Science is lovely in silk (at least it is in the hands of Karen Kamenetzky).
Kamenetzky on her work:
I dye, paint and stitch cottons and silks to create boldly colored wallhangings inspired by microscopic/cellular imagery - a kind of visual invented biology with textiles. I find this imagery metaphorically rich since all change fundamentally happens on this infinitesimal level.
via Rajini Rao on Google+, for #ScienceSunday:
‘Smallest rotary motor in biology, the ATP synthase.
All the work done in your body is fueled by breaking a chemical bond in ATP, the “currency of energy”. Did you know that you convert your body weight (or an estimated 50 kg) of ATP per day?!
Where does this ATP come from?It is synthesized by an incredibly sophisticated molecular machine, the ATP synthase, embedded in the inner membrane of our mitochondria. Energy from the oxidation of food results in protons being pumped across the membrane to create a proton gradient. The protons drive the rotation of a circular ring of proteins in the membrane that in turn move a central shaft. The shaft interacts sequentially with one of 3 catalytic sites within a hexamer, making ATP (little butterflies in the movie!). The ATP synthase rotates about 150 times/second
To visualize the rotation under a microscope, a very long fluorescent rod (actin filament) was chemically attached to the central shaft. Watch real movies (not animations!) of the enzyme spinning here: http://www.k2.phys.waseda.ac.jp/F1movies/F1long.htm
Notice the rotation is slower with longer rods. The rotor produces a torque of 40 pN nm (40 pico Newtons x nanometer), irrespective of the load. This would be the force you would need to rotate a 500 m long rod while standing at the bottom of a large swimming pool at the rate shown in the movie.
How did this amazing rotor evolve?The hexameric structure is related to DNA helicases that rotate along the DNA double helix, using ATP to unzip the two strands apart. The H+ motor has precedence in flagella motors that use proton gradients to drive rotation of long filaments, allowing bacteria to tumble through their surroundings. At some point, a H+ driven motor came together with a helicase like hexamer to create a rotor driving the hexamer in reverse, to synthesize ATP.
The 1997 Nobel prize in Chemistry was awarded to John Walker and Paul Boyer for solving the structure and cyclical mechanism of the ATP synthase, respectively. This amazing enzyme was also the subject of my own Ph.D. thesis, and my first love!’
For #ScienceSunday curated by +Allison Sekuler and +Robby Bowles
ATP synthase is an amazing little thing. It was, personally, what got me hooked on biochemistry.
Iridescent, superhydrophobic graphene oxide mimics structures found on rose petals
© Chem. Asian J.
via Royal Society of Chemistry:
Scientists in China have used a laser to carve out a pattern of ridges and valleys on layered graphene oxide to mimic two of nature’s tricks in one go - iridescence and superhydrophobicity.
The resulting surface has a magnificent shimmering sheen like the wing of a butterfly or the shell of a beetle, while at the same time collecting water into almost spherical droplets, as a rose petal does.
In nature many surfaces show superhydrophobicity - where water does not spread but gathers into almost spherical droplets.
This arises because of microscopic ridges and indentations on the surface that traps air and prevents droplets from spreading - as seen in many plant leaves and flower petals.
Similarly, iridescence arises from periodic structures which have order at both the micro- and nanoscale. These act as diffraction gratings that split white light into its constituent wavelengths. In this way a butterfly’s wing can shimmer with different colours while having no inherent pigmentation.
The Jilin team created iridescent graphene by merging two laser beams to create an interference pattern on the surface of layered graphene oxide. This burned out a series of parallel grooves on the surface, around 2um apart.
Torben Lenau is an expert on biomimetic surfaces at the Technical University of Denmark. ‘If both hydrophobicity and iridescence are needed it is very interesting that they can be achieved in a single operation,’ he says. ‘They talk about liquid transportation in microfluidic systems and biomedical surfaces that stem cells can adhere to. Both obvious needs - and nice to be able to control the degree of hydrophobicity. Concerning the iridescence, I can imagine that it could be an advantage for colour coding. The user will easily know - just by looking at it - if the surfaces are in the right state for flow or cell growth.’
![A Couple in the Street, 1887 CHARLES ANGRAND
From SEED Magazine:
To answer our most fundamental questions, Science needs to find a place for the Arts.
By Jonah Lehrer
Human eyes are horizontally offset from each other, and the visual system uses that offset to calculate depth. When an object is fixated upon, images are cast on the same place on each retina.
A view with many identical (or similar) objects casts multiple images on the eyes, which can either be correctly matched, giving a flat impression, or mismatched, so one image corresponds to the other, but at a different depth.
I think that the artists from the impressionist and post-impressionist periods figured this out. They said they could paint air and managed to do so by creating false stereopsis cues, which manipulate depth perception. So Angrand’s painting actually looks more three-dimensional when you view the painting with both eyes instead of with a single eye.
—Margaret Livingstone, Neuroscientist, Harvard University
~
In the early 1920s, Niels Bohr was struggling to reimagine the structure of matter. Previous generations of physicists had thought the inner space of an atom looked like a miniature solar system with the atomic nucleus as the sun and the whirring electrons as planets in orbit. This was the classical model.
But Bohr had spent time analyzing the radiation emitted by electrons, and he realized that science needed a new metaphor. The behavior of electrons seemed to defy every conventional explanation. As Bohr said, “When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.” Ordinary words couldn’t capture the data.
Bohr had long been fascinated by cubist paintings. As the intellectual historian Arthur Miller notes, he later filled his study with abstract still lifes and enjoyed explaining his interpretation of the art to visitors. For Bohr, the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object. The art revealed the fissures in everything, turning the solidity of matter into a surreal blur.
Bohr’s discerning conviction was that the invisible world of the electron was essentially a cubist world. By 1923, de Broglie had already determined that electrons could exist as either particles or waves. What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it. The art that looked so strange was actually telling the truth.
[Read More]
An excellent article on the role of Art in Science.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxfns7yoe31qaxrh5o1_500.jpg)
A Couple in the Street, 1887
CHARLES ANGRAND
From SEED Magazine:
To answer our most fundamental questions, Science needs to find a place for the Arts.
By Jonah Lehrer
Human eyes are horizontally offset from each other, and the visual system uses that offset to calculate depth. When an object is fixated upon, images are cast on the same place on each retina.
A view with many identical (or similar) objects casts multiple images on the eyes, which can either be correctly matched, giving a flat impression, or mismatched, so one image corresponds to the other, but at a different depth.
I think that the artists from the impressionist and post-impressionist periods figured this out. They said they could paint air and managed to do so by creating false stereopsis cues, which manipulate depth perception. So Angrand’s painting actually looks more three-dimensional when you view the painting with both eyes instead of with a single eye.
—Margaret Livingstone, Neuroscientist, Harvard University
~
In the early 1920s, Niels Bohr was struggling to reimagine the structure of matter. Previous generations of physicists had thought the inner space of an atom looked like a miniature solar system with the atomic nucleus as the sun and the whirring electrons as planets in orbit. This was the classical model.
But Bohr had spent time analyzing the radiation emitted by electrons, and he realized that science needed a new metaphor. The behavior of electrons seemed to defy every conventional explanation. As Bohr said, “When it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry.” Ordinary words couldn’t capture the data.
Bohr had long been fascinated by cubist paintings. As the intellectual historian Arthur Miller notes, he later filled his study with abstract still lifes and enjoyed explaining his interpretation of the art to visitors. For Bohr, the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object. The art revealed the fissures in everything, turning the solidity of matter into a surreal blur.
Bohr’s discerning conviction was that the invisible world of the electron was essentially a cubist world. By 1923, de Broglie had already determined that electrons could exist as either particles or waves. What Bohr maintained was that the form they took depended on how you looked at them. Their very nature was a consequence of our observation. This meant that electrons weren’t like little planets at all. Instead, they were like one of Picasso’s deconstructed guitars, a blur of brushstrokes that only made sense once you stared at it. The art that looked so strange was actually telling the truth.
An excellent article on the role of Art in Science.
True story.
BBC: Plants are able to “remember” and “react” to information contained in light, according to researchers.
Plants, scientists say, transmit information about light intensity and quality from leaf to leaf in a very similar way to our own nervous systems.
These “electro-chemical signals” are carried by cells that act as “nerves” of the plants.
A photo taken through the lens of my grandfather’s microscope. I think it is of an animal liver sample :)
Awesome, no?
Thanks for the submission, walkorride!
And yes, it is absolutely beautiful. :)
Ever wondered why dead bodies resurface after drowning?
