In the race to build powerful quantum computers, many groups are competing to build logic gates that can process quantum information and still be connected together on a large scale. 

One important question remains unanswered, however: what should the devices use to carry quantum information? 

Schemes involving charged particles such as Ion traps, electron circuits and superconductors have long looked promising because the qubits they hold can be easily manipulated with electric and magnetic fields. Charged particles also interact easily with each other in a way that can be made to process data.

The problem, of course, is that stray fields also interact with charged particles, causing the quantum information they carry to leak away. Stray fields litter the universe like the plague and this severely reduces the utility of these types of devices.

One alternative is the humble photon, which is unaffected by stray fields and can travel many kilometres through a waveguide without interacting with the environment. 

The trouble with photons is twofold. First, they are hard to produce individually, tending instead to come in bursts of several. That makes it hard to create them. 

Second, they tend to pass through one another unnoticed, like ships in the night. That makes it hard to process  the information they carry.

However, various groups have made significant process in solving these  problems. Lots of labs have developed photon guns that can be made to emit single photons, one at a time. 

At the same time, other labs have created photon circuits in the form of interconnecting waveguides that force photons to interact and thereby process the information they carry. These circuits are like tiny Scalectrix sets in which the cars collide where the track narrows.

In this circuit, the qubits are path-encoded meaning that the presence of a photon in one track is a 1 and its absence is a 0, for example.  When they come together they interfere, thereby processing the information they carry. 

But the efficiency of this interaction depends crucially on both photons being identical. Small differences in wavelength, for example, can dramatically reduce the performance.  But making identical photons is hard.

Today, Andrew Shields at Toshiba Research Europe Limited in Cambridge, UK, and a few buddies say they've solved this problem by integrating both these developments into a single device that acts like a C-NOT logic gate.

"The Controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate we demonstrate is the basic building block of quantum logic, since in combination with one qubit gates it can be used to perform any quantum operation," say Shields and co.

This logic gate consists of a pillar of indium arsenic that acts as a quantum dot--it emits a single photon when zapped with laser light of a specific frequency. This is coupled to a photon racetrack carved out of silicon. 

A C-NOT logic gate requires two input photons. So the circuit works by zapping  the quantum dot twice, generating two photons. These are identical because they've come from the same dot. 

The photons then travel to a beam splitter that sends them down the appropriate paths (one of which has a built in delay that means determines when the photons enter the circuit relative to each other).

Shields and co have measured the truth table of their logic gate. They say it matches their theoretical predictions and can be made better with a few tweaks.

What's significant about this approach is its scalability. Shields and co say it ought to be possible to build many quantum dots and circuits onto a single integrated chip. And the differences between photons from different quantum dots can be minimised by triggering them all with the same laser pulse. 

That's handy but it's not all plain sailing. The device must be cooled to 4.5 Kelvin, the operating temperature of the quantum dot, and the results of a single logic operation take some 30 minutes to collect.

Clearly that will have to change to make these devices viable. But that's an engineering challenge these guys will surely relish.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1205.4899: Controlled-NOT Gate Operating With Single Photons

One of the interesting insights that social networks offer is the difference between male and female behaviour. 

In the past, behavioural differences have been hard to measure. Experiments could only be done on limited numbers of individuals and even then, the process of measurement often distorted people's behaviour.

That's all changed with the advent of massive online participation in gaming, professional and friendship  networks. For the first time, it has become possible to quantify exactly how the genders differ in their approach to things like risk and communication.

Gender specific studies are surprisingly rare, however. Nevertheless a growing body if evidence is emerging that social networks reflect many of the social and evolutionary differences that we've long suspected.

Earlier this year, for example, we looked at a remarkable study of a mobile phone network that demonstrated the different reproductive strategies that men and women employ throughout their lives, as revealed by how often they call friends, family and potential mates.

Today, Michael Szell and Stefan Thurner at the Medical University of Vienna in Austria say they've found significance differences in the way men and women manage their social networks in an online game called Pardus with over 300,000 players.

In this game, players  explore various solar systems in a virtual universe. On the way, they can mark other players as friends or enemies, exchange messages, gain wealth by trading  or doing battle but can also be killed.

The interesting thing about online games is that almost every action of every player is recorded, mostly without the players being consciously aware of this. That means measurement bias is minimal.

The networks of friends and enemies that are set up also differ in an important way from those on social networking sites such as Facebook. That's because players can neither see nor influence other players' networks. This prevents the kind of clustering and herding behaviour that sometimes dominates  other social networks.

Szell and Thurner say the data reveals clear and significant differences between men and women in Pardus. 

For example, men and women  interact with the opposite sex differently.  "Males reciprocate friendship requests from females faster than vice versa and hesitate to reciprocate hostile actions of females," say Szell and Thurner.

Women are also significantly more risk averse than men as measured by the amount of fighting they engage in and their likelihood of dying. 

They are also more likely to be friends with each other than men. 

These results are more or less as expected. More surprising is the finding that women tend to be more wealthy than men, probably because they engage more in economic than destructive behaviour. 

"These results confirm quantitatively that females and males manage their social networks drastically different," say Szell and Thurner.

Of course, there are important questions over the extent these findings reflect gender differences in the real world. 

One obvious problem is that of gender swapping: men who play as women and vice versa. Szell and Thurner say that other studies have shown that around ten per cent of online gaming populations engage in gender swapping. They say there's no reason to think this would be any different in Pardus and that it shouldn't affect the results.

A more serious problem could be the well known phenomenon that women tend to receive better treatment in male-dominated online gaming communities. Indeed,  Szell and Thurner say they can see evidence of this in their data. That's something they'll need to look into in more detail.

There s one group for whom this kind of study will be invaluable: advertisers and marketeers. That makes it potentially valuable form a commercial point of view.

But the more interesting scientific question is whether this kind of work can tease apart gender differences with a resolution that reveals new and surprising patterns.   

We'll need to wait a little longer to get a better answer to that.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1205.4683: How Women Organize Social Networks Different From Men 

One of the more curious backwaters of biology is the study of biophotons: optical or ultraviolet photons emitted by living cells in a way that is distinct from conventional bioluminescence.

Nobody is quite sure how cells produce biophotons but the latest thinking is that various molecular processes can emit photons and that these are transported to the cell surface by energy carying excitons. A similar process carries the energy from photons across giant protein matrices during photosynthesis. 

Whatever the mechanism, a growing number of biologists are convinced that when you switch off the lights, cells are bathed in the pale fireworks of a biophoton display. 

This is not a bright phenomena. Biophotons are usually produced at the rate of dozens per second per square centimetre of cell culture.

That's not many. And it's why the notion that biophoton activity is actually a form of cellular communication is somewhat controversial.    

Today, Sergey Mayburov at the Lebedev Institute of Physics in Moscow adds some extra evidence to the debate. 

Mayburov has spent many hours in the dark watching fish eggs and recording the patterns of biophotons that these cells emit. 

The question he aims to answer is whether the stream of photons has any discernible structure that would qualify it as a form of communication. 

The answer is that is does, he says. Biophoton streams consist of short quasiperiodic bursts, which he says are remarkably similar to those used to send binary data over a noisy channel. That might help explain how cells can detect such low levels of radiation in a noisy environment.

If he's right, then this could help to explain a number of interesting phenomenon that some biologists attribute to biophoton communication. 

In several experiments, biophotons from a growing plant seem to increase the rate of cell division in other plants by 30 per cent. That's a growth rate that is significantly higher than is possible with ordinary light that is several orders of magnitude more intense.

Other experiments have shown that the biophotons from growing eggs can encourage the growth of other eggs of a similar age. However, the biophotons from mature eggs can hinder and disrupt the growth of younger eggs at a different stage of development. In some cases, biophotons from older eggs seem to stop the growth of immature eggs entirely.

Mayburov's work won't end the controversy; not by any means. There are still many outstanding questions. One important problem is to better understand the cellular mechanisms at work--how the molecular machinery inside cells produces photons and how it might be influenced by them. Another is to understand the kind of evolutionary pressures that are at work here--how has this ability come about? 

Clearly, there's more work to be done here.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1205.4134: Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems