Photon guns are important tools for engineers attempting to build the next generation of quantum communications gear.

They want to be able to create a single photon and fire it at will. And sure enough, there are a number of different technologies that allow them to do that. But aiming these photon gun so that the photons strike one target or another is much harder.

Now Yuntian Chen at the FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics in the Netherlands and a couple of friends have come up with a solution.

They point out that it is possible to force a photon gun to fire photons in a specific direction by placing it next to an antenna aimed that way. Such an antenna might consist of a line of metal particles of a certain size with a specific spacing. The way a photon couples to this antenna is highly senstive to the size of the particles and the refractive index of the medium in which they sit.

Chen and co's idea is to create a line of silver particles each 55nm in radius and another line at right angles of larger particles with a radius of 58nm.

The photon gun sits at the point where the lines would meet and the entire array embedded in a liquid crystal that can change refractive index.

When the gun emits a photon, the light usually couples to the 55nm particles and heads off in that direction.

However, Chen and co say that when they change the refractive index of the liquid crystal, the light should couple to the larger 58nm particles and head off in that direction instead.

The result is a photon gun that can by aimed in one direction or another at the flick of a switch, something that will surely be handy for quantum engineers.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1618: Dynamically Reconfigurable Directionality Of Plasmon-Based Single Photon Sources

In 1963, the zoologist Lord Rothschild found that sperm cells in a drop of bull semen tended to distribute themselves in a specific non random way. For some reason, they were much more likely to be near the surface of the drop than near its centre.

Since then many biologists have noted the fact that sperm cells of all kinds tend to congregate near a surface rather than on it or far away from it. In fact, they tend navigate at a specific distance from a surface such as the cover slip or slide under a microscope, a behaviour that has turned out to be very useful for biologists studying these cells.

Just why sperm cells should behave in this way has long puzzled biologists. Now David Smith and John Blake at the University of Birmingham in the UK throw some light on the matter by creating a fluid dynamics model of a swimming sperm cell and the forces that operate on this scale.

Their conclusion is that the accumulation near surfaces is an effect purely of fluid dynamics rather than any kind of surface-seeking behaviour of the sperm themselves. However, the effect is subtle and emerges only in lengthy simulations of sperm behaviour in fluids

Smith and Blake say there are several effects at work. First, there is a very weak fluid dynamic force that pulls cells towards a surface.

However, for various reasons, a sperm cell tends to take up a specific attitude when it comes close to a surface: the tail tends to sit closer to the surface than the head. This inclination causes the sperm to swim away from the surface.

Added to this is a sperm's natural pitching motion as it swims that causes it to swim first away from and then towards a surface.

Smith and Blake simulated the effect of these forces and iterated them. They found that after 8000 cycles, a sperm's swimming trajectory would always tend towards a specific distance from the surface. "The surface does not simply attract the cell; it causes alternate pitching towards and away from the surface that steers the cell to this fifinite distance," they say.

This convergence to a specific distance away from a surface takes time. But Smith and Blake says the size and shape of the head of the cell significantly speed this up.

So that's a subtle effect that goes a long way to clearing up this long standing mystery.

However, it raises a number of other questions, such as why sperm come to have this strange property in the first case. Is it an artifact observed only in the highly artificial circumstances that occur under a cover slips and microscopes? Or is it biologically significant, in which case how did it evolve and why?

And finally, can this better understanding of sperm behaviour be put to good use in fertility treatments? Some 1 in 6 couples in the western world have trouble conceiving and of these about half are thought to be the result of problems relating to sperm.

A better understanding of sperm motility will surely one day help and could also be important in other areas too such as domestic animal breeding and wildlife conservation.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.2153: Surface Accumulation Of Spermatazoa: A Fluid Dynamic Phenomenon

As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed. However, it's hard to find alternative models of the Universe without a beginning that are genuinely compelling.

That could change now with the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity.

Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant.

So as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

This universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities cannot exist in this cosmos.

It's easy to dismiss this idea as just another amusing and unrealistic model dreamed up by those whacky comsologists.

That is until you look at the predictions it makes. During a period of expansion, an observer in this universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

This kind of acceleration is an ordinary feature of Shu's universe.

That's in stark contrast to the various models of the Universe based on the Big Bang. Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some rather worrying contortions with the laws of physics to make their models work.

The most commonly discussed idea is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate.

But there is a serious price to pay for this idea: the law of conservation of energy. The embarrassing truth is that the world's cosmologists have conveniently swept under the carpet one the of fundamental laws of physics in an attempt to square this circle.

That paints Shu's ideas in a slightly different perspective. There's no need to abandon conservation of energy to make his theory work.

That's not to say Shu's theory is perfect. Far from it. One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang really did happen. The CMB, they say, is the echo of the Big bang.

How it might arise in Shu's cosmology isn't yet clear but I imagine he's working on it.

Even if he finds a way, there will need to be some uncomfortable rethinking before his ideas can gain traction. His approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time.

Rightly or wrongly, that's a trade off that many will find hard. Let's hope Shu sticks to his guns, if only for the sake of good old-fashioned debate

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.1750: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang

In 1950, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi raised the question that now bears his name. If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?

Since then, the so-called Fermi Paradox has puzzled astronomers and science fiction writers alike. And although there are no shortage of ways to approach the problem (this blog has covered them here and here for example), nobody has come up with a convincing explanation. .

Now there is another take on the problem thanks to a new approach by Igor Bezsudnov and Andrey Snarskii at the National Technical University of Ukraine.

Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.

In certain circumstances, however, when civilisations are close enough together in time and space, they can come into contact and when this happens the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures allows them both to flourish in a way that increases their combined lifespan.

Bezsudnov and Snarskii point out that this process of spreading into space can be easily modelled using a cellular automaton. And they've gone ahead and created their own universe using a 10,000 x 10,000 cell automaton running over 320,000 steps.

The parameters that govern the evolution of this universe are simple: the probability of a civilisation forming, the usual lifespan of such a civilisation and the extra bonus time civilisations get when they meet.

The result gives a new insight into the Fermi Paradox. Bezsudnov and Snarskii say that for certain values of these parameters, the universe undergoes a phase change from one in which civilisations tend not to meet and spread into one in which the entire universe tends to become civilised as different groups meet and spread.

Bezsudnov and Snarskii even derive an inequality that a universe must satisfy to become civilised. This, they say, is analogous to the famous Drake equation which attempts to quantify the number of other contactable civilisations in the universe right now.

The question of course is what kind of universe do we live in: are the parameters here ripe for the evolution of a single cosmic civilisation or are we condemned to be forever alone?

Bezsudnov and Snarskii say there's only one way to find out: wait and see.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.2774: Where Is Everybody? - Wait A Moment... New Approach To The Fermi Paradox

Cluster Reverberation: A Mechanism For Robust Short-Term Memory Without Synaptic Learning

The Spread of Evidence-Poor Medicine via Flawed Social-Network Analysis

Galaxy Zoo 1 : Data Release Of Morphological Classifications For Nearly 900,000 Galaxies

Intelligent Decisions from the Hive Mind: Foragers and Nectar Receivers of Apis mellifera Collaborate to Optimise Active Forager Numbers

Rubber Friction And Tire Dynamics

Pick up a piece of text and start reading and it usually becomes clear pretty quickly whether you're reading a nonfictional news story or a fictional novel.

Some clues come from the environment where the stories are found which provide hints, such as the presence of headlines, standfirsts and cross heads.

But even the text alone is revealing. News stories, for example, have very specific structures that give writers little room for creative manoeuvre.

But pinning down these differences in a measurable way that a computer might use to tell them apart is a little more tricky.

Now Joseph Stevanak and Lincoln Carr at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden have come up with a way to do it. They say that the key is to look at the networks that form when you examine how often words appear close together in each type of text.

The type of network they examined creates a graph in which each word in the text forms a vertex. A line connects two vertices if these words appear next to each other in the text. It is possible to explore longer range links by connecting vertices when they appear two or three or four words apart and so on.

Stevanak and Carr say that just two properties of this kind of network can help distinguish fiction from nonfiction stories. The first is the power law that describes the number of links to each vertex in the network. The second is the cluster coefficient which describes how well the vertices are connected to the rest of the network.

Measuring these two quantities alone can identify the type of story with remarkable accuracy. "Our analysis yielded a 73.8±5.15% accuracy for the correct classification of novels and 69.1 ± 1.22% for news stories," say Stevenak and Carr.

This kind of analysis has the potential to improve future generations of text-finding algorithms that they can better classify and hunt down the types of stories that individuals are looking for, and also to identify the communities producing it.

And although it doesn't look like a Google-beater just yet, it has huge potential. If there's one place where the ability to distinguish fact from fiction may turn out to be useful, it is surely on the web.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.3254: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction: Pattern Recognition in Texts Using Complex Networks