Date: 4/02/2013 20:29:02
From: Aquila
ID: 260549
Subject: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Yet another story of great Australian minds at work!
Why we don’t have a flourishing commercial science & technology industry in this country is beyond me!
Maybe it has something to do with our governments/taxes/regulations/red tape/hopeless bureaucrats?
——

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/04/3681478.htm

Stephen Pincock
ABC

For the first time, Australian scientists have explored the inner workings of a living cell using a new kind of laser microscopy that harnesses the laws of quantum physics.

The technique could shed light on new biological processes, the motion of microscopic particles, and even allow quantum mechanics to be studied at a scale visible to the naked eye, says the study’s lead author, physicist Dr Warwick Bowen from the University of Queensland.

When scientists want to study the miniscule goings-on within a living cell, they come up against a limit known as “quantum shot noise,” Bowen and colleagues explain in the latest issue of the journal Nature Photonics.

This phenomenon is a result of the fact that light particles, or photons, hit the microscope’s detection device randomly.

“You can get the idea if you imagine the photons are raindrops falling on a square of ground, and you were to count the number hitting the ground in a given time interval,” Bowen explains. “Obviously, there’ll be some randomness in the number hitting the ground in a given time – this is shot noise.”

To study biological systems such as cells, scientists aim to detect very small levels of scattered light from an object within the biological specimen. Because the level of scattering from these tiny objects is so small, it can easily be obscured by shot noise.

“You can solve this by increasing your laser power,” says Bowen. “Then, since you’re measuring more photons per time interval, the error in your measurement improves. However, in living systems you simply cannot keep increasing the optical power – very soon you fry the cell.”

The team of researchers from the University of Queensland and the Australian National University overcame this problem by “quantum correlating” photons, a phenomenon also known as entanglement. In effect, this allows them to control the photons so they hit the detector in bunches with a well defined number. This is the first time this has been shown to work in a biological sample, Bowen says.

Squeezing light
To generate their quantum-correlated light, the researchers used a process called optical parametric oscillation. They took single photons, and “broke” them into pairs of photons, each with half the energy of the original photon.

The quantum correlations also allowed the researchers to “squeeze” the fluctuations of the amplitude of the light by 75 per cent. “This should allow, in principle, a factor of four improvement in sensitivity in our measurements. However some imperfections in the measurements themselves meant that we achieved only a factor of two or so improvement,” Bowen says.

The technique is technically challenging, and at this stage it is unclear how important it will be, he notes.

“If there turns out to be important biological processes occurring that cannot be observed without quantum correlations, then the technique could be very important to understand those processes. We don’t know the answer to this yet – it remains to be discovered.”

“We do know that the technique could be very helpful in observing phenomena in the microscopic motion of small particles that have yet to be observed and were predicted many decades ago.”

“We also know that this technique could be important for studying truly fundamental physics – where the quantum correlations between photons could be transferred onto particles consisting of 10^16 atoms or so.”

“This would push the theory of quantum mechanics out of the microscopic world and into massive objects that you can see by eye – testing the theory in a regime never before accessed.

“Many groups in the world are trying to achieve this goal but I can’t emphasis enough how challenging it is.”

Reply Quote

Date: 4/02/2013 22:07:21
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 260627
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Aquila said:


Why we don’t have a flourishing commercial science & technology industry in this country is beyond me!
Maybe it has something to do with our governments/taxes/regulations/red tape/hopeless bureaucrats?

Have you got any references that show Australia is a worse place to start out in the commercial science & technology industry than other countries?

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 07:12:03
From: Aquila
ID: 260725
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Witty Rejoinder said:


Aquila said:

Why we don’t have a flourishing commercial science & technology industry in this country is beyond me!
Maybe it has something to do with our governments/taxes/regulations/red tape/hopeless bureaucrats?

Have you got any references that show Australia is a worse place to start out in the commercial science & technology industry than other countries?

No, I don’t have any such references, Witty.
When I made this comment (or pondered the question in my mind), I was thinking more in the context of Australia, specifically, not necessarily in comparison to other countries, although, that in itself could be an interesting discussion.

Do you think we have flourishing commercial science & technology industries?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.

When I look at Australia’s econonomy, I see it heavily weighted toward, mining resources and financials.

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 07:54:00
From: poikilotherm
ID: 260733
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Aquila said:


Witty Rejoinder said:

Aquila said:

Why we don’t have a flourishing commercial science & technology industry in this country is beyond me!
Maybe it has something to do with our governments/taxes/regulations/red tape/hopeless bureaucrats?

Have you got any references that show Australia is a worse place to start out in the commercial science & technology industry than other countries?

No, I don’t have any such references, Witty.
When I made this comment (or pondered the question in my mind), I was thinking more in the context of Australia, specifically, not necessarily in comparison to other countries, although, that in itself could be an interesting discussion.

Do you think we have flourishing commercial science & technology industries?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.

When I look at Australia’s econonomy, I see it heavily weighted toward, mining resources and financials.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-worlds-best-countries-science

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 07:55:08
From: poikilotherm
ID: 260734
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/OPS2-OECD-for-web-FINAL.pdf

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 20:26:32
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 261092
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Aquila said:

Do you think we have flourishing commercial science & technology industries?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.

When I look at Australia’s econonomy, I see it heavily weighted toward, mining resources and financials.

I have read that Australian academics seem to lack the passion for taking their ideas to the market in comparison with other countries.

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 21:11:34
From: poikilotherm
ID: 261094
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Witty Rejoinder said:


Aquila said:

Do you think we have flourishing commercial science & technology industries?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.

When I look at Australia’s econonomy, I see it heavily weighted toward, mining resources and financials.

I have read that Australian academics seem to lack the passion for taking their ideas to the market in comparison with other countries.

Where?

It takes $$$ to take stuff to market, fuck passion.

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 21:15:38
From: Witty Rejoinder
ID: 261095
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

poikilotherm said:

Where?

It takes $$$ to take stuff to market, fuck passion.

Where did I read this? Various newspaper articles I guess.

Reply Quote

Date: 5/02/2013 22:24:53
From: Aquila
ID: 261158
Subject: re: Quantum Physics Sheds Light On Cells

Witty Rejoinder said:


Aquila said:

Do you think we have flourishing commercial science & technology industries?
I’d be interested in your thoughts.

When I look at Australia’s econonomy, I see it heavily weighted toward, mining resources and financials.

I have read that Australian academics seem to lack the passion for taking their ideas to the market in comparison with other countries.

This sounds reasonable to me.

For the most part, I don’t think academics are inclined to start profitable companies, although this may be less so in more recent years, I think there are some examples of this.
However, Bill Gates was a University drop out, although intelligent, with a gifted passion for computers and solving problems with computer code, I wouldn’t call him an academic.
Academics generally have a different mindset to Entrepreneurs.
Bill always had a very independant streak and desire to take ideas and himself to bigger places, with a desire early in life to start his own business as opposed to continuing University study.

Steve Jobs didn’t even make it to Uni, dropping out of college and even following a spiritual path and seemed to have a creative flair with a higher mind view, in common with Bill, no real desire for formal academic study.
It was Job’s passion and inspiration that convinced Wazniak (academic computer engineer) to sell his designs.

I think it’s a rare combination of academic & entrepreneur who can take his own designs or ideas and turn them into a profitable company.
More to this is the conditions of the home country, which allow growth of ideas and freedoms for entrepreneurs to take a risk.
In my observation so far, countries like America, Germany and China and a few others have better government policies which allow for more growth in commercial science and technology infrastructure, although there are varying dynamics of all the countries mentioned, compared to Australia, our government does seem to have quite a narrow view on our economy, I’m confident there are many entrepreneurial minded people living in Australia who would take commercial science & tech to the next level if conditions allowed for it.
Many successful entrepreneurs fail their first and second attempts in varying degrees but persist until successfull, most academics don’t have this type of stamina or passion to continue that direction, due to a different mindset.

Einstein was an acedemic, not a businessman.
Tesla was almost a combination of both, but was also a University drop out.
He was not really an academic either, in my view but more of and ideas man, an inventor.
He had more of a business orientation, rather than academic, with many patents, attempting to get his ideas off the ground and making decent money in the process but ended up dying poor, I think, maybe due to mental issues later in life.

I guess I have some concerns that Australia is moving too far towards a socialist state, with bigger and bloated government which needs to tax more to fullfill election/policy commitments.
IMO, the private sector is much better at ‘creating commercial productivity’ in an economy than governments are
The more money that governments take from the hands of it’s citizens, in taxes, the less it’s citizens have to “create and become productive”
I’m not saying government doesn’t play an important role in modern social structure but the balance is way off, IMO.
We are becoming like zombies in Australia, relying too much on our government to “fix” this or that and take care of things.

I hope I’ve been a little coherant in my expression and not rambled too much!

Reply Quote