Hydrodynamics of Catheter Biofilm Formation

Asymptotically Safe Inflation

Peak-Dip-Hump from Holographic Superconductivity

Single-Photon Imaging and Efficient Coupling to Single Plasmons

Electromagnetic Nature of Dark Energy

Searching for Better Plasmonic Materials

They take their rowing seriously at the University of Cambridge. So seriously, in fact, that the university has press-ganged John Barrow at the Center for Mathematical Sciences to study the serious problem of oscillating non-zero transverse moment in racing boats, otherwise known as wiggle.

The placement of the rowers, the "rig" of the boat, obviously has consequences for the motion of the boat. The question is how best to arrange an even number of crew members in a coxless racing boat in a way that minimizes or eliminates wiggle.

The traditional way of rigging a boat places rowers alternately pulling oars on each side of the boat. "The traditional rig appears symmetrical and simple in ways that might tempt you into thinking it is in every sense optimal. However, this is not the case," says Barrow who goes on to show that the balance of forces in this rig as the oars are pulled through the water always produces a wiggle.

But there is an arrangement in which the transverse forces cancel. This rig consists of one rower pulling on the port side of the boat followed by two on the starboard with a final rower on port. In the rowing world, this arrangement is known as the Italian rig because it was discovered by the Moto Guzzi Club team on Lake Como in 1956. The Moto Guzzi crew went on to win gold representing Italy at the Melbourne Olympic Games later that year.

Barrow next considers a crew of eight and identifies four possible rigs that have a zero transverse moment. These are shown above. The interesting thing is that only two of these rigs are known to the racing world. Rig b is called the "bucket," or "Ratzeburg rig," first used by crews training at the famous German rowing club of the same name in the late 1950s.

Rig c is simply the Italian rig repeated twice. It was used by the Italian Eights in the 1950s after their success with the Fours. It's also known as the triple tandem rig.

The other two, rigs a and d, are brand spanking new and don't seem to have ever been discussed. However, rig d is a combination of a zero-moment Italian Four with its mirror image.

Barrow goes on to generalize the idea for any number of crew, proving along the way that only crew numbers divisible by four can be wiggle-free. (Assuming that they are evenly spaced.)

He also goes on to show that unbalanced boats in which there are unequal numbers of oars on each side, can also be wiggle free if the spacing between the rowers can be altered. As an example, he shows how a Three could have a zero transverse moment.

Barrow ends by saying that his work is not intended to revolutionize rowing tactics. That seems overly modest. Clearly, Barrow's paper should be recognized as a master stroke.

What's the betting that that we'll see at least one of the new rigs at the 2012 Olympics in London?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.3551: Rowing and the Same-Sum Problem Have Their Moments

Last year, researchers at the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago showed that human cells in culture could synchronize their internal chemical processes even though they were mechanically, chemically, and electrically isolated from one another. The cells, it seemed, were communicating through the exchange of photons.

Various other groups have shown similar effects. Many cells seems to produce optical and UV photons at about 10 photons per square cm/s, a rate that cannot be explained by ordinary thermodynamic emissions. Other evidence indicates that this form of optical communication can increase the rate of mitosis in cells by up to 50 percent.

So how do they do it? Today Sergei Mayburov at the Lebedev Institute of Physics in Moscow puts forward the idea that optical communication is a natural process in many cells that can be explained by the way we already know many cells to function.

He points out that biologists have long known that photons play a central role in the biochemistry of many plant and bacterial cells. The basic idea, laid out in the 1960s, is that optical or UV photons enter a cell and stimulate the creation of excitons, electron-hole pairs, on certain long chain molecules. The exciton travels along the molecule, influencing the way it reacts with other species within the cell. This is the basic theory behind photosynthesis.

Mayburov's idea is that this process is, first, reversible, second, not limited to photosynthetic cells and third, possible to modulate for communication.

Let's unpack those ideas. Take the first: if photons can create excitons in cells, it seems reasonable to assume that the process can occur in reverse (exactly this happens in semiconductors to create light).

The second idea is also plausible. If excitons form in photosynthetic molecules, why not in other types of biological molecules, too. The problem with Mayburov's hypothesis is that it's not immediately obvious which other biological molecules may be capable of this and neither does he make any suggestions.

Finally, is it possible for cells to modulate the way they generate photons to transmit information and for others to receive it? It's certainly conceivable that photon production could be switched on and off by a change in some internal state of a cell. Certainly, if we're to explain the experimental evidence, something like that must be going on. But Mayburov leaves us wondering how this might happen on the molecular scale.

This is a rapidly emerging field which overturns some well entrenched thinking in biology so it's hardly surprising that it generates more questions than answers. For example, how do cells discriminate between biophotons and background light? And what to make of other evidence that the photons can sometimes be coherent?

These are exciting problems. But Mayburov's broad claim that the phenomena is closely related to photosynthesis is an important step that should bring this emerging field to the attention of a much wider audience.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0909.2676: Coherent and Noncoherent Photonic Communications in Biological Systems

Here's a curious puzzle involving DNA molecules. DNA is regularly damaged by ordinary wear and tear and the constant buffeting of ionising radiation. However, cells possess an extraordinary collection of molecular machines such as repair enzymes that rapidly identify the defects and repair them.

The puzzle is how they do it. One idea is that repair enzymes simply float about for long enough and eventually find damaged regions. But the numbers just don't stack up. Genes are usually between 1000 and 1,000,000 base pairs long. By contrast, a typical mutation usually involves just a handful of base pairs. That's just too small to find using a random walk with any reliability. Some other form of active location finding must be going on.

One theory is that mutations change the electrical characteristics of a stretch of DNA and that this creates a signal that repair enzymes can home in on, like electricians locating a break in a circuit. The trouble is that DNA doesn't conduct electricity like a power cable and so it isn't clear how this would work.

Now Arkady Krokhin at the University of North Texas and few buddies have worked out how DNA may do it. The key turns out to be that different regions of DNA have different electrical characteristics. The group has calculated from first principles the way in which charge flows in different regions. They say that in exons--the information carrying parts of genes--the energy spectrum of the molecule allows delocalised electrons to exist. In these areas, charge can flow.

However the energy spectrum of the regions that do not carry information--the introns--does not allow for delocalised electrons. So introns are effectively insulators.

That sets up well defined regions within DNA that can be identified electronically.It also means that any change in electronic properties caused by a mutation would be largely confined too. That immediately suggests a way that repair enzymes can home in on damage.

Of course, this work is just one step towards a coherent theory that explains DNA repair (which actually involves many different processes).

But the beauty of this approach is that it could also explain why some damage goes unrepaired, leading to cell death and even cancer.

The thinking is that certain mutations cause less of an electrical change than others. These mutations are "electronically masked" and so go undetected by repair enzymes. There is even experimental evidence for this from resistance measurements done on DNA with cancer-causing mutations.

If this theory is true, one important question is how might it be possible to exploit DNA's electrical characteristics to detect and even prevent cancer in future?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.2953: Inhomogeneous DNA: Conducting Exons And Insulating Introns

The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.

That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.

Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It's not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many western countries will face uranium .shortages, possibly as soon as 2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.

But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission breeders. "Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant," he says.

And the future looks even worse for nuclear fusion: "No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors."

Dittmar paints a bleak future for the countries betting on nuclear power. And his analysis doesn't even touch on issues such as safety, the proliferation of nuclear technology and the disposal of nuclear waste.

The message if you live in one of these countries is to stock up on firewood and candles.

There is one tantalising ray of sunlight in this nuclear nightmare: the possibility that severe energy shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use. Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?

Ref: The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction

arxiv.org/abs/0908.0627: Chapter I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today
arxiv.org/abs/0908.3075: Chapter II: What is known about Secondary Uranium Resources?
arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421: Chapter III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data?
arxiv.org/abs/0911.2628 :Chapter IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?

When it comes to creativity, it's easy to imagine that more is better. Creativity lies at the heart of science. It solves problems and drives innovation. Then there's the small matter of art and literature. Humanity's self expression and aesthetic explorations are born of our creative drive.

And yet creativity has its downsides too, say Stefan Leijnen and Liane Gabora at the University of British Columbia in Canada. Creative solutions can only spread if they are adopted by other individuals. These imitators play an important role in society. They act as a kind of memory, storing the results of successful creative strategies for future generations. But the time that individuals spend creating means less time imitating. Clearly we cannot all be creators all the time but neither can we all be imitators.

That raises an interesting question, say Leijnen and Gabora. How much creativity does a society need to optimize the evolution of ideas?

To find out, they built a computational model that simulates the way ideas are created, how they spread and how they evolve in a society. The model simulates the behaviour of agents that invent new ideas by modifying existing ones, that imitate these ideas and also think, in the sense that they are able to evaluate new ideas before trying them out. The agents are assessed against a fitness criteria and reproduce accordingly. A new generation then repeats the process and so on.

Leijnen and Gabora measure the success of creativity versus imitating by looking at the fitness of the society as a whole and how this changes over time.

Of course, real individuals are both creators and imitators. In their simulations, Leijnen and Gabora find that society benefits most when individuals spend less than half their time creating and the rest imitating. When that happens, there is scope for everyone to be creative without any drop in society's fitness.

But if some individuals spend all their time creating and none imitating, this situation changes. In that case, a maximum of 30 per cent of a population can be creative, without society suffering. Which means that 70 per cent of individuals are condemned to a life of mindless copying.

What does that mean for us? It's hard to say. It would be easy to question how well the model and, in particular, its fitness criteria applies to the real world. But that would be to miss the point of an interesting attempt to model the evolution of ideas.

The implication is that we should spend less than 50 percent of our time being creative, if we want to maximise the benefit of our ideas to society.

What we lack here is a good understanding of what it means for real humans to be creative and how much time it is possible to spend on this task. Given the unavoidable demands of being human: the need for sleep, food, sex, relaxation which all involve a certain amount of creativity and copying etc, it's quite possible that it's physically impossible to spend anywhere near the 50 percent threshold on being creative. That would imply that we can safely pursue creativity as a goal in our society for the foreseeable future.

There's another interesting idea. It may be possible that evolution has already solved this problem: that humans have evolved in a way that optimises the spread of ideas through society. So the balance between creativity and imitation in ou lives is built inot our genese and culture. That's one for the anthropologists.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0911.2390: How creative should creators be to optimize the evolution of ideas? A computational model