One of the biggest problems with batteries is the time it takes to recharge them. Run out of juice and it'll be several hours before you're mobile again, a particular showstopper for electric vehicles.

Today, Ibrahim Abou Hamad at Mississippi State University and few buddies reveal an entirely new technique for charging lithium ion batteries that could lead to exponential improvements in charging time.

The business end of a lithium battery, the anode, consists of a graphite electrode, in other words a stack of graphene sheets, bathed in an electrolyte of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate molecules through which lithium and hexafluorophosphate ions diffuse. During charging, an electric field pushes the lithium ions towards and into the graphene sheets, where they have to cross a potential barrier to become embedded and stored, a process called intercalation.

The Mississippi team have studied the movement of these ions and molecules by creating a computer model of the forces acting on them. Their model consists of 160 carbon atoms arranged in 4 graphene sheets, 69 propylene carbonate and 87 ethylene carbonate molecules forming a liquid electrolyte and finally, two hexafluorophosphate ions and10 lithium ions. They then apply an electric field across this system and watch what happens.

It turns out that while the electric field pushes the lithium ions towards the graphene, the rate limiting step is the process of intercalation--the rate at which the lithium ions can cross the potential barrier into the graphene .

What Hamad and co have found is a relatively simple way to overcome this barrier. The trick is to superimpose an oscillating electric field onto the charging field. This has the effect of helping the lithium ions to hop over the barrier.

But get this: the team says there is an exponential relationship between the intercalation time and the oscillating field amplitude. So a small increase in amplitude of the field leads to a massive speed up of the process of intercalation.

"These simulations suggest a new charging method that has the potential to deliver much shorter charging times, as well as the possibility of providing higher power densities," they say.

That's a neat piece of work which should be relatively straightforward to test in a real battery.

That doesn't mean that we'll see a ten minute charging time for electric vehicles any time soon.

Battery performance is a complicated balance between huge numbers of competing factors. If this oscillating field does improve charging time in real batteries, manufacturers will then have to check its effect on other performance metrics such as the number of these charging cycles a battery can withstand and how long it holds its charge, to name just two.

Nevertheless, these Mississippi guys have come up with an interesting new approach that will have more than peaked the interest of battery makers around the globe.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1003.1678: A New Battery-Charging Method Suggested By Molecular Dynamics Simulations

The speed of light represents one of the fundamental limits of the laws of physics. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, right?

Well, yes and no, say Volkmar Putz and Karl Svozil at the Vienna University of Technology in Austria. They say there are several ways that signals can cross the superluminal line, although none of them allow the kind of time travel paradoxes beloved of science fiction writers. For example, the quantum phenomenon of entanglement occurs when two quantum particles are described by the same wave function. These particles can be separated by the diameter of the universe and yet a measurement on one will instantaneously influence the other.

So-called "nonlocal" phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information faster than the speed of light but Putz and Svozil today ask whether it can be used to process it, to carry out computational tasks at superluminal speeds. They say there is no reason why not, provided the processing does not lead to any time travel paradoxes.

How might such a machine work? Putz and Svozil point out that nonlocal phenomenon can lead to materials in which the index of refraction is less than one, thereby allowing superluminal speeds. For example, light travelling through a vacuum can be made to spontaneously form into an electron-positron pair--an entangled pair--which then recombine to form a photon again. This process happens instantaneously, allowing the photon to effectively "jump" across space.

A material in which this kind of pair formation and recombination was promoted would have a refractive index less than one, they say. Various physicists have proposed such materials made of things like metamaterials. Putz and Svozil themselves suggest that a vacuum filled with either electrons or positrons would do the trick.

Having created a medium in which the refractive index is less than one, Putz and Svozil's idea is simply to immerse a computer in it. That simple act (and presumably some clever design to create an optical computer in the first place) would allow superluminal computation to take place.

Assuming that this device could actually be built, what could you do with a superluminal computer? That's a good question that Putz and Svozil do not address directly. They say such a device would fall into a class of processing machine known as hypercomputers. These are hypothetical devices more powerful than Turing machines, that allow non-Turing computations. They were first discussed by Alan Turing in the 1930s.

In theory, hypercomputers can compute certain kinds of otherwise noncomputable functions. That sounds handy but even though there are uncountably many non-computable functions, it's actually quite hard to come up with an example of one that might seem useful. If you have any ideas, post them in the comments section.

Otherwise sit back and wait for a new era of superluminal hyprcomputers. But don't hold your breath.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1003.1238: On the physical limit of communication speed by light signals

The world of cryptography is currently undergoing a quantum revolution. The weird laws of quantum mechanics allow cryptographers to create codes that guarantee perfect secrecy. Until recently, the best cryptographers could aim for was just pretty good secrecy with codes that were always compromised in some way or another. Quantum cryptography, on the other hand, is perfect: theoretically and practically secure.

A few companies have even sprung up to sell the gear that can send perfectly secure messages, mainly to banks and governments (although the gear itself creates some loopholes that eavesdroppers can attack).

But it's still early days for this technology and naturally it suffers from several drawbacks. For example, one well known limitation is that quantum cryptography can only be used over point-to-point connections and not through networks where data has to be routed. That's because the routing process destroys the quantum properties of the photons used to secure messages.

A lesser known limitation is that the sender and receiver of quantum encrypted messages--the famous Alice and Bob--must be perfectly aligned so that they can carry out well-defined polarisation measurements on the photons as they arrive. Physicists say that Alice and Bob must share the same reference frame.

That's not so hard to do when Alice and Bob are both based in labs on the ground. But it's much harder when one or the other is moving, in a satellite, for example, which would be both spinning and orbiting the Earth.

Today, Anthony Laing from the University of Bristol and a few pals show how to get round this. The trick is to use entangled triplets of photons, so-called qutrits, rather than entangled pairs.

This solves the problem by embedding it in an extra abstract dimension, which is independent of space. So as long as both Alice and Bob know the way in which all these abstract dimensions are related, the third provides a reference against which measurements of the other two can be made.

That allows Alice and Bob to make any measurements they need without having to agree ahead of time on a frame of reference. There is one proviso: Alice and Bob cannot move too quickly during the measurements since this changes their relative orientation and a new qutrit will be needed to establish a reference.

That'll be useful for quantum encryption over satellite links, the kind of thing that government agencies and the military might want to do. But there's another, more valuable application.

If quantum encryption is ever to be widely used, it'll need to work between one microchip and another without the need to share a frame of reference in advance. That's always been a problem because the chips inside computers are constantly on the move (relative the the wavelength of light) and because photon polarisations drift as they move through optical fibres, introducing another source of error.

That's why quantum cryptography that is reference frame independent is an enabling technology and so potentially hugely valuable. It means that Laing and co may have made one of the key breakthroughs that will bring quantum cryptography to the masses.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1003.1050: Reference Frame Independent Quantum Key Distribution

Update: Anthony Laing writes:

I have a few clarifications which may be useful for your readers...

- The protocol is always bipartite - so two people, two particles,
one particle each.

- The protocol works best for particle dimensions of prime or power-
prime, including the 2 dimensional qubit, so an entangled pair of
qubits is the most simple case that works.

- The protocol works because security is guaranteed with a purity
measure on the joint 'entangled' space of Alice and Bob and this
purity would not be reduced too much in a reference frame that varies
slowly on the timescale of rate-of-pair-creation and measurement.

A Definable Number Which Cannot Be Approximated Algorithmically

Memory Metamaterials

Sprite Discharges On Venus And Jupiter-Like Planets: A Laboratory Investigation

Interferometers As Holographic Clocks

Gravity as Quantum Entanglement Force

Lunar laser ranging experiments have produced a treasure trove of interesting information about the Moon, for example that it is spiralling away from us at a rate of 38 mm per year.

The experiments are simple. Astronomers fire a laser pulse at a reflector placed on the lunar surface by the Apollo 15 mission and then use a telescope to look for the reflection, some 2 seconds later.

The observations are challenging. Of the 10^17 photons that set out towards the Moon in each pulse, only one makes it back, on average. And only then if seeing conditions are good.

When conditions are good, astronomers often take aim at the arrays left by the Apollo 11 and 14 missions which are only a third of the size of Apollo 15's and therefore harder to see. If the observers are feeling lucky, they might also try for the Russian Lunakhod 2 array (the Lunakhod 1 array hasn't been seen since 1971).

All in all, astronomers have been taking observations since 1969, first from the MacDonald Observatory in West Texas and later from the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico . This gives them a substantial database with which to analyse the behaviour of the reflectors.

So how have these reflectors fared in the harsh conditions on the lunar surface over the years? That's the question addressed today by Tom Murphy at the University of California San Diego and a few buddies. And their analysis poses an interesting problem.

First of all they say that the efficiency of all three Apollo reflector arrays has fallen by an order of magnitude during their sojourn on the Moon. The Lunakhod reflector has fared even worse. When it arrived on the moon in 1973, its signal was 25 per cent stronger than Apollo 15's. Today it is ten times worse.

What's happened this gear?

The reflectors consist of an array of cubic prisms that operate by total internal reflection. In addition, the Lunakhod prisms have silvered surfaces and are more exposed. Degradation of this silvering probably explains its relative drop in performance.

But what has caused the degradation of the Apollo prisms? Anything that settles on or damages the optical surfaces of the prisms will reduce the efficiency of the total internal reflections. Murphy and co discuss several possibilities such as micrometeorite damage, lunar dust aggregation and the breakdown of the Teflon mounting rings which may have left deposits on the back surface of the prisms.

Any of these mechanisms could account for the drop but its hard to pin one down.

However, there is another more intriguing puzzle about the laser ranging data. When the Moon is full, the efficiency of all the Apollo reflectors drops by another factor of ten. Murphy and co have ruled out ground-based effects such as the saturation of their photon detectors when the moon is bright.

So why does this happen? One clue comes from the study of returns during total lunar eclipses. Within 15 minutes of an eclipse occurring, the efficiency of the reflectors returns to its normal levels. When the eclipse ends and the Moon is full again, the efficiency immediately drops again.

That strongly points to a thermal effect. When the Sun is low in the lunar sky, its rays cannot directly enter the prisms which are recessed in the arrays. But when the Sun is overhead (which is when the Moon appears full on Earth), its rays travel directly into the prisms. This is probably heating the prisms, distorting them and reducing the efficiency of their reflections.

But why now? The full Moon effect was not a problem in the early days of lunar ranging.

"Dust is perhaps the most likely candidate for the observed degradation," say Murphy and co. The sunlight is probably absorbed by dust on the optical surfaces which in turn heats the silica prisms.

Dust is known to hover above the lunar surface because of electrostatic forces and micrometeorite impacts probably send a few puffs into the lunar atmosphere on a regular basis.

Interesting work. And one that is of more than passing interest for many astronomers because it has implications for anybody thinking of sending gear to the Moon in future. Various astronomers want to send telescopes to the Moon, particularly the far side because of the tremendous seeing conditions there and its isolation from the Earth. Knowing how the Apollo gear has fared will be crucial when it comes to designing this stuff.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1003.0713: Long-Term Degradation Of Optical Devices On The Moon

If you ever chat online to friends, colleagues and relatives, you probably have a set of unwritten rules about the kind of information you share with whom. The sort of thing you might take into account is the likelihood that this person will share your information with others, who these other people might be and whether this will be good or bad for you. Above all, you will almost certainly accept that divulging personal details brings you certain benefits, if only that it will strengthen the social bond between you and your correspondent.

But this attitude to sharing personal information is probably in stark contrast to the way you think about the information you share when carrying out an electronic transaction such buying a book or signing up for a newsletter. In this case, most people feel strongly that they should minimise the information they share.

Strangely, most studies of privacy and the spread of personal information through networks have focused on the latter scenario.Today, Jon Kleinberg and Katrina Ligett at Cornell University redress the balance.

These guys have created a model of information sharing that attempts to capture these subtle rules. In the model, two people must agree to share information. The model assumes that they do this strategically to maximize their benefits they receive based on their expectations about what others will do. The model captures the benefit or disadvantage by allowing it take a positive or negative value.

The result is a kind of network formation game, in which players must decide which links to maintain and which to cut so as to maximize their benefits or minimise their losses.

Clearly, this is a game that can produce extremely rich behaviour. Kleinberg and Ligett's goal is to study the the most basic version of the model that is still rich enough to produce meaningful results.

What they find makes for interesting reading. For example, they say that the model provides an easy way to monitor social welfare, simply by adding up the benefits that everybody gets. They can also look for networks that maximise social welfare.

Kleinberg and Ligett look particularly at stable networks in which people are not forced to make and cut ties since these seem to best represent the ones that humans form naturally. But the new approach allows the researchers to ask an interesting question: are these the best types of network? In other words, are stable networks automatically the socially optimal ones? And if not, what is the difference between them in terms of social welfare?

And that's just the start of what's possible. Kleinberg and Ligett have only just begun analysing these networks. The results are at an early stage but the potential is fascinating.

All the more so because of Kleinberg's background: he has significant form when it comes to analysing networks. In the late 1990s, he developed the hubs and authorities model of websites. His idea was that some websites act as hubs directing surfers to authorities on certain topics and was hugely influential because it lead directly to an objective way of organising and therefore ranking websites . Kleinberg's work was a direct forerunner of Google's PageRank.

The question this later paper raises is whether Kleinberg is about trigger the same kind of revolution for social networks that he did for the world wide web. Worth watching.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1003.0469: Information-Sharing and Privacy in Social Networks