New results out of France show that a team of researchers have created a transistor which mimics certain behavior of the brain. Their innovative new device is called a nanoparticle organic memory field-effect transistor (NOMFET). Specifically, the NOMFET appears to allow for the "short-term plasticity" which is a hallmark of biological synapses in the neural systems of humans and other animals. As explained in a Physics World posting:
A biological synapse transforms a voltage spike (action potential) arriving from a pre-synaptic neuron into a discharge of chemical neurotransmitters that are then detected by a post-synaptic neuron. These are subsequently transformed into new spikes, leading to a succession of pulses that either become larger or diminish in size. This fundamental property of synaptic behaviour is known as short-term plasticity, which is related to a neural network's ability to learn. It is this plasticity that Vuillaume and colleagues have succeeded in mimicking.
This isn't the first time in the last few years where physicists have announced ground-breaking new types of transistors (see Nano-Transistor, Tiny Graphene Transistor, and Optical Transistors). This sort of work shows the amazing potential for some of the emerging technologies in modern physics, neurology, and the integration between the organic and inorganic worlds in the form of biotechnologies. Discoveries such as this out of nanotechnology and biophysics could potentially revolutionize the very nature of technology. Think about how the world was revolutionized by telephones, and then by radio, and then television, and then computers, and then cellphones ... and then try to picture what the ability to build our own synapses might unleash.
It's a truly astounding vision, one which has been explored by science fiction for years in ways both positive and negative. Only time will tell, of course, what useful technologies actually manifest, and what the impact of those technologies will be.
Transistors Mimicking Brain Behavior originally appeared on About.com Physics on Saturday, February 6th, 2010 at 18:00:03.
After a lot of complications, Europe's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator is resuming operation on February 20, ramping up to a beam intensity of 3.5 TeV (trillion electron volts) sometime in March. It will then run for a period of 18 to 24 months, and will then shut down in early 2012 for winter repairs. (It was originally going to be shut down next winter for repairs, as well, but that plan has been revised.)
The previous record was a beam of intensity of 0.98 TeV, which was broken by the LHC last November when it reached a beam intensity of 1.18 TeV. The LHC plan will result in collisions that are about three times more powerful than any that we've ever performed on Earth. The LHC was designed to circulate beams that have intensity of 7 TeV, but it'll be at least 2013 before we see it even trying to ramp up to this sort of power. In the meantime, physicists should be able to get a lot of great physics results to look over.
Related Articles:
Large Hadron Collider Update originally appeared on About.com Physics on Saturday, February 6th, 2010 at 15:26:48.
Sean Carroll is quickly becoming one of my favorite science writers. While there's a lot of deep material in his new book, From Eternity to Here, I'm tremendously enjoying it (I love deep books, even if my schedule doesn't - they're much slower reads if you're going to do them justice), and it's reaching the point of beating out Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos as the best discussion of the nature of time itself that I've read. I hear it gets somewhat speculative toward the end, moreso than Greene's book, so we'll see how it turns out. But, in addition to From Eternity to Here, Carroll is one of the writers over at Discover magazine's Cosmic Variance blog, and I always enjoy his postings.
In a recent post (Time Travel in Lost: The Metaphorics of Predestination), Carroll explored the time travel at the heart of one of my favorite shows - ABC's Lost, which returns for its final 18-episode season starting this Wednesday. He points out that Lost actually doesn't butcher the idea of time travel too badly, because the events that take place in the time travel appear to be fully self-consistent (so far as we can tell, anyway - there is some possibility that the Desmond/Daniel connection may allow for a loophole, although so far there's no indication of any actual inconsistencies). It even makes a valid conceit to scientific accuracy, by positing that the temporal phenomena on the island are the result of "exotic matter," which would be one of the few ways a physicist could allow for such strange behavior.
Less scientifically, though no less interestingly, Carroll points out the metaphoric manner in which time travel is used, and how time travel in Lost is really entirely about exploring free will, and our ability - in fact, our very desperate and human need - to make choices freely, even in situations where we know that those choices will not necessarily give us the results we want. (Another ABC show, the new hit series FlashForward, also plays on these same themes.)
In other time travel entertainment news, real life physicist Dr. Ron Mallett (author of Time Traveler: A Scientist's Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality) gave a talk on time travel to Penn State's Abington campus and spoke a bit about the upcoming film version of his book. Mallett's work in this area is highly controversial among physicists, but his book has been taken up by filmmaker Spike Lee because of the strong narrative power of the motivating event of his life - the sudden death of his father when he was only a young boy. This will be intriguing, especially if Lee makes the film as informative about the related science of relativity as Mallett's book was.
Related Stories:
Lost, Spike Lee, and Time Travel originally appeared on About.com Physics on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 01:19:22.
This week marks National Nuclear Science Week, devoted to learning about nuclear science. Nuclear science is the study of the science related to the atomic nucleus, which contains protons and neutrons. These atomic nuclei can join together to form new elements through the process of nuclear fusion (the process that powers the stars) or split apart under the process of nuclear fission (used in nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs).
The week has been split up so that each day of the week focuses on a different aspect of nuclear science, as outlined on the Nuclear Science Week website:
This is an excellent opportunity to explore this topic with young people, so that they can really understand the fundamental ways in which these tiny atomic nuclei impact our life. Without the complexity of the atomic nucleus, there would be no difference between, say, carbon and iron ... and since we're carbon-based lifeforms, these differences are very important to us. (Of course, diamonds are also carbon-based, which just goes to show that there are a lot of curious things going on at the smallest level of reality.)
Related Sites:
National Nuclear Science Week Begins originally appeared on About.com Physics on Monday, January 25th, 2010 at 02:00:31.
When Google Alerts (the writer's best friend) brought this one to my mailbox, I was intrigued. It turns out that there was a book out, Dinesh D'Souza's Life After Death: The Evidence, which attempted to invoke string theory, dark matter, dark energy, and other theoretical physics concepts in a claim that they proved life after death.
So, I sought out the book, because having spent over a year working on a book about string theory, I hadn't run into this line of reasoning. Sure, you hear the anthropic principle and fine-tuning discussed, and the possible need for a creator, but what could string theory itself have to do with the afterlife?
Well, it turns out that the claims are (as is often the case) a bit over-stated. These concepts don't prove the existence of an afterlife, but according to D'Souza's argument they do open the door for a rational person to accept the concept of invoking an unseen concept to explain the observed phenomena of our world. Also, the extra dimensions and possible other universes allowed by string theory provide a physical location, outside of our own space-time universe, where heaven and hell could reside. He then later in the book expands on the idea that spiritual reality is needed to explain our own mental and moral reality, talking about how observed aspects of human behavior only make sense if there exists some sort of "cosmic justice" ... an argument that I found on far weaker foundation than his earlier refutation of materialism. But, as he rightly points out, we understand so little about consciousness that you can't really refute his claims with absolute certainty. You can find out more about his use of physics by reading the review of Life After Death: The Evidence.
In fact, the most intriguing element of the book for me was that it made me bring materialism back into question, something that I hadn't really done since philosophy classes in college. (This same issue - the philosophical debate over an independent, objective reality of the world - came up in a graphic novel I recently read, Logicomix, which examines the search for the foundations of mathematics by Bertrand Russell and other logicians at the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.)
D'Souza adeptly brings this entire assumption - that the material world can be explained purely in terms of material processes - into question, and I consider this a noble effort. It behooves scientists to question their assumptions, and also to understand what the basic assumptions are.
In the debates between science and religion, I find that the clear discussion of assumptions is even more important. These discussions reach such a furor largely because the two sides of the discussion aren't talking the same language. In fact, they often genuinely cannot fathom the language being spoken by the other side. On the side of science, this is part of the larger issue of public science engagement of which I've spoken before.
The problem is that vocal fundamentalist religious spokesmen do their best to oppose science's attempts to create a broader understanding of scientific thought, which then only goes on to make scientists more apoplectic and irrational. Consider atheist biologist Richard Dawkins' most recent book, where he tries to make his case in favor of evolution. If he is allowed to speak truthfully, he knows that detractors will slice it down as "See, even Dawkins knows it's just a theory." So what does he do? He passionately declares it fact, even though it's not a fact ... it's the most likely and accepted interpretation of the facts. (There is a far better discussion of this topic over at The Evolving Mind blog.)
Many devoutly religious people, on the other hand, genuinely don't seem to understand that an argument grounded in "Biblical truth" doesn't sway everyone. However, many of the most fundamental teachings of Jesus are moral teachings which can be discussed on their own merits, and supported by evidence outside of the Bible. (Consider Jesus' declaration that the best way to lead is by becoming a servant, which certainly isn't exclusive - or even original - to Jesus.)
In my opinion, one of the best things that can be done in any discussion where science and religion are likely to collide is to be clear about what your starting point is. This is probably one of D'Souza's greatest feats in this book - laying out a clear, logical line of reasoning, which anyone can follow, without making assumptions about the authority of any revelatory source. You may not agree with every step along the path (I certainly didn't), but you can't fault him for speaking in a way that excludes anyone from joining the debate.
Physics of the Afterlife originally appeared on About.com Physics on Sunday, January 24th, 2010 at 13:11:23.
As part of the promotion of my first book, I've been doing a lot of talking about the book. I've appeared on Indiana Public Radio and on Michio Kaku's Science Fantastic radio show, and have spoken at some smaller book signings and promotion. In order to help develop my speaking abilities (no doubt honed to a razor edge by 5 years in front of elementary school classes, but they could always use some more work), I joined a local Toastmasters chapter to help gain more practice at public speaking.
For one of my early speeches in the club, I presented a brief explanation of quantum physics, relativity, and how these two concepts leave open the need for a theory of quantum gravity. This was a difficult topic to squeeze into a 7-minute speech, but I got through it, and did so to generally favorable responses.
What intrigued me was the discussion afterward. Despite the fact that this was a group of well-educated individuals from diverse backgrounds, few of them (save for one college student) had any knowledge about these important physics ideas, which basically represent the driving force of physics for the last century. One of the men - again, a very bright fellow - said to me something along the lines of, "That stuff's just amazing. I once heard that the universe used to be really small. Is that true?"
This question kind of threw me for a loop. The big bang theory is so well established, and has been for nearly half a century (longer than my lifetime thus far), that I was taken aback. This guy wasn't even asserting, based on religious conviction, that he didn't believe it. He just had never taken the time to learn about this concept.
This was a stark reminder to me that not everyone watches science programs for fun, but still, the fact that the big bang theory is so poorly understood by a relatively knowledgeable person is a bit startling.
Consider a comparable situation. I am not a sports fan, but even I know some of the key figures in major sports (basketball, football, baseball, soccer, hockey, and speed-skating - just kidding about the last one) and the basic way the games are played. In fact, with the exception of speed-skating, I have played every single one of those sports.
In our society, you cannot escape sports, and that's fine ... but you shouldn't be able to escape science, either, and clearly in America, that's very possible.
Which brings us to the Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 report, issued by the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation, which is released every couple of years to provide something of a barometer of how science is holding up in America ... or, as their webpage says, "provides a broad base of quantitative information on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise."
I anticipate to read over some aspects of this report in the days to come, but Chris Mooney (co-author of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future) talks a bit over at the Science Progress blog about "Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding." In "Is the Science Glass Half Full or Half Empty?", Mooney points out that his pessimistic view of this trend in America is counter-balanced somewhat by some points made in the report. When comparing Americans to citizens in other developed worlds, we tend to be pretty much on par with scientific knowledge among the general population. Americans continually say that they believe science is important, a vital element in making our lives better.
But, as the report and Mooney both point out, most of these Americans aren't acting on these lofty views of science. Consider this quote from Mooney's posting:
For instance, just 13 percent of the public now claims to follow science and technology news "very closely," and this number has been on a downward trend for the past decade, ending with the current low. So while Americans may profess great admiration for science in the abstract, they hardly feel compelled to pay it much attention.
Similarly, there has been little apparent improvement over time in Americans' basic ability to answer factual questions about science correctly. Moreover, the vast majority of our citizens have scant familiarity with key emerging scientific fields that will dramatically shape the future, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology--and it is important to note that these are the only such fields that the NSF report focuses in on. Ask Americans about other coming scientific technologies or quandaries--say, geoengineering, or synthetic biology--and I imagine the responses would be even more dismal.
Americans may say that they value science, but they aren't putting their time or their money where their mouth is. If science really makes our life so much better (and it does), then shouldn't we take some time to learn the basic facts of science?
Where to begin? Well, I still like James Trefil's list of the Grand Ideas of Science, from his 2007 book Why Science?, as a starting point for developing a coherent view of scientific literacy. I suggest that anyone concerned about making sure their children, or other loved ones (it's never too late!), are scientifically literate would do well to look through these Grand Ideas and share them with others.
I mean, if a geek like me can actually follow a football game, then it's not unreasonable to expect an average person to know that stars live and die ... just like everything else.
Public Science Engagement originally appeared on About.com Physics on Wednesday, January 20th, 2010 at 20:48:58.
Physicist-turned-sculptor Julian Voss-Andreae has an assortment of fascinating quantum physics-based art pieces on display as part of the "Worlds within Worlds" exhibit at the American Center for Physics near Washington, D.C., through to April 16, 2010. You can see some of these amazing sculptures, as well as learn about the physics concepts associated with them, in our Julian Voss-Andreae's "Quantum Objects" image gallery.
Julian Voss-Andreae's sculpture Symmetry Break
Source: Julian Voss-Andreae, used by permission
Quantum Artwork originally appeared on About.com Physics on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 at 03:00:26.
I recently stumbled on this list of great science documentaries, which are apparently available for free online. There are several great physics documentaries among them and, together with a previous list of Top Science Lectures Available Online, provides an excellent starting point for someone to use the internet to augment their understanding of the nature of reality itself ... or, at least, of our scientific understanding of nature itself.
Best Free Scientific Documentaries originally appeared on About.com Physics on Monday, January 18th, 2010 at 10:44:33.
With the new year always come predictions about what physics discoveries will happen in the year to come, as well as the reflections on what's happened in the past. Well, Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance goes one better, presenting 24 Questions for Elementary Physics, based on a presentation from the small CalTech conference "Physics of the Universe Summit." (Sean includes links to similar lists created in 2000, at the turn of the millenia, for comparison.) These are substantially more specific questions than Lee Smolin's 5 Great Problems in Theoretical Physics, though they touch on many of the same areas (and Sean doesn't suggest that solving them requires throwing out string theory).
While physicists try to answer these questions, Peter Woit makes a rather intriguing observation on his Not Even Wrong blog about the trend in some recent publications, including the aforementioned Sean Carroll's new book, From Eternity to Here, which I'm in the process of reading. Carroll's book, and some other publications including a preprint by Erik Verlinde ("On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton"), seem to be emphasizing entropy as a key feature to be exploited in explaining physical properties such as time and even gravity itself. In Woit's words:
"Many of the most well-known theorists are pursuing research programs with the remarkable features that:
The Face of Physics to Come originally appeared on About.com Physics on Monday, January 18th, 2010 at 10:20:38.
About the earliest way that anyone begins creating visual models of reality is through the use of crayons. These early sketches can evolve over time. For some, they become more visually appealing, and for others they may always remain somewhat unappealing, but they may include scrawled measurements of lengths and angles and, who knows, maybe even a force vector or two (like in a free-body diagram).
You may remember a few days ago, where I mentioned the Obama administration "Educate to Innovate" initiative, and spoke about how one of the steps was to offer incentives for science-related video games. Well, it seems that someone was already innovating in this area, and they won the 2008 Independent Game Festival Grand Prize with a science-themed game that uses these early crayon models as inspiration.
The video game Crayon Physics Deluxe came out a year ago, and to honor the birthday the creators are offering it on a "pay what you want" basis through Friday, January 15. In the computer game, you're able to draw objects - using your mouse as the crayon - that interact with each other in physically realistic ways. It looks like a great game but, please, try to pay the creator a fair amount for it.
This "pay what you want" model was also used on the one-year birthday of the physics-based construction game World of Goo. I haven't played Goo before, though the promotional video makes it look like a somewhat more "gooey" (and possibly scientific) version of a game I once enjoyed immensely - Lemmings - which makes me very interested to check it out. (World of Goo also appears to be available as a WiiWare game, which is a feature of the Wii that I personally haven't used yet ... although I might with this game.)
What other physics-based video games are out there that you'd recommend?
Crayon Physics - Pay What You Want originally appeared on About.com Physics on Monday, January 11th, 2010 at 22:55:09.
Planet Physics is a site that is updated daily, by adding new summaries of weblogs that are concerned with Physics. Every day, you can find something new and exciting on our site. Every day, there are new summaries and new ideas, in order to reflect the Physics news and facts as soon and as accurately as possible. Read the blogs that are written by great authors, who all have the same main interest: Physics.
Updated on February 08, 2010 10:12 PM UTC. Entries are normalised to UTC time.
Powered by Planet!
Is this planet missing something?
Do you want to add/remove your blog's feed?
We would be happy to get your feedback.
You can contact us with the email address below:
contact [at] planet-physics.org
