Science1 distinct publisher2 min readPublished
Paul Sanchez's group at Colorado Boulder pulled pairs of simulated boulders apart until the fine grains cementing them gave way, and found that grain angularity belongs in the strength law alongside grain size.
The Scientist · Science desk

science
Bennu closed the nucleobase question. Six amino acids are still unaccounted for.1 distinct publisher
science
Narwhal tusks hide two spirals twisting against each other, and the mismatch is the point3 distinct publishers
science
Mount Sinai puts a youth protein on aging microglia, and the mice answer1 distinct publisher
science
Half the resistance genes in livestock manure also show up in 875 wild farm mice1 distinct publisher
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Cohesion matters only because gravity gives up first. Shrink a body and its self-gravity falls away quickly, while the van der Waals pull between two touching grains does not care how big the parent object is, so below a certain size cohesion becomes the dominant thing holding the pile together, added to gravity rather than substituted for it [8]. That is what makes the spin barrier such a useful observation: asteroids larger than about 150 meters respect the 2.4-hour limit, which is what a gravity-bound rubble pile should do, and smaller ones spin faster than it allows [6][7].
The geometry of the test explains what the number means. Two boulders, each a meter across, with a matrix of fine cohesive grains packed between them into a bridge, drawn apart until the bridge ruptures [12]. With grains between 2 and 5 centimeters, each boulder is 20 to 50 grain diameters wide [19], which is roughly the ratio at which fine material behaves like cement between coarse blocks rather than like a continuous solid. It is the smallest system in which the effect of grain shape can be isolated, and Sanchez traces the idea back to Michael Swift of Nottingham and the liquid bridges that water forms between sand grains [5].
The sampling is thin per shape. Spread 78 runs across eleven shape classes, the sphere plus ten polyhedral forms, and it averages about seven runs each [20], before you also split them by uniform and mixed size batches [14]. A claim of universality therefore rests on those runs collapsing onto a single curve when plotted against sphericity and grain size, not on any one shape class being densely characterized [1].
The coffee comparison leaves out the number that matters. phys.org's headline puts Bennu's surface at 50 times weaker than ground coffee [18], which is a fine intuition pump and no substitute for a stress in pascals with the bridge geometry attached. The account also stops short of carrying the result from a two-boulder bridge to a whole asteroid, and it does not address how Bennu would answer a lander's push or a deflection impulse. The advance worth holding onto is narrower and more durable: cohesion between fine grains was a free parameter in this line of work from the 2010 proposal onward [9], the 2014 spherical-grain test had to assume it [10], and the material returned by OSIRIS-REx in 2023 let it be measured instead [11]. That is the real distinction: a strength law built on a measured input can be checked against reality, while one built on a fitted input was only ever built to match it.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
phys.org's headline on the study states that Bennu's surface is 50 times weaker than ground coffee.
A new Nature Communications study developed a universal scaling framework for the strength of granular asteroids, showing that their tensile strength can be predicted from the size and shape of their constituent particles.
Space missions have revealed that many small asteroids, such as Bennu, Ryugu and Itokawa, are not solid rocks but granular asteroids: loosely bound collections of dust, rock and boulders held together by their own gravity and weak cohesive forces.
Previous simulations could only treat an asteroid's fine grains as perfect spheres, while real grains are angular and irregular; the current study found a way to incorporate realistic particle shapes.
First author Paul Sanchez is a senior research associate at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Sanchez said the original idea was suggested by Dr. Michael R. Swift of the University of Nottingham, his PhD supervisor, and took inspiration from the liquid bridges that water on Earth forms between tiny grains of sand, because simulating all the particles in an asteroid was and remains impossible.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
phys.org
1 article · September 4, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
Peer-reviewed paper, one telling of it
The physics rests on a Nature Communications study, and phys.org quotes Sánchez directly rather than paraphrasing a release, which is why the method detail is precise enough to argue with: run count, numerical method, grain sizes, shape count, loading protocol. What holds the score down is arithmetic on sources rather than doubt about the work. One outlet, one interviewee, and the check against Bennu comes from the same team that built the law.
The authors' own runs
Use of the framework begins and ends with the group that made it: 78 simulations in LMGC90 and one application to Bennu using sample-derived cohesion. The match with remote sensing and with the sampling event is corroboration by other methods, which is worth something, but it is not another team picking up the scaling law. Nothing in this reporting shows anyone doing that yet.
Coffee in the headline, pascals in the body
Sánchez's coffee cylinder is his own illustration, and phys.org promotes it to the headline where "50 times weaker" appears without the unit it is measured against. The body behaves better, giving the sub-pascal figure, the reason for it, and the independent estimates it lines up with. "Universal scaling framework" is the paper's own phrasing for a relation fitted over grains between 2 and 5 centimetres in bridges a few tens of grains wide, which is a narrower base than the word suggests.
The result explained by its author
Sánchez supplies the origin story, the definition of sphericity, the mechanism for why angular grains hold better, and the yardstick readers will remember. Phys.org attributes all of it clearly, which is the honest version of this format, but the assessment of a research line running from the 2010 van der Waals proposal through the 2014 sphere test to this paper is being made by the person who has run that line throughout.
Checkable mechanics, single reading
The claims are falsifiable in public: a sub-pascal surface, a size-sphericity trade-off, a named code another group can install. That is why this sits above the middle. It does not sit higher because the number of independent readings of the paper is one, and because the sweep thins fast once eleven shape classes and two batch types share 78 runs.