All scientific inquiry involves some kind of uncertainty, but the uncertainties in cosmology are particularly daunting. As well as being complex and difficult to describe, the systems cosmologists investigate are almost by definition out of reach. In these conditions of uncertainty, how confident can we be in the models we’ve built? How can we come to know how galaxies form, how the universe began or how much dark matter it contains?

In The Random Universe: How Models and Probability Help us Make Sense of the Cosmos, cosmologist and astrophysicist Andrew Jaffe offers a masterful and refreshing take on these questions. As the director of the Centre for Inference and Cosmology at Imperial College London, UK, and a past co-investigator on ESA’s Planck satellite that provided us with so much new information about the cosmos, Jaffe is well-equipped to walk readers through the tools that allow us to learn about the world despite its uncertainties. Anchoring his insights in beautifully narrated episodes from the history of physics, astrophysics and cosmology, he sheds light on how our theories of the universe evolved into our current best cosmological model – which nonetheless still has limitations.

Jaffe is particularly good at recounting how we refined, revised and even replaced some of our assumptions in light of incoming evidence such as the first measurements of stellar distance; the discovery of galaxies beyond our own; and precise measurements of cosmological parameters. Throughout this journey, he engages thoughtfully with a rich philosophical tradition that runs from David Hume in the 18th century through Willard Van Orman Quine, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend in the 20th.

Bayes’ theorem is important because it tells us how to update our degree of belief in light of new evidence

The book’s main protagonist, though, is the mathematician Thomas Bayes. For Jaffe, Bayesian probability is key to dealing with uncertainty, and even to solving Hume’s notorious problem of induction: how do we justify inferences from a finite set of observations to generalizations that go beyond them? Bayes’ theorem is important, Jaffe argues, because it tells us how to update our degree of belief in light of new evidence. It shows us why and how, even in an uncertain world, “the more observations we make, the surer we become”.

Of course, before we can use probability to deal with uncertainty, we first need a model. As Jaffe puts it, “Absent a model, I can’t assign a probability, and absent a probability, I can’t quantify my uncertainty about the world.” So, what exactly is a model? I found Jaffe’s answer to be one of the most captivating elements of the book. As the title of a subsection of chapter five puts it, “a model is a story about the world”. Without models, Jaffe tells us, our world would be an unexplained series of unrelated events. Models are also what allow us to take a finite set of data and use it to create something new. Without this leap, Jaffe suggests, we cannot learn anything about the world, because “you can’t make sense of an experimental result unless you have some model to interpret it”.

Of course, if the way we interpret data depends on our model, then different people may well obtain different interpretations depending on which model and which prior probability they choose. This charge of subjectivity is a longstanding accusation against Bayesians, but Jaffe offers at least a partial solution: “If you and I agree on the model, we should assign the same probability.” This, Jaffe argues, is where objectivity emerges, writing that “we come to the same conclusions if we start from the same premises”.

Models allow us to understand the world by bridging subjectivity with objectivity, and the personal with the collective

Many contemporary philosophers are at odds with the idealized view of science as an objective and linear enterprise that produces theories from a God’s-eye view. Instead, they strive to portray it as something that is social and human, but reliable nonetheless. Jaffe’s own views seem to align with this endeavour; as he puts it, “the scientific coupling of models and observations is a living, breathing, subjective endeavour, simultaneously collective and personal”. Through their interplay with data, he argues, models allow us to understand the world by bridging subjectivity with objectivity, and the personal with the collective.

Not everyone will agree with Jaffe that Bayesian probability offers a solution to Hume’s problem of induction. Personally, I (or perhaps the hardcore rationalist in me) was not convinced. Nevertheless, I found the book’s thesis – that uncertainty is not a hindrance to knowledge, but an opportunity to learn (and learn more) about the world – simultaneously liberating, humbling and empowering. I recommend The Random Universe to scientists, philosophers and anyone interested in better understanding the role of probability in science; the philosophical problems with how we handle uncertainty; and how our standard cosmological model came to be. I also hope it will encourage more collaborations between philosophers and scientists. There are many questions we can explore further if we work together.

• 2025 Yale University Press, £25hb, 288pp

The post Knowing through uncertainty: probability and the evolution of our cosmos appeared first on Physics World.

Black hole collisions, merging neutron stars, exploding supernovae – these massive cosmic events are all observed by interferometer-based gravitational-wave observatories such as LIGO. Detection of the ripples in space-time caused by these phenomena is dependent on the careful control of the mirrors used in these observatories.

Led by Jonathan Richardson at University of California, Riverside, a research team has demonstrated a new wavefront actuator that can correct deformations in the surface of the mirrors by applying carefully mapped heating patterns. In a new development, reported in Classical and Quantum Gravity, Richardson’s team has used thermal imaging cameras to pinpoint where the corrections are needed. This approach should massively reduce the main limitation on the sensitivity of gravitational-wave observations.

Limiting LIGO

Since their first detection in 2015, the world of gravitational-wave observation has thrived. Now, with two major updates planned for pioneer interferometer observatory LIGO (LIGO A+ and LIGO A#) and plans for a more powerful generation of new sites, the field has reached a major turning point. Richardson describes this transition as moving from “an initial discovery era – a time when the closest, loudest events were just barely resolvable above the detectors’ noise floors – to an era of precision science”.

Richardson notes that, even now, observations such as that of a binary black hole merger with a record signal-to-noise ratio of 80 are allowing researchers to test our most fundamental theories of the nature of gravity and black holes. Heightened sensitivity will allow the observation of waves that have travelled far greater distances, over longer time periods, and are weaker as a result. These new developments will allow astrophysicists to peer further out into our universe and further back in cosmic time than ever before.

This major increase in sensitivity requires new levels of power, with LIGO A# reaching an unprecedented 1.5 MW of circulating laser arm power. The mirrors used in these detectors absorb some of the power of the incident lasers as thermal energy, resulting in heat-induced distortions that have a detrimental effect on the sensitivity of the detector. It is these deformations that place a limiting factor on the capabilities of gravitational-wave observatories.

A surprisingly simple solution

Richardson’s team has already taken huge steps towards reducing this effect with the development of new adaptive optics. In principle, these devices can apply a variable blanket of heat across the surface of the mirror that cancels out the thermal deformation from the laser heating at the nanoscale. Unfortunately, the application of this method is limited by researchers’ ability to precisely map these aberrations. This lack of sensing capability posed a roadblock on the path to high-powered gravitational-wave observation.

Richardson’s group discovered a solution to this problem when testing this new technology on a full-scale 40 kg LIGO mirror. They realised that they could accurately reconstruct the optical distortions across the entire 34 cm-diameter mirror by combining direct measurements of the surface temperature with a well programmed model of heat flow in the material.

In a surprising turn of events, the thermal imaging cameras needed to survey the full aperture of the mirror are widely commercially available and can be calibrated using LIGO’s Hartmann wavefront sensors that are already in place. Without the need for a lengthy process of technology development, as is usually required to solve LIGO instrumentation problems, Richardson is “all the more hopeful that we will reach megawatt-scale interferometry in the coming years”.

The future of gravitational-wave detection

The planned improvements to LIGO will drastically increase the observational power of this leading facility, but designs for a new generation of observatories could present even greater opportunities.

Cosmic Explorer is the US-led contribution to a new class of interferometers. Its arms will reach an enormous 40 km each, with ten times the sensitivity of LIGO. Richardson’s team will be responsible for implementing their cutting-edge research in laser wavefront sensing and correction as part of Cosmic Explorer’s base design. As a testing ground for these developments, LIGO will pave the way for an exciting new era of gravitational-wave detection.

With these levels of sensitivity, Cosmic Explorer aims to observe gravitational waves from hundreds of thousands to millions of black hole and neutron star mergers per year. Gravitational-wave detection will then reach close to the edge of our observable universe, looking back approximately 14 billion years across cosmic time.

Using existing, widely available technology, Richardson’s research group is pushing the limits of gravitational-wave detection and spurring on the development of a new, more powerful class of observatory.

The post Thermal imaging technique helps overcome a major problem for gravitational-wave astronomy appeared first on Physics World.

Physics faces a persistent and uncomfortable paradox. While we repeatedly assert that scientific excellence depends on creativity, rigour, resilience and collaborative problem-solving, the way we select the next generation of researchers still relies heavily on institutional prestige, grades and prior access to opportunity. Although easy to use, these criteria are deeply entangled with structural advantage resulting in a system that is efficient to operate and familiar – yet systematically exclusionary.

Traditional admissions criteria are heavily shaped by unequal access to resources, inside knowledge, mentors and cultural capital

Most academics recognize the limitations of traditional admissions criteria, but we continue to rely on them. Degree classification, university ranking, publications and reference letters feel like comfortable objective indicators of merit. In reality, however, they are heavily shaped by unequal access to resources, inside knowledge, mentors and cultural capital.

Two students with equal underlying potential, for example, can present very different CVs depending on whether they had access to a research-intensive institution, informal advice networks, paid research internships, or simply, the financial security to take risks. When admissions panels default to these signals as primary filters, they are not solely selecting for ability – they are also selecting for accumulated advantage.

This is not merely a matter of fairness but a strategic problem for science. Science and technical subjects in the UK face chronic recruitment and retention challenges. At the same time, major issues facing our society are too complex to solve from a single perspective. Physics skills are in growing demand across the UK and Ireland with PhD graduates entering industry, policy, entrepreneurship, education and beyond. This demands not only technical brilliance, but adaptability, communication and ethical judgement.

To achieve the interdisciplinary breadth required to tackle today’s issues, we need to implement thoughtful strategies and processes. If we continue to draw from a narrow and self-reproducing talent pool, we constrain not only who gets to participate in science, but the kind of science we are able to do.

A new approach

At the Centre for Doctoral Training (CDT) in Diversity-Led, Mission-Driven Research (DiveIn) based at the University of Glasgow, we saw an opportunity to move away from PhD admissions criteria being focused on prior privilege towards one based on demonstrable competencies relevant to excellent research and successful completion of a PhD. While most PhD programmes recruit students to predefined projects, which rewards prior disciplinary alignment and insider knowledge, DiveIn instead recruits a cohort first and co-creates projects later.

We worked with the Equity in Doctoral Education through Partnership and Innovation (EDEPI) programme to design a CDT with this mind. EDEPI was created to tackle persistent inequalities that create barriers to access and participation for racially minoritized groups. The EDEPI framework identifies three broad areas: comprehension and evaluation (analytical and problem solving, communication, planning and organization); delivering results (integrity, working with others, independence); and socio-emotional competencies (motivation, curiosity, resilience). We expanded the EDEPI framework to emphasize an appetite for interdisciplinary research; cohort-based development; and advocacy.

A core pillar of the DiveIn approach to the EDEPI framework is anonymization. Our applications are divided into separate components, with personal data, CVs and competency statements de-linked during evaluation. Assessors also never see names, genders, nationalities or institutional affiliations.

The DiveIn admissions process consists of four key elements. The first is an anonymized, competency-based written application, structured around five targeted questions probing motivation, resilience, curiosity and self-reflection. The second is a task-based exercise, in which all applicants analyse the same dataset and explain their reasoning – testing analytical thinking and communication independently of discipline.

Another aspect of the process is a double-marked, wide-ranging assessment, ensuring that no single impression dominates and that different aspects of the application are judged independently. The final aspect is a transparent, structured interview with questions shared in advance and mapped explicitly to competencies.

Applicants are assessed for their ability to thrive in a diverse, collaborative cohort

Importantly, applicants also receive active support, which includes webinars explaining the process, guidance videos for each question and live drop-in sessions. This is not coaching for advantage – it is an explicit attempt to dismantle the “hidden curriculum” that privileges those already familiar with academic selection rituals. Applicants are, therefore, assessed not only for individual PhD readiness, but for their ability to thrive in a diverse, collaborative cohort.

Diversity gains

DiveIn’s first full recruitment cycle provides some encouraging evidence that our approach is working. The resulting cohort is naturally diverse in background, discipline and experience. Our results also suggest that undergoing such a shift can widen participation without lowering standards and may, in fact, improve the quality and impact of the research that the PhD cohort carry out. In other words, the process did not abandon standards but changed what those standards were designed to measure.

If we continue to admit PhD candidates primarily based on narrow retrospective signals, we will systematically under-select precisely the kinds of researchers the future requires. Conversely, if we treat admissions as a design problem – something that can be structured, tested, iterated and improved – we open the door to a more resilient, creative and socially responsive generation of researchers. As diversity gains in the technology sector are stalling, this reform to admissions could help sustainably boost diversity in UK Tech.

We can build systems that are fairer, more principled, and more aligned with the realities of modern research

We now need to refine, scale and continue to evaluate the programme. But the core insight is robust: we can do better than prestige-driven selection. We urge anyone who selects PhD students for their programme to think about these issues and make use of the resources available at EDEPI on inclusive PGR admissions. We can build systems that are fairer, more principled, and better aligned with the realities of modern research.

For a discipline built on careful measurement and experimental design, it is striking how little physics has applied those principles to choosing who gets to become a scientist. Perhaps it is time we did.

• This article was written with Ross Forgan, Sandra Dopico Ardao, Qammer Abbasi and Caroline Gauchotte-Lindsay.

The post Why physics should move beyond prestige in PhD admissions appeared first on Physics World.

Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.

The post Quiz of the week: what age of science is the US entering according to Trump? appeared first on Physics World.

Here’s how the game works:

1. 1. Enter a word guess – in this game the word has six letters.
   2. After submitting your guess, each letter in the guessed word is coloured to provide feedback:
      • Green: The letter is correct and is in the correct position in the target word.
      • Yellow: The letter is correct but is in the wrong position in the target word.
      • Grey: The letter is not in the target word at all.
   3. Using this colour feedback, refine your next guess.
   4. Continue guessing until you correctly identify the hidden word(s) or run out of attempts.

If you want a clue to the answer, read the article here.

Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.

The post Word wave puzzle no.7 appeared first on Physics World.

India has produced some exceptional women physicists over the years. From Bibha Chowdhuri, who co-discovered the meson and became the first Indian woman to receive a PhD in physics, to Ritu Karidhal, who played a pivotal role in making India the fourth country in the world to reach Mars, the country boasts a large pool of talented women.

But despite women accounting for more than 40% of Indian science graduates, they still only make up about 16% of all physics faculty at universities in India, close to the disappointing global average of roughly 17%. As in many other parts of the world, there are myriad reasons for the low numbers, ranging from social pressure to prioritize families over research careers to a lack of visible role models and even sexual misconduct.

IOP Publishing, which publishes Physics World, recently held a webinar to celebrate the contributions of female physicists in India and explore the challenges they face. It featured Kaveri Hukku, chief executive of ATOS Instruments Marketing Services, Asima Pradhan from SOA University, who recently retired from the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, and Urbasi Sinha from the Raman Research Institute in Bangalore.

The webinar was organized by Shobha Shukla from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay in northern Mumbai, who co-chaired the event with Physics World editor-in-chief Matin Durrani. One of India’s leading researchers in nanophotonics and materials science, Shukla is also a member of the editorial board of IOP Publishing’s Journal of Physics: Photonics.

“We are celebrating the women who are writing history in labs, industry and lecture halls right now,” said Shukla in her opening remarks. “This celebration is not a luxury. It is a necessity. It is how we build a culture of equity and innovation.” The following is an edited summary of the webinar, which you can watch in full on the IOP Publishing website.

How has your career developed and what kind of research are you currently involved in?

Kaveri Hukku: My story is actually very simple. Growing up, I was only interested in sports and games. There was no time for studies in my life. But when adulthood came knocking on my door, my parents sat me down and said “You need to support yourself – you’re not going to do it with your table tennis”.

So with some knowledge in maths and physics, I did a BSc in physics and then a master’s. After that, I found myself at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, where I managed to do some physics research at a serious level for a couple of years. But due to many circumstances outside my control, a PhD never happened.

Just as I was trying to decide on a future course for my life, our lab bought an ellipsometer [a device that measures changes in the polarization of light after it interacts with a sample], but the firm who sold us that system couldn’t set it up. It took me a few nights, but I managed to set it up, and from that I also got a job offer with the company. That started my career with instrumentation.

Urbasi Sinha: What excited me about physics from a very early age was how it combined clarity of thought with a sense of wonder, and this is what has driven me throughout my career. I’m an experimental quantum physicist, and I have worked extensively on different aspects, whether it is quantum optics, interferometry, quantum communication, randomness, and so on.

Essentially, I have used single photons and entangled photons both for making foundational insights and for developing emerging technologies. What is so exciting about my research is that it allows one to ask very deep questions about the nature of quantum mechanics, while also building systems that may have real technological value.

A recurring theme has been to connect fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics with practical questions of trust, validation and performance. A large part of my research currently is focused on quantum communication networks; the challenge of connecting photon sources with quantum memories, entanglement swapping, building these entanglement distribution-based quantum networks as part of India’s national quantum mission.

Asima Pradhan: After completing my master’s degree in physics in India, I moved to the US to do a PhD in experimental biophotonics under the supervision of Robert Alfano at the City University of New York. Coming from a family of doctors and engineers, I’d been keen on working in biophysics and, during my PhD, I did the first fluorescent spectroscopy experiments on human tissue. I’m very proud to have been part of that pioneering work.

When I came back to India and joined IIT Kanpur, I was based in the physics department, where an interdisciplinary research culture simply did not exist

Asima Pradhan

Then I did a postdoctoral stint at the University of Montreal, Canada, where I conducted some work on photodynamic therapy, collaborating with the physics, chemistry and pathology departments. I had a really good time working in such an interdisciplinary area, but when I came back to India and joined IIT Kanpur, the scenario was very different. I was based in the physics department, where an interdisciplinary research culture simply did not exist back then.

I worked around that and started collaborations with hospitals. We conducted experiments on light-tissue interactions with polarized light. From there, we went into translational research where we actually made a device for use in hospitals. So having begun my professional journey studying particle physics and field theory, I’m now trying to be an entrepreneur. I took voluntary retirement from IIT Kanpur two years ago, but I’m still doing research as an adjunct professor at SOA University in Bhubaneswar.

What skills do you use every day in your role?

Kaveri Hukku: Our profession can be made as simple or as demanding as you want it to be. I try to maintain high technical and analytical skills because the scientists I deal with do a lot of very involved science. But they don’t always come and ask for, say, a specific camera. Instead, they will just tell me what research goal they want to achieve.

So to keep up with them, even on a very simple level, you have to know a little bit of science. You also need to be pragmatic and say if a particular instrument is not right for the experiment, and which devices would be better for their aims. Moreover, it’s a people-facing job, so you have to be able to communicate, and have integrity and honesty such that people feel in safe hands.

Urbasi Sinha: Beyond having a textbook knowledge of physics and maths, precision is very important, as are good human skills. Patience is another vital attribute to have, whether we know it or not, as is the ability to persist when progress is slow. As I’ve grown older, I’ve also realized that communicating research in a way that excites people is vital, because we want to ensure that our field thrives.

Asima Pradhan: Technical skills, such as precision optical alignment, electronics and Monte Carlo simulations, are essential. But soft skills are vital too. For example, if you want to secure funding, you need to understand the psychology of the people sitting on the other side. The same goes for conducting interdisciplinary research: it can be very difficult to convey things using terminology everybody understands.

What do you like best and least about your job?

Kaveri Hukku: What I like most is keeping in touch with physics and physicists because they still let me potter about their labs and look over the shoulders of their students to make some comment here and there. And I get to work with a lot of young people, which always keeps you young yourself. It’s very satisfying seeing young scientists now building their own labs and wanting to buy instruments from me. That part gives me great joy: in my very small way to be part of their science journey, especially women.

The thing that I really don’t like, and never have, is travelling. My job involves a lot of travelling, packing bags, airports, hotels – but it’s not my cup of tea.

Urbasi Sinha: What I enjoy most is hearing about the everyday problems of younger people in the lab and helping them troubleshoot. I also enjoy translating fundamental quantum mechanics into technology. We do a lot of that sort of work in our in the lab – in fact, we have launched a start-up company called QuSyn Tech, where we are actually building a product.

What I don’t enjoy is avoidable friction. In any academic system, there’s inevitably some friction because research can be challenging. But when there are obstacles that are institutional, administrative or bureaucratic – or when things get petty, especially with our gender – that’s what I don’t enjoy very much.

Asima Pradhan: What I enjoy most is the fact that tissue fluoresces. I always say that when you shine light on someone and if you have the right camera, we all glow. The diffuse scattering itself is, for me, still very exciting. Playing with light and tissue gives me a lot of satisfaction, especially seeing the colours on tissue due to elastic scattering and fluorescence. Now I have a device that I’m testing in hospitals, and so it gives me pure joy just to see that we can get fluorescence from a patient.

What I do not enjoy is the fact that funding is always a little limited. There are restrictions, there are over-regulations, when there should be a certain amount of freedom. Even now, after retirement, I still feel the same.

What difficulties have you faced in your career and how did you overcome those barriers?

Kaveri Hukku: I actually faced huge challenges because, when I started my career, I was pretty much the only woman who was in this field. People would wonder why a woman had come to give this product presentation and she doesn’t even have a pretty face? What is she going to get out of this?

So it was hard getting acceptance, and then there was travelling and the expectation that you would not take time off for family. It was a very warped work–life balance that I had to take on as a challenge back then, because the commercial world was – and is – cut-throat.

If you just keep at it and you believe in yourself, I think you can overcome any gender bias

Kaveri Hukku

Even now, I can still be the only woman at a meeting, but I just keep going. If you just keep at it and you believe in yourself, I think you can overcome any gender bias.

Urbasi Sinha: So far as my personal family and extended family is concerned, I have been very privileged. I don’t think I’ve had any barriers in terms of what I wanted to do. But there can be less dramatic barriers, such as being underestimated as a woman or being held to different standards, just because you are a different gender from the rest. It could even be that important decisions are shaped in informal spaces where not everyone may be included.

In the sitcom Friends, there’s this beautiful episode in which Rachel wants to be part of her office culture, but all the decisions are made out on the balcony where everyone is smoking. Rachel doesn’t smoke, but she decides to pick up smoking just to be part of the group. It’s hilarious because it’s a sitcom, but it captures the sentiment very well. Decisions are often taken in surroundings that some of us do not naturally belong to, for whatever reason.

I have definitely encountered challenges of those kinds, the underplayed ones, over the years. What has helped me most has been to stay very anchored in the science, build a very clear intellectual identity, and to remain focused on depth and originality. I also think it’s important to be well prepared, have good documentation and be willing to speak up when needed.

What has helped me most has been to stay anchored in the science, build a clear intellectual identity, and remain focused on depth and originality

Urbasi Sinha

So I think one develops both resilience and perspective that not every obstacle reflects your worth. That is very important for us to realize as women. And we should not internalize low expectations or limiting assumptions. In the long run, strong work and consistency matter a great deal.

Asima Pradhan: My father was a well-known physicist, which inspired me to study physics. But when I was doing my undergraduate degree 50 years ago, we had a class full of boys and there were only a few girls there. This is true in IIT today; you still see fewer girls.

The boys came from boys’ schools, and had not seen many girls, so they caused some disturbances. Because of this, we had to stand outside, wait for the teacher to come in and then sit in the front, and we hated it. That actually affected us to some extent, but we took it all in our stride. In contrast, during my pre-doctoral studies, we had seven girls and three boys, so that was a privilege – and, interestingly, all of us stayed in physics.

What do you know today, that you wish you knew when you were starting out in your career? And what advice do you have for other women physicists at the start of their career?

Kaveri Hukku: I wish I had known that handling money is extremely important. Whenever money is involved – whether it is in your professional life, with your siblings or with your friends – always keep finances very clear and very well-documented and then you will maintain your relationships well. Money can be like poison, but if you handle it well, you can do a hell of a lot with it. You should neither be scared of it nor give it enough power, but give it the respect it needs and figure out how you want it to be part your life.

Urbasi Sinha: We often talk about working hard, which is very important, but it’s also about what you choose to spend your time on. I have realized, as I have matured, that the choices of problems, collaborators and environment matter just as much as how hard I work.

It’s also important to build depth in your subject and not just say yes to everything. Sometimes we, as women, have a tendency not to say no. Maybe we find it a little more difficult to say no. But if we don’t, then we end up being a Jack of all trades or, in our case, a Jill of all trades, and master of none. That is something I’ve learned as I’ve grown older.

Another thing – and it’s interesting because I didn’t think this in the beginning – is that visibility does matter. The phrase “good work speaks for itself” is something we say, but then at some point it is good to communicate work as well. And Physics World, of course, is the perfect forum for this. Confidence and communication early on as a scientist are important.

My advice to young women physicists would be to invest in real expertise, to cultivate a scientific voice of your own, and not to underestimate your capacity for leadership, because you can seek out mentors, but also those who will really advocate your case.

And finally, sometimes we say: “Only when I’m completely ready, will I step forward”. But you’re never completely ready. So, step forward. Confidence will follow.

Asima Pradhan: When I came back to India from the US, I didn’t realize certain things. For example, I got a job at one place and my husband, who happens to be a physicist too, got a job somewhere else. We were very clear that, once we got back to India, we would somehow be together at some place, but that did not happen. It did not happen due to many reasons that I feel should change.

There are unwritten rules about couples not being in the same department. Some people work around such things, but it did not happen for us. We ended up working for 30 years at two different places, and only now are we together after our retirement. So the younger women need to figure out what their priorities are.

If your priorities are both family and your profession, then do not compromise too much. The next generation loses out by that. So one has to negotiate before committing. The system should also work around it. The times were different when I joined and I see change. However, it is still not enough.

• You can rewatch the IOP Publishing webinar on which this article is based at tinyurl.com/2w79m3cs.

The post How women physicists in India are breaking down barriers and shaping the future appeared first on Physics World.

The post Quiz of the week: what type of radiation travels on a photonic highway? appeared first on Physics World.

To play, click or drag one or more tiles to move them into the empty space. Repeat until you have reconstructed the image.

Image courtesy: iStock/Muhammed Zeynel Ozturk

Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.

The post Identifying maximum viscosity: a slide puzzle appeared first on Physics World.

Quantum theory is one of humanity’s great intellectual achievements, radically transforming our understanding of nature at the deepest level while delivering unprecedented technological advances. We have thus always felt it a great pity that most young people never get the opportunity to engage with the theory at a substantive level.

The solid-state physicist David Mermin, who has studied the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, once memorably wrote of quantum theory: “We now know that the Moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks”. It was a comment that certainly captures the imagination, but it is difficult to appreciate what he meant meant without engaging with the mathematics that lies behind it.

In an attempt to see if we could change that, we ran our first Quantum in Pictures programme at the University of Hertfordshire earlier this month. A five-day, in-person course, it was attended by about 45 students aged 16–18 and was built around Quantum Pictorialism – a diagrammatic approach to quantum theory pioneered by Bob Coecke from the University of Oxford and collaborators.

The crucial point is that the pictures aren’t illustrations of some more fundamental mathematics hidden underneath. The pictures are the mathematics. A rigorous graphical calculus built from spider diagrams enables students to reason directly about quantum processes. Since this diagrammatic formulation is fully equivalent to the usual Hilbert space formalism, the students were doing quantum mechanics for real.

We felt truly privileged to share the mysteries of quantum mechanics with a fantastically friendly, interested and diverse cohort from schools across south-east England. What struck me was how readily they engaged with the material: asking excellent (and sometimes rather challenging) questions, debating ideas and working collaboratively through the problem-solving sessions.

The graphical problems proved particularly popular, with repeated cries for “more spider diagrams!”. The course was deliberately ambitious, but by the end, they were able to work through the complete quantum teleportation protocol. Indeed, one student was confident enough to get up and reason through it for the whole class (something we certainly would not have dared to do at their age).

As Maya, a year-12 student from Highams Park Sixth Form in London, put it: “I really enjoyed seeing how ideas in quantum physics could be explained through simple pictures and diagrams. I was surprised that concepts like quantum teleportation, which seemed very complicated at first, could become much easier to understand through this approach. The programme has made me even more interested in studying physics and exploring quantum theory in the future.”

The approach also worked for students without a traditional mathematics or physics background, such as Andrew, a year-12 student from Sir John Lawes School in Harpenden.

“The programme was captivating,” he said. “The concept of using diagrams was innovative and explained things in a logical manner to help me understand topics such as quantum teleportation. The programme showed the stark differences between classical and quantum physics through real-world examples, enriched by talks from industry experts and pioneers with different backgrounds.”

Muhammad Hamza Waseem, who helped develop the programme and joined us on the final day, captured the atmosphere perfectly. “I found the enthusiasm, curiosity, and irreverence of the students very inspiring,” he said, “and I hope that they take the same spirit into their university education and beyond.”

That sense of joy and excitement was, for me, the lesson of the week. We’ve been thoroughly convinced that quantum theory isn’t intrinsically beyond the reach of curious 16-year-olds. We just need to give them the right mathematical language. The next step is an optional graduate-level exam, which will put that claim to the test. Watch this space.

• The authors would like to thank staff, researchers and students from the University of Hertfordshire who volunteered their time to make the programme possible. They are also grateful to Ian Loffler, Bob Coecke and Muhammad Hamza Waseem for their support and inspiring contributions.

The post Can a 16-year-old really understand quantum teleportation? appeared first on Physics World.

A new method of stabilizing radioactive molecules could open the door to sensitive searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. The approach, which involves cooling radium-bearing molecules to just above absolute zero, offers a tabletop alternative to experiments that use particle accelerators to look for violations of fundamental symmetries. According to lead researcher Nick Hutzler, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), US, it also shows that university laboratories can safely handle these radioactive materials, paving the way for similar studies at other institutions.

One of the greatest puzzles in physics is the fact that the early universe created more matter than antimatter. For decades, physicists have tried to solve this mystery (and others) by using particle accelerators to search for violations of nuclear symmetry at ever-higher energies. However, molecules that contain heavy radioactive nuclei could also act as super-sensitive sensors for symmetry violations – with the advantage that the equipment required to manipulate them generally fits in a single room, rather than an entire building.

Pear review

The basic idea is this: when electron orbitals overlap with a nucleus, the system’s atomic or molecular energy levels shift by tiny amounts that depend on the nucleus’ size and shape. Variations in nuclear structure due to symmetry-violating effects would therefore produce changes in the electron orbitals, and these changes could be measured with high-precision spectroscopy.

Asymmetric nuclei are ideal for this purpose because their lopsided shape makes small changes easier to detect. Radium, for example, has a pear-shaped nucleus, and radium-containing molecules offer additional advantages because the repulsion and attraction of neighbouring atoms further distorts the electron orbitals.

The downside is that radium is both radioactive and highly reactive, making it dangerous to handle without specialized equipment that is not present in standard university laboratories. It is also only available in extremely small quantities.

Sweet as candy

In the latest study, which is published in Science, physicists at Caltech and chemists at Johns Hopkins University and Michigan State University (all in the US) found a possible way around these obstacles. Their first step was to make radium stable and transportable. For this, they developed a process that resembles candy-making, though they do not recommend eating the results. By “caramelizing” small amounts of radium-226 in a solution of xylitol sweetener, they created a material they could transport in small quantities, keeping radioactivity levels low enough to comply with standard radiation-safety frameworks.

Next, they added their sticky radium “goo” to gold foil; installed it in a copper cryogenic cell; and cooled it to 4K using helium gas. They then used a laser to excite the radium into a chemically reactive state, allowing it to bond with targets such as hydroxide, deuteroxide and fluoride. Collisions with surrounding helium atoms further cooled these radium-bearing molecules into a mixture of only a few rotational and vibrational states. At this point, the team was finally able to perform the first-ever high-precision spectroscopic analysis of such molecules.

Opening doors

Hutzler acknowledges that several challenges remain before precision searches for symmetry violation can begin in earnest. Though theory predicts that these radium-bearing molecular species will be amenable to standard laser cooling and trapping techniques, no one has yet cooled them to ultracold temperatures. Another challenge will be to extend the process to other isotopes. Radium-225, for example, has a better nuclear shape for high-precision searches for symmetry violation, but it is also much more radioactive than radium-226, with a half-life of 15 days rather than 1600 years.

The team is also interested in studying the spectra of other radioactive species, with the aim of better understanding nuclear structure and chemistry at the extremes of the periodic table. A final possibility, Hutzler adds, would be to study other radium-containing molecules, as this would enable different precision measurements.

David DeMille, a physicist at Johns Hopkins who studies symmetry violations in atomic and molecular systems but was not involved in this research, calls it an “extremely promising way” to search for interactions that violate charge-parity (CP) symmetry. The efficiency with which the team converts solid-phase radium atoms into gas-phase molecules is a good sign, he adds, and extending the process to other radioactive molecules could help scientists understand species that have been observed astronomically.

However, DeMille points out that achieving ultracold temperatures poses additional challenges, including finding a way to release the confined molecules into a larger, much more complex experimental setup, without helium, while maintaining safe conditions. That said, he notes that the spectroscopic results are, in themselves, an important step towards reaching this ultracold regime.

The post Cold radioactive molecules offer a tabletop route to new physics appeared first on Physics World.

A new type of “photonic multi-lane highway” that can carry multiple topologically-protected optical signals at once – without the need for a bulky insulator  – has been demonstrated by researchers in China. The technology, which relies on a new type of material called a photonic valley half-semimetal to achieve topological protection, is currently at the prototype stage. However, the researchers believe that, if fabrication challenges can be addressed, the combination of spatial efficiency and topological robustness could be promising for future photonic technologies.

In the past 20 years, photonic topological insulators have become widespread for connections in devices such as on-chip photonic circuits because their edge modes can only conduct light in one direction and are therefore are inherently immune from scattering off imperfections. However, the protected edge mode of a topological insulator comes at a cost: the bulk must have an optical band gap, which means it must be opaque to the relevant frequency. Meanwhile, the photonic analogue of another concept from electronics has also become popular in optical waveguides. Gapless photonic semimetals – analogous to graphene –  can be placed between topologically distinct optical insulators to broaden the guided modes, but non-guiding insulating claddings are still required.

To address the fundamental trade-off between spatial efficiency and topological protection in conventional topological waveguides, researchers in the group of Che Ting Chan at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in China and their collaborators introduced a novel photonic structure called a photonic valley half-semimetal. Here, the valley degree of freedom refers to inequivalent local energy extrema in momentum space, which can be used as independent degrees of freedom for transport. Crucially, a single photonic valley half-semimetal plays a dual role via its two valley channels: one valley acts as a gapless semimetal that enables waveguiding, while the other functions as a topological insulator that provides a topological barrier for the corresponding valley mode in adjacent regions.

Four stacked layers

The researchers designed a waveguide comprising four stacked layers of a honeycomb structure made from interconnected rods of the magnetic material yttrium iron garnet, which interfered with the propagating photons. By altering the diameters of the rods or the magnetic field, the researchers  constructed four inequivalent photonic valley half-semimetal domains and arranged them in a specific periodic sequence. This creates adjacent domains that mutually insulate each other.

Xiaohan Cui is lead author on a paper in Nature that describes the research. She explains that the underlying topological physics is similar to that in a traditional photonic topological insulator.

“The important difference lies in how the mode is spatially implemented,” she says, “In a conventional photonic topological-insulator waveguide, two gapped bulk domains meet at an interface, and the propagating mode is tightly localized to that interface. Most of the surrounding insulating material remains inert, serving only as cladding.”

In the present configuration, however, the researchers were able to use the blocked valley as topological protection for unidirectional propagation in the neighbouring domain, and utilize this to create a four-lane highway, with two lanes in each direction, that could guide signals around sharp bends and through constrictions without backscattering or inter-lane crosstalk:

No wasted space

“The architecture transforms the usual narrow interface state into a set of directly adjacent, large-area waveguiding lanes. Consequently, no region of the device is ‘wasted’ as inert cladding,” explains Cui.

The team’s current device works for microwave radiation but the team says that the design could be adapted and extended to operate at higher frequencies.

“The present experiment is a proof of principle demonstration at microwave frequencies, so one clear next step is to move the concept towards higher-frequency, chip-scale integrated photonics platforms, thereby paving the way toward ultra-compact topological photonic circuitry,” says Cui.

The researchers believe application in the terahertz regime should be possible using magnetized semiconductors such as indium antimonide. However, non-reciprocal applications at higher frequencies could be challenging owing to the weakness of magnetic effects.

“The major experimental challenges will be to realize these higher-frequency designs while managing geometric complexity, fabrication tolerances, and propagation loss, and ensuring efficient coupling with practical sources, detectors and other photonic components,” she explains.

Quantum optician Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad of Massachusetts Institute of Technology believes the work brings an important issue into focus. “A paper doesn’t always have to have the perfect solution as long as it highlights and really streamlines a key problem…To me this paper does that,” he says. “Spatial efficiency has been a problem in topological physics and the question is why? Is there any other way to destroy this trade-off? It shouldn’t be a side problem in the supplementary material of a paper – this is a big problem.” Whether or not the researchers can make their own solution viable, he says, “time will tell”.

The post ‘Photonic multi-lane highway’ enjoys insulator-free topological protection appeared first on Physics World.

Here’s how the game works:

1. 1. Enter a word guess – in this game the word has six letters.
   2. After submitting your guess, each letter in the guessed word is coloured to provide feedback:
      • Green: The letter is correct and is in the correct position in the target word.
      • Yellow: The letter is correct but is in the wrong position in the target word.
      • Grey: The letter is not in the target word at all.
   3. Using this colour feedback, refine your next guess.
   4. Continue guessing until you correctly identify the hidden word(s) or run out of attempts.

If you want a clue to the answer, read the article here.

Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.

The post Word wave puzzle no.6 appeared first on Physics World.

 

Join us for an in‑depth conversation with Simon Cherry, former editor‑in‑chief of Physics in Medicine & Biology (PMB), as he shares his expert perspective on the evolving landscape of medical physics research, molecular imaging, and non-invasive imaging technologies. Drawing on decades of leadership in biomedical imaging and academic publishing, Simon will reflect on major advances shaping the field, define the characteristics of high‑impact imaging research, and highlight how PMB continues to support rigorous, influential scientific work through its editorial standards and peer‑review practices.

This session will additionally spotlight the research of Xinchen (Alison) Deng, a finalist of the PMB 2024 Early Career Award. Attendees will gain insights into her contributions to the advanced medical imaging community, such as photon-counting CT for clinical applications and how her work supports broader advances in medical physics and X-ray/CT imaging research.

Simon will also discuss what makes early‑career research stand out and share strategies for researchers aiming to increase the visibility, reach, and long‑term impact of their publications within competitive scientific journals.

Moderator

Carol Clark, Publisher, Physics in Medicine & Biology

Speakers

Simon R Cherry, PhD received his BSc (Hons) in physics with astronomy from University College London in 1986 and a PhD in medical physics from the Institute of Cancer Research, University of London in 1989. Simon is currently Distinguished Research Professor in the Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Radiology at UC Davis and Professor of Total-Body Imaging at King’s College London. Simon’s research interests centre around biomedical imaging. His major contributions have been in developing systems for positron emission tomography (PET), including designing the microPET scanner for small-animal imaging, the earliest examples of simultaneous PET and MRI studies and co-leading the EXPLORER consortium that developed the world’s first total-body PET scanner. Simon is a Fellow of the Royal Society and Member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Inventors. He has received several international awards including the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Cassen Prize in 2022. He served as editor-in-chief of the journal Physics in Medicine & Biology from 2011–2020. Simon is the author of more than 350 peer-reviewed journal articles, review articles and book chapters in the field of biomedical imaging. He is also lead author of the widely-used textbook Physics in Nuclear Medicine.

Xinchen (Alison) Deng, PhD, is a diagnostic imaging physics resident at The Ohio State University. Her research focuses on advancing photon-counting CT for clinical applications, including multi-contrast imaging, early disease detection, detector optimization, and AI-based improvements in image quality. Before beginning the residency, Xinchen (Alison) was a postdoctoral fellow in medical physics at the University of Victoria, where she worked with Magdalena Bazalova-Carter and collaborated with Redlen Technologies on the optimization of photon-counting detectors and the clinical applications of spectral CT. She received her PhD in medical physics from the University of British Columbia, where she applied Raman spectroscopy, machine learning, and explainable AI to study radiation treatment response in cancer cells and tissues. Her broader research background spans photon-counting CT, spectral X-ray imaging, Raman spectroscopy, radiotherapy response assessment, and AI-driven image and data analysis. Her photon-counting CT research has been featured in the Physics in Medicine & Biology Early Career Researcher Focus Collection. She is a finalist for the PMB Early Career Researcher Award.

About this journal

Physics in Medicine & Biology. The international journal of biomedical physics and engineering, published by IOP Publishing on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM)

Editor-in-chief: Katia Parodi, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany

 

 

The post Shaping the field of medical imaging: a fireside chat with Simon R Cherry and Xinchen Deng appeared first on Physics World.

German technology start-up Akhetonics is reimagining the future of high-performance computing (HPC), deploying its proprietary know-how in photonic-design automation and photonic integrated circuits (PICs) to realize the first all-optical digital computation devices. The end-game: an all-optical digital processor – what Akhetonics calls its reasoning processing unit (RPU) – that will fundamentally transform the way that data is processed, transmitted and stored at every level of the HPC stack.

While the anticipated upsides of photonic computing are compelling – think bandwidth scaling, energy-efficiency and reduced latency – the translation of Akhetonics’ R&D effort and early-stage PIC designs into at-scale implementation is still in its infancy. What’s evident even now, though, is that the start-up’s progress is being accelerated by collaboration, interdisciplinary expertise and innovation spanning photonic system design and precision-motion and control technologies.

Collaboration, co-development, customization

A case study in this regard is Akhetonics’ partnership with SmarAct, a German manufacturer and developer of specialist products for nano- and picometre-precise positioning, metrology and automated assembly. Both companies are shaping the future of photonics, albeit along complementary tracks: Akhetonics with its vision of a full-stack photonic computing architecture; SmarAct with a portfolio of enabling technologies that’s helping to make next-generation optical computing a practical proposition.

The two vendors began working together after an initial meeting four years ago at the European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC 22) in Basel, Switzerland. Top of the Akhetonics shopping list: a versatile optical test system to characterize its advanced PICs.

“There are off-the-shelf PIC characterization systems on the market, but they all impose constraints on our design options,” explains Leonardo Del Bino, co-founder and chief technology officer (CTO) at Akhetonics. “Instead, we teamed up with SmarAct to co-develop a compact and modular test architecture built to our exacting specifications. The resulting set-up gives us the flexibility to evaluate and optimize all sorts of innovative PIC designs.”

At the heart of the Akhetonics optical testing workstation sit two discrete nanopositioning subsystems: an XY-Rz chip platform (itself comprising three nanopositioning stages offering horizontal translation along the X and Y axes and rotation limited to the Z axis) and a Z-Rx-Ry “pivot” for an optical probe (where translation occurs only along the Z axis, with simultaneous angular rotation around the X and Y axes). The test set-up (which also incorporates a digital microscope for PIC inspection and alignment) can be used without restriction in every degree of freedom, with the two subsystems working in tandem to ensure precise multi-axis positioning for optical coupling and electro-optic characterization tasks.

On a more granular level, each nanopositioning subsystem is based on SmarAct positioners equipped with integrated optical encoders (SmarAct’s METIRIO® sensors with a resolution of 1 nm) along all six axes of motion. The first subsystem provides three degrees of freedom for lateral alignment (with 49 mm travel in both X and Y, 360° rotation around Rz and a unidirectional positional repeatability of ±40 nm per linear axis). The second subsystem provides vertical and angular alignment (with 31 mm travel in Z, ±5° tilt around Ry, ±45° rotation around Rz and a unidirectional positional repeatability of ±40 nm for the linear Z axis).

To evaluate new PIC designs, Akhetonics’ optical test routines focus primarily on measuring and minimizing insertion losses between input/output fibres and on-chip planar waveguides. Typical measurements include wavelength- and polarization-dependent coupling losses (for example, when a fibre array couples laser light into a series of on-chip grating couplers or when light is coupled from a planar waveguide back into an optical fibre). The subsequent integration of electrical probes into the test system (using two separate XYZ probe towers) supports electro-optic characterization of key on-chip building blocks like optical modulators and photodetectors.

“The requirements for the electro-optical testing are nothing crazy,” says Del Bino. On-chip electrical contacts are in the ballpark of 100 μm x 100 μm, so Akhetonics engineers need positional and alignment precision an order-of-magnitude better than that for their electrical probes. “On-chip optical testing is a different story,” he adds. “A fibre-waveguide mismatch of 1 μm means significant coupling losses, so we need positional accuracy and repeatability of tens of nm or less.”

The rewards of reciprocity

Operationally, the custom test system is the result of ongoing collaboration between the engineering team at Akhetonics and the product development team at SmarAct. After firming up performance requirements, the two vendors iterated back-and-forth with 3D CAD drawings before converging on a final agreed system design.

“We supplied the nanopositioning stages that form the precision-motion core of the workstation,” explains Max Trippel, SmarAct’s business development manager for photonic applications. Akhetonics then integrated these modules into its own test environment, including the fibre and fibre-array-unit holders; the required optical and electrical measurement equipment; and the software routines for photonic characterization. “This approach gives Akhetonics the flexibility to build exactly the test workflow it needs, while relying on a stable and repeatable positioning platform,” Trippel adds.

Crucially, the SmarAct software “ecosystem” and Python interface make it easy to integrate the nanopositioning stages within Akhetonics’ PIC test routines. That software application platform, known as the SmarAct Control and Process Environment (SCoPE), also creates opportunities for continuous process improvement and product innovation (for example, the ability to develop custom routines for fast calibration and alignment on all axes).

In this way, SCoPE will be a natural fit as Akhetonics transitions its PIC testing programme from an R&D setting through small-batch production runs and, ultimately, to volume manufacturing capability (see “SCoPE in brief”, below). “Our goal with SCoPE is to provide customers with easy access for system development, whether that’s for the testing or assembly of photonic components,” says Trippel. “SCoPE is a living platform and we’re constantly integrating novel functionalities and application-specific plug-ins as well as features to facilitate control of third-party devices.”

Strategically, the SmarAct-Akhetonics partnership is shaping up as a win-win for the long term, with the latter’s growth trajectory and evolving platform technologies feeding into SmarAct’s product development roadmap. “Our customers’ success is our success,” Trippel concludes. “Working in this way with Akhetonics and its peers means we have line-of-sight on ‘what’s next’ in photonic computing. Watch this space: the last word has not been spoken.”

The post Nanopositioning, customization and control: opening new frontiers in optical computing appeared first on Physics World.

I am writing from Argentina as a researcher working within the country’s national scientific system. While discussions about science funding are often framed in terms of budgets and economic indicators, the reality is experienced in laboratories, offices and research facilities where scientific knowledge is produced.

Today, many of us in Argentina are witnessing a progressive deterioration of Argentine science, both in terms of infrastructure and human capital.

I am based at the Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA), where uncertainty has become routine. Hundreds of employees remain on temporary contracts that can be terminated without warning. On 1 July 2026, a total of 61 colleagues lost their jobs, with armed military police officers occupying the building to contain a peaceful employee protest. Beyond the immediate human cost, these dismissals are steadily dismantling scientific capabilities that have taken decades to build.

The impact became tangible when my colleague Paula Alderete, an experienced electron microscope specialist, lost her position. Alderete, who has published two papers with me, was responsible not only for operating a highly specialized instrument, but also for maintaining it and supporting dozens of research projects.

Without Paula Alderete’s expertise, our lab’s electron microscope has become largely unusable. It is a quiet reminder that scientific infrastructure depends as much on people as on expensive equipment.

Faramarz S Gard

Without her expertise, the microscope has become largely unusable. Every morning I pass her empty desk on my way to the laboratory. It has become a quiet reminder that scientific infrastructure depends as much on people as on expensive equipment.

The deterioration extends beyond personnel. In my laboratory, an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) instrument worth more than $1m must sometimes be protected with plastic sheets because rainwater leaks through the roof.

Equipment designed to operate under tightly controlled environmental conditions is now exposed to circumstances that threaten its long-term reliability. Similar situations are becoming increasingly common across Argentina’s universities and research institutes as maintenance budgets shrink and infrastructure ages.

Argentina has a scientific tradition that reaches far beyond its borders. The country has produced five Nobel laureates, including three in the sciences, and has made internationally recognized contributions to nuclear technology, medicine, agriculture, astronomy and materials science. Institutions such as CNEA, CONICET (Argentina’s national research council) and the national universities have trained generations of researchers whose work has strengthened international collaborations and advanced scientific knowledge worldwide.

Scientific systems rarely collapse through a single dramatic event. They decline incrementally: one technician dismissed, one laboratory left unrepaired, one instrument taken out of service, one young scientist deciding to build a career elsewhere. These individual losses accumulate into a weakening of scientific capacity that may take decades to rebuild.

When a country loses the expertise required to operate advanced laboratories or maintain unique scientific infrastructure, the consequences extend beyond national borders.

Faramarz S Gard

This should concern more than Argentina. Modern science depends on international networks of researchers, shared facilities and long-term collaboration. When a country loses the expertise required to operate advanced laboratories or maintain unique scientific infrastructure, the consequences extend beyond national borders.

Knowledge is lost, collaborations weaken, and opportunities for discovery diminish.scientific infrastructure is more than buildings and instruments; it is the people whose expertise gives those resources value. Once that expertise disappears, replacing it is far more difficult than preserving it.

The empty desk of a single scientist may seem insignificant, but multiplied across laboratories and institutions, it becomes a warning of how a research system is quietly dismantled. Argentina’s experience is therefore not only a national concern but also a reminder that scientific capacity, wherever it exists, is a global resource that is remarkably difficult to rebuild once lost.

I write this letter not only to describe a difficult situation but also to call attention to the broader consequences of sustained disinvestment in science. The international scientific community should recognize that the erosion of research systems in countries such as Argentina represents a loss not only for those nations but for global science itself.

Science is built by people, sustained by institutions, and enabled by infrastructure. Today, all three are under increasing strain in Argentina.

The post Letter from Argentina: ‘an empty desk and an idle electron microscope signal the erosion of the country’s science’ appeared first on Physics World.

To play, click or drag one or more tiles to move them into the empty space. Repeat until you have reconstructed the image.

Image courtesy: iStock/vasantytf; iStock/extravagantni

Fancy some more? Check out our puzzles page.

The post The science of being ‘cultured’: a slide puzzle appeared first on Physics World.

As I was strolling through Belfast’s Titanic Quarter last summer, I discovered with delight a road called Bell’s Theorem Crescent. It’s named in honour of the Belfast-born physicist John Bell, best known for his eponymous theorem. Despite not being as embedded in popular culture as Schrödinger’s cat, his theorem will certainly ring a bell (forgive the pun) with most physicists.

The story goes back to 1935 when Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) came up with their now-famous thought experiment, which was designed to show that quantum mechanics was, as a description of nature, incomplete. In the EPR scenario, non-local influences can affect the measurement outcomes performed on spatially separated particles.

Given how odd that seemed, some physicists invoked what are known as “hidden variables” to get rid of these non-local correlations and restore local realism. It was in 1964, while working at the CERN particle-physics lab, that Bell showed that no local hidden-variable theory can be compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

This result – Bell’s theorem – is something I was familiar with but I had paid little attention to where it had originally appeared. As I discovered, it was published in a paper called “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox” in the journal Physics (3 195) in 1964. Also known as Physics Physique Физика, this little-known publication existed only from 1964 to 1968. In fact, Bell’s theorem is the most important result published in it.

The journal was set up by two physicists at Bell Laboratories in the US – Bernd Matthias and future Nobel laureate Philip Anderson. According to A Mind Over Matter – Andrew Zangwill’s 2021 biography of Anderson – they were not too happy with conventional physics journals. “The referees,” Anderson said, “often did a bad job, the editors took too long to make decisions, and too much wrong physics got published.”

Those are complaints you’ll still hear in coffee breaks at most physics conferences today, and they prompted Matthias to contact the media magnate Robert Maxwell, who’d founded Oxford-based publishing house Pergamon Press. Maxwell had figured out that scientific publishing could be a very lucrative business so he helped the two physicists to set up the journal.

A publishing experiment

In their first editorial, Anderson and Matthias called Physics an “experimental journal”, which they hoped would solve the problem of there being “far more good physics written than any physicist can read”. Their solution was to pick only those papers worth the attention of all physicists, which the editors did by reviewing – then accepting or rejecting – every submission themselves. They even paid authors 10 cents a word if their paper appeared in print.

Anderson and Matthias admitted that many physicists had already written to them, criticizing their proposed selection model. They’d been told that their “judgements will be fallible”, that they might be “overimpressed by showiness”, and that they’d end up rejecting excellent work. In response, the pair promised to try their best, accepting they would make mistakes and that their “criteria will be, not better, but different”.

The journal’s criteria clearly succeeded, in that Anderson and Matthias identified the merits of Bell’s paper, which was far from mainstream

These criteria clearly succeeded, in that they identified the merits of Bell’s paper, which was far from mainstream. Keen to find out more about the events surrounding its publication, I contacted Zangwill, who had interviewed Anderson several times for his book. Zangwill shared the following quote, published here for the first time.

“One day,” Anderson recalled, “a paper came in from a guy neither of us had heard of – John Bell. It was about hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Bernd had no clue, but I accepted it with the hope that its publication would spell the death of Bohmian trajectory quantum mechanics. It’s a very famous paper today.”

In 1967 the quantum physicist John Clauser found Bell’s paper after stumbling upon Physics Physique Физика, attracted by its unusual title. Clauser, who shared the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, carried out the first Bell test in 1972 with Stuart Friedmann. Their work triggered a long series of experiments that would deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics and catalyse the development of quantum technologies.

Over its short life, Physics did publish work from other notable physicists including Murray Gell-Mann, Leonard Susskind and Leo Kadanoff. In fact, the journal was ahead of its time, with the model of in-house editorial selection for broad interest returning in the 2000s with the Nature series of journals. The inclusive, multi-language title was also well ahead of its day.

Sadly, Physics Physique Физика was discontinued in 1968 after just three volumes

Sadly, Physics Physique Физика was discontinued in 1968 after just three volumes. According to what Anderson told Zangwill, it stopped “not because it lacked submissions, but because they had promised contributors rapid publication and Maxwell kept increasing the time between the appearances of successive issues”. Maxwell’s aggressive pursuit of profit might also have played a role.

The journal has since been archived by the American Physical Society and is freely accessible online. One can only wonder what might have happened if Anderson and Matthias had picked a different name for their journal.

The post John Bell and the most obscure journal in physics appeared first on Physics World.

 

Environmental Research: Climate was launched in 2022, with the aim of uniting multidisciplinary communities. With a scope that is intentionally broad, the mission of the journal is to publish innovative research examining the causes, consequences, and solutions of climate variability and change. Since our launch, we have published more than 270 articles covering physical and biogeochemical processes that shape Earth’s climate across spatial and temporal scales; the human and ecological dimensions that shape climate-related risks and impacts; and the design, analysis and evaluation of climate mitigation, adaptation, and risk-management strategies and solutions. This webinar will explore the current state of climate research, including changes in the field over the last five years since the launch of the journal, and direct us toward the future.

Moderator: Noah Diffenbaugh, Stanford University
Noah Diffenbaugh is the William Wrigley Professor and Kimmelman Family Senior Fellow in Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability, and the Olivier Nomellini Family University Fellow in Undergraduate Education. His research is focused on understanding what aspects of the climate system most directly and acutely impact people and ecosystems. Noah has served as a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and as editor-in-chief of the peer-review journals Geophysical Research Letters and Environmental Research: Climate. He has provided testimony and scientific expertise to federal, state and local officials. Noah is an elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), a recipient of the James R. Holton Award and William Kaula Award from the AGU, and has been recognized as a Kavli Fellow by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Katharine Mach, University of Miami
Katharine Mach is professor and chair of the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, & Earth Science. During spring 2025, she was the Coleman P. Burke Distinguished Visiting Professor at the Yale School of Environment. Her research assesses climate-related risks and response options to address increased flooding, extreme heat, wildfire and other hazards. Through innovative approaches to integrating evidence, she informs effective adaptations to the risks.

Katharine was the 2020 recipient of the Piers Sellers Prize for world-leading contribution to solution-focused climate research. She has served as a chapter author or lead in the Fourth through Sixth US National Climate Assessments and the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report and as a member of the National Academies Climate Security Roundtable. She serves as co-editor-in-chief for Climate Risk Management, an editorial board member for Oxford Open Climate Change and Environmental Research: Climate, and an advisory committee member for the Aspen Global Change Institute. Across all of her research projects, she engages in relevant policy processes and explores and discusses climate risk and adaptation with the media, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations and communities.

Andrew Pershing, Climate Central
As chief programme officer, Andrew Pershing, PhD, leads Climate Central’s climate science activity. His role includes bridging primary research and media analysis to amplify critical work on climate change and climate impacts and make it accessible to audiences around the world. As the director of attribution science and climate fingerprinting, Andrew is developing tools like the Climate Shift Index to quantify how climate change has increased the likelihood or severity of conditions in the atmosphere and ocean. He works closely with communications experts at Climate Central and our partners to help the media and others to incorporate this information into their content.

Andrew has led interdisciplinary research teams to study the impact of global warming on marine ecosystems in the northwest Atlantic. More recently, his work has focused on how climate trends interact with decisions that people make and on how marine ecosystems store and process carbon. As a communicator, Andrew has deep experience working with journalists to present climate science on air and in print.

Inês Azevedo, Stanford University
Inês M Lima Azevedo is a professor in the Energy Science & Engineering department at Stanford University. She is a senior fellow at both Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and for Precourt Institute for Energy. She has a BSc in environmental engineering (2004) and a MSc in engineering policy and management of technology from IST-Portugal, and a PhD in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University (2009). Inês is passionate about solving problems that include environmental, technical, economic and policy issues, where traditional engineering approaches play an important role but cannot provide a complete answer. In particular, she is interested in assessing how energy systems are likely to evolve, which requires comprehensive knowledge of the technologies that can address future energy needs and the decision-making process followed by various agents in the economy.

About this journal

Environmental Research: Climate explores the causes, consequences, and solutions of climate variability and change, by uniting research communities across the entire spectrum of the climate system.

Editor-in-chief: Noah Diffenbaugh Stanford University, USA

 

The post Environmental Research: Climate, fireside chat appeared first on Physics World.

Sugars are a vital ingredient in the recipe for life, responsible for a range of biological processes and a key component of nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA. The question of how these essential biomolecules were produced on primitive Earth is a pressing concern for origin-of-life researchers, with laboratory experiments suggesting that primordial conditions would not yield sufficient quantities.

In a study led by Izaskun Jiménez-Serra at the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB, CSIC-INTA) in Spain, researchers have observed a four-carbon sugar, erythrulose, in the interstellar medium for the first time. Such sugar could have contributed to the resources available for early biological processes, providing insight into how life began on Earth.

Sugars in space

Based on studies of asteroid samples, researchers suggest that key building blocks for life may have had an extraterrestrial origin. Previous analysis of samples from the asteroid Bennu has demonstrated the presence of the sugar glucose, a primary energy source for biological processes, and ribose, a sugar that contributes to the development of nucleic acids.

The idea is that meteorites and comets containing these important chemical components impacted Earth and contributed to the resources available to develop life. This latest research looks backwards in this process to question whether these molecules may have formed in the clouds of dust and gas that parent these astronomical bodies.

Detailed in Nature Astronomy, this first observation of sugar in the interstellar medium suggests that the ingredients for life may indeed form in dust clouds as previously proposed.

Detecting erythrulose

To detect these molecules, Jiménez-Serra and colleagues used the Yebes 40 m and IRAM 30 m telescopes in Spain. Ultrasensitive, broadband spectral surveys allowed them to identify the signature of erythrulose inside G+0.693−0.027, a cloud of gas close to the centre of the Milky Way.

The team had to overcome various challenges, including the spectral signatures of different molecules overlapping and blending into one another. To ensure the validity of their observations, they identified over 180 molecular species to better understand any possible interference with the emission of erythrulose. This extensive characterization allowed the researchers to obtain very high levels of confidence in their observations, they say.

The team also analysed how the erythrulose may have been formed in the extreme low temperatures and vacuum conditions of interstellar space. The abundance of erythrulose is eight times that of three-carbon sugars which are currently undetected by these incredibly sensitive observations. This led the team to model the formation of erythrulose from simpler and more readily available two-carbon aldehydes and alcohols – a process that occurs on the surface of grains of dust in space, with the potential to then contribute to chemical systems on Earth.

Extraterrestrial building blocks

On Earth, erythrulose is found in fruits such as melons and raspberries. In aqueous environments, such as bodies of water on Earth, erythrulose easily changes its configuration into the sugar threose. Similar to ribose in RNA, threose appears in threose nucleic acid (TNA). One of the simplest nucleic acids, TNA may be one of the first involved in the early development of life.

According to Jiménez-Serra: “The discovery of erythrulose in the interstellar medium opens up the possibility for these key organic compounds to form in other molecular clouds in the Galaxy where stars and planets are forming”.

The team’s future plans include searching for larger sugars such as the five-carbon ribose found in RNA. “By combining astronomical observations with laboratory experiments and theoretical calculations, we will explore the chemistry of these sugars and of their related compounds, which could have played a key role in the origin of life,” shared Jiménez-Serra.

The work is being completed as part of the ERC consolidator grant OPENS. This highly interdisciplinary project draws from a range of research methods and scientific fields to approach the question of how life begun on earth. By continuing this research, the team hopes to learn more about the very earliest stage of our journey on this planet.

The post Scientists discover sugar in interstellar space appeared first on Physics World.

What happens when a cosmologist points their tools at the dinner plate instead of the night sky? One person who has done just that is Sarah Bridle, who studied natural sciences at the University of Cambridge in the UK and then stayed on to do a PhD in cosmology, graduating in 2000. Having spent two decades mapping dark matter and building large collaborations around open data, Bridle is now chair in food, climate and society at the University of York, applying that same quantitative, physics based mindset to food.

Food manufacturing is a huge sector: in the UK, it employs 400,000 people and contributes £28bn to the economy. Physics underpins much in the field – everything from productivity, food safety and food security to health and nutrition, waste reduction and environmental impact. Bridle talks to Gleb Yakubov, a food physicist at the University of Leeds, about what inspired their switch from cosmology to food physics and tips for those looking to follow suit. Yakubov is a committee member of the food physics group of the Institute of Physics (IOP), which bridges industry and academia, raises the profile of physics in food, and represents the community to policymakers.

What attracted you to food physics?

It began when I heard that the late David MacKay, who was working at the University of Cambridge, was ill. He worked on error-correction codes, education and artificial intelligence, before pivoting to sustainability and became chief scientific adviser to the UK energy department. I started thinking hard about why we do what we do, and what would happen without him doing the fantastic work he led on energy and climate.

I began watching his talks and learning about climate change – something I hadn’t really engaged with while immersed in astrophysics. In one of his penultimate presentations, he highlighted food as having huge potential to influence climate change through diets and how we produce food. From that moment on I wanted to understand this area – it was compelling, timely and I got obsessed.

You’ve called land use the “dark matter” of climate solutions – what do you mean by this?

Most people aren’t aware that food is responsible for up to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions and, in the UK, about 70% of land is used for agriculture. Many climate solutions involve land – forests for sequestration, biofuels, solar – and people often say “we can’t spare land, we need it for food”. But the way we use land for food can be extremely inefficient, which blocks those climate solutions. That’s a huge, underappreciated lever. 

When you started working in food, what surprised you most?

As a data geek, I expected it to be all about technical solutions but what surprised me was how dominant social and cultural factors are too. You see versions of the so-called “Jevons paradox”: introduce an efficient technology and people just use more of it, cancelling the gains. Unless, that is, you pair it with social and cultural change. Food systems aren’t just complicated; they’re a complex mix of people, incentives, norms and feedback loops.

How did you shift that approach, given that people don’t always behave rationally?

I don’t think people are random; they just use different decision criteria than many models assume. For example, if you raise the price of meat to reduce consumption, some people may see it as more of a luxury and desire it more. You can get perverse responses unless you understand the social context. On top of that, my recent work looks at the potential for civil unrest and even societal collapse – uncertainties we wouldn’t have anticipated five years ago. It pushes us to combine quantitative modelling with deeper social insight.

Can you share an example where astrophysics tools didn’t work in a food context?

Early on I tried to repurpose multispectral satellite-imaging techniques to detect blackgrass in UK wheat fields. Blackgrass is a serious weed that hits yields and this felt like a neat transfer – I’d been analysing astronomical imaging, so why not fields? But it turned out to be too difficult with satellite data alone. Variables like soil moisture, rockiness and other field conditions confounded the signals. That experience nudged me away from a pure imaging approach toward broader system modelling – and, later, back to data with more contextual integration.

Tell us about your “future food calculator”?

About five years ago we started building a quantitative model of the food system to compare interventions on a common footing: on-farm practices such as fertiliser, irrigation, crop management; consumer dietary shifts; and land-use choices. We turned it into a web-based dashboard inspired by MacKay’s energy calculator. Users can move sliders, explore UK production and consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, self-sufficiency and land use, and ask, “Do these choices get us to net zero, and with what trade-offs?”

How do you handle the “people” side – demographics and messaging – in such models and outreach?

You have to meet people where they are. Older generations, on average, are more focused on health than climate. Children and younger people tend to feel invincible about health but are very concerned about climate. If you’re trying to encourage dietary change, those differences matter for messaging and for assumptions in models.

What have you learned about information versus behaviour change?

From obesity research we know that giving people information often doesn’t change behaviour. But it does increase receptiveness to policy. You couldn’t have a sugary drinks tax without enough people accepting that sugary drinks contribute to type 2 diabetes and put pressure on the National Health Service.

I think the same is true for climate and food: we need systemic changes that make sustainable choices easy by default, and public understanding helps make those changes legitimate. Reformulation and choice architecture are good examples – you can reduce beef content in a lasagne by adding pulses, or put low-impact options first in canteens. Many people won’t even notice, but outcomes improve.

While space has an intrinsic “wow” factor, how do you create that for the food industry?

For many people there’s a complete disconnect between food and how it’s produced. Experience helps more than pictures so community garden projects, for example, let people see how hard it is to grow food and how weather drives yields. That fosters respect for food, reduces waste, increases interest in the natural world and builds practical resilience.

You’ve also advised on environmental labelling – what should a good label do?

People already face a lot of labels, and shopping may not be when they’re most receptive. Studies show labels don’t shift individual purchasing as much as you might expect. But labels do change production. In pilot programmes, adding climate labels led operators to change what they offered once they saw the differences. In Canada, when authorities announced a tighter threshold for “red” sugar labels, manufacturers reformulated to avoid red. So the big impact is upstream – on what gets produced.

What’s inside the “digital twin” of UK food you’re building and what can it tell policymakers?

We take UK production and consumption, feed use and losses, and then we test interventions and see how they affect greenhouse-gas emissions and self-sufficiency. An example is soil carbon management practices such as how to reduce tillage – the mechanical manipulation of soil to prepare seedbeds – manage crop residues and control weeds. Another is dietary and consumer preference shifts, such as reducing red meat consumption. The twin helps interrogate trade-offs and unintended consequences, and assess whether a bundle of changes can hit net-zero targets while maintaining resilience.

Herbicides like glyphosate illustrate those trade-offs. How do you manage that complexity?

Exactly. No-till – an agricultural technique that plants crops without disturbing the soil through traditional ploughing or tilling – can reduce emissions but may increase reliance on herbicides if weed pressure rises. The point is to quantify those interactions at the system level and compare pathways transparently, rather than assuming any single intervention is universally better in isolation.

How do the field’s data practices compare with astrophysics – and what would you change tomorrow?

Food physics feels like astrophysics did 20–30 years ago. In astrophysics today everybody codes, collaborations are large and data and code are open. When we released Python code on GitHub for food-system models and invited contributions, basically no-one engaged because the skills weren’t there. Many models live in Excel rather than in transparent, version-controlled code.

We need standards, shared datasets, open code and co-ordinated efforts

Sarah Bridle

Even at the policy interface there are gaps: you might get a major report with spreadsheets but not the underlying code or assumptions, which we then have to reverse-engineer. With a problem as urgent as climate change, that level of opacity isn’t defensible. We need standards, shared datasets, open code and co-ordinated efforts.

What advice do you have for physicists or mathematicians who want to follow in your footsteps?

Quantitative modelling, open-source practices and Python-based tooling are highly sought after right now. Help build transparent models and shared datasets, and join or create collaborative efforts that mirror modern astrophysics consortia. Also, find your people. The best advice I got was to “adopt your own mentors”. I worked with a career coach and asked people for 30-minute calls. Many were lukewarm, but a few were transformative and became long-term collaborators. It was painful but made all the difference.

What is a concrete step someone could take now?

One is to bring open-science habits to food-system work: publish code and assumptions, contribute quantitative skills to cross-disciplinary teams, help build shared datasets and reproducible models, and translate findings into accessible tools – like interactive calculators – for policymakers and the public.

What motivates you now?

My motivation is about doing what I can to help with the crisis we’re walking into. It’s a way to channel worries about the future into practical improvements.

Looking a decade ahead, what would success look like for the UK food system?

Success would mean that UK production and consumption are aligned with net-zero targets and that land is used more efficiently so other climate solutions can scale. Through product reformulation and choice, I hope we can make low-impact diets easy by default. I also hope that self-sufficiency and resilience improve – and that open, quantitative modelling with transparent code and assumptions is embedded in policymaking.

The post From galaxies to groceries: how Sarah Bridle made the switch from cosmology to food appeared first on Physics World.