Where curiosity meets science—and where computation starts to behave like physics.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs Podcast—Season 2, Episode 4 Read time: ~18–22 minutes

⚡ TL;DR

Quantum computing in 2026 is real, impressive, and still much more specialized than the headlines sometimes make it sound. In December 2024, Google’s 105-qubit Willow processor completed a random-circuit-sampling benchmark in under five minutes that Google estimated would require a leading classical supercomputer about 10 septillion years (10²⁵ years). The important words there are benchmark and estimated: this was a deliberately difficult test of quantum hardware, not a useful everyday calculation that suddenly became 10²⁵ years faster (Google Quantum AI, 2024; Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, 2025a).

In October 2025, Google’s Quantum Echoes work moved the conversation forward again. The peer-reviewed experiment operated in a beyond-classical regime: the best classical simulation estimate for one of the tested circuits was about 3.2 years on Frontier, compared with 2.1 hours of experimental data collection on the quantum processor—roughly a 13,000× difference. Google also demonstrated related techniques for extracting information about molecular structure, which points toward future chemistry and materials applications without proving that a general-purpose “quantum drug-discovery machine” already exists (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, 2025b; Google Quantum AI, 2025).

IBM’s Nighthawk processor has 120 qubits and 218 tunable couplers, and IBM is targeting community-verified quantum advantage by the end of 2026 and fault-tolerant quantum computing in 2029. Those dates are roadmap targets, not accomplishments we should write about in the past tense (IBM, 2025).

Microsoft’s topological approach is moving quickly too. Majorana 1 drew enormous attention in 2025, but the associated Nature paper itself cautioned that one of its measurements could not, by itself, unambiguously distinguish topological Majorana zero modes from certain non-topological alternatives. In 2026, Microsoft announced Majorana 2, reporting much longer qubit lifetimes and a revised goal of a scalable quantum computer by 2029. Those performance figures are Microsoft’s current reported results and should be presented as such (Aghaee et al., 2025; Microsoft Quantum, 2026).

And classical computing has not been standing still. As of the June 2026 TOP500 list, the world’s No. 1 supercomputer is LineShine in Shenzhen, China, at 2.198 exaflops on the HPL benchmark. El Capitan is now No. 2 at 1.809 exaflops, followed by Frontier, Aurora, and JUPITER. Five systems have now crossed the exaflop threshold on HPL (TOP500, 2026).

Meanwhile, the security transition has already begun. NIST finalized its first three post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024 and is urging organizations to migrate away from quantum-vulnerable public-key systems well before a cryptographically relevant quantum computer exists (NIST, 2024; NIST, 2026).

So no: quantum computers are not replacing your laptop tomorrow. But the boundary between “interesting physics experiment” and “useful computational tool” is moving, and it is moving fast.

“The imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man.” —Richard P. Feynman (1955)

🎧 Listen

Hear the full Spanish podcast:

Atomicxs Podcast—S2E4: “Computación Cuántica: La Nueva Era de los Supercomputadores.”

🎧 Listen on Spotify

📺 Watch on YouTube

The Number That Broke My Brain

Let me open with a number:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That is 10 septillion. Ten followed by 25 zeros.

For comparison, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. So when Google said in December 2024 that Willow completed a benchmark in under five minutes that would take a leading classical supercomputer roughly 10²⁵ years, the number was designed to make your brain slide off the table.

Mine did.

But this is exactly where science communication can go wrong if we stop at the spectacular number.

Willow did not take a problem that normally occupies scientists for 10 septillion years and solve it before lunch. It performed random circuit sampling, a benchmark designed to test whether a quantum device can generate and sample from probability distributions that become extraordinarily difficult to reproduce classically. Google’s 10²⁵ year comparison depends on the best classical methods and hardware assumptions used in the estimate. Classical algorithms can improve. Benchmarks are not the same thing as applications.

That does not make Willow unimportant. Quite the opposite.

The deeper achievement was quantum error correction. In the peer-reviewed Willow work, increasing the size of the surface code reduced the logical error rate—a long-sought below-threshold behavior needed if quantum computers are ever going to scale reliably (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, 2025a).

The headline was five minutes versus 10 septillion years.

The scientific story was: we may finally be learning how to make fragile quantum information survive as systems get larger.

That is the part worth remembering.

What a Classical Computer Actually Does

Your phone, laptop, car, television, bank, hospital, weather model, payroll system, and nearly every piece of modern digital infrastructure are built on bits.

A classical bit is in one of two logical states: 0 or 1.

That sounds almost insultingly simple until you remember what we have built from it.

Billions and trillions of switches, organized into circuits and processors, can encode text, images, sound, physical simulations, financial transactions, neural networks, and the cat video your aunt has sent you four times because she still thinks you have not seen it.

Classical computers are not becoming obsolete. In fact, the most powerful classical machines are still getting faster.

The June 2026 TOP500 list put LineShine at No. 1 with a measured 2.198 exaflops on the High Performance LINPACK benchmark. One exaflop means 10¹⁸ floating point operations per second. LineShine crossed two exaflops on that benchmark (TOP500, 2026).

That is a staggering amount of arithmetic.

And yet there are problems where adding more classical horsepower becomes brutally expensive because the number of possibilities grows faster than we can reasonably search them.

That is where the quantum story begins.

Share Atomicxs Podcast

The Combinatorial Explosion

Imagine trying to find the best round-trip route through a group of cities.

With a handful of cities, you can check many possibilities. Add more cities, and the number of possible routes explodes.

For 20 cities, a symmetric traveling-salesperson problem has roughly 6 × 10¹⁶ distinct tours if we treat a route and its reverse as the same trip.

For 50 cities, the count rises to roughly 3 × 10⁶².

By 70 cities, the number of possible tours is on the order of 10⁹⁸, vastly larger than the commonly cited estimate of roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the observable universe.

Now, real optimization algorithms do not solve these problems by blindly checking every route. Computer scientists use clever exact methods, approximations, heuristics, branch-and-bound techniques, dynamic programming, and problem-specific structure.

That distinction matters.

Quantum computing is not a magical “try every answer at once” machine either. That popular explanation is catchy—and deeply misleading.

A quantum computer earns an advantage only when an algorithm can prepare, manipulate, interfere, and measure quantum states in a way that amplifies useful information while suppressing the wrong answers.

That is much harder than saying “parallel universes do the homework for us.”

Sorry, Marvel.

Bit vs Qubit

A qubit, or quantum bit, is the basic unit of quantum information.

Like a classical bit, a measurement of a qubit can produce a 0 or a 1. But before measurement, its state can be a superposition described by quantum amplitudes associated with those outcomes.

This is where the famous coin analogy usually appears.

A classical bit is like a coin resting on the table: heads or tails. A qubit is often compared with a coin spinning in the air.

Useful image? Yes.

Literally correct? No.

A spinning coin is still a classical object with a definite physical state whether you look at it or not. A qubit is described by a quantum state whose amplitudes can interfere. That interference—not merely “being both 0 and 1”—is where the computational power comes from.

Editor’s Note: Quantum is extremely difficult to understand. Famously, Richard Feynman once stated "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics", so don’t feel bad about yourself if the quantum concept completely boggles your mind. It does mine too.

Superposition: more than uncertainty

Suppose a qubit is prepared so that measuring it has some probability of producing 0 and some probability of producing 1. Those probabilities come from amplitudes, and amplitudes can carry phase.

When quantum gates manipulate those phases, different computational paths can reinforce or cancel one another.

Think less “the answer is secretly both.”

Think more “the mathematics lets probability amplitudes behave like waves.”

That is a stranger statement, but it is closer to the truth.

Entanglement: correlation without a classical equivalent

Now take two or more qubits and entangle them.

Their joint quantum state can no longer be fully described as independent states for each qubit. Measurements can show correlations stronger than any local classical model can reproduce.

Einstein famously objected to the implications of this kind of nonlocal quantum correlation.

But one clarification is essential: entanglement cannot be used to send usable information faster than light. The correlations are extraordinary; they are not an interstellar text-message service.

For a register of n qubits, a general state is described by 2ⁿ complex amplitudes. At 300 qubits, that is roughly 2 × 10⁹⁰ amplitudes—more numbers than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe.

But there is another important caveat: a quantum computer does not let us read all 2³⁰⁰ amplitudes directly. Measurement gives limited classical information. The art of quantum algorithms is arranging interference so that the information we care about becomes measurable.

Quantum computing is powerful precisely because it is weird and constrained.

Google Willow: The Error-Correction Milestone

Willow is a 105-qubit superconducting processor developed by Google Quantum AI.

Its 2024–2025 result mattered for two separate reasons.

First, there was the random-circuit-sampling benchmark: under five minutes on Willow versus Google’s estimate of approximately 10²⁵ years for a leading classical supercomputer (Google Quantum AI, 2024).

Second—and more important for the long game—the team demonstrated below-threshold surface-code error correction.

Quantum information is fragile. Qubits interact with their environment. Gates are imperfect. Measurements introduce errors. Heat, electromagnetic noise, fabrication defects, cosmic radiation, and control electronics all conspire against you.

A useful fault-tolerant quantum computer therefore cannot depend on every physical qubit behaving perfectly.

Instead, it needs logical qubits constructed from many physical qubits, with error-correction codes that detect and suppress errors.

The key threshold idea is beautiful: if the physical error rate is pushed below a critical level, then adding more redundancy can make the logical qubit better, not worse.

In Willow’s surface-code experiments, the logical error rate decreased as the code distance increased. The 105-qubit processor had a mean T1 coherence time of about 68 microseconds, and the team demonstrated real-time decoding in its error-correction experiments (Google Quantum AI and Collaborators, 2025a).

That does not mean fault-tolerant quantum computing is solved.

The same paper makes clear that substantial gaps remain between current logical error rates and what large practical algorithms will require.

But the direction of travel changed.

For years, the fear was that adding qubits would simply add more ways for the machine to fail.

Willow showed a route by which adding the right qubits, organized in the right code, can suppress failure instead.

Read more

• Albert Einstein published the Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, at age 26, while working as a patent clerk — not a professor.

• Special Relativity rests on two postulates: the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion, and the speed of light is constant for all observers.

• A direct consequence is time dilation: the faster you move through space, the slower time passes for you relative to a stationary observer.

• The Twin Paradox imagines one twin traveling at near-light-speed and returning younger than the twin who stayed home. This is not a paradox — it’s physics, confirmed by experiment. (Bailey et al. 1977; Hafele and Keating 1972)

• General Relativity (1915) extended the theory to include gravity: massive objects curve space-time, and time passes more slowly in stronger gravitational fields.

• GPS satellites must account for both effects — a combined correction of ~38 microseconds per day. Without it, GPS would be off by more than 10 kilometers daily. (Ashby 2002)

• Cosmic ray muons reach Earth’s surface because time dilation extends their effective lifetime. (Rossi and Hall 1941)

• Relativity isn’t abstract philosophy. It’s engineering. It’s your phone. It’s real.

Listen

This post accompanies Season 2, Episode 3 of Atomicxs Podcast—available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube. The full audio episode in Latin American Spanish runs approximately 40 minutes. Jump in and listen alongside this blog.

YouTube Atomicxs

The Man Who Broke Physics With a Thought Experiment

In 1905, Albert Einstein was 26 years old and held a job that had nothing to do with physics. He was a “technical expert, third class” at the patent office in Bern, Switzerland — reviewing other people’s inventions, earning a modest salary, spending six days a week at a desk. He was not a professor. He had struggled to find academic work after graduating. Some professors considered him mediocre.

That year, he published four scientific papers in the journal Annalen der Physik that would permanently restructure humanity’s understanding of matter, energy, space, and time. The year has been called his Annus Mirabilis — Latin for “Year of Miracles.”

One of those papers, titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” introduced what we now call the Special Theory of Relativity. It was not the longest paper. It contained almost no citations. But it demolished a picture of the universe that had stood unchallenged for more than two hundred years — the Newtonian picture of absolute space and absolute time.

Newton had written that absolute time “flows equably without relation to anything external.” That was, for Newton, simply the nature of reality. Time was a river flowing at the same rate for everyone, everywhere, always.

Einstein replaced that river with something far stranger: a fabric.

Subscribe now

What Is Special Relativity, Really?

Before Einstein, there was a crisis in physics. Not the kind you read about in newspapers — this was quieter, deeper, more unsettling. Physicists in the late nineteenth century had measured the speed of light repeatedly and carefully, and kept getting the same answer: approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,000 miles per second), regardless of whether the person doing the measuring was moving or stationary.

This violated everything Newton’s physics predicted.

Here’s a simple way to understand the problem. If you’re standing still and a friend throws a baseball at 100 km/h, the ball travels at 100 km/h. If your friend throws that same ball from a car going 50 km/h, the ball now travels at 150 km/h relative to you. Velocities add. That’s intuitive. That’s Galileo and Newton.

Now replace the baseball with a beam of light. According to every measurement ever made, it doesn’t matter how fast the light source is moving. The light always travels at the same speed — c — relative to you. Whether you’re standing still, flying in a jet, or riding a rocket, the speed of light is constant.

Einstein’s revolutionary move was to accept this as a fundamental feature of reality, not a measurement error, and ask: If the speed of light is truly constant for all observers, what else must be true?

The answer: time itself must be flexible.

Special Relativity is built on two postulates:

Postulate 1 — The Principle of Relativity: The laws of physics are identical for all observers moving at constant velocity. No experiment can tell you whether you are “truly” at rest or “truly” moving — only relative motion exists.

Postulate 2 — The Constancy of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or the observer.

From these two statements — just two — Einstein derived consequences that rewrote physics. Among them: time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity (the fact that two events simultaneous for one observer may not be simultaneous for another), and the equivalence of mass and energy, expressed in the equation E = mc².

Time Dilation: The Clock That Slows Down When You Speed Up

Time dilation is the phenomenon by which a moving clock ticks slower than a stationary one, as measured by the stationary observer.

Let’s define it precisely before going further. When physicists say “moving clock,” they don’t mean there’s something wrong with the mechanism. They mean that the flow of time itself is different for moving objects. A second on a fast-moving spaceship is genuinely longer — contains more “ground-side seconds” — than a second for a stationary observer.

The mathematical formula is:

t = t₀ / √(1 – v²/c²)

Where t is the time measured by the stationary observer, t₀ is the time measured by the moving clock (called “proper time”), v is the speed of the moving object, and c is the speed of light.

At everyday speeds — walking, driving, flying — the factor √(1 – v²/c²) is so close to 1 that the difference is immeasurable. A commercial jet travels at about 900 km/h, which is roughly 0.000083% the speed of light. The time dilation is real but far smaller than any clock can detect in daily use.

But as speeds approach c, the effect becomes enormous. At 90% the speed of light, time for the moving object passes at about 44% the rate of a stationary observer. At 99% the speed of light, time passes at about 14% of the stationary rate. At 99.99%, the ratio drops to about 1.4%.

This isn’t a theory waiting to be tested. It has been confirmed experimentally, repeatedly, in multiple independent ways.

Share

The Evidence: This Isn’t Just Math

Experiment 1: Cosmic Ray Muons

Every day, high-energy cosmic rays from deep space strike Earth’s upper atmosphere, roughly 15 kilometers above the surface, producing particles called muons. A muon is similar to an electron but about 207 times heavier. Muons are unstable — at rest, they survive for only about 2.2 microseconds (millionths of a second) before decaying into other particles.

Here is the puzzle: muons travel downward at about 98% the speed of light. Even at that velocity, in 2.2 microseconds they should travel at most about 660 meters before decaying. They should never reach sea level through 15 kilometers of atmosphere.

But they do. Detectors at sea level record them in abundance.

The explanation is time dilation. From our perspective on Earth, the muon’s internal “clock” — governing how fast it decays — runs far slower because the muon is traveling near the speed of light. What is 2.2 microseconds in the muon’s reference frame is roughly 35 microseconds in ours. In that dilated time, the muon can travel 15 kilometers and reach the surface before decaying.

Alternatively, from the muon’s reference frame, it is the atmosphere that is moving — and due to length contraction (another consequence of Special Relativity), the 15 kilometers of atmosphere appears compressed to the muon to only about 1 kilometer, short enough to cross in its brief lifetime.

Both perspectives are equally valid. Both give the same result: the muons arrive. (Rossi and Hall 1941; Frisch and Smith 1963)

Experiment 2: The Hafele-Keating Experiment (1971–1972)

In October 1971, physicists Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating took portable cesium-beam atomic clocks — the most precise clocks then available — onto commercial airline flights. Four clocks flew eastward around the world. Four flew westward. Four stayed stationary at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.

After the flights, the clocks were compared. The results matched the predictions of Special and General Relativity with remarkable precision. The eastward clocks lost time; the westward clocks gained time relative to the stationary clocks — exactly as predicted. (Hafele and Keating 1972)

The differences were measured in nanoseconds (billionths of a second). But they were real, measurable, and matched theory.

Experiment 3: CERN Muon Storage Ring (1977)

A team at CERN measured the lifetimes of muons circulating in a storage ring at a speed of about 99.94% the speed of light. The measured lifetime of the muons — as seen from the lab — was 29.3 times longer than the rest lifetime, in near-perfect agreement with Special Relativity. (Bailey et al. 1977)

Time dilation confirmed. Again. At a controlled, precise, laboratory scale.

📣 Enjoying this? Forward it to a curious friend, or hit subscribe below — Atomicxs is the science newsletter for people who actually want to understand.

The Twin Paradox: Not Actually a Paradox

The Twin Paradox is perhaps the most famous thought experiment in physics, and also the most frequently misunderstood.

Here’s the setup: imagine identical twins, Sofia and Luna. On their thirtieth birthday, Luna boards a spacecraft that accelerates to 90% the speed of light and travels to a star four light-years away, then returns to Earth. Sofia stays home.

According to time dilation, Luna’s clock runs slower during her trip. When she returns, less time will have passed for her than for Sofia. Sofia might be 40 years old; Luna might appear to have aged only a few years less, depending on exact speeds and travel times.

The “paradox” arises from a naïve application of Special Relativity’s symmetry. If all motion is relative, couldn’t Luna say that it was she who was stationary, and Sofia who moved? Shouldn’t the situation be symmetric? And if it’s symmetric, how can one twin end up younger than the other?

This is where many popular accounts go wrong. The situation is not symmetric, for a clear physical reason: Luna accelerates, and Sofia does not.

Luna must accelerate to leave Earth, accelerate again (in the opposite direction) to turn around at the star, and decelerate to return. Each of these accelerations is a real, physical event — Luna feels them as g-forces. Sofia feels nothing of the sort.

This asymmetry means the two situations cannot simply be “flipped.” Luna’s path through space-time is fundamentally different from Sofia’s. Luna’s journey traces what physicists call a non-inertial path — it includes acceleration. Sofia’s path is inertial — constant velocity, or effectively at rest.

To fully analyze what happens during Luna’s accelerations, we need General Relativity. And when we do the full analysis, the answer is unambiguous: Luna returns younger. Not as an illusion. Not as a perceptual trick. As a genuine physical fact about how much time each twin has experienced.

The “paradox” is not a paradox at all. It’s a consequence of failing to account for acceleration.

How Much Younger?

For concreteness: suppose Luna travels at 90% the speed of light (0.9c) to a star 4 light-years away and back (8 light-years total trip distance as measured from Earth).

• Time elapsed for Sofia (Earth frame): approximately 8.9 years

• Time elapsed for Luna (ship frame): approximately 3.9 years

Luna returns nearly 5 years younger than her twin. This is not an approximation — it’s what the math yields, and it’s what would happen if such a journey were made.

Share Atomicxs Podcast

General Relativity: When Gravity Bends Time

Ten years after Special Relativity, Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity (1915). Where Special Relativity dealt with observers in uniform motion, General Relativity extended the framework to include acceleration and gravity.

The central insight is profound: gravity is not a force. Gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass and energy.

The classic analogy is a stretched rubber sheet. Place a bowling ball in the center, and the sheet curves around it. Roll a marble across the sheet, and instead of traveling in a straight line, the marble follows the curved surface — spiraling around the bowling ball. To an observer watching from far above, it looks as though the marble is being “pulled” toward the bowling ball. But actually, the marble is following the straightest possible path (called a geodesic) in a curved space.

That’s what planets do around stars. That’s what the Moon does around Earth. They’re not pulled by invisible strings. They’re following geodesics in space-time curved by mass.

This means that gravity and acceleration are, in a deep sense, the same thing. If you’re in a sealed elevator with no windows and you feel weight, you can’t tell whether (a) the elevator is sitting on Earth’s surface in a gravitational field, or (b) the elevator is in outer space being accelerated upward by a rocket engine. Both produce identical sensations. Einstein called this the Equivalence Principle.

Gravitational Time Dilation

From General Relativity comes another time-related consequence: gravitational time dilation. Time passes more slowly in regions of stronger gravity.

If you live on the ground floor of a building, time passes slightly more slowly for you than for someone on the 40th floor — because you are closer to Earth’s center, where gravity is fractionally stronger. The difference is immeasurably tiny for a building, but it is real.

Near a neutron star or black hole, where gravity is incomprehensibly intense, the effect becomes dramatic. Time near the event horizon of a black hole nearly freezes, relative to an outside observer. This is the science behind the famous “time dilation planet” sequence in Christopher Nolan’s film Interstellar (2014), which was based on calculations by physicist Kip Thorne — and which holds up to scrutiny as one of the most scientifically accurate depictions of relativistic time dilation in popular cinema.

Leave a comment

GPS: Where Einstein Meets Your Morning Commute

Nothing illustrates the practical reality of General and Special Relativity more concretely than the Global Positioning System (GPS).

The GPS constellation consists of 24 satellites orbiting Earth at an altitude of approximately 20,200 kilometers, moving at roughly 14,000 kilometers per hour. Your phone determines its location by measuring the time it takes radio signals from multiple satellites to reach it — and computing the geometry of those travel times.

To work at useful accuracy, the satellite clocks must be synchronized with ground clocks to within about 20–30 nanoseconds. Any error beyond that translates directly into positional error.

Here is where relativity enters:

Effect 1 — Special Relativistic (Velocity) Time Dilation: GPS satellites move fast relative to Earth’s surface. Because of Special Relativity, their clocks tick slightly slower than ground clocks. This effect causes the satellite clocks to lose approximately 7 microseconds per day relative to ground clocks.

Effect 2 — General Relativistic (Gravitational) Time Dilation: GPS satellites orbit at high altitude, where Earth’s gravity is weaker than at the surface. Because of General Relativity, their clocks tick faster than ground clocks. This effect causes the satellite clocks to gain approximately 45 microseconds per day relative to ground clocks.

The net effect: satellite clocks run approximately 38 microseconds fast per day relative to ground-based clocks.

Thirty-eight microseconds per day. Sounds negligible.

But at the speed of light, 38 microseconds corresponds to a distance of approximately 11.4 kilometers. If GPS clocks were not corrected for relativistic effects, positional errors would accumulate at a rate of over 10 kilometers per day, making the entire system useless for navigation within hours of activation.

Engineers at the Department of Defense accounted for this when designing GPS. The satellite clocks are intentionally set to run slightly slow before launch, so that when relativity’s effects are applied, they synchronize correctly with ground clocks in orbit. (Ashby 2002)

Every ride-share trip. Every package delivery. Every landing aircraft. Every autonomous vehicle. Every farmer using precision GPS to plant crops within centimeters. All of it rests, silently and invisibly, on the mathematics of a 26-year-old patent clerk from Bern.

📣 If you want to go deeper on the physics — equations, spacetime diagrams, relativistic mechanics — the podcast episode has full production notes with resource recommendations. Find them at atomicxs.substack.com.

[SHARE THIS POST]

📣 Quick Recommendation Shout-Outs

Before we finish, a few voices and makers we love at Atomicxs:

🎙️ LaReyorkina Podcast — storytelling from the diaspora, with a voice that makes you feel seen. If you’re Latine and navigating the world in more than one language, this is yours.

🍰 Bakeandlu — because science is better with something in your hands. Bakeandlu brings the same attention to detail to baked goods that Einstein brought to physics. Check them out.

🖨️ Imprime n Serio — when your ideas deserve to be printed for real. Quality printing for small businesses, events, and creators. Atomicxs-approved.

💊 LityMed — health information that respects your intelligence. Just like Atomicxs does for physics, LityMed does for your body. A community worth joining.

Myth-Busting: Five Things People Get Wrong About Relativity

Myth 1: “Relativity says everything is relative — there’s no objective truth.”

No. Relativity does not mean that truth is subjective or that facts are malleable. What it says is that measurements of time and space depend on the observer’s motion. But certain things are absolute: the space-time interval between two events is the same for all observers. The laws of physics are the same for all observers. The speed of light is the same for all observers. Relativity is a highly precise, objective framework. It’s been misappropriated into cultural relativism — a completely different and unrelated concept.

Myth 2: “The Twin Paradox proves Special Relativity is contradictory.”

It does not. The apparent paradox dissolves when you account for the fact that the traveling twin undergoes real, physical acceleration to turn around — something the stationary twin does not. The situations are asymmetric, not symmetric, and the analysis in General Relativity yields an unambiguous result: the traveling twin is younger. This has been confirmed experimentally in analogous scenarios, including the CERN muon storage ring experiment (Bailey et al. 1977).

Myth 3: “GPS doesn’t really need relativity — engineers just round the error.”

This is false. The combined relativistic correction for GPS satellite clocks is approximately 38 microseconds per day, which translates to positional errors exceeding 10 kilometers per day if uncorrected. This is not a minor rounding issue. The entire system was designed with relativistic corrections built in from the beginning. (Ashby 2002; Pogge 2017)

Myth 4: “Nothing can travel faster than light, so relativity limits us.”

The constraint is specifically that no object with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light. This is a consequence of the equations — as you approach c, the energy required to accelerate further approaches infinity. This is not an engineering limitation waiting to be solved; it’s a fundamental feature of space-time geometry. (Note: the expansion of the universe can separate distant regions of space faster than c, but this involves space itself expanding, not objects moving through space — a different phenomenon governed by General Relativity and cosmology.)

Myth 5: “Einstein failed math as a student.”

This is one of the most persistent myths in popular science. Einstein did not fail mathematics. He excelled at it throughout his education. The confusion likely originated from a misinterpretation of the Swiss grading system, where a 6 is the highest grade (which Einstein received in mathematics and physics), not a failing mark. He was an exceptional student — simply one who resisted rote learning and preferred conceptual understanding.

Further Listening & Exploration

For those who want to go deeper:

• “Special Relativity: The Theoretical Minimum”—Leonard Susskind’s lecture series (available on YouTube, Stanford). Rigorous, mathematical, accessible to serious learners.

• “A Brief History of Time”—Stephen Hawking (1988). The chapter on curved space remains one of the clearest intuitive explanations of General Relativity for non-specialists.

• “Six Not-So-Easy Pieces”—Richard Feynman. Feynman’s own lectures on relativity, symmetry, and space-time. As clear as physics writing gets.

• “Gravity’s Engines”—Caleb Scharf (2012). A beautifully written exploration of black holes, General Relativity, and their role in shaping galaxies.

• “The Elegant Universe”—Brian Greene (1999). Connects General Relativity to quantum mechanics and string theory for curious, advanced readers.

Online resources:

• Einstein Online — max-planck-gesellschaft.de/en/research/fields-of-research/einstein-online — The Max Planck Institute’s accessible explainer site

• HyperPhysics (Georgia State University) — hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu — detailed conceptual and mathematical treatment

References

Ashby, Neil. 2002. “Relativity and the Global Positioning System.” Physics Today 55 (5): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1485583

Bailey, J., K. Borer, F. Combley, H. Drumm, F. Krienen, F. Lange, E. Picasso, W. von Rüden, F. J. M. Farley, J. H. Field, W. Flegel, and P. M. Hattersley. 1977. “Measurements of Relativistic Time Dilatation for Positive and Negative Muons in a Circular Orbit.” Nature 268: 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1038/268301a0

Einstein, Albert. 1905. “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper” [On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies]. Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921. English translation available at Fourmilab.ch: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Frisch, David H., and James H. Smith. 1963. “Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons.” American Journal of Physics 31 (5): 342–355. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1969508

Hafele, J. C., and Richard E. Keating. 1972. “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains.” Science 177 (4044): 166–168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4044.166

Pogge, Richard W. 2017. “Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System.” Ohio State University Department of Astronomy. https://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html (Note: page is stable and hosted at Ohio State; verify before publication.)

Pound, R. V., and G. A. Rebka Jr. 1959. “Gravitational Red-Shift in Nuclear Resonance.” Physical Review Letters 3 (9): 439–441. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.439

Rossi, Bruno, and David B. Hall. 1941. “Variation of the Rate of Decay of Mesotrons with Momentum.” Physical Review 59 (3): 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.59.223

Thorne, Kip S. 2014. The Science of Interstellar. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

⚖️ Legal & Editorial Note

Atomicxs Podcast and its associated Substack blog are independent educational media. All scientific claims in this post are sourced from peer-reviewed literature, official agency publications (NASA, ESA), or established scientific institutions. Where analogies and simplifications are used for accessibility, the underlying science has been preserved to the best of the author’s ability. No content in this post should be construed as professional scientific advice.

Film references (e.g., Interstellar) are used for educational illustration only. No copyright infringement is intended. All third-party images used in production are sourced from public domain archives (NASA, Library of Congress, Wikimedia Commons) or created with licensed tools (Canva, HeyGen). Sponsor shout-outs are based on the creator’s genuine recommendations and are not paid advertisements.

Atomicxs is committed to scientific accuracy. If you identify an error, please reach out via atomicxs.substack.com.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs Podcast—Season 2, Episode 2 Read time: ~18–22 minutes

TL;DR

• Mars is the fourth planet from the Sun—a cold, thin-aired desert with the solar system’s largest volcano and longest canyon system, whose iron-oxide-coated surface gives it its signature red color.

• Mars once had a thicker atmosphere, liquid water, and possibly conditions for microbial life—until the loss of its global magnetic field allowed the solar wind to strip its atmosphere over billions of years.

• Nine active missions are currently at Mars: two NASA rovers (Curiosity and Perseverance) and seven orbiters from NASA, ESA, UAE, and China.

• Perseverance’s MOXIE experiment became the first device to produce oxygen from Martian CO₂—a landmark proof-of-concept for future human missions.

• SpaceX delayed its Mars ambitions in February 2026, pushing crewed missions further into the 2030s; NASA targets a human landing in the 2030s as well.

• Key challenges for humans: 7–9 month transit, radiation exceeding career limits, no real-time communication, extreme temperatures, dust storms, and the need to manufacture fuel on Mars for the return trip.

Sources: NASA JPL, ESA, Wikipedia (Curiosity, Perseverance, Mars rover entries), Nature (InSight studies), Space.com (MAVEN coverage), Planetary.org, Aerospace America.

Listen

The audio version of this blog post is available as Season 2, Episode 2 of Atomicxs Podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and wherever you get your podcasts. The episode is in Latin American Spanish; this post is the companion long-form English version.

YouTube Atomicxs

Introduction: The Red Dot That Never Lets Go

There is a planet in our sky that has haunted human imagination for thousands of years. Ancient astronomers noticed it moved differently from the stars—that it wandered, like something with its own agenda. They named it after their god of war. Centuries later, when we built telescopes powerful enough to see its surface, we saw polar caps and dark patches that shifted with the seasons, and we wondered—hoped—there might be life down there. We were probably wrong about life. But we were right that Mars is extraordinary.

In 2026, Mars is no longer just a dot in the sky. It is a destination—one that humanity is inching toward with increasing urgency. Two rovers are rolling across its surface right now as you read this. Seven spacecraft orbit it. Multiple nations and private companies are drawing up plans to put human footprints there within this decade or the next. And the scientific portrait we have assembled of Mars over the past fifty years—its geology, its climate history, its interior—reveals a world far stranger and richer than those ancient astronomers could have imagined.

This episode, we go deep. We will crack Mars open layer by layer, survey what we have learned from our robotic scouts, and honestly assess the road—and the obstacles—toward putting humans on its rust-colored surface.

Mars at a Glance: The Numbers That Matter

Before we get intimate with Mars, the basics:

• Distance from the Sun: 228 million km on average (1.52 AU). Distance from Earth varies enormously — from about 54 million km at closest approach (opposition) to about 401 million km when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the Sun (conjunction). This variability is not a minor detail; it dictates the launch windows that constrain every Mars mission ever flown.

• Day length (sol): 24 hours and 37 minutes—almost identical to an Earth day. This happy coincidence has made it easier to manage rover schedules.

• Year length: 687 Earth days.

• Diameter: 6,779 km—roughly half of Earth’s.

• Mass: About 10.7% of Earth’s mass.

• Gravity: 3.72 m/s²—38% of Earth’s. If you weigh 150 lbs on Earth, you would weigh 57 lbs on Mars.

• Moons: Two small, irregular moons—Phobos and Deimos. Both are thought to be captured asteroids. Phobos is gradually spiraling inward and will eventually either crash into Mars or break apart into a ring—in about 50 million years.

  This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

🔔 Enjoying this? Subscribe to Atomicxs on Substack (atomicxs.substack.com) and share this post with one curious person in your life. Every subscriber makes the next episode possible. ❤️

Deep Inside: What InSight Taught Us

For most of human history, we could only observe Mars from the outside. The NASA InSight lander changed that. Equipped with a seismometer (SEIS)—essentially an extremely sensitive earthquake detector—InSight sat on the Elysium Planitia plain from November 2018 until the end of 2022, recording Marsquakes and analyzing the seismic waves as they traveled through the planet’s interior. It gave us our first true X-ray of Mars.

The Crust

The Martian crust averages around 50 kilometers thick—significantly thicker than Earth’s oceanic crust, though variable. InSight’s data suggested the southern highlands (older, heavily cratered terrain) have a thicker crust than the northern lowlands. The crust is primarily basaltic rock—the same volcanic rock that forms the floors of Earth’s oceans—and is coated in iron oxide (rust). This is why Mars is red. The planet literally oxidized over billions of years.

The Mantle

Beneath the crust lies the mantle— approximately 1,600 km thick and composed of iron, magnesium, oxygen, and silicon, similar to Earth’s mantle but with a higher iron content. The key difference from Earth: Mars’s mantle is largely dormant. On Earth, the mantle convects like a very slow-moving liquid, driving plate tectonics, recycling crust, and fueling volcanic activity. On Mars, this convection appears to have largely stopped billions of years ago. The engine is cold.

The consequences are profound. Plate tectonics are responsible for creating much of Earth’s geological diversity, recycling carbon dioxide in and out of the atmosphere, and maintaining long-term climate stability. Without it, Mars could not perform this planetary self-regulation. In October 2023, scientists using InSight data reported evidence of a layer of radioactive molten silicate—effectively a magma ocean—beneath the Martian crust (Antonangeli et al., 2023), adding new complexity to our model of the interior.

The Core

InSight’s most striking revelation was about the core. Using seismic wave analysis published in Nature in 2023 (Duran et al., 2023), scientists determined that Mars has a liquid outer core with a radius of approximately 1,835 km (±55 km)—larger than pre-mission models predicted. The core is composed of iron, nickel, and sulfur. And critically: it does not generate a global magnetic field.

Earth’s liquid outer core, churning around a solid inner core, generates our protective magnetic field—the magnetosphere. Mars once had one too; we can see the fossil signatures of ancient magnetic field lines frozen into the oldest rocks in the southern highlands. But at some point, several billion years ago, the core’s convective motion stopped. The magnetic field died. And without that planetary shield, the solar wind—that constant stream of charged particles from the Sun—began relentlessly stripping away the Martian atmosphere. Particle by particle. Over billions of years.

The Surface: Record-Breaking Terrain

Mars’s surface is a world of geological superlatives.

Olympus Mons: The Impossible Mountain

Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the solar system: 21 km tall (about 2.5 times the height of Mount Everest), 600 km in diameter. Its base would cover the entire state of Arizona. A person standing on its summit would have no visual indication of being on a mountain—the slope is so gentle and the base so wide that the horizon would be below the edge of the summit, hidden by the planet’s curvature. Mars’s lack of plate tectonics is partly responsible for Olympus Mons’s extreme height: because the crust doesn’t move, lava kept piling up in the same spot over billions of years instead of forming a chain of smaller volcanoes.

Valles Marineris: The Grand Canyon Times Ten

Valles Marineris is a system of canyons approximately 4,000 km long, up to 7 km deep, and up to 200 km wide. The Grand Canyon, for comparison, is 446 km long. The origin of Valles Marineris is still debated—it may have formed through geological rifting, the cooling and contraction of the crust, water erosion, or some combination. Whatever the cause, it is a structure of staggering scale.

Hemispheric Dichotomy and the Ancient Ocean Hypothesis

Mars has a striking north–south divide. The northern hemisphere is lower, smoother, and geologically younger. The southern hemisphere is heavily cratered, older, and sits on average about 5 km higher. Scientists have proposed that the northern plains were once the bed of a vast ocean—Oceanus Borealis—billions of years ago. Recent orbital observations identified what some researchers describe as a “bathtub ring”—a consistent elevation line of mineral deposits potentially marking the ancient shoreline (Citron et al., 2018). The debate is ongoing, but the evidence continues to accumulate.

Polar Ice Caps

Both poles host layered ice deposits. The north polar cap is primarily water ice with a seasonal carbon-dioxide frost layer. The south polar cap has a larger permanent dry-ice component. Each spring, as CO₂ sublimates—transitions directly from solid to gas—trapped gas jets erupt through the ice, dragging dark dust up in plumes. From orbit, these formations resemble dark spiders spreading across the white ice. They are officially called araneiform terrain, which is Latin for spider-shaped. Mars has spiders at its poles. Real ones. Made of gas and frost.

Leave a comment

The Atmosphere: What We Lost and What Remains

Composition and Pressure

The Martian atmosphere is 95.3% carbon dioxide, 2.6% nitrogen, 1.9% argon, and trace amounts of oxygen, water vapor, and methane. The surface pressure averages around 610 pascals—less than 1% of Earth’s sea-level pressure of 101,325 pascals. For context: the summit of Mount Everest, where humans struggle to breathe, has atmospheric pressure of about 33,700 pascals. Mars’s surface pressure is about 55 times lower than that.

This extremely low pressure means that exposed liquid water cannot exist at the surface—it would either freeze or boil off almost instantly, depending on temperature. It also means that the atmosphere provides almost no thermal insulation, and temperatures swing wildly: from about -125°C at the poles in winter to +20°C at the equator on a summer afternoon. The global average is around -60°C.

Dust Storms: The Atmospheric Wildcard

Martian dust storms are the largest in the solar system. Regional storms are common; global dust storms—engulfing the entire planet—occur every few Martian years. During a global storm, the sky turns from its normal butterscotch-orange to a near-opaque brown, and solar energy reaching the surface drops dramatically. The 2018 global dust storm ended the Opportunity rover’s 15-year mission when its solar panels could no longer generate enough power. Any future human mission must account for storm survival—both energy management (nuclear power sources are preferred over solar for this reason) and toxicity management (Martian dust contains perchlorates, thyroid-disrupting compounds that would be a health hazard if inhaled or ingested).

Making Oxygen: The MOXIE Miracle

One of the most significant demonstrations of our era happened on Mars in 2021. The Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) aboard Perseverance used solid-oxide electrolysis to convert Martian CO₂ into oxygen. Between 2021 and 2023, MOXIE ran 16 experiments, producing a total of 122 grams of oxygen—including a single run that produced 9.8 grams in one hour (Hecht et al., 2023).

That 122 grams is not enough to breathe for more than a few hours. But it is a proof of concept for the technology that could, scaled up, provide breathable oxygen and rocket oxidizer for a human mission. NASA estimates that a crewed mission would need to produce about 25 metric tons of oxygen for rocket propellant alone. MOXIE scaled up approximately 200 times would begin to approach that capacity. The engineering path from here to there is long but real.

Our Robot Scouts: The Current Fleet at Mars

Surface Missions

Curiosity (NASA, landed August 2012): Now in its 14th year of operations in Gale Crater, Curiosity has traveled over 36.86 km and climbed more than 740 meters in elevation up the slopes of Mount Sharp. It analyzes rock chemistry using laser spectroscopy (ChemCam) and a chemistry laboratory suite (SAM). It discovered the first confirmed complex organic molecules on Mars in 2015 and continues to find new chemical signatures. In April 2026, scientists announced the detection of benzothiophene in Curiosity rock samples—organic sulfur compounds that, on Earth, are associated with biological activity, though abiotic origins remain possible.

Perseverance (NASA, landed February 2021): Operating in Jezero Crater—a 49-km-wide ancient lake with a preserved river delta—Perseverance carries six science instruments and demonstrated the MOXIE oxygen production experiment. As of July 2025, it has collected 33 of 43 possible sample tubes, including igneous, sedimentary, and atmosphere samples awaiting a future return mission. Its July 2024 find at “Cheyava Falls”—a rock displaying features interpreted as possible ancient biosignatures—generated significant scientific discussion. Perseverance’s autonomous navigation system, Enhanced Autonomous Navigation (ENav), handles more than 90% of driving without human input, enabling faster traverses.

Zhurong (CNSA, landed May 2021): China’s first Mars rover, part of the Tianwen-1 mission, operated in Utopia Planitia in the northern lowlands. It entered a hibernation mode in May 2022 for winter and did not successfully resume operations, though the orbiter portion of Tianwen-1 continues operating.

Active Orbiters

• Mars Odyssey (NASA, 2001–present): Over 24 years in orbit; first detected evidence of subsurface water ice using gamma-ray spectroscopy. Serves as communication relay for surface rovers.

• Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter—MRO (NASA, 2006–present): Carries HiRISE, the most powerful camera ever sent to another planet (resolution to 30 cm/pixel). Has mapped landing sites, tracked seasonal changes, and identified possible recurring slope lineae (darkening streaks that may involve briny water flows).

• MAVEN (NASA, 2014–present, status uncertain): Studied atmospheric escape processes, directly measuring how the solar wind strips Mars’s atmosphere. Lost contact in December 2025 and as of this episode’s air date, has not been recovered. Its loss highlights the fragility of our relay infrastructure at Mars.

• Mars Express (ESA, 2004–present): Europe’s longest-running Mars mission. Has detected subsurface radar reflections beneath the south polar cap that some scientists interpret as liquid water (though debated). Still healthy on fuel, potentially operable for another decade.

• ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter—TGO (ESA/Roscosmos, 2016–present): Provides the most precise catalog of Martian atmospheric gases, including methane measurements, and serves as a relay for surface missions.

• Hope Probe (UAE, 2021–present): Studies the global Martian atmosphere and weather systems, providing the first full-day, global views of Martian weather.

• Tianwen-1 orbiter (CNSA, 2021–present): Continues mapping Mars and studying its magnetic field and atmosphere.

  The Road to Humans on Mars: Physics, Medicine, and Money

  The Launch Window Problem

  You cannot launch to Mars whenever you want. Because Earth and Mars orbit the Sun at different speeds, the minimum-energy trajectory—a Hohmann transfer ellipse—aligns only once every approximately 26 months. Missing that window means waiting two more years. This constraint shapes everything: mission planning, supply deliveries, crew rotation, and abort options. The 2026 window— the one you may have heard about in relation to SpaceX’s original Mars ambitions—is one such opportunity.

  Transit Challenges

  The journey from Earth to Mars takes between 7 and 9 months using current chemical propulsion. A full mission—transit, surface stay, and return—lasts approximately 2.5 to 3 years. During transit:

  • Radiation: Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) and solar energetic particles (SEPs) constantly bombard the spacecraft. RAD data from Curiosity’s cruise to Mars calculated approximately 0.33 sieverts one-way—meaning a round trip exceeds 0.66 Sv, against NASA’s 1-Sv career limit (Zeitlin et al., 2013). A 2024 study from University College London also identified significant kidney damage risk from GCR exposure combined with microgravity (Siew et al., 2024).

  • Microgravity: Seven months of near-weightlessness causes measurable bone density loss, muscle atrophy, cardiovascular deconditioning, and vision problems (intracranial pressure changes).

  • Communications delay: Radio signals take 3 to 22 minutes one-way to traverse the Earth-Mars distance, depending on orbital position. Real-time communication is impossible; the mission must be largely autonomous, and medical emergencies must be handled without mission control input.

  • Psychological factors: Crew isolation, confinement, and the knowledge that no rescue is possible creates unique mental health challenges. Studies on analog environments (Antarctica, submarines, ISS long-duration missions) are informing crew selection and mission design.

  Landing: The Thin Atmosphere Problem

  Landing heavy payloads on Mars is one of the hardest engineering problems in space exploration. The atmosphere is too thick to ignore (it creates dangerous heat through friction) but too thin to use as a brake alone. Every Mars landing to date has used some combination of aeroshells, parachutes, retrorockets, and landing legs. Curiosity used a sky crane—a hovering rocket stage that lowered the rover on cables. Perseverance improved on this with Terrain Relative Navigation, allowing it to adjust its landing position in real time by comparing camera imagery to pre-loaded maps, landing within 5 meters of its target. For a crewed Starship, the landing challenge scales enormously—landing a 100-metric-ton vehicle on Mars using only rockets is something that has never been tested at scale anywhere.

  Life Support and In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

  A human crew on Mars cannot survive on supplies from Earth alone—the mass and cost are prohibitive. The solution is ISRU: using Martian resources. Key applications:

  • Oxygen production: MOXIE demonstrated CO₂ electrolysis. Scaled-up versions are the baseline plan.

  • Water: Subsurface ice deposits exist at multiple latitudes. Mining and processing this ice is theoretically feasible with sufficient energy.

  • Fuel production: The Sabatier process combines CO₂ from the atmosphere with hydrogen (from water) to produce methane and water. SpaceX’s plan depends entirely on producing methane propellant on Mars for the Starship return trip. This must be operational before humans arrive; no fuel, no return.

  • Food: Mars-surface agriculture remains a long-term challenge. Perchlorates in the soil are toxic to plants; soil treatment or hydroponic/aeroponic systems would be required.

Who Is Going—and Why?

NASA’s Plan

NASA’s current architecture focuses first on the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission —retrieving Perseverance’s cached rock cores and returning them to Earth for analysis with instruments impossible to send to Mars. The mission, developed in collaboration with ESA, has faced significant budget and schedule pressures, with the original mid-2030s return date in flux. The samples include material from the Jezero delta and ancient crustal terrains that predate Mars’s wet period—material of extraordinary scientific value.

For crewed missions, NASA studies envision a human landing in the 2030s, dependent on continued development of: the Space Launch System for crew transport; nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) that could cut transit time to 3–4 months; surface habitats; and ISRU systems. Nuclear thermal propulsion works by heating propellant—typically hydrogen—using a nuclear reactor rather than chemical combustion, achieving about twice the efficiency (specific impulse) of the best chemical rockets. Halving the transit time substantially reduces radiation exposure and consumable mass.

SpaceX and the Shifting Timeline

SpaceX’s vision is far more ambitious in scale. Elon Musk’s stated goal is a self-sustaining city on Mars with a population of one million by 2050. The vehicle is Starship—a fully reusable, 120-meter-tall rocket system capable of carrying up to 100–150 metric tons of cargo to Mars. The architecture requires:

1. Orbital refueling: Starship launches to Earth orbit, then multiple “tanker” Starships refuel it before the trans-Mars injection burn. This technology has not yet been demonstrated at scale.

2. Autonomous landing on Mars: Starship must land propulsively, using its engines, on a surface it has never been to, with no human pilot and no real-time ground control.

3. On-Mars propellant production: The entire return-trip fuel must be manufactured on Mars using ISRU before the crew arrives.

4. Reusability at scale: The plan only becomes economically viable if Starship achieves reliability comparable to SpaceX’s Falcon 9.

SpaceX originally targeted five uncrewed Starship missions to Mars in the 2026 launch window, focusing on demonstrating reliable landing. In May 2025, Musk gave these a 50% probability of making the window. Then, in February 2026, SpaceX announced a delay of five to seven years in its Mars ambitions, prioritizing lunar missions under NASA contracts. The next viable Mars launch window after 2026 is 2028. If SpaceX targets that, crewed missions may not follow until the early 2030s aligning more closely with NASA’s timeline than Musk’s original 2029 human landing target.

Why Does It Matter?

The arguments for human Mars exploration fall into several categories. The existential argument, championed by Musk, holds that a multiplanetary civilization is a hedge against extinction—ensuring that a single catastrophe (asteroid impact, pandemic, nuclear war) cannot end the human story. The scientific argument holds that human geologists on Mars would accomplish in a week what our robots accomplish in a year. The technological argument notes that the challenges of Mars will drive breakthroughs in propulsion, medicine, energy, and life support that benefit humanity on Earth. And the philosophical argument is simply that exploration is what we do—it is the defining characteristic of our species, from the first migration out of Africa to the first Moon landing.

Share

📢 Share this post! If this gave you something to think about, forward it to a friend, a student, or anyone who looks up at the night sky and wonders. atomicxs.substack.com

Quick Recommendation Shout-Outs

LaReyorkina Podcast—A podcast by and for the Latino community in New York. Smart, real, and deeply human conversations. Follow them wherever you listen to podcasts.

Bakeandlu—If you need custom cakes and sweet creations made with real love and artistry, Bakeandlu is your place. Support small, eat delicious.

Imprime n Serio—Your professional printing needs, done seriously. From flyers to large format, Imprime n Serio delivers quality you can hold in your hands.

LityMed—Medical resources and information for the Latino community. Because healthcare information should be accessible in your language, in your context.

Myth-Busting: Mars Edition

Myth 1: “Mars is too far away to ever reach with human beings.”

False. The physics are well understood and the engineering, while enormously challenging, is within the bounds of what current or near-future technology can accomplish. SpaceX’s Starship and NASA’s nuclear thermal propulsion concepts are both real, funded development programs. The question is not whether humans can reach Mars, but when and at what cost.

Myth 2: “Mars was always a dead, dry planet.”

Almost certainly false. The geological evidence—river deltas, mineral deposits that only form in water, ancient lake beds including Jezero Crater—strongly supports the existence of liquid water on Mars’s surface for extended periods, possibly more than a billion years early in its history. Mars had a past that may have been hospitable to life. What it became is the result of the loss of its magnetic field and subsequent atmospheric erosion.

Myth 3: “We don’t have any confirmed signs of life from Mars.”

Correct—but deliberately nuanced. We have found organic molecules (Curiosity, Perseverance), possible biosignature patterns (Cheyava Falls rock, July 2024), and conditions that were once habitable. None of this constitutes confirmed evidence of life. Scientists are careful to say “possible” and “consistent with” rather than “proof.” Science works at the pace of evidence. The story is not over.

Myth 4: “Radiation will definitely kill Mars astronauts.”

Radiation is a serious concern—not a death sentence. NASA’s RAD data shows a round trip to Mars would use about two-thirds of an astronaut’s career radiation limit. That means it is manageable with careful mission design: shorter transit times via nuclear propulsion, shielded sleeping quarters, scheduling extravehicular activities during quiet solar periods, and using regolith (Martian soil) as radiation shielding material for surface habitats. It is a risk to be engineered around, not a wall.

Myth 5: “Mars colonization is just Elon Musk’s personal fantasy.”

Mars colonization and human exploration of Mars are goals of NASA, ESA, the Chinese National Space Agency, and numerous research institutions worldwide—with or without SpaceX. The reason SpaceX gets headlines is that it has produced the most concrete engineering hardware (Starship) toward this goal. But the scientific and institutional case for human Mars exploration predates Musk by decades and will outlast any single company or personality.

🎧 Further Listening & Exploration

• NASA Mars Exploration Program: mars.nasa.gov—the comprehensive hub for all active and past Mars missions, with raw image archives and science updates.

• NASA InSight Mission: science.nasa.gov/mission/insight/—full archive of InSight seismic data and scientific results.

• Planetary.org—The Planetary Society publishes excellent, rigorously fact-checked science journalism about Mars exploration.

• NASA JPL Podcast “On a Mission”—Episodes on Perseverance, Curiosity, and the science of Mars exploration.

• “The Case for Mars” by Robert Zubrin (1996, updated 2011)—The foundational text for the human Mars exploration argument. Still highly relevant.

• “Packing for Mars” by Mary Roach (2010)—A deeply human, often hilarious look at what it actually takes to survive in space. Essential context for all the engineering we discussed.

References

Note on verification: All references below were verified as of May 24, 2026. URLs may have changed.

• Antonangeli, Daniele, et al. 2023. “Geophysical Evidence for an Enriched Molten Silicate Layer Above Mars’s Core.” Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01182-x

• Duran, C., et al. 2023. “Spin State and Deep Interior Structure of Mars from InSight Radio Tracking.” Nature 619 (July): 494–498. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06150-0

• Hecht, Michael, et al. 2023. “MOXIE: Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment on the Perseverance Rover.” Science Advances. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh1330

• NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 2025. “NASA’s Perseverance Mars Rover Ready to Roll for Miles in Years Ahead.” December 17, 2025. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-perseverance-mars-rover-ready-to-roll-for-miles-in-years-ahead/

• NASA. 2026. “NASA’s Perseverance, Curiosity Panoramas Capture Two Sides of Mars.” April 28, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/planets/mars/nasas-perseverance-curiosity-panoramas-capture-two-sides-of-mars/

• Siew, K., Nestler, K.A., Nelson, C. et al. Cosmic kidney disease: an integrated pan-omic, physiological and morphological study into spaceflight-induced renal dysfunction. Nat Commun 15, 4923 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49212-1

• Space.com. 2026. “NASA Won’t Give Up Hope on Silent MAVEN Mars Probe.” March 20, 2026. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/nasa-wont-give-up-hope-on-silent-maven-mars-probe

• Wall, Michael. 2025. “NASA Loses Contact with MAVEN Mars Orbiter.” Space.com, December 9, 2025. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/nasas-loses-contact-with-maven-mars-orbiter-on-the-far-side-of-the-red-planet

• Wikipedia. 2026. “Curiosity (Rover).” Last modified May 2, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)

• Wikipedia. 2026. “Perseverance (Rover).” Last modified April 21, 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_(rover)

• Wikipedia. 2026. “SpaceX Mars Colonization Program.” Last modified 2026. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_colonization_program

• Wikipedia. 2026. “Human Mission to Mars.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars

• Zeitlin, Cary, et al. 2013. “Measurements of Energetic Particle Radiation in Transit to Mars on the Mars Science Laboratory.” Science 340 (6136): 1080–1084. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1235989

Legal & Editorial Note

All information in this post is presented for educational and informational purposes only. Atomicxs Podcast and atomicxs.substack.com are independent productions. All scientific claims are based on peer-reviewed literature, NASA/ESA official communications, or established science journalism as of the publication date of May 26, 2026. Mission timelines and spacecraft status information may change; readers are encouraged to consult nasa.gov, esa.int, and their respective national space agency websites for the most current status. No financial or investment advice is implied by any discussion of commercial space companies. Sponsor mentions are paid promotional arrangements; Atomicxs editorial independence is maintained at all times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without attribution.

Atomicxs Podcast Blog—Where curiosity meets science. Next Episode: Relativity.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs Podcast—Season 2, Episode 1 Read time: ~18–22 minutes

⚡ TL;DR

Four humans just rounded the Moon for the first time in over five decades. The Artemis II crew — Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen—splashed down off the coast of San Diego on April 10, 2026, after a 9-day, 1-hour, 31-minute, 35-second mission that carried them 252,756 miles from home (NASA, 2026a; Chang & Berger, 2026).

They are the first humans to fly toward the Moon since Apollo 17 in December 1972. Christina Koch is the first woman ever to do it. Victor Glover is the first Black astronaut. Jeremy Hansen is the first Canadian—and the first non-American—ever to leave low-Earth orbit (NASA, 2026b).

The Moon they visited is not the gentle silver disc of poetry. It is a vacuum-locked, radiation-bombarded, dust-sandblasted world where a single step from sunlight to shadow drops the temperature by 300°C, where the dust is sharp enough to act like asbestos, and where moonquakes can shake for hours instead of seconds (Williams, 2024; Cooper, 1971; Watters et al., 2019).

A week before launch, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman unveiled “Ignition”—a $20 billion, seven-year plan to build a permanent base near the Moon’s south pole, with crewed landings every six months, nuclear propulsion to Mars by 2028, and the explicit goal of staying this time (Isaacman, 2026; Berger, 2026; Pillsbury, 2026).

The Moon is not the destination. The Moon is the rehearsal. The destination is Mars—and that’s what the next episode will be about.

“The goal this time is not flags and footprints. This time, the goal is to stay.”—Jared Isaacman, NASA Administrator (Berger, 2026)

🎧 Listen

Hear the full Spanish podcast:

Atomicxs Podcast–S2E1: “Por que volvemos a la Luna? Explicando Artemis.” Search for Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify, and look for the episode.

What just happened (in plain English)

Imagine, for a moment, that you’ve never heard of NASA. You’ve never seen a rocket launch. You don’t know what an astronaut does for a living.

Now imagine someone walks up to you and says: “in April 2026, four people climbed inside a metal cone, sat on top of a building-sized fire-breathing tower, were thrown so hard into the sky that they reached the Moon, looped around the back of it where no human eye had ever looked, and then fell back through the atmosphere fast enough to make the air glow plasma-hot before parachuting into the ocean. They were fine.”

You’d think they were lying. Or insane. Or both.

But that is, more or less, what happened between April 1 and April 10, 2026 (NASA, 2026a).

And here’s the part that bothers me, the part that should bother all of us: most people didn’t notice.

The same week, your social feed was full of celebrity gossip, political shouting, and meme’s about Euphoria. (If you don’t know what Euphoria is, don’t worry. We don’t know that either!) Meanwhile, four people—three Americans and one Canadian—became the most distant humans alive (NBC News, 2026).

So let’s slow down. Let’s pay attention. Because what they did is, by any reasonable measure, one of the most extraordinary things our species has accomplished in the 21st century. And what comes next is even bigger.

Subscribe now

Meet the Crew

Four people. Different paths. One spacecraft.

Reid Wiseman—Commander

A former U.S. Navy test pilot. Flew F/A-18 fighters off aircraft carriers before NASA selected him in 2009. Spent 165 days on the International Space Station in 2014. Quiet, technical, the kind of person you want flying you anywhere—but especially around the Moon (NASA, 2026b).

Victor Glover—Pilot

Naval aviator, test pilot, ISS veteran. The first Black astronaut to fly to the Moon—a fact that is both an obvious milestone and a slightly uncomfortable indictment of how long it took (NASA, 2026b).

When asked once what advice he’d give to kids watching the launch, Glover said something simple: keep showing up. The universe rewards persistence.

Christina Koch—Mission Specialist

Holds the record for the longest time spent in space by a woman: 328 days on the ISS. Co-piloted the first all-female spacewalk in 2019. And now, the first woman to ever fly toward the Moon (NASA, 2026b).

There’s a generation of girls who watched the launch and saw, for the first time, that an “astronaut going to the Moon” looks like them. That’s not symbolism. That’s recruitment.

Jeremy Hansen—Mission Specialist

Royal Canadian Air Force pilot. Selected as a Canadian astronaut in 2009. Has never flown in space before. His first mission is going to the Moon. Imagine that résumé entry (NASA, 2026b).

He is the first Canadian, and the first non-American, to leave low-Earth orbit since the dawn of human spaceflight. Not bad for a kid from Ontario.

Their spacecraft was named Integrity. Good name for something that has to keep you alive in a vacuum.

What is the SLS, and why is it the size of a building?

You can’t go to the Moon in a small rocket. You can’t go to the Moon in a medium rocket. The Moon is roughly 384,400 kilometers away—about ten times the circumference of Earth—and to get there, you need to overcome Earth’s gravity, then add enough velocity to coast to lunar distance, then slow down enough to not slam into anything (NASA, 2024a).

Enter the Space Launch System, or SLS.

Picture a 30-story building lying on its side. Now stand it back up. That’s roughly the SLS—322 feet tall, with four RS-25 engines and two solid rocket boosters that produce 8.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff (NASA, 2024b). That’s about the equivalent of fourteen jumbo jets at full afterburner, all firing in the same direction.

Why so much power? Because the rocket equation is brutal. To lift a heavy spacecraft, you need a lot of fuel. But fuel is heavy, so you need more fuel to lift the fuel, which means more fuel to lift that fuel, and so on, until the math punishes you with what engineers call the tyranny of the rocket equation (Tsiolkovsky, 1903; NASA 2024i).

The SLS is the most powerful rocket NASA has ever flown. And in this case, it worked beautifully. Liftoff occurred on April 1, 2026, at 6:35 p.m. EDT from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39B (NASA, 2026a).

There was no drama. The rocket did exactly what a rocket is supposed to do, which—given that rockets are basically controlled explosions—is itself an act of remarkable engineering.

What is Orion, and why does it look like a cone?

Sitting on top of the SLS was the Orion spacecraft—a roughly cone-shaped capsule about 16 feet in diameter, built by Lockheed Martin under contract with NASA (NASA, 2024c).

Orion is where the humans live for the duration of the mission. It has a pressurized cabin about the size of a small van, life support systems, navigation computers, and—critically—a heat shield on the bottom.

Why a cone? Because of how reentry works.

When you come back from deep space, you’re not just falling. You’re moving. Fast. Specifically, you’re moving at about 25,000 miles per hour, or roughly 32 times the speed of sound (NASA, 2024d). When you hit the atmosphere at that speed, the air doesn’t gracefully part for you. It compresses violently in front of the spacecraft, heating up to about 3,000°F—hotter than molten lava, almost half the surface temperature of the Sun (NASA, 2026c).

The cone shape, with the wide blunt end facing down, distributes that heat across a broad surface area, where the heat shield can absorb it and slowly burn away in a controlled manner. Think of it as the world’s most expensive ablative sacrifice.

If the cone were pointed forward instead of backward, it would punch through the atmosphere like a spear—and melt. The blunt-end-first geometry was first proven in the 1950s by aerodynamicists H. Julian Allen and Alfred Eggers, who realized that sharper is worse, blunter is better when you’re trying to survive reentry (Allen & Eggers, 1958). That insight is why every crewed spacecraft from Mercury to Apollo to Orion looks vaguely like a kitchen funnel.

It’s not glamorous. But it works.

Share

How do you actually get to the Moon? (Spoiler: not in a straight line)

This is the part that cracked my brain when we first learned it.

You cannot point a rocket at the Moon and fire it. The Moon is moving. Earth is moving. Both are spinning. The Sun is dragging the whole system around the galaxy. Nothing is standing still.

What you actually do is something called a trans-lunar injection burn (NASA, 2024e).

Here’s the basic idea: First, the rocket lifts you into a parking orbit around Earth. You go around the planet a couple of times, getting your bearings. Then, at exactly the right moment, you fire your engine in the direction of motion—boosting your orbit until it stretches all the way out to where the Moon will be by the time you get there.

It’s like passing a ball to someone running across a field. You don’t aim where they are. You aim where they’re going to be.

The Artemis II crew completed their trans-lunar injection on April 2, 2026, the day after launch (NASA, 2026d). After that, they were on a long, graceful coast—gravity doing most of the work—for the four-day trip out to lunar distance.

There is something almost spiritual about this. The same physics Newton wrote down in 1687 is what guided four human beings to the Moon in 2026. The math hasn’t changed. Only our willingness to use it has.

The Far Side: where no human eye had ever looked

Here is something most people don’t know: The Moon always shows us the same face. Always. Your whole life, every Moon you’ve ever seen, has been the same 59% of the lunar surface (Williams, 2024).

The other side—the far side (not “dark side”; that’s a Pink Floyd thing, both sides get sunlight)—has been a mystery for almost all of human history. It was first photographed by the Soviet Luna 3 probe in 1959 (NASA, 2025). But until April 6, 2026, no human eyes had ever seen it directly.

Why does the Moon always show us the same face? It’s a phenomenon called tidal locking (Murray & Dermott, 1999). The Moon’s rotation period—the time it takes to spin once on its axis—is exactly the same as its orbital period—the time it takes to go around Earth. Both are about 27.3 days. So as the Moon revolves, it rotates in perfect sync, always keeping the same hemisphere pointed our way.

It’s not coincidence. It’s the long, slow result of billions of years of tidal forces between Earth and Moon dragging on each other until they reached this stable configuration. Most large moons in our solar system are tidally locked to their parent planets. Pluto and its moon Charon are mutually tidally locked—they always show each other the same face. It is the gravitational equivalent of two dancers who have been holding hands so long that they’ve forgotten how to let go.

When Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen swung around to the far side, for about 40 minutes, all radio contact with Earth was blocked by the Moon itself (NASA, 2026d). Mission control could do nothing but wait. The crew was, in the most literal sense possible, alone—more alone than any humans have been in over five decades.

When they emerged on the other side, the radio crackled back to life. “Houston, Integrity. Reading you loud and clear.”

To think about that moment we get chills.

Share Atomicxs Podcast

The Record, the Eclipse, and Coming Home

While they were out there, the Artemis II crew did something the previous record-holders—the Apollo 13 crew—accomplished by accident in 1970, except this time on purpose: they became the most distant humans from Earth in history. At their farthest point, Orion was 252,756 miles from home (NASA, 2026e).

For perspective: that is more than the average distance between Earth and the Moon. They flew past the Moon in a wide arc and looped back.

They also witnessed something almost no human ever has: a solar eclipse from deep space. Their orbit took them into the Moon’s shadow at one point, and from inside that shadow, they watched the Moon block out the Sun (NASA, 2026d). On Earth, an eclipse is a rare and beautiful event. Out there, in the silence, with the eclipse occurring against a backdrop of stars, it must have been something else entirely.

The crew named two craters during the mission—including one for Commander Wiseman’s late wife (Chang & Berger, 2026). That naming was approved by NASA, and the Atomicxs team thinks it is one of the most quietly beautiful gestures in the history of spaceflight.

The return was harrowing. Reentry began at 7:33 p.m. EDT on April 10, 2026. At about 400,000 feet altitude, Orion entered a planned six-minute communications blackout as plasma formed around the capsule during peak heating (NASA, 2026c). The crew experienced up to 3.9 g’s of deceleration. The heat shield reached approximately 3,000°F.

Then drogue chutes. Then main parachutes. Then splashdown at 8:07 p.m. EDT, off the coast of San Diego (NASA, 2026a).

Wiseman’s first words on the radio after splashdown:

“We are stable. Four green crew members.”

Four green crew members. They were home.

Total mission duration: 9 days, 1 hour, 31 minutes, 35 seconds (NBC News, 2026).

Total distance traveled: 694,481 miles.

“I think the path to the surface is open now. This was an incredible test of an incredible machine.”—Amit Kshatriya, NASA Associate Administrator (Chang & Berger, 2026)

Now Let’s Talk About the Moon Itself

Here’s what most people don’t realize:

The Moon is trying to kill you.

Kind of actively, but not maliciously, but with the patient indifference of physics. Every aspect of the lunar environment, from a human-engineering standpoint, is hostile. And if we are going to build a base there—which is the plan—we need to understand exactly what we are signing up for.

Most of what follows comes from a remarkable resource called Lunar Engineering 101, produced by the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium (LSIC), managed by the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (LSIC, 2024). It is required viewing for anyone designing hardware that will operate on the lunar surface, and we cannot recommend it enough.

Let me walk you through the ten ways the Moon will try to break your equipment, your body, and possibly your mind.

1. Illumination: The Day That Won’t End

A lunar day is not 24 hours. It is roughly 29 Earth days long, which means the Moon experiences approximately two weeks of continuous sunlight followed by two weeks of continuous darkness (Williams, 2024).

Two weeks of sunlight sounds nice. It is not. Without an atmosphere to filter or scatter the light, surface temperatures in direct sun reach about 127°C (260°F)—hot enough to boil water, twice over. Then in shadow, temperatures plunge to about -173°C (-280°F), cold enough to liquefy oxygen (Williams, 2024).

The brutal part is not the extremes themselves. It is the gradient. At the lunar terminator—the boundary between day and night—you can step from full sunlight into deep shadow over the course of a few meters and experience a 300°C swing in temperature (Greenhagen et al., 2010). No metal alloy on Earth was designed to handle that without expansion-and-contraction-induced fatigue. Every bolt, seal, gasket, lubricant, and electronic component must be redesigned from scratch.

2. Radiation: A Sun Without Sunscreen

On Earth, two things protect us from the worst of cosmic radiation: the atmosphere (which absorbs ultraviolet, X-rays, and high-energy particles) and the magnetosphere (which deflects charged particles from the solar wind and beyond).

The Moon has neither (NASA, 2024f).

Two kinds of radiation matter here. The first is the solar wind—a continuous stream of charged particles emitted by the Sun. The second, more concerning category is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)—extremely high-energy particles that originate from supernovae, active galactic nuclei, and the most violent regions of the universe. GCRs are so energetic that they can pass through metal shielding and damage DNA directly (Cucinotta et al., 2017).

This is not theoretical. Apollo astronauts reported seeing flashes of light when their eyes were closed—the perceptual signature of cosmic rays passing through their retinas and triggering neurons directly (Pinsky et al., 1974). Imagine the universe shooting through your eyeballs hard enough to make you see it.

For a 10-day mission like Artemis II, the cumulative dose is manageable. For a permanent lunar base, the engineering solution being explored is regolith shielding—burying habitats under several meters of lunar soil—and constant monitoring for solar particle events, sudden bursts from the Sun that can deliver lethal doses within hours (LSIC, 2024).

3. Reduced Gravity: A Gentler Pull, A Harder Body

The Moon’s gravity is approximately one-sixth of Earth’s (Williams, 2024). If you weigh 60 kg here, you’d weigh 10 kg there. Sounds delightful.

It is not—at least not for extended stays.

The human body, refined over millions of years for terrestrial gravity, depends on the constant load of 1 g to maintain bone density and muscle mass. In low gravity, muscles atrophy because they don’t have to work hard. Bones lose density at a rate of 1–2% per month in microgravity, similar to severe osteoporosis (NASA, 2017). Ouch! The cardiovascular system adapts by reducing cardiac output, which is fine in space—until you come home and your heart can’t keep up. Not good either!

Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface had to abandon walking and adopt a kind of bouncing locomotion (Cooper, 1971). On Earth, walking depends on gravity returning your foot to the ground quickly enough to stride. On the Moon, it doesn’t, so you bounce. Imagine the entire history of human bipedalism made obsolete in an afternoon.

4. Terrain: A World Frozen in Mid-Battle

From Earth, the Moon looks smooth. But it is not.

The lunar surface is covered in impact craters of every imaginable size, from kilometers across to microscopic, each one preserved exactly as it formed because there is no wind, no water, no erosion (Heiken et al., 1991). Whatever happened in the past four billion years, the Moon remembers it perfectly.

Rocks have sharp edges because nothing has ever weathered them. Slopes are unpredictable. The lunar south pole—where the planned base will be located—is particularly rugged, with some of the oldest impact craters in the solar system, including Shackleton crater, whose interior has been in permanent shadow for billions of years.

Every rover and habitat must be engineered for terrain that does not forgive.

5. Lunar Dust: Ground Glass That Floats

This is, no exaggeration, my favorite. And the most terrifying.

On Earth, dust is rounded. Wind, water, and friction smooth particles over time. Earth dust, under a microscope, is mostly inoffensive.

Lunar dust, under a microscope, looks like broken glass (Heiken et al., 1991). Each particle has sharp, irregular, jagged edges in impossible angles—because nothing has ever weathered them down.

Apollo astronauts who returned to the lunar module after EVAs found that lunar dust had begun abrading the seals of their suits within hours (Cooper, 1971). It got into everything: hinges, gaskets, helmet visors, breathing apparatus. The astronauts coughed it up for days.

Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the Moon in December 1972, said in his post-mission debrief:

“One of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material...” (Cooper, 1971)

But it gets worse. Lunar dust is electrostatically charged. Because the lunar surface is exposed to solar wind, it accumulates static charge—and the charged dust levitates, especially near the terminator, where it has been observed by Apollo cameras as a faint glow (Stubbs et al., 2007). It clings to solar panels (reducing efficiency), to optical sensors (blinding instruments), to articulated joints (jamming mechanisms). If inhaled, it stays in the lungs—and some toxicologists worry it may behave like asbestos (LSIC, 2024).

We will not have a permanent presence on the Moon until we solve the dust problem. There is no way around this.

6. Impact Hazards: Constant Cosmic Bombardment

On Earth, meteoroids burn up in the atmosphere—the meteors we romanticize as “shooting stars.”

The Moon has no atmosphere, so every grain of cosmic debris reaches the surface intact, often at velocities of 20–70 km/s (Williams, 2024). At those speeds, a millimeter-sized particle has more than enough energy to perforate metal.

Large impacts are rare. Micrometeoroid impacts are constant. Every exposed surface—solar panels, antennas, sensors, suits—is being slowly sandblasted at the atomic level. The phenomenon is called space weathering, and it is a real, measurable degradation process that anything on the Moon must be designed to endure (Pieters & Noble, 2016).

7. Moonquakes: Tremors That Last for Hours

When Apollo astronauts left seismometers on the lunar surface in 1969, scientists expected to detect very little. The Moon was assumed to be a dead world: no plate tectonics, no active volcanoes, no obvious source of seismic activity.

The instruments returned data anyway. The Moon shakes (Watters et al., 2019).

There are several types of moonquakes. Deep moonquakes are caused by tidal stress from Earth’s gravity, which stretches and squeezes the Moon cyclically. Shallow moonquakes are far more troubling—they appear to be caused by thermal stress and ongoing contraction of the lunar interior, and recent analysis of Apollo seismic data suggests some are linked to active fault scarps (Watters et al., 2019).

But here’s the part that should worry every lunar architect:

Shallow moonquakes can last for hours. Earth quakes last seconds to minutes. Moonquakes can ring for an entire afternoon (Nakamura, 2005).

Why? Because the Moon is bone dry. On Earth, water in rocks acts as a damper, absorbing seismic waves quickly. The Moon has almost no water in its bulk rock, so seismic waves bounce around inside it like a struck bell—for hours.

Imagine designing a habitat that has to withstand not a brief shake, but a 3-hour vibration event. That’s the challenge.

8. Surface Charging: An Electrical Trap

The lunar surface, exposed to the solar wind, accumulates electrostatic charge—and the day and night sides charge differently, creating substantial potential differences (Halekas et al., 2008).

When a rover, an astronaut, or a lander crosses these regions—particularly the terminator—significant electrostatic discharges can occur. These discharges damage sensitive electronics, disrupt scientific instruments, and produce mysterious effects like the “lunar dust glow” mentioned earlier (Stubbs et al., 2007). It is, in essence, a planet-wide static electricity problem.

9. Vacuum and Cold Welding: When Metal Becomes One

The Moon’s “atmosphere,” properly called an exosphere, is so thin it is functionally a vacuum (Williams, 2024).

In a vacuum, materials behave strangely. Most dramatically, two clean pieces of the same metal, when brought into contact, can fuse permanently together at the atomic level. This is called cold welding, and it happens because there is no oxide layer to keep the atoms apart (Merstallinger et al., 2009).

On Earth, every metal surface has a microscopic layer of oxide that forms when the metal reacts with atmospheric oxygen. That layer prevents direct atomic bonding when two metal surfaces touch. In a vacuum, with no oxygen to form an oxide, two clean pieces of metal that touch can become a single piece.

This is a real engineering problem for lunar mechanisms. Every hinge, every bearing, every moving metal part has to be designed assuming cold welding might occur. It sounds like science fiction. It is physics.

10. Ultraviolet Radiation: A Slow Decay

Without an ozone layer, the Moon’s surface is bombarded by unfiltered ultraviolet light from the Sun (NASA, 2024f).

UV degrades materials over time. Polymers—the basis of most modern engineering plastics—become brittle. Rubbers crack. Paints lose their pigments and properties. For a 10-day mission, irrelevant. For a base meant to last decades, every exposed material must be specifically engineered to resist prolonged UV bombardment (LSIC, 2024).

Leave a comment

So... we’re going to live there?

Yes.

That is the plan, and it is happening fast.

On March 24, 2026—a little over a week before Artemis II launched—NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman stood in front of the agency, the industry, and the press and announced Project Ignition: a $20 billion, seven-year plan to build a permanent lunar base near the Moon’s south pole (Isaacman, 2026; Berger, 2026).

This is not a press release. It is a funded program, with named contractors, hardware in development, and a phased timeline (Pillsbury, 2026; Planetary Society, 2026).

Who is Jared Isaacman?

Before going further, let me introduce him properly, because he is one of the most unconventional NASA administrators in history.

Jared Isaacman is 42 years old. He is the 15th Administrator of NASA, confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December 2025. He is a billionaire entrepreneur who founded the digital payment company Shift4 Payments. He is a private pilot with over 8,000 hours of flight time in jet aircraft (Berger, 2026; Wikipedia, 2026).

But here is the part that makes him different: he has been to space twice.

In September 2021, he commanded Inspiration4, the first all-civilian orbital mission, on a SpaceX Crew Dragon. In September 2024, he led Polaris Dawn, where he became the first private citizen to perform a spacewalk (Polaris Program, 2024).

He is, in other words, not a bureaucrat. He is a man who has personally risked his life in a pressure suit in vacuum. That experience, by every account, is shaping his policy decisions.

What Ignition actually says

Let me quote Isaacman directly, because his framing matters:

“NASA is committed to achieving the near-impossible once again, to return to the Moon before the end of President Trump’s term, build a Moon base, establish an enduring presence... The clock is running in this great-power competition, and success or failure will be measured in months, not years.” (Isaacman, 2026)

The plan is divided into three phases (NASA, 2026f; Pillsbury, 2026):

Phase One: Build, Test, Learn (2026–2028)

Cost: $10 billion

Up to 30 robotic landings at the lunar south pole, beginning in 2027, through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program (Planetary Society, 2026). These will include rovers, hoppers, drones, and instrument packages from industry, academia, and international partners. NASA wants the public “tuning in to lunar landings on a near-monthly cadence” (NASA Watch, 2026).

Phase Two: Early Infrastructure (2028–2032)

Cost: TBD, larger

After Artemis IV puts humans back on the surface in 2028, NASA aims for crewed landings every six months, with at least two launch providers (NASA, 2026f). Major international contributions begin, including JAXA’s pressurized rover, which would let astronauts traverse the surface inside a shirtsleeve environment (Planetary Society, 2026).

Phase Three: Permanent Habitation (2032+)

This is where the base in “Moon base” stops being aspirational. Permanent habitats. Local resource utilization (extracting oxygen and water from regolith and ice). Long-term power systems, including potentially fission surface power (Pillsbury, 2026; Isaacman, 2026).

Why the south pole?

Two reasons (NASA, 2024g):

First, the rims of certain craters at the lunar south pole experience near-perpetual sunlight, places literally called “peaks of eternal light.” These provide near-constant solar power, eliminating the two-week-darkness problem.

Second, and arguably more important, the floors of polar craters are in permanent shadow—they have never seen sunlight in billions of years. In those frozen craters, temperatures dip to about -250°C, and water ice has been preserved (Colaprete et al., 2010). NASA’s LCROSS mission confirmed water ice in 2009. Subsequent missions have mapped its distribution.

Lunar water is not just water. It is:

• Drinking water for crew

• Oxygen when split via electrolysis (you breathe the O, you discard the H—or save it)

• Rocket fuel when both H₂ and O₂ are recombined as propellant

A base near accessible lunar water can, in principle, refuel itself. That changes the entire economics of the solar system. Suddenly, the Moon is not just a destination—it is a gas station.

What about the Lunar Gateway?

The previous Artemis architecture centered on a planned space station orbiting the Moon, called Gateway. Astronauts would travel from Earth to Gateway in Orion, then transfer to a lander to descend to the surface (NASA, 2024h).

Isaacman has paused Gateway indefinitely (Planetary Society, 2026; Berger, 2026). The hardware already developed will be repurposed for surface infrastructure. Some engineers disagree with this decision; the debate is ongoing and technical. But the policy is set.

In Isaacman’s own words, captured in a recent interview:

“We can be above the Moon looking down, or we can be on the Moon. You decide what is more important.” (Basenor, 2026)

You don’t have to agree with him to recognize that this is a sharper, more urgent vision than NASA has articulated in decades.

Bonus: The Reactor That Goes to Mars

Get a group subscription

Give a gift subscription

Get 30% off for 1 year

Among the announcements buried in the Ignition rollout was something we have not been able to stop thinking about.

NASA is building Space Reactor-1 Freedom (SR-1)—a nuclear electric propulsion system for deep space (Pillsbury, 2026; Isaacman, 2026).

Why does this matter? Because beyond Jupiter, solar power becomes nearly useless. At the orbit of Saturn, sunlight is about 1% as strong as it is at Earth (NASA, 2017). For long missions to the outer solar system, or for sustained Mars operations, we need a different power source.

NASA experimented with nuclear propulsion in the 1960s under the NERVA program (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications). It was technically successful but was canceled in 1973 due to budget cuts and political pressure (Dewar, 2007).

Now it’s back. SR-1 Freedom is targeted for launch to Mars before the end of 2028, where it will deploy a small fleet of robotic helicopters—descendants of the famous Ingenuity (Pillsbury, 2026)—to scout possible human landing sites.

This is, in plain terms, the precursor to crewed Mars missions.

Which is exactly where Atomicxs is going next time!

What This Means for Us

Let me zoom out, because we think there are a few things worth keeping in mind as we head into a decade where the Moon stops being something we look at and starts being something we live on.

For curious humans:

The Moon is much weirder than the textbook. It has shaking, charging, dust that floats, metal that fuses, and shadows colder than liquid nitrogen. None of this was knowable from Earth alone. Every fact in the Lunar Engineering 101 series exists because someone went there, or sent something there, and looked.

We learn by going. We always have.

For young engineers, scientists, and builders:

The next 10 years will produce more space infrastructure than the previous 50 combined. If you want to work on the Moon—to design dust-resistant joints, radiation-hardened electronics, regolith-mining systems, lunar habitats — there has never been a better time to start. Every problem in Lunar Engineering 101 is a career, waiting for someone to pick it up.

For policymakers and citizens:

$20 billion over 7 years is a lot, but it is roughly 0.05% of the U.S. federal budget annually (NASA, 2026f). For comparison, the Apollo program in current dollars cost about $257 billion (Planetary Society, 2024). Project Ignition is, by historical standards, frugal. Whether it is enough is another question—and one Congress is actively debating.

For everyone:

The four humans of Artemis II went farther from home than any humans alive today. They saw things no one has seen with their own eyes since 1972. They came home safely. And most of the world barely noticed.

Let’s notice. Let’s pay attention. Because what comes next—a permanent lunar base, nuclear propulsion to Mars, the slow assembly of a true spacefaring civilization—will not happen in some imagined future. It is happening now, this decade, in front of our eyes.

The Moon calls. Let’s go.

“I think this has been a gift to the world.”—Amit Kshatriya, NASA Associate Administrator, after the Artemis II splashdown (Chang & Berger, 2026)

Join Atomicxs Podcast Blog’s subscriber chat—Available in the Substack app and on web

📣 Quick Recommendation Shout-Outs

These are not random ads—they’re projects and services the Atomicxs team personally use and love, and that help keep independent science-and-storytelling spaces like Atomicxs alive:

LaReyorkina Podcast – Spanish-language conversations on personal growth, mindset, and self-development. If you like Atomicxs’s blend of story + depth, you’ll feel at home there too.

Bakeandlu – Homemade cookies from Reynosa, México (border town with McAllen, TX). Let’s just say: we have literally flown from Wyoming, crossed the Mexican border, and gone straight for their mostachón de fresa. Enough said.

Imprime n Serio – Advertising and merch from México that “brings your brand to life.” Our Atomicxs mugs, shirts, and swag come from them. Softest sweaters ever.

LityMed – They offer two services: 1) Occupational and personal health services in México for American companies (i.e., Maquilas, etc.), and 2) The kind of holistic, old-school-doctor attention we wish were standard everywhere. Now we fly to see them instead. (Located in Reynosa, México; border town with McAllen, TX)

(Full recommendation stories and details are shared in the podcast audio—here we keep it short and sweet.)

Myth-Busting: Moon Edition

A few myths we gently dismantle in the episode:

“We never went to the Moon—it was filmed in a studio.”

The Apollo missions returned 382 kg of lunar rocks and soil that have been independently analyzed by scientists in dozens of countries (Heiken et al., 1991). The retroreflectors left behind are still used today by laser ranging stations to measure the Earth-Moon distance to millimeter precision (Williams et al., 2012). The Moon landings happened.

“There’s a dark side of the Moon.”

There is a far side, but it gets just as much sunlight as the near side over the course of a lunar day. Pink Floyd took poetic license. (Williams, 2024)

“We’ve already been to the Moon. Why go again?”

Apollo missions were brief flag-and-footprint visits totaling about 80 hours of cumulative surface time across all six landings (Cooper, 1971). Project Ignition aims to establish continuous human presence. The difference between visiting a place and living there is the difference between tourism and civilization.

“AI will replace astronauts.”

Robotic missions are essential and increasing—but humans bring irreplaceable judgment, adaptability, and improvisation to scientific exploration. The Apollo geologist Harrison Schmitt made discoveries during EVA that no automated rover would have noticed (Heiken et al., 1991). The future is humans + machines, not one or the other. (LSIC, 2024)

“The Moon is just a dead rock.”

Tell that to the Moon. It shakes for hours. Its surface is electrically charged. Its dust levitates. Its temperature swings 300°C in meters. Its far side hides its secrets. The Moon is many things—but dead is not one of them.

🎧 Further Listening & Exploration

If you enjoyed this episode, you might like:

🎙️ Atomicxs S2E2 (next episode) – Mars— Why we obsess over the red planet, how Project Ignition prepares us for it, and what it would take to get humans there alive.

🎙️ Atomicxs S1E6 – AI and Beyond: Exploring the Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence

📺 Lunar Engineering 101 – LSIC / Johns Hopkins APL — the technical video series that informed much of this episode (LSIC, 2024). Available for free at: https://lsic.jhuapl.edu/Resources/Lunar-Engineering-101.php

📺 NASA’s Artemis II Mission Coverage – NASA+ archive of the full mission, including launch, lunar flyby, and splashdown.

📚 Recommended reading:

• Cooper, Henry S. F. Jr. Apollo on the Moon (1971). The definitive contemporary account of what walking on the Moon was actually like.

• Heiken, Vaniman & French. Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon (1991). The complete technical reference. Dense, magnificent.

• Sagan, Carl. Pale Blue Dot (1994). Required reading for anyone who has ever looked up.

References

Allen, H. J., & Eggers, A. J. (1958). “A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earth’s Atmosphere at High Supersonic Speeds.” NACA Report 1381. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930091020

Basenor. (2026). “NASA Chief Isaacman: Land on the Moon or Just Orbit It?” Basenor Blog, March 25, 2026. https://www.basenor.com/blogs/news/nasa-chief-isaacman-land-on-the-moon-or-just-orbit-it

Berger, Eric. (2026). “NASA outlines ambitious $20 billion plan for moon base.” Spaceflight Now, March 25, 2026. https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/03/25/nasa-outlines-ambitious-20-billion-plan-for-moon-base/

Chang, Kenneth, & Berger, Eric. (2026). “Artemis II astronauts splash down off California’s coast after a historic journey around the moon.” CNN, April 10, 2026. https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/science/live-news/artemis-2-splashdown-astronauts-return

Colaprete, A., et al. (2010). “Detection of Water in the LCROSS Ejecta Plume.” Science, 330(6003), 463–468. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1186986

Cooper, Henry S. F. Jr. (1971). Apollo on the Moon. New York: Dial Press.

Cucinotta, F. A., Kim, M. Y., & Chappell, L. J. (2013). “Space Radiation Cancer Risk Projections and Uncertainties.” NASA Technical Report TP-2013-217375. https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/TP_2013_CancerRisk.pdf

Dewar, James A. (2007). To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket. Apogee Books.

Greenhagen, B. T., Lucey, P. G., Wyatt, M. B., Glotch, T. D., Allen, C. C., Arnold, J. A., Bandfield, J. L., Bowles, N. E., Donaldson Hanna, K. L., Hayne, P. O., Song, E., Thomas, I. R., & Paige, D. A. (2010). Global silicate mineralogy of the Moon from the Diviner lunar radiometer. Science (New York, N.Y.), 329(5998), 1507–1509. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192196

Halekas, J. S., et al. (2008). “Lunar Surface Charging During Solar Energetic Particle Events.” Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L21112.

Heiken, G. H., Vaniman, D. T., & French, B. M. (Eds.). (1991). Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon. Cambridge University Press. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/

Isaacman, Jared. (2026). “Ignition At NASA — Letter to NASA Team Members.” NASA Watch, March 24, 2026. https://nasawatch.com/ask-the-administrator/ignition-at-nasa/

LSIC (Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium). (2024). Lunar Engineering 101. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. https://lsic.jhuapl.edu/Resources/Lunar-Engineering-101.php

Merstallinger, A., et al. (2009). “Assessment of Cold Welding between Separable Contact Surfaces due to Impact and Fretting under Vacuum.” ESA STM-279. http://esmat.esa.int/Publications/Published_papers/STM-279.pdf

Murray, C. D., & Dermott, S. F. (1999). Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.

Nakamura, Y. (2005). “Farside Deep Moonquakes and Deep Interior of the Moon.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 110, E01001.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JE002332

NASA. (2017). “What Are the Effects of Spaceflight on the Human Body?” NASA Human Research Program. https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace

NASA. (2024a). “Earth’s Moon: Overview.” NASA Solar System Exploration. https://science.nasa.gov/moon/

NASA. (2024b). “Space Launch System (SLS) Overview.” NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/reference/space-launch-system/

NASA. (2024c). “Orion Spacecraft.” NASA Artemis. https://www.nasa.gov/orion/

NASA. (2024d). “Artemis II Mission Profile.” NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii/

NASA. (2024e). “Trans-Lunar Injection.” NASA Glenn Research Center. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/glenn/

NASA. (2024f). “Solar Wind on the Moon” NASA Science. https://science.nasa.gov/moon/solar-wind/

NASA. (2024g) “Moon’s South Pole Is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue.” NASA Humans in Space. Last modified July 26, 2023. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/moons-south-pole-is-full-of-mystery-science-intrigue/.

NASA. (2024h). “Gateway.” NASA Artemis. https://www.nasa.gov/mission/gateway/

NASA. (2024i). “Chapter 14: Launch.” Edited by Amanda Barnett. NASA Science. Last modified November 4, 2024. https://science.nasa.gov/learn/basics-of-space-flight/chapter14-1/

NASA. (2025). “First Photo of the Lunar Far Side,” edited by Vi Nguyen, NASA Science, last modified September 4, 2025, https://science.nasa.gov/resource/first-photo-of-the-lunar-far-side/.

NASA. (2026a). “Artemis II Splashdown and Recovery.” NASA, April 11, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/artemis-ii-splashdown-and-recovery/

NASA. (2026b). “Our Crew.” NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/our-artemis-crew/

NASA. (2026c). “Artemis II Flight Day 10: Crew Sets for Final Burn, Splashdown.” NASA Blogs, April 10, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/04/10/artemis-ii-flight-day-10-crew-sets-for-final-burn-splashdown/

NASA. (2026d). “Artemis II Flight Day 9: Crew Prepares to Come Home.” NASA Blogs, April 9, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/04/09/artemis-ii-flight-day-9-crew-prepares-to-come-home/

NASA. (2026e). “Artemis II Flight Day 10: Live Re-Entry Updates.” NASA Blogs, April 10, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/04/10/artemis-ii-flight-day-10-re-entry-live-updates/

NASA. (2026f). “NASA Unveils Initiatives to Achieve America’s National Space Policy.” NASA News Release, March 24, 2026. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-unveils-initiatives-to-achieve-americas-national-space-policy/

NASA Watch. (2026). “Ignition At NASA.” NASA Watch, March 24, 2026. https://nasawatch.com/ask-the-administrator/ignition-at-nasa/

NBC News. (2026). “Highlights: Artemis II astronauts splash down safely after NASA moon mission.” NBC News, April 10, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/live-blog/nasa-artemis-ii-splashdown-time-astronauts-live-updates-rcna266591

Pieters, C. M., & Noble, S. K. (2016). “Space Weathering on Airless Bodies.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 121, 1865–1884. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JE005128

Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP. (2026). “NASA Announces Programmatic Changes to Ignite Lunar, LEO, and Nuclear Development.” Pillsbury Insights, April 2026. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/nasa-nuclear-development.html

Pinsky, L. S., et al. (1974). “Light Flashes Observed by Astronauts on Apollo 11 through Apollo 17.” Science, 183(4128), 957–959.

Planetary Society, The. (2024). “How Much Did the Apollo Program Cost?” The Planetary Society. https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-apollo

Planetary Society, The. (2026). “’Ignition’: A new series of NASA initiatives.” The Planetary Society, March 25, 2026. https://www.planetary.org/articles/ignition-new-nasa-initiatives

Polaris Program. (2024). “Polaris Dawn Mission Overview.” Polaris Program. https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/

Stubbs, T. J., Vondrak, R. R., & Farrell, W. M. (2007). “Impact of Dust on Lunar Exploration.” Dust in Planetary Systems Conference Proceedings, 239–243. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/dust2005/pdf/4070.pdf

Tsiolkovsky, K. E. (1903). Investigation of Outer Space by Reaction Devices. Saint Petersburg.

Watters, T. R., et al. (2019). “Shallow Seismic Activity and Young Thrust Faults on the Moon.” Nature Geoscience, 12, 411–417. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0362-2

Wikipedia. (2026). “Jared Isaacman.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman

Williams, D. R. (2024). “Moon Fact Sheet.” NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Williams, J. G., Turyshev, S. G., & Boggs, D. H. (2012). “Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of the Equivalence Principle.” Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29(18), 184004.

(Additional references from the episode, including details on the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium chapters on Illumination, Radiation, Reduced Gravity, Terrain, Thermal, Dust/Regolith, Impact Hazards, Moonquakes, Surface Charging, Vacuum, Ultraviolet, and Conclusion, can be found in the Atomicxs Season 2 References folder.)

⚖️ Legal & Editorial Note

This post and its related podcast episode are for educational and commentary purposes. All quotations are used under fair use for criticism, teaching, and research.

NASA imagery and content are used in accordance with NASA’s Media Usage Guidelines (NASA, 2024). NASA logos (the “meatball” insignia and the “worm” logotype) are used only in editorial reference and not as Atomicxs branding. NASA does not endorse Atomicxs Podcast or any of its sponsors.

Trademarks, models, and archival materials remain property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. Views expressed are those of Atomicxs Podcast and Atom-Collab, not any employer or institution. Nothing herein constitutes legal, medical, financial, or technical advice.

If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact hello@atom-collab.com for prompt review.

Atomicxs Podcast Blog—Where curiosity meets science. Next Episode: Mars.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs — Season 1, Episode 8

Read time: ~15–20 minutes

⚡ TL;DR

• Love isn’t one thing. It’s usually three overlapping systems: lust (sex drive), romantic attraction, and attachment—each with its own chemistry and brain circuits.

• Early-stage romantic love looks a lot like addiction in the brain: it can boost motivation, focus, craving, and obsessive thinking by lighting up reward pathways (VTA/striatum).

• Attachment is the long-game glue—supported by bonding neurochemistry (e.g., oxytocin/vasopressin systems) and shaped by your attachment patterns (anxious/avoidant/secure).

• Toxic bonds can be chemically “sticky” because intermittent reinforcement (hot/cold cycles) can strengthen attachment—this is part of why people stay even when red flags are obvious.

• Hormonal contraception & partner preference: the science is mixed and debated—some studies suggest shifts in preferences and relationship outcomes, others find small or inconsistent effects. Treat viral claims as oversimplifications; look for meta-analyses and replication.

• Healthy love is not just “chemistry.” It’s also skills: repair, boundaries, conflict style, and daily bids for connection—Gottman’s work popularized the “positive-to-negative” ratio idea and identifiable destructive patterns.

Subscribe now

🎧 Listen

Search Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube / Apple Podcasts / Spotify and look for:

Season 1, Episode 8 — “Química del Amor” (Chemistry of Love)

This Substack post is the English companion: deeper science, clean structure, and research notes you can cite.

A quick note on tone

So here’s the thing: love is mysterious—but not magical. It’s biology + learning + culture + choice.
And once you understand the parts, you stop blaming yourself for being “crazy”… and start building better outcomes.

⚖️ Educational disclaimer

This episode and post are for education and commentary, not therapy or medical care. If you’re experiencing abuse, coercion, stalking, or feel unsafe, please seek local professional help and/or emergency services. (And yes: your safety matters more than the science.)

What is love, scientifically?

If we strip the poetry away (only for a minute), love often behaves like three systems running in parallel, a framework widely popularized by biological anthropologist Helen Fisher:

1. Lust (sex drive) — the craving for sexual activity (often linked to sex hormones like testosterone/estrogen)

2. Romantic attraction — the “spotlight” state: energy, euphoria, focus, craving, intrusive thoughts

3. Attachment — the calm, bonded “we” feeling: safety, stability, long-term pairing

This isn’t saying love is only chemistry. It’s saying: chemistry is part of the mechanism that makes love feel the way it feels.

The brain’s love circuits: why it can feel like a drug

Romantic love activates reward pathways

Brain-imaging studies have repeatedly found that intense romantic love activates areas associated with reward, motivation, and craving—including dopamine-rich regions like the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and striatum.

That’s why love can do all of this at once:

• make you feel invincible and terrified

• improve your sleep… or destroy it

• make you productive… or completely irrational

• make one text feel like oxygen

This is also why breakup withdrawal can feel physical: you’re not “weak.” You’re a mammal with a reward system.

Share

The Chemistry Triad (with real-life examples)

1) Lust: the spark that says “approach”

Lust is your baseline mating drive—the ancient “engine” pushing humans toward sexual connection. It’s influenced by sex hormones (including testosterone and estrogen) and by context (stress, health, novelty, relationship safety).

Relatable example (no names):
Two people meet at a wedding. They barely talk. But the charge is instant. The next morning they’re like:
“Why was I so into them?”
Because lust often runs on fast cues: scent, symmetry, voice, novelty, and “my body decided before my brain wrote a story.”

Key point: Lust is not a moral compass. It’s a biological signal.

2) Attraction: the obsession machine

This is the phase most people call “falling in love.”

It’s characterized by:

• intrusive thoughts (“Why am I thinking about them in the shower?”)

• craving (contact, reassurance)

• idealization (your brain highlights positives, downplays costs)

• motivation (you’ll drive across town for one hug like it’s a quest)

Research links this to reward circuitry activation in the brain.

Relatable example:
You’re busy. You’re disciplined. You have a calendar.
Then someone shows up and suddenly you’re doing Olympic-level scheduling gymnastics for a 12-minute coffee.

That’s attraction: attention gets hijacked by reward prediction.

3) Attachment: the “we” that lasts

Attachment is the bonding system that supports long-term pair bonds and emotional safety. It’s also the system that—when insecure—can amplify jealousy, hypervigilance, avoidance, and push-pull patterns.

Adult attachment theory frames these patterns as tendencies in:

• anxiety (fear of abandonment, protest behaviors, rumination)

• avoidance (discomfort with closeness, emotional distancing)

These patterns are robust in the literature and deeply useful for understanding relationship dynamics (and healing them).

Relatable example:
One partner says, “I need space,” and genuinely means “I’m overwhelmed.”
The other hears: “They’re leaving.”
Same sentence. Two nervous systems. Two attachment histories.

Share Atomicxs Podcast Blog

Why people ignore red flags (even when they’re neon)

Here’s the uncomfortable science: intermittent reinforcement—unpredictable reward—can strengthen bonds.

In toxic dynamics, you often see cycles like:

• love-bombing / closeness

• withdrawal / criticism / chaos

• apology / affection

• repeat

Traumatic bonding theory specifically describes how intermittent abuse mixed with affection can intensify emotional attachment.

Relatable example:
A person is cold for days, then suddenly sweet and attentive—just enough to keep hope alive.
Your brain starts chasing the “good version” like a slot machine payout.

This doesn’t mean the victim “likes drama.”
It means the nervous system learned a loop.

Birth control and love: what does the science actually say?

This is one of the most viral topics on the internet—and also one of the most oversimplified.

What research broadly explores:

• whether hormonal contraception influences mate preference (e.g., scent cues, masculinity preferences)

• whether it relates to relationship satisfaction or stability

• whether effects are small, context-dependent, or not replicable

The literature includes both supportive findings and critiques. The responsible takeaway is:

• There may be effects for some people, in some contexts, but

• it’s not universal, and

• it’s not a deterministic “birth control ruins love” storyline.

Leave a comment

Love across cultures and generations (the “software layer”)

The biology is old. The culture is new.
Your dopamine system didn’t evolve for dating apps, Instagram thirst traps, or long-distance texting.

Modern love is shaped by:

• social scripts (who initiates, who pays, what’s “romantic”)

• economic conditions (housing, childcare, labor patterns)

• technology (choice overload, comparison, attention competition)

A useful way to say it on-air:

“The brain runs the hardware. Culture installs the apps.”

Chivalry, who pays, and why money changes the emotional dynamic

This topic is less “chemistry” and more social psychology + economics, but it matters because money is a proxy for:

• effort

• security

• status scripts

• fairness expectations

• power

And power dynamics shape attachment safety.

On the “women are more expensive / men are more expensive” question, there are two overlapping realities:

• Many women face documented pricing disparities on comparable goods (“pink tax” discussions often cite consumer pricing research).

• Many men face pressure to perform provider scripts in dating norms (varies by culture/class).

The important part for relationship health isn’t the rule (“men pay” vs “split”). It’s:

• are expectations explicit?

• does paying become leverage?

• is it aligned with values and fairness?

Money issues are often intimacy issues wearing a suit.

Marriage: why dynamics change — and how to keep love alive

Marriage doesn’t “kill love.”
It changes the environment:

• novelty decreases

• responsibilities rise

• time fragments

• stress increases

• conflict becomes more visible

Long-term love thrives on:

• repair (how you come back after conflict)

• positive daily interactions

• turning toward bids for connection

Gottman’s research tradition popularized markers like the positive-to-negative interaction ratio and the identification of destructive conflict behaviors (e.g., contempt, stonewalling).

Relatable example:
Couple A fights about dishes.
Couple B fights about dishes.
The difference isn’t dishes. It’s whether there’s warmth, respect, repair, and “we’re on the same team.”

Self-love first: not a slogan, a nervous-system strategy

Self-love isn’t about mirrors and affirmations only.
It’s about building an inner baseline of:

• self-respect (boundaries)

• self-trust (pattern recognition)

• self-compassion (not abandoning yourself emotionally)

This matters because when you don’t have it, you tend to outsource your worth—then tolerate chaos just to stay attached.

(If you want the most research-grounded framing here, we’ll lean on self-compassion research and attachment work; I can expand this into a full segment with citations tailored to your script style.)

Selene + Irais (and why this episode has two “lenses”)

In the episode, Selene Olvera, host of LaReyorkina Podcast, joins to add the “real-life translation layer”: what these patterns look like in everyday stories, emotional recovery, and modern dating culture—without turning the episode into therapy.

Your dynamic on-air can be:

• Irais: the science explainer — “here’s what the brain is doing”

• Selene: the lived-experience curator — “here’s how it shows up in real conversations”

That combo makes the science land.

📣 Quick recommendation shout-outs (not sponsors)

These aren’t random ads—just projects/products you genuinely support:

• LaReyorkina Podcast — Selene’s show (personal growth, emotions, real-life conversations)

• Bakeandlu — cookies made with love (and yes: perfect for Valentine’s week)

References

Aron, Arthur, et al. 2005. “Reward, Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated with Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love.” Journal of Neurophysiology 94: 327–337.

Bartels, Andreas, and Semir Zeki. 2000. “The Neural Basis of Romantic Love.” NeuroReport 11: 3829–3834.

Dutton, Donald G., and Susan L. Painter. 1993. “Emotional Attachments in Abusive Relationships: A Test of Traumatic Bonding Theory.” Violence and Victims 8(2).

Fisher, Helen. 1998. “Lust, Attraction, and Attachment in Mammalian Reproduction.”

Earp, Brian D., et al. (reviews on hormonal contraception & relationship outcomes; see meta-analytic debates and summaries).

Mikulincer, Mario, and Phillip R. Shaver. 2007. Attachment-related processes in adulthood (attachment anxiety/avoidance; relationship dynamics).

Gottman Institute / Gottman Method summaries (positive/negative interaction emphasis; destructive conflict patterns).

New York City Department of Consumer Affairs. 2015. “From Cradle to Cane: The Cost of Being a Female Consumer” (gender pricing discussion commonly referenced in “pink tax” debates).

⚖️ Legal & editorial note

This post and its related podcast episode are for educational and informational purposes only and do not constitute medical, psychological, or therapeutic advice. Trademarks and referenced works remain the property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. If you are a rights holder and believe any material has been used in error, contact hello@atom-collab.com for prompt review.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs — Season 1, Episode 4

Read time: ~15–20 minutes

⚡ TL;DR

• AI = machines doing things we once thought only humans could do—understanding language, spotting patterns, making decisions, even… writing articles like this one.

• The story runs from Alan Turing’s “imitation game” to neural networks, to deep learning breakthroughs and the rise of today’s giant models like ChatGPT and its cousins (Roos, 2025; Jacobs, 2023).

• AI is already in healthcare, finance, education, entertainment, telecom, climate science, and more—catching cancers earlier, spotting fraud, personalizing learning and content, and optimizing networks and energy systems (Mayo Clinic, 2024; Masterson, 2024; Benaich, 2025).

• But it also amplifies our messes: bias, wrongful arrests, surveillance, deepfakes, job disruption, and geopolitical battles like the DeepSeek bans on government devices (Sanford, 2024; Castro, 2025).

• Under the hood, there’s a whole AI tech stack: from cloud APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) to frameworks like LangChain / LlamaIndex / LangGraph, to local and quantized models running on laptops and phones using tools like Ollama, vLLM, llama.cpp, GGUF, MLX, ExLlama, PyTorch, and CUDA (Jia et al., 2023; Dysnix, 2023; Hugging Face, 2024; Vila, 2025).

• Our guest, Antonio de la Cruz Robles, a CTO in telecom with 24+ years of experience, reminds us: the real magic isn’t replacing humans—it’s amplifying human potential with the right tools and mindset. (Listen to his opinions in the actual podcasts)

“Don’t be scared of AI. Just be damn sure you understand what you’re building—and who it serves.” - Ira Strong

Subscribe now

🎧 Listen

Hear the full conversation in Spanish (with English notes in the blog):

Atomicxs Podcast – S1E6: “AI and Beyond”
Search for Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify, and look for “IA y Más Allá” (Explorando las Fronteras de la Inteligencia Artificial).

---

What is AI, really?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the attempt to make machines do tasks that usually require human intelligence:

• understanding and generating language,

• recognizing images or sounds,

• making decisions under uncertainty,

• learning from experience instead of just following a fixed script.

Modern AI leans heavily on three pillars:

• Machine Learning (ML) – instead of hard-coding rules, we let algorithms learn patterns from data. Feed enough examples in, and the system adjusts its internal knobs to get better at the task.

• Neural Networks – loosely inspired by the brain. You can imagine them as giant committees of tiny “math neurons” passing numbers around and voting on what they see. Early layers learn simple things (edges, basic sounds, common words); later layers build concepts (faces, meaning, intent). Out of that teamwork, something that appears to be intelligence emerges.

• Natural Language Processing (NLP) – the branch of AI that enables computers to read and write human language. That’s what powers chatbots, translation systems, and the model you’re reading right now.

Think of a neural network learning “what a cat is” from thousands of cat photos:

• first, it notices edges,

• then shapes (ears, whiskers),

• then “cat-ness” — all through trial, error, and feedback.
  It’s like a child learning, except the “child” is a giant matrix of numbers.

The Pioneers: From Turing to the “Godmother” and “Godfather”

Alan Turing – the original troublemaker

In 1950, Alan Turing published a paper asking, “Can machines think?” and proposed the imitation game, now known as the Turing Test: if a machine can chat by text well enough that you can’t tell it’s a machine, then, for practical purposes, it’s intelligent (Roos, 2025).

Turing also helped define the very idea of a programmable computer. He never saw modern AI, but the Turing Award—the “Nobel Prize of computing”—carries his legacy.

Geoffrey Hinton – the “Godfather of AI”

Fast forward to Geoffrey Hinton, a cognitive psychologist turned computer scientist who spent decades insisting neural networks mattered—often when the field considered them a dead end.

In 2012, his team’s deep learning model crushed an image recognition challenge called ImageNet, cutting error rates almost in half and kick-starting the deep learning boom (Jacobs, 2023).

Hinton later won the Turing Award and then did something very Feynman: he changed his mind in public. In 2023, he left Google so he could freely warn about AI’s risks—from misinformation to systems that might one day outsmart us (Taylor & Hern, 2023; VOA, 2023). He has said he “partly regrets” aspects of his life’s work because of how powerful these models are becoming (Taylor & Hern, 2023).

Fei-Fei Li – the “Godmother of AI”

Fei-Fei Li led the creation of ImageNet, a massive labeled image dataset that taught computers to “see” and helped unlock deep learning’s potential in vision. Her memoir, The Worlds I See, weaves her story as an immigrant scientist with the rise of human-centered AI, arguing that AI must augment humans, not erase them (Li, 2023; Downey, 2024; Princeton University, 2024).

She often says AI is a “profound technology that will change human civilization”, but insists we keep our humanity and ethics at the core of how we build and deploy it (Downey, 2024).

John McCarthy – the “grandfather of AI”

John McCarthy coined the term “Artificial Intelligence” at the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop and defined it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines.” He created the Lisp programming language, predicted cloud computing, and famously joked that to finish AI we’d need “1.7 Einsteins, two Maxwells, five Faradays… and a fraction of a Manhattan Project” (Roshni, 2024).

Today’s AI boom — with giant models, massive GPU farms, and trillion-dollar valuations — looks uncomfortably close to what he was hinting at.

Share

A Short History of AI: From Winters to Wow Moments

AI evolved in waves of hype and disappointment. Think of it as the world’s most dramatic telenovela, but with more matrix multiplications.

The early optimism (1950s–1960s)

After Turing and the Dartmouth conference, early systems solved logic puzzles, played checkers, and proved theorems. Pioneers like Marvin Minsky and Allen Newell imagined human-level AI within a few decades (Roos, 2025).

They were… optimistic.

AI Winters (1970s–1980s)

Funding crashed when systems failed to scale to messy real-world problems. “Expert systems”—rule-based programs mimicking specialists—worked in narrow domains but were brittle and expensive to maintain.

It turned out that writing down “common sense” in logic rules was harder than anyone thought. AI went through its “winter”—less money, less hype, more humility.

Symbolic victories: Deep Blue

In 1997, IBM’s Deep Blue beat chess champion Garry Kasparov. Huge milestone—but mostly a triumph of brute-force search + handcrafted heuristics, not the kind of learning we see today. Still, it signaled that machines could now dominate even elite humans at some cognitive games.

The 2012 “ImageNet moment.”

The real plot twist: deep learning.

In 2012, Hinton’s team used multi-layer neural networks trained on ImageNet to smash previous records in image recognition. Error rates dropped dramatically, showing that with enough data, compute, and clever training, networks could extract powerful features automatically (Jacobs, 2023).

Three ingredients converged:

• GPUs repurposed from gaming,

• massive datasets,

• algorithmic tricks for training very deep nets.

Suddenly, speech recognition, machine translation, and image classification leapt forward.

AlphaGo and the Go “moon landing”

In 2016, DeepMind’s AlphaGo beat Go champion Lee Sedol 4–1 in a historic match in Seoul, using deep reinforcement learning and tree search (Shead, 2016; Nature, 2016). Go had long been considered “too intuitive” for machines because of its enormous branching factor.

Many researchers described AlphaGo’s win as a “moon landing moment” for AI—proof that deep learning could handle incredibly complex, intuitive domains.

ChatGPT: AI goes mainstream

In late 2022, ChatGPT launched. Within about two months, it hit ~100 million monthly users—the fastest-growing consumer app in history according to UBS analysis (Hu, 2023; GraphicNews, 2025).

For many people, it was their first hands-on experience of an AI that could:

• write essays,

• generate code,

• explain physics,

• role-play,

• draft emails and poems.

Sometimes confidently wrong, often eerily capable—but undeniably impactful.

2025: “The year reasoning got real”

Recent reports describe 2025 as the year when AI labs shifted focus from “just bigger” to better reasoning, tools, and safety—with foundation models, retrieval-augmented systems, and multi-agent frameworks vying to become the new layer of digital infrastructure (Benaich, 2025).

At the same time, competing ecosystems have emerged: U.S. labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google; European and open-source communities; and rapidly growing Chinese models such as DeepSeek (Benaich, 2025; Castro, 2025).

The race is no longer just academic—it’s geopolitical.

Where AI Shows Up in Real Life

You may think, “I don’t use AI.”
Your phone smiles politely and disagrees.

Healthcare: catching what humans miss

AI models now analyze CTs, MRIs, and X-rays with impressive accuracy. At Mayo Clinic, researchers built an AI system that can flag pancreatic cancer on CT scans roughly 15–16 months before radiologists would typically catch it—a huge deal for a cancer that’s often detected too late (Mayo Clinic, 2023; NCI, 2024; PYMNTS, 2025).

Early detection here can dramatically raise five-year survival (PYMNTS, 2025). Similar tools analyze mammograms, skin lesions, and more, acting as “second readers” that catch cases humans miss.

Beyond imaging, AI:

• speeds drug discovery,

• powers symptom checkers,

• supports triage in overwhelmed health systems,

• enables experimental brain–computer interfaces and assistive tech.

But data quality and bias matter. Train mostly on one demographic, and your AI may under-diagnose others—literally a life-and-death inequality.

Finance: silent guardians (and silent risks)

In finance, AI:

• flags fraud by spotting unusual patterns,

• scores credit applications,

• powers algorithmic trading,

• personalizes financial advice.

Yet models can inherit historical bias. If past lending discriminated against certain communities, naive models may perpetuate that discrimination in credit scores and approvals. And “black box” trading systems can contribute to sudden market moves and flash crashes.

Regulators are pushing for explainable AI and algorithmic audits in this space.

Entertainment & media: from recommendations to deepfakes

Your streaming “For You” page is basically AI whispering, “I know what you did last Netflix binge.”

AI:

• recommends movies, series, and songs,

• generates music and images,

• powers game NPCs that can now converse with you using LLMs,

• enables cinematic de-aging and visual effects.

But the same tech powers deepfakes—synthetic audio and video that can impersonate anyone. We already have:

• fake political videos,

• non-consensual explicit deepfakes,

• scams using cloned voices of CEOs or family members.

This raises questions about consent, misinformation, and psychological harm. Policymakers and platforms are racing to implement watermarking and detection systems (survey work and legal bans on sexual deepfakes are emerging in several countries) (Crest Advisory, 2025; The Guardian, 2025).

Education: AI as a personal tutor (and cheating partner)

AI tutors can:

• adapt to a student’s pace,

• explain the same concept in multiple ways,

• generate practice problems on demand.

Projects like Khanmigo (Khan Academy’s GPT-based tutor) aim to act like a Socratic partner—asking questions instead of dumping answers. When carefully designed, these tools can boost engagement and fill gaps, especially where teacher time is scarce.

But they also make cheating easier, raising questions about assessment, digital equity, and student data privacy. The dream is “AI for every learner”—the risk is widening the gap between schools that can afford this tech and those that can’t.

Climate and environment: AI as a planetary microscope

AI helps scientists:

• track icebergs and deforestation from satellite imagery,

• optimize energy grids and microgrids,

• improve climate models and local weather forecasts,

• analyze waste flows to improve recycling systems (Masterson, 2024; European Sting, 2024; Cavendish, 2024; Stiell, 2025).

The UN’s climate chief calls AI a powerful tool for tackling global heating, while warning about the energy use of large data centers—urging developers to pair AI growth with renewable energy and efficiency (Stiell, 2025).

Telecom: where our guest lives

In telecom networks—our guest Antonio de la Cruz Robles’ world—AI:

• predicts equipment failures before they happen,

• reroutes traffic to avoid congestion,

• optimizes energy use across towers and infrastructure,

• analyzes patterns in drops, latency, and faults.

If old phone networks were “dumb pipes,” modern ones are becoming self-tuning organisms, with AI acting as their nervous system.

Antonio has watched the evolution from manual, hardware-centric operations to software-defined networks and now AI-assisted orchestration. He sees AI not as a job killer, but as a multiplier: taking repetitive tasks off engineers’ plates so they can focus on design, safety, and creative problem-solving.

Share Atomicxs Podcast Blog

When AI Goes Wrong: Ethics, Bias, and Power

Here’s where the music gets a little darker.

Bias & wrongful arrests

AI systems are only as good as their data and design. And our data is… human: full of bias and unequal treatment.

Facial recognition tech has misidentified Black people, leading to wrongful arrests and jail time for crimes they didn’t commit (Sanford, 2024; Swarns, 2023). At least seven such cases in the U.S. are documented, six involving Black individuals (Sanford, 2024).

No one explicitly told the algorithm “be racist”—it simply reflected biased training data and deployment choices. But the people harmed don’t care whether the bias was “intentional” or not.

This raises the question: Who is accountable?

• the software vendor?

• the police department?

• the government that allowed untested tech into policing?

AI ethics work now focuses heavily on fairness, auditing, and transparency to reduce such harms—but we’re catching up after real damage has already been done.

The black box problem

Large neural networks with billions of parameters are notoriously hard to interpret. Even their creators often can’t say exactly why the model chose a certain output.

That’s tolerable when it’s recommending movies. It’s unacceptable when:

• deciding who gets a loan,

• scoring risk in criminal justice,

• recommending medical treatments.

Research in Explainable AI (XAI) tries to shine some light—highlighting which features most influenced a decision, or approximating model behavior with simpler models. Regulatory proposals like the EU AI Act lean toward a “right to explanation” for automated decisions. But the technical and legal challenges are non-trivial.

Jobs and economic turbulence

Studies estimate that a majority of jobs will have at least some tasks impacted by AI—with routine cognitive or physical tasks most at risk of automation (McKinsey, 2025; Times, 2025).

The optimistic view:

• AI removes drudge work,

• humans move up the value chain: strategy, creativity, care, complex coordination.

The pessimistic view:

• disruption comes faster than retraining,

• some workers, sectors, and regions bear disproportionate pain,

• inequality deepens unless policy and education respond.

Our guest Antonio is firmly in the augmentation camp: he sees AI as a tool to help engineers and technicians, not replace them. But even he acknowledges that organizations must invest in upskilling, change management, and honest conversations about shifting roles.

Surveillance, deepfakes, and control

AI supercharges surveillance:

• camera networks with facial recognition,

• predictive policing tools,

• social media monitoring algorithms that flag “risky” speech.

We’ve already seen systems like Clearview AI scraping billions of images to build facial databases without consent, and governments using AI to scan crowds or protest footage. Combined with deepfakes and automated disinformation, this is a recipe for chilling effects on speech and civic life.

Some cities and countries are banning or restricting police use of facial recognition; others are embracing it. We’re living inside a live experiment on “how much algorithmic watchfulness are we willing to tolerate?”

DeepSeek and AI geopolitics

In early 2025, the Chinese chatbot DeepSeek exploded in global popularity—and then ran headfirst into geopolitics.

• The U.S. Department of Defense, NASA, and the U.S. Navy barred it on their devices over security and data concerns (National CIO Review, 2025).

• States like Texas, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Oregon followed with bans or restrictions on government devices and networks (NBC 5, 2025; Tom’s Guide, 2025; Inside Government Contracts, 2025).

• Lawmakers proposed federal bans on Chinese AI models on government hardware, citing national security and data-harvesting risks (Castro, 2025; Tom’s Guide, 2025).

• Other countries, including Australia, Taiwan, and South Korea, adopted similar restrictions (National CIO Review, 2025).

DeepSeek became a symbol:

AI is not just a technology race—it’s a trust and values race.

Who controls the data? Who sets the guardrails? Who can be forced to cooperate with which government? These questions now ride alongside technical benchmarks and model weights.

Leave a comment

The AI Stack: From Cloud Magic to Bare Metal

If you’ve ever thought, “OK, but how are people actually building this stuff?”, here’s the short tour — from highest abstraction to bare metal.

1. High abstraction: Cloud APIs

Big players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Microsoft expose their models via APIs.

Pros:

• fastest way to get powerful AI into your app,

• no training or infrastructure to manage.

Cons:

• cost at scale,

• data privacy & jurisdiction concerns,

• model behavior changes when the provider updates it,

• limited control over internals.

This is like renting a Formula 1 car with a chauffeur: amazing performance, but you don’t get to tweak the engine.

2. Mid-level frameworks: LangChain, LlamaIndex, LangGraph

These tools help you orchestrate models and data:

• LangChain – a framework for chaining LLM calls, tools, memory, and logic. Great for building multi-step agents and chatbots that can search, browse, or call APIs.

• LlamaIndex – connects models to your own documents and databases, enabling Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): the model answers using retrieved context instead of just its training memories (Kiela, 2025).

• LangGraph – builds stateful, multi-agent workflows as graphs, where different agents handle different parts of a task (Vila, 2025).

These don’t train models from scratch; they let you compose capabilities—like Lego bricks—into custom systems.

RAG in particular is a big deal: instead of asking the model to “remember everything,” you hand it relevant context at query time. That:

• reduces hallucinations,

• improves factuality,

• lets you keep data in your own stack.

3. WebUIs and GUIs for local models

Projects like Text Generation WebUI and similar graphical frontends let non-coders run LLMs locally through a web browser interface.

You download an open model (often in a compact format) and interact via a UI: chat, tweak parameters, try different models—no code required.

This is huge for:

• privacy-sensitive users,

• hobbyists without cloud budgets,

• labs prototyping internal tools.

4. Deployment runtimes: Ollama & vLLM

Now we go deeper—into tools that manage and serve models efficiently.

• Ollama – makes it simple to download and run local LLMs, with one-line commands and support for Apple Silicon and other platforms. Think of it as a “model manager” for personal and team use.

• vLLM – a high-performance inference engine from UC Berkeley that uses PagedAttention and optimized memory management to achieve up to an order of magnitude higher throughput for serving LLMs (Jia et al., 2023).

vLLM shines when you’re serving lots of users or long contexts. It handles KV-cache efficiently so you don’t run out of GPU memory as quickly.

Together, these tools are making self-hosted AI viable for more organizations—not just hyperscalers.

5. Low-level & edge: llama.cpp, GGUF, MLX, ExLlama

Here’s where AI turns into a performance-engineering sport:

• llama.cpp – a C/C++ implementation that lets you run LLaMA-style models efficiently on CPUs and modest GPUs, including laptops and even some phones. It leans heavily on quantization and optimized kernels.

• GGUF – a compact model file format used by llama.cpp and related runtimes for quantized weights.

• MLX – Apple’s ML framework focused on Apple Silicon, with tight integration to the Neural Engine and Metal for fast inference and on-device training (Hugging Face, 2024).

• ExLlama – an optimized GPU inference library for 4-bit quantized models, letting consumer GPUs run surprisingly large LLMs at usable speeds (Dysnix, 2023).

Quantization (e.g., 4-bit or 8-bit weights) shrinks models drastically at the cost of tiny accuracy losses—enabling big models on small hardware. Techniques like LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) let you fine-tune models by training only a small set of extra parameters, which is VRAM-friendly and accessible for solo devs.

These tools are why people can now run a 7B or 13B parameter model on:

• a MacBook,

• a gaming PC,

• a small cloud instance,
  and deploy AI without a giant cluster.

6. Bare metal: PyTorch, CUDA, transformers, custom kernels

At the bottom, we have:

• PyTorch – still the main workhorse for training and experimenting with new models.

• CUDA & cuDNN – NVIDIA’s libraries that talk directly to GPUs.

• TensorRT, Triton, DeepSpeed, etc. – specialized libraries for highly optimized training/inference and distributed setups.

Here you can:

• design new architectures,

• experiment with mixture-of-experts models,

• squeeze every last millisecond out of your hardware.

This is where cutting-edge research and large-scale deployment magic happens—and where you need people who enjoy debugging GPU kernels at 2 a.m.

Why Custom AI Stacks Still Matter

With all these tools, organizations now face a strategic choice:

Use a hosted API, or build your own stack?

Factors include:

• Data sensitivity – if you’re a bank or hospital, sending raw data to a third-party API may be legally or morally problematic.

• Cost curve – at a huge scale, self-hosting can beat per-token API pricing.

• Customization – domain-specific jargon, formats, and workflows might require fine-tuned or even custom-trained models.

• Sovereignty & regulation – some countries and companies want to avoid dependency on foreign providers or to keep everything within a legal jurisdiction.

That’s why the open-source ecosystem (e.g., the Hugging Face Hub and similar communities) has exploded—hosting millions of models and datasets and guiding users in picking the right tool for the job (Vila, 2025; Hugging Face, 2024).

Our guest, Antonio’s world—telecom—is a classic case:

• some tasks can safely use cloud APIs,

• others require on-prem, audited, and latency-critical AI running close to the network hardware.

In practice, many companies end up with a hybrid:

• cloud APIs for prototypes and low-risk features,

• custom stacks for core, sensitive, or high-volume workloads.

A Quick Detour into the Future

Are we heading toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)—a system as capable and versatile as a human brain?

No one really knows:

• Some insiders think we’re on a relatively short path if scaling trends continue (Benaich, 2025; Hinton interviews in 2023–24).

• Others argue today’s systems are powerful pattern mimics missing true understanding, embodiment, and common sense.

What seems more certain:

• Multi-modal systems (text + images + audio + video + actions) will grow.

• AI will be deeply integrated in scientific research—from protein folding to mathematical discovery (AlphaFold, AlphaTensor, etc.).

• AI will increasingly support climate and sustainability, optimizing energy, transport, and materials (Masterson, 2024; Cavendish, 2024; Stiell, 2025).

• We’ll likely see more “AI vs. AI” battles in cybersecurity and information integrity.

And there’s the existential risk debate:

Some researchers and CEOs have signed letters warning that advanced AI might pose “extinction-level” risks if badly aligned or misused. Others think this framing is overblown or distracts from more immediate harms like surveillance, bias, and labor exploitation.

Whichever side you lean toward, one thing is hard to deny:

AI is becoming an infrastructure technology, not just a gadget.

You don’t get to “opt out” of electricity; AI is slowly drifting into that category.

📣 Quick Recommendation Shout-Outs

These are not random ads—they’re projects and services Atomicxs Team personally use and love, and that help keep independent science-and-storytelling spaces like Atomicxs alive:

• LaReyorkina Podcast – Spanish-language conversations on personal growth, mindset, and self-development. If you like Atomicxs’ blend of story + depth, you’ll feel at home there too.

• Bakeandlu – Homemade cookies from Reynosa, México (Border town with McAllen, TX). Let’s just say: we have literally flown from Wyoming, crossed the border, and gone straight for their mostachón de fresa. Enough said.

• Imprime n Serio – Advertising and merch from México that “brings your brand to life.” All our Atomicxs mugs, shirts, and swag come from them. Softest sweaters ever.

• LityMed – They offer two services:

  • 1) Occupational and personal health services in México for American Companies (i.e., Maquilas, etc). and

  • 2) The kind of holistic, old-school-doctor attention I wish were standard everywhere. Now we fly to see them instead. (Located in Reynosa, México; Border town with McAllen, TX)

(Full recommendation stories and details are shared in the podcast audio—here we keep it short and sweet.)

Myth-Busting: AI Edition

A few myths we gently dismantle in the episode:

“AI will replace all jobs.”
Untrue in that absolute form. Many jobs will change; some tasks will be automated; new roles will emerge. The biggest risk isn’t “no work left”—it’s unequal transition and lack of support (McKinsey, 2025; Times, 2025).

“AI is objective and neutral.”
Nope. It reflects its training data and design choices. Without care, it can amplify bias, as we’ve seen with facial recognition and hiring algorithms (Sanford, 2024; Swarns, 2023).

“If it sounds confident, it must be right.”
Large language models are fluent, not infallible. They can hallucinate citations, misinterpret context, or mirror user bias. Confidence ≠ correctness.

“We can’t regulate AI; it’s too fast.”
Regulation is already happening: EU AI Act, sector-specific rules, bans on certain uses (like DeepSeek on government devices), and ongoing work on AI safety and standards (Benaich, 2025; Inside Government Contracts, 2025).

What This Means for Us

For technologists:

• Learn the layers of the stack, from APIs to quantization.

• Treat ethics as a design constraint, not an afterthought.

• Think “RAG and custom stacks” when data sensitivity or control matters.

For leaders and policymakers:

• Plan for reskilling and safety nets, not just productivity gains.

• Invest in AI literacy across the organization and the public.

• Push for transparent, auditable systems in high-stakes domains.

For everyone:

• Use AI, but stay critical — check sources, question outputs.

• Pay attention to where your data goes.

• Remember human strengths: curiosity, empathy, creativity, and judgment.

AI is not fate; it’s infrastructure plus choices.

From the Field: AI in Telecom Networks (Conversation with Antonio)

In the episode, we’re joined by Antonio de la Cruz Robles, based in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. He’s an engineer and business leader with 24+ years of experience in information technologies and telecom networks, and currently serves as CTO at Fangio Telecom (we ask on-air whether we can name the company explicitly, out of respect for corporate communications).

Antonio believes in the power of human potential amplified by technology. He has held roles on public and private boards, helped shape educational and infrastructure initiatives, and founded IT consulting companies. In his current work, he partners with cross-functional teams to optimize performance and deliver impactful outcomes using analytical and AI-driven tools.

In the episode, we explore several themes with him:

1. How Is AI Used in Telecom Today?

We ask Antonio:

“You’ve been building telecom networks for over two decades. What’s one of the biggest changes you’ve seen—and where does AI fit into that picture? How are you seeing AI being applied in telecom networks today—network optimization, predictive maintenance, customer experience?”

Topics we cover include:

• Predictive maintenance – AI models learning from past failures to predict which components are likely to fail, so teams can fix issues before outages occur.

• Traffic optimization – systems dynamically routing data, managing congestion, and optimizing quality of service in real time.

• Anomaly detection – spotting strange patterns that might signal attacks or misconfigurations.

The theme: AI doesn’t replace network engineers; it extends their reach.

2. Human Potential Amplified by Tools

We ask:

“Can you share an example from your career where technology—AI or otherwise—truly empowered your team or your users, instead of replacing them?”

Antonio talks about automation and analytics tools that:

• Took repetitive, error-prone tasks away from humans.

• Gave teams better visibility into complex networks.

• Let engineers dedicate more time to creative design, strategy, and solving non-routine problems.

The message: augmentation over substitution—a pattern we hope continues across industries.

3. Upskilling and Change Management

We ask:

“As AI becomes more embedded in telecom workflows, how do you help your teams adapt? How do you encourage seasoned professionals to embrace these tools instead of fearing them?”

We discuss:

• Training initiatives and hands-on workshops.

• Positioning AI tools as assistants, not threats.

• The importance of communication and trust—acknowledging engineers’ concerns while showing concrete benefits.

4. Challenges and Skepticism

We ask:

“What resistance or challenges have you faced? Telecom is conservative and reliability-focused. How do you build trust in AI systems that might, for instance, recommend rerouting or reconfigurations automatically?”

Topics include:

• The need for pilot phases, testing AI decisions in shadow mode.

• Monitoring and override mechanisms—humans in the loop.

• Regulatory and compliance pressures—and how AI solutions need to be auditable.

5. Looking Ahead

To close, we ask:

“How do you imagine telecom networks 5–10 years from now with AI woven in? And what advice would you give to young professionals who want to thrive in the age of AI?”

Antonio’s perspective:

• Future networks may be self-healing, constantly sensing, learning, and reconfiguring.

• Engineers will need systems thinking, communication skills, and AI literacy more than ever.

• Young professionals should stay curious, embrace tools, and focus on uniquely human strengths: problem framing, ethics, collaboration.

His core belief aligns beautifully with the episode’s thesis:

Technology should amplify human capability, not diminish it.

💬 What This Means For Us

Let’s zoom out.

For technologists:

• Simplicity often outlasts flashy complexity—think of Morse code’s durability.

• Responsible deployment and observability matter as much as fancy architectures.

For educators:

• Clarity is empathy.

• Teach people to use AI tools and to question them.

For policymakers:

• Guardrails must be built with technologists, civil society, and affected communities at the table.

• The goal is not to stop AI, but to steer it.

For everyone:

• Learn enough about AI to not be intimidated by it.

• Use it as a microscope, not a replacement for your mind.

• Ask: What am I delegating—and why?

AI is a mirror. It reflects our data, our systems, our values.
If we don’t like what we see, the problem isn’t just in the code.

🎧 Further Listening & Exploration

If you enjoyed this episode, you might like:

• 🎙️ Atomicxs S1E4 – Beep Beep! Morse Code
  How the first digital code shaped communication and computing.

• 🎙️ Podcast: RAG 2.0 and The New Era of RAG Agents with Douwe Kiela (DataCamp) – on how retrieval-augmented generation is evolving (Kiela, 2025).

• 🎙️ Talks & books from Fei-Fei Li, Geoffrey Hinton, and Max Tegmark (Life 3.0).

And, as suggested in the episode:

Recommended reading:
Max Tegmark, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (2017). (Tegmark, 2017)

References

Benaich, Nathan. State of AI Report 2025. October 9, 2025.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1xiLl0VdrlNMAei8pmaX4ojIOfej6lhvZbOIK7Z6C-Go/edit?slide=id.g309a25a756d_0_85#slide=id.g309a25a756d_0_85

Castro, Chiara. “DeepSeek Is Under Fire – Is There Anywhere Left to Hide for the Chinese Chatbot?” TechRadar, February 11, 2025. https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/deepseeks-is-under-fire-is-there-anywhere-left-to-hide-for-the-chinese-chatbot

Downey, Sean C. “The Godmother of AI – How Fei-Fei Li ’99 Is Safeguarding the Future of Human and Artificial Intelligence.” Princeton Alumni Weekly, February 23, 2024. https://alumni.princeton.edu/stories/fei-fei-li-woodrow-wilson-award

Dysnix. “How to Run LLMs Locally.” Dysnix Tech Blog, August 2023. https://dysnix.com/blog/run-llms-locally

Goenka, Ajit H., et al. “Automated AI Model Detects Pancreas Cancer and Preinvasive Cancer on Prediagnostic Scans.” Gastroenterology 165, 2023: 1533. Mayo Clinic News Release, November 30, 2023.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/cancer/news/from-challenge-to-change-ais-leap-in-early-pancreatic-cancer-identification/mac-20558901

Hu, Krystal. “ChatGPT Sets Record for Fastest-Growing User Base – Analyst Note.” Reuters, February 1, 2023. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/

Jacobs, Jordan. “Fei-Fei Li’s Inspiring Memoir about Her Remarkable Life and the Rise of AI.” Radical Ventures Blog, November 12, 2023.

https://radical.vc/fei-fei-lis-inspiring-memoir-about-her-remarkable-life-and-the-rise-of-ai/

Jia, Yuwei, et al. “vLLM: Easy, Fast, and Cheap LLM Serving with PagedAttention.” arXiv preprint, 2023.

https://blog.vllm.ai/2023/06/20/vllm.html

Kiela, Douwe. “RAG 2.0 and The New Era of RAG Agents.” Interview on DataFramed Podcast, DataCamp, June 9, 2025. https://www.datacamp.com/podcast/rag-2-and-the-new-era-of-rag-agents

Masterson, Victoria. “9 Ways AI Is Helping Tackle Climate Change.” World Economic Forum, February 12, 2024.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/02/ai-combat-climate-change/

NASA/JPL-Caltech. “Here’s How AI Is Changing NASA’s Mars Rover Science.” Jet Propulsion Laboratory News, July 16, 2024. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/heres-how-ai-is-changing-nasas-mars-rover-science

Roshni. “Remembering John McCarthy, the Father of Artificial Intelligence and Lisp.” India Today, September 4, 2024.

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/john-mccarthy-father-of-artificial-intelligence-lisp-2593400-2024-09-04

Roos, Dave. “How Alan Turing and His Test Became AI Legend.” HowStuffWorks, updated June 20, 2025.

https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/future-tech/alan-turing-test.htm

Sanford, Alyxaundria. “Artificial Intelligence Is Putting Innocent People at Risk of Being Incarcerated.” Innocence Project, February 14, 2024. https://innocenceproject.org/news/artificial-intelligence-is-putting-innocent-people-at-risk-of-being-incarcerated

Shead, Sam. “4-1: Google DeepMind Beats Go Champion Lee Sedol in a Tense Final Game.” Business Insider, March 15, 2016.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-4-human-1-google-deepmind-beat-go-champion-lee-sedol-in-a-tense-final-game-2016-3

Taylor, Josh, and Alex Hern. “‘Godfather of AI’ Geoffrey Hinton Quits Google and Warns over Dangers of Misinformation.” The Guardian, May 2, 2023.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/02/geoffrey-hinton-godfather-of-ai-quits-google-warns-dangers-of-machine-learning

Tegmark, Max. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2017.

Vila, Daniel. “How to Choose the Best Open Source LLM for Your Project in 2025.” Hugging Face Blog, September 9, 2025.

https://huggingface.co/blog/dvilasuero/choosing-best-open-source-ai-models

Hugging Face. “Using MLX at Hugging Face.” Hugging Face Hub Docs, 2024. https://huggingface.co/docs/hub/mlx

(Additional references from the episode, like reports on GPT adoption, alignment research, and open-source frameworks, can be found in the Atomicxs “Season 1 References” folder.)

⚖️ Legal & Editorial Note

This post and its related podcast episode are for educational and commentary purposes. All quotations are used under fair use for criticism, teaching, and research.

Trademarks, models, and archival materials remain property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. Views expressed are those of Atomicxs Podcast and Atom-Collab LLC, not any employer or institution. Nothing herein constitutes legal, medical, financial, or technical advice.

If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact hello@atom-collab.com for prompt review.

⚡ TL;DR

Fibonacci numbers (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 …) describe self-similar growth found in everything from pinecones to galaxies.
The ratio between successive numbers (≈ 1.618) is the golden ratio (φ) — a proportion long linked to aesthetic harmony.
Artists and architects—from Da Vinci to Le Corbusier to modern graphic designers—use it to balance composition.
Scientists model it to understand spirals, fractals, and biological efficiency.
Today, Fibonacci logic even powers algorithms in data structures, cryptography, and AI optimization.

🎧 Listen

Full episode (in Spanish): S1E3 Fibonacci: La Geometría del Asombro
on Atomicxs Podcast 🎙️ (Apple / Spotify / YouTube)

🎥 Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube

🌿 The sequence that grew a universe

Leonardo of Pisa (Fibonacci, c. 1170–1250) published Liber Abaci in 1202, introducing Arabic numerals to Europe and posing a humble puzzle about rabbit populations.
The solution revealed a pattern where each number is the sum of the two before it—an endlessly self-building code.

That simple rule mirrors how nature grows: buds, spirals, and branching patterns emerge from local rules that preserve efficiency and symmetry.
Mathematically, it converges toward φ ≈ 1.618 — the golden ratio that appears when proportion meets optimization.

Subscribe now

🌻 Fibonacci in nature (geometry of growth)

Look closely at a sunflower head: 34 spirals clockwise, 55 counterclockwise. A pinecone: 8 and 13.
Shells, hurricanes, and spiral galaxies echo the same ratio because logarithmic spirals minimize energy and maximize space.

Evolution didn’t “read” Fibonacci — it arrived there through selection for efficiency.
The result is a natural balance between order and chaos, symmetry and growth.

🎨 From canvas to cathedral (the aesthetics of φ)

Artists and architects have used the golden ratio for centuries:

• The Parthenon’s façade fits φ-based rectangles.

• Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man embodies human proportions near φ.

• Dalí’s Sacrament of the Last Supper frames a dodecahedron of golden ratios.

• Mexican muralist Obed Calderón (see obedcalderon.com) continues the tradition by embedding geometric progressions in color and motion — mathematics as visual rhythm.

Designers still apply φ to logos, grids, and interface ratios to trigger a sense of balance our brains instinctively recognize.

Share

💻 The science of Fibonacci patterns

In biology, Fibonacci explains phyllotaxis (the arrangement of leaves) and DNA’s helical geometry.
In physics, it models quasi-crystals and wave interference.
In computer science, we find it in recursive algorithms, search trees, and optimization heuristics.
Even financial analysts plot “Fibonacci retracements” to measure market momentum — a reminder that humans still seek order in chaos by pattern.

🔭 Why it matters now

Fibonacci teaches that beauty and function are not opposites.
In an age of AI-generated art and synthetic biology, the same mathematical grammar that built sunflowers guides our digital creations.
Recognizing these patterns fosters design literacy — seeing the shared language of science and art as a tool for sustainability and empathy.

Leave a comment

💬 Share

Where do you see Fibonacci in your everyday life?
Tag @atomicxs.podcast or comment below.

📚 References & further reading

Primary / archival

• Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa). Liber Abaci (1202). Translated by Laurence Sigler. Springer-Verlag, 2002.

• Luca Pacioli. De Divina Proportione (1509). Facsimile editions via Biblioteca Ambrosiana.

• Kepler, Johannes. Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596).

Books & modern sources

• Livio, Mario. The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the World’s Most Astonishing Number. Broadway Books, 2002.

• Stewart, Ian. Why Beauty Is Truth: A History of Symmetry. Basic Books, 2008.

• Thompson, D’Arcy W. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, 1917.

• Ghyka, Matila. The Geometry of Art and Life. Dover Publications, 1977 (reprint).

• Padovan, Richard. Proportion: Science, Philosophy, Architecture. Taylor & Francis, 1999.

• Calderón, Obed. Official portfolio and artist statements at obedcalderon.com.

Papers & technical studies

• Jeong, Y. et al. “Fibonacci Spiral Patterns in Seed Arrangement and Self-Organized Biological Systems.” Nature Communications 15 (2023).

• Rogers, D. (2021). “The Golden Ratio in Algorithmic Design.” Journal of Computational Aesthetics.

⚖️ Legal & editorial note

This post and podcast are for educational and commentary purposes. We cite public sources and academic literature under fair use for teaching and scholarship. Trademarks and art references belong to their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. Views expressed belong to Atomicxs Podcast and Atom-Collab LLC, not to any employer or institution. Nothing herein constitutes legal, medical, financial, or technical advice. If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact us for prompt review at hello@atom-collab.com.

⚡ TL;DR

Before emojis, radio, or the Internet, humanity spoke in beeps.

In 1830s America, Samuel Morse, a portrait painter turned inventor, transformed electricity into language.
His system of dots and dashes—short and long pulses—became the first digital code in human history.

It linked continents, saved lives, and gave birth to the idea of binary communication—the logic that would later shape computers, networks, and even artificial intelligence.

From battlefields to spacecraft, Morse Code remains proof that clarity and simplicity can outlast complexity.

🎧 Listen

Hear the full episode on Atomicxs Podcast (Spanish with English subtitles).
👉 Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube
👉 Apple Podcasts
👉 Spotify

🔠 The Birth of the Beep: When Art Met Electricity

Before becoming an inventor, Samuel F. B. Morse was an artist who painted presidents and poets.
But in 1832, aboard a ship returning from Europe, he overheard a conversation about electromagnetism—and saw in it a vision of instant communication.

Working with Alfred Vail, Morse developed a code that turned letters into electrical pulses.
In 1844, he sent the first long-distance telegraph message between Washington D.C. and Baltimore:

“What hath God wrought.”

That message marked the birth of instant global communication.
For the first time, information traveled faster than people.

Within decades, telegraph lines crossed continents, and in 1866, a transatlantic cable linked North America and Europe.
A new era had begun—one made of lightning and language.

(Standage, The Victorian Internet, 1998; Library of Congress Archives)

Subscribe now

🚨 Morse in Times of Crisis

When disaster struck, the world turned to the beep.

In 1906, the International Radiotelegraph Conference standardized the distress signal:
SOS (··· ——— ···).
It wasn’t an acronym—it was pure pattern, chosen for clarity.

When the Titanic sank in 1912, operators tapped those pulses into the freezing Atlantic night.
Since then, SOS has meant one thing in every language: Help.

Through both World Wars, Morse connected armies, ships, and resistance movements.
Its short, rhythmic structure allowed coded communication, sometimes hidden inside musical tones or flashlight blinks.

Even today, pilots verify radio beacons using Morse identifiers, and emergency responders still train in its use.

Because when everything else fails, a pulse still carries a voice.

Share

🌍 The Universal Language

Morse transcended alphabet and culture.
Its rhythm—short and long, on and off—became the first truly universal digital language.

Japan developed Wabun Code to express syllables.
Arab and Russian operators adapted it to local scripts.
Radio amateurs still call it CW (Continuous Wave) and gather across borders to send messages of friendship.

It’s a community that values precision, patience, and empathy—values we risk losing in the age of instant replies.

Morse reminds us that connection is not about speed—it’s about intention.

Leave a comment

🧠 Morse and the Digital Mind

Look closer at those dots and dashes—they’re binary logic in its purest form.
Two states: on and off.
Exactly the same principle that powers computers, code, and AI.

Morse wasn’t just communication—it was proto-computation.
Its minimalism anticipated the elegance of programming: compressing thought into signal.

Today, engineers and neuroscientists use Morse for assistive technology—from blink-controlled keyboards to brain–computer interfaces.
Projects like Morse Glasses and Blink-to-Code let people with paralysis communicate with their eyes alone.

The same code that once connected continents now connects hearts and minds.

💬 Clarity as a Superpower

In a world of infinite notifications, Morse Code feels radical again.
It asks us to slow down.
To send only what matters.

Three points. Three dashes. Three points.
That’s not just a distress call—it’s a philosophy:
Be clear. Be brief. Be human.

Samuel Morse didn’t just invent a code—he built a mindset.
He proved that the simplest signal can carry the deepest meaning.

🛰️ Myth-busting (quick, fair, sourced)

“Morse Code is obsolete.”
False. It’s still taught in emergency protocols, aviation, and the ham radio community worldwide.

“SOS stands for ‘Save Our Souls.’”
Nope. It’s not an acronym—it’s a pattern, chosen because it’s unmistakable in any transmission.

“It’s just for old technology.”
Wrong again. Morse logic underlies digital systems, assistive communication tools, and even spacecraft signaling.

💡 What This Means for Us

For technologists: simplicity often outlives innovation.

For educators: clarity is empathy—teach in signals people can truly receive.

For everyone: when overwhelmed by noise, return to signal.
Ask yourself: What do I really need to say?

Because the heart of communication—then and now—
isn’t electricity.
It’s understanding.

🎧 Further listening

🎙️ Atomicxs S1E4 – Beep Beep! Código Morse (Spanish)
If you liked this episode, pair it with:
🔹 Philosophize This! Episode #149 – On Media Pt. 2: Marshall McLuhan — discusses media, technology and their effects on how we perceive the world.
🔹 99% Invisible — “Sounds of the Artificial World” (Episode 15) — it explores how devices produce sounds (beeps, chimes, feedback) to make sense of the digital world.

📚 References & Further Reading

• Standage, Tom. The Victorian Internet. Walker & Company, 1998.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Morse Code.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/Morse-Code

• Severance, Charles. A History of Computing Technology. IEEE Computer Society Press, 2012.

• D-Scholarship @ University of Pittsburgh. “Effectiveness of Morse Code as an Alternative Control Method for Powered Wheelchair Navigation.” 2016.

• “Morse Glasses: An IoT communication system based on Morse code” — N. Tarek et al., 2021. PMC (PubMed Central)

• Arxiv.org. “Blink-to-Code: Real-Time Morse Communication via Eye Blink Detection.” 2024.

• IEEE Spectrum. “Morse Code Is Dead. Long Live Morse Code.” 2007.

• International Amateur Radio Union (IARU). “Ethics in Operating Procedure for Radio Amateur,” Draft, 2025.

• History. “Titanic by the Numbers: From Construction to Disaster to Discovery” 2020.

• Information Theory Unit. “Samuel Morse, American Electro-Magnet Telegraph Patent and Morse Code.” IEEE REACH.

⚖️ Legal & Editorial Note

This post and its related podcast episode are for educational and commentary purposes. All quotations are used under fair use for criticism, teaching, and research.
Trademarks and archival materials remain property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. Views expressed are those of Atomicxs Podcast and Atom-Collab LLC, not any employer or institution. Nothing herein constitutes legal, medical, or technical advice. If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact: hello@atom-collab.com for prompt review.

🎙️ Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs — Season 1, Episode 3

Read time: ~5 minutes

🌀 TL;DR

Lewis Carroll —Oxford mathematician, logician, and storyteller— used Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland as a playground for mathematical ideas.
Behind tea parties and talking cats lie lessons about infinity, paradox, non-Euclidean geometry, and logical recursion—concepts that still shape computer science, AI, and mathematical education today.

Through humor and absurdity, Carroll showed that mathematics isn’t just about numbers—it’s about how we think.

🎧 Listen

Hear the full episode on Atomicxs Podcast
(Apple · Spotify · YouTube) — in Spanish, with English translation available on YouTube.

👉 Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube
👉 Apple Podcasts
👉 Spotify

♟️ The Logic of Wonderland (ideas × imagination × paradox)

Before he became Lewis Carroll, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson lectured in mathematics at Christ Church, Oxford.
His day job: geometry and logic. His hobby: wordplay and puzzles.
For Carroll, math was not dry calculation—it was a game of reason and imagination.

• The Cheshire Cat’s logic (“If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there”) anticipates decision theory and optimization—central in economics and modern AI (Russell & Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2020).

• The Mad Hatter’s riddle, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?”, echoes self-referential paradoxes that later inspired Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (Gödel, 1931) and Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979).

• The Queen’s “Sentence first—verdict afterwards!” scene is a satire of circular reasoning, still studied in philosophy and cognitive science (Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011).

What looks like nonsense is actually structured thought—a mirror held up to human logic itself.

Subscribe now

🧩 Mathematics Beneath the Madness

In Carroll’s era, the boundaries of mathematics were shifting.
The mid-19th century saw fierce debates over imaginary numbers and the new non-Euclidean geometries that curved space itself.

• Alice’s constant shrinking and growing illustrate scaling laws—concepts later formalized in physics and biology (Thompson, On Growth and Form, 1917).

• The looking-glass world in the sequel explores inversion geometry, where distances flip according to defined mathematical rules.

• The Cheshire Cat’s grin, appearing after the cat disappears, visualizes topological persistence—the study of properties that remain even when objects stretch or distort (Stewart, Why Beauty is Truth, 2008).

Carroll was not just mocking mathematics—he was translating it into story form, anticipating the creative logic that would define computer science a century later.

🧠 Storytelling as a Mathematical Tool

Modern neuroscience confirms what Carroll intuitively knew: we learn through narrative.
Stories engage the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex—areas linked to reasoning and memory (Bruner, Acts of Meaning, 1990).

Educators now apply this principle in STEM:

• Platforms like Alice.org (Carnegie Mellon) teach object-oriented programming through 3D storytelling.

• Teachers worldwide use gamified narrative puzzles to teach algebra, geometry, and logic—making math emotional, visual, and fun.

• In Latin America, community STEM initiatives increasingly use stories and local myths to introduce scientific thinking.

Storytelling turns abstraction into experience—and that’s where learning sticks.

Share

🔮 The Legacy of Carroll in Science and Culture

Carroll’s Wonderland has quietly shaped science, philosophy, and technology:

• Quantum mechanics: superposition and observer paradoxes echo Wonderland’s fluid logic (Penrose, The Road to Reality, 2004).

• Artificial Intelligence: AI systems must interpret ambiguity—just like Alice navigating contradictions (Marcus & Davis, Rebooting AI, 2019).

• Education: narrative-based learning and gamification draw directly from Carroll’s playful method.

Even pop culture—from Inanimate Alice (digital narrative) to math-art hybrids like Journey into Geometries—continues to use Alice as a bridge between logic and creativity.

Carroll proved that logic and wonder are not opposites—they’re partners in discovery.

Share Atomicxs Podcast Blog

Myth-busting (quick, fair, sourced)

• “Lewis Carroll just wrote nonsense.”
  False. Many episodes encode logical puzzles, mathematical inversions, and linguistic paradoxes.

• “His math had no scientific value.”
  Incorrect. Carroll’s published works on logic and syllogisms influenced symbolic logic development (Dodgson, Symbolic Logic, 1896).

• “Wonderland is escapism.”
  Not at all. It’s an exploration of cognitive limits, testing how far logic can bend before it breaks.

  Leave a comment

What This Means for Us

The Wonderland mindset still matters.

• For AI, it reminds us that ambiguity is not an error—it’s part of intelligence.

• For STEM education, it shows that humor and narrative increase retention and curiosity.

• For philosophy, it’s proof that contradiction is a tool for discovery, not a flaw in reasoning.

The next time someone says math is boring—tell them it’s hiding in Wonderland.

🎧 Further listening

• Atomicxs S1E3 – Alicia en el Pais de las Matemáticas 🎙️

• If you enjoy logic-meets-literature deep dives: Philosophize This! Episode 231 (“Wittgenstein’s Language Games”) pairs beautifully with this topic.

📚 References & Further Reading

Note: References may come in the form of links to buy them on Amazon, downloadable PDFs, or other methods of procurement.

Some links may not provide the full text of the reference.

• Carroll, Lewis. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London: Macmillan, 1865. Project Gutenberg

• Carroll, Lewis. Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan, 1896. Internet Archive

• Gardner, Martin. The Annotated Alice. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999.

• Gödel, Kurt. “On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems.” Leipzig: 1931. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summary, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems.

• Hofstadter, Douglas. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books, 1979.

• Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Knopf, 2004.

• Stewart, Ian. Why Beauty is Truth: The History of Symmetry. Basic Books, 2008.

• Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, 1917.

• Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Pearson, 2020.

• Marcus, Gary, and Ernest Davis. Rebooting AI: Building Artificial Intelligence We Can Trust. Pantheon, 2019.

• Bruner, Jerome. Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press, 1990.

• Devlin, Keith. “The Hidden Math Behind Alice in Wonderland.” Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, 2012. PDF

• Alice Research. “Alice.org: Educational Programming Platform.” Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.alice.org/research/

⚖️ Legal & Editorial Note

This post and its related podcast episode are for educational and commentary purposes. All quotations are used under fair use for criticism, teaching, and research.
Trademarks and literary works remain property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. The views expressed are those of Atomicxs Podcast and Atom-Collab, not any employer or institution. Nothing herein constitutes legal, medical, or technical advice. If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact: hello@atom-collab.com for prompt review.

Podcast tie-in: Atomicxs — Season 1, Episode 2
Read time: ~5 minutes

TL;DR

• AC vs. DC: Edison backed direct current (great locally in the 1880s); Tesla championed alternating current (easy to step up/down, efficient over distance). AC won the early grid—but DC never died (batteries, electronics, EVs) and is resurging via HVDC for long lines and renewables.

• Turning points: The World’s Columbian Exposition (Chicago, 1893) and Niagara Falls power (1895) showcased AC’s advantages.

• Today: The “war” became a partnership. Modern power systems blend AC grids + DC devices + HVDC backbones.

Listen

🎧 Hear the full episode on Atomicxs Podcast (Apple/Spotify/YouTube) in Spanish.

Atomicxs Podcast on YouTube

AC vs. DC in two minutes

• Direct Current (DC): A steady one-way flow. Perfect for batteries and electronics. In the 1880s, it didn’t scale well across cities because changing voltage was hard with the tech of the time.

• Alternating Current (AC): Flows back and forth. With transformers, you can raise voltage (lower current → lower transmission losses) to move power long distances, then lower voltage for homes and factories. That made AC the practical choice for early large-scale grids.

Result: By the mid-1890s, AC distribution became the standard for cities. Meanwhile, DC lived on inside devices and storage—and today is crucial again for long high-capacity lines (HVDC) and for integrating renewables.

Subscribe now

The human story (ideas × execution × narrative)

Two larger-than-life figures pushed electrification forward in different ways:

• Thomas Edison was a system-builder and industrializer. He built full lighting systems—generation, distribution, meters, bulbs—and a business model to sell them.

• Nikola Tesla was a conceptual trailblazer and showman. His polyphase AC system and the induction motorunlocked efficient motors and long-distance AC power transmission.

Add George Westinghouse, who backed Tesla’s AC and delivered the engineering and contracts to make it real at national scale. The current war wasn’t just science; it was patents, politics, exhibition drama, and public fear.

From Chicago to Niagara: the moment AC became inevitable

• Chicago, 1893 — “White City”: The World’s Fair dazzled visitors with AC lighting and distribution at unprecedented scale.

• Niagara Falls, 1895: The Adams hydroelectric plant demonstrated that a remote resource could transmit serious power over distance—in AC—to a major industrial center.

Those two events didn’t end the debate, but they made the writing on the wall impossible to miss.

Share

Myth-busting (quick, fair, sourced)

• “Edison electrocuted Topsy.” The 1903 killing of Topsy the elephant was carried out by Coney Island’s Luna Park; Edison’s film company recorded it, but Edison did not organize the execution.

• “AC was adopted recklessly.” The electric-chair era and high-profile animal demonstrations (many led by Harold P. Brown, sometimes using Edison’s lab) fueled public fear of AC. The grid choice was ultimately driven by technical and economic fit—transformers and long-distance efficiency—not by stunts alone.

(See references for primary and secondary sources.)

What Tesla actually invented (and demonstrated)

If you’ve ever wondered what’s myth and what’s real, here’s a clean list you can point to—rooted in primary-source compilations and patents:

• Polyphase AC system & Induction Motor (1888): The foundation of modern AC motor technology and long-distance transmission. Key patents often cited: US 381,968 (Electric Motor) and US 382,280 (Electrical Transmission of Power).

• High-frequency transformers (“Tesla coil,” 1891–1893): Demonstrations of high-voltage, high-frequency phenomena; influential for later radio and RF work.

• Wireless lighting & single-wire experiments: Resonant energy transfer demos that became signature stage moments.

• Radio remote control (“teleautomaton,” 1898): A radio-controlled boat exhibited in New York—years ahead of mass-market adoption. Patent often cited: US 613,809.

For an accessible, graphic-rich overview, David J. Kent’s Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity is a great companion. For deep dives into the original language and experiments, the Princeton-hosted compilation The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla is a goldmine.

Why DC never died (and why you’ll hear more about HVDC)

• Inside devices: Phones, laptops, LED lighting, server farms, EVs—all DC internally.

• On the big map: HVDC (High-Voltage Direct Current) lines are increasingly used to move wind/solar power with lower losses over long distances and to connect asynchronous AC grids. Think of HVDC as the interstate tying together regional AC city streets.

The modern view isn’t AC or DC. It’s AC + DC, each where it fits best.

What this means for us

• Cleaner grids: Expect more HVDC backbones alongside AC distribution, plus smarter converters everywhere.

• Design literacy: Knowing where AC vs. DC shines helps consumers and policymakers ask better questions (about chargers, grid projects, and transmission debates).

• Innovation lens: The Current War reminds us that breakthroughs win when ideas meet execution and a compelling story.

“Innovation = idea × execution × narrative.”

Further listening

• Atomicxs S1E2 — This episode <3

• If you enjoy narrative history: TESLA: The Life and Times Podcast (show-notes archive) offers a detailed, episode-by-episode chronology that pairs nicely with our overview.

  Leave a comment

References & further reading

Primary/archival

• Tesla, Nikola. The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla. (ed. Thomas Commerford Martin, 1894). Princeton Joseph Henry Project (PDF): https://commons.princeton.edu/josephhenry/wp-content/uploads/sites/71/2019/08/The_Inventions_of_Tesla.pdf

• U.S. Patents frequently cited: US 381,968 (Electric Motor, 1888); US 382,280 (Electrical Transmission of Power, 1888); US 613,809 (Method of and Apparatus for Controlling Mechanism of Moving Vessels or Vehicles, 1898).

• Contemporary press and archives on the electric chair era and Harold P. Brown’s demonstrations (1888–1890).

Books & syntheses

• Kent, David J. Tesla: The Wizard of Electricity. Fall River Press/Sterling.

• Jonnes, Jill. Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the World.

• Carlson, W. Bernard. Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age.

• Hughes, Thomas P. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930.

• Cheney, Margaret. Tesla: Man Out of Time.

• Padiyar, K. R. HVDC Power Transmission Systems: Technology and System Interactions.

• Arrillaga, J. High Voltage Direct Current Transmission.

Myth-busting notes (helpful starting points)

• Thomas A. Edison Papers (Rutgers University) discussion on Topsy and context of early-1900s electrification publicity.

• Historical accounts of Harold P. Brown’s anti-AC campaigns and the first use of the electric chair (William Kemmler, 1890).

Editor’s note: Dates and patent numbers are included to support verification. If you spot an error, please leave a comment or email us so we can correct the record.

Legal & editorial note

This post and podcast are provided for educational and commentary purposes. We rely on and cite publicly available sources, archival materials, and scholarly works. We make good-faith efforts to ensure accuracy, and we welcome corrections. All quotations are used under fair use for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners; no endorsement is implied. The views expressed are those of Atomicxs Podcast, Atom-Collab, and the authors, and do not represent any employer, institution, or publisher. Nothing herein is legal, financial, or technical advice. If you are a rights holder and believe material has been used in error, contact us for prompt review at hello@atom-collab.com.

I’m your host, Irais, and today, we’re going to talk about something that might just change the way we think about life itself.”

You see, for the longest time, we’ve been asking the same old question: ‘What is life?’ But maybe we’ve been looking at it all wrong. What if life isn’t about what it’s made of, but how it’s made? That’s where Assembly Theory comes in, a fascinating new way to understand life, not by what chemicals are present, but by how complex those chemicals are. And let me tell you, once you start looking at life this way, the whole universe starts to make a lot more sense.

Subscribe now

By the end of this episode/article, you’ll see why Assembly Theory is revolutionizing our search for life beyond Earth. We’ll break down how scientists are using this idea to detect life in the cosmos—not by looking for little green men, but by looking for complex molecules that simply shouldn’t exist unless something was actively putting them together.

So, whether you’re a science lover, a space enthusiast, or just someone who likes a good mystery—trust me, you’ll want to stick around for this one.

✅ For full disclaimers, visit www.atom-collab.com.

Introduction

Alright, so let’s start with a simple question: What is Assembly Theory? You hear ‘theory’ and you might think it’s just another fancy idea cooked up by some physicist sitting in a lab, right? But no—this one’s different. This one’s about how life itself comes together. And it’s got some pretty wild implications.

Assembly Theory is the idea that we can measure how complex something is—not just by looking at what it’s made of, but by figuring out how many steps it took to make it. Imagine you’ve got a Lego house. If it took you one or two pieces to snap together, no big deal. But if you’ve got a whole castle with turrets and secret doors, that’s a lot of steps! That’s the idea here—life isn’t just about the ingredients, it’s about the recipe.

Why does this matter? Well, if we’re trying to figure out whether life exists beyond Earth, we need a way to spot it without assuming it looks like us. We can’t just keep looking for oxygen or water and expect every alien lifeform to breathe and drink the way we do. Instead, Assembly Theory proposes a new framework to detect life—even if it’s made of unfamiliar materials. And that? That could change the game.

Background

So where did this whole idea come from? Well, that brings us to Dr. Sara Imari Walker and Dr. Leroy Cronin. They started asking a different kind of question—not ‘What is life?’ but ‘What makes something look alive, no matter what it’s made of?’ They realized that life doesn’t just appear out of nowhere—it builds itself, piece by piece, through a series of steps. And the more steps it takes, the more likely it was designed rather than randomly thrown together.

Now, this is a pretty big shift in thinking. For decades, scientists have been trying to define life based on the chemicals it uses. ‘Does it have DNA? Does it breathe oxygen? Does it eat food?’ But Assembly Theory says—wait a second—maybe we should forget about what life is made of and focus on how it’s made instead.

Think about it like this: If you walk into a forest and see a bunch of sticks, no big deal. The wind could’ve blown them there. But if you see those sticks arranged in a perfect little log cabin? Now, someone put them there. That’s what Assembly Theory does—it looks at molecules and says, ‘Hey, this thing is way too complex to have happened by accident.’ And that? That might just be the key to finding alien life.

Darwinian Evolution

Alright, let’s dive into this fascinating concept called Darwinian evolution. Now, you might be wondering, what exactly is it? Well, it’s the theory that explains how species change over time through a process of natural selection. Imagine a population of organisms, each with slight variations in their traits. Some of these traits give certain individuals an advantage in their environment—maybe they’re better at finding food or avoiding predators. These lucky individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their advantageous traits to the next generation. Over time, these small changes accumulate, leading to the evolution of new species (Darwin 1859). It’s nature’s way of tinkering, constantly experimenting to see what works best in a given environment.

Now, you might be thinking, that’s all well and good, but how does this apply to the real world? Let’s consider the field of medicine. Bacteria, those tiny microorganisms that can cause infections, are masters of evolution. When exposed to antibiotics, most bacteria are killed, but a few may have random mutations that make them resistant. These survivors reproduce, leading to a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This is evolution in action and poses a significant challenge in treating infections (Palumbi 2001). Scientists call this “directed evolution”, and it’s one of the most urgent problems we face in medicine today (Livermore 2003).

Another intriguing application is in the realm of synthetic biology. Scientists are now attempting to create simple forms of life from scratch, aiming to produce metabolically active cells that can grow, divide, and even exhibit Darwinian evolution. This ambitious endeavor could deepen our understanding of life’s origins and its potential existence elsewhere in the universe (Budin and Szostak 2010). Researchers at the University of Groningen recently made strides in this field, producing artificial cells that show rudimentary evolutionary processes (Mutschler et al. 2015).”

So, why should we care about Darwinian evolution in our modern world? For starters, it has profound implications for public health. The rapid evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria necessitates the development of new drugs and treatment strategies. Understanding evolutionary principles helps us stay one step ahead in this ongoing arms race (Davies and Davies 2010). The World Health Organization has classified antimicrobial resistance as one of the top global health threats (WHO 2021).

Moreover, the concept of evolution extends beyond biology. In economics, for instance, evolutionary game theory applies Darwinian principles to understand how strategies evolve over time among competing individuals or organizations (Smith 1982). This approach provides insights into human behavior, market dynamics, and even social structures. For example, companies that adapt their business models based on consumer demand and technological changes survive, while those that resist change struggle—just like in natural selection (Nowak and Sigmund 2004).

In essence, Darwinian evolution isn’t just a historical theory confined to biology textbooks. It’s a dynamic framework that influences various aspects of our lives, from healthcare to technology to social sciences. By appreciating and understanding these evolutionary processes, we can better navigate the challenges and opportunities of our ever-changing world.

Share

The Birth of Assembly Theory

Alright, let’s start with something you’ve probably heard a thousand times—evolution by natural selection. It’s one of the biggest ideas in science, and for a good reason. The basic idea is simple: living things change over time because some traits help them survive better than others. The ones with the best traits live long enough to pass them on, and over many generations, you get species that are perfectly adapted to their environment (Darwin 1859).

Take giraffes. The ones with longer necks could reach more food, so they survived and passed that trait down. The ones with short necks? Not so lucky. Over time, the average neck length increased. That’s how evolution works—it’s reactionary, meaning it happens after something changes in the environment. It’s nature’s way of saying, ‘Hey, this works, so let’s keep it!’

Now, that all sounds great, but here’s the problem—evolution is slow. It’s like playing the world’s longest game of trial and error. Mutations pop up randomly, and only the useful ones stick around. But what if you need a change now? What if life didn’t have time to wait millions of years to get it right? (Mayr 1963).

Let’s talk about bacteria. These little guys are masters of evolution. Throw antibiotics at them, and most die. But a few lucky ones—just by chance—have a mutation that makes them resistant. Those survivors reproduce, and suddenly, you’ve got a whole population that’s antibiotic-resistant. That’s evolution happening in real-time. But here’s the catch—this is still a reaction. The bacteria didn’t plan to become resistant; they just got lucky (Palumbi 2001).

Now, here’s where things get interesting. Darwinian evolution explains a lot, but it doesn’t explain everything. It tells us how species change over time, but it doesn’t explain how complex life started in the first place. You don’t just go from a bunch of random chemicals floating in a pond to a fully-functioning cell by sheer luck. That would be like throwing a bunch of metal parts into a junkyard and expecting them to randomly assemble into a working airplane. Highly unlikely (Koonin 2007).

And here’s the biggest question of all—what if life somewhere else doesn’t work like life on Earth? Evolution by natural selection is built on the idea that organisms compete, survive, and reproduce. But what if life on another planet doesn’t need reproduction? What if it exists as self-sustaining chemical systems that don’t evolve the way we expect?

That’s where Assembly Theory shakes things up. Instead of asking, ‘How does life evolve?’ it asks ‘How does life build complexity?’ It’s not about who survives, it’s about how something gets made. Assembly Theory doesn’t rely on random mutations and natural selection. Instead, it looks at the steps required to build complexity—and let me tell you, that’s a game-changer (Cronin and Walker 2016).

If evolution is nature’s trial and error, Assembly Theory is nature’s blueprint. It gives us a way to measure how complex something is without assuming it had to evolve the way we did. And that? That opens the door to finding life in places we never even considered (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).

So why should we care? Well, think about how we search for alien life. Right now, we’re mostly looking for Earth-like conditions—water, oxygen, organic molecules. But what if that’s completely wrong? If we only look for life that looks like us, we might miss something incredible (Ball 2023).

Assembly Theory helps us break free from that bias. Instead of looking for specific molecules, we look for complexity itself—the kind of molecular structures that just shouldn’t exist unless something was putting them together. That means we could detect alien life that doesn’t follow our rules (Zimmer 2024).

Leave a comment

Is Assembly Theory Flawless?

Now, before we get too far down the rabbit hole, let’s pause and ask something every good scientist should ask: What are the critics saying?

One of the most vocal critics of Assembly Theory is Dr. Hector Zenil, a researcher in algorithmic complexity and artificial life. He’s written a provocative article titled The 8 Fallacies of Assembly Theory where he argues that many of the claims made by the theory’s creators aren’t as groundbreaking—or even as correct—as they appear (Zenil, 2023).

For instance, Zenil argues that the so-called ‘Assembly Index’—which measures how many steps it takes to build a molecule—isn’t a new concept at all. He says it’s just a rebranding of established ideas from information theory and algorithmic complexity, like Lempel-Ziv compression or Shannon entropy.

Another critique? That the experimental dataset used to validate Assembly Theory is too small and cherry-picked. Zenil and his team analyzed more than 15,000 compounds using algorithmic methods and found that similar conclusions could be reached without inventing a new theory.

He also questions the overreach—Assembly Theory proposes a framework to rethink how we define life, intelligence, and even time. Zenil argues that’s scientifically reckless unless it’s backed by broader data and deeper theoretical rigor.

So why mention this? Because science is supposed to challenge itself. Even if Assembly Theory isn’t perfect—or even if parts of it turn out to be wrong—it’s forcing us to ask better questions about what life really is, and that’s what matters.

Whether you side with the critics or the champions, one thing’s for sure: this conversation is far from over.

Give a gift subscription

Causation, Curiosity, and the Origin of Life

Okay, now listen. Darwinian evolution? It's brilliant—no one’s denying that. It tells us how giraffes got long necks, how bacteria outsmart antibiotics, and why peacocks have ridiculous feathers. It explains how life changes.

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t tell you how life started. That’s not what Darwin was trying to do. Evolution is about what happens after you already have something that can copy itself. So... where did that something come from? That’s the real mystery.

And if you’re like me—someone who can’t leave a question alone—you start poking around at the edges. You start wondering: What had to happen before evolution could even begin? Because evolution isn’t magic—it needs a system that can store information, make decisions, and keep building. That’s not just chemistry anymore. That’s causation.

And that’s where Sara Imari Walker comes in with a whole different way of thinking. She says: “Maybe life isn’t just a thing—it’s a process. A process where matter starts doing memory. Where information gets involved. Where causation loops back on itself and creates this weird, recursive dance.”

And you might be thinking, ‘Whoa, Irais, that’s getting abstract.’ But hang on. It’s not that abstract. Think of it like this: evolution is a bicycle. It’s amazing. But you can’t ride it unless someone built it first. So the real question is: how does the universe build the bicycle in the first place?

Assembly Theory tries to answer that. Instead of just saying, 'this molecule exists,' it asks, 'how many steps did it take to build it?' It looks at complexity not as a happy accident, but as a fingerprint of a causal history.

That’s why I love this theory. It shifts the conversation from, ‘What is life?’ to ‘What had to happen to make life possible?’

It’s not about mystical sparks or lucky lightning bolts. It’s about tracing how the universe organizes itself, step by step, until something starts learning, adapting, and eventually... wondering where it came from.

So yeah—Darwin showed us the ladder. But Assembly Theory? It's showing us how the first rung got there. And to me, that’s the kind of question worth falling in love with."

So here’s the big question—if Darwinian evolution isn’t the only way life can develop, what else is out there? Could we find life that builds itself without evolving in the way we expect? Could complexity itself be a sign of intelligence? That’s what we’ll explore next as we dive into Assembly Theory and how it works.

How Assembly Theory Deviates from Darwinian Evolution

Alright, let’s start with something familiar. Darwinian evolution—it’s the classic story we all know. Life adapts to its environment. The giraffe’s neck gets longer over generations because the ones with short necks didn’t get enough food. The fastest cheetahs survive because, well, the slow ones don’t. It’s all about survival and reproduction. That’s evolution—it’s a reactionary process. Organisms respond to the pressures of their environment, adapting over time to improve their chances of making more copies of themselves (Darwin 1859).

But here’s the thing—this whole framework is built on the idea that life must compete, adapt, and reproduce. What if we’ve been thinking too small? What if life doesn’t need to evolve this way? That’s where Assembly Theory comes in, and let me tell you, it flips the script in a way that’s got scientists paying attention (Cronin and Walker 2016).

Now, imagine life wasn’t just about reacting to the environment, but instead, actively building complexity—layer by layer, like stacking LEGO bricks into something intricate. That’s the core idea of Assembly Theory. Instead of asking ‘how does life adapt?’ we ask ‘how does complexity emerge?’ It’s a different way of thinking—less about who survives and more about how things are put together (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).

In evolution, the changes happen after the fact—something works, so nature keeps it. But in Assembly Theory, we focus on the construction process itself. If something is extremely complex, needing many precise steps to form, that’s a sign it didn’t just appear randomly. That’s what we call the Assembly Index (AI)—a measure of how many steps it takes to build something. The higher the AI, the more likely that molecule, or system, was built by a process we might recognize as life (Liu et al. 2021).

Now here’s where it gets really fun. Traditional evolution is obsessed with reproduction—pass on your genes, survive another day, repeat. But what if life doesn’t have to reproduce to be considered life? Ever heard of prions? They’re these misfolded proteins that propagate their structure without needing DNA or reproduction, and yet they behave in ways that feel very ‘life-like’ (Prusiner 1997). That’s a clue that we might need to rethink what we mean by ‘life’ in the first place.

Assembly Theory suggests that instead of asking, ‘Does it make copies of itself?’ we should ask, ‘Does it construct complexity beyond what we’d expect from randomness?’ That’s a shift in perspective that could change the way we look for alien life (Ball 2023).

You see, when we go looking for life on other planets, we tend to look for things like water, oxygen, carbon-based molecules—stuff that’s essential for our kind of life. But what if life elsewhere doesn’t breathe, doesn’t need water, and isn’t based on DNA? If we only look for Earth-like conditions, we might miss an entirely different kind of biology (Zimmer 2024).

Assembly Theory gives us a bigger net to catch something truly alien. Instead of focusing on specific molecules like amino acids, it tells us to look for complexity—for structures that shouldn’t form naturally unless something was building them. That means we could detect life even if it’s nothing like what we’ve ever seen before (Cronin and Walker 2016).

Alright, so this isn’t just about alien life—Assembly Theory has some wild implications right here on Earth. Think about artificial intelligence. We’re building machines that process information in increasingly complex ways. If complexity and assembly rules define life, at what point does AI become something more than just code? Could an advanced AI—one that builds complexity on its own—be considered ‘alive’? (Graziano 2014).

And then there’s synthetic biology—where scientists are designing life-like chemical systems from scratch. Assembly Theory helps us understand how to construct life rather than just observe it. This could mean breakthroughs in medicine, self-replicating nanotechnology, and even human-engineered life forms (Marshall, Murray, and Cronin 2017).

So where does this leave us? The way I see it, Assembly Theory is one of the biggest game changers in science today. In the next few decades, we might detect high-complexity molecules on Mars, Europa, or Enceladus—clues that life exists beyond Earth. And if we do, it won’t be because we found DNA—it’ll be because we found structures so complex, they couldn’t have just happened by chance (Liu et al. 2021).

And if we apply this to AI, we may have to start asking—if a system builds its own complexity, at what point does it become alive? That’s not just science—that’s philosophy, ethics, and maybe even the future of humanity.

One thing’s for sure—life, whether it’s on Earth, in space, or inside an artificial system, is more than just its ingredients. It’s about how it comes together, and that’s a whole new way of thinking about what it means to be alive.

Using Assembly Theory to Detect Alien Life

Alright, let’s talk about how we’ve been looking for alien life—because, honestly, we might’ve been doing it wrong this whole time. For decades, our best strategy has been to look for what’s called biosignatures—things like oxygen, methane, or even water. The idea is simple: if we find these molecules on another planet, we might be looking at a place where life exists or once existed. But here’s the problem—these molecules aren’t exclusive to life. You can get methane from cows, sure, but you can also get it from volcanoes and chemical reactions that have nothing to do with biology (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).

Now, imagine if instead of looking for specific molecules, we looked for how complex those molecules are. That’s what Assembly Theory does. Instead of just asking, ‘Is there water?’ we ask, ‘Are there molecules here that shouldn’t exist unless something was actively building them?’ It’s like walking into a forest. If you see a pile of sticks, no big deal. But if you see a log cabin with a fireplace and windows, you don’t think, ‘Oh, the wind must’ve done that.’ You think, ‘Somebody was here.’ That’s the idea—if we find molecular structures that are too complex to have formed randomly, we might just be looking at evidence of life (Cronin and Walker 2016).

Now, let’s talk about where we can actually use this. NASA’s Europa Clipper mission is set to launch in the next few years, heading straight for Jupiter’s moon Europa. Why Europa? Because it’s got a massive ocean hidden beneath an icy shell, and where there’s liquid water, there’s a chance for life. But here’s the twist—Europa Clipper won’t just be looking for water. If we integrate Assembly Theory into the mission, we can analyze the molecules it detects and figure out how complex they are (Schaller 2025).

Think of it like a molecular detective kit. If we find simple molecules—water, methane, ammonia—fine, that’s interesting. But if we find high-complexity molecules with long assembly pathways, that’s a whole different story. That could be our first real sign of alien life. We wouldn’t need to see little green men waving at us—we’d just need to find something that looks too organized to be random (Mann 2017).

Alright, let’s take a quick tour of some of the best places to search for alien life using Assembly Theory.

Europa – This moon is practically screaming ‘Check me out!’ With a deep ocean under its icy shell, warmed by tidal forces from Jupiter, it could have hydrothermal vents—just like the ones where life may have started on Earth. If we send a probe to sample the ice or the plumes shooting into space, we could analyze the complexity of the molecules inside. High-complexity molecules = something interesting happening down there” (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).

Enceladus – Saturn’s icy moon is basically a giant snowball leaking ocean water into space. The Cassini spacecraft already detected organic molecules in these plumes, but they were fairly simple. What if we could go back with Assembly Theory and check for higher-complexity molecules? If we find them, that’s a strong clue that something more than chemistry is at work” (Mann 2017).

Titan – This one’s weird. Instead of water, Titan has lakes and rivers of liquid methane. It’s the only other place in the solar system where you can see liquid flowing on the surface. But Titan is cold—really cold. So, if we find complex molecules here, it definitely means something special is going on. Assembly Theory would help us determine if those molecules were formed naturally or through some unknown biological process” (Sherwood et al. 2018).

Alright, so let’s imagine the day finally comes. We send a spacecraft to Europa, and it samples the plumes. We run the data through our Assembly Theory models, and bam—we find molecules that are way too complex to have formed by chance. What then?

That’s when everything changes. Because at that moment, we would have the first real evidence that life exists beyond Earth. Not because we found oxygen, or water, or methane, but because we found something that was built, piece by piece, into a structure that nature wouldn’t have put together on its own (NASA 2024).

And here’s the emotional part—this wouldn’t just be a scientific breakthrough. This would be a human moment. A moment where we realize we are not alone. A moment where we recognize that life, in some form, is not unique to Earth. It could be microbes under the ice of Europa, or strange methane-based organisms in Titan’s lakes. It might not even look like anything we expect. But finding molecular complexity where there shouldn’t be any? That’s our cosmic breadcrumb trail. That’s the signpost that says, ‘You’re not alone in this universe’ (Hendrix and Hurford 2019).

So where do we go from here? The best thing we can do is push for Assembly Theory to be included in space exploration missions. Right now, we’re still focused on biosignatures. That’s good, but it’s not enough. We need to start treating molecular complexity as a biosignature itself. Imagine a future where every space mission doesn’t just search for water, but for life’s blueprint—for molecules too intricate to be the product of randomness. That may be how we find life in the cosmos—not by seeking familiar signatures, but by identifying molecular complexity that points toward a non-random origin.’

The Implications for AI and Artificial Life

Alright, let’s dive into a fascinating question: Can Assembly Theory, which we’ve been using to understand the complexity of biological life, also help us unravel the mysteries of intelligence? You see, intelligence—whether in humans, animals, or machines—is all about processing information, learning from experiences, and adapting to new situations. At its core, it’s a complex system built from simpler components, much like life itself.

Assembly Theory examines how complex structures are formed through a series of assembly steps. When we apply this to intelligence, we start to see parallels. For instance, artificial neural networks, the backbone of modern AI, consist of layers of interconnected nodes that process information. These networks learn and become more ‘intelligent’ as they form more intricate connections—a process that can be viewed through the lens of Assembly Theory.

This perspective isn’t just theoretical. Researchers like Luc Steels have been pioneers in exploring the intersection of artificial life and intelligence. Steels’ work in behavior-based robotics demonstrates how simple behavioral rules can lead to the emergence of complex, intelligent behaviors in robots, aligning with the principles of Assembly Theory.

Now, here’s a thought-provoking question: Could an AI system ever reach a level of complexity that we’d consider it ‘alive’? Traditionally, we’ve defined life by characteristics like reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli. But as our understanding deepens, especially with concepts like Assembly Theory, we’re starting to see life as a spectrum of complexity.

Modern AI systems, such as advanced neural networks, are becoming increasingly complex. They can learn, adapt, and, in some cases, exhibit behaviors that seem eerily lifelike. For example, Google’s DeepMind has developed AI that can predict protein folding—a task once thought to require the nuanced understanding of a living organism. (Hassabis, 2024)

However, even with this complexity, AI lacks certain hallmarks of biological life, such as self-sustaining processes and reproduction. So, while AI can mimic aspects of life, it doesn’t fulfill all the criteria we currently associate with living organisms.

This brings us to some profound ethical considerations. If an artificial system exhibits complexity and behaviors akin to living organisms, does it deserve the same moral considerations? Philosophers like Derek Parfit have delved into related ethical dilemmas, exploring how we value existence and the implications of creating beings with experiences.

Moreover, the field of Biotic Ethics challenges us to value life and its propagation, not just in its current forms but in potential future manifestations. This perspective urges us to consider the moral implications of creating complex artificial systems that could, in some sense, be considered ‘alive’.

As AI continues to evolve, these questions become more pressing. If an AI develops the ability to experience, learn, and perhaps even suffer, our ethical frameworks will need to adapt. We’ll have to grapple with questions about rights, personhood, and the moral responsibilities of creators toward their creations.

Summary

So, what did we learn today? We started by exploring how Darwinian evolution has shaped our understanding of life—but we also saw its limitations. Evolution is a slow, reactionary process, but Assembly Theory gives us a whole new way to think about life—not just as something that adapts, but as something that builds complexity over time. And that changes everything.

Instead of looking for life the way we’ve always done—hunting for water, oxygen, or carbon-based molecules—we now have a tool that lets us recognize life even if it’s nothing like us. By studying how complex molecules form, Assembly Theory could be the key to detecting alien life in the hidden oceans of Europa, the icy plumes of Enceladus, or even the thick atmosphere of Titan.

But we didn’t stop there. We asked a bigger question—does this apply only to biology, or can it help us understand intelligence itself? If complexity is what defines life, then could AI, one day, be considered alive? If a system builds its own intricate structure, learns, adapts, and evolves complexity beyond randomness—at what point does it stop being ‘just a machine’ and become something more? These are the questions that will shape the future of science, technology, and maybe even philosophy.

But here’s where you come in. What do you think? Could Assembly Theory change the way we search for life? Does this mean we’ve been looking in the wrong places all along? And what about AI—could a system become so complex that we have to rethink what it means to be alive? These aren’t just abstract questions; they’re the kind of ideas that push science forward, the kind that could define the next great discovery in human history.

I want to hear from you! Drop a comment on our social media at @Atomicxs.Podcast, send us your questions, or even share what makes you curious about the universe. Because curiosity? That’s where all great discoveries start.

And if today’s episode sparked something in you—if it made you wonder, if it made you look at life a little differently—don’t stop here. Dive deeper! Check out Sara Imari Walker’s research on Assembly Theory, read Leroy Cronin’s work on molecular complexity, or explore NASA’s latest missions that are actively searching for biosignatures in our solar system. I’ll drop some links in the episode notes so you can keep exploring.

That’s it for today, but we’re just getting started. Science isn’t about having all the answers—it’s about asking questions. And if this episode got you thinking, then you’re already on the path to discovery.

Don’t forget to subscribe and join us next time, where we’ll take on another electrifying battle of ideas—Edison vs. Tesla: The Current War. It’s a story of genius, rivalry, and the fight that shaped the future of electricity as we know it. You don’t want to miss this one!

Follow us on Instagram @Atomicxs.Podcast for updates, behind-the-scenes content, and more ways to feed your curiosity. For content in English, find us on Substack as Atomicxs.Podcast.

References

• Budin, Itay, and Jack W. Szostak. 2010. “Expanding Roles for Lipid Membranes in the Origin of Life.” Annual Review of Biophysics 39: 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.050708.133753.

• Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.

• Davies, Julian, and Dorothy Davies. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance.” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 74 (3): 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00016-10.

• Livermore, David M. 2003. “Bacterial Resistance: Origins, Epidemiology, and Impact.” Clinical Infectious Diseases 36 (S1): S11–S23. https://doi.org/10.1086/344654.

• Mutschler, Hannes, et al. 2015. “Self-Replicating Artificial Cells Showing Darwinian Evolution.” Nature Communications 6: 7851. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8851.

• Nowak, Martin A., and Karl Sigmund. 2004. “Evolutionary Dynamics of Biological Games.” Science 303 (5659): 793–799. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093411.

• Palumbi, Stephen R. 2001. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science 293 (5536): 1786–1790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786.

• Smith, John Maynard. 1982. Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• World Health Organization (WHO). 2021. “Antimicrobial Resistance.” Accessed March 12, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/antimicrobial-resistance

• Ball, Philip. 2023. “A New Theory for the Assembly of Life in the Universe.” Quanta Magazine, May 4, 2023. https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-theory-for-the-assembly-of-life-in-the-universe-20230504/

• Cronin, Leroy, and Sara Imari Walker. 2016. “Beyond Prebiotic Chemistry.” Science 352, no. 6290: 1174-1175. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6310

• Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.

• Koonin, Eugene V. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution.” Biology Direct 2 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-2-21

• Liu, Yu, et al. 2021. “Exploring and Mapping Chemical Space with Molecular Assembly Trees.” Science Advances 7, no. 20: eabg3989. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg3989

• Marshall, Stuart M., Alastair R. G. Murray, and Leroy Cronin. 2017. “A Probabilistic Framework for Identifying Biosignatures Using Pathway Complexity.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 375, no. 2109: 20160342. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0342

• Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• A probabilistic framework for identifying biosignatures using Pathway Complexity | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

• Palumbi, Stephen R. 2001. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science 293 (5536): 1786–1790. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5536.1786

  Zimmer, Carl. 2024. “A Test for Life Versus Non-Life.” The New York Times, July 31, 2024.

• Steels, Luc. “The Artificial Life Roots of Artificial Intelligence.” Artificial Life 1, no. 1-2 (1993): 75-110. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl.1993.1.1_2.75

• Parfit, Derek. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reasons-and-persons-9780198249085

• Mautner, Michael N. “Life-Centered Ethics, and the Human Future in Space.” Bioethics 13, no. 3-4 (1999): 188-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00150

• Hassabis, Demis. “Google DeepMind’s Demis Hassabis on His Nobel Prize: ‘It Feels Like a Watershed Moment for AI’.” Interview by Madhumita Murgia. Financial Times, October 9, 2024. https://www.ft.com/content/72d2c2b1-493b-4520-ae10-41c1a7f3b7e4

Now, before we jump in—let me introduce myself properly.

I’m Ira—a science communicator, engineer, mom, and the host of this podcast. I’ve spent years in STEM and public education, but more importantly, I’ve spent a lifetime asking odd questions like, ‘Why don’t we hear this part of the story?’

I was born and raised between two cultures—Mexico and the U.S.—and my family is a blend of scientists, storytellers, and everyday philosophers. My maternal grandfather had Indigenous roots in Mexico, and while I do not claim Indigenous identity, I carry his stories with care, context, and deep respect.

Atomicxs is a personal, independent project—produced through Atom-Collab LLC, on my own time, using publicly available sources and research. This podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by any employer, university, or agency. The views shared here are entirely my own.

If I ever say something controversial, consider it a thought experiment.

Now—this is a special article because it’s part of our official Season 1, Episode 0 pilot: “Ancestral Legacy: Uncovering the Forgotten Genius of Our Ancestors” for Atomicxs Podcast.

And yes, this blog and the podcast are both in English. Our Podcast format can be found in Apple Podcast, Spotify, and YouTube—just for today—especially for my fellow Toastmasters around the world. Normally, the podcast format will be in Spanish to uplift science for Spanish-speaking audiences, but today’s version is designed to open the door to a broader conversation about culture, curiosity, and what it really means to “know.”

Season 1 for the Podcast and the Blog launches in August 2025, and we couldn’t be more excited. This pilot or preview or whatever you want to call it, is our way of saying: here’s why science matters, why it belongs to everyone, and why reclaiming our scientific legacy might just change how you see the world.

And if you’re someone who prefers reading—or likes citations as much as caffeine—every Spanish podcast episode also comes with a full English companion article on our Substack blog, right here!

Whether you speak English, Spanish, Spanglish—or just fluent nerd—you are so welcome here. To read, listen, or both! Maybe the podcast format in Spanish can be a way to test if Duolingo actually works?

So, what is Atomicxs about? It’s about rediscovering science as something deeply human. We’ll explore everything from ancient astronomy to modern physics, and how the stories we tell—or don’t tell—shape scientific discovery.

In Episode 1, we’ll dive into Assembly Theory—what it means to be “alive” from a mathematical perspective. People who know me, they cannot wait for me to release the Assembly Theory episode, so I can stop talking about it, but I am a nerd and that won’t happen! In future episodes, we’ll tackle everything from relativity to cosmology to math in places you least expect it.

Season 1 lays the foundation, and in future seasons, we’ll go even further—featuring scientists and surfacing ideas that haven’t yet made the mainstream science media.

So if you’ve ever felt like science was fascinating—but somehow far away—or wished it felt a little more like home, this blog is for you.

Welcome to Atomicxs Podcast. Let’s reclaim science—not as something that belongs to someone else, but as something that’s always belonged to all of us

Now, you might be wondering: “Why should I care about ancient science?”

Fair question. After all, we’ve got telescopes in orbit, AI in our pockets, and robots that can do backflips. But here’s the thing—long before the internet, or Newton, or even “quantum” became everyone’s favorite word at parties (is that really a thing?), people all over the world were already figuring things out.

They were tracking planets with their eyes. Building cities with stone tools. Solving problems with sky maps and clever geometry—not because someone told them to, but because they were curious.

That’s what this episode is really about: curiosity. The kind that shows up in every culture, in every era, and somehow keeps asking, “How does this thing work?”

You won’t need a lab coat or a Latin dictionary. You’ll just need a working set of ears and a slightly overactive imagination.

By the end of today’s show, I hope you see science not as something “out there” or locked behind a university paywall—but as something human. Something familiar. Something you’ve always been connected to, even if no one ever said it that way.

Whether you’re in STEM, education, policy, parenting—or just enjoy asking weird questions at dinner—this episode offers a fresh perspective, some unusual facts, and maybe even a few neurons lighting up where they haven’t in a while.

And hey, if nothing else, you’ll walk away with at least one great conversation starter… or at the very least, a very nerdy way to interrupt someone at a barbecue.

⚖️ Disclaimer

Alright, now for the part the lawyers love.

Everything you read today comes from public sources, peer-reviewed research, or general wonderment, and was created independently through Atom-Collab LLC. This podcast is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or speaking on behalf of any employer, agency, or government—past or present.

The views expressed here are mine. The mistakes? Also mine. The jokes? Well, let’s just say my dog thinks they’re funny.

This content is for educational and discussion purposes only. It is not professional advice. It is not a peer-reviewed journal. And it definitely won’t fix your life.

For the full legal rundown, visit www.atom-collab.com—where everything’s in writing and nobody’s pretending to be a lawyer unless they actually are.

Okay, now that the legal stuff’s out of the way… let’s get curious.

You know, a funny thing happens when we talk about science. People often imagine a certain type of person—maybe someone in a lab coat, maybe someone whose name ends in “-stein” or “-ton,” scribbling equations in a language most of us don’t speak. Just for fun write your name down and add at the end “-stein” or “-ton,” how does it sound?

But here’s the truth: curiosity is not exclusive. It doesn’t belong to one region, one century, or one classroom. It’s universal. And you don’t need to inherit it—you just need to notice something strange and start asking “Why?”

For example, growing up, I learned about the usual greats—Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and Curie. My girl M.C. I love her! No argument there—they were brilliant. But it always felt like other civilizations didn’t even get a guest appearance. I’d ask myself, “Is that really the full picture?”

Turns out? Not even close.

Archaeologist Ed Barnhart (2023) put it best: many complex achievements across the Americas—advanced math, water engineering, and even chemistry—have long been overlooked or not called “science,” even when they meet the definition (Barnhart 2023).

Let’s take the Maya. They weren’t just sky-gazers—they were serious timekeepers. Their 260-day calendar aligns closely with the synodic cycle of Venus (Milbrath 1999). Serpent iconography in their codices, rooted in Olmec imagery as early as 900 BCE, may encode astronomical cycles and seasonal rituals tied to agricultural precision (Milbrath 1999; Taube 1992).

The Inca? Their cities in the Andes were built with such finely fitted stone you couldn’t slide a knife blade between them. Some researchers have even suggested that natural chemicals were used to soften or prepare stone—suggesting an intuitive, if not fully documented, form of ancient material science (Barnhart 2023).

And the Hopewell culture in what is now Ohio? The Newark Earthworks form a geometrical and astronomical complex aligned with lunar cycles—on a scale that suggests civic engineering and cosmology were deeply integrated (Lepper 2008).

In New Mexico, the Chacoan people constructed buildings oriented to solar and lunar events, carrying heavy timbers across great distances and organizing architecture in ways some believe mirrored a map of the heavens (Sofaer 1997).

Here’s what that tells us: science doesn’t always look the way we expect. Sometimes it’s written in codices, carved into canyon walls, or aligned with moonrises.

When we begin to recognize these patterns as scientific achievements—not just “ritual” or “myth”—we begin to expand the story of human knowledge itself.

This isn’t about rewriting anyone out. It’s about writing more people in.

These weren’t “primitive” cultures. They were observers, builders, and problem-solvers.

In other words—scientists.

And maybe the reason these stories are less known isn’t because the knowledge was lost—but because it wasn’t always recognized.

So in this episode, we’re not assigning credit—we’re inviting curiosity. We’re not here to debate who did what better—we’re here to say: Wow, look what humans figured out everywhere.

Share Atomicxs Podcast Blog

Why are we talking about this?

Let’s begin with a curious observation:

Why is it that we often hear about the scientific legacy of civilizations like Greece, Rome, or Egypt—but less so about the achievements of the broader American continent?

Take the Maya pyramids, for example. People often say, “Wow, that’s amazing—look what ancient people in Mexico built.” And that’s actually encouraging! It shows we still recognize that people—resourceful, brilliant, and creative—have been doing remarkable things for a very long time.

But every now and then, the conversation shifts. Mention the pyramids of Egypt, and someone might say, “There’s no way humans did that—must’ve been aliens.”

Now, I’m all for imagination, but let’s not forget Occam’s Razor. Civilizations with astronomical knowledge, advanced tools, and well-organized labor forces can move a lot of stone. No UFOs required.

Across the globe—Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas—civilizations have been solving engineering puzzles and aligning their structures with the sky for thousands of years.

So what makes some of those stories stick while others get less airtime? That’s not a trick question—it’s an invitation to look closer, think deeper, and stay curious.

You know, the way we talk about science today has a lot to do with how it’s been taught.

For many of us, science seemed to start with a handful of well-known European thinkers—Galileo, Newton, Darwin—names that deserve respect, no doubt. But the story often begins there, as if no one else was experimenting, building, or discovering anything until the Enlightenment showed up with a notebook.

That’s not a criticism—it’s just an observation. Because the truth is, long before the word “science” existed, people all over the world were already doing it.

They were tracking the stars, mapping the seasons, managing ecosystems, developing medicines, and passing that knowledge through calendars, carvings, and stories. They were using what they had: careful observation, trial and error, and a good amount of persistence. In other words: the scientific method—just without the lab coat.

You don’t need a PhD or a research grant to be a scientist. I know, I am doing my PhD but do I need it, nope, I just like to suffer! All you need is curiosity, creativity, and the courage to ask questions that might not have easy answers.

So this isn’t just about adding names to a list. It’s about recognizing that science isn’t the property of any one culture or moment in history. It’s a shared human inheritance. One that’s richer, deeper, and more diverse than most of us were ever taught.

Because when we expand the story, we don’t lose anything—we gain perspective...

But here’s something worth remembering:

Science didn’t begin in one place—or belong to one culture. It’s a human.

You’ll find it in the hands of builders, in the timing of harvests, in the eyes of sky-watchers charting the stars. It lives in the logic of engineers, the touch of midwives, and the memory of storytellers.

Across time and continents, people have always tried to make sense of the world—to test, to measure, to understand.

So maybe instead of narrowing the definition of science, we can widen the lens.

Because the more perspectives we include, the clearer the picture becomes.

The joy of discovery is the most beautiful thing we can experience. And that joy? It’s for everyone.

Leave a comment

Lessons from the Ancient World

Let’s start with a story from what’s now central Mexico—a place called the Tehuacán Valley. The year? Around 7900 BCE. It’s hot, it’s dry, and water isn’t exactly falling from the sky. So what do people do?

They adapt—with ingenuity.

Early communities in the Tehuacán Valley developed one of the most sophisticated water management systems in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica. They didn’t wait for the rain—they carved channels into bedrock, built terrace systems, and created durable irrigation canals using nothing more than stone tools and an understanding of the landscape.

These weren’t small projects. We’re talking about coordinated efforts across communities—some involving dams, aqueducts, and stone-lined canals that still exist in a fossilized form more than two millennia later.

And here’s what’s truly remarkable: Some of these ancient strategies are being studied and, in some cases, revived by local communities facing modern water shortages. Not because of nostalgia—but because they work. These systems were efficient, sustainable, and adapted to local conditions—something modern infrastructure doesn’t always manage.

We often think of technological progress as a straight line—newer means better. But sometimes the smartest thing we can do is look back and ask: What did they know that we forgot?

In a world facing increasing water stress, the legacy of the Tehuacán engineers offers not just historical insight, but practical tools for the future.

These weren’t just ancient solutions. They were systems thinking in action—designed for resilience, cooperation, and sustainability.

Let’s take a little time-traveling stroll…

🧭 First stop: Monte Albán, Oaxaca, Mexico. It’s 500 BCE, and you’re a Zapotec architect. You’ve got a great hilltop view, and you’re not just building temples—you’re aligning structures to the stars. Literally.

One building in particular—Building J—was designed with precise celestial alignments. Researchers believe it lines up with stars like Capella and Aldebaran, which likely held significance for seasonal events or ceremonial calendars (Haleem, n.d.).

And speaking of calendars, the Zapotecs didn’t mess around. They used both a 260-day ritual calendar and a 365-day solar one—because who wants to miss a festival due to poor math? (Haleem, n.d.)

These weren’t just architects. They were cosmologists with limestone and vision.

🧭 Next stop: Tiwanaku, Bolivia, near Lake Titicaca.

Between 500 and 1000 CE, this high-altitude city became a hub of monumental architecture and astronomy. The famous Gateway of the Sun, carved from a single block of stone, may have served calendrical or ritual functions—its alignment and glyphs are still the subject of active academic debate (Kolata, 1993; Janusek, 2003).

Even cooler? Tiwanaku engineers developed agricultural systems so advanced they created microclimates to protect crops from frost. Raised fields with adjacent canals improved drainage and thermal retention—basically ancient climate adaptation (Kolata, 1993).

Modern sustainability experts take note: this wasn’t “primitive irrigation.” This was adaptive systems engineering—with mud, sun, and thousands of years of observational data.

🧭 Onward to the Nazca Desert, Peru—one of the driest places on Earth.

Here, the Nazca civilization (100 BCE–800 CE) constructed the puquios—an underground network of aqueducts accessing deep aquifers. These spiraling shafts, called ojos, provided ventilation and maintenance access (Schreiber & Lancho Rojas, 1995).

These aqueducts were so effective that some are still in use today. It’s been compared to Persia’s qanat systems—but these are homegrown innovations responding to arid extremes.

When water is life, hydraulic engineering becomes sacred work.

🧭 Now let’s head to El Paraíso, in the Chillón Valley near Lima, Peru.

Dating back to 2300 BCE, this Late Preceramic site includes platform mounds and plazas. The people here used shicras—woven bags filled with rocks—to stabilize stone walls, revealing early seismic adaptation (Quilter, 1985).

El Paraíso is one of the oldest examples of urban design in the Americas—and while there’s still debate about its primary function, it’s agreed that this wasn’t a random pile of rocks. It was intentional, communal, and incredibly sophisticated for its time.

🧭 Jumping north to Cahokia, Illinois—right here in what’s now the U.S.—we find a city that flourished around 1100 CE.

With a population possibly reaching 20,000, Cahokia was larger than many European cities at the time (Pauketat, 2004). Its Monks Mound remains the largest prehistoric earthwork in the Americas.

The city also featured Woodhenge, a timber circle functioning as a solar calendar. Posts aligned with solstices and equinoxes, showing astronomical precision (ScienceViews, n.d.).

Cahokia’s urban layout, trade networks, and cultural complexity point to a vibrant, hierarchical society deeply in tune with both land and sky.

🧭 Last stop: Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico.

The Maya here weren’t just carving myths into stone—they were directing water like pros. Their Piedras Bolas Aqueduct is the earliest known example of engineered water pressure in the New World, potentially powering fountains or other water features (French & Duffy, 2010).

Their city design included aqueducts, canals, and reservoirs, making Palenque a showcase of pre-modern urban planning grounded in environmental engineering.

These examples aren’t myths. They’re not sci-fi fantasies or fringe theories. They’re well-documented case studies in architecture, astronomy, and sustainability—based on peer-reviewed research and archaeological evidence.

And the takeaway? These weren’t people “behind the times.” They were right on time—using the tools of their environment, guided by observation, cooperation, and cosmic curiosity.

We’re not rewriting history—we’re re-reading it with the respect it deserves.

Legacy Isn’t Just Ancient

Well, it means that when a girl from Cusco… or a boy from El Salvador… or a curious teen in Albuquerque walks into a planetarium—they’re not just looking up at unfamiliar stars. They’re reconnecting with a legacy that’s older than telescopes and longer than textbooks.

They’re not entering science. They’re returning to it.

You see, science isn’t something new being handed to them. It’s something that already belongs to them—written in stories, carved in stone, aligned in pyramids, measured in maize fields, and passed down in ways that often didn’t come with footnotes.

Let’s say this clearly: If you have roots anywhere from the Arctic to Patagonia—Indigenous, Latino, Mestizo, Afro-descendant, or a beautiful mix—you don’t have to ask permission to be curious. You don’t have to wait to be “included.” You already are.

Because science? It’s not just in your future. It’s in your history. It might even be in your grandma’s weather predictions and your cousin’s way of fixing a radio with duct tape and a tortilla press. (Okay, maybe not the tortilla press, but you get the point.)

The truth is: Scientific thinking—observing, experimenting, building, predicting—has existed in every culture. But somewhere along the way, we narrowed the lens. We told a partial story. And that partial story made a lot of people feel like they were outsiders to something they’ve actually always belonged to.

And that’s why I created this podcast.

To widen the lens. To tell the fuller story. And to remind you—wherever you’re from, whoever you are—that science is not a foreign language. It’s your native curiosity, finally coming home.

So the next time you walk into a lab, a museum, or just stare up at the night sky and wonder something weird like “What is dark matter anyway?”—don’t ever think you’re intruding.

You’re participating. You’re inheriting. You’re continuing a legacy.

And we’re just getting started.

The Power of Critical Thinking

You ever hear someone say, with a straight face, “Well, the pyramids were obviously built by aliens,” and you think—really? We’ve decoded genomes, built quantum computers, and sent robots to Mars, but we can’t credit ancient humans with stacking rocks?

Look, I’m not trying to ruin anyone’s favorite History Channel binge, but science isn’t about the fanciest story—it’s about the most testable one.

See, science is more than just facts. It’s a way of thinking. It’s the built-in habit of asking, “How do we know that?” And the follow-up: “Can we check?” That’s what makes it beautiful—it’s the ultimate invitation to doubt, and then to learn (Shermer, 2002).

Now misinformation? That’s a different beast. It travels light, sounds exciting, and never asks you to do the hard part—like checking sources or thinking twice. It's the intellectual version of fast food: feels good going down, but leaves you nutritionally bankrupt. A recent study found that false claims on social media spread faster and farther than verified facts—by about 70% (Vosoughi et al., 2018). And no, it wasn’t all bots. It was people. Us. Humans. We apparently love a spicy headline.

It gets worse when the misinformation lands on ancient civilizations. Take the Maya, the Zapotecs, the builders of Tiwanaku—folks with stone tools, yes, but also with lunar calendars, zero-based math, and hydraulic systems. And yet when we see their work, we say, “Aliens did it.” That’s not just bad archaeology. That’s cultural erasure in a tinfoil hat.

Here’s the deal: pseudoscience thrives in vague language, emotional hooks, and logical fallacies. A common one? The “appeal to ignorance.” It goes like this: “Well, you can’t prove it didn’t happen, so it must be true.” That’s not proof. That’s a magician’s trick. You can’t prove I’m not an interdimensional time-traveler either—but don’t go rewriting history books just yet (Shermer, 2002).

And let’s not forget anecdotal evidence. “My uncle saw Bigfoot behind a Taco Bell” is not data. It’s Taco Tuesday gone weird. Science demands patterns. It wants replication. It wants the boring, hard-to-fake stuff.

Now here’s the fun part. A 2023 study showed that people with stronger scientific reasoning and what researchers lovingly call “bullshit sensitivity” were way less likely to fall for pseudoscience (Torres et al., 2023). In another study, just making people think a tiny bit harder—by solving logic puzzles or even reading ugly fonts—reduced belief in conspiracy theories (Swami et al., 2014).

Turns out, thinking works. Even when it’s uncomfortable. Especially then.

So what’s the antidote to misinformation? Critical thinking. That doesn’t mean distrusting everything—it means questioning with intention. It means staying curious and rigorous. Not cynical. Not dismissive. Just… honest.

Because here’s what I believe: the truth is beautiful enough on its own. Just people—curious, clever, fallible people—trying to figure things out. Kind of like you and me.

And hey, if Feynman were here, I bet he’d say: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” So let’s stay sharp.

Let’s keep asking questions. Let’s keep checking our assumptions. And above all—let’s stay human while we do it.

How Our Ancestor Shaped Innovation

For thousands of years, human communities across the Americas developed precise and practical ways of managing their environments. We’re talking about sophisticated farming systems, sustainable resource management, and ingenious architectural feats—based on repeated observation and intergenerational refinement.

None of it was magic. It was science—just not always labeled that way.

Take agriculture, for example. Many Indigenous farming techniques, such as polycultures and agroforestry, are now being re-evaluated by scientists for their resilience in the face of climate change and soil degradation (Altieri & Toledo, 2011). The same goes for biochar, which modern researchers are studying for its carbon-capture properties—yet it’s been used in the Amazon for centuries.

This body of knowledge is often referred to in the literature as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)—and today, it’s not just being preserved. It’s influencing global policy and biodiversity frameworks (Berkes, 2012).

Now, if you’re wondering what Maya astronomy has to do with artificial intelligence or machine learning—stay with me.

At the heart of AI is pattern recognition. And that’s something ancient cultures excelled at. The Maya, for example, tracked planetary movements with uncanny accuracy—across generations—using the sky as a data set. That’s not mystical. That’s methodical.

Indigenous cosmologies—like “teotl” in Nahua philosophy or “pacha” in the Andes—aren’t scientific frameworks in the Western sense, but they offer alternative models of understanding systems and relationships. These frameworks are increasingly discussed in cognitive science and philosophy of science, especially when exploring non-linear, holistic worldviews (Medin & Bang, 2014).

To be clear: we're not saying Indigenous metaphysics predicted quantum physics. But they raise fascinating questions about systems-thinking and interconnectedness that are gaining attention in modern research.

In fact, a 2022 report by the International Science Council made it official: the future of science will need to include plural knowledge systems to stay relevant in a multipolar world. In other words—modern innovation might benefit from more contexts, not just more code (International Science Council, 2022).

Already, researchers are using machine learning to decode quipus—those knotted strings used by the Inca to store information (Moseley & Urton, 2019). Others are designing sustainable farming models based on ancient milpa systems. And yes, that Amazonian soil? Still outperforming modern fertilizers in some studies.

As quantum computing matures, we may find that certain ancient metaphors—like cyclical time or embedded consciousness—help us think differently about systems we don’t fully understand yet.

This isn’t about turning back the clock. It’s about broadening the lens.

The next leap forward won’t come just from better chips or faster servers—it may come from finally integrating the wisdom of the past into the logic of the future.

Scientists Leading the Way

Let’s bring this full circle. If you think everything we’ve talked about so far is ancient history—think again.

Because right now, Latinos and Indigenous scientists across the Americas are doing what they’ve always done: observing, experimenting, building, and healing. Only now, it’s with particle accelerators, climate models, and AI codebases.

Take Dr. Jessica Hernandez (Zapotec and Ch’orti’ Maya), who blends Indigenous science with Western ecology to tackle climate change—restoring ecosystems with knowledge passed down through generations (Hernandez, 2022). Or Dr. César Terrer from Peru, who’s using AI at MIT to predict carbon cycles and help humanity deal with the mess we’ve made.

And that’s just the start. Dr. Joe Gone is reshaping mental health research by honoring Indigenous views of mind and spirit. Dr. Tieraona Low Dog brings ancestral botanical knowledge to evidence-based medicine. Dr. Roberto Delgado, of Rarámuri descent, is leading NIH initiatives on culturally-rooted wellness frameworks.

These scientists aren’t just “included” in STEM—they’re shaping the questions we ask and the tools we use to answer them.

But let’s be honest: they’re still outnumbered. Pew Research Center reports Latinos hold just 8% of STEM jobs in the U.S., despite being nearly 19% of the population. Indigenous scientists? Even less represented (Pew, 2021; NCSES, 2019).

And it’s not about talent. It’s about visibility, mentorship, and structural access. That’s why it matters to tell these stories—not as exceptions, but as evidence of a much larger legacy in motion.

Let’s take artificial intelligence as a starting point. In recent years, some Indigenous scholars and technologists—like Dr. Angie Abdilla (Trawlwoolway)—have explored how kinship-based frameworks can inform ethical AI design. These models emphasize relationships, responsibility, and reciprocity over purely extractive data collection, offering an alternative way to approach algorithmic development and bias mitigation (Abdilla, 2019). While these approaches are still emerging in academic and design circles, they highlight the potential for broader ethical conversations in tech.

In the field of consciousness studies, some researchers are revisiting concepts that have long existed in Indigenous knowledge systems—such as the idea that plants may exhibit forms of intelligence, or that dreams can function as tools for information gathering and healing. While these views were historically marginalized in mainstream science, they are increasingly being considered within the scope of interdisciplinary research in neuroscience, ethnobotany, and quantum cognition (Cajete, 2000). To be clear, this doesn’t imply equivalency between symbolic knowledge and empirical methods—it means recognizing potential value in diverse ways of understanding experience.

Even in space ethics and planetary exploration, there is growing interest in cosmologies that frame Earth not as an object to conquer, but as a relative to care for. Authors like Tucker and Grim (2014) suggest that these relational worldviews can enrich discussions around sustainability and planetary stewardship, particularly in the face of climate change and extraterrestrial development.

These perspectives aren’t intended to replace established scientific methods. Rather, they invite us to expand the conversation—toward science that is not only rigorous but also inclusive, imaginative, and better aligned with the ethical challenges of our time.

Well, imagine a world where AI learns not just from datasets, but from traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Where data ethics includes community sovereignty. Where climate science listens—not just to satellites—but to the soil.

That future’s already here:

• AI ethics and Indigenous data governance are on the rise (Rainie et al., 2017).

• Neuroscience is starting to explore holistic models of cognition (Whyte, 2013).

• Agritech startups are borrowing from ancient systems like the milpa and the raised fields of Tiwanaku.

In fact, one report from the International Science Council argued that science innovation in the 21st century depends on including plural knowledge systems to stay relevant in a changing world (ISC, 2022). And I agree. The next wave of progress isn’t about coding faster. It’s about thinking wider.

Because real innovation? It’s what happens when you mix a telescope… with a worldview.

How do we move forward?

Science—at its core—is about curiosity. It’s the art of asking really good questions, and the humility to accept surprising answers, even when they challenge what we thought we knew.

And here’s the important part: Some of humanity’s most insightful questions and observations emerged right here in the Americas. 

This is not about romanticizing the past or making historical claims beyond the evidence. It’s about recognizing that knowledge systems rooted in observation, experimentation, and refinement existed—and still exist—outside of what’s often taught in mainstream Western science curricula.

Acknowledging these contributions is not just a matter of historical justice—it’s also practical. In a world facing the intersecting challenges of climate change, AI governance, and ecological collapse, we need every proven approach available. Many Indigenous and Latino frameworks offer powerful insights into systems thinking, sustainability, and ethical relationships—with land, water, and community. These values are not “alternative.” They’re deeply pragmatic—and increasingly validated by contemporary research (Altieri & Toledo, 2011; Berkes, 2012).

Integrating diverse cultural values—like respect, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship—into how we develop technology today doesn’t replace Western science. It broadens the lens. It helps us build tools and systems that are more robust, more inclusive, and ultimately, more human.

Here’s the thing: this isn’t a competition. It’s not “us” versus “them.” It’s all of us—coexisting on a vast and diverse continent with layered histories, shared challenges, and interconnected futures.

Yes, the past holds pain. The legacy of colonization disrupted countless lifeways and communities across the Americas. But even in that history, we also find moments of cultural exchange, resilience, and human complexity. Early accounts describe how the Taíno peoples approached first contact with openness. The Mexica practiced sophisticated diplomacy. The Arawak shared medicinal knowledge rooted in generations of ecological observation. These acts—whether driven by hospitality, strategy, or necessity—reflect the depth of human experience.

Today, we stand at a crossroads. We can remain divided by inherited wounds, or we can choose a path of learning, reconciliation, and forward motion. That doesn’t mean ignoring the past—it means understanding it deeply and using that understanding to shape something better.

Science—real science—isn’t just equations and experiments. It’s also worldview. It’s the frameworks we use to ask questions and make sense of what we observe. And many Indigenous knowledge systems offer powerful ethical insights grounded in reciprocity, interdependence, and long-term stewardship. These are not in conflict with modern science—they’re complementary lenses.

This isn’t about rewriting science—it’s about rewriting ourselves back into it. Because when we say “science belongs to everyone,” we must also mean the people whose contributions were historically overlooked or erased.

Whether your roots are in Bolivia or Quebec, whether your family speaks Quechua, Zapotec, or Nahuatl—this intellectual heritage is part of the human story. And today, more than ever, we need all of it.

Interdisciplinary Futures

Let’s take a moment to rethink how we define progress.

When we train artificial intelligence on narrow, monocultural data sets, the results mirror those limitations. The same goes for how we build cities, design healthcare systems, or define consciousness—we tend to start from a single lens and call it universal. But what if we didn’t?

Some Indigenous worldviews, for example, approach knowledge not just as information to collect, but as relationships to uphold. This ethic—of responsibility, reciprocity, and long-term care—offers profound insight into how we might design future technologies. It invites us to ask: What would artificial intelligence look like if it were built on a model of kinship instead of conquest? What might neuroscience discover if it engaged with dream logic, plant intelligence, or cosmologies that treat land as sentient?

These aren’t speculative ideas. They’re emerging conversations across fields like AI ethics, planetary stewardship, and consciousness studies. And they matter—because when we broaden the intellectual source code, we get better results. More context. More creativity. Fewer blind spots.

Consider the young scientists across the Americas—working in mountain villages, desert communities, and border towns. Many are already blending ancestral knowledge with digital tools, climate modeling, and biomedical innovation. These efforts aren’t happening in spite of tradition—they’re happening because of it.

Investing in community science, bilingual STEM education, and Indigenous-led research centers isn’t just about inclusion—it’s about improving outcomes. We know from research that culturally responsive learning environments increase retention, performance, and long-term engagement in STEM fields (Gay, 2010; Museus et al., 2011). We know that Indigenous ecological knowledge contributes to biodiversity protection and climate resilience (Berkes, 2012; Walter & Suina, 2019). And we know that when communities are empowered to define and protect their own data, the results are more ethical and more sustainable (Morgera, 2015; TallBear, 2013).

None of this replaces the value of Western science. It simply expands the lens. Because the future doesn’t need fewer frameworks—it needs more. It needs curiosity that listens before it solves. It needs science with memory, science with heart.

So when someone asks whether this perspective is too political, remind them: recognizing underrepresented knowledge systems isn’t a political act—it’s a scientific correction. When someone says it undermines traditional science, remind them: the scientific method doesn’t belong to any one group. It belongs to the human instinct to wonder and understand. And when someone says this isn’t relevant? Just point to the climate, the data ethics scandals, the algorithmic bias. Relevance isn’t the issue—urgency is.

As Richard Feynman once said, “The imagination of nature is far greater than the imagination of man.” So let’s match that with imagination of our own.

Not by replacing what we know—but by completing it.

Not by looking in just one direction—but by looking everywhere.

Because science isn’t a relic—it’s a growing tree. And its roots are deeper, older, and more entangled than most textbooks will tell you.

Let’s nurture it. Let’s broaden it.

Let’s keep it curious—and keep it ours.

Follow us

And that’s it for today’s episode of Atomicxs—where curiosity meets science, and ancient wisdom gets a seat at the table.

Season 1 officially launches in August 2025, and it’s going to be a ride—from cosmic questions to cultural perspectives to the weird, wonderful edges of what we call “reality.”

In the meantime, stay curious with us:

💌 Subscribe to the blog and get the full companion article (with all the juicy citations): 👉 atomicxs.substack.com

📲 Follow along on Instagram for reels, quotes, fun facts, and behind-the-scenes science storytelling:

👉 @atomicxs.podcast

👉 and my personal science page: @mujernuclear.real

🎧 If this episode sparked something—leave a review on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube. It helps more people find the show, and it makes my caffeine-fueled research sessions feel worth it.

✉️ Got a question, an idea, or a “wait—why didn’t anyone ever teach me this?” moment? Send it to: hello@atom-collab.com

💬 Tag us while you're listening @atomicxs.podcast and use #AtomicxsPodcast—we just might feature your question or comment in a future episode.

I’m Ira—just Ira—and I’ll see you in August.

References

Coming soon…since there is not enough space in here!

This will also serve to provide a more interactive and intimate engagement with our community and supporters. Since the main objective is science, your feedback is crucial to us and we want to give a more detailed and behind-the-scenes look into our mission, what goes into the podcast, additional content, and much more to come!

Thank you so much for your support and I welcome you to provide a key role in our mission to make science more accessible, and relatable, to all.