Back to overview,Home naval-today US Navy surges cruiser Monterey following recent collisions View post tag: US Navy Authorities View post tag: US 7th Fleet The US Navy has deployed Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61) and will deploy another destroyer to make up lost ballistic missile defense capability after two guided missile destroyers were severely damaged in recent collisions.USS Monterey departed Naval Station Norfolk October 16, for a surge deployment to the US 5th Fleet and US 6th Fleet areas of operation.An additional destroyer, the USS O’Kane, is to be deployed with the same task. According to USNI News, the USS O’Kane was set for an independent deployment before being tasked to head for the US 7th Fleet area of operations for ballistic missile defense support.The two ships are being deployed after the collisions of USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain earlier this year. The lives of 17 US Navy sailors were lost in the two collisions.The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey (CG 61), a component of Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 10, returned to Naval Station Norfolk January 19 following a 7 1/2 month long deployment to 5th and 6th Fleet area of operations. She is part of the Navy’s optimized fleet response plan.Monterey will ensure a continuous ballistic missile defense presence and uninterrupted support for potential tasking.“I am inspired and motivated by the crew of USS Monterey. I could not be more proud and honored to serve with this crew,” said Capt. Dave Stoner, Monterey’s commanding officer. “The effort and skills demonstrated over the last two months is a testament to the strength and abilities of this crew. These Sailors have epitomized this ship’s motto, ‘Rough in Battle, Ready in Peace’.” US Navy surges cruiser Monterey following recent collisions View post tag: USS Monterey View post tag: BMD October 17, 2017 Share this article
Researcher sketches findings of NASA study of how zero gravity affects the body Most everybody is familiar with the Big Bang — the notion that an impossibly hot, dense universe exploded into the one we know today. But what do we know about what came before?In the quest to resolve several puzzles discovered in the initial condition of the Big Bang, scientists have developed a number of theories to describe the primordial universe, the most successful of which — known as cosmic inflation — describes how the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right before the Big Bang.But as successful as the inflationary theory has been, controversies have led to active debates over the years.Some researchers have developed very different theories to explain the same experimental results that have supported the inflationary theory so far. In some of these theories, the primordial universe was contracting instead of expanding, and the Big Bang was thus a part of a Big Bounce.Some researchers — including Avi Loeb, the Frank B. Baird, Jr. Professor of Science and chair of the Astronomy Department — have raised concerns about the theory, suggesting that its seemingly endless adaptability makes it all but impossible to test.“The current situation for inflation is that it’s such a flexible idea … it cannot be falsified experimentally,” Loeb said. “No matter what result of the observable people set out to measure would turn out to be, there are always some models of inflation that can explain it.” Therefore, experiments can only help to nail down some model details within the framework of the inflationary theory, but cannot test the validity of the framework itself. However, falsifiability should be a hallmark of any scientific theory.That’s where Xingang Chen comes in.Xingang Chen is one of the authors of a new study that examines what the universe looked like before the Big Bang. Jon Chase/Harvard Staff PhotographerA senior lecturer in astronomy, Chen and his collaborators for many years have been developing the idea of using something he called a “primordial standard clock” as a probe of the primordial universe. Together with Loeb and Zhong-Zhi Xianyu, a postdoctoral researcher in the Physics Department, Chen applied this idea to the noninflationary theories after he learned about an intense debate in 2017 that questioned whether inflationary theories make any predictions at all. In a paper published as an Editor’s Suggestion in Physical Review Letters, the team laid out a method that may be used to falsify the inflationary theory experimentally.In an effort to find some characteristic that can separate inflation from other theories, the team began by identifying the defining property of the various theories — the evolutionary history of the size of the primordial universe. “For example, during inflation, by definition the size of the universe grows exponentially,” Xianyu said. “In some alternative theories, the size of the universe contracts — in some very slowly and in some very fast.“The conventional observables people have proposed so far have trouble distinguishing the different theories because these observables are not directly related to this property,” he continued. “So we wanted to find what the observables are that can be linked to that defining property.”The signals generated by the primordial standard clock can serve this purpose.That clock, Chen said, is any type of massively heavy elementary particle in the energetic primordial universe. Such particles should exist in any theory, and they oscillate at some regular frequency, much like the swaying of a clock’s pendulum.The primordial universe was not entirely uniform. Quantum fluctuations became the seeds of the large-scale structure of today’s universe and one key source of information physicists rely on to learn about what happened before the Big Bang. The theory outlined by Chen suggests that ticks of the standard clock generated signals that were imprinted into the structure of those fluctuations. And because standard clocks in different primordial universes would leave different patterns of signals, Chen said, they may be able to determine which theory of the primordial universe is most accurate.“If we imagine all the information we learned so far about what happened before the Big Bang is in a roll of film frames, then the standard clock tells us how these frames should be played,” Chen explained. “Without any clock information, we do not know if the film should be played forward or backward, fast or slow — just like we are not sure if the primordial universe was inflating or contracting, and how fast it did that. This is where the problem lies. The standard clock put time stamps on each of these frames when the film was shot before the Big Bang, and tells us what this film is about.”The team calculated how these standard clock signals should look in noninflationary theories, and suggested how to search for them in astrophysical observations. “If a pattern of signals representing a contracting universe were found,” Xianyu said, “it would falsify the entire inflationary theory, regardless of what detailed models one constructs.”The success of this idea lies in experimentation. “These signals will be very subtle to detect,” Chen said. “Our proposal is that there should be some kind of massive fields that have generated these imprints and we computed their patterns, but we don’t know how large the overall amplitude of these signals is. It may be that they are very faint and very hard to detect, so that means we will have to search in many different places.“The cosmic microwave background radiation is one place,” he continued. “The distribution of galaxies is another. We have already started to search for these signals and there are some interesting candidates already, but we still need more data.”This research was supported with funding from the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University and the Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications, Harvard University. Scientists are using the universe as a ‘cosmological collider’ Paves the way for the future discovery of new physics Related Twins in space The Daily Gazette Sign up for daily emails to get the latest Harvard news.
The term “upset” in the Big Ten has a bit of a skewed meaning. Sure, if an unranked team beats a ranked one, that denotes an upset, but in a conference where any team can seemingly win on any given day, does such a term even have a place in the Big Ten?Take the current situation with the University of Wisconsin men’s basketball team. The Badgers haven’t been taking care of the ball, they’ve been playing poor team defense and can’t make a shot when it counts.But even though the team hasn’t been playing up to par over the past several games, it’s not because it isn’t a good team.Going into the game against Illinois, the Badgers were No. 2 in the nation in strength of schedule. Also, realtimeRPI.com ranked Wisconsin No. 23 in the country in RPI, which proves how tough the Badgers’ schedule has been so far.Surprised? Just think about it — aside from Iowa, every team the Badgers have lost to has been ranked. That includes Connecticut, Marquette, Texas and three Big Ten teams: Purdue, Minnesota and Illinois.So, maybe the Badgers aren’t that bad, it might just be the teams they’re playing are really good. Also remember the Badgers beat Michigan and Virginia Tech, a team that just beat top-ranked Wake Forest.With that said, the Badgers are in the Big Ten — a much tougher conference than it was last year. Teams like Michigan, Northwestern and Minnesota — squads that couldn’t even compete in the Big Ten last year — are now making noise in and out of the conference.On the same day Iowa upset the Badgers, Northwestern went into East Lansing and knocked off No. 7 Michigan State. A year ago, the Wildcats — who didn’t win a single conference game — would call that a pipe dream.Simply put, the bad teams have improved, and the good teams have gotten better. In the same conference that only sent four teams to the NCAA Tournament last season, it keeps looking like it will send at least six teams to the big dance this season.Already this year, seven out of the 11 teams in the Big Ten have been ranked in the top 25, including the Badgers. So don’t think just because Wisconsin is on a four-game losing streak that they’re not good.But it doesn’t mean their record is going to get any better.Playing at home against No. 18 Purdue, a team Wisconsin hasn’t beaten since the 2006-07 season, won’t make things any easier for the Badgers.But it also won’t make things easy for the Boilermakers.Even though Purdue has a better record than Wisconsin and is ranked in the top 25, you can bet PU head coach Matt Painter is dreading playing a Badger team that hasn’t won since Jan. 7.Illinois head coach Bruce Weber may have put it best when asked in an interview with The Daily Illini, the University of Illinois’ student newspaper, what he thought about Wisconsin before the two schools met.“For us, it looks like it’s not a good time to play them,” Weber said.Surely Painter is thinking the same thing. With a team not accustomed to losing, especially not in streaks, you can bet UW head coach Bo Ryan and the rest of the Badgers will bring their top game on Tuesday.After being upset by Iowa and losing to Minnesota at the Kohl Center, surely the Badgers and even the Boilermakers could be thinking upset.But then again, even if the Badgers win, will it really be an upset?Jonah is a sophomore majoring in journalism and Hebrew and Semitic studies. Have your own opinions on the strength of the Big Ten? Are the Badgers really that bad? Send him your thoughts at [email protected]
A Boynton Beach woman is charged with child neglect after a toddler in her home pulled a gun out of a toy box.The Department of Children and Families went to the home of Rosalyn Faniel, 34, on June 13 to investigate reports of possible child neglect.While interviewing Faniel, a child in the home on Northeast 13th Avenue started to bring his toys out of the bedroom and into the living room.One of the toys the child brought out was labeled “my little learning.” The child pulled out a black semi-automatic pistol from inside of the box.Police confiscated the gun, which was loaded with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off.Police also found a yellow box of 9 mm ammunition sitting on the top of the refrigerator in plain sight, and a pink makeup bag containing six small plastic bags of white powder which later came back positive as Oxycodone.
By Kathy MieleI walked into the living room where all of my guys were hanging out on the couch. I held up my camera and said, “Smile!”“Whoa…” Alex held his hand over his face. “What are you doing?”“I’m trying to get some candid shots of the three of you,” I explained.“Walking into a room shouting ‘Smile’ isn’t candid,” Steven reminded me.“Fine.” I snapped a quick shot of them.“Come on!” Max cried.I hit review on my camera. “Well, that was an awful picture,” I said as I pressed the delete button.“Why the interest in candid shots all of a sudden?” Steven asked.“I’m glad you asked.” I pointed to the table next to the couch that was filled with framed photos of the boys. “Haven’t you noticed that all the photos we have around the house are when the boys weren’t even in their teens yet?”Steven picked up a picture of both boys on the play gym of our old house. Their heads were sticking out between the slats of the tower. “What were they, 4 and 8 in this shot?”“Exactly!” I said. “If someone came into our house right now they’d think we have little kids. Not two guys in their 20s.”“Who’s coming into our house that wouldn’t know who we are?” Alex asked.“Good point,” Steven said.“That’s not the point,” I countered. “What’s wrong with wanting to have some updated photos around the house?”“Ah, I can find something wrong with it,” Max said.“What?”“We’d have to spend hours posing for pictures,” he said. “You know how you get when you start picture-taking.”All three began to laugh.“What’s that supposed to mean?” I asked.The boys looked at Steven, making him the spokesperson for all three. “You start yelling,” he reminded me. “Smile! Look this way! Quit making that face!” The boys were nodding in agreement. “That’s the reason we stopped taking pictures, don’t you remember?” he asked.By this time I’d put the camera down on the table and Max had picked it up. He snapped a shot of me with my hands on my hips looking annoyed as I listened to Steven explain why we don’t take photos anymore.“Hey! Give me that!” I tried to get the camera out of Max’s hand but he’d already hit the review button and was showing Alex and Steven the shot. “That’s a keeper,” he said as he handed it back to me.I cringed as I took a quick peek before hitting delete. “Fine, I won’t take any pictures today,” I agreed. “But this isn’t over.”The three of them were high-fiving each other as I left the room. I quickly turned around and snapped the picture. “Perfect!” I said. “Now I have a picture with a fun story behind it!”