A newly forming ocean may split Africa apart, scientists say
A plume of molten rock deep beneath eastern Africa is pulsing upward in rhythmic surges, slowly splitting the continent apart and potentially marking the birth of a new ocean.
At least, that's what a team of researchers led by Emma Watts of the Swansea University in the U.K. recently discovered. More specifically, the scientists' new study found that the Afar region of Ethiopia is underlain by a plume of hot mantle that rises and falls in a repeated pattern, almost like "a beating heart." These pulses, the team says, are closely tied to overlying tectonic plates and play a key role in the slow rifting of the African continent.
"We found that the mantle beneath Afar is not uniform or stationary — it pulses, and these pulses carry distinct chemical signatures," Watts said in a statement. "That's important for how we think about the interaction between Earth's interior and its surface."
The Afar region, which covers the northeastern region of Ethiopia, is one of the few places on Earth where three tectonic rift systems meet — the Red Sea Rift, the Gulf of Aden Rift and the Main Ethiopian Rift. As the tectonic plates in this so-called "triple junction" are pulled apart over millions of years, the crust stretches, thins, and eventually breaks, signaling an early step in the formation of a new ocean basin. Geologists have long suspected that a plume of hot mantle lies beneath this region and helps drive the rifting process — but, until now, little was known about how that plume behaves.
To study what lies beneath, researchers collected over 100 volcanic rock samples from across Afar and the Main Ethiopian Rift. They combined this fieldwork with existing geophysical data and advanced statistical modeling to better understand the structure and composition of the crust and underlying mantle.
Their analysis revealed a single, asymmetric plume beneath the region, marked by repeating chemical patterns or "geological barcodes," according to the new study." The chemical striping suggests the plume is pulsing," study co-author Tom Gernon of the University of Southampton said in the statement. "In places where the plates are thinner or pulling apart faster, like the Red Sea Rift, those pulses move more efficiently — like blood through a narrow artery."
"We found that the evolution of deep mantle upwellings is intimately tied to the motion of the plates above," study co-author Derek Keir of the University of Southampton added in the same statement.
RELATED STORIES
— Do other planets have plate tectonics?
— How satellites have revolutionized the study of volcanoes
— Meteorites and volcanoes may have helped jump-start life on Earth
"This has profound implications for how we interpret surface volcanism, earthquake activity, and the process of continental breakup."
The team's study was published on June 25 in the journal Nature Geoscience.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What are dwarf planets — and how many are there?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. In 2006, Pluto was famously demoted from a planet to a dwarf planet. It remains the most famous dwarf planet today, but there are others in our solar system, including potentially hundreds that haven't been discovered yet. But what, exactly, is a dwarf planet? And how many dwarf planets are there? A dwarf planet is a celestial body that is smaller than a planet but bigger than an asteroid or other small rock in the solar system. They're not planets because they only meet two of the three criteria for something in space to be considered a true planet. A planet is defined by three qualities: It orbits the sun, it's mostly round, and it's massive enough for its gravity to have mostly kicked large objects from its orbit. Pluto and some other known dwarf planets meet the first two criteria but not the third because they orbit in the Kuiper Belt, a region beyond Neptune filled with small icy debris. When Pluto was first discovered in 1930, it (and other similar objects in the Kuiper Belt) were so far away and faint that they were really hard to spot, even with the most powerful telescopes at the time. Indeed, the very qualities that make something a dwarf planet make those objects particularly hard to detect. Related: James Webb telescope discovers 'a new kind of climate' on Pluto, unlike anything else in our solar system "There are a few things that work against us spotting them," Mathew Yu, an astronomer at UCLA, told Live Science in an email. "They are far away from the sun. The reflected light from them is faint as a result. Some have low reflectivity, making light reflecting off them fainter." Plus, "they move slowly across the sky due to their large distance from the sun," he added. "They go around the sun once every hundreds of Earth years. So their relative motions to the background stars are small. For astronomers with a limited observing time, these objects become hard to detect." Astronomers got a lot better at finding objects in the Kuiper Belt in the 1990s and 2000s as telescope technology improved. And once they could see a bit better, they noticed there were a lot more rocks out there with orbits similar to Pluto's. Between 2002 and 2005, astronomers found seven more particularly large rocks: Haumea, Makemake, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, Eris and Salacia. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) — the group of astronomers that decides on official names and terms for things in space — decided in 2006 that a new category was needed to describe these objects that were pretty big but not big enough to clear their orbits as a true planet does. Thus, the name "dwarf planet" was born. With eight named large rocks in the Kuiper Belt, you might think that means there are eight dwarf planets. However, not all astronomers agree on the number. "Accepted numbers range between around 10 to a few hundred in the Kuiper Belt alone," Yu said. "Some estimate that there may be up to tens of thousands of them beyond the Kuiper Belt." The IAU has officially recognized only five dwarf planets: Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris in the Kuiper Belt, plus Ceres in the asteroid belt. We've sent space probes to only two of these: Pluto (visited by NASA's New Horizons) and Ceres (visited by NASA's Dawn), both of which flew by those bodies in 2015. Astronomers who observe dwarf planets, however, tend to recognize nine: the previous five, plus Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus and Gonggong. Gonggong was discovered in 2007 after the dwarf planet name change, but it wasn't confirmed until some new observations from NASA telescopes in 2016. The IAU is still considering proposals on these dwarfish bodies. RELATED STORIES —Watch newly discovered 'interstellar visitor' 3I/ATLAS shoot toward us in first livestream today (July 3) —'A completely new phenomenon': Astronomers spot a planet causing its star to constantly explode —James Webb telescope discovers tentacled 'jellyfish' galaxy swimming through deep space There are at least a handful more objects that have been proposed but need more observations to confirm their size and, therefore, dwarf planet status. And in June 2025, scientists proposed a new possible dwarf planet: 2017 OF201. Astronomers found this particularly faint object by searching through an old pile of data with new advanced algorithms. If you count all of the currently proposed dwarf planets plus the newcomer, that makes eighteen or more dwarf planets in the solar system — and that's just the ones we've seen. There are likely more out there, perhaps even hundreds or thousands, someday to be revealed as our telescopes keep getting better.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AI chatbots oversimplify scientific studies and gloss over critical details — the newest models are especially guilty
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Large language models (LLMs) are becoming less "intelligent" in each new version as they oversimplify and, in some cases, misrepresent important scientific and medical findings, a new study has found. Scientists discovered that versions of ChatGPT, Llama and DeepSeek were five times more likely to oversimplify scientific findings than human experts in an analysis of 4,900 summaries of research papers. When given a prompt for accuracy, chatbots were twice as likely to overgeneralize findings than when prompted for a simple summary. The testing also revealed an increase in overgeneralizations among newer chatbot versions compared to previous generations. The researchers published their findings in a new study April 30 in the journal Royal Society Open Science. "I think one of the biggest challenges is that generalization can seem benign, or even helpful, until you realize it's changed the meaning of the original research," study author Uwe Peters, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bonn in Germany, wrote in an email to Live Science. "What we add here is a systematic method for detecting when models generalize beyond what's warranted in the original text." It's like a photocopier with a broken lens that makes the subsequent copies bigger and bolder than the original. LLMs filter information through a series of computational layers. Along the way, some information can be lost or change meaning in subtle ways. This is especially true with scientific studies, since scientists must frequently include qualifications, context and limitations in their research results. Providing a simple yet accurate summary of findings becomes quite difficult. "Earlier LLMs were more likely to avoid answering difficult questions, whereas newer, larger, and more instructible models, instead of refusing to answer, often produced misleadingly authoritative yet flawed responses," the researchers wrote. Related: AI is just as overconfident and biased as humans can be, study shows In one example from the study, DeepSeek produced a medical recommendation in one summary by changing the phrase "was safe and could be performed successfully" to "is a safe and effective treatment option." Another test in the study showed Llama broadened the scope of effectiveness for a drug treating type 2 diabetes in young people by eliminating information about the dosage, frequency, and effects of the medication. If published, this chatbot-generated summary could cause medical professionals to prescribe drugs outside of their effective parameters. In the new study, researchers worked to answer three questions about 10 of the most popular LLMs (four versions of ChatGPT, three versions of Claude, two versions of Llama, and one of DeepSeek). They wanted to see if, when presented with a human summary of an academic journal article and prompted to summarize it, the LLM would overgeneralize the summary and, if so, whether asking it for a more accurate answer would yield a better result. The team also aimed to find whether the LLMs would overgeneralize more than humans do. The findings revealed that LLMs — with the exception of Claude, which performed well on all testing criteria — that were given a prompt for accuracy were twice as likely to produce overgeneralized results. LLM summaries were nearly five times more likely than human-generated summaries to render generalized conclusions. The researchers also noted that LLMs transitioning quantified data into generic information were the most common overgeneralizations and the most likely to create unsafe treatment options. These transitions and overgeneralizations have led to biases, according to experts at the intersection of AI and healthcare. "This study highlights that biases can also take more subtle forms — like the quiet inflation of a claim's scope," Max Rollwage, vice president of AI and research at Limbic, a clinical mental health AI technology company, told Live Science in an email. "In domains like medicine, LLM summarization is already a routine part of workflows. That makes it even more important to examine how these systems perform and whether their outputs can be trusted to represent the original evidence faithfully." Such discoveries should prompt developers to create workflow guardrails that identify oversimplifications and omissions of critical information before putting findings into the hands of public or professional groups, Rollwage said. While comprehensive, the study had limitations; future studies would benefit from extending the testing to other scientific tasks and non-English texts, as well as from testing which types of scientific claims are more subject to overgeneralization, said Patricia Thaine, co-founder and CEO of Private AI — an AI development company. Rollwage also noted that "a deeper prompt engineering analysis might have improved or clarified results," while Peters sees larger risks on the horizon as our dependence on chatbots grows. "Tools like ChatGPT, Claude and DeepSeek are increasingly part of how people understand scientific findings," he wrote. "As their usage continues to grow, this poses a real risk of large-scale misinterpretation of science at a moment when public trust and scientific literacy are already under pressure." RELATED STORIES —Cutting-edge AI models from OpenAI and DeepSeek undergo 'complete collapse' when problems get too difficult, study reveals —'Foolhardy at best, and deceptive and dangerous at worst': Don't believe the hype — here's why artificial general intelligence isn't what the billionaires tell you it is —Current AI models a 'dead end' for human-level intelligence, scientists agree For other experts in the field, the challenge we face lies in ignoring specialized knowledge and protections. "Models are trained on simplified science journalism rather than, or in addition to, primary sources, inheriting those oversimplifications," Thaine wrote to Live Science. "But, importantly, we're applying general-purpose models to specialized domains without appropriate expert oversight, which is a fundamental misuse of the technology which often requires more task-specific training." In December 2024, Future Publishing agreed a deal with OpenAI in which the AI company would bring content from Future's 200-plus media brands to OpenAI's users. You can read more about the partnership here.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A 'Golden Handle' will appear on the moon tonight. Here's how to see it
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Saturday night presents a perfect opportunity to spot a "Golden Handle" shining brightly on the moon's surface. It is a fleeting sight that appears when sunlight catches the peaks of a mountain range on the moon. On July 5, the moon's terminator, the line that separates lunar night from day, falls slightly to the west of the great circular plain Sinus Iridum (Latin for the 'Bay of Rainbows') in the northwest region of the lunar surface. At this time the sun is perfectly positioned to illuminate the eastern peaks of the vast Montes Jura mountain range bordering Sinus Iridum's northernmost edge, giving rise to a spectacular golden arc that has since become known as the "Golden Handle". To find the Golden Handle, look for the waxing gibbous moon hanging above the southern horizon as the sun sets on June 5, shining among the stars of the constellation Libra. Then find the Montes Jura mountain range close to the terminator, above the dark expanse of Mare Imbrium (the Sea of Showers) — a colossal lunar plain formed from solidified lava flows. There you will see a crescent-shaped curve near the terminator — the Golden Handle. A pair of 15x70 binoculars mounted on a tripod will help reveal the sweeping profile of the Golden Handle, while a telescope with an aperture of 6 inches or greater will give you a more detailed view of Montes Jura and the nearby Bianchini Crater. While you're exploring the moon, be sure to swing your scope over to Copernicus Crater. At about 57 miles (93 kilometers) wide, it makes for a striking lunar target. On July 5, the low angle of the sun will cast prominent shadows along the eastern rim of the impact crater, while highlighting reflective debris streaks known as ejecta rays that were cast out during its creation some 800 million years ago. Stargazers looking to understand Earth's natural satellite better should check out our ultimate guide to exploring the lunar surface, along with our guides to the best telescopes and binoculars for exploring the solar system. Those interested in immortalizing their stargazing sessions should also read our roundup of the best cameras and lenses for astrophotography. Editor's Note: If you capture an image of the 'Golden Handle' and want to share it with readers, then please send your photo or video, along with your name, location and comments to spacephotos@
