SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " greek " 105 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Celebrating Women in Science Day 2026 at CERN
Every year, on 11 February, CERN celebrates the International Day of Women and Girls in Science. In an effort to amplify diverse voices in STEM, six women scientists from CERN open up about their careers and the lessons they hope to pass on to the next generation. Francesca is an Italian biomedical engineer pursuing her PhD at CERN, working in the robotics team of the Beams Department. She’s currently working on the MARCHESE project, in affiliation with Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, focusing on contactless monitoring of physiological parameters. Despite choosing a scientific career and often volunteering in scientific outreach initiatives, Francesca continues to nurture her passion for the humanities and arts. “I firmly believe that collaboration and inclusion are the right paths to improve the world together. I’m driven by a strong curiosity about everything around me.” Berare is a Turkish experimental physicist who worked with the ATLAS experiment during her MSc and PhD on searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. During her PhD, she became a Support Scientist for the Beamline for Schools (BL4S) competition, which marked the beginning of her journey combining research with science communication. She now works for both BL4S and ELISA, the mini proton accelerator at CERN’s Science Gateway. She fondly remembers the moment when the BL4S 2022 winners arrived at the experimental zone: “I felt incredibly lucky to share my passion with young, curious and really passionate people. We spent two weeks of beam time together watching their ideas turn into reality. All the intricate details of running an experiment, we accomplished them as a team.” Mia is a Canadian research fellow in the Accelerator Systems Department, working on beam developments for fundamental physics with radioactive molecules. Mia pursued a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering before moving to Vancouver for a master’s degree in engineering physics. Her interest in radioactive ion beam production brought her to CERN, where she studied actinide beams for three years as a PhD student in the Marie Curie European Training network “LISA” (Laser Ionisation and Spectroscopy of Actinides) at ISOLDE – a facility at CERN where scientists study the properties of atomic nuclei, with further applications in fundamental studies, astrophysics, and material and life sciences. Laura is a German mechanical engineer at CERN working on research and development to produce cavities for future accelerators. She studied mechanical and aerospace engineering at the Technical University of Munich. She joined CERN four years ago as a technical student for her master’s thesis and continued as a fellow working on collimators. Laura says that “as a child, I took part in girls’ day initiatives, which sparked my fascination for astrophysics and engineering. Later, it felt natural for me to give something back by organising workshops for young students to make STEM seem less intimidating and more accessible.” She particularly enjoys being close to the CERN Main Workshop and understanding how design ideas become real components. Paraskevi is a Greek physicist working at CERN’s HiRadMat (High-Radiation to Materials) facility, designed to deliver high-intensity beams to an irradiation area where material samples, as well as accelerator component assemblies, can be tested. She studied physics at NKUA, specialising in nuclear and particle physics, and is now pursuing her PhD at HiRadMat in collaboration with the University of Liverpool, studying novel materials for high-intensity beam diagnostics. “Continuous learning is one of my biggest motivators, and I am looking forward to exploring the limits of our knowledge on beam-material interactions,” says Paraskevi. Silvia is a Spanish physicist and deputy project manager for the Muon Drift Tube of the CMS detector, a general-purpose detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). She started her career at CERN more than 20 years ago as a technical student, working on prototypes of the first dipoles for the LHC. “My first motivation came in high school, from my teacher,” says Silvia about what made her pursue a career in STEM. “My favourite part about my job is learning. You can learn something new every day.” In parallel to this initiative, like every year since 2017, from 2 to 6 February 66 women scientists and engineers visited schools in Geneva, Switzerland, and in the Haute-Savoie and Ain regions of France to meet with students. Organised in collaboration with CERN, the University of Geneva, EPFL, LAPP and LAPTh, this event allowed more than 4200 students between 6 and 17 years old to meet a woman scientist, discuss their profession and career path, ask questions and participate in classroom activities.
Greece Buy Now Pay Later Business and Investment Opportunity Report 2026: A $1.25+ Billion Market by 2031 from $434.7 Million Market in 2025 Featuring Viva Wallet & Klarna, PayPal, and Finloup
The BNPL market in Greece presents key opportunities in retail and e-commerce, driven by strong growth and consumer adoption. Opportunities exist across business models, sales channels, and end-use sectors like retail, travel, and healthcare. Understanding consumer behavior and leveraging KPIs offers strategic insights for market entry and expansion. Greek Buy Now Pay Later Market Greek Buy Now Pay Later Market Dublin, Feb. 04, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Greece Buy Now Pay Later Business and
Warriors' must have NBA trade deadline Plan B as Giannis Antetokounmpo pursuit looms over everything
While all the Warriors' eggs are in the Giannis Atetokounmpo basket, Golden State must have a backup plan if the Greek Freak goes elsewhere.
Back to Future in the Eastern Mediterranean: Polarization Once Again?
Without doubt, by this alignment Israel, Greece and Greek Cypriots attempt to provoke Ankara in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.