Tag Archives: University of Surrey

BBC’s (British Broadcasting Corporation) Zoe Kleinman poses a provocative question: Will quantum be bigger than AI?

Leave a reply

Zoe Kleinman’s November 5, 2025 article for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) explores two technologies that have people excited in both the positive and the negative senses, Note: Links have been removed,

There’s an old adage among tech journalists like me – you can either explain quantum accurately, or in a way that people understand, but you can’t do both [emphasis mine].

That’s because quantum mechanics – a strange and partly theoretical branch of physics – is a fiendishly difficult concept to get your head around.

It involves tiny particles behaving in weird ways. And this odd activity has opened up the potential of a whole new world of scientific super power.

Its mind-boggling complexity is probably a factor in why quantum has ended up with a lower profile than tech’s current rockstar – artificial intelligence (AI).

This is despite a steady stream of recent big quantum announcements from tech giants like Microsoft and Google among others.

Broadly speaking, we tend to think about quantum more commonly in the form of hardware like sensors and computers, while AI is more software-based – it requires hardware to operate.

Put them together, and we might one day have a new form of technology that’s more powerful than anything we have ever created… although the word “might” is doing some heavy lifting in that particular prediction, warns Brian Hopkins, VP and principal analyst in emerging tech at research firm Forresters.

“The potential is there, but the jury is still out,” he says.

“Initial experiments suggest promise, but they all indicate that we require much more powerful quantum computers and further innovative research to effectively apply quantum effects to AI.”

In terms of their value, both are lucrative. The quantum sector could be worth up to $97bn (£74bn) by 2035, according to market research group McKinsey.

Meanwhile, AI’s value is forecast in the trillions. But they both live under the shadow of hype and the bursting of bubbles.

…

Nicely done Ms. Kleinman. It took me to long to see it but thank you for applying the uncertainty principle to science communication “… you can either explain quantum accurately, or in a way that people understand, but you can’t do both.”

Quantum bling

This passage describing a quantum computer was compelling since I have never seen one before, from Kleinman’s November 5, 2025 article, Note: A link has been removed,

…

Quantum and AI have one more thing in common – errors. While we are largely familiar now with the “hallucinations” of generative AI tools, quantum is plagued by a different kind of error.

These are caused because the state in which the particles have to operate is so fragile. The slightest change to the environment, including light and noise, can disrupt them.

It’s tricky to sustain such an environment. This week Elon Musk suggested on X that quantum computing would run best on the “permanently shadowed craters of the moon”.

Quantum computers don’t look anything like a traditional machines. There is no design blueprint, but they are currently very big.

They exist in laboratories, and the most commonly adopted format seems to include a kind of jellyfish-inspired shape.[emphasis mine].

They require extremely cold temperatures and lasers. It’s not the sort of thing you’re likely to have in your home, let alone in your pocket.

They’re also a bit bling – researchers have found that using synthetic diamonds [emphasis mine] to create qubits, which are the building blocks of quantum computers, enables them to work much closer to room temperature.

The luxury jeweller De Beers [emphasis mine] has a subsidiary company called Element Six, which claims to have launched the world’s first general-purpose quantum-grade diamond in 2020. And it has worked with Amazon Web Services on optimising artificial diamonds for future networks of quantum machines.

…

Quantum could be good for us

Kleinman reviews some of the quantum computing promises, from her November 5, 2025 article, Note: A link has been removed,

…

“The area of quantum computing is, in my mind, when you look at the applications, as big if not bigger than AI.”

Prof Sir Peter Knight is one of the UK’s top quantum experts. “Things that could take the age of the universe to calculate, even on the most powerful supercomputer, could be performed probably in seconds,” he told Dr Dr [sic]Jim Al-Khalili on BBC Radio 4’s The Life Scientific.

So what exactly are these gigantic, life-changing things that the machines might do once they’re ready?

As with AI, there’s a lot of quantum research directed towards improving healthcare.

Quantum computers could one day be able to effortlessly churn through endless combinations of molecules to come up with new drugs and medications – a process that currently takes years and years using classical computers.

To give you an idea of that scale – in December 2024, Google unveiled a new quantum chip called Willow, which it claimed could take five minutes to solve a problem that would currently take the world’s fastest super computers 10 septillion years – or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years – to complete.

Hazra [Rajeeb Hazra, the boss of Quantinuum] says this could pave the way for personalised medication, where instead of getting a standard prescription, you get a specific drug tailormade for your individual body, that’s most likely to work for you.

And that applies to wider chemical processes too, such as new ways to produce fertilizers more efficiently, potentially a huge boost for global farmers.

Quantum sensors, which use the principles of quantum mechanics to measure things incredibly precisely, already exist and are found in atomic clocks.

In 2019, scientists at Nottingham University put them in a prototype device the size of a bike helmet, and used them in a new system to conduct non-intrusive brain scans on children with conditions such as epilepsy.

…

Trouble ahead?

Kleinman’s November 5, 2025 article examines one of the potential problems,

It is widely accepted that current forms of encryption – the way in which we store both personal data and official secrets – will one day be busted by quantum technology being able to churn through every single possible combination in record time, until the data becomes unscrambled.

Nations are known to be already stealing encrypted data from each other with a view to being able to decode it one day.

“It’s called harvest now, decrypt later,” says Prof Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert from Surrey University [University of Surrey].

“The theory of how to break current forms of public key encryption await a truly operational quantum computer,” he adds.

“The threat is so high that it’s assumed everyone needs to introduce quantum-resistant encryption now.”

The moment a such a computer exists is sometimes referred to as Q-day. Estimates of when it might arrive vary, but Brian Hopkins at Forrester says it could be soon – around the year 2030.

Companies like Apple and the secure messaging platform Signal have already rolled out what they believe to be post-quantum encryption keys, but they cannot be applied retrospectively to current data encrypted in the traditional way.

…

If you have time, I recommend reading Kleinman’s November 5, 2025 article in its entirety.

What about our current level of privacy?

Valerie Fortney’s February 26, 2026 article for the National Post, “It’s the end of personal privacy. ‘There’s nowhere to hide anymore'”

By the time the Class of 2026 convenes this spring, the world will already know all sorts of personal details about these mostly 25-and-under university and college grads, things no one would have even thought to ask about the generations that preceded them.

Parents began trumpeting their arrivals on social media beginning in 2004, with baby steps and kindergarten performances chronicled on Facebook and, later, Instagram. Security cameras captured their first toddle into a grocery store. Today, they, and the rest of us, can be photographed and videoed without consent or even knowledge, from any one of the more than 12 million CCTV cameras or 30 million smartphones in use in Canada.

Some were introduced to computers and cellphones even before grade school, and it didn’t take long before they strapped on smart watches and logged on to social media. Even then, those convenient devices were collecting not just data but creating the start of full profiles — sometimes “anonymized,” sometimes not — for marketing and other purposes.

Even in the privacy of home, smart fridges were collecting data about the entire family’s eating routines, while smart TVs in living rooms “watched” them, tracking and cataloguing viewing habits. Today, Alexa listens in.

When those fresh-faced graduates apply for that first big job out of school, the odds are their prospective employers will have sifted through everything from social posts to search engines and even online gaming sites. And if you somehow stayed off-line and have no digital footprint at all? That could raise suspicion that you have something to hide.

In short, forget about personal privacy, everyone; it ain’t what it used to be. But do we still care? Should we?

…

Fortney’s February 26, 2026 article is an estimated 21 minute read.

Between the current state of privacy and Q Day, the future doesn’t look that good for anyone who prizes their privacy.

Space junk: do scientists have a fix?

Leave a reply

Given the recent launch of Artemis II on April 1, 2026 on the first crewed US mission to the moon in decades (more about the mission here) and its return to earth today, April 10, 2026, this posting about space junk seems à propos.

December 3 and 4, 2025 were banner days for space debris (or space junk) stories. I have three.

What is the space debris problem and just how bad is it?

Ian Whittaker (Senior Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent University) and Lesley Masters (Senior Lecturer in International Relations, Nottingham Trent University) wrote a December 4, 2025 essay for The Conversation that introduces the problem and provides updates on what is happening internationally, Note: Links have been removed,

China routinely sends astronauts to and from its space station Tiangong. A crew capsule is about to undock from the station and return to Earth, but there’s nothing routine about its journey home.

The Shenzhou-20 capsule will carry no crew, because one of its windows has been struck by space debris. Astronauts noticed an apparent crack on November 5 [2025], during pre-return checks.

Space journalist Andrew Jones explained how experts on the ground had studied images of the damage and concluded that a piece of debris smaller than 1mm (roughly 1/25th of an inch) had penetrated from the outer to inner layers of the glass.

Simulations and tests confirmed a low probability that the window could fail during the high-temperature re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere. Although a worst-case scenario, it was one that officials deemed unacceptable. A rescue mission – Shenzhou-22 – was launched to bring the astronauts back from the station.

Experts have been warning about the threat posed by space debris for years. The ever-growing number of space programmes by states and private entities is now contributing to an increasingly congested environment in orbit.

The European Space Agency estimates that there are more than 15,100 tonnes of material in space that has been launched from Earth. There are 1.2 million debris objects between 1cm and 10cm, and 140 million debris objects between 1mm and 1cm.

In low orbit they will be travelling around 7.6 km/s (roughly 17,000 miles per hour), damaging anything they hit. This is how a piece less than 1mm in size was able to penetrate the thick glass of Shenzhou-20’s capsule.

…

A number of countries are able to track what’s in space, but given that these may include classified satellites, there is a reluctance by states to share details. China’s space programme is overseen by its military, in line with a view that space is inherently linked to national security. This only adds to the geopolitical tensions between states around the use of space.

Treaties and responsibilities

The outer space treaty from 1967 sought to outline how space should be governed. But it is outdated and does not account for the increased presence of debris or the proliferation of private space launches. Nor does it address responsibilities when it comes to the sustainable use of space.

A total of 117 states are parties to the treaty, yet while efforts are ongoing to develop new norms around space governance, including the creation of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee, the organisation may offer a platform for cooperation and research but does not result in binding decisions for state action. The lack of any global agreement on space debris, and more importantly repercussions, makes tackling the problem of space debris even harder.

Technology is being developed to address space debris – but this generally appears as concept mission plans with only a few trial tests being launched anywhere globally. Examples include the idea of a harpoon to collect large pieces – although the recoil of such an instrument means the spacecraft that deploys it could become a new piece of debris.

…

A solution for cleaning up the space debris

This December 3, 2025 news item on ScienceDaily (also available with some embedded images in a December 1, 2025 news item on SciTechDaily) offers a technology fix based on the notion of a circular economy,

Earth’s orbit is getting crowded with broken satellites and leftover rocket parts. Researchers say the solution is to build spacecraft that can be repaired, reused, or recycled instead of abandoned. They also want new tools to collect old debris and new data systems that help prevent collisions. The goal is to make space exploration cleaner and more sustainable.

Each rocket launch sends valuable materials into the sky that cannot be recovered, while also releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases and chemicals that damage the ozone layer. A new paper published December 1 [2025] in the Cell Press journal Chem Circularity examines how familiar ideas like reducing, reusing, and recycling could be built into the way satellites and spacecraft are designed, repaired in orbit, and handled at the end of their service lives.

“As space activity accelerates, from mega-constellations of satellites to future lunar and Mars missions, we must make sure exploration doesn’t repeat the mistakes made on Earth,” says senior author and chemical engineer Jin Xuan of the University of Surrey. “A truly sustainable space future starts with technologies, materials and systems working together.”

…

Applying the 3 Rs to spacecraft, satellites, and space stations

According to the team, the foundation of a circular space economy lies in the 3 Rs: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Reducing waste would begin with building satellites and spacecraft that last longer and can be fixed more easily in space. They also suggest turning space stations into multifunctional centers where spacecraft can refuel, undergo repairs, or even have new components manufactured, which could cut down on the number of launches required.

The authors add that bringing spacecraft and space stations safely back to Earth for reuse would require better recovery systems, including technologies such as parachutes and airbags. They point out that equipment in space experiences significant wear because of extreme temperatures and radiation, so any part intended for reuse would need to pass strict safety checks.

Recovering orbital debris and using advanced technology for safer space operations

The researchers also recommend new efforts to gather orbital debris, such as using robotic arms or nets to collect fragments so the materials can be recycled. This would also help prevent collisions that create even more debris.

Data-driven tools will play an important role in this transition, the authors say. Information gathered from spacecraft could guide improvements in design and help limit waste, while simulation tools may reduce the need for expensive physical testing. They add that AI systems could help spacecraft and satellites avoid dangerous debris in real time.

Transforming the entire space system through innovation and global cooperation

The authors emphasize that a circular space economy represents a major shift in how the space sector works. Instead of focusing on single pieces of hardware, the entire system needs to be considered at once, from the materials used to how spacecraft are operated and retired.

“We need innovation at every level, from materials that can be reused or recycled in orbit and modular spacecraft that can be upgraded instead of discarded, to data systems that track how hardware ages in space,” says Xuan.

“But just as importantly, we need international collaboration and policy frameworks to encourage reuse and recovery beyond Earth. The next phase is about connecting chemistry, design, and governance to turn sustainability into the default model for space.”

This research received support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust, and the Surrey-Adelaide Partnership Fund.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Resource and material efficiency in the circular space economy by Zhilin Yang, Lirong Liu, Lei Xing, Adam Amara, Jin Xuan. Chem Circularity, 2025; 100001 DOI: 10.1016/j.checir.2025.100001

This paper is open access.

Commercializing space debris cleanup

This December 4, 2025 Stevens Institute of Technology news release (also on EurekAlert) theorizes that commercializing the cleanup will lead to clearer skies, Note: Links have been removed,

High up in the earth’s orbit, millions of human-made objects large and small are flying at speeds of over 15,000 miles per hour. The objects, which range from inactive satellites to fragments of equipment resulting from explosions or collisions of previously launched rockets, are space debris, colloquially referred to as space junk. Sometimes the objects collide with each other, breaking into even smaller pieces. 

No matter the size, all of this debris poses a problem. Flying at high speeds caused by prior launches or explosions, they create danger for operational satellites and spacecraft, which are vital for the efficacy of modern technologies like GPS, digital communication and weather forecasting. At orbital speeds, even tiny fragments can cause significant damage to operational equipment, endangering future space missions and the people who would participate in them. 

“Even if a tiny, five-millimeter object hits a solar panel or a solar array of a satellite, it could break it,” says Assistant Professor Hao Chen, whose research involves space systems design. “And we have over 100 million objects smaller than one centimeter in orbit. So if you want to avoid a collision, you have to maneuver your spacecraft, which takes up fuel and is costly. Additionally, we have humans on the International Space Station who sometimes must go outside the spacecraft where the space debris can hit them too. It’s really dangerous.”

Cleaning up space junk is technologically challenging and expensive. Furthermore, there are currently no incentives for countries or private companies to do so. Without binding international regulations or an enforceable “polluter pays” principle with consequences for non-compliance, the circumstances have led to a “cosmic free-for-all.” So in his latest study, Space Logistics Analysis and Incentive Design for Commercialization of Orbital Debris Remediation published in Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets on October 5, 2025, Chen and his collaborators investigated ways to create commercial opportunities for space operators and debris remediators to clean up the dangerous junk. “We wanted to see whether there’s any potential to have commercial players interested in removing the debris,” Chen says. 

The study analyzed three possible scenarios of debris cleanup — controlled reentry back to earth, uncontrolled reentry back to earth, and recycling in space. All three methods would require a space debris remediation satellite — a vehicle designed to capture and remove space junk from orbit.

In the uncontrolled reentry scenario, the remediation service vehicle would grab the debris from the orbit path it flies in and bring it down to about 350 kilometers away from earth. The piece of debris would continue orbiting around our planet until it enters the atmosphere and either burns or lands someplace. “It will either burn or drop somewhere on earth, but we don’t know where because it depends on the atmospheric drag it receives,” Chen explains. This uncontrolled reentry method is the cheapest as the remediation vehicle doesn’t have to fly long distances. 

In the controlled reentry scenario, the remediation service vehicle would bring the debris much closer to earth, down to about 50 kilometers. “Controlled reentry is more expensive because the servicer needs to bring the debris down closer to earth and then fly up again to get the next piece of debris,” Chen says. “That consumes more energy and more fuel than an uncontrolled reentry.”

In the recycling scenario, the debris would be transported from its original orbit to a recycling center up in space. The transportation would require fuel adding to the cost, but a lot of energy will also be saved by reusing aluminum, the metal commonly used in spacecraft, up in orbit rather than having to bring it up from earth. “It takes about $1500 per kilogram to launch anything from earth to space,” explains Chen. “So if you don’t have to launch from earth, it’s a benefit.”

Next Chen and collaborators analyzed ways to incentivize companies into space debris removal. They used Game Theory and Nash Bargaining Theory, developed by mathematician John Nash, to figure out the fairest deal for the two entities involved — in this case space operators, companies that own and run satellites, and debris remediators, entities that remove the space junk. 

“The debris remediators pay for the missions, the technology, and the actual work. Without some kind of financial incentive, they don’t really gain anything from it — they bear all the costs while others reap the benefits,” says Chen. Meanwhile space operators stand a lot to gain from debris removal. Their satellites can operate more safely and efficiently, so they save money on fuel and operations, since they don’t have to make extra maneuvers to avoid collisions. “However, they don’t actually do anything to remove the debris themselves — they just enjoy the cleaner, safer environment,” Chen points out. 

To solve this problem, Chen’s team proposes creating fees that space operators would have to pay. “We will need some agency to create an incentive for the debris remediators,” says Chen. “The money should come from the people who enjoy all those benefits. Our analysis shows that there is a surplus to be generated from the remediation of orbital debris, and that surplus can be optimally shared by space operators and debris remediators.”

Without such a solution, the space debris dangers will only continue growing, generated by the current and future objects left in orbit, Chen notes. “That is what’s needed to move us closer to a space industry that is safer, more sustainable, and still profitable.”

Chen’s research was funded by the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy. The team will present their research at NASA headquarters on December 10, 2025.

About Stevens Institute of Technology

Stevens is a premier, private research university situated in Hoboken, New Jersey. Since our founding in 1870, technological innovation has been the hallmark of Stevens’ education and research. Within the university’s three schools and one college, more than 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students collaborate closely with faculty in an interdisciplinary, student-centric, entrepreneurial environment. Academic and research programs spanning business, computing, engineering, the arts and other disciplines actively advance the frontiers of science and leverage technology to confront our most pressing global challenges. The university continues to be consistently ranked among the nation’s leaders in career services, post-graduation salaries of alumni and return on tuition investment.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Space Logistics Analysis and Incentive Design for Commercialization of Orbital Debris Remediation by Asaad Abdul-Hamid, Brycen D. Pearl, Hang Woon Lee and Hao Chen. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets Volume 63, Number 1Bimonthly January 2026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A36465 Published Online:5 Oct 2025

This paper is behind a paywall.

Good luck to the Artemis II astronauts.

For anyone interested in more space debris stories, here are four from this blog,

“How Quantum is Life?” Answering that question in an essay competition could win you US$53,000

Leave a reply
© FQxI (2025) Courtesy: Foundational Questions Institute, FQxI [downloaded from https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entries#banner_menu_wrapper]

There’s still time to prepare your essay; the competition deadline is September 29, 2025 (10 AM US Eastern Time). Here’s more about it from a June 24, 2025 Foundational Questions Institute, [FQxI] news release on EurekAlertt,

In 1944, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger published his book What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell, an early landmark in an ongoing—if sometimes controversial—conversation between quantum mechanics, the weird theory that governs the microrealm, and biology. Schrödinger is one of the founding figures of quantum mechanics, having postulated his now-famed quantum equation, a century ago, in 1925. In honor of the discovery of quantum mechanics, this year has been proclaimed the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology by the United Nations General Assembly, led by UNESCO. To celebrate, the Foundational Questions Institute, FQxI, in partnership with the Paradox Science Institute, has launched a US$53,000 essay competition to expand on Schrödinger’s fascination with the connections between quantum theory and biological processes. The competition, which opens for submissions on 23rd June, 2025, asks participants to ponder the question: how quantum is life?

“Since we are celebrating 2025 as the International Year of the Quantum, it is very timely to be exploring one of the most profound questions in science, namely whether life evolved the ability to make use of the counterintuitive properties of the microscopic world,” says Jim Al-Khalili, a quantum physicist at the University of Surrey, UK, and a member of FQxI’s scientific advisory council. 

Quantum physics undeniably underpins the structure and stability of atoms and molecules, including the macromolecules fundamental to biology. However, the question persists, does quantum physics extend its role beyond this realm to imbue characteristic features observed in living matter? If nature exploits the strange features of the quantum world to ramp up efficiency in photosynthesis, for instance, physicists and engineers could potentially use this as inspiration, when building new devices. “Can we learn from biology in order to develop exciting new technologies such as quantum computers and quantum communication?” Al-Khalili asks.

Anonymized Entries

The essay competition is open to both professional scientists and non-scientists. As with FQxI’s last essay competition, entrants will remain anonymous throughout the judging process, with entrants’ identities revealed only after the winners have been chosen, to ensure a level playing field. FQxI has run 12 previous highly-successful competitions, since its inception in 2006. “FQxI is an expert in exploring foundational questions, and the essay series has proven to be an important component of its program,” says Jan Walleczek, a quantum biophysicist and the Paradox Science Institute’s scientific director.

The competition also marks a new partnership between FQxI, a philanthropically-funded science funding agency, based in Decatur, Georgia, and the Paradox Science Institute, a private operating foundation headquartered in Palo Alto, California. The Paradox Science Institute aims to explore the foundations of the nature of reality by co-creating advanced methodologies in frontier research, in coordination with like-minded institutions. “FQxI is excited to partner with the Paradox Science Institute because both institutions thrive on foundational questions that challenge conventional thinking,” says FQxI member Catalina Curceanu, an experimental nuclear and quantum physicist at the National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), in Frascati, Italy. 

“The generous support of the Paradox Science Institute to fund this competition is perfectly suited to the aims of FQxI in exploring such a foundational topic that could shed light on the nature of reality,” adds Al-Khalili. “While the field may still be regarded as controversial, it is far too important to be ignored.”

Speculative Field

Although quantum biology is still a speculative field, there are plenty of angles for entrants to approach the subject. “On the experimental side, the main challenge is how we test for delicate quantum effects in the noisy, complex environment of a living cell,” says Al-Khalili. “On the theoretical side, how is it that such effects are able to persist for long enough in biological systems?”

Entrants will have the opportunity to explore some of the most provocative questions at the intersection of quantum physics and biology. “Could quantum phenomena, such as coherence, tunneling, or entanglement be at work in living systems? Do quantum effects impact neural processes or brain function? How might quantum phenomena relate to consciousness?” Curceanu says. “Participants may also propose groundbreaking models of quantum thermodynamics in cells, or devise new ways to define and measure complexity and entropy in biological matter.”

Foundations of Life

“Quantum Biology is a nascent field of study that may open pathways to understanding the foundations of life,” says Walleczek. “We aim to facilitate an open dialogue across different fields of knowledge and communities to accelerate progress in this promising transdisciplinary field.”

“We are delighted to be working with the Paradox Science Institute—a great supporter of research in quantum biology—to fire up exploration of these fascinating open questions,” adds cosmologist David Sloan, FQxI’s Chief Scientific Officer. 

The competition opens for submissions on 23rd June, 2025 and the deadline for entries is 29th September, 2025. All entries that meet the eligibility criteria will be posted to FQxI’s site and can be read and voted for by the public. The first prize is US$10,000, and the winning entries will be chosen by a panel of expert judges and announced in December, 2025. 

“This competition invites bold, cross-disciplinary ideas that push the boundaries of how we understand life at its most fundamental level,” says Curceanu. “This collaboration provides a fertile ground for visionary ideas at the frontier between quantum physics and biology—inviting creative minds to reimagine life itself through the lens of quantum science.”

FQxI’s 2025 essay competition guidelines are available here: https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/introduction 

ABOUT FQxI

The Foundational Questions Institute, FQxI, catalyzes, supports, and disseminates research on questions at the foundations of science, particularly new frontiers in physics and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources. Visit FQxI.org for more information.

ABOUT THE PARADOX SCIENCE INSTITUTE

The Paradox Science Institute is a private operating foundation that has been formed to foster frontier science as a way to explore fundamental interconnectedness in Nature and help to enlighten pathways for humanity. Visit https://paradoxscience.org/ for more information.

Given the appearance of the letter ‘x’ in the Foundational Questions Institute’s abbreviation “FQxI” and its apparent ownership these days by billionaire Elon Musk, I did a little digging and, so far, Musk doesn’t seem to have any association with FQxI. Here’s more from the Foundational Questions Institute Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

The Foundational Questions Institute, styled FQxI (formerly FQXi), is an organization that provides grants to “catalyze, support, and disseminate research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology.”[1] It was founded in 2005 by cosmologists Max Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre.[2] It is currently run by chief scientific officer David Sloan and chief operating officer Kavita Rajanna.[3]

Best known for its Zenith Grants program, FQxI has awarded 234 grants in ten grant rounds since 2006, totaling $27M.[4] Sample grant round topics include the Nature of Time (2010), Physics of Information (2013), Physics of the Observer (2016), Agency in the Physical World (2018), and Information as Fuel (2019).[5] It also runs frequent essay contests open to the general public with $40,000 in prizes awarded by a jury panel and the best texts published in book format.[6]

FQxI is an independent, philanthropically funded non-profit organization, run by scientists for scientists.[7]

…

Paradox Science Institute doesn’t seem to have a Wikipedia entry but I did find this on Paradox Instittue’s founder and Chief Science Officer (CSO)J’biography’ page for Jorge Moll,

Jorge Moll is the founder and Chief Science Officer of Paradox Science Institute, where he pursues a lifelong fascination with the frontiers of science and the nature of reality. As a founding member, he is deeply committed to pioneering rigorous scientific inquiry into non-ordinary psychological states, consciousness, and anomalous phenomena. Trained as an M.D. and neurologist, Jorge earned his Ph.D. in experimental physiology, becoming a leading researcher in functional imaging and human social and moral cognition, altruism, reward, and decision-making. His postdoctoral work at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) further expanded his work in cognitive neuroscience.

He later co-founded the D’Or Institute for Research and Education (IDOR), a world-class biomedical research center in Brazil, where he serves as Chair of the Board. He was also a visiting researcher at Stanford University for several years and is currently a council member of the Stanford Interdisciplinary Council. Additionally, he co-founded the Pioneer Science Initiative, dedicated to expanding the boundaries of knowledge.

Jorge’s passion lies in exploring fundamental questions of existence through empirical science while fostering a culture of open, transdisciplinary inquiry. He believes that challenging conventional scientific paradigms can yield transformative insights at the crossroads of consciousness, neuroscience, and physics. Beyond research, he is a husband to a fellow neuroscientist and a devoted father of three. His curiosity extends to philosophy, artificial intelligence, space travel, science fiction, and the intersection of science and spirituality.

Getting back to the competition, good luck!

Nanomaterials used to measure nuclear reaction in radioactive nuclei produced in neutron star collisions

Leave a reply

There seems to be renewed interest in nuclear science as measured by the frequency of the research I’m stumbling across and as evidenced by this March 18, 2025 news item on phys.org,

Physicists have measured a nuclear reaction that can occur in neutron star collisions, providing direct experimental data for a process that had previously only been theorized. The study, led by the University of Surrey, provides new insight into how the universe’s heaviest elements are forged—and could even drive advancements in nuclear reactor physics.

Working in collaboration with the University of York, the University of Seville, and TRIUMF, Canada’s national particle accelerator centre, the breakthrough marks the first-ever measurement of a weak r-process reaction cross-section using a radioactive ion beam, in this case studying the 94Sr(α,n)97Zr reaction. This is where a radioactive form of strontium (strontium-94) absorbs an alpha particle (a helium nucleus), then emits a neutron and transforms into zirconium-97.

…

I’ve highlighted the mention of nanomaterials in the March 18, 2025 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item,

…

Dr Matthew Williams, lead author of the study from the University of Surrey, said: 

“The weak r-process plays a crucial role in the formation of heavy elements, which astronomers have observed in ancient stars – celestial fossils that carry the chemical fingerprints of perhaps only one prior cataclysmic event, like a supernovae or neutron star merger. Until now, our understanding of how these elements form has relied on theoretical predictions, but this experiment provides the first real-world data to test those models that involve radioactive nuclei.” 

The experiment was enabled by the use of novel helium targets. Since helium is a noble gas, meaning it is neither reactive nor solid, researchers at the University of Seville developed an innovative nano-material target, embedding helium inside ultra-thin silicon films to form billions of microscopic helium bubbles, each only a few 10s of nanometres across. 

Using TRIUMF’s advanced radioactive ion beam technology, the team accelerated short-lived strontium-94 isotopes into these targets, allowing them to measure the nuclear reaction under conditions similar to those found in extreme cosmic environments.  

Dr Williams said: 

“This is a major achievement for astrophysics and nuclear physics, and the first-time nanomaterials have been used in this way, opening exciting new possibilities for nuclear research.  

“Beyond astrophysics, understanding how radioactive nuclei behave is crucial for improving nuclear reactor design. These types of nuclei are constantly produced in nuclear reactors, but until recently, studying their reactions has been extremely difficult. Reactor physics depends on this kind of data to predict how often components need replacing, how long they’ll last and how to design more efficient, modern systems.” 

The next phase of research will apply the findings to astrophysical models, helping scientists to better understand the origins of the heaviest known elements. As researchers continue to explore these processes, their work could deepen our understanding of both the extreme physics of neutron star collisions and practical applications in nuclear technology. 

Here’s a citation and a link to the paper,

First Measurement of a Weak 𝑟-Process Reaction on a Radioactive Nucleus by M. Williams, C. Angus, A. M. Laird, B. Davids, C. Aa. Diget, A. Fernandez, E. J. Williams, A. N. Andreye, H. Asch, A. A. Avaa, G. Bartram, S. Chakraborty, I. Dillmann, K. Directo, D. T. Doherty, E. Geerlof, C. J. Griffin, A. Grimes, G. Hackman, J. Henderson, K. Hudson, D. Hufschmidt, J. Jeong, M. C. Jiménez de Haro, V. Karayonchev,, A. Katrusiak, A. Lennarz, G. Lotay, B. Marlow, M. S. Martin, S. Molló, F. Montes, J. R. Murias, J. O’Neill, K. Pak6, C. Paxman, L. Pedro-Botet, A. Psaltis, E. Raleigh-Smith, D. Rhodes, J. S. Rojo, M. Satrazani, T. Sauvage, C. Shenton, C. E. Svensson, D. Tam, L. Wagner, and D. Yates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 112701– Published 17 March, 2025 Vol. 134, Iss. 11 — 21 March 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.112701

This paper is behind a paywall.

Early morning run could power your electrical wearables

Leave a reply

I don’t think this is going to be happening tomorrow but here’s a relatively recent news item on ScienceDaily from August 22, 2024 about bioenergy harvesting and wearable technology,

Your early morning run could soon help harvest enough electricity to power your wearable devices, thanks to new nanotechnology developed at the University of Surrey [UK].

Surrey’s Advanced Technology Institute (ATI) has developed highly energy-efficient, flexible nanogenerators, which demonstrate a 140-fold increase in power density when compared to conventional nanogenerators. ATI researchers believe that this development could pave the way for nano-devices that are as efficient as today’s solar cells.

…

An August 21, 2024 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert but published August 22, 2024), which originated the news item, provides more information about the research,

Surrey’s devices can convert small amounts of everyday mechanical energy, like motion, into a significantly higher amount of electrical power, similar to how an amplifier boosts sound in an electronic system. For instance, if a traditional nanogenerator produces 10 milliwatts of power, this new technology could increase that output to over 1,000 milliwatts, making it suitable for energy harvesting in various everyday applications. 

ATI’s nanogenerator works like a relay team – instead of one electrode (the runner) passing energy (charge) by itself. Each runner collects a baton (charge), adds more and then passes all batons to the next runner, boosting the overall energy that is collected in a process called the charge regeneration effect. 

Lead author of the study from the University of Surrey, Md Delowar Hussain, said: 

“The dream of nanogenerators is to capture and use energy from everyday movements, like your morning run, mechanical vibrations, ocean waves or opening a door. The key innovation with our nanogenerator is that we’ve fine-tuned the technology with 34 tiny energy collectors using a laser technique that can be scaled up for manufacture to increase energy efficiency further. 

“What’s really exciting is that our little device with high energy harvesting density could one day rival the power of solar panels and could be used to run anything from self-powered sensors to smart home systems that run without ever needing a battery change.” 

The device is a triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) – a device that can capture and turn the energy from simple, everyday movements into electricity. They work by using materials that become electrically charged when they come into contact and then separate – similar to when you rub a balloon on your hair, and it sticks due to static electricity.  

Dr Bhaskar Dudem, co-author of the study from the University of Surrey, said:  

“We are soon going to launch a company focused on self-powered, non-invasive healthcare sensors using triboelectric technology. Innovations like these will enable us to drive new spin-out activities in sustainable health tech, improve sensitivity, and emphasize industrial scalability.” 

Professor Ravi Silva, co-author of the study and Director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey, said: 

“With the ever-increasing technology around us, it is predicted that we will have over 50 billion Internet of Things (IoT) devices in the next few years that will need energy to be powered. Local green energy solutions are needed, and this could be a convenient wireless technology that harnesses energy from any mechanical movements to power small devices. It offers an opportunity for the scientific and engineering community to find innovative and sustainable solutions to global challenges.” 

“We are incredibly excited about the potential of these nanogenerators to transform how we think about energy. You could also imagine these devices being used in IoT-based self-powered smart systems like autonomous wireless operations, security monitoring, and smart home systems, or even for supporting dementia patients, an area in which the University of Surrey has great expertise.” 

…

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Exploring charge regeneration effect in interdigitated array electrodes-based TENGs for a more than 100-fold enhanced power density by Md Delowar Hussain, Bhaskar Dudem, Dimitar I. Kutsarov, S. Ravi P. Silva. Nano Energy Volume 130, November 2024, 110112 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2024.110112 Available online 13 August 2024, Version of Record 21 August 2024

This paper is open access under a Creative Commons license.

Augmented reality and the future of paper books

Leave a reply

I’ve started to think that paper books will be on an ‘endangered species’ list in the not too distant future. Now, it seems researchers at the University of Surrey (UK) may have staved off that scenario according to an August 3, 2022 news item on ScienceDaily,

Augmented reality might allow printed books to make a comeback against the e-book trend, according to researchers from the University of Surrey.

…

An August 3, 2022 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, describes the idea and the research in more detail,

Surrey has introduced the third generation (3G) version of its Next Generation Paper (NGP) project, allowing the reader to consume information on the printed paper and screen side by side.  

Dr Radu Sporea, Senior lecturer at the Advanced Technology Institute (ATI), comments: 

“The way we consume literature has changed over time with so many more options than just paper books. Multiple electronic solutions currently exist, including e-readers and smart devices, but no hybrid solution which is sustainable on a commercial scale.  

“Augmented books, or a-books, can be the future of many book genres, from travel and tourism to education. This technology exists to assist the reader in a deeper understanding of the written topic and get more through digital means without ruining the experience of reading a paper book.” 

Power efficiency and pre-printed conductive paper are some of the new features which allow Surrey’s augmented books to now be manufactured on a semi-industrial scale. With no wiring visible to the reader, Surrey’s augmented reality books allow users to trigger digital content with a simple gesture (such as a swipe of a finger or turn of a page), which will then be displayed on a nearby device.  

George Bairaktaris, Postgraduate researcher at the University of Surrey and part of the Next Generation Paper project team, said: 

“The original research was carried out to enrich travel experiences by creating augmented travel guides. This upgraded 3G model allows for the possibility of using augmented books for different areas such as education. In addition, the new model disturbs the reader less by automatically recognising the open page and triggering the multimedia content.” 

“What started as an augmented book project, evolved further into scalable user interfaces. The techniques and knowledge from the project led us into exploring organic materials and printing techniques to fabricate scalable sensors for interfaces beyond the a-book”.

…  

Caption: Next Generation Paper book example Credit: Courtesy of Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Augmented Books: Hybrid Electronics Bring Paper to Life by Georgios Bairaktaris, Brice Le Borgne, Vikram Turkani, Emily Corrigan-Kavanagh, David M. Frohlich, Radu A. Sporea. IEEE Pervasive Computing (early access) PrePrints pp. 1-8, DOI: 10.1109/MPRV.2022.3181440 Published: July 12, 2022

This paper is behind a paywall.

Should AI algorithms get patents for their inventions and is anyone talking about copyright for texts written by AI algorithms?

Leave a reply

A couple of Australian academics have written a comment for the journal Nature, which bears the intriguing subtitle: “The patent system assumes that inventors are human. Inventions devised by machines require their own intellectual property law and an international treaty.” (For the curious, I’ve linked to a few of my previous posts touching on intellectual property [IP], specifically the patent’s fraternal twin, copyright at the end of this piece.)

Before linking to the comment, here’s the May 27, 2022 University of New South Wales (UNCSW) press release (also on EurekAlert but published May 30, 2022) which provides an overview of their thinking on the subject, Note: Links have been removed,

It’s not surprising these days to see new inventions that either incorporate or have benefitted from artificial intelligence (AI) in some way, but what about inventions dreamt up by AI – do we award a patent to a machine?

This is the quandary facing lawmakers around the world with a live test case in the works that its supporters say is the first true example of an AI system named as the sole inventor.

In commentary published in the journal Nature, two leading academics from UNSW Sydney examine the implications of patents being awarded to an AI entity.

Intellectual Property (IP) law specialist Associate Professor Alexandra George and AI expert, Laureate Fellow and Scientia Professor Toby Walsh argue that patent law as it stands is inadequate to deal with such cases and requires legislators to amend laws around IP and patents – laws that have been operating under the same assumptions for hundreds of years.

The case in question revolves around a machine called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) created by Dr Stephen Thaler, who is president and chief executive of US-based AI firm Imagination Engines. Dr Thaler has named DABUS as the inventor of two products – a food container with a fractal surface that helps with insulation and stacking, and a flashing light for attracting attention in emergencies.

For a short time in Australia, DABUS looked like it might be recognised as the inventor because, in late July 2021, a trial judge accepted Dr Thaler’s appeal against IP Australia’s rejection of the patent application five months earlier. But after the Commissioner of Patents appealed the decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, the five-judge panel upheld the appeal, agreeing with the Commissioner that an AI system couldn’t be named the inventor.

A/Prof. George says the attempt to have DABUS awarded a patent for the two inventions instantly creates challenges for existing laws which has only ever considered humans or entities comprised of humans as inventors and patent-holders.

“Even if we do accept that an AI system is the true inventor, the first big problem is ownership. How do you work out who the owner is? An owner needs to be a legal person, and an AI is not recognised as a legal person,” she says.

Ownership is crucial to IP law. Without it there would be little incentive for others to invest in the new inventions to make them a reality.

“Another problem with ownership when it comes to AI-conceived inventions, is even if you could transfer ownership from the AI inventor to a person: is it the original software writer of the AI? Is it a person who has bought the AI and trained it for their own purposes? Or is it the people whose copyrighted material has been fed into the AI to give it all that information?” asks A/Prof. George.

For obvious reasons

Prof. Walsh says what makes AI systems so different to humans is their capacity to learn and store so much more information than an expert ever could. One of the requirements of inventions and patents is that the product or idea is novel, not obvious and is useful.

“There are certain assumptions built into the law that an invention should not be obvious to a knowledgeable person in the field,” Prof. Walsh says.

“Well, what might be obvious to an AI won’t be obvious to a human because AI might have ingested all the human knowledge on this topic, way more than a human could, so the nature of what is obvious changes.”

Prof. Walsh says this isn’t the first time that AI has been instrumental in coming up with new inventions. In the area of drug development, a new antibiotic was created in 2019 – Halicin – that used deep learning to find a chemical compound that was effective against drug-resistant strains of bacteria.

“Halicin was originally meant to treat diabetes, but its effectiveness as an antibiotic was only discovered by AI that was directed to examine a vast catalogue of drugs that could be repurposed as antibiotics. So there’s a mixture of human and machine coming into this discovery.”

Prof. Walsh says in the case of DABUS, it’s not entirely clear whether the system is truly responsible for the inventions.

“There’s lots of involvement of Dr Thaler in these inventions, first in setting up the problem, then guiding the search for the solution to the problem, and then interpreting the result,” Prof. Walsh says.

“But it’s certainly the case that without the system, you wouldn’t have come up with the inventions.”

Change the laws

Either way, both authors argue that governing bodies around the world will need to modernise the legal structures that determine whether or not AI systems can be awarded IP protection. They recommend the introduction of a new ‘sui generis’ form of IP law – which they’ve dubbed ‘AI-IP’ – that would be specifically tailored to the circumstances of AI-generated inventiveness. This, they argue, would be more effective than trying to retrofit and shoehorn AI-inventiveness into existing patent laws.

Looking forward, after examining the legal questions around AI and patent law, the authors are currently working on answering the technical question of how AI is going to be inventing in the future.

Dr Thaler has sought ‘special leave to appeal’ the case concerning DABUS to the High Court of Australia. It remains to be seen whether the High Court will agree to hear it. Meanwhile, the case continues to be fought in multiple other jurisdictions around the world.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Artificial intelligence is breaking patent law by Alexandra George & Toby Walsh. Nature (Nature) COMMENT ISSN 1476-4687 (online) 24 May 2022 ISSN 0028-0836 (print) Vol 605 26 May 2022 pp. 616-18 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-01391-x

This paper appears to be open access.

The Journey

DABIUS has gotten a patent in one jurisdiction, from an August 8, 2021 article on brandedequity.com,

…

The patent application listing DABUS as the inventor was filed in patent offices around the world, including the US, Europe, Australia, and South Afica. But only South Africa granted the patent (Australia followed suit a few days later after a court judgment gave the go-ahard [and rejected it several months later]).

…

Natural person?

This September 27, 2021 article by Miguel Bibe for Inventa covers some of the same ground adding some some discussion of the ‘natural person’ problem,

…

The patent is for “a food container based on fractal geometry”, and was accepted by the CIPC [Companies and Intellectual Property Commission] on June 24, 2021. The notice of issuance was published in the July 2021 “Patent Journal”.  

South Africa does not have a substantive patent examination system and, instead, requires applicants to merely complete a filing for their inventions. This means that South Africa patent laws do not provide a definition for “inventor” and the office only proceeds with a formal examination in order to confirm if the paperwork was filled correctly.

…

… according to a press release issued by the University of Surrey: “While patent law in many jurisdictions is very specific in how it defines an inventor, the DABUS team is arguing that the status quo is not fit for purpose in the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

On the other hand, this may not be considered as a victory for the DABUS team since several doubts and questions remain as to who should be considered the inventor of the patent. Current IP laws in many jurisdictions follow the traditional term of “inventor” as being a “natural person”, and there is no legal precedent in the world for inventions created by a machine.

…

August 2022 update

Mike Masnick in an August 15, 2022 posting on Techdirt provides the latest information on Stephen Thaler’s efforts to have patents and copyrights awarded to his AI entity, DABUS,

Stephen Thaler is a man on a mission. It’s not a very good mission, but it’s a mission. He created something called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) and claims that it’s creating things, for which he has tried to file for patents and copyrights around the globe, with his mission being to have DABUS named as the inventor or author. This is dumb for many reasons. The purpose of copyright and patents are to incentivize the creation of these things, by providing to the inventor or author a limited time monopoly, allowing them to, in theory, use that monopoly to make some money, thereby making the entire inventing/authoring process worthwhile. An AI doesn’t need such an incentive. And this is why patents and copyright only are given to persons and not animals or AI.

…

… Thaler’s somewhat quixotic quest continues to fail. The EU Patent Office rejected his application. The Australian patent office similarly rejected his request. In that case, a court sided with Thaler after he sued the Australian patent office, and said that his AI could be named as an inventor, but thankfully an appeals court set aside that ruling a few months ago. In the US, Thaler/DABUS keeps on losing as well. Last fall, he lost in court as he tried to overturn the USPTO ruling, and then earlier this year, the US Copyright Office also rejected his copyright attempt (something it has done a few times before). In June, he sued the Copyright Office over this, which seems like a long shot.

And now, he’s also lost his appeal of the ruling in the patent case. CAFC, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — the appeals court that handles all patent appeals — has rejected Thaler’s request just like basically every other patent and copyright office, and nearly all courts.

…

If you have the time, the August 15, 2022 posting is an interesting read.

Consciousness and ethical AI

Just to make things more fraught, an engineer at Google has claimed that one of their AI chatbots has consciousness. From a June 16, 2022 article (in Canada’s National Post [previewed on epaper]) by Patrick McGee,

Google has ignited a social media firestorm on the the nature of consciousness after placing an engineer on paid leave with his belief that the tech group’s chatbot has become “sentient.”

Blake Lemoine, a senior software engineer in Google’s Responsible AI unit, did not receive much attention when he wrote a Medium post saying he “may be fired soon for doing AI ethics work.”

But a Saturday [June 11, 2022] profile in the Washington Post characterized Lemoine as “the Google engineer who thinks “the company’s AI has come to life.”

…

This is not the first time that Google has run into a problem with ethics and AI. Famously, Timnit Gebru who co-led (with Margaret Mitchell) Google’s ethics and AI unit departed in 2020. Gebru said (and maintains to this day) she was fired. They said she was ?, they never did make a final statement although after an investigation Gebru did receive an apology. You *can* read more about Gebru and the issues she brought to light in her Wikipedia entry. Coincidentally (or not), Margaret Mitchell was terminated/fired in February 2021 from Google after criticizing the company for Gebru’s ‘firing’. See a February 19, 2021 article by Megan Rose Dickey for TechCrunch for details about what the company has admitted is a firing or Margaret Mitchell’s termination from the company.

Getting back intellectual property and AI.

What about copyright?

There are no mentions of copyright in the earliest material I have here about the ‘creative’ arts and artificial intelligence is this, “Writing and AI or is a robot writing this blog?” posted July 16, 2014. More recently, there’s “Beer and wine reviews, the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) AI editors, and the Turing Test” posted May 20, 2022. The type of writing featured is not literary or typically considered creative writing.

On the more creative front, there’s “True love with AI (artificial intelligence): The Nature of Things explores emotional and creative AI (long read)” posted on December 3, 2021. The literary/creative portion of the post can be found under the ‘AI and creativity’ subhead approximately 30% of the way down and where I mention Douglas Coupland. Again, there’s no mention of copyright.

It’s with the visual arts that copyright gets mentioned. The first one I can find here is “Robot artists—should they get copyright protection” posted on July 10, 2017.

Fun fact: Andres Guadamuz who was mentioned in my posting took to his own blog where he gave my blog a shout out while implying that I wasn’t thoughtful. The gist of his August 8, 2017 posting was that he was misunderstood by many people, which led to the title for his post, “Should academics try to engage the public?” Thankfully, he soldiers on trying to educate us with his TechnoLama blog.

Lastly, there’s this August 16, 2019 posting “AI (artificial intelligence) artist got a show at a New York City art gallery” where you can scroll down to the ‘What about intellectual property?’ subhead about 80% of the way.

You look like a thing …

i am recommending a book for anyone who’d like to learn a little more about how artificial intelligence (AI) works, “You look like a thing and I love you; How Artificial Intelligence Works and Why It’s Making the World a Weirder Place” by Janelle Shane (2019).

It does not require an understanding of programming/coding/algorithms/etc.; Shane makes the subject as accessible as possible and gives you insight into why the term ‘artificial stupidity’ is more applicable than you might think. You can find Shane’s website here and you can find her 10 minute TED talk here.

*’can’ added to sentence on May 12, 2023.

Implanted biosensors could help sports professionals spy on themselves

Leave a reply

A May 21, 2020 news item on Nanowerk describes the latest in sports self-monitoring research (or as I like to think of it, spying on yourself),

Researchers from the University of Surrey have revealed their new biodegradable motion sensor – paving the way for implanted nanotechnology that could help future sports professionals better monitor their movements to aid rapid improvements, or help caregivers remotely monitor people living with dementia.

…

A May 21, 12020 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, mentioned the collaboration with a South Korean University and provides a few details about this work,

In a paper published by Nano Energy, a team from Surrey’s Advanced Technology Institute (ATI), in partnership with Kyung Hee University in South Korea, detail how they developed a nano-biomedical motion sensor which can be paired with AI systems to recognise movements of distinct body parts.

The ATI’s technology builds on its previous work around triboelectric nanogenerators (TENG), where researchers used the technology to harness human movements and generate small amounts of electrical energy. Combining the two means self-powered sensors are possible without the need for chemical or wired power sources.

In their new research, the team from the ATI developed a flexible, biodegradable and long-lasting TENG from silk cocoon waste. They used a new alcohol treatment technique, which leads to greater durability for the device, even under harsh or humid environments.

Dr. Bhaskar Dudem, project lead and Research Fellow at the ATI, said: “We are excited to show the world the immense potential of our durable, silk film based nanogenerator. It’s ability to work in severe environments while being able to generate electricity and monitor human movements positions our TENG in a class of its own when it comes to the technology.”

Professor Ravi Silva, Director of the ATI, said: “We are proud of Dr Dudem’s work which is helping the ATI lead the way in developing wearable, flexible, and biocompatible TENGs that efficiently harvest environmental energies. If we are to live in a future where autonomous sensing and detecting of pathogens is important, the ability to create both self-powered and wireless biosensors linked to AI is a significant boost.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Exploring theoretical and experimental optimization towards high-performance triboelectric nanogenerators using microarchitecture silk cocoon films by Bhaskar Dudem, R.D. Ishara G. Dharmasena, Sontyana Adonijah Graham, Jung Woo Leem, Harishkumarreddy Patnam, Anki Reddy Mule, S. Ravi P. Silva, Jae Su Yu. Nano Energy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2020.104882 Available online 11 May 2020, 104882

This paper is behind a paywall.

Human-machine interfaces and ultra-small nanoprobes

Leave a reply

We’re back on the cyborg trail or what I sometimes refer to as machine/flesh. A July 3, 2019 news item on ScienceDaily describes the latest attempts to join machine with flesh,

Machine enhanced humans — or cyborgs as they are known in science fiction — could be one step closer to becoming a reality, thanks to new research Lieber Group at Harvard University, as well as scientists from University of Surrey and Yonsei University.

Researchers have conquered the monumental task of manufacturing scalable nanoprobe arrays small enough to record the inner workings of human cardiac cells and primary neurons.

The ability to read electrical activities from cells is the foundation of many biomedical procedures, such as brain activity mapping and neural prosthetics. Developing new tools for intracellular electrophysiology (the electric current running within cells) that push the limits of what is physically possible (spatiotemporal resolution) while reducing invasiveness could provide a deeper understanding of electrogenic cells and their networks in tissues, as well as new directions for human-machine interfaces.

…

The Lieber Group at Harvard University provided this image illustrating the work,

U-shaped nanowires can record electrical chatter inside a brain or heart cell without causing any damage. The devices are 100 times smaller than their biggest competitors, which kill a cell after recording. Courtesy: University of Surrey

A July 3, 2019 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides more details about this UK/US/China collaboration,

In a paper published by Nature Nanotechnology, scientists from Surrey’s Advanced Technology Institute (ATI) and Harvard University detail how they produced an array of the ultra-small U-shaped nanowire field-effect transistor probes for intracellular recording. This incredibly small structure was used to record, with great clarity, the inner activity of primary neurons and other electrogenic cells, and the device has the capacity for multi-channel recordings.

Dr Yunlong Zhao from the ATI at the University of Surrey said: “If our medical professionals are to continue to understand our physical condition better and help us live longer, it is important that we continue to push the boundaries of modern science in order to give them the best possible tools to do their jobs. For this to be possible, an intersection between humans and machines is inevitable.

“Our ultra-small, flexible, nanowire probes could be a very powerful tool as they can measure intracellular signals with amplitudes comparable with those measured with patch clamp techniques; with the advantage of the device being scalable, it causes less discomfort and no fatal damage to the cell (cytosol dilation). Through this work, we found clear evidence for how both size and curvature affect device internalisation and intracellular recording signal.”

Professor Charles Lieber from the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University said: “This work represents a major step towards tackling the general problem of integrating ‘synthesised’ nanoscale building blocks into chip and wafer scale arrays, and thereby allowing us to address the long-standing challenge of scalable intracellular recording.

“The beauty of science to many, ourselves included, is having such challenges to drive hypotheses and future work. In the longer term, we see these probe developments adding to our capabilities that ultimately drive advanced high-resolution brain-machine interfaces and perhaps eventually bringing cyborgs to reality.”

Professor Ravi Silva, Director of the ATI at the University of Surrey, said: “This incredibly exciting and ambitious piece of work illustrates the value of academic collaboration. Along with the possibility of upgrading the tools we use to monitor cells, this work has laid the foundations for machine and human interfaces that could improve lives across the world.”

Dr Yunlong Zhao and his team are currently working on novel energy storage devices, electrochemical probing, bioelectronic devices, sensors and 3D soft electronic systems. Undergraduate, graduate and postdoc students with backgrounds in energy storage, electrochemistry, nanofabrication, bioelectronics, tissue engineering are very welcome to contact Dr Zhao to explore the opportunities further.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Scalable ultrasmall three-dimensional nanowire transistor probes for intracellular recording by Yunlong Zhao, Siheng Sean You, Anqi Zhang, Jae-Hyun Lee, Jinlin Huang & Charles M. Lieber. Nature Nanotechnology (2019) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0478-y Published 01 July 2019

The link I’ve provided leads to a paywall. However, I found a freely accessible version of the paper (this may not be the final published version) here.

‘Hunting’ pharmaceuticals and removing them from water

Leave a reply

Pharmaceuticals are not the first pollutants people think of when discussing water pollution but, for those who don’t know, it’s a big issue and scientists at the University of Surrey (UK) have developed a technology they believe will help to relieve the contamination. From an April 10, 2017 University of Surrey press release (also on EurekAlert),

The research involves the detection and removal of pharmaceuticals in or from water, as contamination from pharmaceuticals can enter the aquatic environment as a result of their use for the treatment of humans and animals. This contamination can be excreted unchanged, as metabolites, as unused discharge or by drug manufacturers.

The research has found that a new type of ‘supermolecule’, calix[4], actively seeks certain pharmaceuticals and removes them from water.

Contamination of water is a serious concern for environmental scientists around the world, as substances include hormones from the contraceptive pill, and pesticides and herbicides from allotments. Contamination can also include toxic metals such as mercury, arsenic, or cadmium, which was previously used in paint, or substances that endanger vital species such as bees.

Professor Danil de Namor, University of Surrey Emeritus Professor and leader of the research, said: “Preliminary extraction data are encouraging as far as the use of this receptor for the selective removal of these drugs from water and the possibility of constructing a calix[4]-based sensing devices.

“From here, we can design receptors so that they can bind selectively with pollutants in the water so the pollutants can be effectively removed. This research will allow us to know exactly what is in the water, and from here it will be tested in industrial water supplies, so there will be cleaner water for everyone.

“The research also creates the possibility of using these materials for on-site monitoring of water, without having to transport samples to the laboratory.”

Dr Brendan Howlin, University of Surrey co-investigator, said: “This study allows us to visualise the specific receptor-drug interactions leading to the selective behaviour of the receptor. As well as the health benefits of this research, molecular simulation is a powerful technique that is applicable to a wide range of materials.

“We were very proud that the work was carried out with PhD students and a final year project student, and research activities are already taking place with the Department of Chemical and Processing Engineering (CPI) and the Advanced Technology Institute (ATI).

“We are also very pleased to see that as soon as the paper was published online by the European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, we received invitations to give keynote lectures at two international conferences on pharmaceuticals in Europe later this year.”

That last paragraph is intriguing and it marks the first time I’ve seen that claim in a press release announcing the publication of a piece of research.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

A calix[4]arene derivative and its selective interaction with drugs (clofibric acid, diclofenac and aspirin) by Angela F Danil de Namor, Maan Al Nuaim, Jose A Villanueva Salas, Sophie Bryant, Brendan Howlin. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Volume 100, 30 March 2017, Pages 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2016.12.027

This paper is behind a paywall.