How ALICE goes further down the Rabbit Hole of Particle Physics

I’m convinced that the ease with which I write about something is proportional to how easily I can make a pun out of it… anyway, Physics. Yesterday, in the ALICE experiment at CERN, researchers released a paper detailing a very unexpected find; as when they smashed some protons into each other, the debris that flew out was, for that interaction, unlike anything they’d ever seen before.

The debris I mention are themselves nothing new, they are called ‘strange’ particles and their existence is well known. Nothing strange there (sorry, couldn’t resist). What is unusual is that they are being produced as a result of this reaction. First thing to understand about strange particles is that they are heavier and therefore have more energy than protons do normally, meaning that you would need to supply lots of energy to the things you are colliding in order to produce them. The thing is though, the number of these strange particles produced was not dependent on the energy of the colliding particles. This is like saying that if you were to break rocks against a wall, the number of large pieces you make doesn’t depend on the size of the rock you throw.

It turns out it depends on a property called the ‘multiplicity’ of the produced particles. In this context that basically translates to the number of particles produced in a collision, rather than how much energy you collide the reacting particles with. In comparison, this is like saying you’re more likely to find bigger chunks of rock after you’ve thrown it at a wall if it breaks into more pieces, rather than if you throw a bigger rock. This analogy breaks down slightly if you ask: “Well won’t a bigger rock mean you can get more pieces?”. The response to this is yes, normally, but this is why this experiment is so weird, because that isn’t the main factor in seeing these reactions.

Another question you might reasonably ask is: “K great, protons aren’t rocks, scientists are confused, why does this matter?” as this doesn’t seem to make a big difference outside of this one area of Physics, which is itself pretty niche.

My answer is that this alone isn’t going to change the world, but consider this: when you look at the detail of a painting, each individual brush stroke may seem unimportant or superfluous, and only by stepping back and seeing what they create together can you appreciate what is in front of you.

Sources:

ALICE Press Release

Letter Where The Discovery is Announced

 

 

 

When Gamers Beat Scientists at Their Own Game

Video games sometimes get a bad rap. So it’s nice to see some unanimously good press surrounding the subject.

A few weeks ago, a paper was published in Nature, the most accurate findings of which were found by a 476 person strong group of gamers. Using a game called Foldit, they discovered the exact shape a protein with more accurate results than the research group that assigned them the task, and uncovered a new group of proteins that could potentially help in the fight against Alzheimers. Pretty good going for an afternoon hobby.

At first it may seem a bit of a misnomer to say that the protein is ‘discovered’ as if you already know what it looks like and know what you’re looking for, it’s pretty hard to see at first how this can be construed a discovery. The thing to understand though, is what was already known and what the researchers were looking for.

 What was already known was what is called the electron density map of the protein. This is effectively an ‘outline’ of the protein as by using an electron microscope, you can build up a 3D image of where the electrons of the atoms in the protein are. However, at this scale, the wave like nature of the electron comes into play and the exact location of the electron becomes unclear, meaning there will only be a certain probability you see it in a particular place. In a sense, this probability is what is measured by the microscope, as the higher the probability of finding the electron in a given place, the larger the reading on the microscope. Therefore the actual shape of the molecule becomes unclear, as the folding and branching of the protein cannot be seen at this level of low detail. Much like trying to deduce the exact appearance of a dog by looking at a balloon animal (of a dog, I think it would be unreasonable to guess what a dog looks like by seeing a balloon snake).

 What they were looking for was this increased level of detail, to understand how the amino acids within the protein were ordered and arranged in 3D space. This was done by comparing the electron density map of the gamer’s molecules with that which were experimentally found. For the gamers, the closer the designed structure was to the original, the higher the score achieved.

The reason that the games won here was because the 476 strong group managed to produce a protein structure that fit the electron density map better than the team of scientists containing 2 experts in the field . Which to me, gives an interesting look at how, for certain problems, crowdsourcing science can produce very useful results. It has already been happening with entire teams dedicated to different projects, such as the Zooniverse website.

Now this story does come with a bit of a disclaimer, as it is essential to remember that without the guidance of a professional with a well grounded knowledge of the research area, none of these findings could have been obtained. Here, it was entirely necessary to have researchers dedicated in a professional capacity. As without them, there wouldn’t have been the electron density maps, the knowledge of the protein structure up to that point, or even the game to play.

That being said, these sorts of studies do seem to give the impression that in the future, some problems may best be solved not by a small group of experts in it for the prestige. But instead, if given the right direction, by a large group of hobbyists in it for the fun.

Max

Sources:

The paper published on the results from the game

Zooniverse

Contribute to the science! Work on Foldit!

Conversations at the Cutting Edge – Joe Spencer

Recently there has been a lot of news on graphene being the current ‘wonder material’, but after the conversation I had with Mr Joe Spencer about his research into nano-structures, I might be putting my bets elsewhere.

His specific research involves studying the properties of nano-wires, which can be imagined as a regular cable scaled down to a few billionths of a metre in diameter (ok so not exactly like a regular cable). Here, the plastic insulator is replaced by a carbon nano-tube, which, as Joe explains, is “like a straw of carbon”, and the metal conductor in the centre either remains as a metal, or is replaced by a semi-conductor like silicon.  One thing that struck me as a challenge was actually making these in the first place, but he explains that it is surprisingly straightforward. He tells me that you just get the nano-tubes and the material you want to put inside them, grind them up using a pestle and mortar similar to one you have in the kitchen and you heat two substances up. He tells me that “Nanotubes melt at about 12000C so as long as the material I want to use melts at less than that, the one I use is called mercury telluride, you can put them in the oven and the mercury telluride melts down but the nano-tubes don’t. So by a process called capillary action, this is the same process as the meniscus on a straw, the capillary action pulls the metal into the nano-tube, and when you cool it down, the material recrystallizes again but because it now inside the nano-tube… the atoms have to bond slightly differently when they recrystallize, which is what causes the new material to be made”. Seems pretty straightforward. We then move on to the less straight forward topic of Raman Spectroscopy (no relation to the noodle… I’m a student, I think about these things).

He tells me the term Raman Spectroscopy is “a fancy way of saying use light to look at materials, to understand properties about them”. Here, you fire laser light at the thing you want to look at to make them vibrate. You then look at the light that has been scattered off the sample. He tells me that by looking at this light, you can get information about the energy or type of vibration of the sample, as he phrases it “if you know anything about the vibrations, you can make guesses about the properties of the material, kind of like if you were to flick a piece of glass it would make a ‘tinging’ sound or a piece of wood it would make a ‘thunk’ sound, you can guess information about the material based on the vibrations produced”. In his research, Joe uses this technique to investigate the electronic properties of the material, so if you want to make electronic components with these materials, this is obviously pretty useful information to have. As it turns out, Raman Spectroscopy actually ends up being a pretty useful way of finding different things out, as he tells me that for 2-D materials (things like graphene, ok it’s still pretty cool) “you might be able to guess if it has superconductivity properties, or try and make a sample superconducting, which would be very awesome”. He later tells me that it can be used to find fraudulent pieces of artwork. Useful stuff.

As it turns out, these electrical properties that Joe is investigating could lend these nano-wires to some very useful applications: “You’d want to engineer what we’re making into something called a transistor, which is the underpinning technology behind mobile technology in the 21st century” so by making these transistors smaller and smaller, you can get ever-more powerful computers as you can fit more of these into the same space. He tells me “at the moment I think Intel are working on the 5nm – 7nm range, now I’m making the wire that you could turn into a transistor that’s about 0.5 nm, so about a factor of 10 smaller, so you’d be able to fit 100 times as many in the same area”.

So with such a direct application to technology already at our fingertips, maybe with a bit more research, these nano-wires will give our next technological leap.

 

Max

Sit down Children because today we’ll be learning about Diabetes – Part 2

In the last post we outlined how diabetes is characterised in individuals with the condition. This week I’m aiming to inform all our lovely readers on treatments both present and future.

Biguanide (otherwise known as Metformin), is a drug that is currently used by diabetics to reduce increases in blood glucose levels. It’s effectiveness is due to its ability to prevent the liver producing glucose (from the breakdown of glycogen), heightening the body’s sensitivity to insulin and reducing the amount of glucose absorbed from the intestines during digestion. As it is not solely broken down by the liver, this reduces the chance of lactic acidosis (We’ll talk about that one in a future post). All of these effects combined has resulted in a significant improvement in the treatment of diabetic individuals. However, Biguanide isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. It’s only effective with type-2 diabetes as it doesn’t affect the ability of an individual to produce insulin and although it improves the severity of the condition, it is by no means a cure.

Speaking of a cure, ‘Islet cell encapsulation’could be the answer. The University of California Team that conducted the initial trial implanted immature human islet cells derived from stem cells, into an individual with type-1 diabetes, via a capsule. As the cells mature, they begin producing insulin, allowing the individual to no longer be dependent of insulin injections multiple times a day. The Islet cells are protected from the immune system by the capsule, preventing them from being destroyed. But what about type-2 Diabetes?

Studies by Newcastle University has found that the development of type-2 diabetes is linked with the amount of fat stored in the Pancreas and Liver. However, there is no standard measure of when someone will develop type-2 diabetes from this process as individuals have varying tolerances of how much fat they can store in these areas. That said, according to the study, ‘ people who have had type 2 diabetes for 4 years or less, major weight loss returns insulin secretion to normal.’

All of these treatments have advantages and disadvantages regarding their effectiveness but due to the complexity of Diabetes as a condition that has many variations, a cure has not yet been discovered. But with research teams across the globe working tirelessly to change that fact, I have no doubt that sometime in the future, they will.

Daniel

Sources:

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/Diabetes-Cure.html#t2a

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2014/oct/islet-cell-encapsulation-system-implanted-into-person-
with-type-1-diabetes-90129387.html

https://www.diabetesresearch.org/cure-research

http://www.diabetesresearch.org/cell-supply

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094530

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Diabetes-treatments/

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-diabetes/What-is-diabetes/Diabetes-treatments/Biguanide-

/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7862618

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-medication/biguanides.html

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/2/446.full

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/magres/research/diabetes/reversal.htm