It's no secret that the Nintendo Wii has changed the landscape for gaming. The question is what comes next.

Sony has been developing camera-based games for some time and Microsoft has a similar system in the works. But there are plenty of people who think that neither of these approaches will be game-changers (ahem).

Instead the most exciting developments are coming from the world of mobile phones or other sensor networks where engineers are testing a new generation of games that can be played anywhere there is a mobile phone or wireless network. These games are location aware, involve multiple players, rapid physical activity and Wii-like gesturing.

So-called pervasive generate an entirely new set of challenges--and not just for the people who play them. They must work with multiple types of input-an iPhone must be able to play against a Nexus One. They will involve many players communicating rapidly and so will need to synchronise with each other.

To test how such games might work and the problems they generate, Ioannis Chatzigiannakis and a few mates at the University of Patras in Greece created one called Hot Potato. The game works like this:

A hot potato is a kind of virtual timer that is passed between mobile devices that players hold. During the game, the hot potato counts down to zero when it explodes. When this happens, the person holding it is out. The game repeats until only one player is left. Players can "throw" the hot potato to another player by moving close and making a throwing action with their arm (while holding their device).

Moving too far from the other players increases the chances that a new hot potato will be generated on your device. That keeps the players together. Until one of them receives a hot potato, in which case it pays to move away from them so they can't throw it to you.

Chatzigiannakis and co created the game using Sun's Spot sensor network device, which has an 180MHz ARM 9 processor with 512KB of RAM and 4MB Flash. It is IEEE 802.15.4 compliant and relies on a CC2420 Chipcon transceiver for communication. The device has 2 buttons, and 8 LEDs and a number of sensors such as an accelerometer, thermistor and light sensor.

Today, the team reveal the results of the tests with the game including user surveys. And it looks as ifit works well. They say that players reacted very positively to the game.

As for the limits of the gaming experience, they say: " Up to 14 players can participate in a game session simultaneously in a completely distributed environment; above this limit, inherent technology factors come into play and prevent a seamless gaming experience."

Hot Potato isn't the first pervasive game, by any means. But others such as CatchBob!, SupaFly and Human Pacman have had limited impact. This is an area that is waiting for its breakthrough game.

Hot Potato sounds like fun and a potential money spinner too. But now comes the difficult part: the final beta testing to take any rough edges off the product and then the sales and marketing.

iPhone app, anybody?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.1099: The "Hot Potato" Case: Challenges in Multiplayer Pervasive Games Based on Ad Hoc Mobile Sensor Networks and the Experimental Evaluation of a Prototype Game

What do your mobile phone habits say about you? Probably more than you might imagine.

At least, that's the suggestion from Lauri Kovanen and pals at the Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Finland. These guys have studied the 350 million calls made by 5.3 million customers over an unnamed mobile phone network during a period of 18 weeks. The primary question they ask is whether mobile phone calls are mutually reciprocated: in other words, does somebody who calls another individual receive in return as many calls as he or she makes, a phenomenon known as reciprocity.

Mobile phone calls are a particularly good way to study reciprocity because they are directed in a way that sms messages and email are not. In a mobile phone call, the caller initiates the conversation and then both parties invest a certain amount of time in the event. But afterwards there is usually no immediate reason for the recipient to call back. So it's clear who initiated the event.

But SMS messages or e-mails are entirely different: here a conversation usually means sending a sequence of reciprocated messages and this makes it much more difficult to study reciprocity by simply counting the number of messages.

This has allowed Kovanen and company to unearth a number of interesting phenomena. For a start, the calling patterns of prepaid users is very different from those with a contract who pay later. Postpaid users tend to be more prolific, having on average 5.41 people they call.

Prepaid users, by contrast, have only 3.41 contacts on average (although the notion of "average" is a little strange here since there is a very long tail on these distributions).

Not only that but postpaid users make 10 times as many calls as prepaid users. "We can also see that prepaid users receive more calls than they make, while the most active postpaid users make more calls than they receive," says Kovanen and company.

Prepaid users are also have more skewed relationships. Among prepaid users, the relationships where one participant makes more than 80 percent of all calls make up over 25 percent of the total.

The figures for postpaid users are far less skewed but they are greater than you'd expect from an ordinary probabilistic distribution in which each party in a relationship was just as likely to call the other.

So what's the difference between prepaid and postpaid callers? One of the most important is probably that prepaid users are much more likely to be young people. And sociologists already know that relationships between young people tend not to be equally reciprocated.

A few years ago, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health asked US students to name up to five of their best friends. Between them, the students named 7,000 individuals but only 35 percent of the nominations were reciprocated. So perhaps it's not suprising that a similar picture emerges from the study of mobile phone calls.

More puzzling is the skew in reciprocity in postpaid users which may not be as significant as for prepaid users but is still worthy of note.

What Kovanen and co are uncovering may be some fundamental property of human relationships; only more study will reveal that.

But the work is important for another reason: the skewed reciprocity between mobile phone users may influence other things such as the spread of ideas and information in society or, just as likely, the spread of viruses.

And that could have important implications for the way antivirus efforts are organised and directed.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.0763: Reciprocity of Mobile Phone Calls

Complex Networks: New Trends For The Analysis of Brain Connectivity

Soccer: Is Scoring Goals a Predictable Poissonian Process?

Optical Chirality Without Optical Activity: How Surface Plasmons Give A Twist To Light

Long-Lived Quantum Coherence in Photosynthetic Complexes at Physiological Temperature

Locomotion of Electrocatalytic Nanomotors due to Reaction Induced Charge Auto-Electrophoresis

There's a problem with high temperature superconductors. It's now more than two decades since the discovery that certain copper oxides can superconduct at temperatures above 30 K.

Those years have been filled with promise, hyperbole and feverish research. Physicists know that copper oxides superconduct in an entirely different way to conventional BCS superconductors (after Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer, who worked out the theory behind them). And yet, nobody agrees on precisely what the new mechanism is. Neither has anybody created a superconductor that works at a usable temperature, that is above the temperature of liquid nitrogen.

Even the resurgence of excitement last year over the discovery that magnesium diboride superconducts at high temperatures, probably in the old fashioned BCS way, soon gave way to malaise as physicists found they were unable to build on the breakthrough to make better superconductors. It's tempting to think that superconductors will never pass the liquid nitrogen barrier.

But today hope is restored thanks to a fascinating set of calculations carried out by Gianluca Savini at the University of Cambridge in the UK and a couple of buddies. They calculate the properties of p-doped graphane from first principles and say that it ought to superconduct at a balmy 90K or more, well within the range of liquid nitrogen cooling.

What's more p-doped graphane should superconduct in the same way as the old fashioned BCS superconductors. That's curious because everybody believes that BCS superconductivity cannot work at high temperatures.

The reason is the energy of the interaction between the superconducting electrons and the surrounding material. In ordinary BCS superconductors this is thought to be just a few tens of meVs. In the copper oxides, however, these interactions have an energy of a few hundred meVs. It's this difference, that makes physicists think that BCS superconductors will never work at the temperature of copper oxides.

And yet the discovery that magnesium diboride superconducts challenges that thinking--energy of these interactions in MgB2 is much higher. Three factors seem to come together to make it possible, say Savini and co. First is the characteristic energy of the phonons in MgB2 which is due to bond stretching and plays an important part in helping superconductors through the structure. Second is the electron density of states in the material and finally they point to the balance between the attractive electron-phonon coupling and the repulsive electron-electron interaction in MgB2.

Might it be possible to find materials in which these quantities can be manipulated further? You betcha. Savini and co noticed that p-doped diamond has two of these characteristics but superconducts only at 4K.

However, they calculate that p-doped graphane fits the bill exactly and should superconduct in the old-fashioned BCS way at 90K. What's more they say there are hints that p-doped diamond nanowires might have similar properties.

Various groups are already playing around with doped diamond nanowires.

The implications of all this are astounding. First up is the possibility of useful superconducting devices cooled only by liquid nitrogen. At last!

But there's another, more exotic implication: by creating transistor-like gates out of graphane doped in different ways, it should be possible to create devices in which the superconductivity can be switched on and off. That'll make possible an entirely new class of switch.

Before all of that, however, somebody has to make p-doped graphane. That will be hard. Graphane itself was made for the first time only last year at the University of Manchester. It should be entertaining to follow the race to make and test a p-doped version.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.0653: Doped Graphane: a Prototype High-Tc Electron-Phonon Superconductor

Last year, grammatical tragedy struck in the heart of England when Birmingham City Council decreed that apostrophes were to be forever banished from public addresses. To the horror of purists and pedants alike, place names such as St Paul's Square were banned and unceremoniously replaced with an apostrophe-free version: St Pauls Square.

The council's reasoning was that nobody understands apostrophes and their misuse was so common in public signs that they were a hindrance to effective navigation. Anecdotes abounded of ambulance drivers puzzling over how to enter St James's Street into a GPS navigation system while victims of heart attacks, strokes and hit 'n' run drivers passed from this world into the (presumably apostrophe-free) next.

Why the confusion? Part of the reason is that apostrophes are not particularly common in the English language: In French they occur at a rate of more than once per sentence on average. In English, they occur about once in every 20 sentences. So English speakers get less practice.

But the rules governing apostrophes are also more complex in English. In both French and English, apostrophes indicate a missing letter, such as the missing i in that's or the v in e'er. But in English, apostrophes also indicate the possessive (or genitive) case. They are used to show that one noun owns another: St James's Street is the street belonging to St James.

The complexity is compounded because in English, the plural is often formed by adding an s. So the word boys means more than one boy. How then do you form the possessive to indicate, for example, a ball belonging to the boys? Is it the boy's ball or the boys's ball or the boys' ball?

And then there are the exceptions. Pronouns, for example, do not take a possessive apostrophe: you can't say I's ball or me's bat. The truth is that knowing when to use an apostrophe is not always easy.

That may be partly because the rules for using apostrophes are evolving. Today, Odile Piton and Hélène Pignot at the University of Panthéon-Sorbonne in Paris present an analysis of the use of apostrophes in English texts from the 17th century and show that the usage was much simpler in those days.

Their main challenge was how to recognize an apostrophe. Apostrophes are often the same as single quotation marks and are entered on a computer keyboard using the same key. So it's easy to get false positives.

Spotting the absence of an apostrophe where there ought to be one can be tricky, too. They give the example of this sentence: "First, that no other mans errors could draw either hatred, or engagement upon me." The automated analysis missed the absent apostrophe in mans, thinking instead that it was the transitive verb "to man."

What Piton and Pignot have yet to study how the use of the apostrophe changes in time. But they now have the automated analysis tools that should make this possible. That could reveal the forces at work that change our language.

For the moment, Piton and Pignot's conclusion is merely that the world was simpler in the 17th century as far as apostrophes go. They say: "The possessive genitive in 's was not very common yet. The apostrophe mostly marks the omission of letters in a wide range of words and the plural of certain words."

Rather like the road signs in Birmingham.

Ref:arxiv.org/abs/1002.0479: "Mind your p's and q's?": or the Peregrinations of an Apostrophe in 17th Century English

In 1993, Charlie Bennett at IBM's Watson Research Center in New York State and a few pals showed how to transmit quantum information from one point in space to another without traversing the intervening space.

The technique relies on the strange quantum phenomenon called entanglement, in which two particles share the same existence. This deep connection means that a measurement on one particle immediately influences the other, even though they are light-years apart. Bennett and company worked out how to exploit this to send information. (The influence between the particles may be immediate, but the process does not violate relativity because some informatiom has to be sent classically at the speed of light.) They called the technique teleportation.

That's not really an overstatement of its potential. Since quantum particles are indistinguishable but for the information they carry, there is no need to transmit them themselves. A much simpler idea is to send the information they contain instead and ensure that there is a ready supply of particles at the other end to take on their identity. Since then, physicists have used these ideas to actually teleport photons, atoms, and ions. And it's not too hard to imagine that molecules and perhaps even viruses could be teleported in the not-too-distant future.

But Masahiro Hotta at Tohoku University in Japan has come up with a much more exotic idea. Why not use the same quantum principles to teleport energy?

Today, building on a number of papers published in the last year, Hotta outlines his idea and its implications. The process of teleportation involves making a measurement on each one an entangled pair of particles. He points out that the measurement on the first particle injects quantum energy into the system. He then shows that by carefully choosing the measurement to do on the second particle, it is possible to extract the original energy.

All this is possible because there are always quantum fluctuations in the energy of any particle. The teleportation process allows you to inject quantum energy at one point in the universe and then exploit quantum energy fluctuations to extract it from another point. Of course, the energy of the system as whole is unchanged.

He gives the example of a string of entangled ions oscillating back and forth in an electric field trap, a bit like Newton's balls. Measuring the state of the first ion injects energy into the system in the form of a phonon, a quantum of oscillation. Hotta says that performing the right kind of measurement on the last ion extracts this energy. Since this can be done at the speed of light (in principle), the phonon doesn't travel across the intermediate ions so there is no heating of these ions. The energy has been transmitted without traveling across the intervening space. That's teleportation.

Just how we might exploit the ability to teleport energy isn't clear yet. Post your suggestions in the comments section if you have any.

But the really exciting stuff is the implications this has for the foundations of physics. Hotta says that his approach gives physicists a way of exploring the relationship between quantum information and quantum energy for the first time.

There is a growing sense that the properties of the universe are best described not by the laws that govern matter but by the laws that govern information. This appears to be true for the quantum world, is certainly true for special relativity, and is currently being explored for general relativity. Having a way to handle energy on the same footing may help to draw these diverse strands together.

Interesting stuff. There's no telling where this kind of thinking might lead.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.0200: Energy-Entanglement Relation for Quantum Energy Teleportation