Page 31 – Physics World

Home » Page 31

Mission to Mars: from biological barriers to ethical impediments

“It’s hard to say when exactly sending people to Mars became a goal for humanity,” ponders author Scott Solomon in his new book Becoming Martian: How Living in Space Will Change Our Bodies and Minds – and I think we’d all agree. Ten years ago, I’m not sure any of us thought even returning to the Moon was seriously on the cards. Yet here we are, suddenly living in a second space age, where the first people to purchase one-way tickets to the Red Planet have likely already been born.

The technology required to ship humans to Mars, and the infrastructure required to keep them alive, is well constrained, at least in theory. One could write thousands of words discussing the technical details of reusable rocket boosters and underground architectures. However, Becoming Martian is not that book. Instead, it deals with the effect Martian life will have on the human body – both in the short term across a single lifetime; and in the long term, on evolutionary timescales.

This book’s strength lies in its authorship: it is not written by a physicist enthralled by the engineering challenge of Mars, nor by an astronomer predisposed to romanticizing space exploration. Instead, Solomon is a research biologist who teaches ecology, evolutionary biology and scientific communication at Rice University in Houston, Texas.

Becoming Martian starts with a whirlwind, stripped-down tour of Mars across mythology, astronomy, culture and modern exploration. This effectively sets out the core issue: Mars is fundamentally different from Earth, and life there is going to be very difficult. Solomon goes on to describe the effects of space travel and microgravity on humans that we know of so far: anaemia, muscle wastage, bone density loss and increased radiation exposure, to name just a few.

Where the book really excels, though, is when Solomon uses his understanding of evolutionary processes to extend these findings and conclude how Martian life would be different. For example, childbirth becomes a very risky business on a planet with about one-third of Earth’s gravity. The loss of bone density translates into increased pelvic fractures, and the muscle wastage into an inability for the uterus to contract strongly enough. The result? All Martian births will likely need to be C-sections.

Solomon applies his expertise to the whole human body, including our “entourage” of micro-organisms. The indoor life of a Martian is likely to affect the immune system to the degree that contact with an Earthling would be immensely risky. “More than any other factor, the risk of disease transmission may be the wedge that drives the separation between people on the two planets,” he writes. “It will, perhaps inevitably, cause the people on Mars to truly become Martians.” Since many diseases are harboured or spread by animals, there is a compelling argument that Martians would be vegan and – a dealbreaker for some I imagine – unable to have any pets. So no dogs, no cats, no steak and chips on Mars.

Let’s get physical

The most fascinating part of the book for me is how Solomon repeatedly links the biological and psychological research with the more technical aspects of designing a mission to Mars. For example, the first exploratory teams should have odd numbers, to make decisions easier and us-versus-them rifts less likely. The first colonies will also need to number between 10,000 and 11,000 individuals to ensure enough genetic diversity to protect against evolutionary concepts such as genetic drift and population crashes.

The long road to Mars

Photograph of technicians and engineers testing spacesuits in a vacuum chamber

Amusingly, the one part of human activity most important for a sustainable colony – procreation – is the most understudied. When a NASA scientist made the suggestion a colony would need private spaces with soundproof walls, the backlash was so severe that NASA had to reassure Congress that taxpayer dollars were not being “wasted” encouraging sexual activity among astronauts.

Solomon’s writing is concise yet extraordinarily thorough – there is always just enough for you to feel you can understand the importance and nuance of topics ranging from Apollo-era health studies to evolution, and from AI to genetic engineering. The book is impeccably researched, and he presents conflicting ethical viewpoints so deftly, and without apparent judgement, that you are left plenty of space to imprint your own opinions. So much so that when Solomon shares his own stance on the colonization of Mars in the epilogue, it comes as a bit of a surprise.

In essence, this book lays out a convincing argument that it might be our biology, not our technology, that limits humanity’s expansion to Mars. And if we are able to overcome those limitations, either with purposeful genetic engineering or passive evolutionary change, this could mean we have shed our humanity.

Becoming Martian is one of the best popular-science books I have read within the field, and it is an uplifting read, despite dealing with some of the heaviest ethical questions in space sciences. Whether you’re planning your future as a Martian or just wondering if humans can have sex in space, this book should be on your wish list.

February 2026 MIT Press 264pp £27hb

Solar storms could be forecast by monitoring cosmic rays

Using incidental data collected by the BepiColombo mission, an international research team has made the first detailed measurements of how coronal mass ejections (CMEs) reduce cosmic-ray intensity at varying distances from the Sun. Led by Gaku Kinoshita at the University of Tokyo, the team hopes that their approach could help improve the accuracy of space weather forecasts following CMEs.

CMEs are dramatic bursts of plasma originating from the Sun’s outer atmosphere. In particularly violent events, this plasma can travel through interplanetary space, sometimes interacting with Earth’s magnetic field to produce powerful geomagnetic storms. These storms result in vivid aurorae in Earth’s polar regions and can also damage electronics on satellites and spacecraft. Extreme storms can even affect electrical grids on Earth.

To prevent such damage, astronomers aim to predict the path and intensity of CME plasma as accurately as possible – allowing endangered systems to be temporarily shut down with minimal disruption. According to Kinoshita’s team, one source of information has so far been largely unexplored.

Pushing back cosmic rays

Within interplanetary space, CME plasma interacts with cosmic rays, which are energetic charged particles of extrasolar origin that permeate the solar system with a roughly steady flux. When an interplanetary CME (ICME) passes by, it temporarily pushes back these cosmic rays, creating a local decrease in their intensity.

“This phenomenon is known as the Forbush decrease effect,” Kinoshita explains. “It can be detected even with relatively simple particle detectors, and reflects the properties and structure of the passing ICME.”

In principle, cosmic-ray observations can provide detailed insights into the physical profile of a passing ICME. But despite their relative ease of detection, Forbush decreases had not yet been observed simultaneously by detectors at multiple distances from the Sun, leaving astronomers unclear on how propagation distance affects their severity.

Now, Kinoshita’s team have explored this spatial relationship using BepiColombo, a European and Japanese mission that will begin orbiting Mercury in November 2026. While the mission focuses on Mercury’s surface, interior, and magnetosphere, it also carries non-scientific equipment capable of monitoring cosmic rays and solar plasma in its surrounding environment.

“Such radiation monitoring instruments are commonly installed on many spacecraft for engineering purposes,” Kinoshita explains. “We developed a method to observe Forbush decreases using a non-scientific radiation monitor onboard BepiColombo.”

Multiple missions

The team combined these measurements with data from specialized radiation-monitoring missions, including ESA’s Solar Orbiter, which is currently probing the inner heliosphere from inside Mercury’s orbit, as well as a network of near-Earth spacecraft. Together, these instruments allowed the researchers to build a detailed, distance-dependent profile of a week-long ICME that occurred in March 2022.

Just as predicted, the measurements revealed a clear relationship between the Forbush decrease effect and distance from the Sun.

“As the ICME evolved, the depth and gradient of its associated cosmic-ray decrease changed accordingly,” Kinoshita says.

With this method now established, the team hopes it can be applied to non-scientific radiation monitors on other missions throughout the solar system, enabling a more complete picture of the distance dependence of ICME effects.

“An improved understanding of ICME propagation processes could contribute to better forecasting of disturbances such as geomagnetic storms, leading to further advances in space weather prediction,” Kinoshita says. In particular, this approach could help astronomers model the paths and intensities of solar plasma as soon as a CME erupts, improving preparedness for potentially damaging events.

The research is described in The Astrophysical Journal.

CERN team solves decades-old mystery of light nuclei formation

When particle colliders smash particles into each other, the resulting debris cloud sometimes contains a puzzling ingredient: light atomic nuclei. Such nuclei have relatively low binding energies, and they would normally break down at temperatures far below those found in high-energy collisions. Somehow, though, their signature remains. This mystery has stumped physicists for decades, but researchers in the ALICE collaboration at CERN have now figured it out. Their experiments showed that light nuclei form via a process called resonance-decay formation – a result that could pave the way towards searches for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Baryon resonance

The ALICE team studied deuterons (a bound proton and neutron) and antideuterons (a bound antiproton and antineutron) that form in experiments at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Both deuterons and antideuterons are fragile, and their binding energies of 2.2 MeV would seemingly make it hard for them to form in collisions with energies that can exceed 100 MeV – 100 000 times hotter than the centre of the Sun.

The collaboration found that roughly 90% of the deuterons seen after such collisions form in a three-phase process. In the first phase, an initial collision creates a so-called baryon resonance, which is an excited state of a particle made of three quarks (such as a proton or neutron). This particle is called a Δ baryon and is highly unstable, so it rapidly decays into a pion and a nucleon (a proton or a neutron) during the second phase of the process. Then, in the third (and, crucially, much later) phase, the nucleon cools down to a point where its energy properties allow it to bind with another nucleon to form a deuteron.

Smoking gun

Measuring such a complex process is not easy, especially as everything happens on a length scale of femtometres (10^-15 meter). To tease out the details, the collaboration performed precision measurements to correlate the momenta of the pions and deuterons. When they analysed the momentum difference between these particle pairs, they observed a peak in the data corresponding to the mass of the Δ baryon. This peak shows that the pion and the deuteron are kinematically linked because they share a common ancestor: the pion came from the same Δ decay that provided one of the deuteron’s nucleons.

Panos Christakoglou, a member of the ALICE collaboration based at the Netherlands’ Maastricht University, says the experiment is special because in contrast to most previous attempts, where results were interpreted in light of models or phenomenological assumptions, this technique is model-independent. He adds that the results of this study could be used to improve models of high energy proton-proton collisions in which light nuclei (and maybe hadrons more generally) are formed. Other possibilities include improving our interpretations of cosmic-ray studies that measure the fluxes of (anti)nuclei in the galaxy – a useful probe for astrophysical processes.

The hunt is on

Intriguingly, Christakoglou suggests that the team’s technique could also be used to search for indirect signs of dark matter. Many models predict that dark-matter candidates such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) will decay or annihilate in processes that also produce Standard Model particles, including (anti)deuterons. “If for example one measures the flux of (anti)nuclei in cosmic rays being above the ‘Standard Model based’ astrophysical background, then this excess could be attributed to new physics which might be connected to dark matter,” Christakoglou tells Physics World.

Michael Kachelriess, a physicist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, who was not involved in this research, says the debate over the correct formation mechanism for light nuclei (and antinuclei) has divided particle physicists for a long time. In his view, the data collected by the ALICE collaboration decisively resolves this debate by showing that light nuclei form in the late stages of a collision via the coalescence of nucleons. Kachelriess calls this a “great achievement” in itself, and adds that similar approaches could make it possible to address other questions, such as whether thermal plasmas form in proton-proton collisions as well as in collisions between heavy ions.

Anyon physics could explain coexistence of superconductivity and magnetism

New calculations by physicists in the US provide deeper insights into an exotic material in which superconductivity and magnetism can coexist. Using a specialized effective field theory, Zhengyan Shi and Todadri Senthil at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology show how this coexistence can emerge from the collective states of mobile anyons in certain 2D materials.

An anyon is a quasiparticle with statistical properties that lie somewhere between those of bosons and fermions. First observed in 2D electron gases in strong magnetic fields, anyons are known for their fractional electrical charge and fractional exchange statistics, which alter the quantum state of two identical anyons when they are exchanged for each other.

Unlike ordinary electrons, anyons produced in these early experiments could not move freely, preventing them from forming complex collective states. Yet in 2023, experiments with a twisted bilayer of molybdenum ditelluride provided the first evidence for mobile anyons through observations of fractional quantum anomalous Hall (FQAH) insulators. This effect appears as fractionally quantized electrical resistance in 2D electron systems at zero applied magnetic field.

Remarkably, these experiments revealed that molybdenum ditelluride can exhibit superconductivity and magnetism at the same time. Since superconductivity usually relies on electron pairing that can be disrupted by magnetism, this coexistence was previously thought impossible.

Anyonic quantum matter

“This then raises a new set of theoretical questions,” explains Shi. “What happens when a large number of mobile anyons are assembled together? What kind of novel ‘anyonic quantum matter’ can emerge?”

In their study, Shi and Senthil explored these questions using a new effective field theory for an FQAH insulator. Effective field theories are widely used in physics to approximate complex phenomena without modelling every microscopic detail. In this case, the duo’s model captured the competition between anyon mobility, interactions, and fractional exchange statistics in a many-body system of mobile anyons.

To test their model, the researchers considered the doping of an FQAH insulator – adding mobile anyons beyond the plateau in Hall resistance, where the existing anyons were effectively locked in place. This allowed the quasiparticles to move freely and form new collective phases.

“Crucially, we recognized that the fate of the doped state depends on the energetic hierarchy of different types of anyons,” Shi explains. “This observation allowed us to develop a powerful heuristic for predicting whether the doped state becomes a superconductor without any detailed calculations.”

In their model, Shi and Senthil focused on a specific FQAH insulator called a Jain state, which hosts two types of anyon excitations. One type has electrical charge of 1/3 of an electron and the other with 2/3. In a perfectly clean system, doping the insulator with 2/3-charge anyons produced a chiral topological superconductor, a phase that is robust against disorder and features edge currents flowing in only one direction. In contrast, doping with 1/3-charge anyons produced a metal with broken translation symmetry – still conducting, but with non-uniform patterns in its electron density.

Anomalous vortex glass

“In the presence of impurities, we showed that the chiral superconductor near the superconductor–insulator transition is a novel phase of matter dubbed the ‘anomalous vortex glass’, in which patches of swirling supercurrents are sprinkled randomly across the sample,” Shi describes. “Observing this vortex glass phase would be smoking-gun evidence for the anyonic mechanism for superconductivity.”

The results suggest that even when adding the simplest kind of anyons – like those in the Jain state – the collective behaviour of these quasiparticles can enable the coexistence of magnetism and superconductivity. In future studies, the duo hopes that more advanced methods for introducing mobile anyons could reveal even more exotic phases.

“Remarkably, our theory provides a qualitative account of the phase diagram of a particular 2D material (twisted molybdenum ditelluride), although many more tests are needed to rule out other possible explanations,” Shi says. “Overall, these findings highlight the vast potential of anyonic quantum matter, suggesting a fertile ground for future discoveries.”

The research is described in PNAS.

Can entrepreneurship be taught? An engineer’s viewpoint

I am intrigued by entrepreneurship. Is it something we all innately possess – or can entrepreneurship be taught to anyone (myself included) for whom it doesn’t come naturally? Could we all – with enough time, training and support – become the next Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson or Martha Lane Fox?

In my professional life as an engineer in industry, we often talk about the importance of invention and innovation. Without them, products will become dated and firms will lose their competitive edge. However, inventions don’t necessarily sell themselves, which is where entrepreneurs have a key influence.

So what’s the difference between inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs? An inventor, to me, is someone who creates a new process, application or machine. An innovator is a person who introduces something new or does something for the first time. An entrepreneur, however, is someone who sets up a business or takes on a venture, embracing financial risks with the aim of profit.

Scientists and engineers are naturally good inventors and innovators. We like to solve problems, improve how we do things, and make the world more ordered and efficient. In fact, many of the greatest inventors and innovators of all time were scientists and engineers – think James Watt, George Stephenson and Frank Whittle.

But entrepreneurship requires different, additional qualities. Many entrepreneurs come from a variety of different backgrounds – not just science and engineering – and tend to have finance in their blood. They embrace risk and have unlimited amounts of courage and business acumen – skills I’d need to pick up if I wanted to be an entrepreneur myself.

Risk and reward

Engineers are encouraged to take risks, exploring new technologies and designs; in fact, it’s critical for companies seeking to stay competitive. But we take risks in a calculated and professional manner that prioritizes safety, quality, regulations and ethics, and project success. We balance risk taking with risk management, spotting and assessing potential risks – and mitigating or removing them if they’re big.

Courage is not something I’ve always had professionally. Over time, I have learned to speak up if I feel I have something to say that’s important to the situation or contributes to our overall understanding. Still, there’s always a fear of saying something silly in front of other people or being unable to articulate a view adequately. But entrepreneurs have courage in their DNA.

So can entrepreneurship be taught? Specifically, can it be taught to people like me with a technical background – and, if so, how? Some of the most famous innovators, like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, James Dyson and Benjamin Franklin, had scientific or engineering backgrounds, so is there a formula for making more people like them?

Skill sets and gaps

Let’s start by listing the skills that most engineers have that could be beneficial for entrepreneurship. In no particular order, these include:

problem-solving ability: essential for designing effective solutions or to identify market gaps;
innovative mindset: critical for building a successful business venture;
analytical thinking: engineers make decisions based on data and logic, which is vital for business planning and decision making;
persistence: a pre-requisite for delivering engineering projects and needed to overcome the challenges of starting a business;
technical expertise: a significant competitive advantage and providing credibility, especially relevant for tech start-ups.

However, there are mindset differences between engineers and entrepreneurs that any training would need to overcome. These include:

risk tolerance: engineers typically focus on improving reliability and reducing risk, whilst entrepreneurs are more comfortable with embracing greater uncertainty;
focus: engineers concentrate on delivering to requirements, whilst entrepreneurs focus on consumer needs and speed to market;
business acumen: a typical engineering education doesn’t cover essential business skills such as marketing, sales and finance, all of which are vital for running a company.

Such skills may not always come naturally to engineers and scientists, but they can be incorporated into our teaching and learning. Some great examples of how to do this were covered in Physics World last year. In addition, there is a growing number of UK universities offering science and engineering degrees combined with entrepreneurship.

The message is that whilst some scientists and engineers become entrepreneurs, not all do. Simply having a science or engineering background is no guarantee of becoming an entrepreneur, nor is it a requirement. Nevertheless, the problem-solving and technical skills developed by scientists and engineers are powerful assets that, when combined with business acumen and entrepreneurial drive, can lead to business success.

Of course, entrepreneurship may not suit everybody – and that’s perfectly fine. No-one should be forced to become an entrepreneur if they don’t want to. We all need to play to our core strengths and interests and build well-rounded teams with complementary skillsets – something that every successful business needs. But surely there’s a way of teaching entrepreneurism too?

Shapiro steps spotted in ultracold bosonic and fermionic gases

Shapiro steps – a series of abrupt jumps in the voltage–current characteristic of a Josephson junction that is exposed to microwave radiation – have been observed for the first time in ultracold gases by groups in Germany and Italy. Their work on atomic Josephson junctions provides new insights into the phenomenon, and could lead to a standard for chemical potential.

In 1962 Brian Josephson of the University of Cambridge calculated that, if two superconductors were separated by a thin insulating barrier, the phase difference between the wavefunctions on either side should induce quantum tunneling, leading to a current at zero potential difference.

A year later, Sidney Shapiro and colleagues at the consultants Arthur D. Little showed that inducing an alternating electric current using a microwave field causes the phase of the wavefunction on either side of a Josephson junction to evolve at different rates, leading to quantized increases in potential difference across the junction. The height of these “Shapiro steps” depends only on the applied frequency of the field and the electrical charge. This is now used as a reference standard for the volt.

Researchers have subsequently developed analogues of Josephson junctions in other systems such as liquid helium and ultracold atomic gases. In the new work, two groups have independently observed Shapiro steps in ultracold quantum gases. Instead of placing a fixed insulator in the centre and driving the system with a field, the researchers used focused laser beams to create potential barriers that divided the traps into two. Then they moved the positions of the barriers to alter the potentials of the atoms on either side.

Current emulation

“If we move the atoms with a constant velocity, that means there’s a constant velocity of atoms through the barrier,” says Herwig Ott of RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau in Germany, who led one of the groups. “This is how we emulate a DC current. Now for the Shapiro protocol you have to apply an AC current, and the AC current you simply get by modulating your barrier in time.”

Ott and colleagues in Kaiserslautern, in collaboration with researchers in Hamburg and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), used a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) of rubidium-87 atoms. Meanwhile in Italy, Giulia Del Pace of the European Laboratory for Nonlinear Spectroscopy at the University of Florence and colleagues (including the same UAE collaborators) studied ultracold lithium-6 atoms, which are fermions.

Both groups observed the theoretically-predicted Shapiro steps, but Ott and Del Pace explain that these observations do not simply confirm predictions. “The message is that no matter what your microscopic mechanism is, the phenomenon of Shapiro steps is universal,” says Ott. In superconductors, the Shapiro steps are caused by the breaking of Cooper pairs; in ultracold atomic gases, vortex rings are created. Nevertheless, the same mathematics applies. “This is really quite remarkable,” says Ott.

Del Pace says it was unclear whether Shapiro steps would be seen in strongly-interacting fermions, which are “way more interacting than the electrons in superconductors”. She asks, “Is it a limitation to have strong interactions or is it something that actually helps the dynamics to happen? It turns out it’s the latter.”

Magnetic tuning

Del Pace’s group applied a variable magnetic field to tune their system between a BEC of molecules, a system dominated by Cooper pairs and a unitary Fermi gas in which the particles were as strongly interacting as permitted by quantum mechanics. The size of the Shapiro steps was dependent on the strength of the interparticle interaction.

Ott and Del Pace both suggest that this effect could be used to create a reference standard for chemical potential – a measure of the strength of the atomic interaction (or equation of state) in a system.

“This equation of state is very well known for a BEC or for a strongly interacting Fermi gas…but there is a range of interaction strengths where the equation of state is completely unknown, so one can imagine taking inspiration from the way Josephson junctions are used in superconductors and using atomic Josephson junctions to study the equation of state in systems where the equation of state is not known,” explains Del Pace.

The two papers are published side by side in Science: Del Pace and Ott.

Rocío Jáuregui Renaud of the Autonomous University of Mexico is impressed, especially by the demonstration in both bosons and fermions. “The two papers are important, and they are congruent in their results, but the platform is different,” she says. “At this point, the idea is not to give more information directly about superconductivity, but to learn more about phenomena that sometimes you are not able to see in electronic systems but you would probably see in neutral atoms.”

Watching how grasshoppers glide inspires new flying robot design

While much insight has been gleaned from how grasshoppers hop, their gliding prowess has mostly been overlooked. Now researchers at Princeton University have studied how these gangly insects deploy and retract their wings to inspire a new approach to flying robots.

Typical insect-inspired robot designs are often based on bees and flies. They feature constant flapping motion, yet that requires a lot of power so the robots either carry heavy batteries or are tethered to a power supply.

Grasshoppers, however, are able to jump and glide as well as flap their wings and while they are not the best gliding insect, they have another trick as they are able to retract and unfurl their wings.

Grasshoppers have two sets of wings, the forewings and hindwings. The front wing is mainly used for protection and camouflage while the hindwing is used for flight. The hindwing is corrugated, which allows it to fold in neatly like an accordion.

A team of engineers, biologists and entomologists analysed the wings of the American grasshopper, also known as the bird grasshopper, due to its superior flying skills. They took CT scans of the insects and then used the findings to 3D-print model wings. They attached these wings to small frames to create grasshopper-inspired gliders, finding that their performance was on par with that of actual grasshoppers.

The team also tweaked certain wing features such as the shape, camber and corrugation, finding that a smooth wing produced gliding that was more efficient and repeatable than one with corrugations. “This showed us that these corrugations might have evolved for other reasons,” notes Princeton engineer Aimy Wissa, who adds that “very little” is known about how grasshoppers deploy their wings.

The researchers say that further work could result in new ways to extend the flight time for insect-sized robots without the need for heavy batteries or tethering. “This grasshopper research opens up new possibilities not only for flight, but also for multimodal locomotion,” adds Lee. “By combining biology with engineering, we’re able to build and ideate on something completely new.”

Cracking the limits of clocks: a new uncertainty relation for time itself

What if a chemical reaction, ocean waves or even your heartbeat could all be used as clocks? That’s the starting point of a new study by Kacper Prech, Gabriel Landi and collaborators, who uncovered a fundamental, universal limit to how precisely time can be measured in noisy, fluctuating systems. Their discovery – the clock uncertainty relation (CUR) – doesn’t just refine existing theory, it reframes timekeeping as an information problem embedded in the dynamics of physical processes, from nanoscale biology to engineered devices.

The foundation of this work contains a simple but powerful reframing: anything that “clicks” regularly is a clock. In the research paper’s opening analogy, a castaway tries to cook a fish without a wristwatch. They could count bird calls, ocean waves, or heartbeats – each a potential timekeeper with different cadence and regularity. But questions remain: given real-world fluctuations, what’s the best way to estimate time, and what are the inescapable limits?

The authors answer both. They show for a huge class of systems – those described by classical, Markovian jump processes (systems where the future depends only on the present state, not the past history – a standard model across statistical physics and biophysics) – there is a tight achievable bound on timekeeping precision. The bound is controlled not by how often the system jumps on average (the traditional “dynamical activity”), but by a subtler quantity: the mean residual time, or the average time you’d wait for the next event if you start observing at a random moment. That distinction matters.

**The inspection paradox** The graphic illustrates the mean residual time used in the CUR and how it connects to the so-called inspection paradox – a counterintuitive bias where randomly arriving observers are more likely to land in longer gaps between events. Buses arrive in clusters (gaps of 5 min) separated by long intervals (15 min), so while the average time between buses might seem moderate, a randomly arriving passenger (represented by the coloured figures) is statistically more likely to land in one of the long 15-min gaps than in a short 5-min one. The mean residual time is the average time a passenger waits for their bus if they arrive at the bus stop at a random time. Counterintuitively, this can be much longer than the average time between buses. The visual also demonstrates why the mean residual time captures more information than the simple average interval, since it accounts for the uneven distribution of gaps that biases your real waiting experience. (Courtesy: IOP Publishing)

The study introduces CUR, a universal, tight bound on timekeeping precision that – unlike earlier bounds – can be saturated and the researchers identify the exact observables that achieve this limit. Surprisingly, the optimal strategy for estimating time from a noisy process is remarkably simple: sum the expected waiting times of each observed state along the trajectory, rather than relying on complex fitting methods. The work also reveals that the true limiting factor for precision isn’t the traditional dynamical activity, but rather the inverse of the mean residual time. This makes the CUR provably tighter than the earlier kinetic uncertainty relation, especially in systems far from equilibrium.

The team also connects precision to two practical clock metrics: resolution (how often a clock ticks) and accuracy (how many ticks before it drifts by one tick.) In other words, achieving steadier ticks comes at the cost of accepting fewer of them per unit of time.

This framework offers practical tools across several domains. It can serve as a diagnostic for detecting hidden states in complex biological or chemical systems: if measured event statistics violate the CUR, that signals the presence of hidden transitions or memory effects. For nanoscale and molecular clocks – like biomolecular oscillators (cellular circuits that produce rhythmic chemical signals) and molecular motors (protein machines that walk along cellular tracks) – the CUR sets fundamental performance limits and guides the design of optimal estimators. Finally, while this work focuses on classical systems, it establishes a benchmark for quantum clocks, pointing toward potential quantum advantages and opening new questions about what trade-offs emerge in the quantum regime.

Landi, an associate professor of theoretical quantum physics at the University of Rochester, emphasizes the conceptual shift: that clocks aren’t just pendulums and quartz crystals. “Anything is a clock,” he notes. The team’s framework “gives the recipe for constructing the best possible clock from whatever fluctuations you have,” and tells you “what the best noise-to-signal ratio” can be. In everyday terms, the Sun is accurate but low-resolution for cooking; ocean waves are higher resolution but noisier. The CUR puts that intuition on firm mathematical ground.

Looking forward, the group is exploring quantum generalizations and leveraging CUR-violations to infer hidden structure in biological data. A tantalizing foundational question lingers: can robust biological timekeeping emerge from many bad, noisy clocks, synchronizing into a good one?

Ultimately, this research doesn’t just sharpen a bound; it reframes timekeeping as a universal inference task grounded in the flow of events. Whether you’re a cell sensing a chemical signal, a molecular motor stepping along a track or an engineer building a nanoscale device, the message is clear: to tell time well, count cleverly – and respect the gaps.

The research is detailed in Physical Review X.

Bidirectional scattering microscope detects micro- and nanoscale structures simultaneously

A new microscope that can simultaneously measure both forward- and backward-scattered light from a sample could allow researchers to image both micro- and nanoscale objects at the same time. The device could be used to observe structures as small as individual proteins, as well as the environment in which they move, say the researchers at the University of Tokyo who developed it.

“Our technique could help us link cell structures with the motion of tiny particles inside and outside cells,” explains Kohki Horie of the University of Tokyo’s department of physics, who led this research effort. “Because it is label-free, it is gentler on cells and better for long observations. In the future, it could help quantify cell states, holding potential for drug testing and quality checks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries.”

Detecting forward and backward scattered light at the same time

The new device combines two powerful imaging techniques routinely employed in biomedical applications: quantitative phase microscopy (QPM) and interferometric scattering (iSCAT).

QPM measures forward-scattered (FS) light – that is, light waves that travel in the same direction as before they were scattered. This technique is excellent at imaging structures in the Mie scattering region (greater than 100 nm, referred to as microscale in this study). This makes it ideal for visualizing complex structures such as biological cells. It falls short, however, when it comes to imaging structures in the Rayleigh scattering region (smaller than 100 nm, referred to as nanoscale in this study).

The second technique, iSCAT, detects backward-scattered (BS) light. This is light that’s reflected back towards the direction from which it came and which predominantly contains Rayleigh scattering. As such, iSCAT exhibits high sensitivity for detecting nanoscale objects. Indeed, the technique has recently been used to image single proteins, intracellular vesicles and viruses. It cannot, however, image microscale structures because of its limited ability to detect in the Mie scattering region.

The team’s new bidirectional quantitative scattering microscope (BiQSM) is able to detect both FS and BS light at the same time, thereby overcoming these previous limitations.

Cleanly separating the signals from FS and BS

The BiQSM system illuminates a sample through an objective lens from two opposite directions and detects both the FS and BS light using a single image sensor. The researchers use the spatial-frequency multiplexing method of off-axis digital holography to capture both images simultaneously. The biggest challenge, says Horie, was to cleanly separate the signals from FS and BS light in the images while keeping noise low and avoiding mixing between them.

Horie and colleagues, Keiichiro Toda, Takuma Nakamura and team leader Takuro Ideguchi, tested their technique by imaging live cells. They were able to visualize micron-sized cell structures, including the nucleus, nucleoli and lipid droplets, as well as nanoscale particles. They compared the FS and BS results using the scattering-field amplitude (SA), defined as the amplitude ratios between the scattered wave and the incident illumination wave.

“SA characterizes the light scattered in both the forward and backward directions within a unified framework,” says Horie, “so allowing for a direct comparison between FS and BS light images.”

Spurred on by their findings, which are detailed in Nature Communications, the researchers say they now plan to study even smaller particles such as exosomes and viruses.

Quantum information theory sheds light on quantum gravity

This episode of the Physics World Weekly podcast features Alex May, whose research explores the intersection of quantum gravity and quantum information theory. Based at Canada’s Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, May explains how ideas being developed in the burgeoning field of quantum information theory could help solve one of the most enduring mysteries in physics – how to reconcile quantum mechanics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, creating a viable theory of quantum gravity.

This interview was recorded in autumn 2025 when I had the pleasure of visiting the Perimeter Institute and speaking to four physicists about their research. This is the last of those conversations to appear on the podcast.

The first interview in this series from the Perimeter Institute was with Javier Toledo-Marín, “Quantum computing and AI join forces for particle physics”; the second was with Bianca Dittrich, “Quantum gravity: we explore spin foams and other potential solutions to this enduring challenge“; and the third was with Tim Hsieh, “Building a quantum future using topological phases of matter and error correction”.

This episode is supported by the APS Global Physics Summit, which takes place on 15–20 March 2026 in Denver, Colorado, and online.

Browse articles by content type

Mission to Mars: from biological barriers to ethical impediments