difference is in contacting quadriplegics with the most severe paralysis—"locked in" individuals. We will be able to put people thought to have been in a persistent vegetative state in a [brain] scanner and try to talk to them.

Lie detection raises a host of legal, ethical, and social questions. Only one company is left doing this—NoLieMRI. They are seen as problematic because they don't publish their methods or results. But there is a lot of interest in the technology from the Defense Department, which wants to move away from the polygraph to other ways to do lie detection.

In court, where you will probably first see mind reading is with disability claims—whether people are really feeling pain for Social Security disability claims for lower back pain. Hundreds of thousands of people are making these claims. Some perhaps aren't really in pain. We don't have a good way to tell the difference, but if we did, that would matter.

3. Responsibility: using neuroscience to determine whether people have free will.

I have some neuroscientists who think the effect of their science will be to make the court system disappear. It will show that people have no real "free will" and that people are not truly responsible for their actions. "My brain made me do it" … I don't know any lawyers who believe this will happen.

But there is one particular case, which took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, of a 40-year-old man who suddenly became interested in po*******hy and moved to child po*******hy and then groped his 12-year-old stepdaughter. The Tuesday before his sentencing he complained of headaches, couldn't read, he blacked out. And they took him to the emergency room.

They found a tumor the size of a chicken egg on a part of his brain called the left frontal lobe [implicated in studies as being involved with judgment and cognition]. They removed the tumor and the impulses went away.

Ten months later he tells his probation officer that the impulses are coming back. They x-ray him and find that the tumor has returned. They remove the tumor again and he hasn't been rearrested in the last two to three years.

Ironically, we may see a lot of court cases involving brain abnormalities where people claim their lawyer was ineffective. "I should have had a brain scan," they will tell the jury.

4. Treatment: using neuroscience in medical care.

We are not giving billions of dollars to neuroscientists to study whatever interests them, but for treatments for diseases such as Parkinson's. That is what is driving the funding for neuroscience.

We have to ask careful questions, however, about claims of treatment to avert or cure diseases such as op**te addiction. Could a judge order someone to get treatment based on a brain scan, or is the brain sacred? To what extent can parents force children to get treatments based on neuroscience?

As our basic medical knowledge improves, we will see dual uses spread away from cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's as we learn more about how to fundamentally change others.

5. Enhancement: using neuroscience to juice our capabilities.

You most often think about college kidsusing Adderall or Ritalin to give themselves a brain boost. There isn't a lot of evidence this helps, aside from keeping them awake.

But what if it does work? Is it fair to the kid who doesn't get a brain enhancement? Or what if it only works long enough to pass your medical exam—should that person be practicing medicine? Will we have to p*e in a cup before finals?

I think that in memories is where we will see neuroscience matter. So much is being done on memory in connection with Alzheimer's, but also with age-appropriate memory loss. I would take a pill in an instant to have a memory as sharp as I recall it was when I was younger.

Last, we asked Greeley if neuroscience would result in ethics becoming more brain-based and moving away from the old moral questions.

No, I see neuroscience raising questions similar to any technology, although they will be fundamental ones because of the importance of the brain to our sense of self.

For any technology there are two questions you need to ask:

Does it work? It is easy to get carried away with the science-fiction scenarios and just assume it works, which may encourage giving too much credibility to a technology.

The other question is, if it does work, what now? There will be benefits and risks to any technology. It is really important to focus on both questions—not to focus on just one first—to give thought to both before it is too late to think about either one.