Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from The Quanta Podcast
If you are well rested and full, your brain tells you that a bruised overripe apple is a piece of subpar fruit to be passed over. However, if you are exhausted and hungry, an overripe apple is categorized as much-needed food. But how is the brain able to categorize that same apple in these situations? On this episode of The Quanta Podcast, co-host Hannah Waters speaks with contributing writer Conor Feehly about how the brain manages to categorize similar sets of sensory signals in radically different ways. This topic was covered in a recent story for Quanta Magazine. Each week on The Quanta Podcast, hear the people behind the award-winning publication navigate through some of the most important and mind-expanding questions in science and math.
Why are only 10% of people left-handed? Geneticists, developmental biologists, neuroscientists, and evolutionary biologists have all sought explanations, resulting in an astronomical amount of research into the mystery of handedness. No one has put all the pieces together yet, but over the last few years, some major new clues have emerged. On this episode of The Quanta Podcast, host Hannah Waters speaks with writer Natalie Wolchover and traces these new clues to uncover the mystery of human handedness. This topic was covered in a recent story for Quanta Magazine. Each week on The Quanta Podcast, Quanta Magazine editor in chief Samir Patel and Senior Editor Hannah Waters speak with the people behind the award-winning publication to navigate through some of the most important and mind-expanding questions in science and math.
Volcano forecasting can save countless lives. But most of the time warnings are more like educated guesses. How close are we to forecasting volcano behavior the way we forecast the weather? On this episode of The Quanta Podcast, host Hannah Waters speaks with writer and volcano expert Robin George Andrews about just how close we are to accurately forecasting volcanic eruptions. This topic was covered in a recent story for Quanta Magazine. Each week on The Quanta Podcast, Quanta Magazine editor in chief Samir Patel and Senior Editor Hannah Waters speak with the people behind the award-winning publication to navigate through some of the most important and mind-expanding questions in science and math.
Thunderstorms have captivated humanity for millennia, and yet their inner workings remain deeply mysterious. On this episode of The Quanta Podcast, guest host and Quanta senior editor Hannah Waters speaks with staff writer Charlie Wood about the new technologies that are helping physicists better understand the phenomena. This topic was covered in a recent story for Quanta Magazine. Each week on The Quanta Podcast, Quanta Magazine editor in chief Samir Patel speaks with the people behind the award-winning publication to navigate through some of the most important and mind-expanding questions in science and math. At the end of the episode, listen to an excerpt of the fourth movement of Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony, which depicts a violent thunderstorm. Piccolo represents lightning and timpani represents thunder. Courtesy of Symphony Orchestra. Deed – Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported – Creative Commons
Most mathematicians take the notion of infinity for granted — it’s deeply rooted in math’s most fundamental assumptions. But a small group of researchers hopes to banish infinity completely. On this episode of The Quanta Podcast, host Samir Patel speaks with math editor Jordana Cepelewicz about the philosophy of ultrafinitism. This topic was covered in a recent story for Quanta Magazine. Each week on The Quanta Podcast, Quanta Magazine editor in chief Samir Patel speaks with the people behind the award-winning publication to navigate through some of the most important and mind-expanding questions in science and math. Audio coda music & lyrics by Michael Tilson Thomas. Vocals performed by Ben Jones. Piano performed by John Wilson.
More in science
The technology to eradicate mosquito-borne disease already exists. We just have to be brave enough to use it.
One reason it's been so hard to directly detect the dark matter is that we're not sure what it is. […]
Back in the ancient mists of time, scientists and mathematicians would circulate preprints of their articles among friends and colleagues via the postal service, as a courtesy, to get feedback and to try to make sure people in the community were aware of their forthcoming work. As the wikipedia entry says, with the advent of widespread LaTeX and the development of the web, Paul Ginsparg (then at LANL) put together an html-based site for electronic sharing of preprints, initially at xxx.lanl.gov (back before "xxx" in URLs was the kind of thing filtered and blocked by employers). In 2001 he moved to Cornell, and by then the lab was perhaps relieved to see the site, rebranded as the arXiv, shift to Cornell's library/repository infrastructure. PIs my age remember (fondly? maybe?) the old days of the arXiv, when Prof. Ginsparg's rather dry sense of humor pervaded the site. The skull-and-crossbones logo. The "help"/FAQ pages that basically said, "if you can't figure out how to .tar.gz all of your necessary LaTeX files, and you can't figure out how to make your .eps figures small, maybe you should reconsider whether you're smart enough to be sharing your ideas here". The arXiv was for preprints, without peer review (though interesting follow-on sites like Scirate now exist for organized commenting on the articles). From these modest beginnings, the arXiv has grown enormously, including imitators/spin-offs such as chemrxiv and biorXiv and socarXiv. The arXiv has recently become an independent nonprofit, hired a CEO, secured multiyear philanthropic support, and hosts over 3 million articles. It's been interesting seeing some level of complaints online about some of these steps, but when the audience is so large, not everyone is going to be happy. Rapid growth has been a major issue - see here for a graph of monthly submissions: The exponential rise (except for a slight pandemic-correlated shoulder) has been problematic, especially recently. One hallmark of the arXiv over the years has been its ability to function with comparatively minimal need for "moderation". Early on, one consequence of the minimalistic help and moderate technical entry barrier was that it was unusual for fringe/pseudoscience to make its way onto the server. (Hence the establishment of viXra.) With the ease of cranking out properly formatted readable manuscripts using AI, clearly the arXiv has been struggling. If 10-15% of submissions need some kind of human intervention or review, the support needs are rapidly outpacing the limited count of support staff. There can be substantial backlogs. To help deal with this, the arXiv recently updated its policies regarding AI-generated content (and AI cannot be a co-author, because the AI tools cannot take responsibility for content), and most recently has had to limit submission rates to two papers per month per submitting author. These moves, too, have drawn some criticism (e.g. here). Personally, I think the operators of the arXiv face an incredibly challenging environment and are doing the best they can - the idea that they are making moves because they are establishment sticks in the mud who don't understand the New Way of Doing Science is just wrong-headed. It's completely unclear where all this is heading. Exponential growth in nature signals instability and does not continue forever. If proponents of very heavily AI-driven research want to establish a repository specifically for that work, that's up to them. [It is very on brand for the hard core AI advocates to argue that the arXiv is somehow morally obligated to host everything (regardless of hardware or personnel costs) so that future AI tools can read everything (a repository growing too quickly for human researchers to keep up) and summarize it.] One overarching point that should come up in any arXiv discussion: The arXiv has become a global repository for an enormous amount of human knowledge, without charging anyone publication fees. This should make interested parties think reallllllly hard about economic models of for-profit publishers.
Is philosophy real? We sent our correspondent to find out.
