Synapse Science Magazine#3

SYNAPSETHE SCIENCE MAGAZINE WRITTEN BY STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS

ISSUE 3 - November 2012 - FREE

The Immortal Jellyfish

The first creature to have found the fountain of youth

Cracking Prejudice

Hydrothermal vents, Genesis and E.T.

Are racist beliefs hardwired into our nature?

CONTENTSEDITORIAL

Senior Editor and Vice PresidentAlicja Jedrzejewska

Senior Editor and SecretaryFelicity Russell Managing EditorMolly Hawes

Senior Editor and Publicity OfficerLouisa Cockbill

SENIOR EDITORSFelix Kennedy Katherine MacInnes Saraansh Dave Alex Pavlides

ARTICLE EDITORSRachel GreenwoodGeorgina MaguireMolly BridgeMaxine PennyBecky BrooksHarrison Carter Erik Müürsepp

Hello! Welcome to the third issue of Synapse Science Magazine. This issue contains an incredible array of topics, including the origin of life, nuclear power, robotic

surgery and the Higgs Boson. Be sure to share the magazine with your friends and spread the word about Synapse. A lot has happened since our second issue. We have greatly expanded our editorial team and have been featured online by Scientific American and The Association of British Science Writers. We also have a daily updated blog, packed with loads of content, and present a weekly science radio show on Burst. If you have any comments or wish to join our magazine please contact synapse.scimag@gmail.

Tom Stubbs - Editor In Chief

Senior Editor and Graphic DesignerDaniel Ward

Senior Editor and Treasurer Oliver Ford

Senior Editor and Events ManagerGemma Hallam

Senior Editor and Fundraising Officer Mary Melville

2 | SYNAPSE SYNAPSE | 3

On the cover Articles4

Features

12 The Immortal Jellyfish

Cracking Prejudice

Understanding the Coriolis Force

Philosophy: As crucial to Physics as Math

15 “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it’s Remote Control Surgery!

Join us online!www.synapsebristol.co.uk

@synapsebristol

Profiles

Opinions

Marvels

20 The Higgs Boson

14 Is God in our brains

Norman Borlaug

22 Naked rats and Napping ants

Nuclear powerA step sideways?

CONTENTSEDITORIAL

Senior Editor and Vice PresidentAlicja Jedrzejewska

Senior Editor and SecretaryFelicity Russell Managing EditorMolly Hawes

Senior Editor and Publicity OfficerLouisa Cockbill

SENIOR EDITORSFelix Kennedy Katherine MacInnes Saraansh Dave Alex Pavlides

ARTICLE EDITORSRachel GreenwoodGeorgina MaguireMolly BridgeMaxine PennyBecky BrooksHarrison Carter Erik Müürsepp

Hello! Welcome to the third issue of Synapse Science Magazine. This issue contains an incredible array of topics, including the origin of life, nuclear power, robotic

surgery and the Higgs Boson. Be sure to share the magazine with your friends and spread the word about Synapse. A lot has happened since our second issue. We have greatly expanded our editorial team and have been featured online by Scientific American and The Association of British Science Writers. We also have a daily updated blog, packed with loads of content, and present a weekly science radio show on Burst. If you have any comments or wish to join our magazine please contact synapse.scimag@gmail.

Tom Stubbs - Editor In Chief

Senior Editor and Graphic DesignerDaniel Ward

Senior Editor and Treasurer Oliver Ford

Senior Editor and Events ManagerGemma Hallam

Senior Editor and Fundraising Officer Mary Melville

On the cover Articles4

Features

12 The Immortal Jellyfish

Cracking Prejudice

Understanding the Coriolis Force

Philosophy: As crucial to Physics as Math

15 “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it’s Remote Control Surgery!

Join us online!www.synapsebristol.co.uk

@synapsebristol

Profiles

Opinions

Marvels

20 The Higgs Boson

14 Is God in our brains

Norman Borlaug

22 Naked rats and Napping ants

Nuclear powerA step sideways?

ARTICLES

Cracking Prejudice

“I am not being racist but…”Are racist beliefs hardwired into our nature? Are there psychological differences between different types of prejudice? What exactly is ambivalent sexism?

We learn much from his-tory books about racial

injustice, sexual discrimination and wars caused by differences in religious beliefs; however, prejudice continues to be a part of even the most developed societies. As Albert Einstein once said “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom.” But why is it so hard for us humans to eradicate these beliefs? The Social Identity Theory proposed by Tajfil and Turner in 1986 suggests in addition to categorising the environ-ment around us, humans form judgements about them-selves and others by creating ‘in-group’ categories. These categories are defined with features such as race, gender or age. The Social Identity Theory identifies prejudice as a product of positive feelings towards the in-group, rather

than negative feelings towards the out-group. As humans we partially derive our self-esteem from social categorisation. We identify ourselves with the in-group which motivates us to view this group more positively thus boosting our own self-esteem. The members of this in-group expect kinder treatment from one another creating a common belief that in-group members are generally kinder and friend-lier than out-group members. Surprisingly, the simple action of dividing individuals into de-contextualised groups is enough to create in-group fa-vouritism. Although Tajfil and Turner’s theory successfully accounts for minimal group fa-vouritism, it fails to explain the hate-like projections created by other prejudice. It is likely that race and

culture based prejudice has a different psychological basis and could be better explained by the Intergroup Threat Theory. This theory states that the cause of prejudiced attitudes are threats posed by the out-group resulting in negative prejudice towards the out-group rather than positive prejudice towards the in-group. Stephan et al. (2005, 2009) sug-gest these threats can be both realistic and symbolic. Realistic threats include loss of jobs and financial hardship as well as health and safety hazards, whereas symbolic threats are threats to one’s values, religion and personal beliefs. Symbolic threats cause inter-racial prejudice but also inter-sex prejudice. These types of threats are one of the strongest predictors of negative prejudice towards men, while

realistic threats do not produce negative attitudes towards men (Stephan et al, 2000). However when it comes to men’s prejudice towards women, the case gets more complicated and starts to fall outside of what the Intergroup Threat Theory can account for. Glick and Fiske (1996) describe two types of prejudice towards women; hostile and benevolent. Hostile attitudes are negative prejudice such as ‘women are less intelligent than men’. Benevolent attitudes are positive prejudice such as the belief that women need protection from men. What may come as a surprise is the two prejudices are strongly correlated; a phenomenon called ambivalent sexism. But why do the inter-race conflicts seem to generate more aggression than any other prejudices? And why are the different kinds of prejudice associated with dif-ferent kinds of emotions such as disgust, anger or fear? The Evolutionary Theory helps us understand the roots of these issues propos-ing that we may have inert psychological tendencies, which stimulate intergroup conflict (Richerson & Boyd 1988; Tooby & Cosmides 1998). These tendencies arise because humans are not only a social but also a tribal species forming coalitional alliances to increase their chances of outcompeting other alliances. Like the Intergroup Threat Theory,

this theory recognises that prejudice develops due to posed threats to the in-group. The type of threat posed determines the behavioural and emotional response. For example a threat of disease would be responded to with emotion of disgust leading to avoidant behaviour. A threat to safety would prompt the flight-or-fight response. Often clues of threat are not clear yet humans still act upon them. Making decisions based on imperfect clues is understood as the error management theory. Hasel-ton and Buss (2000) suggest that it pays off to be biased towards perceiving threats, as this is less reproductively costly. Misjudging a healthy individual for a disease car-rier won’t cause us any harm whereas misjudging a disease carrier as a healthy individual could be fatal. Prejudice is clearly a complex phenomenon encompassing a wide range of emotions, subjective to each individual. The theories proposed are not mutually exclusive and all contrib-ute to understanding the psychology behind prejudice. However the explanations of prejudice by no means justify prejudice attitudes in modern societies. On the contrary, just because these behaviours have evolved, it does not mean they are hardwired. Humans are flexible enough to inhibit their prejudice and exercise tolerance.

Alicja Jedrzejewska

Did you know?The outer ear is the only human body part that continues to grow through-out adulthood? At birth the auricle (outer ear) measures approximately 52mm in length. This part of the ear is formed of cartilage which grows rapidly during child-hood. The auricle lengthens to about 60-65mm by aged 20, and continues to grow, all be it at a much slower rate, to an average of 78mm long past 70 years! Some of this increasing length is thought to be a result elas-ticity loss with age causing drooping of the ear lobes. Studies have also shown that men’s ears grow at a greater rate than those of women. So if your baby boy has big ears he’d better take a liking to big hats. Rachel Cole

ARTICLES

Cracking Prejudice

“I am not being racist but…”Are racist beliefs hardwired into our nature? Are there psychological differences between different types of prejudice? What exactly is ambivalent sexism?

We learn much from his-tory books about racial

injustice, sexual discrimination and wars caused by differences in religious beliefs; however, prejudice continues to be a part of even the most developed societies. As Albert Einstein once said “It is harder to crack prejudice than an atom.” But why is it so hard for us humans to eradicate these beliefs? The Social Identity Theory proposed by Tajfil and Turner in 1986 suggests in addition to categorising the environ-ment around us, humans form judgements about them-selves and others by creating ‘in-group’ categories. These categories are defined with features such as race, gender or age. The Social Identity Theory identifies prejudice as a product of positive feelings towards the in-group, rather

than negative feelings towards the out-group. As humans we partially derive our self-esteem from social categorisation. We identify ourselves with the in-group which motivates us to view this group more positively thus boosting our own self-esteem. The members of this in-group expect kinder treatment from one another creating a common belief that in-group members are generally kinder and friend-lier than out-group members. Surprisingly, the simple action of dividing individuals into de-contextualised groups is enough to create in-group fa-vouritism. Although Tajfil and Turner’s theory successfully accounts for minimal group fa-vouritism, it fails to explain the hate-like projections created by other prejudice. It is likely that race and

culture based prejudice has a different psychological basis and could be better explained by the Intergroup Threat Theory. This theory states that the cause of prejudiced attitudes are threats posed by the out-group resulting in negative prejudice towards the out-group rather than positive prejudice towards the in-group. Stephan et al. (2005, 2009) sug-gest these threats can be both realistic and symbolic. Realistic threats include loss of jobs and financial hardship as well as health and safety hazards, whereas symbolic threats are threats to one’s values, religion and personal beliefs. Symbolic threats cause inter-racial prejudice but also inter-sex prejudice. These types of threats are one of the strongest predictors of negative prejudice towards men, while

realistic threats do not produce negative attitudes towards men (Stephan et al, 2000). However when it comes to men’s prejudice towards women, the case gets more complicated and starts to fall outside of what the Intergroup Threat Theory can account for. Glick and Fiske (1996) describe two types of prejudice towards women; hostile and benevolent. Hostile attitudes are negative prejudice such as ‘women are less intelligent than men’. Benevolent attitudes are positive prejudice such as the belief that women need protection from men. What may come as a surprise is the two prejudices are strongly correlated; a phenomenon called ambivalent sexism. But why do the inter-race conflicts seem to generate more aggression than any other prejudices? And why are the different kinds of prejudice associated with dif-ferent kinds of emotions such as disgust, anger or fear? The Evolutionary Theory helps us understand the roots of these issues propos-ing that we may have inert psychological tendencies, which stimulate intergroup conflict (Richerson & Boyd 1988; Tooby & Cosmides 1998). These tendencies arise because humans are not only a social but also a tribal species forming coalitional alliances to increase their chances of outcompeting other alliances. Like the Intergroup Threat Theory,

this theory recognises that prejudice develops due to posed threats to the in-group. The type of threat posed determines the behavioural and emotional response. For example a threat of disease would be responded to with emotion of disgust leading to avoidant behaviour. A threat to safety would prompt the flight-or-fight response. Often clues of threat are not clear yet humans still act upon them. Making decisions based on imperfect clues is understood as the error management theory. Hasel-ton and Buss (2000) suggest that it pays off to be biased towards perceiving threats, as this is less reproductively costly. Misjudging a healthy individual for a disease car-rier won’t cause us any harm whereas misjudging a disease carrier as a healthy individual could be fatal. Prejudice is clearly a complex phenomenon encompassing a wide range of emotions, subjective to each individual. The theories proposed are not mutually exclusive and all contrib-ute to understanding the psychology behind prejudice. However the explanations of prejudice by no means justify prejudice attitudes in modern societies. On the contrary, just because these behaviours have evolved, it does not mean they are hardwired. Humans are flexible enough to inhibit their prejudice and exercise tolerance.

Alicja Jedrzejewska

Did you know?The outer ear is the only human body part that continues to grow through-out adulthood? At birth the auricle (outer ear) measures approximately 52mm in length. This part of the ear is formed of cartilage which grows rapidly during child-hood. The auricle lengthens to about 60-65mm by aged 20, and continues to grow, all be it at a much slower rate, to an average of 78mm long past 70 years! Some of this increasing length is thought to be a result elas-ticity loss with age causing drooping of the ear lobes. Studies have also shown that men’s ears grow at a greater rate than those of women. So if your baby boy has big ears he’d better take a liking to big hats. Rachel Cole

Born on the 25th March 1914, Norman Borlaug has been described as the man that saved more human lives than anyone who has ever lived. This truly

inspirational man devoted his life to help solving world hunger by developing new types of wheat. He was quoted as saying, “We are 6.6 billion people now. We can feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2 billion volunteers to disappear”. As well as being labelled “the father of the green revolution”, Borlaug won the Nobel peace prize in 1970.

After growing up in Iowa, Borlaug went to the University of Minnesota to study Forestry, in between two stints working for the US forestry service. He later returned to the University to do a Masters and a PhD in plant pathology. This led to him taking a job in Mexico as a geneticist and plant pathologist. Not only did this move mean leaving his job at the highly respected chemical company Du-Pont (who had offered to double his salary), but also temporarily leaving behind his pregnant wife and young daughter. His work in Mexico included research in genetics, plant breeding, plant pathology, entomology, agronomy, soil science and cereal technology. This was very successful, leading to production of a high yield-ing, short strawed, disease resistant wheat. He arranged for the new cereal strains to be put into extensive production.

His work was especially influential in India and Pakistan. In fact, between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in these countries, providing food security for expanding populations. Prime Minister Singh and President Patil, both of India, paid tribute saying, “ Borlaug’s life and achievement are testimony to the far reaching contribution that one man’s towering intellect, persistence and scientific vision can make to human peace and progress”.

He died at the age of 95 in 2009 of lymphoma. I hope that after reading this you can appreciate what an extraordinary man Norman Borlaug was, as well as the great contribution he made not only to science, but to the world’s population. One of the greatest scientists and humanitarians that has ever lived; “the man that saved a billion lives”.

PROFILE

“We are 6.6 billion people now. We can feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2 billion volunteers to disappear”

by Toby Benham Norman Borlaug “The Man That Saved a Billion Lives”

Born on the 25th March 1914, Norman Borlaug has been described as the man that saved more human lives than anyone who has ever lived. This truly

inspirational man devoted his life to help solving world hunger by developing new types of wheat. He was quoted as saying, “We are 6.6 billion people now. We can feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2 billion volunteers to disappear”. As well as being labelled “the father of the green revolution”, Borlaug won the Nobel peace prize in 1970.

After growing up in Iowa, Borlaug went to the University of Minnesota to study Forestry, in between two stints working for the US forestry service. He later returned to the University to do a Masters and a PhD in plant pathology. This led to him taking a job in Mexico as a geneticist and plant pathologist. Not only did this move mean leaving his job at the highly respected chemical company Du-Pont (who had offered to double his salary), but also temporarily leaving behind his pregnant wife and young daughter. His work in Mexico included research in genetics, plant breeding, plant pathology, entomology, agronomy, soil science and cereal technology. This was very successful, leading to production of a high yield-ing, short strawed, disease resistant wheat. He arranged for the new cereal strains to be put into extensive production.

His work was especially influential in India and Pakistan. In fact, between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in these countries, providing food security for expanding populations. Prime Minister Singh and President Patil, both of India, paid tribute saying, “ Borlaug’s life and achievement are testimony to the far reaching contribution that one man’s towering intellect, persistence and scientific vision can make to human peace and progress”.

He died at the age of 95 in 2009 of lymphoma. I hope that after reading this you can appreciate what an extraordinary man Norman Borlaug was, as well as the great contribution he made not only to science, but to the world’s population. One of the greatest scientists and humanitarians that has ever lived; “the man that saved a billion lives”.

PROFILE

“We are 6.6 billion people now. We can feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2 billion volunteers to disappear”

by Toby Benham Norman Borlaug “The Man That Saved a Billion Lives”

FEATURE

Hydrothermal vents Genesis and E.TUntil the late 19th century

common wisdom dictated that life in the deep sea, say below 600m, was impossible. And then people went looking. One of the first signs that this notion was incorrect came from the Challenger expedition (1873 – 1876), during which living deep sea creatures were obtained. But, so the scientific world pro-claimed, even these weird crea-tures must depend entirely on organic carbon from the surface. This vision was finally challenged in 1977 with the discovery of thriving ecosystems near so-

called hydrothermal vents. These vents are cracks in the ocean floor through which hydrother-mal fluid, enriched with dis-solved metals and various other chemicals, is expelled. Around these vents, rich biological communities are found. Many bacteria here are chemolithotrophes, which means they get their energy not from sunlight, but from the chemical transformation of minerals abun-dant in the hydrothermal fluid. No need for the sun, so it seems. What is more, life down there is not limited to micro-organisms.

Giant tubeworms, hairy crabs and foot long clams inhabit these fascinating ecosystems. Inter-estingly, many of these bizarre beings have developed symbiotic relationships with bacteria. You give me food, I’ll give you shelter, or something like that. The spe-cifics, though, are still waiting to be elucidated. The discovery of these marvelous deep sea oases has shown that life can thrive even in places where no one would have expected it. As a certain Jurassic Park character once said: “Life finds a way.”

Life’s origins are still a won-derful mystery. If we want

to figure out how it happened, an important parcel of infor-mation is where it might have happened. In Darwin’s “warm, little pond”? Was the Earth seeded with primitive life forms by meteors? Or, could the rich hydrothermal vent communi-ties hint at another possible location for life’s first precarious moments: somewhere deep in the oceans? Why would hydrothermal vents be a suitable candidate for the location where life first arose? First of all, the conditions at such places (high pressure and high temperature) are conducive to the formation of certain organic molecules, which could function as precur-sors for life. Another clue comes

from looking at the tree of life. One interesting observation is that the majority of life forms are capable of withstanding rela-tively high hydrostatic pressure, leading some scientists to sug-gest that this represents a trait present in our early ancestors. These would have lived in areas of substantial pressure, such as, you guessed it, hydrothermal vents. Finally, deep sea habitats are quite stable in comparison with the ever-changing condi-tions above the surface. This might have given life the time to develop, unhindered by extreme environmental fluctuations. Sounds great. Is there any doubt? Yes, of course there is. Conditions at hydrothermal vents, as mentioned earlier, are good for the formation of organic molecules. The

flipside is that these molecules also fall apart more quickly at hydrothermal vents. Also, the assertion that the most recent common ancestor appears to have lived under conditions of high pressure does not necessar-ily mean that life itself origi-nated there. Another possibility is that life started somewhere else entirely and that some of its representatives migrated to the deep sea and, for whatever reason, were able to outcompete other forms of life, or survive a cataclysmic event that wiped out its near-surface cousins. So, are hydrothermal vents suitable as locations for life’s origin? Yes. The only candi-date? Not at all. There are other, equally valid, options out there.

Another, related area, in which the discovery of hy-

drothermal vents had quite an impact, is the search for extra-terrestrial life. After all, if life is more resilient than we thought, it might be found in places we wouldn’t have looked earlier. And not just on Earth. Even within our own solar system there are some candidates. Mars. Capturing human imagination since ancient times, the red planet is one of several focal points of astro-biological research. Now, it’s a dry, cold planet with a minute atmosphere. But it hasn’t always been like that. Various surface features suggest that, once upon a time, water flowed there and

perhaps still does, locked in underground reservoirs. If so, the water might find itself in conditions of high pressure and temperature. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Another option is Europa, one of Jupiter’s many moons. Completely covered in ice, it looks frightfully inhospitable. But it is possible that beneath the icy surface an ocean flows. Surely, the ice layer is too thick to allow photosynthesis? Yes, but the hydrothermal vents on Earth have taught us that there is another way for primary pro-ducers (or, the basis of the food chain) to find their food: not sunlight, but chemicals. If there is some geological activity on

Europa’s ocean floor, this might release the necessary elements, which would then be subjected to conditions conducive to the creation of life - high pressure and high temperature. So, did life start near a hy-drothermal vent? Is there life on Mars or Europa? We don’t know. But hydrothermal vents have at least shown themselves to be worthy candidates in the search for the answer to the biggest question. The origin of life might always remain somewhat mysterious (unless we invent time travel). And extraterrestrial life? Well, the best way to find out is to go and look…

Gunnar De Winter

“Life finds a way” Is this where life originated?

FEATURE

Hydrothermal vents Genesis and E.TUntil the late 19th century

common wisdom dictated that life in the deep sea, say below 600m, was impossible. And then people went looking. One of the first signs that this notion was incorrect came from the Challenger expedition (1873 – 1876), during which living deep sea creatures were obtained. But, so the scientific world pro-claimed, even these weird crea-tures must depend entirely on organic carbon from the surface. This vision was finally challenged in 1977 with the discovery of thriving ecosystems near so-

called hydrothermal vents. These vents are cracks in the ocean floor through which hydrother-mal fluid, enriched with dis-solved metals and various other chemicals, is expelled. Around these vents, rich biological communities are found. Many bacteria here are chemolithotrophes, which means they get their energy not from sunlight, but from the chemical transformation of minerals abun-dant in the hydrothermal fluid. No need for the sun, so it seems. What is more, life down there is not limited to micro-organisms.

Giant tubeworms, hairy crabs and foot long clams inhabit these fascinating ecosystems. Inter-estingly, many of these bizarre beings have developed symbiotic relationships with bacteria. You give me food, I’ll give you shelter, or something like that. The spe-cifics, though, are still waiting to be elucidated. The discovery of these marvelous deep sea oases has shown that life can thrive even in places where no one would have expected it. As a certain Jurassic Park character once said: “Life finds a way.”

Life’s origins are still a won-derful mystery. If we want

to figure out how it happened, an important parcel of infor-mation is where it might have happened. In Darwin’s “warm, little pond”? Was the Earth seeded with primitive life forms by meteors? Or, could the rich hydrothermal vent communi-ties hint at another possible location for life’s first precarious moments: somewhere deep in the oceans? Why would hydrothermal vents be a suitable candidate for the location where life first arose? First of all, the conditions at such places (high pressure and high temperature) are conducive to the formation of certain organic molecules, which could function as precur-sors for life. Another clue comes

from looking at the tree of life. One interesting observation is that the majority of life forms are capable of withstanding rela-tively high hydrostatic pressure, leading some scientists to sug-gest that this represents a trait present in our early ancestors. These would have lived in areas of substantial pressure, such as, you guessed it, hydrothermal vents. Finally, deep sea habitats are quite stable in comparison with the ever-changing condi-tions above the surface. This might have given life the time to develop, unhindered by extreme environmental fluctuations. Sounds great. Is there any doubt? Yes, of course there is. Conditions at hydrothermal vents, as mentioned earlier, are good for the formation of organic molecules. The

flipside is that these molecules also fall apart more quickly at hydrothermal vents. Also, the assertion that the most recent common ancestor appears to have lived under conditions of high pressure does not necessar-ily mean that life itself origi-nated there. Another possibility is that life started somewhere else entirely and that some of its representatives migrated to the deep sea and, for whatever reason, were able to outcompete other forms of life, or survive a cataclysmic event that wiped out its near-surface cousins. So, are hydrothermal vents suitable as locations for life’s origin? Yes. The only candi-date? Not at all. There are other, equally valid, options out there.

Another, related area, in which the discovery of hy-

drothermal vents had quite an impact, is the search for extra-terrestrial life. After all, if life is more resilient than we thought, it might be found in places we wouldn’t have looked earlier. And not just on Earth. Even within our own solar system there are some candidates. Mars. Capturing human imagination since ancient times, the red planet is one of several focal points of astro-biological research. Now, it’s a dry, cold planet with a minute atmosphere. But it hasn’t always been like that. Various surface features suggest that, once upon a time, water flowed there and

perhaps still does, locked in underground reservoirs. If so, the water might find itself in conditions of high pressure and temperature. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Another option is Europa, one of Jupiter’s many moons. Completely covered in ice, it looks frightfully inhospitable. But it is possible that beneath the icy surface an ocean flows. Surely, the ice layer is too thick to allow photosynthesis? Yes, but the hydrothermal vents on Earth have taught us that there is another way for primary pro-ducers (or, the basis of the food chain) to find their food: not sunlight, but chemicals. If there is some geological activity on

Europa’s ocean floor, this might release the necessary elements, which would then be subjected to conditions conducive to the creation of life - high pressure and high temperature. So, did life start near a hy-drothermal vent? Is there life on Mars or Europa? We don’t know. But hydrothermal vents have at least shown themselves to be worthy candidates in the search for the answer to the biggest question. The origin of life might always remain somewhat mysterious (unless we invent time travel). And extraterrestrial life? Well, the best way to find out is to go and look…

Gunnar De Winter

“Life finds a way” Is this where life originated?

ARTICLES

Understanding the Coriolis Force Tim Roberts

Ever wondered why water goes anticlockwise down the plug hole in the southern hemisphere?

With faster-than-light neutrinos, particle accelerators and the interstellar gas clouds the latest hot topics in the physics world, it’s easy to forget that physics is not just about the very small or the very big, but everything else in between. It’s often possible to find interesting physics far closer to home; one example of this is the mysterious Coriolis force. Thanks to this force, we can understand the background behind the popular myth that water goes clockwise down a plug hole in the northern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere. More seriously, it’s also important in firing long range ballistics.

Frames of reference Before the Coriolis force can be understood, it’s necessary to discuss frames of reference. This is the coordinate system upon which an experiment is defined. Take two people, Bob and Jack, standing 10m apart. The point of origin of their coordinate system is defined by where they stand. Consider a tennis ball, ball A, positioned 3m from Bob and 7m from Jack on a line connecting the two which we’ll call the x axis. In Bob’s frame of reference, he would describe the location of the ball as being at x=3m, whereas in Jack’s frame of reference he would describe it as being at x=-7m. Now, they each get a different ball, balls B and C, and begin to throw them up in the air and catch them. Jack then starts to move away from Bob at a constant speed. Even though Jack is now moving, in each of their frames of reference balls B and C move in the same way in accord-ance with Newton’s laws of motion. This obser-vation leads to the more general statement that Newton’s laws of motion apply in any frames of reference moving at a constant speed with respect to one another. This idea holds with our everyday experi-ences. You would expect a ball to behave the same if you were playing catch standing still or on a train moving at a constant speed of

100mph. However, things change in any frame of reference that is accelerating. A good exam-ple of this is when you are in a car going round a roundabout; in this case you feel a centrifugal force pulling you out from the roundabout’s centre. Once you have taken this force into account, Newton’s laws continue to apply. This type of force is known as a pseudo-force; the Coriolis force is one of these. The equation for the magnitude and direc-tion of the force is given in Box 1, where ome-ga is the speed of rotation and v is the velocity of the particle. This is very important since the earth is a rotating reference frame and there-fore moving objects on earth experience this force. As the equation implies, the force will only have a large effect on particles moving at large velocities, or if the speed of rotation is fast. Since the rotational speed of earth is only 360 degrees per day, particles need to be travelling at high speeds for the force to have noticeable effects. Importantly, the force will be directed perpendicular to both the direction in which the object is moving and to the earth’s axis.

Box. 1F=−2Ω×v

Long range BallisticsOne very important application of this is in long range ballistics, where projectiles are ex-pected to travel long distances at large veloci-ties and hit targets accurately. The large speed of these projectiles means that they can be significantly deflected whilst moving around the earth. The first historical example of this was the Paris gun, used by the Germans to fire projectiles at Paris from a range of around 75 miles during the First World War, a distance large enough for the Coriolis force to have a significant effect. Consequently, the gun only landed 183 shells out of 368 fired within the city boundary. Here a proper understanding of the Coriolis force may have resulted in more casualties and lead to the gun having a greater influence on the war’s outcome.

Water down a plug holeWe must consider the water as moving in a ro-tating reference frame. It therefore experiences a force perpendicular to both its direction of travel, initially straight down the plug hole towards the earth’s centre, and to the reference frame’s rotation. This in fact would have the ef-fect of making it circle the plug hole anticlock-wise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. However, it is important to note that this would be a very small force and, even though other phenomena in physics could cause an amplification of the effects of gravity and conservation of angular momen-tum, the shape of the basin and the tap used have a much larger bearing on how it flows.

See the Coriolis force in actionIf you happen to find yourself in a playground with a friend, with preferably nobody watch-ing, get a ball and stand opposite each other on the circumference of the merry-go round. Set the merry-go round in motion and begin play-ing catch. You will then be in a rotating frame of reference with a much larger angular veloc-ity, 360 degrees in roughly 3 seconds, making the Coriolis force much more noticeable. Try it for yourself and you’ll find some interesting physics closer to home.

Scientists can make diamonds out of tequila! Mexican researchers have found a use for their nation’s most fa-mous drink that doesn’t involve salt or a wedge of lemon. By heating tequila to vaporise it and then heating the vapour at around 800°C they produce carbon atoms that can be deposited as a tiny film of diamonds. Jewellery lovers need not get excited, however, as these pre-cious stones are on the nanometre scale and are currently only used for cutting tools and electronics. Erik Müürsepp

Did you know?

The Paris Gun

ARTICLES

Understanding the Coriolis Force Tim Roberts

Ever wondered why water goes anticlockwise down the plug hole in the southern hemisphere?

With faster-than-light neutrinos, particle accelerators and the interstellar gas clouds the latest hot topics in the physics world, it’s easy to forget that physics is not just about the very small or the very big, but everything else in between. It’s often possible to find interesting physics far closer to home; one example of this is the mysterious Coriolis force. Thanks to this force, we can understand the background behind the popular myth that water goes clockwise down a plug hole in the northern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere. More seriously, it’s also important in firing long range ballistics.

Frames of reference Before the Coriolis force can be understood, it’s necessary to discuss frames of reference. This is the coordinate system upon which an experiment is defined. Take two people, Bob and Jack, standing 10m apart. The point of origin of their coordinate system is defined by where they stand. Consider a tennis ball, ball A, positioned 3m from Bob and 7m from Jack on a line connecting the two which we’ll call the x axis. In Bob’s frame of reference, he would describe the location of the ball as being at x=3m, whereas in Jack’s frame of reference he would describe it as being at x=-7m. Now, they each get a different ball, balls B and C, and begin to throw them up in the air and catch them. Jack then starts to move away from Bob at a constant speed. Even though Jack is now moving, in each of their frames of reference balls B and C move in the same way in accord-ance with Newton’s laws of motion. This obser-vation leads to the more general statement that Newton’s laws of motion apply in any frames of reference moving at a constant speed with respect to one another. This idea holds with our everyday experi-ences. You would expect a ball to behave the same if you were playing catch standing still or on a train moving at a constant speed of

100mph. However, things change in any frame of reference that is accelerating. A good exam-ple of this is when you are in a car going round a roundabout; in this case you feel a centrifugal force pulling you out from the roundabout’s centre. Once you have taken this force into account, Newton’s laws continue to apply. This type of force is known as a pseudo-force; the Coriolis force is one of these. The equation for the magnitude and direc-tion of the force is given in Box 1, where ome-ga is the speed of rotation and v is the velocity of the particle. This is very important since the earth is a rotating reference frame and there-fore moving objects on earth experience this force. As the equation implies, the force will only have a large effect on particles moving at large velocities, or if the speed of rotation is fast. Since the rotational speed of earth is only 360 degrees per day, particles need to be travelling at high speeds for the force to have noticeable effects. Importantly, the force will be directed perpendicular to both the direction in which the object is moving and to the earth’s axis.

Box. 1F=−2Ω×v

Long range BallisticsOne very important application of this is in long range ballistics, where projectiles are ex-pected to travel long distances at large veloci-ties and hit targets accurately. The large speed of these projectiles means that they can be significantly deflected whilst moving around the earth. The first historical example of this was the Paris gun, used by the Germans to fire projectiles at Paris from a range of around 75 miles during the First World War, a distance large enough for the Coriolis force to have a significant effect. Consequently, the gun only landed 183 shells out of 368 fired within the city boundary. Here a proper understanding of the Coriolis force may have resulted in more casualties and lead to the gun having a greater influence on the war’s outcome.

Water down a plug holeWe must consider the water as moving in a ro-tating reference frame. It therefore experiences a force perpendicular to both its direction of travel, initially straight down the plug hole towards the earth’s centre, and to the reference frame’s rotation. This in fact would have the ef-fect of making it circle the plug hole anticlock-wise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. However, it is important to note that this would be a very small force and, even though other phenomena in physics could cause an amplification of the effects of gravity and conservation of angular momen-tum, the shape of the basin and the tap used have a much larger bearing on how it flows.

See the Coriolis force in actionIf you happen to find yourself in a playground with a friend, with preferably nobody watch-ing, get a ball and stand opposite each other on the circumference of the merry-go round. Set the merry-go round in motion and begin play-ing catch. You will then be in a rotating frame of reference with a much larger angular veloc-ity, 360 degrees in roughly 3 seconds, making the Coriolis force much more noticeable. Try it for yourself and you’ll find some interesting physics closer to home.

Scientists can make diamonds out of tequila! Mexican researchers have found a use for their nation’s most fa-mous drink that doesn’t involve salt or a wedge of lemon. By heating tequila to vaporise it and then heating the vapour at around 800°C they produce carbon atoms that can be deposited as a tiny film of diamonds. Jewellery lovers need not get excited, however, as these pre-cious stones are on the nanometre scale and are currently only used for cutting tools and electronics. Erik Müürsepp

Did you know?

The Paris Gun

Erik Müürsepp

PROFILE

At a glance, the species Turritopsis nutricula appears to just be a regular member of the hydrazoans, more commonly known as the jellyfish. Like

its squishy brethren, T. nutricula has two distinct stages throughout its life. It starts off as an immature polyp that is nothing more than an immobile stalk with feeding tentacles, and then develops into the sexually mature freely float-ing medusa form.

THE IMMORTAL JELLYFISH

For a typical jellyfish the transformation from polyp to medusa only occurs in that direction. Thus, they can expect to live anywhere from a few hours to a couple of months. This doesn’t apply to T. nutricula who is unique among all animals by being able to revert back to its immature form, thus escaping death. After sexual reproduc-tion it simply reabsorbs all its external parts, becoming a cyst that attaches to some-thing solid and grows into a polyp. This process can take place an unlimited number of times, meaning that this simple jellyfish is biologically immortal. The mechanism that enables this developmental curiosity is known as transdifferentiation. It involves transforming a fully differentiated cell such as a nerve cell or liver cell in humans into an entirely different cell type. The phenomenon is usually only seen when parts of organs regenerate after being damaged, but T. nutricula employs it in its normal life cycle. Although the immortal jellyfish has found a fountain of youth of sorts, it is defi-nitely not immune to being eaten by other animals or succumbing to disease. How-ever, the vastly extended average lifespan is still helping T. nutricula spread around the world, from its natural origins in the Caribbean to regions in every ocean. Whilst this invasion is going on, scientists are trying to unravel the mystery of how this sim-ple creature can use transdifferentiation to cheat death and whether this can have any use for extending human lifespan. Who knows, maybe when we’re all 500 years old we can give a toast to this tiny sea creature as we’re drinking our elixirs of youth.

Erik Müürsepp

PROFILE

At a glance, the species Turritopsis nutricula appears to just be a regular member of the hydrazoans, more commonly known as the jellyfish. Like

its squishy brethren, T. nutricula has two distinct stages throughout its life. It starts off as an immature polyp that is nothing more than an immobile stalk with feeding tentacles, and then develops into the sexually mature freely float-ing medusa form.

THE IMMORTAL JELLYFISH

For a typical jellyfish the transformation from polyp to medusa only occurs in that direction. Thus, they can expect to live anywhere from a few hours to a couple of months. This doesn’t apply to T. nutricula who is unique among all animals by being able to revert back to its immature form, thus escaping death. After sexual reproduc-tion it simply reabsorbs all its external parts, becoming a cyst that attaches to some-thing solid and grows into a polyp. This process can take place an unlimited number of times, meaning that this simple jellyfish is biologically immortal. The mechanism that enables this developmental curiosity is known as transdifferentiation. It involves transforming a fully differentiated cell such as a nerve cell or liver cell in humans into an entirely different cell type. The phenomenon is usually only seen when parts of organs regenerate after being damaged, but T. nutricula employs it in its normal life cycle. Although the immortal jellyfish has found a fountain of youth of sorts, it is defi-nitely not immune to being eaten by other animals or succumbing to disease. How-ever, the vastly extended average lifespan is still helping T. nutricula spread around the world, from its natural origins in the Caribbean to regions in every ocean. Whilst this invasion is going on, scientists are trying to unravel the mystery of how this sim-ple creature can use transdifferentiation to cheat death and whether this can have any use for extending human lifespan. Who knows, maybe when we’re all 500 years old we can give a toast to this tiny sea creature as we’re drinking our elixirs of youth.

ARTICLES FEATURE

Inspiration for this work comes from studying a group of pa-

tients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this con-dition induces bizarre religious hallucinations. It is hypothesized that the medial temporal lobe (behind our eyes) is specifically involved in generating some of the emotional reactions associ-ated with religious words, images and symbols. Neurotheologians speculate that individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy, having a natural tendency to experience altered states of consciousness, have functioned in human history as religious figures or shamans. Differences in brain volumes in temporal areas have also been identified. Taking this research further, cognitive neuroscience research-er Michael Persinger claims that stimulating the temporal lobe electromagnetically can trig-ger hallucinations of apparent paranormal phenomena such as the presence of God, ghosts and UFOs. Persinger and col-leagues have even created a “God helmet” out of a modified ski helmet, which can evoke altered states of consciousness through

stimulation of the parietal and temporal lobes. This helmet is placed on the head and releases low frequency electrical stimula-tion to the temporal brain areas. Persinger reports that at least 80 percent of his participants experienced a presence beside them in the room, which ranges from a simple ‘sensed presence’ to visions of God. About one percent experienced God, while many more had less evocative, but still significant experiences of “another consciousness or sentient being”. Although only a small number (in the order of 1%) of the experimental subjects saw God in the laboratory, their experiences can be interpreted as meaning that God is the subjective experience of an unusual kind of brain function. In contrast, most of the subjects had the experience of ‘sensing’ a ‘presence’. However, other researchers have criticised this work stating that once participants’ levels of suggestibility and baseline beliefs in the supernatural were taken into account the effects of “sens-ing a presence” disappeared. In a double blind study by a group of Swedish researchers temporal

lobe stimulation did not have any effect on people’s ‘presence sensing’ abilities. The God helmet has received so much media attention that scientist and science writer Richard Dawkins agreed to par-ticipate in the experiment whilst appearing on the BBC science documentary series Horizon. However, he did not sense a presence, but instead felt at times ‘slightly dizzy’, ‘quite strange’ and had sensations in his limbs and changes in his breathing. He summarised his experience as follows: “It pretty much felt as though I was in total darkness, with a helmet on my head, and pleasantly relaxed”. Persinger explained Dawkins’ limited re-sults in terms of his low score on a psychological scale measuring temporal lobe sensitivity. In contrast, the experimen-tal psychologist and former parapsychology researcher Susan Blackmore said: “When I went to Persinger’s lab and underwent his procedures I had the most extraordinary experiences I’ve ever had… I’ll be surprised if it turns out to be a placebo effect”.

Is God in our

Brains?Research suggests that believing in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe that a part of our brain is linked to the supernatu-ral and can be stimulated to promote a religious experience.

The God Helmet

Laura Shepstone

“Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s

Keyhole surgery continues to go from strength to strength. The latest technology means minimal trauma, reduced recovery time and a lot

less of a headache!

After making a ten-inch incision down your

chest, surgeons saw open your breast bone and pry apart your ribs using a surgi-cal jack risking all sorts of traumas; breaking bones, crushing nerves and tearing muscles and ligaments. This was part and parcel of heart surgery before the work

of pioneers, such as Dr Carlo Pappone, revolutionised the field over the last decade. Now, surgeons can get away with making only a few small incisions to access the heart: operating using a remote controlled catheter. And it’s not only cardio thoracic op-erations that have benefitted from robot-assisted surgery.

It has had a huge impact on all areas of surgery, the removal of prostate tumours and kidney operations being amongst the most signifi-cant. The technique is known as da Vinci. Not only is it magnificently less invasive thereby reducing overall stress, scarring and recovery

ARTICLES FEATURE

Inspiration for this work comes from studying a group of pa-

tients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this con-dition induces bizarre religious hallucinations. It is hypothesized that the medial temporal lobe (behind our eyes) is specifically involved in generating some of the emotional reactions associ-ated with religious words, images and symbols. Neurotheologians speculate that individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy, having a natural tendency to experience altered states of consciousness, have functioned in human history as religious figures or shamans. Differences in brain volumes in temporal areas have also been identified. Taking this research further, cognitive neuroscience research-er Michael Persinger claims that stimulating the temporal lobe electromagnetically can trig-ger hallucinations of apparent paranormal phenomena such as the presence of God, ghosts and UFOs. Persinger and col-leagues have even created a “God helmet” out of a modified ski helmet, which can evoke altered states of consciousness through

stimulation of the parietal and temporal lobes. This helmet is placed on the head and releases low frequency electrical stimula-tion to the temporal brain areas. Persinger reports that at least 80 percent of his participants experienced a presence beside them in the room, which ranges from a simple ‘sensed presence’ to visions of God. About one percent experienced God, while many more had less evocative, but still significant experiences of “another consciousness or sentient being”. Although only a small number (in the order of 1%) of the experimental subjects saw God in the laboratory, their experiences can be interpreted as meaning that God is the subjective experience of an unusual kind of brain function. In contrast, most of the subjects had the experience of ‘sensing’ a ‘presence’. However, other researchers have criticised this work stating that once participants’ levels of suggestibility and baseline beliefs in the supernatural were taken into account the effects of “sens-ing a presence” disappeared. In a double blind study by a group of Swedish researchers temporal

lobe stimulation did not have any effect on people’s ‘presence sensing’ abilities. The God helmet has received so much media attention that scientist and science writer Richard Dawkins agreed to par-ticipate in the experiment whilst appearing on the BBC science documentary series Horizon. However, he did not sense a presence, but instead felt at times ‘slightly dizzy’, ‘quite strange’ and had sensations in his limbs and changes in his breathing. He summarised his experience as follows: “It pretty much felt as though I was in total darkness, with a helmet on my head, and pleasantly relaxed”. Persinger explained Dawkins’ limited re-sults in terms of his low score on a psychological scale measuring temporal lobe sensitivity. In contrast, the experimen-tal psychologist and former parapsychology researcher Susan Blackmore said: “When I went to Persinger’s lab and underwent his procedures I had the most extraordinary experiences I’ve ever had… I’ll be surprised if it turns out to be a placebo effect”.

Is God in our

Brains?Research suggests that believing in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe that a part of our brain is linked to the supernatu-ral and can be stimulated to promote a religious experience.

The God Helmet

Laura Shepstone

“Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s

Keyhole surgery continues to go from strength to strength. The latest technology means minimal trauma, reduced recovery time and a lot

less of a headache!

After making a ten-inch incision down your

chest, surgeons saw open your breast bone and pry apart your ribs using a surgi-cal jack risking all sorts of traumas; breaking bones, crushing nerves and tearing muscles and ligaments. This was part and parcel of heart surgery before the work

of pioneers, such as Dr Carlo Pappone, revolutionised the field over the last decade. Now, surgeons can get away with making only a few small incisions to access the heart: operating using a remote controlled catheter. And it’s not only cardio thoracic op-erations that have benefitted from robot-assisted surgery.

It has had a huge impact on all areas of surgery, the removal of prostate tumours and kidney operations being amongst the most signifi-cant. The technique is known as da Vinci. Not only is it magnificently less invasive thereby reducing overall stress, scarring and recovery

time, but new technolo-gies are more precise and stable, and operations are significantly quicker when compared to traditional techniques – in some cases the duration has more than halved. Considering this, it doesn’t take much to realise the vast economic benefit of the da Vinci system. The procedure involves making a few incisions, less than eighteen millimeters in length, and feeding a high-resolution camera and tiny, robotic arms into the pa-tient’s body. The surgeon uses controls similar to forceps and a joystick whilst watch-ing the video feed from in-side the patient on a monitor. The movements are translat-ed acutely and mimicked by the robot, which manipulates the instruments with preci-sion. This is a substantial improvement on previous keyhole surgery methods, as instruments were awkward to navigate once inside the patient.

Another breakthrough development is that of magnetic catheters to treat irregular heart beats, which can operate with barely any human direction at all. An operator can select a site on the digital map interface and the robot can plan its own route, accommodating for any obstructions and allow-ing for the movement of the tissue. The robot is guided by multiple imaging techniques; ECG recording, C-arm fluoroscopy, intracardiac echocardiograph imaging and a well-developed map-ping system. This allows for three-dimensional imaging of the heart, complete with digital tool location. After making it to the desired loca-tion, the tip of the catheter delivers radio waves to the site and feedback sensors ensure contact is maintained. If the feedback is negative, the robot is able to reposition itself until the removal of

tissue is complete. It is even possible for some da Vinci operations to take place using an epidural (lo-cal) anaesthetic as opposed to a general anaesthetic, which in itself is accompa-nied by a whole cohort of adverse risks. This means pa-tients can remain conscious throughout their surgery, and several of the risks and trau-mas associated with general anaesthetics can be avoided. For example, to prevent the stomach contents from enter-ing the lungs under a general anaesthetic, a tube is inserted into the trachea and this fre-quently causes damage to the throat, tongue and mouth. This can be wholly avoided if an epidural anaesthetic is administered because the pa-tient can remain in control of their muscles. On top of this, entire population groups who are not offered surgeries, because the associated risks

of general anaesthetics are too high, can be given access to a new range of medi-cal treatments. There will be fewer patients who are unsuitable for surgery. Being remotely con-trolled, this robot has even more benefits. The skills of specialist surgeons can be transported to anywhere in the world with a linked up da Vinci machine with no more hassle than if the operation was in the next room. This isn’t a massive advantage as travel is easy in the modern age and sur-geons can always be trained to perform a new proce-dure. The crucial benefit to remotely controlled robotic surgery is that it can be used anywhere without the need to endanger the surgeon. For example, implementing da Vinci robotics in a battlefield removes many members of the surgical team from a potentially dangerous envi-roment and thus the number of medical staff put at risk is

markedly reduced. The future of remote controlled surgery looks to further develop the sensor feedback mechanism of tools and probes. As surgeons work, they take cues from the body of the patient and this is removed as the robot inter-mediates. Dr Robert Howe has recently engineered a prototype robotic fingertip to be inserted through a keyhole incision just like the tools of the da Vinci system. The fingertip is comprised of sixty-four pressure sensors each corresponding to a pin resting against the surgeon’s own finger. The pins rise and fall as the mechanical finger-tip passes over the contours of the patient and this will al-low the surgeon to effectively feel the organs and tissues as if they were feeling a patient in open surgery which will make them less dependent on the often limited visual information. Currently, robot assisted surgery has transformed the

surgical experience of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide. It has freed people from being bed-bound for exhausting lengths of time; it has decreased the pain and discomfort inherent in operations by an incredible magnitude; it has reformed the way people feel about their surgery by almost eliminating ‘ugly’ scarring. Robotic techniques and technologies will continue to advance, allowing more and more people to reap the benefits of surgery without the previously associated trauma, but it is important to acknowledge the role of the surgeon who continues to do a superb job of restoring us back to health when neces-sary, and who keeps an open mind in embracing these new developments, progress-ing their field further and allowing the outcome and experience of surgery to be continually improved.

Gemma HallamThe da Vinci surgery robot set up

da Vinci robot plays ‘Operation’

Robot quick-fix• The word ‘robot’ was coined by Czech play-wright Karel Carpek in his 1921 play Rossul’s Universal Robots: ‘robota’ translates as ‘serf labour’.

• Leonardo da Vinci designed an armored android way back in 1495, which has now been miniaturized for NASA with the intention

time, but new technolo-gies are more precise and stable, and operations are significantly quicker when compared to traditional techniques – in some cases the duration has more than halved. Considering this, it doesn’t take much to realise the vast economic benefit of the da Vinci system. The procedure involves making a few incisions, less than eighteen millimeters in length, and feeding a high-resolution camera and tiny, robotic arms into the pa-tient’s body. The surgeon uses controls similar to forceps and a joystick whilst watch-ing the video feed from in-side the patient on a monitor. The movements are translat-ed acutely and mimicked by the robot, which manipulates the instruments with preci-sion. This is a substantial improvement on previous keyhole surgery methods, as instruments were awkward to navigate once inside the patient.

Another breakthrough development is that of magnetic catheters to treat irregular heart beats, which can operate with barely any human direction at all. An operator can select a site on the digital map interface and the robot can plan its own route, accommodating for any obstructions and allow-ing for the movement of the tissue. The robot is guided by multiple imaging techniques; ECG recording, C-arm fluoroscopy, intracardiac echocardiograph imaging and a well-developed map-ping system. This allows for three-dimensional imaging of the heart, complete with digital tool location. After making it to the desired loca-tion, the tip of the catheter delivers radio waves to the site and feedback sensors ensure contact is maintained. If the feedback is negative, the robot is able to reposition itself until the removal of

tissue is complete. It is even possible for some da Vinci operations to take place using an epidural (lo-cal) anaesthetic as opposed to a general anaesthetic, which in itself is accompa-nied by a whole cohort of adverse risks. This means pa-tients can remain conscious throughout their surgery, and several of the risks and trau-mas associated with general anaesthetics can be avoided. For example, to prevent the stomach contents from enter-ing the lungs under a general anaesthetic, a tube is inserted into the trachea and this fre-quently causes damage to the throat, tongue and mouth. This can be wholly avoided if an epidural anaesthetic is administered because the pa-tient can remain in control of their muscles. On top of this, entire population groups who are not offered surgeries, because the associated risks

of general anaesthetics are too high, can be given access to a new range of medi-cal treatments. There will be fewer patients who are unsuitable for surgery. Being remotely con-trolled, this robot has even more benefits. The skills of specialist surgeons can be transported to anywhere in the world with a linked up da Vinci machine with no more hassle than if the operation was in the next room. This isn’t a massive advantage as travel is easy in the modern age and sur-geons can always be trained to perform a new proce-dure. The crucial benefit to remotely controlled robotic surgery is that it can be used anywhere without the need to endanger the surgeon. For example, implementing da Vinci robotics in a battlefield removes many members of the surgical team from a potentially dangerous envi-roment and thus the number of medical staff put at risk is

markedly reduced. The future of remote controlled surgery looks to further develop the sensor feedback mechanism of tools and probes. As surgeons work, they take cues from the body of the patient and this is removed as the robot inter-mediates. Dr Robert Howe has recently engineered a prototype robotic fingertip to be inserted through a keyhole incision just like the tools of the da Vinci system. The fingertip is comprised of sixty-four pressure sensors each corresponding to a pin resting against the surgeon’s own finger. The pins rise and fall as the mechanical finger-tip passes over the contours of the patient and this will al-low the surgeon to effectively feel the organs and tissues as if they were feeling a patient in open surgery which will make them less dependent on the often limited visual information. Currently, robot assisted surgery has transformed the

surgical experience of hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide. It has freed people from being bed-bound for exhausting lengths of time; it has decreased the pain and discomfort inherent in operations by an incredible magnitude; it has reformed the way people feel about their surgery by almost eliminating ‘ugly’ scarring. Robotic techniques and technologies will continue to advance, allowing more and more people to reap the benefits of surgery without the previously associated trauma, but it is important to acknowledge the role of the surgeon who continues to do a superb job of restoring us back to health when neces-sary, and who keeps an open mind in embracing these new developments, progress-ing their field further and allowing the outcome and experience of surgery to be continually improved.

Gemma HallamThe da Vinci surgery robot set up

da Vinci robot plays ‘Operation’

Robot quick-fix• The word ‘robot’ was coined by Czech play-wright Karel Carpek in his 1921 play Rossul’s Universal Robots: ‘robota’ translates as ‘serf labour’.

• Leonardo da Vinci designed an armored android way back in 1495, which has now been miniaturized for NASA with the intention

OPINIONS

Nuclear Power A Step Sideways?

Petrol prices seem to be ever rising in a world facing an

energy crisis. So, what next? Fossil fuel technology is clearly not sustainable and there are many questions as to the consequences to the environ-ment. So far renewable energy technologies have not been good enough- solar power is not reliable in many coun-tries and wind power is not efficient. This means they can only be part of the solution. Biofuels have been suggested as a potential solution, but the large areas of land required for production of sugar and starch crops sacrifices important food crop production. Unless more oil and natural gas can be sourced, or renewable ener-gies can be improved then the primary option left is nuclear energy, this has the potential to supply power for thousands of years, and possibly forever. Even though it is still heavily criticised and controversial there are now over 440 com-mercial nuclear power stations in operation around the world.

This shows that nations have been open to developing nuclear power. However, the toxic waste that is produced from nuclear power stations takes thousands of years to degrade and could quite possi-bly, accidentally be spilt in the ocean during transportation. There have also been nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 where one of the nuclear reactors at the power station exploded. Natural disasters can also create catastrophes, such as the tsunami causing the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - the largest disaster since Chernobyl. Consequently, sub-stantial amounts of radiation were released into the environ-ment which had dire effects on ecosystems. Lady Barbara Judge, former head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, argues that the Chernobyl disaster was not due to the dangers of nuclear energy but because of poor management and design of the nuclear vessels in Chernobyl. She believes nuclear power is

safe as long as power plants are managed and regulated in the correct manner. Interestingly, an independent commission investigating the Fukushima disaster claims that it too could have been avoided. It lays the blame on the energy utilities, regulators and the Japanese government. In March this year E.ON UK and RWE npower announced they would not be developing new power plants in the UK, putting any possibility into future energy dependence into serious doubt. The UK cannot rely on other countries for energy once North Sea oil runs out; it’s not financially viable for a country in recession. Therefore the only option is to build new nuclear power plants; it is a risk we must face. With regulation and risk con-trol, nuclear energy could be used to supplement renewable energies to replace oil once and for all. Although it may be seen as a step sideways, it is a step that must be taken.

Philosophy: As Crucial to Physics as Math

Math holds physical theo-ries together. Philosophy

maps those theories and cre-ates a coherent structure. Math is sturdy and inflexible in its logic. Philosophy of physics, is as flexible as the physics itself. Most physicists shun phi-losophy because, in contrast to their own field, it’s inherently unverifiable. Physics constructs theories and then designs ex-periments to test said theories (or in some cases discovers something new via experiment and attempts to explain it with theory). This empirical aspect, despite its necessary human involvement, gives physics an objectivity that pure philoso-phy can never attain. Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn’t require such grounding. It’s relatively more flexible, conceptual, and pos-sibly subjective. Yet physics, as a science, cannot exist without it. Why is this? Mathemat-ics is self-contained, whereas physics is a representation of reality, giving meaning to the math. Physicists know their work is subject to error and/or lack of relevance to different contexts. One such example is the sufficiency of Newtonian mechanics in most situations

of non-relativistic speeds. But if an object travels fast enough, the old mechanics no longer applies and you need to replace it with Einstein’s special relativity. An incredible amount of insight goes into figuring out the relevance and meaning of equations and relations that are deduced with math in the framework of physics. And beyond that, there are always metaphysical implications that can lead physicists down different paths of thinking. For example, deducing an electron must be a point particle be-cause it jumps between orbitals in a particle-like fashion, or that it must be a wave due to the electrons never seeming to be in a single point location. The opposite is also done: going down a path of thinking beginning with a metaphysical view and ending in a physical theory. A good example of this is Einstein, whose belief in the universe’s deterministic nature led to his search for alterna-tives to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics: there are many possible interpreta-tions of this strange theory. If we want to know what is really going on, as is usually the goal

of science, we need to con-stantly think critically about not only our physical theories but also the interpretations we place on them. In a quantum system being measured, why do we get one particular result in place of all other possibilities? Is the quantum world inherently random, or are we missing something in our theory? Are there actually parallel universes for every outcome of an event? These philosophically inclined enquiries seem necessary if we want physics to get us closer to the truth. What many physicists don’t realize is that philosophy does not just involve arguing about unverifiable ideas. Phi-losophy is more importantly about thinking critically and understanding what goes into an argument. This includes assumptions, biases, fallacies, and all. Philosophy thus can actually help us to recognize and remove subjective perspec-tives to make physics more objective. So not only is phi-losophy necessary to outright do physics, but it’s also helpful in advancing physics. Physi-cists would probably be better off acknowledging this.

Leslie Bicknell

Toby Benham

OPINIONS

Nuclear Power A Step Sideways?

Petrol prices seem to be ever rising in a world facing an

energy crisis. So, what next? Fossil fuel technology is clearly not sustainable and there are many questions as to the consequences to the environ-ment. So far renewable energy technologies have not been good enough- solar power is not reliable in many coun-tries and wind power is not efficient. This means they can only be part of the solution. Biofuels have been suggested as a potential solution, but the large areas of land required for production of sugar and starch crops sacrifices important food crop production. Unless more oil and natural gas can be sourced, or renewable ener-gies can be improved then the primary option left is nuclear energy, this has the potential to supply power for thousands of years, and possibly forever. Even though it is still heavily criticised and controversial there are now over 440 com-mercial nuclear power stations in operation around the world.

This shows that nations have been open to developing nuclear power. However, the toxic waste that is produced from nuclear power stations takes thousands of years to degrade and could quite possi-bly, accidentally be spilt in the ocean during transportation. There have also been nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 where one of the nuclear reactors at the power station exploded. Natural disasters can also create catastrophes, such as the tsunami causing the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - the largest disaster since Chernobyl. Consequently, sub-stantial amounts of radiation were released into the environ-ment which had dire effects on ecosystems. Lady Barbara Judge, former head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, argues that the Chernobyl disaster was not due to the dangers of nuclear energy but because of poor management and design of the nuclear vessels in Chernobyl. She believes nuclear power is

safe as long as power plants are managed and regulated in the correct manner. Interestingly, an independent commission investigating the Fukushima disaster claims that it too could have been avoided. It lays the blame on the energy utilities, regulators and the Japanese government. In March this year E.ON UK and RWE npower announced they would not be developing new power plants in the UK, putting any possibility into future energy dependence into serious doubt. The UK cannot rely on other countries for energy once North Sea oil runs out; it’s not financially viable for a country in recession. Therefore the only option is to build new nuclear power plants; it is a risk we must face. With regulation and risk con-trol, nuclear energy could be used to supplement renewable energies to replace oil once and for all. Although it may be seen as a step sideways, it is a step that must be taken.

Philosophy: As Crucial to Physics as Math

Math holds physical theo-ries together. Philosophy

maps those theories and cre-ates a coherent structure. Math is sturdy and inflexible in its logic. Philosophy of physics, is as flexible as the physics itself. Most physicists shun phi-losophy because, in contrast to their own field, it’s inherently unverifiable. Physics constructs theories and then designs ex-periments to test said theories (or in some cases discovers something new via experiment and attempts to explain it with theory). This empirical aspect, despite its necessary human involvement, gives physics an objectivity that pure philoso-phy can never attain. Philosophy, on the other hand, doesn’t require such grounding. It’s relatively more flexible, conceptual, and pos-sibly subjective. Yet physics, as a science, cannot exist without it. Why is this? Mathemat-ics is self-contained, whereas physics is a representation of reality, giving meaning to the math. Physicists know their work is subject to error and/or lack of relevance to different contexts. One such example is the sufficiency of Newtonian mechanics in most situations

of non-relativistic speeds. But if an object travels fast enough, the old mechanics no longer applies and you need to replace it with Einstein’s special relativity. An incredible amount of insight goes into figuring out the relevance and meaning of equations and relations that are deduced with math in the framework of physics. And beyond that, there are always metaphysical implications that can lead physicists down different paths of thinking. For example, deducing an electron must be a point particle be-cause it jumps between orbitals in a particle-like fashion, or that it must be a wave due to the electrons never seeming to be in a single point location. The opposite is also done: going down a path of thinking beginning with a metaphysical view and ending in a physical theory. A good example of this is Einstein, whose belief in the universe’s deterministic nature led to his search for alterna-tives to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics: there are many possible interpreta-tions of this strange theory. If we want to know what is really going on, as is usually the goal

of science, we need to con-stantly think critically about not only our physical theories but also the interpretations we place on them. In a quantum system being measured, why do we get one particular result in place of all other possibilities? Is the quantum world inherently random, or are we missing something in our theory? Are there actually parallel universes for every outcome of an event? These philosophically inclined enquiries seem necessary if we want physics to get us closer to the truth. What many physicists don’t realize is that philosophy does not just involve arguing about unverifiable ideas. Phi-losophy is more importantly about thinking critically and understanding what goes into an argument. This includes assumptions, biases, fallacies, and all. Philosophy thus can actually help us to recognize and remove subjective perspec-tives to make physics more objective. So not only is phi-losophy necessary to outright do physics, but it’s also helpful in advancing physics. Physi-cists would probably be better off acknowledging this.

Leslie Bicknell

Toby Benham

The Higgs Boson: Not About Simple Science, Not Simply About Science Harrison Carter

This started with the string theory that aimed to reconcile quantum mechanics, which is actions on the order of the Planck Constant (very small) and General Relativity, which is our modern view of gravitation. This evolved into the supersymmetric string theory that un-like the string theory, considered both bosons, which are particles described by Bose-Einstein Statistics and Fermions, which are described by both Fermi-Dirac Statistics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It also incorporated the theory of supersymmetry. This then developed further from a 10 to an 11 dimensional hypoth-esis that produced the M theory. We haven’t yet been able to identify a theory of everything, even though, as mentioned earlier, we have many ideas. This remains one of the many unsolved problems of physics. However, through the Standard Model and the locating of the Higgs Boson, we have been able to get closer to a ‘Theory of ALMOST Every-thing’. The Higgs Boson is the final elementary particle predicted and required by the Standard Model, which up until this point has not been observed. This in itself is substantial. If it is the Higgs Boson that has been found then the Standard Model would be validated. This momentous discovery, I believe should have warranted a fanfare not just from the sci-entific community, but from the general public. However, it only received a mere recognition above the parapet of generalised ignorance many have to science. Despite this discovery re-ceiving more recognition than other important advancements in the past, it was still brief and mostly uninformative when compared to other media topics.

I think this boils down to a more systemic ethic many have now adopted in society. If things are not seen to be of any immediate use, then they are simply regarded as un-important. Gone are the days when exploration for its own sake, as justification for experiments, was seen as the only argument required to persuade. Nu-merous reporters and journalists have centred their questioning on the practicalities of these findings. Some have the temerity to ask “What’s in it for me?!” This is a short term approach to something that has long term implications. The fact that this discovery opens doors for us to find out new things and apply our theory of the standard model in greater depth takes a back seat. Looking at the past for inspiration, it is obvious that keeping the public interested should be one of our top priorities. Although the immediate uses of these discoveries may be impossible to predict, they may fulfil the public’s need for practical application in the future. For example, without an understanding of quantum mechanics the Transistor wouldn’t have been born. Without an understanding of the electron, electron microscopy would not have been invented. The fact that people often don’t realise the long term application of the discoveries made by scientists may be one of the biggest problems facing it. This justifies the case for greater public engagement. It’s been some 50 years since the Higgs Mechanism was first proposed. It may be another 50 before the observation made on the 4th July becomes ap-parently useful. For me, the importance of this discovery will not change.

It is important to share science and the endeav-ours of those committed to its cause with the

general public or the ‘lay person’. Indeed, if we are to appreciate the full extent of the benefits of our discoveries, then those benefits, by nature, have to be shared with and by everyone. The reporting of science across the full spectrum of broad news-media is often inaccurate and leaves the reader ill-informed. Also there appears to be little appetite for science amongst those not directly represented in the profession. The slight exception to this rule is the discussion and debate about the possible recording of the Higgs Boson. For many people, the Higgs Boson is a particle that they relate to the Large Hadron Collider. Indeed, the Collider at CERN was the particle accelerating machine in which tests were being carried out to find this ‘mass-giving’ elementary object. Tests have consequently now confirmed that the particle may have been observed experi-

mentally, but scientists are rightly proceeding with extreme caution. The method of discovering the Higgs Boson seems rather unconventional. The hope was, in simple terms, that by bashing protons together at energies greater than 7 GeV, interactions in the Higgs Field would be recorded. Thus, the Higgs Boson, namesake of the emeritus professor of Physics at the University of Edinburgh, would be found. The day when the discovery was made was marked as historic. It was described as an occasion which would be looked back on for many years to come. By the admission of one prolific scientist it was the greatest discovery in his lifetime. Many theories have been postulated about the behaviour of elementary particles and how they interact at a level we find almost impossible to conceptualise. One family of theories propose that electrons and quarks are 1-dimensional oscillating string like objects.

OPINIONS

The Higgs Boson: Not About Simple Science, Not Simply About Science Harrison Carter

This started with the string theory that aimed to reconcile quantum mechanics, which is actions on the order of the Planck Constant (very small) and General Relativity, which is our modern view of gravitation. This evolved into the supersymmetric string theory that un-like the string theory, considered both bosons, which are particles described by Bose-Einstein Statistics and Fermions, which are described by both Fermi-Dirac Statistics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It also incorporated the theory of supersymmetry. This then developed further from a 10 to an 11 dimensional hypoth-esis that produced the M theory. We haven’t yet been able to identify a theory of everything, even though, as mentioned earlier, we have many ideas. This remains one of the many unsolved problems of physics. However, through the Standard Model and the locating of the Higgs Boson, we have been able to get closer to a ‘Theory of ALMOST Every-thing’. The Higgs Boson is the final elementary particle predicted and required by the Standard Model, which up until this point has not been observed. This in itself is substantial. If it is the Higgs Boson that has been found then the Standard Model would be validated. This momentous discovery, I believe should have warranted a fanfare not just from the sci-entific community, but from the general public. However, it only received a mere recognition above the parapet of generalised ignorance many have to science. Despite this discovery re-ceiving more recognition than other important advancements in the past, it was still brief and mostly uninformative when compared to other media topics.

I think this boils down to a more systemic ethic many have now adopted in society. If things are not seen to be of any immediate use, then they are simply regarded as un-important. Gone are the days when exploration for its own sake, as justification for experiments, was seen as the only argument required to persuade. Nu-merous reporters and journalists have centred their questioning on the practicalities of these findings. Some have the temerity to ask “What’s in it for me?!” This is a short term approach to something that has long term implications. The fact that this discovery opens doors for us to find out new things and apply our theory of the standard model in greater depth takes a back seat. Looking at the past for inspiration, it is obvious that keeping the public interested should be one of our top priorities. Although the immediate uses of these discoveries may be impossible to predict, they may fulfil the public’s need for practical application in the future. For example, without an understanding of quantum mechanics the Transistor wouldn’t have been born. Without an understanding of the electron, electron microscopy would not have been invented. The fact that people often don’t realise the long term application of the discoveries made by scientists may be one of the biggest problems facing it. This justifies the case for greater public engagement. It’s been some 50 years since the Higgs Mechanism was first proposed. It may be another 50 before the observation made on the 4th July becomes ap-parently useful. For me, the importance of this discovery will not change.

It is important to share science and the endeav-ours of those committed to its cause with the

general public or the ‘lay person’. Indeed, if we are to appreciate the full extent of the benefits of our discoveries, then those benefits, by nature, have to be shared with and by everyone. The reporting of science across the full spectrum of broad news-media is often inaccurate and leaves the reader ill-informed. Also there appears to be little appetite for science amongst those not directly represented in the profession. The slight exception to this rule is the discussion and debate about the possible recording of the Higgs Boson. For many people, the Higgs Boson is a particle that they relate to the Large Hadron Collider. Indeed, the Collider at CERN was the particle accelerating machine in which tests were being carried out to find this ‘mass-giving’ elementary object. Tests have consequently now confirmed that the particle may have been observed experi-

mentally, but scientists are rightly proceeding with extreme caution. The method of discovering the Higgs Boson seems rather unconventional. The hope was, in simple terms, that by bashing protons together at energies greater than 7 GeV, interactions in the Higgs Field would be recorded. Thus, the Higgs Boson, namesake of the emeritus professor of Physics at the University of Edinburgh, would be found. The day when the discovery was made was marked as historic. It was described as an occasion which would be looked back on for many years to come. By the admission of one prolific scientist it was the greatest discovery in his lifetime. Many theories have been postulated about the behaviour of elementary particles and how they interact at a level we find almost impossible to conceptualise. One family of theories propose that electrons and quarks are 1-dimensional oscillating string like objects.

OPINIONS

Marvels

The Naked Mole Rat by Gunnar De Winter

MARVELS Power Napping Ants by Rachel Cole

Continue the fun with Synapse online! Visit our blog.--- synapsebristol.blogspot.co.uk ---Special features

Recent highlightsLoo for a ShrewThe Vegetarian Spider Freaky creatures - Halloween SpecialThe Diamond Planet

Power naps are something many students learn to love during their first year at university. A 20 minute kip can work wonders for concentration when you have a raging hangover and a 1000

word essay to battle through. But who would have thought ants would share the sleeping patterns of a fresher? Like students (well, science students anyway), worker ants have limited time for sleeping. These ants are constantly busy labouring to protect the queen’s eggs, searching for food and defending the nest. To ensure that these roles are occupied 24/7 the ants within the work-force sleep at different times. Each ant takes up to 250 naps per day, but with each lasting only approximately a minute, the ants have to get by with less than 5 hours sleep. Unlike the workers, the queens prefer to take less frequent but much longer sleeps totalling about 9 hours a day. This restful life seems to work wonders for the queens who manage to live for up to 6 years in contrast to the worker ants who’s life expectancy is between 6 months to a year. A good excuse for staying in bed a little longer?

Despite its less attractive appearance (for some), the naked mole rat (or Heterocephalus glaber) is a marvelous creature, living in East Africa. Not only is it one of only two

known eusocial mammals (think beehive or anthill), but recent research has found a couple of remarkable characteristics of this naked burrowing rodent. It doesn’t get cancer, thanks to a combination of two anti-cancer genes. Furthermore, these animals get a lot older than expected for rodents of their size. The reason for this is yet tobe elucidated and formed one of the main motivations to have the naked mole rat genome sequenced (a draft genome was completed in 2011). Finally, they feel no pain when exposed to acid, due to the lack of a certain chemicalin their skin called substance P. Remarkable creatures, are they not? The lesson here:never judge a book, or animal, by its cover.

Marvels

The Naked Mole Rat by Gunnar De Winter

MARVELS Power Napping Ants by Rachel Cole

Continue the fun with Synapse online! Visit our blog.--- synapsebristol.blogspot.co.uk ---Special features

Recent highlightsLoo for a ShrewThe Vegetarian Spider Freaky creatures - Halloween SpecialThe Diamond Planet

Power naps are something many students learn to love during their first year at university. A 20 minute kip can work wonders for concentration when you have a raging hangover and a 1000

word essay to battle through. But who would have thought ants would share the sleeping patterns of a fresher? Like students (well, science students anyway), worker ants have limited time for sleeping. These ants are constantly busy labouring to protect the queen’s eggs, searching for food and defending the nest. To ensure that these roles are occupied 24/7 the ants within the work-force sleep at different times. Each ant takes up to 250 naps per day, but with each lasting only approximately a minute, the ants have to get by with less than 5 hours sleep. Unlike the workers, the queens prefer to take less frequent but much longer sleeps totalling about 9 hours a day. This restful life seems to work wonders for the queens who manage to live for up to 6 years in contrast to the worker ants who’s life expectancy is between 6 months to a year. A good excuse for staying in bed a little longer?

Despite its less attractive appearance (for some), the naked mole rat (or Heterocephalus glaber) is a marvelous creature, living in East Africa. Not only is it one of only two

known eusocial mammals (think beehive or anthill), but recent research has found a couple of remarkable characteristics of this naked burrowing rodent. It doesn’t get cancer, thanks to a combination of two anti-cancer genes. Furthermore, these animals get a lot older than expected for rodents of their size. The reason for this is yet tobe elucidated and formed one of the main motivations to have the naked mole rat genome sequenced (a draft genome was completed in 2011). Finally, they feel no pain when exposed to acid, due to the lack of a certain chemicalin their skin called substance P. Remarkable creatures, are they not? The lesson here:never judge a book, or animal, by its cover.

Synapse Science Magazine#3

Documents

Transcript of Synapse Science Magazine#3