Life after shingles In “With its burning grip, shingles can do lasting damage” (SN: 3/2/19, p. 22), Aimee Cunningham described the experience of Nora Fox, a woman whose bout with shingles nearly 15 years ago left her with a painful condition called postherpetic neuralgia. Fox hadn’t found any reliable treatments, Cunningham reported.
Fox praised Science News for our portrayal of shingles-related pain. “The cover is excellent and looks just like I felt,” she wrote.
As the story went to press, Fox had a surgery during which doctors placed electrodes under the skin near sites of pain. A device lets Fox control when stimulation is delivered to those areas. But the treatment, called peripheral nerve stimulation, may not work for all patients with postherpetic neuralgia. There are reports in scientific journals of individual patients experiencing relief from their neuropathic pain after the procedure, Cunningham says. Fox’s husband, Denver C. Fox, sent Science News an update on her pain since the procedure: “There [has] been a significant change to the unbearable pain my wife has endured EVERY afternoon and evening for 14 years, despite trying every possible treatment the MDs knew of.” Shortly after the procedure, “her pain is greatly and markedly diminished.” Stone Age throwback Tests with replicas of a 300,000-year-old wooden spear suggest that Neandertals could have hunted from a distance, Bruce Bower reported in “Why modern javelin throwers hurled Neandertal spears at hay bales” (SN: 3/2/19, p. 14).
Reader Brenda Gray suggested that Neandertals’ spears could have been used for fighting instead of hunting.
The ancient spear found in Germany, on which the spear replicas were based, came from sediment that also contained stone tools and thousands of animal bones displaying marks made by stone tools, Bower says. “Such evidence indicates that the spears were used as hunting weapons. Neandertals could have used wooden spears in different ways, but there is no evidence that I know of for Neandertals using spears in warfare,” he says.
Young and restless Earth’s inner core began hardening sometime after 565 million years ago, Carolyn Gramling reported in “Earth’s core may have hardened just in time to save its magnetic field” (SN: 3/2/19, p. 13). The core may have solidified just in time to strengthen the planet’s magnetic field, saving it from collapse.
Reader John Bunch thought that the timing of the inner core’s solidification “lines up nicely” with the Cambrian explosion, when life rapidly diversified about 542 million years ago. “It leads me to wonder if there may be some cause and effect or some other relationship between the two that’s going on here.”
That extremely low-intensity magnetic field actually roughly lines up with the Avalon explosion, an earlier proliferation of new life forms called the Ediacaran biota, between about 575 million and 542 million years ago, Gramling says. It’s an intriguing coincidence that researchers noted.
Earth’s magnetic field helps protect the planet from radiation. So a weak magnetic field might somehow be linked with the Avalon explosion. One idea is that increased radiation reaching Earth’s surface hundreds of millions of years ago might have increased organisms’ mutation rates, Gramling says. But there just isn’t any evidence to support a causal link at the moment.
Multiplying 2 x 2 is easy. But multiplying two numbers with more than a billion digits each — that takes some serious computation.
The multiplication technique taught in grade school may be simple, but for really big numbers, it’s too slow to be useful. Now, two mathematicians say that they’ve found the fastest way yet to multiply extremely large figures.
The duo claim to have achieved an ultimate speed limit for multiplication, first suggested nearly 50 years ago. That feat, described online March 18 at the document archive HAL, has not yet passed the gauntlet of peer review. But if the technique holds up to scrutiny, it could prove to be the fastest possible way of multiplying whole numbers, or integers. If you ask an average person what mathematicians do, “they say, ‘Oh, they sit in their office multiplying big numbers together,’” jokes study coauthor David Harvey of the University of New South Wales in Sydney. “For me, it’s actually true.”
When making calculations with exorbitantly large numbers, the most important measure of speed is how quickly the number of operations needed — and hence the time required to do the calculation — grows as you multiply longer and longer strings of digits.
That growth is expressed in terms of n, defined as the number of digits in the numbers being multiplied. For the new technique, the number of operations required is proportional to n times the logarithm of n, expressed as O(n log n) in mathematical lingo. That means that, if you double the number of digits, the number of operations required will increase a bit faster, more than doubling the time the calculation takes. But, unlike simpler methods of multiplication, the time needed doesn’t quadruple, or otherwise rapidly blow up, as the number of digits creeps up, report Harvey and Joris van der Hoeven of the French national research agency CNRS and École Polytechnique in Palaiseau. That slower growth rate makes products of bigger numbers more manageable to calculate.
The previously predicted max speed for multiplication was O(n log n), meaning the new result meets that expected limit. Although it’s possible an even speedier technique might one day be found, most mathematicians think this is as fast as multiplication can get.
“I was very much astonished that it had been done,” says theoretical computer scientist Martin Fürer of Penn State. He discovered another multiplication speedup in 2007, but gave up on making further improvements. “It seemed quite hopeless to me.”
The new technique comes with a caveat: It won’t be faster than competing methods unless you’re multiplying outrageously huge numbers. But it’s unclear exactly how big those numbers have to be for the technique to win out — or if it’s even possible to multiply such big numbers in the real world.
In the new study, the researchers considered only numbers with more than roughly 10214857091104455251940635045059417341952 digits when written in binary, in which numbers are encoded with a sequence of 0s and 1s. But the scientists didn’t actually perform any of these massive multiplications, because that’s vastly more digits than the number of atoms in the universe. That means there’s no way to do calculations like that on a computer, because there aren’t enough atoms to even represent such huge numbers, much less multiply them together. Instead, the mathematicians came up with a technique that they could prove theoretically would be speedier than other methods, at least for these large quantities.
There’s still a possibility that the method could be shown to work for smaller, but still large, numbers. That could possibly lead to practical uses, Fürer says. Multiplication of these colossal numbers is useful for certain detailed calculations, such as finding new prime numbers with millions of digits (SN Online: 1/5/18) or calculating pi to extreme precision (SN Online: 12/10/02).
Even if the method is not widely useful, making headway on a problem as fundamental as multiplication is still a mighty achievement. “Multiplying numbers is something people have been working on for a while,” says mathematical physicist John Baez of the University of California, Riverside. “It’s a big deal, just because of that.”
A nebulous void in Egypt’s Great Pyramid of Giza has been unveiled thanks to strange subatomic particles called muons.
Scientists first identified the void in 2016 using muons, heavy relatives of electrons that can penetrate through solid materials. Thought to be a corridor-shaped hole, the void was located near a chevron-shaped structure visible on the pyramid’s north face. Further muon measurements revealed new details of the void’s size and shape, scientists from the ScanPyramids team report March 2 in Nature Communications. The new muon measurements indicate that the void is a 9-meter-long corridor about 2 meters wide by 2 meters tall, close to the pyramid’s north face. ScanPyramids researchers made additional measurements with ground-penetrating radar and ultrasonic testing, they reported March 2 in NDT & E International. The detailed measurements allowed the scientists to use an endoscope to take images inside the chamber, the team announced. The images reveal a corridor with a vaulted ceiling, presumably one that was hasn’t been seen by humans since the pyramid was built more than 4,500 years ago. The corridor’s purpose is still unclear. Muons are created when high-energy particles from space called cosmic rays crash into the Earth’s atmosphere. Muons are partially absorbed as they rain down onto structures such as the pyramids. Using detectors placed inside the pyramid, scientists from ScanPyramids zeroed in on regions where more muons made it through, indicating they’d traversed less material, which let them map out the location of the void.
Scientists also recently used muons to probe an ancient Chinese wall (SN: 1/30/23), a nuclear reactor and various volcanoes (SN: 4/22/22).
“Pikobodies,” bioengineered immune system proteins that are part plant and part animal, could help flora better fend off diseases, researchers report in the March 3 Science. The protein hybrids exploit animals’ uniquely flexible immune systems, loaning plants the ability to fight off emerging pathogens.
Flora typically rely on physical barriers to keep disease-causing microbes at bay. If something unusual makes it inside the plants, internal sensors sound the alarm and infected cells die. But as pathogens evolve ways to dodge these defenses, plants can’t adapt in real time. Animals’ adaptive immune systems can, making a wealth of antibodies in a matter of weeks when exposed to a pathogen.、 In a proof-of-concept study, scientists genetically modified one plant’s internal sensor to sport animal antibodies. The approach harnesses the adaptive immune system’s power to make almost unlimited adjustments to target invaders and lends it to plants, says plant immunologist Xinnian Dong, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Duke University who was not involved in the work.
Crops especially could benefit from having more adaptable immune systems, since many farms grow fields full of just one type of plant, says Dong. In nature, diversity can help protect vulnerable plants from disease-spreading pathogens and pests. A farm is more like a buffet.
Researchers have had success fine-tuning plant genes to be disease-resistant, but finding the right genes and editing them can take more than a decade, says plant pathologist Sophien Kamoun of the Sainsbury Laboratory in Norwich, England. He and colleagues wanted to know if plant protection could get an additional boost from animal-inspired solutions.
To create the pikobodies, the team fused small antibodies from llamas and alpacas with a protein called Pik-1 that’s found on the cells of Nicotiana benthamiana, a close relative of tobacco plants. Pik-1 typically detects a protein that helps a deadly blast fungus infect plants (SN: 7/10/17). For this test, the animal antibodies had been engineered to target fluorescent proteins
Plants with the pikobodies killed cells exposed to the fluorescent proteins, resulting in dead patches on leaves, the team found. Of 11 tested versions, four were not toxic to the leaves and triggered cell death only when the pikobodies attached to the specific protein that they had been designed bind.
What’s more, pikobodies can be combined to give plants more than one way to attack a foreign invader. That tactic could be useful to hit pathogens with the nimble ability to dodge some immune responses from multiple angles.
Theoretically, it’s possible to make pikobodies “against virtually any pathogen we study,” Kamoun says. But not all pikobody combos worked together in tests. “It’s a bit hit or miss,” he says. “We need some more basic knowledge to improve the bioengineering.”
Whales are known for belting out sounds in the deep. But they may also whisper.
Southern right whale moms steer their calves to shallow waters, where newborns are less likely to be picked off by an orca. There, crashing waves mask the occasional quiet calls that the pairs make. That may help the whales stick together without broadcasting their location to predators, researchers report July 11 in the Journal of Experimental Biology.
While most whale calls are meant to be long-range, “this shows us that whales have a sort of intimate communication as well,” says Mia Nielsen, a behavioral biologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “It’s only meant for the whale right next to you.”
Nielsen and colleagues tagged nine momma whales with audio recorders and sensors to measure motion and water pressure, and also recorded ambient noise in the nearshore environment. When the whales were submerged, below the noisy waves, the scientists could pick up the hushed calls, soft enough to fade into the background noise roughly 200 meters away. An orca, or killer whale, “would have to get quite close in the big ocean to be able to detect them,” says biologist Peter Tyack at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Tyack was not involved with the study, but collaborates with one of the coauthors on other projects.
The whispers were associated with times when the whales were moving, rather than when mothers were stationary and possibly suckling their calves. Using hushed tones could make it harder for the pair to reunite if separated. But the observed whales tended to stay close to one another, about one body length apart, the team found.
Eavesdropping biologists have generally focused on the loud noises animals make, Tyack says. “There may be a repertoire among the calls of lots of animals that are specifically designed only to be audible to a partner who’s close by,” he says.
Artificial intelligence has passed the last major milestone in mastering poker: six-player no-limit Texas Hold’em.
Games like poker, with hidden cards and players who bluff, present a greater challenge to AI than games where every player can see the whole board. Over the last few years, computers have become aces at increasingly complicated forms of one-on-one poker, but multiplayer games take that complexity to the next level (SN Online: 5/13/15).
Now, a card shark AI dubbed Pluribus has outplayed more than a dozen elite professionals at six-player Texas Hold’em, researchers report online July 11 in Science. Algorithms that can plot against several adversaries using such spotty information could make savvy business negotiators, political strategists or cybersecurity watchdogs. Pluribus honed its initial strategy by playing against copies of itself, starting from scratch and gradually learning which actions helped to win. Then, the AI used that intuition for when to hold and when to fold during the first betting round of each hand against five human players.
During subsequent betting rounds, Pluribus fine-tuned its strategy by imagining how the game might play out if it took different actions. Unlike artificial intelligence trained for two-player poker, Pluribus didn’t speculate all the way to the end of the game — which would require too many computations when dealing with so many players (SN: 4/1/17, p. 12). Instead, the AI imagined several moves ahead and decided what to do based on those hypothetical futures and different strategies that players could adopt.
In 10,000 hands of Texas Hold’em, Pluribus competed against five contestants from a pool of 13 professionals, all of whom had won more than $1 million playing poker. Every 100 hands, Pluribus raked in, on average, about $480 from its human competitors. “This is roughly the amount that elite human professionals aspire to beat weaker players by,” implying that Pluribus was a savvier player than its human opponents, says Noam Brown of Facebook AI Research in New York City. Brown, along with Tuomas Sandholm of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, created Pluribus.
Now that AI has poker in the bag, algorithms could test their strategic reasoning in games with more complex hidden information, says computer scientist Viliam Lisý of the Czech Technical University in Prague, who was not involved in the work. In games like Kriegspiel — a chess spin-off where players can’t see each other’s pieces — the unknowns can become far more complicated than a few cards held close to opponents’ chests, Lisý says.
Video games like StarCraft, which allow many more types of moves and free players from rigid, turn-based play, could also serve as new tests of AI cleverness (SN: 5/11/19, p. 34).
A week after two large earthquakes rattled southern California, scientists are scrambling to understand the sequence of events that led to the temblors and what it might tell us about future quakes.
A magnitude 6.4 quake struck July 4 near Ridgecrest — about 194 kilometers northeast of Los Angeles — followed by a magnitude 7.1 quake in the same region on July 5. Both quakes occurred not along the famous San Andreas Fault but in a region of crisscrossing faults in the state’s high desert area, known as the Eastern California Shear Zone.
The San Andreas Fault system, which stretches nearly 1,300 kilometers, generally takes center stage when it comes to California’s earthquake activity. That’s where, as the Pacific tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plate slowly grind past each other, sections of ground can lock together for a time, slowly building up strain until they suddenly release, producing powerful quakes.
For the last few tens of millions of years, the San Andreas has been the primary origin of massive earthquakes in the region. Now overdue for a massive earthquake, based on historical precedent, many people fear it’s only a matter of time before the “Big One” strikes. But as the July 4 and July 5 quakes — and their many aftershocks — show, the San Andreas Fault system isn’t the only source of concern. The state is riddled with faults, says geophysicist Susan Hough of the U.S. Geological Survey in Pasadena, Calif. That’s because almost all of California is part of the general boundary between the plates. The Eastern California Shear Zone alone has been the source of several large quakes in the last few decades, including the magnitude 7.1 Hector Mine quake in 1999, the magnitude 6.7 Northridge quake in 1994 and the magnitude 7.3 Landers quake in 1992 (SN Online: 8/29/18).
Here are three questions scientists are trying to answer in the wake of the most recent quakes.
Which faults ruptured, and how? The quakes appear to have occurred along previously unmapped faults within a part of the Eastern California Shear Zone known as the Little Lake Fault Zone, a broad bunch of cracks difficult to map, Hough says. “It’s not like the San Andreas, where you can go out and put your hand on a single fault,” she says. And, she adds, the zone also lies within a U.S. Navy base that isn’t generally accessible to geologists for mapping.
But preliminary data do offer some clues. The data suggest that the first rupture may actually have been a twofer: Instead of one fault rupturing, two connected faults, called conjugate faults, may have ruptured nearly simultaneously, producing the initial magnitude 6.4 quake.
It’s possible that the first quake didn’t fully release the strain on that fault, but the second, larger quake did. “My guess is that they will turn out to be complementary,” Hough says.
The jury is still out, though, says Wendy Bohon, a geologist at the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology in Washington, D.C. “What parts of the fault broke, and whether a part of the fault broke twice … I’m waiting to see what the scientific consensus is on that.” And whether a simultaneous rupture of a conjugate fault is surprising, or may actually be common, isn’t yet clear, she says. “In nature, we see a lot of conjugate fault pairs. I don’t think they normally rupture at the same time — or maybe they do, and we haven’t had enough data to see that.”
Is the center of tectonic action moving away from the San Andreas Fault? GPS data have revealed exactly how the ground is shifting in California as the giant tectonic plates slide past one another. The San Andreas Fault system bears the brunt of the strain, about 70 percent, those data show. But the Eastern California Shear Zone bears the other 30 percent. And the large quakes witnessed in that region over the last few decades raise a tantalizing possibility, Hough says: We may be witnessing the birth pangs of a new boundary.
“The plate boundary system has been evolving for a long time already,” Hough says. For the last 30 million years or so, the San Andreas Fault system has been the primary locus of action. But just north of Santa Barbara lies the “big bend,” a kink that separates the northern from the southern portion of the fault system. Where the fault bends, the Pacific and North American plates aren’t sliding sideways past one another but colliding.
“The plates are trying to move, but the San Andreas is actually not well aligned with that motion,” she says. But the Eastern California Shear Zone is. And, Hough says, there’s some speculation that it’s a new plate boundary in the making. “But it would happen over millions of years,” she adds. “It’s not going to be in anyone’s lifetime.”
Will these quakes trigger the Big One on the San Andreas? Such large quakes inevitably raise these fears. Historically, the San Andreas Fault system has produced a massive quake about every 150 years. But “for whatever reason, it has been pretty quiet in the San Andreas since 1906,” when an estimated magnitude 7.9 quake along the northern portion of the fault devastated San Francisco, Hough says. And the southern portion of San Andreas is even more overdue for a massive quake; its last major event was the estimated magnitude 7.9 Fort Tejon quake in 1857, she says.
The recent quakes aren’t likely to change that situation. Subsurface shifting from a large earthquake can affect strain on nearby faults. But it’s unlikely that the quakes either relieved stress or will ultimately trigger another earthquake along the San Andreas Fault system, essentially because they were too far away, Hough says. “The disruption [from one earthquake] of other faults decreases really quickly with distance,” she says (SN Online: 3/28/11).
Some preliminary data do suggest that the magnitude 7.1 earthquake produced some slippage, also known as creep, along at least one shallow fault in the southern part of the San Andreas system. But such slow, shallow slips don’t produce earthquakes, Hough says.
However, the quakes could have more significantly perturbed much closer faults, such as the Garlock Fault, which runs roughly west to east along the northern edge of the Mojave Desert. That’s not unprecedented: The 1992 Landers quake may have triggered a magnitude 5.7 quake two weeks later along the Garlock Fault.
“Generations of graduate students are going to be studying these events — the geometry of the faults, how the ground moved,” even how the visible evidence of the rupture, scarring the land surface, erodes over time and obscures its traces, Bohon says.
At the moment, scientists are eagerly trading ideas on social media sites. “It’s the equivalent of listening in on scientists shouting down the hallway: ‘Here’s my data — what do you have?’ ” she says. Those preliminary ideas and explanations will almost certainly evolve as more information comes in, she adds. “It’s early days yet.”
