Skip to main content

Science toys

“I have a low boredom threshold,” Tim Rowett explains, ushering in my son Alex and me. Rowett is a jovial, professorish-looking man with wire-rimmed glasses and a short, white beard. Alex and I have gone to his flat in Twickenham, on the edge of London, to see his collection of fun stuff — jokes, games, puzzles and other toys related to science. When I ask what they have in common, Rowett has a ready, if not illuminating, answer: “They’re just things that make people go ‘Wow!’.”

The how of the wow

During my visit, Rowett hands Alex a pair of inverse goggles, which turn your field of vision upside down. While my son gets to grips with those, I look round Rowett’s small, three-room flat. At first glance, it seems like the lost-and-found corner of a 1950s airport. One room has metal racks stacked to the ceiling with old-fashioned, cloth-covered valises. Another has shelves crammed with books, with a jumble of other objects strewn across the mantelpiece, piano and other flat surfaces.

Many people collect toys of one kind or another, but Rowett is different on three counts. First, he has a lot — 18,000 toys in fact. Second, he has managed to eke a living out of them, entertaining children until his retirement in 1996, then selling toys over the Web (www.grand-illusions.com). Third, while most of us focus our fascination on a particular kind of amusement — magnetic toys, optical illusions or puzzles — Rowett is equally interested in each kind. He will discuss a simple toy made of clothes pegs — its inventor, variants and how these evolved over time — with the same passion that he discusses complex perceptual-trick devices made of arrays of lenses.

While Alex bumps about in his goggles, I manage to elicit some of Rowett’s own story out of him as he shows me his toys. He was born in Farnham in 1941, and his father was in the Royal Signal Corps and then the clergy. Rowett studied engineering at King’s College, London, but kept failing, eventually graduating in six rather than three years. “I was easily distracted,” he shrugs. Rowett found short-lived employment as an engineer, followed by odd jobs ranging from selling central heating (nine months) to peddling encyclopedias (three days).

All along, he loved entertaining children as a hobby. But it took him a while to discover his talent: his magic tricks never met the demands of his audience, and he did not have the personality for puppets. One day in the early 1970s, he brought to a party a toy dog equipped with a simple electroacoustic switch. “When you called, it went waggle waggle waggle, walk walk walk,” Rowett explains. “The kids were all over it. I had discovered that they don’t need high technology, they want things they can touch. That’s how I started.”

Alex, still wearing the inverse goggles, asks us to throw him a pen. He misses a few times and goes back to practising. Meanwhile, Rowett shows me his Klein bottle used to store fennel seeds; a baton-sized, battery-powered van de Graaff generator able to make a sheet of silver Mylar float; and a tiny Stirling engine: “Look at that — chug, chug, chug — it runs on the heat of your hand!”

Rowett cross-catalogues everything, and reels off a list: “Topological toys, string-climbing toys, disentanglement toys, nothing novelties, kaleidoscopes, spectacles, magnetic toys, rattlebacks, jigsaws, literary novelties, light sticks, geophysical toys, mirror toys, water siphons, spinners, soap bubbles, electroacoustic switches, aroma games, optical scopes…” On and on he goes, with dozens of overlapping categories.

We wander into the kitchen, which is another wonderland. It has pitchers that will not pour unless you know which holes to cover with your fingers, spoons that bend when inserted in hot liquid and a can of “primordial soup” from Fermilab (“Ingredients: quarks, force-carriers, electron-like particles, neutrinos, Higgs bosons…”). Rowett then shows me his latest acquisition: a few square inches of an extraordinary super-cushiony, sticky material. He drops an egg on it from a height of about two metres and it lands on the square without cracking or bouncing. “Astonishing!” Rowett says. When I ask him what it is good for, he gives me his usual answer: “For the ‘Wow!’.”

Alex asks us to throw him something again, and this time he catches it. We applaud.

The critical point

A few months later, Rowett and I meet again in a New York City café. He rattles off interesting optical effects that he has witnessed, including a balcony on 29th Street and 3rd Avenue that appears to slope upwards when viewed from uptown and downwards from downtown, and a place from which the Empire State Building looks like it is a rocket blasting off. Rowett has been scouring the stalls of toy fairs, and begins pulling his acquisitions out of a bag: a Japanese-made penlight that projects a star chart; a device that relies on the Bernoulli principle to make a rocket pop out of a box when you blow on it; and real Mexican jumping beans — which Rowett calls “nature’s best novelty” — the bizarre and unexpected movements of which are caused by newly hatched caterpillars.

The last items in his bag are plastic straws. Rowett pinches each end of one with his fingers and winds it up like a crank until it bulges. “Flick it with your finger,” he commands. I do, and it bursts with a bang. Startled coffee-drinkers look us over warily. “Adiabatic compression,” Rowett explains to anyone caring to listen. “It heats the wall of the straw, weakening it, so all it takes is your finger to make the trapped air pop it. I had a physics professor in Munich explain it all to me!”

Suddenly I know how to describe Rowett’s things. They each have a hidden order that, however familiar, shows itself in an unexpected and apparently magical way. His toys allow us to appreciate the order, and the magic too.

Web life: The Periodic Table of Videos

Eagle-eyed readers may spot a change in this column. Previously known as Blog life, it highlighted top picks from the physics blogosphere, and was itself an outgrowth of an earlier column on physics books, Shelf life. The new Web life column will continue to feature the best of physics blogging, but it will also include other types of Web content of interest to Physics World readers. First up is a periodic table of videos from Nottingham University in the UK.

What is it?

The website’s main page contains a periodic table with links to short (about five minute) videos on all 118 chemical elements. It is the brainchild of video-journalist Brady Haran, who teamed up with a group of chemists — most notably the Einstein-haired Martyn Poliakoff — from Nottingham University to produce the short films.

Can you describe a typical video?

Almost all of the videos are structured around anecdotes from Poliakoff, a veritable chemical raconteur who even manages to spend nearly three minutes talking about unniloctium, otherwise known as element-118. Videos of the more common elements often feature trips to the laboratory or chemical stockroom, where chemists Pete Licence, Stephen Liddle and Debbie Barnes examine carefully wrapped samples, play with gases and/or blow things up. The science they present is serious and well explained but the researchers are also clearly having fun.

Who is it aimed at?

The most obvious answer is chemists, but there is plenty here for the more physics-minded as well. For example, the video on helium has a nice demonstration of gas-law physics (as well as the obligatory squeaky voices), and the lanthanides and actinides beloved of nuclear physicists and engineers are not neglected — in fact, they are Liddle’s speciality. Many of the videos also contain laboratory stunts that should definitely not be tried at home, and these should appeal to science teachers with limited budgets (or nerve!) for, say, dropping lumps of caesium into water.

Why should I visit?

In an introductory clip, Poliakoff compares the periodic table to a family: some members you know well, while others (ruthenium, anyone?) may not be as familiar. Whether your most recent peek at Dmitry Mendeleev’s table came last week or last century, you are sure to find something here you did not know. After watching a few videos, you may even find yourself thinking “Oh, just one more…”.

How often is it updated?

The team finished the periodic table in summer 2008, but the researchers have not rested on their laurels. Updated videos crop up every few weeks, and the site maintains a list of elements soon to be refreshed. In late 2008 Liddle and Haran travelled to Ytterby, Sweden, to make a special video about the mine where four elements — yttrium, erbium, terbium and ytterbium — were discovered.

Can you give me a sample quote?

“Potassium is very reactive. One of my colleagues who used to work with it describes it as ‘evil’,” says Poliakoff.

Once a physicist: Christine Rice

 

Why did you study physics?

My father was a scientist and all my older siblings took science A levels, so it seemed the most obvious path for me to take. Plus, the careers advice we got was to avoid arts subjects as you would never get a job (happily, none of my “arty” friends at university ended up destitute). There was also a big drive to recruit more women into science and I was always one for a challenge. It meant something to me that girls could be as good at science as boys were. I did also enjoy the subject and one of my most satisfactory school experiences was preparing for the Oxford University entrance exam.

Did you enjoy the course?

I was a little daunted by Oxford when I first arrived and it took a long time for me to recover my confidence. I was not a fan of lectures and much preferred finding my own way through a subject using the library and the one-to-one teaching of the tutorial system. Quantum mechanics and special relativity were definite high points, although I seem to remember grasping the twin paradox (high-speed rocket, one twin ageing less) only when I was reading the textbook and never when I looked away.

What did you do after graduating?

I started a DPhil in the atmospheric physics department at Oxford because I had some idealistic notion of contributing to the world’s knowledge of global warming and its potential dangers. I was rather dismayed to discover how fervently scientists on both sides of the climate-change argument could argue their particular thesis and manipulate the data to prove their conclusions. It seemed a little like religious faith — if you believed a thing to be true, then it could be — and I got the distinct impression that I was about to embark on the same process. Once I got stuck into being at the computer every day, I knew this was not the right place for me.

How did you become interested in music?

As a child I learned both the violin and piano. I shone at neither, but I did get a lot of pleasure out of playing in the Manchester Youth Orchestra and going to concerts. My transforming passion turned out to be the theatre, and seeing a production of Henry V in 1985 with Kenneth Branagh in the title role was a real “eureka” moment for me. After that I found myself a drama teacher and auditioned for the Manchester Youth Theatre while I was still at school, much to the bemusement of my parents. As a student at Oxford I performed in a couple of musicals and met a singing teacher through a friend. I started singing lessons simply because I thought that all actors need to make themselves as versatile as possible, but I found the combination of making music and drama intoxicating.

What made you become a full-time singer?

After two years of my DPhil research my supervisor very kindly agreed to keep my place and the associated funding open to me while I took a year out to go to music college. While at the Royal Northern College of Music, I met a brilliant singing teacher who possessed a rare talent for hearing the true potential in a relatively untrained voice. He suggested that I could be a working singer if I stuck at it, and with that vote of confidence I submitted my two years of research as an MSc and bid farewell to physics.

Do you see any connection between physics and opera?

In truth, no. But if I were pushed to make a tenuous connection, I might suggest that a good head for numbers could be of use when memorizing rhythmically complex patterns in contemporary music. The single-mindedness necessary to succeed in the singing world is also akin to the ambition required to advance in academia.

What are you working on at the moment?

Last autumn I sang the role of Giulietta in Les Contes d’Hoffmann by Jacques Offenbach at the Royal Opera House, London. This year I am embarking on a recital tour in Europe with the wonderful soprano Kate Royal, and in the spring I will be in Madrid performing Penelope in Monteverdi’s Il Ritorno d’Ulisse. Much variety means life is never dull.

Blast on BBC 4

By Margaret Harris

Last month’s blog posts included a review of a film called BLAST, which follows a group of scientists working on the Balloon-Borne Large Aperture Submillimeter Telescope as they struggle to get their project off the ground (literally).

This week UK viewers can watch BLAST from the comfort of their living rooms: BBC 4 is showing the film as part of its Storyville documentary series at 10 pm on Wednesday 7 January. For truly dedicated (or truly sleepless) viewers, there will also be a repeat at 01:50 on 8 January.

The programme can also be viewed via the Internet using BBC’s iPlayer (available to UK-based computers until 14 January).

The best of 2008

It was the year that the Large Hadron Collider was finally fired up — and then abruptly shut down — and 2008 also saw significant progress towards the detection of dark matter. Physicists got a little closer to making practical quantum computers and 2008 saw a few nifty inventions to harvest energy from human motion. US president elect Barack Obama made a few high-profile science nominations that could signal a change in the US government’s view of climate change. It was also a good year for Japanese physics, as three Japanese-born particle physicists won the Nobel Prize in Physics.

1. January: Metamaterials take on sound
2. February: Harvesting energy from humans
3. March: Iron-based superconductor makes waves
4. April: UK funding decisions are slammed
5. May: Perimeter Institute bags top UK physicists
6. June: LHC doomsday scenario grips the world
7. July: Graphene goes from strength to strength
8. August: Slow but sure progress towards quantum computing
9. September: LHC starts and stops
10. October: Some good news for particle physics
11. November: Dark matter breakthrough is tantalizingly near
12. December: Obama chooses physics and the environment

1. January: Metamaterials take on sound

Not content with building “invisibility cloaks”, some physicists have turned their attentions to designing special metamaterials that would allow sound to flow smoothly around an object. In January, two independent groups revealed their plans for such a “cloak of silence”. Later in the year other researchers showed that a material with holes drilled through it is better at blocking sound than a solid sample, and another team unveiled a metamaterial device that could shield oil rigs from huge waves.

‘Cloak of silence’ design is unveiled
Holes prevent sound from passing through plate
Invisibility cloak for water waves

Back to list

2. February: Harvesting energy from humans

February saw the unveiling of two very different devices for harvesting energy from human motion. Max Donelan and colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia introduced their electricity-generating knee brace that they claim can generate about 5 watts of electricity. Meanwhile at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the US, Zhong Lin Wang and team showed off a fabric, that if used in trousers worn by a hiker, could generate enough electricity to charge a mobile phone. Later this year, Zhong Lin Wang improved his design when he realised that the original fabric would wear out too quickly.

Knee brace harvests ‘negative work’
Fibres could generate electricity from body motion
Bendy wires generate AC power

Back to list

3. March: Iron-based superconductor makes waves

The discovery of a new type of high-temperature superconductor gave the sagging field of high-Tc superconductivity a much needed boost in 2008. Everyone was talking about these iron-arsenide materials at the APS March Meeting in New Orleans – and in particular the groundbreaking work of Hideo Hosono and colleagues at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. As the year progressed, a deluge of papers reported the discovery of similar superconducting materials as theorists tried to understand exactly how superconductivity could exist in a compound containing a strongly magnetic material like iron. The big question is whether this discovery will lead rapidly to a better overall understanding of high-Tc materials — or will it further muddy the waters?

Iron-based high-Tc superconductor is a first

Back to list

4. April: UK funding decisions are slammed

Poor leadership and lamentable decision making were two charges levelled at the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) by a parliamentary committee in April. The MPs were investigating the STFC’s handling of an £80m shortfall in research funds that came to light in late 2007 and left some British physicists worrying about losing their research grants — or even their jobs. In June, the government announced that it would not fill the £80m void and said that the money was never promised in the first place, again placing blame on the STFC for expecting to receive more money than it was due.

Report slams UK’s leading physics funding agency
No extra cash for UK physics

Back to list

5. May: Perimeter Institute bags top UK physicists

One high-profile casualty of the STFC debacle is the University of Cambridge, which has lost the cosmologist Neil Turok to the Perimeter Institute (PI) in Canada. In April, Turok was named director of PI, and when I spoke to him about his move he hinted that the STFC debacle was one reason why he accepted the new position. Later this year, Turok persuaded his Cambridge colleague Stephen Hawking to accept a part-time position at the PI.
Neil Turok chosen to lead Perimeter Institute
Hawking accepts post in Canada

Back to list

6. June: LHC doomsday scenario grips the world

Perhaps a portent of the slightly less dramatic failure that occurred in September, the popular press was rife with reports that tiny black holes or “strange goo” created by the LHC could swallow up Earth. Much of this hype was generated by a court case in Hawaii in which the plaintiffs tried to prevent the LHC from starting up. In June, CERN decided that a response was necessary and released a report that dismissed such doomsday scenarios. Undeterred, some have even suggested that some of the liquid helium used to cool the LHC could form an explosive “Bosenova” in the presence of the collider’s powerful magnets – another extremely unlikely scenario.

CERN hopes LHC report will dispel doomsday fears
Could the LHC do the ‘Bosenova’?

Back to list

7. July: Graphene goes from strength to strength

Any doubts that graphene — a sheet of carbon just one atom think — is a wonder material were put to rest in 2008. In June, researchers confirmed that graphene is indeed the “strongest material in the world”. Earlier in the year, physicists confirmed that the material was also an extremely good conductor of heat and that electrons move much more easily through graphene than any other known material — making it an ideal candidate for use in tiny electronic circuits of the future. Other notable discoveries reported 2008 include graphene’s high transparency — which could make it useful in liquid crystal displays (LCDs) — and the use of graphene to enhance the resolution of an electron microscope.

Graphene has record-breaking strength
Graphene breaks speed record
Graphene makes for better optical displays
Electron microscope sees single hydrogen atoms

Back to list

8. August: Slow but sure progress towards quantum computing

While it’s unlikely that we will be using quantum computers in 2009, physicists made several important advances towards that goal in 2008. In August, an international team demonstrated the first “quantum repeater”, a device that will be needed to transmit quantum information over any appreciable distance. In June, another group were the first to achieve multi-particle entanglement in a solid – a feat that could help physicists create practical devices for quantum computers. Elsewhere, researchers have succeeded in creating the first miniature “quantum logic gate” on a silicon chip.

Quantum repeater demonstrated
Multi-particle entanglement in solid is a first
Quantum logic gate is miniaturized

Back to list

9. September: LHC starts and stops

September’s physics news was dominated by the much anticipated start up of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which was fired up without a hitch on 10 September. The celebrations were short-lived, however, because nine days later the accelerator suffered a major setback when an electrical failure led to the violent release of tonnes of liquid helium, which damaged about 30 superconducting magnets. Repairs are now underway and it looks like the accelerator will be up and running in summer 2009.

LHC loses liquid helium
LHC repairs underway

Back to list

10. October: Some good news for particle physics

After the disaster at CERN particle physicists deserved some good news — and they got it in October when three of their brethren won the Nobel Prize for Physics. One half of the prize was given to Yoichiro Nambu of the University of Chicago “for the discovery of the mechanism of spontaneous broken symmetry in subatomic physics.” The other half was shared between Makoto Kobayashi of the KEK lab and Toshihide Maskawa of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, “for the discovery of the origin of the broken symmetry which predicts the existence of at least three families of quarks in nature”.

The award was not without controversy, with some pointing out that Italian physicist Nicola Cabibbo paved the way for Kobayashi and Maskawa and should therefore have shared the prize with them.

Particle physicists pick up Nobel prize
Nobel Prize: there should be no controversy

Back to list

11. November: Dark matter breakthrough is tantalizingly near

It was a good year for physicists searching for evidence of the existence of dark matter — the mysterious stuff that is believed to make up 23% of the universe’s energy budget. In early November the PAMELA collaboration released data suggesting that cosmic rays above the Earth’s atmosphere contain an excess of high-energy positrons — an excess that “may constitute the first indirect evidence of dark-matter particle annihilations”. The release came after several months of controversy that began when the PAMELA data were photographed during a seminar and analysed by others — refered to by some as “physics paparazzi”. Then a few weeks later, physicists on another experiment called ATIC reported an excess of high-energy cosmic ray electrons. Both excesses could be the result of the annihilation of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) — one of the leading candidates for dark matter. Also in November, a team of theorists in the US suggested that the PAMELA and ATIC results could be explained by a “new force” acting on WIMPS. Stay tuned, because 2009 promises to be an illuminating year for dark matter

PAMELA bares it all
Excess of electrons could point to dark matter
Is a new force at work in the dark sector?

Back to list

12. December: Obama chooses physics and the environment

US president elect Barack Obama has pleased many physicists and environmentalists with his nomination of Nobel Laureate Steven Chu as secretary of the Department of Energy. Chu won the physics prize for his work in the laser cooling and trapping of atoms and is a strong believer that humans are changing the climate — and that mankind must develop energy sources that do not emit large quantities of greenhouse gases. Obama has also nominated the physicist John Holdren to be his Science Advisor. Holdren is professor of environmental policy and director of the programme in science, technology, and public policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. He is also director of the Woods Hole Research Center, an ecological think tank on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Both nominations suggest that Obama intends to focus on science, particularly as it relates to climate change and other environmental issues. “Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation,” Obama said.

Nobel laureate goes to Washington?
Obama nominates physicist as science advisor

And the survey says…

By Matin Durrani

What’s the biggest challenge in physics? What was the biggest breakthrough in the subject over the last 20 years? And do you like the fact that physicists are unpopular parties? Those were just three of the serious and not-so-serious questions in our special survey that we launched in October on this website to mark the 20th anniversary of Physics World.

The survey was just meant to be a bit of fun and we had no idea how many people would reply. But in the end 522 people had their say before we closed the survey in early December. We reckon those numbers are high enough to draw some reasonably secure conclusions. Even if not, here are the results anyway and you can draw your own.

1. What was the most important discovery in physics over the past 20 years?
From the ten choices made by the Physics World team, the clear winner — with over a quarter (26.6%) of the vote — was evidence for dark energy, discovered in 1997/8 by two teams of researchers looking at the properties of certain exploding stars called type 1a supernova. In second, was the discovery of nanotubes — rolled-up sheets of carbon atoms, the discovery of which is often (controversially) attributed to Sumio Iijima from NEC in 1991. In third, with 11.9% was Bose—Einstein condensation — the long-sought-after low-temperature state in which a cloud of atoms all fall into the same quantum state. Its discovery in 1995 led to Eric Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle and Carl Wieman sharing a Nobel Prize for Physics six years later.

2. What was the most significant popular-science book over the last 20 years?
No surprises here, with Stephen Hawking’s seminal A Brief History of Time scooping 42.7% of the vote. His book was published in April 1988, just six months before Physics World magazine started life. In second was Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe (12.3%) followed by the late Richard Feynman’s What Do You Care What Other People Think? in third (11.2%). Bad news though for Britain’s Astronomer Royal and head of the Royal Society Martin Rees — his Just Six Numbers came tenth, picked by only two people.

(more…)

Obama nominates physicist as science advisor

A month before he is sworn in as President of the United States, Barack Obama announced that he will nominate the physicist and environmentalist John Holdren as his presidential science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The early announcement of the nomination contrasts with the 10 months that President George W Bush took after his inauguration to nominate his science adviser, John Marburger. And both the speed of selection and the choice itself illustrate the incoming administration’s intention to focus on science, particularly as it relates to climate change and other environmental issues. “Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation,” Obama said in a radio address on 20 December. “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.”

It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology Barack Obama

Holdren, 64, has a variety of positions at Harvard University. He is professor of environmental policy and director of the programme in science, technology, and public policy at the university’s Kennedy School of Government. He is also director of the Woods Hole Research Center, an ecological think tank on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Holdren earned a PhD from Stanford University, where he specialized in fluid dynamics and theoretical plasma physics. He has been a professor of energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley and a consultant in magnetic fusion energy for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He has been associated with Woods Hole since 1992, and joined the Harvard faculty in 1996.

Holdren has already served in government, having spent seven years as a member of President Clinton’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, leading studies on protecting nuclear materials from theft, research on fusion, and American R&D on energy. At the same time, he chaired the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on International Security and Arms Control. He was also active in the Pugwash Conference, chairing its executive committee. In recent years, he has been identified most for his unambiguous views on climate change and related environmental issues. He has referred to global warming as “global climate disruption.” And Nobel laureate Steven Chu, nominated by Obama as Energy Secretary, he has advocated mandatory limits on the emission of greenhouse gases.

‘Climate change alarmist’

Holdren’s nomination has met criticism from rightwing blogs, many of which refer to him as a “climate change alarmist.” Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, said Holdren would be one of Obama’s “worst choices yet.”

The scientific community, however, has largely embraced the nomination. “He’s a well-known science policy expert in energy and environment,” said Bush science adviser Marburger. “I think he’s well qualified to have this position.” Neal Lane, who served as science adviser for President Bill Clinton, was more effusive. “John Holdren has the stature and all the knowledge and skills to be an outstanding science adviser to President Obama,” he told physcisworld.com. “John is a physicist with particular expertise in the areas of energy, climate change, and arms control, but he understands the larger set of issues OSTP will have to deal with.”

Obama used the same broadcast to announce his nomination of Jane Lubchenco, whom he described as “an internationally known environmental scientist and ecologist,” as head of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency that monitors Earth’s environment, and coastal and marine resources. Lubchenco is a professor of marine biology and zoology at Oregon State University.

Obama also named Eric Lander, a mathematician with an Oxford DPhil, a pioneer in genome research, and founding director of the Broad Institute, and Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate in medicine, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and current director of the New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, to serve with Holdren as co-chairs of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST).

Little Boy was a little girl

By Hamish Johnston

Sorry for the delay on this entry, but the 15 December issue of the New Yorker just landed on our doormat about a week late.

In that issue there is an article by David Samuels about an American truck driver called John Coster-Mullen, who has spent the past 15 years or so trying to understand how Little Boy worked.

Little Boy was the atomic bomb that destroyed much of Hiroshima in 1945 — and not surprisingly, its design has remained a secret.

Coster-Mullen, who is 60, described his quest as “nuclear archeology,” and doesn’t seem too concerned that his book, Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man could be of interest to those intent on wreaking mayhem. Defending Coster-Mullen, Samuels writes “Surely, hostile powers could easily obtain the kind of information that Coster-Mullen has acquired, however painstakingly, in his spare time”.

Indeed, after reading the New Yorker piece, I was left with the chilling thought that just about anyone with about 60 kilograms of uranium-235 could build a bomb like Little Boy. And the key to success, according to Coster-Mullen, is realising that the bomb was “female” in design rather than “male” — something that previous historians had missed completely.

The New Yorker also has a slide show called Secrets of the Bomb

A one-way street called ‘Physics+Biology’

biolab.jpg
Physics of Medicine Institute in Cambridge

By Joao Medeiros

I’ve just spent the last couple of days in Cambridge for the opening of the new Physics of Medicine Institute (pictured right) at the Cavendish Laboratory. The new institute will serve as home for scientists who are essentially bilingual in biology and physics. The Grand Opening was part of the Physics of Living Matter conference, which displayed the rich variety of problems that biophysicists are trying to tackle: medical imaging, new materials for medical purposes, systems biology, the role of mechanical processes at the cellular level. This is stuff that could bring biology to the next level.

It’s interesting to notice that this Physics+Biology is only a one-way street. The physicists are bringing their quantitative tools to biology, not the other way around. Biologists are not quantitative scientists, and this, in the long run, is a recurrent problem in the field. Descriptive tools can only take you so far, and applied mathematics are fundamental to bring out the big picture on fundamental scientific questions. A biologist at the conference confessed to me that physicists are always needed when there is the impending need to renew the paradigm in biology.

(more…)

Random motion of bacteria could drive micromotors

A group of physicists in Italy believes that mobile bacteria could convert chemical energy into mechanical energy by pushing on the teeth of tiny gear wheels. The researchers used computer simulations to show that, unlike the thermal motion of inanimate particles, the chaotic movements of bacteria could be used to continuously rotate asymmetrically-shaped gears. Such micromotors could potentially be used as energy sources, they claim.

Scientists are increasingly looking to biology in order to build tiny devices. In particular, they are attempting to propel micrometre-sized structures using preassembled motors found in unicellular organisms. Recently, Yuichi Hiratsuka of the University of Tokyo and colleagues built a rotor 20 μm in diameter and rotated it using bacteria attached to its surface.

Luca Angelani, Roberto Di Leonardo and Giancarlo Ruocco of the University of Rome La Sapienza and the National Research Council, however, believe that it is not necessary to actually bind bacteria to a rotor. Instead, they claim, a suitably-designed asymmetric gear wheel can be set in motion spontaneously when it is immersed in a bath containing bacteria.

Modelling motion

To demonstrate this, Angelani’s team modelled the interaction of a collection of E coli bacteria with a saw-tooth gear (arXiv:0812.2375 ). Each E coli bacterium, just 3 μm long, contains a set of rotary motors that drive long filaments extending behind the bacterium that allow it to swim. Angelani and colleagues modelled the motion of an idealized bacterium, assuming that its motion can be impeded by a combination of tumbling, which involves reversing the motors, and direct contact with neighbouring bacteria. They ignored two minor factors — Brownian motion and flow currents induced by the swimming neighbours.

We are like mankind before the industrial revolution…In the absence of efficient micro-engines we have to resort to living organisms as power sources Roberto Di Leonardo, University of Rome La Sapienza

The team then worked out the net direction of the force imparted by the bacteria on the saw-tooth gear 50 μm in diameter. This involved balancing the force imparted by all bacteria striking the long edge of each tooth, tending to rotate the gear in a clockwise direction, with the force due to those bacteria becoming lodged against the short edge of each tooth, causing an anticlockwise rotation. The researchers showed that the net effect is an overall anticlockwise motion of about two revolutions per minute, with fluctuations in this speed as the gear rotates.

Di Leonardo says that the same result would not be obtained with an asymmetric gear immersed in a reservoir of atoms or molecules held at thermal equilibrium. What makes the difference, he says, is the self-propelled motion of the bacteria, tending to push the gear wheel rather than simply bouncing off it. Another way of looking at this, he points out, is to consider entropy. The continuous conversion of chemical energy into mechanical energy by the bacteria leads to a continuous increase in entropy within the system, and it is this rise in entropy that permits the system to violate time-inversion symmetry, in other words to evolve in a particular direction, i.e. an anticlockwise rotation. “Bacterial motions are governed by irreversible dynamical equations and they can therefore set asymmetrically shaped objects into motion,” he adds.

Modelling motion

Di Leonardo hopes that the group’s work might “stimulate discussion about the fundamentals of statistical mechanics and its extension to the non-equilibrium world of living organisms”. He also believes the research could have technological applications, by showing how bacteria could be used for material transport, propulsion and mechanical operation at the micrometre scale. And he says that bacteria might even be used as a new kind of energy source, by feeding them and then converting the resultant mechanical output. “We are like mankind before the industrial revolution, but at the microscale,” he adds. “In the absence of efficient micro-engines we have to resort to living organisms as power sources.”

The group is now looking to convert its computer simulation into experimental reality, by producing saw tooth gears and other asymmetric objects with dimensions of just a few tens of micrometres. Howard Berg, a biophysicist at Harvard University in the US, believes it is important that the group do this as their simulation could be oversimplified. “Bacteria behave in rather complex ways near surfaces,” he says. “E colitends to swim parallel to the surface along spiral paths.”

Copyright © 2025 by IOP Publishing Ltd and individual contributors