The dwarf planet Quaoar has a ring that is too big for its metaphorical fingers. While all other rings in the solar system lie within or near a mathematically determined distance of their parent bodies, Quaoar’s ring is much farther out.
“For Quaoar, for the ring to be outside this limit is very, very strange,” says astronomer Bruno Morgado of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. The finding may force a rethink of the rules governing planetary rings, Morgado and colleagues say in a study published February 8 in Nature. Quaoar is an icy body about half the size of Pluto that’s located in the Kuiper Belt at the solar system’s edge (SN: 8/23/22). At such a great distance from Earth, it’s hard to get a clear picture of the world.
So Morgado and colleagues watched Quaoar block the light from a distant star, a phenomenon called a stellar occultation. The timing of the star winking in and out of view can reveal details about Quaoar, like its size and whether it has an atmosphere.
The researchers took data from occultations from 2018 to 2020, observed from all over the world, including Namibia, Australia and Grenada, as well as space. There was no sign that Quaoar had an atmosphere. But surprisingly, there was a ring. The finding makes Quaoar just the third dwarf planet or asteroid in the solar system known to have a ring, after the asteroid Chariklo and the dwarf planet Haumea (SN: 3/26/14; SN: 10/11/17).
Even more surprisingly, “the ring is not where we expect,” Morgado says. Known rings around other objects lie within or near what’s called the Roche limit, an invisible line where the gravitational force of the main body peters out. Inside the limit, that force can rip a moon to shreds, turning it into a ring. Outside, the gravity between smaller particles is stronger than that from the main body, and rings will coalesce into one or several moons.
“We always think of [the Roche limit] as straightforward,” Morgado says. “One side is a moon forming, the other side is a ring stable. And now this limit is not a limit.”
For Quaoar’s far-out ring, there are a few possible explanations, Morgado says. Maybe the observers caught the ring at just the right moment, right before it turns into a moon. But that lucky timing seems unlikely, he notes.
Maybe Quaoar’s known moon, Weywot, or some other unseen moon contributes gravity that holds the ring stable somehow. Or maybe the ring’s particles are colliding in such a way that they avoid sticking together and clumping into moons.
The particles would have to be particularly bouncy for that to work, “like a ring of those bouncy balls from toy stores,” says planetary scientist David Jewitt of UCLA, who was not involved in the new work.
The observation is solid, says Jewitt, who helped discover the first objects in the Kuiper Belt in the 1990s. But there’s no way to know yet which of the explanations is correct, if any, in part because there are no theoretical predictions for such far-out rings to compare with Quaoar’s situation.
That’s par for the course when it comes to the Kuiper Belt. “Everything in the Kuiper Belt, basically, has been discovered, not predicted,” Jewitt says. “It’s the opposite of the classical model of science where people predict things and then confirm or reject them. People discover stuff by surprise, and everyone scrambles to explain it.”
More observations of Quaoar, or more discoveries of seemingly misplaced rings elsewhere in the solar system, could help reveal what’s going on.
“I have no doubt that in the near future a lot of people will start working with Quaoar to try to get this answer,” Morgado says.
For nearly 650 years, the fortress walls in the Chinese city of Xi’an have served as a formidable barrier around the central city. At 12 meters high and up to 18 meters thick, they are impervious to almost everything — except subatomic particles called muons.
Now, thanks to their penetrating abilities, muons may be key to ensuring that the walls that once protected the treasures of the first Ming Dynasty — and are now a national architectural treasure in their own right — stand for centuries more.
A refined detection method has provided the highest-resolution muon scans yet produced of any archaeological structure, researchers report in the Jan. 7 Journal of Applied Physics. The scans revealed interior density fluctuations as small as a meter across inside one section of the Xi’an ramparts. The fluctuations could be signs of dangerous flaws or “hidden structures archaeologically interesting for discovery and investigation,” says nuclear physicist Zhiyi Liu of Lanzhou University in China. Muons are like electrons, only heavier. They rain down all over the planet, produced when charged particles called cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. Although muons can travel deep into earth and stone, they are scattered or absorbed depending on the material they encounter. Counting the ones that pass through makes them useful for studying volcano interiors, scanning pyramids for hidden chambers and even searching for contraband stashed in containers impervious to X-rays (SN: 4/22/22).
Though muons stream down continuously, their numbers are small enough that the researchers had to deploy six detectors for a week at a time to collect enough data for 3-D scans of the rampart.
It’s now up to conservationists to determine how to address any density fluctuations that might indicate dangerous flaws, or historical surprises, inside the Xi’an walls.
Today’s red jungle fowl — the wild forebears of the domesticated chicken — are becoming more chickenlike. New research suggests that a large proportion of the wild fowl’s DNA has been inherited from chickens, and relatively recently.
Ongoing interbreeding between the two birds may threaten wild jungle fowl populations’ future, and even hobble humans’ ability to breed better chickens, researchers report January 19 in PLOS Genetics.
Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) are forest birds native to Southeast Asia and parts of South Asia. Thousands of years ago, humans domesticated the fowl, possibly in the region’s rice fields (SN: 6/6/22). “Chickens are arguably the most important domestic animal on Earth,” says Frank Rheindt, an evolutionary biologist at the National University of Singapore. He points to their global ubiquity and abundance. Chicken is also one of the cheapest sources of animal protein that humans have.
Domesticated chickens (G. gallus domesticus) were known to be interbreeding with jungle fowl near human settlements in Southeast Asia. Given the unknown impacts on jungle fowl and the importance of chickens to humankind, Rheindt and his team wanted to gather more details. Wild jungle fowl contain a store of genetic diversity that could serve as a crucial resource for breeding chickens resistant to diseases or other threats.
The researchers analyzed and compared the genomes — the full complement of an organism’s DNA — of 63 jungle fowl and 51 chickens from across Southeast Asia. Some of the jungle fowl samples came from museum specimens collected from 1874 through 1939, letting the team see how the genetic makeup of jungle fowl has changed over time.
Over the last century or so, wild jungle fowl’s genomes have become increasingly similar to chickens’. Between about 20 and 50 percent of the genomes of modern jungle fowl originated in chickens, the team found. In contrast, many of the roughly 100-year-old jungle fowl had a chicken-ancestry share in the range of a few percent.
The rapid change probably comes from human communities expanding into the region’s wilderness, Rheindt says. Most modern jungle fowl live in close vicinity to humans’ free-ranging chickens, with which they frequently interbreed.
Such interbreeding has become “almost the norm now” for any globally domesticated species, Rheindt says, such as dogs hybridizing with wolves and house cats crossing with wildcats. Pigs, meanwhile, are mixing with wild boars and ferrets with polecats. Wild populations that interbreed with their domesticated counterparts could pick up physical or behavioral traits that change how the hybrids function in their ecosystem, says Claudio Quilodrán, a conservation geneticist at the University of Geneva not involved with this research.
The effect is likely to be negative, Quilodrán says, since some of the traits coming into the wild population have been honed for human uses, not for survival in the local environment.
Wild jungle fowl have lost their genetic diversity as they’ve interbred too. The birds’ heterozygosity — a measure of a population’s genetic diversity — is now just a tenth of what it was a century ago.
“This result is initially counterintuitive,” Rheindt says. “If you mix one population with another, you would generally expect a higher genetic diversity.”
But domesticated chickens have such low genetic diversity that certain versions of jungle fowl genes are being swept out of the population by a tsunami of genetic homogeneity. The whittling down of these animals’ genetic toolkit may leave them vulnerable to conservation threats.
“Having lots of genetic diversity within a species increases the chance that certain individuals contain the genetic background to adapt to a varied range of different environmental changes and diseases,” says Graham Etherington, a computational biologist at the Earlham Institute in Norwich, England, who was not involved with this research.
A shallower jungle fowl gene pool could also mean diminished resources for breeding better chickens. The genetics of wild relatives are sometimes used to bolster the disease or pest resistance of domesticated crop plants. Jungle fowl genomes could be similarly valuable for this reason.
“If this trend continues unabated, future human generations may only be able to access the entirety of ancestral genetic diversity of chickens in the form of museum specimens,” Rheindt says, which could hamper chicken breeding efforts using the wild fowl genes.
Some countries such as Singapore, Rheindt says, have started managing jungle fowl populations to reduce interbreeding with chickens.
The worst procrastinators probably won’t be able to read this story. It’ll remind them of what they’re trying to avoid, psychologist Piers Steel says.
Maybe they’re dragging their feet going to the gym. Maybe they haven’t gotten around to their New Year’s resolutions. Maybe they’re waiting just one more day to study for that test.
Procrastination is “putting off to later what you know you should be doing now,” even if you’ll be worse off, says Steel, of the University of Calgary in Canada. But all those tasks pushed to tomorrow seem to wedge themselves into the mind — and it may be harming people’s health. In a study of thousands of university students, scientists linked procrastination to a panoply of poor outcomes, including depression, anxiety and even disabling arm pain. “I was surprised when I saw that one,” says Fred Johansson, a clinical psychologist at Sophiahemmet University in Stockholm. His team reported the results January 4 in JAMA Network Open.
The study is one of the largest yet to tackle procrastination’s ties to health. Its results echo findings from earlier studies that have gone largely ignored, says Fuschia Sirois, a behavioral scientist at Durham University in England, who was not involved with the new research.
For years, scientists didn’t seem to view procrastination as something serious, she says. The new study could change that. “It’s that kind of big splash that’s … going to get attention,” Sirois says. “I’m hoping that it will raise awareness of the physical health consequences of procrastination.”
Procrastinating may be bad for the mind and body Whether procrastination harms health can seem like a chicken-and-egg situation.
It can be hard to tell if certain health problems make people more likely to procrastinate — or the other way around, Johansson says. (It may be a bit of both.) And controlled experiments on procrastination aren’t easy to do: You can’t just tell a study participant to become a procrastinator and wait and see if their health changes, he says. Many previous studies have relied on self-reported surveys taken at a single time point. But a snapshot of someone makes it tricky to untangle cause and effect. Instead, in the new study, about 3,500 students were followed over nine months, so researchers could track whether procrastinating students later developed health issues.
On average, these students tended to fare worse over time than their prompter peers. They were slightly more stressed, anxious, depressed and sleep-deprived, among other issues, Johansson and colleagues found. “People who score higher on procrastination to begin with … are at greater risk of developing both physical and psychological problems later on,” says study coauthor Alexander Rozental, a clinical psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. “There is a relationship between procrastination at one time point and having these negative outcomes at the later point.”
The study was observational, so the team can’t say for sure that procrastination causes poor health. But results from other researchers also seem to point in this direction. A 2021 study tied procrastinating at bedtime to depression. And a 2015 study from Sirois’ lab linked procrastinating to poor heart health.
Stress may be to blame for procrastination’s ill effects, data from Sirois’ lab and other studies suggest. She thinks that the effects of chronic procrastinating could build up over time. And though procrastination alone may not cause disease, Sirois says, it could be “one extra factor that can tip the scales.”
No, procrastinators are not lazy Some 20 percent of adults are estimated to be chronic procrastinators. Everyone might put off a task or two, but chronic procrastinators make it their lifestyle, says Joseph Ferrari, a psychologist at DePaul University in Chicago, who has been studying procrastination for decades. “They do it at home, at school, at work and in their relationships.” These are the people, he says, who “you know are going to RSVP late.”
Though procrastinators may think they perform better under pressure, Ferrari has reported the opposite. They actually worked more slowly and made more errors than non-procrastinators, his experiments have shown. And when deadlines are slippery, procrastinators tend to let their work slide, Steel’s team reported last year in Frontiers in Psychology.
For years, researchers have focused on the personalities of people who procrastinate. Findings vary, but some scientists suggest procrastinators may be impulsive, worriers and have trouble regulating their emotions. One thing procrastinators are not, Ferrari emphasizes, is lazy. They’re actually “very busy doing other things than what they’re supposed to be doing,” he says.
In fact, Rozental adds, most research today suggests procrastination is a behavioral pattern.
And if procrastination is a behavior, he says, that means it’s something you can change, regardless of whether you’re impulsive.
Why procrastinators should be kind to themselves When people put off a tough task, they feel good — in the moment. Procrastinating is a way to sidestep the negative emotions linked to the task, Sirois says. “We’re sort of hardwired to avoid anything painful or difficult,” she says. “When you procrastinate, you get immediate relief.” A backdrop of stressful circumstances — say, a worldwide pandemic — can strain people’s ability to cope, making procrastinating even easier. But the relief it provides is only temporary, and many seek out ways to stop dawdling.
Researchers have experimented with procrastination treatments that run the gamut from the logistical to the psychological. What works best is still under investigation. Some scientists have reported success with time-management interventions. But the evidence for that “is all over the map,” Sirois says. That’s because “poor time management is a symptom not a cause of procrastination,” she adds.
For some procrastinators, seemingly obvious tips can work. In his clinical practice, Rozental advises students to simply put down their smartphones. Silencing notifications or studying in the library rather than at home can quash distractions and keep people on task. But that won’t be enough for many people, he says.
Hard-core procrastinators may benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy. In a 2018 review of procrastination treatments, Rozental found that this type of therapy, which involves managing thoughts and emotions and trying to change behavior, seemed to be the most helpful. Still, not many studies have examined treatments, and there’s room for improvement, he says.
Sirois also favors an emotion-centered approach. Procrastinators can fall into a shame spiral where they feel uneasy about a task, put the task off, feel ashamed for putting it off and then feel even worse than when they started. People need to short-circuit that loop, she says. Self-forgiveness may help, scientists suggested in one 2020 study. So could mindfulness training.
In a small trial of university students, eight weekly mindfulness sessions reduced procrastination, Sirois and colleagues reported in the January Learning and Individual Differences. Students practiced focusing on the body, meditating during unpleasant activities and discussed the best way to take care of themselves. A little self-compassion may snap people out of their spiral, Sirois says.
“You made a mistake and procrastinated. It’s not the end of the world,” she says. “What can you do to move forward?”
Far too often, fighters say that they can’t afford to lose when they, in fact, can afford to lose.
A loss isn't the end for all fighters and the greatest have come back from significant losses in their career. All losses aren't the same and there's often an overreaction to how much a loss hurts the future of a fighter. Take, for instance, Canelo Alvarez vs. Caleb Plant. Plant was never expected to win the fight. Of course, he didn’t want to lose and the spoils go to the victor but the concept of a moral victory applied. He made a good showing of himself and will certainly be back, perhaps with more eyeballs on him now than before.
There are rarely fights that neither can afford to lose because of just how devastating to their future the loss would be.
Terence Crawford vs. Shawn Porter on Nov. 20 in Las Vegas is one of those fights.
Why Terence Crawford can’t afford to lose If Terence Crawford loses to Shawn Porter, the allure is gone. And maybe he wasn’t as good as we thought he was.
Although he was named the Fighter of the Year by ESPN and the Boxing Writers Association of America all the way back in 2014 (and again by ESPN in 2017), the current WBO welterweight champion remains in pursuit of a signature win. The critics have had every right to have their questions because as great as Crawford has looked, his resume lacks that one opponent who is respected for his accomplishments and accolades.
Shawn Porter is that opponent.
A two-time welterweight champion that has given hell to every single opponent that he’s stepped into the ring with. With Manny Pacquiao retired, an argument can be made that Porter has the most impressive resume of every fighter in the 147-pound weight class. And if it wasn’t for Canelo, Porter might have the best resume in all of boxing. Although he hasn’t won all of his big fights, he has yet to be dominated by an opponent. He’s defeated Danny Garcia, Yordenis Ugas, Adrian Broner while losing narrow decisions to Keith Thurman, Errol Spence Jr. and Kell Brook. As a matter of fact, 11 of his last 13 opponents were world titleholders.
It doesn’t get much better than that. And a Crawford victory opens the door wide open for him to challenge Spence and the rest of the division in an attempt to become undisputed in two division. They won't be able to deny him any longer unless they are scared. It's just that simple.
With all of this being said, one would think that Crawford could afford to lose given Porter’s credentials. Well, that’s certainly not the case. He has hovered as one of the top five pound-for-pound fighters without a marquee name on his resume because he’s been that damn good inside of the squared circle.
But what he hasn’t been is tested by an opponent who has given the best 147-pounders 36 minutes of pressure. Crawford may have graduated with high honors from his pugilism undergraduate but now he has to prove that he’s Magna Cum Laude and get his master’s degree in the sweet science.
He has an opportunity to barely pass the test like Errol Spence and still be considered as one of the best in the world or he gets mowed down by Porter’s aggressive style and find himself possibly removed from the pound for pound list. Or, he destroys Porter and is undeniably the top dog of the division and once again in the conversation as the best fighter in the world.
Of even more significance is that he’ll be a free agent. It’s no secret that Top Rank has struggled to get him a marquee fight as opponents ranging from Errol Spence Jr., Keith Thurman and the recently retired Manny Pacquiao fought for a rival promotion. There’s an expectation that Crawford will see what’s on the other side of the street if he gets past Porter. But at 34 years of age and facing constant struggles to prove he’s a marketable star, a loss would be devastating to his future.
Bob Arum has spoken in less than flattering terms about Crawford while PBC will have proven their point that Crawford is not in the league of their current stable. Where does Crawford go if he loses all of his leverage?
He cannot afford to lose on Saturday night.
Why Shawn Porter can’t afford to lose Boxing has been kind to Shawn Porter because Porter has been kind to the sport. He’s a fighter who could care less about politics and risks. He’ll fight anybody at any time. And if you step into the ring with Porter, it will be less fun for you than it is for him. He enjoys plowing into opponents and forcing them to fight his fight. It’s rare to find a Porter fight that lacked excitement and fans have had the opportunity to enjoy Porter’s fearlessness inside of the squared circle.
But, eventually, you have to win the big one.
Porter is a two-time world champion who is 4-3 in major world title bouts. He fell just a hair short against Keith Thurman, Kell Brook and Errol Spence Jr. And while all three of those fights were a round or two away from seeing Porter victorious, the fact remains that he lost. The record books won't explain how close he was and future generations just won't care. The stats are the stats.
The expectation is that Porter will give Crawford all he can handle but fail to get the job done. Oddsmakers have installed him as a significant underdog despite his in-ring accomplishments. This is a sign that many people think that his time is up. And if he ends up proving the naysayers right, the idea that Shawn Porter is one of the best welterweights in the world is likely over.
Simply put, if he loses, he goes from contender to gatekeeper. He becomes the guy that young fighters target as a name for their resume. It’s highly unlikely that he’ll find himself in a marquee fight as the A-side and will spend the rest of his career as an opponent. Jarron "Boots" Ennis and Vergil Ortiz will look to use Porter's name as a stepping stone.
Nobody wants to be a stepping stone. But that's how Porter will be viewed if he is unable to get the job done.
It’s also possible that his hall of fame credentials hinges entirely on this fight.
A victory finds Porter back in the mix and rematches with Yordenis Ugas and Errol Spence Jr. will have to be made. There will be a reason to believe that Porter is absolutely one of the best fighters in the world and he'll certainly crash the pound for pound list with an exceptional performance.
But it all goes up in a cloud of smoke if he loses.
As you can see, the pendulum swing for both fighters is extreme. Neither can afford to lose because their respective futures rely so heavily on what happens inside of those 12 rounds. The stakes are high on both sides and that's more than enough reason to watch what could be an incredible fight with the respective futures of both Crawford and Porter hanging in the balance.
Twenty-five years later, this much is clear: “Space Jam” was not our jam.
But since its debut on Nov. 15, 1996, the iconic movie to kids of the ’90s (looking at you, Ken Griffey III) has found its way into Sporting News’ world. Back in the day? Not so much.
In fact, the first and only mention of the movie in ’96 was in The Sporting News’ annual 100 Most Powerful (cover headline: “Mouse madness: Disney’s growing sports kingdom,” so at least, y’know, some things aged reasonably well).
Ranked No. 17 on the TSN 100 — sandwiched between a pair of commissioners, No. 16 Paul Tagliabue and No. 18 Gary Bettman, David Falk, agent for a certain Tune squad team captain, was described in capsule form:
“Michael Jordan’s $30 million, one-year deal was only a part of the $400 million in player contracts Falk’s (agency F.A.M.E.) negotiated last summer. Falk also was executive producer of ‘Space Jam.’” Next time “Space Jam” popped up in TSN’s pages was almost a year after its premiere, in the Sept. 1, 1997 issue in, of course, a baseball story.
The headline: How to survive a pennant race.
Nobody can live baseball 24 hours a day … Players, coaches and managers strongly advise leaving the game at the park. Those with young children have an advantage: They go home to a first job. Ken Griffey Jr. watches movies with his son, Trey. "We watch 'Space Jam,'" Griffey says. "My son asks me, 'Daddy, how come you can't disappear into the ground like Michael Jordan?’”
Now, in fairness to TSN, other sports flicks got scant mention if at all — even, for God’s sake, when The Sporting News its own self got a mention (shoutout to Susan Sarandon and “Bull Durham”!).
Also, in fairness, we eventually came around and the original “Space Jam” dotted Sporting News, to readers’ good fortune.
So on the 25th anniversary of The Sporting News ignoring “Space Jam,” here are five times SN didn’t:
Michael Jordan trash-talked extras on the set of 'Space Jam’
This 'Space Jam' honest trailer is here to destroy your childhood memories
Michael Jordan got ready for the Bulls' '95-96 season on the set of 'Space Jam'
Bill Murray wants some credit for setting up Michael Jordan's game-winning shot in 'Space Jam'
