Skip to main content

The December 2015 issue of Physics World is out now

As the festive season approaches, many of you will be looking forward to popping open a bottle of champagne. But before you treat yourself to a bottle, do check out the December 2015 issue of Physics World magazine, in which fizzy-wine physicist Gérard Liger-Belair from the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne reveals his top six champagne secrets.

In the article, Liger-Belair explains why a fog appears when you pop open a bottle, the angle at which you should pour the wine into a glass, and how many bubbles there are in a typical glass of fizz. He also wades into that age-old question among sparkling-wine aficionados: flute or coupe?

The new issue also contains a fabulous flow chart, in which you can find out what sort of scientist you are. Don’t miss either our look back at the International Year of Light, a fantastic selection of Christmas books and a feature all about how origami is moving from art to application.

If you’re a member of the Institute of Physics (IOP), you can get immediate access to this article in the award-winning digital edition of the magazine on your desktop via MyIOP.org or on any iOS or Android smartphone or tablet via the Physics World app, available from the App Store and Google Play. If you’re not yet in the IOP, you can join as an IOPiMember for just £15, €20 or $25 a year to get full digital access to Physics World. You can also read Liger-Belair’s article online here.

(more…)

Six secrets of champagne

As the festive season approaches, many of us will look forward to popping open a bottle of champagne, whether it’s to celebrate Christmas with family and friends or to welcome in the new year. Next time you treat yourself to a bottle, your pleasure will surely be enhanced by a little scientific understanding of these fizzy, fine white wines. Champagne-making is an art form that has been refined over centuries, but thanks to advanced scientific instruments, we now know a lot about the subtle processes that give this legendary wine its sparkle to the eye, its tingle to the tongue.

As a physicist who studies champagne for a living, I can say that examining the bubbles in a glass of fizz is far from frivolous. Yes, the work has a pure, intrinsic interest, but it also has implications for other areas where bubbles play a role. In marine science, for example, we know that when an ocean wave breaks, it can trap air bubbles that burst when they reach the surface, ejecting aerosol droplets into the atmosphere – just like the bubbles in champagne.

So don’t feel guilty. Just sit back and enjoy my six scientific secrets of champagne – they’re bound to be a talking point when you next crack open a bottle. Oh, and before you ask where we get our champagne from, our university has its own small vineyard producing several hundred bottles per year. We also receive samples from various champagne houses that show an interest in our research, including Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot and Pommery. My colleagues and I don’t drink the samples…if we did, we might never get any work done.

1. What’s that fog you see after popping open a champagne bottle?

Before enjoying the pleasures of champagne, you obviously need to uncork the bottle so you can pour that lovely liquid out. Although it’s safer to do so by gingerly prising the cork out bit by bit, most of us will surely have popped open a bottle of champagne with a dramatic bang (see image series below). Look closely as the cork flies out of the bottleneck, however, and you’ll see a cloud of fog immediately forming. To understand how this beautiful effect is created, we need to remember that champagne is a mixture of water and ethanol, supersaturated with dissolved carbon dioxide (CO2).

Close-up photos of a cork popping out of a bottle of champagne to reveal the fog that forms as the released gas depressurizes

The wines are created by first fermenting grapes harvested from the Champagne region of France in open vats. The CO2 is formed (along with further ethanol) during a second fermentation stage (the prise de mousse) that takes place after the wine has been transferred to hermetically sealed bottles. Champagne has special aromas too. These are volatile compounds that come from the grapes and the yeasts used for fermentation, as well as from the ageing process itself, in which those compounds slowly oxidize to create new molecules.

The amount of CO2 that gets dissolved in champagne is ruled by Henry’s law, which states that the equilibrium concentration of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its “partial pressure” in the gas phase. (The partial pressure is the hypothetical pressure that one gas in a mixture would have if it alone occupied the volume of the mixture at the same temperature.) So when it comes to fizzy wine, Henry’s law means that getting lots of CO2 dissolved in the liquid requires a high pressure in the “headspace” between the wine and the cork. That’s why champagne bottles use tough glass and a tightly fitting cork.

But the amount of CO2 dissolved in champagne also depends on temperature, with the gas becoming much more soluble as the liquid cools. At 8–10 °C, which is the ideal serving temperature for champagne, there will usually be 11.5 g of dissolved CO2 per litre, while the pressure in the bottle is close to 5 bar. When you open a champagne bottle, the CO2 trapped in the headspace under the cork undergoes a huge drop in pressure from 5 bar down to an ambient pressure of 1 bar. Assuming the CO2 gas expands adiabatically (i.e. so fast that no heat exchange can occur), the gas cools by an incredible 80–85 °C, making water vapour and traces of ethanol vapour condense to create tiny droplets of fog (2013 J. Food Eng. 116 78).

Moreover, once the bottle has been uncorked, the thermodynamic equilibrium of CO2 is broken. The dissolved CO2 steadily escapes from the liquid because the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas phase has dropped to roughly 0.0004 bar, which is the partial pressure of gas-phase CO2 in the atmosphere. Thermodynamically speaking, all the dissolved CO2 must now escape from the champagne, though fortunately that doesn’t occur instantaneously. You’ll need several tens of hours for your champagne to go completely flat, but hopefully you wouldn’t be daft enough to let such a good wine stand around for so long.

2. What’s the best way to pour champagne?

So you’ve popped open your bottle of precious champagne. Now how are you going to pour the wine into a glass to preserve the precious fizz and get the bubbles to stay for as long as possible? My colleagues and I at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne investigated this question using two different serving methods. The first involved pouring champagne straight down the middle of a vertically oriented flute, while the other was to pour it down the side of a tilted flute.

Thermal images of champagne being poured into a flute held vertically and then tilted

We found that tilting the glass, as you would when you pour beer, led to a much higher concentration of dissolved CO2 in the champagne than if the glass were kept upright. That’s because the beer-like way of serving champagne is much more gentle. It lets the champagne flow softly along the glass wall to progressively fill the flute. Pouring champagne straight down the middle of a vertically oriented glass, in contrast, creates turbulence and traps air bubbles in the liquid. Both effects force the dissolved CO2 to escape much more rapidly from the champagne.

These findings were corroborated using infrared imaging to visualize the clouds of gaseous CO2 that escape during the pouring process (figure 1). CO2 absorbs infrared light very strongly at wavelengths of about 4.2 μm, with the resulting images being brighter where there’s lots of the gas slopping about – down the sides of a vertical flute. My advice is to treat champagne a little more like beer – at least, when it comes to serving it. We also discovered that you lose less CO2 if the champagne is chilled because the wine gets more viscous as its temperature falls. But if the wine is warm, you get more turbulence and agitation in the champagne as it’s poured, forcing the dissolved CO2 to escape more rapidly from the champagne.

3. What’s better: flute or coupe?

For champagne lovers, there’s one question that has long been debated and mulled over in bars, restaurants and speciality wine magazines. What is the best type of glass to drink champagne from – a long, thin flute or a bowl-like coupe? With little or no analytical data having ever been brought to bear on this drinking-vessel dilemma, we decided to turn to science. One thing is clear: when you taste champagne from a glass, the gaseous CO2 and volatile aromatic compounds progressively invade the headspace above the vessel, slowly altering your overall perception of those smells.

Thermal images of champagne being poured into a flute and coupe held vertically

To find out how the geometry of the glass affects the drink’s smell, we measured the amount of gaseous CO2 and ethanol above the glass using gas chromatography. We found that when you pour champagne held at 20 °C into a flute, the headspace above the glass contains about 20% CO2 – roughly twice the figure above a coupe glass (2012 PLOS ONE 7 e30628). The tendency of flutes to hang on to concentrated quantities of CO2 was confirmed by infrared-imaging experiments. It appears that a narrow flute funnels the gaseous CO2 (and therefore the aromas) more effectively (figure 2a), whereas the broader coupe “dilutes” them (figure 2b).

Our findings chime with sensory analyses of champagne and other sparkling wines carried out by human tasters, who generally agree that the smell of champagne, and especially its first nose, is more irritating when champagne is served in a flute than in a coupe. Be careful not to sniff too deeply, as CO2 can burn or sting your nose if it’s too concentrated, especially if you’re drinking from a flute. In my opinion, a tulip-shaped wine glass (a bit shorter than a traditional flute and curved slightly inwards at the top) would be the best compromise between not having too much CO2 on the one hand yet having enough of an aroma on the other.

4. How many bubbles are there in a glass of champagne?

Knowing how many bubbles of CO2 are likely to nucleate in a glass of champagne is not just a question for sommeliers, wine journalists and experienced tasters. It’s also a fascinating question for any physicists wondering about the complex phenomena at play in a glass of fizzy wine. Thermodynamically speaking, a bubble has to overcome an energy barrier before it can form. In weakly supersaturated liquids, such as champagne or other carbonated drinks, bubbles don’t just pop into existence from nothing. To nucleate and grow freely, bubbles need pre-existing gas cavities above a critical radius of several tenths of a micron.

Gerard Liger-Belair and Guillaume Polidori use laser tomography to capture the flow patterns in champagne

After using high-speed video cameras to examine wine glasses filled with champagne, we found that most bubble-nucleation sites are located on pre-existing gas cavities trapped within hollow, cylindrical cellulose fibres on the wall of the glass. Most of these fibres were either left behind by the towel we used to clean the glass or had been simply floating in the air before landing on the wall. Crucially, these fibres have an open tip that is several microns in size – exceeding the critical radius required for bubbles to grow.

To find out how many bubbles are likely to form in a glass, we developed mathematical models that combine the dynamics of bubble ascent with mass-transfer equations (2014 J. Phys. Chem. B 118 3156). As you might expect, the number of bubbles depends on both the wine and the glass, increasing with the temperature of the champagne and with the ambient pressure. The number of bubbles falls, however, with the height of the champagne, which means that if you like a lot of fizziness, don’t pour yourself too big a drink.

Roughly speaking, if you pour 100 ml of champagne straight down the middle of a vertically oriented flute, you’ll nucleate about one million bubbles – if you can resist drinking from your flute that is. Serving champagne by pouring it down the wall of a tilted flute, which keeps more CO2 dissolved, will yield tens of thousands more bubbles before the wine goes flat.

5. How do flow patterns in champagne affect its aroma?

Photograph of bubbles in a glass of champagne

After being created from tiny gas pockets trapped inside particles stuck on the glass wall, bubbles rise in a line towards the surface of the champagne. As the bubbles float up, they continue to get bigger by continuously absorbing molecules of CO2 dissolved in the liquid. These rising bubbles displace surrounding fluid, which in turn disturbs neighbouring fluid layers, dragging fluid particles in their wakes. As the champagne is constantly moving, with the surface changing all the time, volatile aromas can escape relatively easily, which is one of the joys of champagne. A flat, non-bubbly wine, in contrast, will be at rest in your glass. So unless you swirl it, the wine will quickly lose its smell.

Together with my colleagues Guillaume Polidori and Fabien Beaumont – both experts in fluid mechanics at Reims – I used laser tomography to reveal what the naked eye could not. Before pouring champagne into the glass, we first seeded the wine with tiny, approximately spherical “Rilsan” particles about 10–100 μm in diameter. Made from plastic, these particles have the same density as the fluid and so float in it, without rising or sinking under the effect of buoyancy. They reflect a lot of laser light, letting us visualize the flow patterns inside freshly poured glasses of champagne (figure 3).

In one test, we washed the glass using formic acid so that it was perfectly clean with no fibres remaining in it, which prevented any bubbles from nucleating. Free from effervescence, the champagne looked like a still wine with the Rilsan particles motionless. However, in a glass that has not been rinsed with acid, you do get effervescence, with a few nucleation sites giving rise to several “bubble trains” in the champagne. These trains make the champagne flow upward, creating vertically oriented streaks of light as the bubbles sweep the Rilsan particles along their path.

Gerard Liger-Belair uses a camera to study the release of bubbles from tiny fibres left on a glass

Flow patterns driven by ascending bubbles don’t just look pretty. They are a wonderful gift to the champagne taster, hugely increasing the diffusion of aromas above the champagne surface without having to lift a finger. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to swirl a glass of champagne or sparkling wine to enjoy the subtle mix of scents and flavours. The bubbles do the job for you.

6. Why do bursting bubbles make champagne have a better aroma?

The top of a flute filled with freshly poured champagne is a fantastic playground for exploring the physics behind collapsing bubbles. As an individual bubble reaches the surface of the liquid, it floats for a while like a mini iceberg, with only a tiny part of it emerging above the champagne surface. But when the emerged film of liquid disintegrates, a very complex hydrodynamic process ensues, causing the submerged part of the bubble to collapse. Together with Arnaud Antkowiak, Elisabeth Ghabache and Thomas Séon from Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, we studied this process using high-speed imaging combined with numerical modelling.

Series of photos showing a bubble bursting at the surface of water

We found that when individual bubbles at the surface of champagne burst, they each produce a high-speed jet of liquid that quickly breaks up into several tiny champagne droplets (figure 4). In fact, the myriad of ascending bubbles collapse and spray a multitude of tiny droplets above the surface, creating wonderfully refreshing aerosols (figure 5). This characteristic champagne fizz releases far more flavours than you’d ever get from a flat wine.

Oceanographers have known for years that air bubbles trapped in sea water carry surface-active agents (or “surfactants”) that are released at the ocean surface when the bubbles burst, which led me and my team to wonder if champagne aerosols also have a high concentration of these molecules. Together with several friends and colleagues, led by Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin from the Department of Biogeochemistry and Analytics at Helmholtz Centre in Munich, we used ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry to analyse the chemical composition of champagne droplets (2009 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106 16545).

Photo of champagne droplets projected above the surface of a glass.

We found that hundreds of different kinds of surfactant molecules get carried up and out of the liquid by ascending and bursting bubbles. They enter the champagne aerosols, which end up with a very different chemical fingerprint from the bulk champagne. Moreover, tens of these compounds, concentrated in the champagne aerosols, were identified as being the chemical precursors to aromas. By drawing a parallel between the fizz of the ocean and the fizz of champagne, our study revealed a relationship between bursting bubbles and the aromatic boost often attributed to champagne and sparkling wines. Our work supported the idea that rising and bursting bubbles act as a continuous “elevator” for aromas in each and every glass of champagne.

Champagne perfection

So there you have it. To enjoy champagne at its best, first chill the wine to the ideal serving temperature of 8–10 °C. Pour the champagne gently down the side of a tilted glass (not straight down the middle) so plenty of CO2 remains dissolved in the liquid. A tulip-shaped glass will give you the ideal balance between lots of aroma and not too much prickly CO2 getting up your nose. Don’t over-clean your glass or you won’t get enough of the bubble trains that help to release the champagne’s wonderful aromas by bringing lots of bubbles to the surface. And remember there’s no need to swirl champagne (as you would do with still wines) as those bubble trains will automatically disturb the liquid and help aromas escape through the surface towards your nose. Sniff deeply (but not too deeply) to enjoy the aromas, then let the lovely liquid into your mouth.

Season’s greetings!

Quantum-dot films convert infrared photons into visible light

A thin-film material that converts infrared light into visible light has been unveiled by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Made of two non-conventional semiconductors, the material works for infrared light at moderate intensities, and could be used to improve a range of technologies including solar cells, cameras and night-vision goggles.

The team, led by Vladimir Bulović, Moungi Bawendi and Marc Baldo of the Energy Frontier Research Center for Excitonics at MIT, made its films on top of glass microscope slides. The films have a simple, two-layer structure. The bottom layer consists of colloidal quantum dots. These are nanometre-sized chunks of the semiconductor lead sulphide coated with a molecular layer of fatty acids. The top layer is a crystalline film made of an organic molecule called rubrene.

Colliding excitons

The conversion process begins when a quantum dot absorbs an incoming infrared photon. This energy is then transferred to the neighbouring rubrene film in the form of an electron–hole pair. Called excitons, these pairs diffuse through the rubrene, where they can collide with each other.

“When two low-energy excitons collide, they can create a high-energy exciton, which we call a ‘singlet’ because of the spin physics in these materials,” explains team member Mark Wilson. “The high-energy singlet can emit visible light, so, in short, we are able to change the colour of the light from infrared to the visible,” he adds. Energy is conserved during this upconversion process and the absorption of two lower-energy infrared photons is required to generate each higher-energy photon of visible light.

The upconversion of infrared light at wavelengths greater than about 1 μm had proved difficult in the past because the materials used to absorb the infrared light tended to heat up rather than produce useful excitons. “We used colloidal nanocrystals as the infrared-light-sensitive materials to overcome this problem,” says Wilson. “We show that not only does this approach work, but that our devices are already quite efficient at upconverting light. The technology is not yet optimized and we are working on understanding how it works and so improving device performance.”

An important advantage of the excitonic process over other upconversion schemes is that it can operate efficiently at relatively modest light intensities. This makes it relevant for many applications, including biological imaging, night vision, multidimensional displays and photovoltaics.

The team, reporting its work in Nature Photonics, says that as well as trying to improve light-conversion efficiency, it is also looking to lower the light-intensity threshold for efficient operation. The researchers are also trying to improve the films so that they are able to convert infrared light with longer wavelengths of around 1.5 μm.

“If we succeed in doing this, our materials might be used to enhance the performance of industry-standard silicon camera technology,” explains Wilson. He points out that short-wave infrared light penetrates further into fog, so a camera containing the film would be ideal for use in all-weather autonomous vehicles.

New high-capacity battery goes with the flow

Redox-flow batteries could be very useful for the safe storage of excess energy in electricity grids, but their deployment has been held back because they have far lower energy capacities than conventional lithium-ion batteries. Now, researchers in Singapore have built a new type of redox-flow battery that offers a higher energy capacity without losing the safety advantages that such batteries bring.

As more electricity is generated from renewable sources, electricity suppliers will have to find efficient ways of storing energy produced when the Sun is shining (or the wind is blowing) for use at times of peak demand. Storing energy in rechargeable batteries is one option, and various technologies that are used today including traditional lead–acid batteries and state-of-the-art lithium-ion batteries. However, these established technologies have their problems. Lead–acid batteries have limited storage capacity and lithium-ion batteries are prone to overheating, which makes the latter unsuitable for use in large-scale facilities.

A redox-flow battery employs liquid electrolytes that are stored in two separate tanks. During charging or discharging, one liquid is circulated around the battery’s anode and the other around its cathode – which are themselves separated by a semipermeable membrane. Such batteries are less prone to overheating and combustion because the energy is stored in the tanks, which can be isolated from the point at which the electrochemical power generation takes place.

Tanks of energy

“It’s a bit like with the internal-combustion engine, where you have a tank for the gasoline and you just pump it into the engine to produce power,” says materials scientist Qing Wang, who led this latest research. The most developed designs use vanadium, which is stored and transported in aqueous solution. Unfortunately, this severely restricts energy capacity, because the vanadium salts are not very soluble in water.

Wang and colleagues have developed a new type of redox-flow battery in which the cathodic tank contains lithium–iron-phosphate granules and the anodic tank contains granules of titanium dioxide. When the battery is charged, “redox mediators” dissolved in the electrolyte are pumped through both tanks. Under the influence of an applied voltage, one of the redox mediators oxidizes the lithium in the tank, transporting the lithium ions into the reaction vessel. The reaction vessel is divided by a partially permeable membrane that allows lithium ions to pass but not the redox mediators. In the anodic half of the reaction vessel, other redox mediators combine with the lithium ions. These are then pumped through the titanium dioxide, where the lithium ions are reduced back to lithium metal, which intercalates into the titanium dioxide.

When the battery is discharged, the reaction runs in reverse, returning the lithium to the cathode. Because the lithium is stored in solid form in both of the charged and discharged states of the battery, the energy density of the new lithium-flow battery is about 500 Wh/l. This is around 10 times that of a vanadium redox battery.

Better membrane

The researchers are now optimizing their new battery with an emphasis on improving the performance of the membrane. Conventional flow batteries use a membrane made from the polymer Nafion, which could not be used in the new battery because it lets through too many redox-mediator molecules. Wang and colleagues solved this problem by combining Nafion with the polymer PVDF, which stopped the redox mediators from passing through. However, this new membrane also restricts the lithium-ion flow, which reduced the charge/discharge rate of the battery. For grid storage, Wang says the permeability “works fine, but it’s not perfect”. If it can be improved further, Wang says, the battery could also be useful for electric vehicles – although he concludes that “there’s quite a long distance to go”.

Michael Aziz of Harvard University describes the work as “very innovative”, but he is sceptical of Wang’s claim that the charge/discharge rate is adequate for grid storage, saying that it is 10,000 times lower than that of an aqueous vanadium redox-flow battery. He points out that Nafion is very expensive and a practical battery would need 10,000 times the amount of membrane to achieve the same performance as aqueous vanadium. “For grid storage, it’s more important that a battery be cheap than that it take up a very small area,” he explains.

John Goodenough of the University of Texas at Austin – the inventor of the lithium-ion battery – agrees. “I don’t think they have the answer to the least-expensive battery for large-capacity electrical-energy storage,” he says, “but the approach may prove feasible one day.”

The new battery is described in Science Advances.

Celebrating the centenary of Einstein’s general theory of relativity and asking what theorists have done lately

 

By Hamish Johnston

This week, people all over the world have been celebrating the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR). Einstein delivered his theory this week in November 1915. Not surprisingly, the Web has been buzzing with tributes to Einstein and explanations of his theory.

In the above video, the physicist Brian Greene and two young assistants demonstrate Einstein’s explanation of gravity using a huge piece of stretched Spandex. Why they have this Spandex ring in what appears to be their living room remains a mystery, but it and a large number of marbles do the trick when it comes to explaining GR.

(more…)

Dipping into the physics of a chocolate fountain

Picture of Adam Townsend with a chocolate fountain

By Tushna Commissariat

When most people look at a chocolate fountain in a restaurant or maybe at a party, they are mostly thinking about all the yummy treats they can dunk into the liquid-chocolate curtain. But when a physicist or a mathematician looks at one, they can’t help but notice some of the interesting fluid dynamics at play – most visible is how the curtain of chocolate does not fall straight down, rather it pulls inwards, and that melted chocolate is a non-Newtonian fluid.

University College London (UCL) student Adam Townsend decided to work on this topic for his MSci project and has now published a paper on his findings in the European Journal of Physics. To study the inflow effect, he looked into some classic research on “water bells”, where the same flow shape is seen. “You can build a water bell really easily in your kitchen,” says UCL physicist Helen Wilson, who was Townsend’s MSci project supervisor and the paper’s co-author. “Just fix a pen vertically under a tap with a 10p coin flat on top and you’ll see a beautiful bell-shaped fountain of water.”

(more…)

UK science funding protected from cuts

The UK chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has announced that the country’s science budget will be protected in real terms until 2020, dispelling fears among many scientists that it would be cut. The £4.7bn per-year budget will now rise in line with inflation, to “ensure the UK remains a world leader in science and research”. The chancellor also re-affirmed that the UK will invest a further £6.9bn over the course of the parliament, which runs until 2020, in capital spending on science.

The government claims that by inflation-proofing the budget, the total spend on science will be more than £500m higher by 2020 than in 2015. “In the modern world, one of the best ways you can back business is by backing science,” Osborne noted during his budget speech to parliament. He also announced that to “further support innovation”, the government will dedicate 1.2% of its defence budget to science and technology, and invest more than £1.3bn by 2020 to attract new teachers, “particularly into science, technology, engineering and mathematics”.

Researchers and senior figures within the UK science community have welcomed the statement. “Across government there are programmes facing significant cuts, and against this background we acknowledge the value the government has placed on research with this settlement,” says Philip Nelson, chair of the Research Councils UK (RCUK) executive group – the umbrella organization for the UK’s seven research councils. “It means that the UK’s research base will be able to maintain its world-class research outputs, continue to partner with and attract industry, maintain its flow of trained researchers into the economy and society, and continue to inspire the next generation.”

In the modern world, one of the best ways you can back business is by backing science George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer

Paul Hardaker, chief executive of the Institute of Physics, which publishes Physics World, says that while this budget boost will help UK science, “we still need to be mindful of how this compares with higher investment by international competitors”. Over the past five years, the UK’s flat science budget has been eroded in real terms by inflation, whereas other countries, notably Germany, have been increasing spending on science. “To grow our economy and create jobs, the UK must be competitive, and that means investing in science and bringing that science to market,” says Hardaker. “[The budget] shows that this government is committed to investing in science, and ensuring that we maximize the potential economic and societal gains from doing so in the future.”

Tucking in

Yet while the protection of science is good news for researchers who had feared deep cuts, the devil will be in the detail. As part of the science budget, the government announced a new £1.5bn “Global Challenges Research Fund” over the next five years that will “ensure UK science takes a leading role in addressing the problems faced by developing countries”. It is not yet clear how this will affect the science budget and if it is a case of “tucking in”, in which the same pot of money is made to fund additional programmes.

“At face value, the restoration of the link between the science budget and inflation is a great relief, having been eroded in real terms by 10% over the last five years,” says astronomer Paul Crowther of the University of Sheffield. “However, as usual we’ll have to wait for further details, since other items may be tucked into the overall budget, or higher funds may be directed to specific programmes already in the science budget, such as the UK Space Agency.” Crowther adds that researchers will now be eagerly awaiting details of how the cash will funnel down into the seven research-council budgets, which is likely to be known in January.

Osborne’s budget statement also announced that the government will implement the recommendations of a recent review carried out by the Nobel laureate Paul Nurse, who is president of the Royal Society. Nurse called for a new body – Research UK – that would replace RCUK. If created, Research UK would manage councils’ research funds and would be at “arm’s length” from the government. The statement also says that the government will “look to” integrate Innovate UK – the UK’s innovation agency – into Research UK, as well as “take forward” a review of the Research Excellence Framework, which assesses the quality of research in UK higher-education institutions.

Trafficking in big ideas

Some minds never cease to fascinate. They soar over difficulties and spot connections between fields that are invisible to others. They traffic in the big ideas. The mind of the mathematician John Horton Conway is an excellent case in point. Conway’s biggest idea (at least in the sense of being the most famous) is the “Game of Life”, a mathematical grid of cells in which simple rules about when a cell becomes “live” or “dead” can produce a riot of patterns. But Conway’s ideas stretch far beyond this one example, and they are the focus of Siobhan Roberts’ informative biography Genius at Play: the Curious Mind of John Horton Conway.

Born in Liverpool, UK, in 1937, Conway grew up as a typical, socially inept maths nerd. En route to the University of Cambridge though, he realized he could reinvent himself in a way he had only dreamt about, by becoming an extrovert who seemed to spend his time playing board games and card games, tying and untying knots, and messing about with the properties of numbers. He particularly liked tricks such as figuring out the day of someone’s birthday years into the future and factoring large numbers in his head; “Gimme a number!” was a typical conversation-starter. Yet he did well enough on Cambridge’s Mathematical Tripos to be accepted for post-graduate study, and a story Roberts heard from Conway’s PhD adviser, the eminent number theorist Harold Davenport, may explain why. Davenport recalled having two very good students at the same time, Conway and one other. When he gave the other student a problem, the student would return the next day with an excellent solution. Conway, however, would return with a very good solution to a completely different problem. Already, as a student, Conway showed how his mind meandered across the mathematical landscape.

Roberts first met Conway in 2003 at Princeton University, where he had been in the mathematics department since leaving a similar position at Cambridge 17 years earlier. She assumed the role of a sociologist scoping out an exotic, newly discovered tribe, and she describes Conway as “high comedy, in an orbit all his own – prankish, belligerent…he was in good company among artists who matched creativity with promiscuity, intellectual and/or personal – Picasso, for example”.

In order to show readers Conway the person as well as Conway the mathematician, Roberts describes his (often unsuccessful) attempts at balancing research, life and amorous escapades. Throughout all of this – as well as two heart attacks, a stroke and bouts of suicidal depression – Conway has persevered, fuelled by his passion for mathematics. As was the case for Einstein, Picasso and many other high-level thinkers, pretty much nothing else mattered. Like them, Conway could work anywhere, at any time. When his office – piled high with papers, books, homemade mathematical models and buried unconsumed food – became impossible to work in (or visit), he fled to the department’s common room in both Cambridge and Princeton. He was, in fact, more at home there, among students who, when he appeared, dropped what they were doing to join him in inventing new games and analysing their mathematical properties.

This was how Conway made his most well-known discovery. He came upon the Game of Life after years of studying the patterns that emerge as one places and removes tiles in Go, the Japanese board game. Depending on the pre-set properties of cells in their vicinity, Conway found that initial patterns of cells in the Game of Life change form as they move over an infinitely large grid. “Patterns emerged, seemingly from nowhere,” he recalled to Roberts with passion and wonder. In addition to its mesmerizing powers, the Game of Life turned out to have unexpected uses as a tool for exploring the evolution of spiral galaxies; calculating π (which Conway can recite “from memory to 1111-plus digits”, he boasted to Roberts); and investigating how ordered systems emerge from complex ones. The game has also been used to examine why, in a multiverse scenario, only certain universes are capable of supporting life due to initial conditions such as their fundamental constants, including the fine-structure constant.

Conway had hit on something universal, yet nowadays his attitude towards his creation is ambivalent at best. “I hate the damned Life game,” he told Roberts, an attitude not unlike that of Sergei Rachmaninoff towards his immensely popular prelude in C-sharp minor. What about all their other work, as many great thinkers have complained. Ah, the price of fame.

Conway rates highest his contributions to group theory, and Roberts rightly delves into them in great detail. Like many mathematicians, Conway was attracted to his subject by its beauty, and (again like many mathematicians) what he means by “beauty” is “symmetry”. Simply put, groups are a way of representing the symmetries of objects; they are a collection of operations on an object that preserves its original symmetry. A cube, for example, can be reflected or rotated in 48 ways and still look like a cube. The 48 operations of its symmetry group can be enumerated in what mathematicians call a character table. Since the cube is a 3D object, the symmetries that go with a particular operation or number can be visualized. Not so for higher dimensions, where numbers in character tables replace visualizations. Mathematicians read these numbers as they would a novel and are moved by the symmetries they represent.

Roberts tells the saga of how Conway and three collaborators took on the Herculean task of calculating the character tables of a large number of certain basic groups known as finite simple groups. Their result, The Atlas of Finite Groups, took 15 years to assemble and instantly became indispensable to group theorists.

Roberts’ biography, unflinchingly honest yet entertaining and lively, will be best appreciated by scientists and mathematicians. My main criticism is that it contains many lengthy quotes from Conway (taken from Roberts’ interviews) that would have benefitted from more judicious editing. I would also have liked to have learned more about how Conway approaches problems and how he discovers them – in other words, how he thinks. The author tells us that neuroscientists have used functional magnetic resonance imaging to observe Conway’s brain while he solves mathematical problems, but she omits any mention of how notoriously untrustworthy this method is.

When Roberts asked Conway what was left to do on the Atlas, his reply was emphatic, as if it should have been obvious to everyone. “Lots! Understand it all, for one thing.” Among the exceptions to the groups in the Atlas is one whose sheer size astonished mathematicians. This group – known as “the Monster” – exists in a space with 196,883 dimensions. Its character table has 194 columns and 194 rows, and the total number of symmetries in it is 54 digits long. “The one thing I want to do before I die is understand WHY the Monster exists,” an emotional Conway told Roberts. There is an outside chance that he will get his wish. Not surprisingly, the Monster has connections with other fields in mathematics, such as number theory, and the physicist Freeman Dyson entertains a “sneaking hope [that] 21st century physicists will stumble upon the Monster group.” After all, is not mathematics the structure of the universe, as scientists and mathematicians from Plato onwards have speculated?

  • 2015 Bloomsbury £16.59/$30.00hb 480pp

Web life: DSFP’s Spaceflight History

So what is the site about?

If you think you’re pretty knowledgeable about the history of space exploration, then this blog will make you think again. It will also send you down one of those Internet “rabbit holes” that spits you out, several hours later, with a newfound appreciation for a subject and a disquieting sense of disbelief about what time it is. (You have been warned.) The person responsible for this particular rabbit hole is the science writer and space aficionado David S F Portree, a veteran of the science blogosphere whose previous sites include the similarly themed Beyond Apollo, which was part of Wired magazine’s science blog network until earlier this year. Like Beyond Apollo, Portree’s new site focuses on the lesser-known aspects of space exploration, including missions and programmes that never got off the ground.

Isn’t that a bit of a downer?

“The history of spaceflight is mostly about dreaming and planning, not funding and launching,” Portree writes. “Focusing on this could become depressing really fast, but I try to strike a healthy balance, presenting both the hard lessons and great victories of our past, and the difficult challenges and exciting possibilities of our future.” It is also interesting to see how particular dreams and plans have cropped up repeatedly (albeit with variations) in the decades since humans began venturing outside the Earth’s atmosphere. For example, NASA’s current plans for capturing an asteroid and landing astronauts on it are reminiscent of a 1966 proposal by one Eugene Smith, an engineer at Northrop Space Laboratories. As Portree explains, Smith pointed out that the asteroid Eros was due to make a close approach to the Earth on 23 January 1975, and suggested that a flyby might make good practice for a future Mars mission.

Who is it aimed at?

The posts on DSFP’s Spaceflight History are written in clear, accessible prose, and most of the physics in them (orbital mechanics, some kinematics, bits of astrophysics and planetary science) is not hard to grasp, at least on a conceptual level. Some of the historical, political and spacecraft-engineering details do get rather technical, however, and you’ll need a high tolerance for acronyms and mission numbers to get through some of the longer, more complex essays. In short, this is a blog for people whose interest in space exploration goes beyond pretty pictures and dramatic stories, although there are plenty of those, too.

Anything else?

Now and then, Portree pokes his nose into topics with a more tangential connection to spaceflight. In one of these, he speculates on what would have happened if astronomers had discovered Pluto in the late 1970s, rather than in 1930. This alternative version of history is plausible, Portree notes, because “only a series of astronomical errors led us to believe that a planet might exist beyond Neptune”. Without those errors, early 20th-century astronomers would have had no reason to hunt for an additional planet, and the object we know as Pluto would probably have been found in 1978 (together with its moon, Charon, which was in fact discovered that year). At that point, we would have realized immediately that Pluto was too small to be a planet – thus avoiding the “dwarf planet” controversy entirely.

Can you give me a sample quote?

From an August 2015 post entitled “Failure was an option: what if Apollo astronauts could not ride the Saturn V rocket?”: “The Saturn V was the largest rocket ever developed. It had engines of unprecedented scale and power: the F-1 engines in the 33-foot-diameter S-IC first stage, which burned RP-1 kerosene fuel and liquid oxygen, remain today the largest ever flown. The J-2 engines in the top two stages, the 33-foot-diameter S-II second stage and the 22-foot-diameter S-IVB stage, gulped down temperamental liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants. Cautious engineers could see many opportunities for trouble, and they were aware that problems they could not foresee might be the most difficult to solve. Many believed that NASA should have in place backup plans in case the Saturn V suffered development delays.”

Einstein’s legacy, 100 years on

By Tushna Commissariat

As readers of Physics World, you probably don’t need me to tell you that this year marks 100 years since legendary physicist Albert Einstein laid the foundations for his revolutionary general theory of relativity (GR). This month marks the exact time when he began giving a series of four weekly lectures – the first of which was on 4 November 1915 – to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin. Indeed, today is the centenary of the final lecture, when he presented his “Field equations of gravitation”. In the video above, philosopher and one-time physicist Jürgen Renn, from the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, gives a short and sweet explanation of GR and its impact on physics.

(more…)

Copyright © 2026 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors