Physics with a Bang

Modern physics is on a roll. Less than two years ago: the discovery of the Higgs boson. Providing evidence long sought for the mechanism through which (some) particles exhibit the property known as mass, this discovery led to a Nobel prize the very next year. That must be in record time.

National Ignition Facility

Last month: the quest for a sustainable fusion reaction reached an important -- if interim -- milestone: a fuel gain greater than one. Deep within the National Ignition Facility, tiny fusible pellets, blasted by 172 synchronized laser pulses, yielded more energy than had been input. Meaningful nuclear reactions are happening after each pellet is imploded/crushed so as to raise its internal temperature to 50 million degrees Celsius.

(Alas, we remain far from the Holy Grail of fusion R&D: exceeding end-to-end energy breakeven. The input of the recent milestone is very narrowly defined as that part of the incident laser-beam energy absorbed through the pellet surface -- because a fair chunk of the beam energy gets reflected. To reach end-to-end breakeven, the energy produced will have to exceed all energy pumped into the lasers. Ditto, there must be an allowance for the fraction of fusion energy that goes unrecovered -- because no process is 100% efficient. The quest continues.)

But the truly magnificent news, reported just last week by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "First Direct Evidence of Cosmic Inflation." A Nobel in the making, almost certainly.

Sorry that I was so right

The background of my 2012 novel Energized includes an energy supply shock triggered by Russian meddling in the Middle East. The crisis is further complicated by many energy-consuming countries having become dependent upon Russia for gas and oil. They are unwilling or unable to risk angering their supplier.

Several critiques of the novel commented on an "obsolete" Cold War mentality. Post-Soviet Russia wouldn't act that way. Right?

Wrong. And, to be honest, those comments continue to rankle.

Choosing among my "children"

Any author will tell you, it happens to them. Often.

A friend, friend of a friend, relative, relative's in-law, coworker, neighbor, new acquaintance, long-lost schoolmate, out-of-the-blue emailer, LinkedIn connection, con-goer coming up after a panel, ... asks,  "I'd like to try one of your books, so which do you recommend?"

And, as any author will also tell you, that's like asking a parent to choose among his children. (It may be coincidence, but nine months is about how long the average novel takes me to write.) Okay, this isn't exactly Sophie's Choice. It doesn't even risk my answer getting back to one of the "children" and scarring them for life.

Still, answering that question is hard. I can't imagine putting nine months or so into a book without forming an emotional bond. One's first book, of course, is special. So, in another way, is the most recent book. So, in yet a different way, are the ones that went on to have sequels. Some books become special to me for the fascinating research involved, or the particular subject matter, or yet some other personal association.

But, just as I opened this post, people do ask -- and I'm flattered they do. So, although I can't bring myself to pick one child, perhaps I can help someone else to decide.  The remainder of this post is adapted from the answer I sent to a recent "what do you recommend?" email.

Prospective readers, please continue ...

Because a distraction seems therapeutic

I'm glued to the latest news, rumors, and speculations about events in and surrounding Ukraine. On a lesser scale, I also can't look away from the collapse of Mt. Gox and the turmoil attendant to the markets for bitcoins (and other virtual currencies). 

So: in search of diversion -- for myself, in any event, and perhaps for you -- herewith, a few interesting items of science and technology news.

On at least one topic -- the proper etiquette for the use Google Glass -- Google shows signs of listening. See "Google: How not to be a 'Glasshole'."

What in the world(s)?

Had we but world enough, and time ...

One of the best known, best realized, most beloved worlds of science fiction is surely Dune, the centerpiece, eponym, and (in a sense) main character of Frank Herbert's most acclaimed novel. If you share even a fraction of my affection for the story/world, you're certain to enjoy " 'Dune' concept art shows the evolution of David Lynch's sci-fi vision" (for Lynch's 1984 film realization).

It IS a grand canyon

(If there is a flaw in Dune, it's homegenity: a "desert planet."  Why do I consider that a potential flaw? Because the one inhabitable world known to science is far from uniform. Check out -- everyone of 'em on Earth -- "50 of the most incredible natural phenomena you’ve ever seen.")

In the of-but-out-of-the-this-world category ...

That does not compute

Today let's consider some news in the wild, wacky world of personal (and impersonal) computing ...

If you hate Windows 8, you're not alone. If you are perfectly happy with Windows XP, you're also not alone -- and you're likely dreading the April end of support for that product. In between, of course, is the semi-XP-like Windows 7 -- only it has been scheduled to go away in October. It's noteworthy then that "Microsoft Extends Windows 7 Availability for Businesses."

(Windows 7 isn't a panacea for XP refugees. Why? Because you can't upgrade [change only the OS, leaving your data intact] when switching from XP to 7. You can only upgrade to 7 from (shudder) Windows Vista. Going from XP straight to 7 entails a clean install of 7, so you'll have to back up your files on other media, wipe your disk, install 7, and finally restore all your files.)

Tired of hassling with Windows? Frustrated that every other Windows release (ME, Vista, 8) is a turkey? Is a forced software upgrade pushing you (mutter, mutter) to buy a new PC?

Arcana and sundry

Fans of science -- and fans of SF, who significantly overlap with the aforementioned group -- are a curious bunch. Whatever our primary area(s) of study, both find enjoy a broad range of other interests. Hence ...

Internet years vs. dog years

An Internet year is pretty much the inverse of a dog year. And so, lots of companies that not long ago bestrode the Internet like giants are, well ... reduced to wee status. From PC World, see "From Netscape to Napster: Whatever happened to yesterday's giants?"

Did you ever try one of those clunky, expensive, 3-D TVs? The kind dependent upon clunky, expensive, per-viewer goggles? Probably not. Did you buy one? Almost certainly not.  From IEEE Spectrum, see "3-D TV is Officially Dead (For Now) and This is Why it Failed."

Of distant worlds

Recent years have offered a steady stream of exciting exoplanetary news. Here's a smattering of such findings I've collected since my last astro-centric post.

That dot? Beta Pictoris b.

Let's begin with (IMO) the most visually stunning item, even though very few pixels are involved: an exoplanet, 63 light-years distant, directly imaged by a ground-based telescope. See (from The Register) "ALIEN WORLD Beta Pictoris snapped by Earth's Gemini 'scope." (That's sloppy headline writing: the star, Beta Pictoris, is not viewed. It's intentionally occluded lest its glare wash out the planet. The world is Beta Pictorus b.)

How was this bit of astronomical legerdemain accomplished? With adaptive optics, a serendipitous spinoff from research into antimissile lasers. Adaptive optics is a wondrous technology.

Next up: different cleverness. The Kepler observatory identified, sans direct imaging, many an exoplanet. The method: spotting the slight dips in brightness as distant planets transited distant stars. With the failure of two reaction wheels, the orbiting telescope, alas, can no longer point steadily enough to continue making such precise observations.

Or so it was believed ...