Matter is a lush tapestry, woven from a complex assortment of threads. Diverse subatomic particles weave together to fabricate the universe we inhabit. But a century ago, people believed that matter was so simple that it could be constructed with just two types of subatomic fibers electrons and protons. That vision of matter was a no-nonsense plaid instead of an ornate brocade.
Physicists of the 1920s thought they had a solid grasp on what made up matter. They knew that atoms contained electrons surrounding a positively charged nucleus. And they knew that each nucleus contained a number of protons, positively charged particles identified in 1919. Combinations of those two particles made up all of the matter in the universe, it was thought. That went for everything that ever was or might be, across the vast, unexplored cosmos and at home on Earth.
The scheme was appealingly tidy, but it swept under the rug a variety of hints that all was not well in physics. Two discoveries in one revolutionary year, 1932, forced physicists to peek underneath the carpet. First, the discovery of the neutron unlocked new ways to peer into the hearts of atoms and even split them in two. Then came news of the positron, identical to the electron but with the opposite charge. Its discovery foreshadowed many more surprises to come. Additional particle discoveries ushered in a new framework for the fundamental bits of matter, now known as the standard model.
That annus mirabilis miraculous year also set physicists sights firmly on the workings of atoms hearts, how they decay, transform and react. Discoveries there would send scientists careening toward a most devastating technology: nuclear weapons. The atomic bomb cemented the importance of science and science journalism in the public eye, says nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein of the Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J. The atomic bomb becomes the ultimate proof that indeed this is world-changing stuff.
Physicists of the 1920s embraced a particular type of conservatism. Embedded deep in their psyches was a reluctance to declare the existence of new particles. Researchers stuck to the status quo of matter composed solely of electrons and protons an idea dubbed the two-particle paradigm that held until about 1930. In that time period, says historian of science Helge Kragh of the University of Copenhagen, Im quite sure that not a single mainstream physicist came up with the idea that there might exist more than two particles. The utter simplicity of two particles explaining everything in natures bounty was so appealing to physicists sensibilities that they found the idea difficult to let go of.
The paradigm held back theoretical descriptions of the neutron and the positron. To propose the existence of other particles was widely regarded as reckless and contrary to the spirit of Occams razor, science biographer Graham Farmelo wrote in Contemporary Physics in 2010.
Still, during the early 20th century, physicists were investigating a few puzzles of matter that would, after some hesitation, inevitably lead to new particles. These included unanswered questions about the identities and origins of energetic particles called cosmic rays, and why chemical elements occur in different varieties called isotopes, which have similar chemical properties but varying masses.
Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox
New Zealandborn British physicist Ernest Rutherford stopped just short of positing a fundamentally new particle in 1920. He realized that neutral particles in the nucleus could explain the existence of isotopes. Such particles came to be known as neutrons. But rather than proposing that neutrons were fundamentally new, he thought they were composed of protons combined in close proximity with electrons to make neutral particles. He was correct about the role of the neutron, but wrong about its identity.
Rutherfords idea was convincing, British physicist James Chadwick recounted in a 1969 interview: The only question was how the devil could one get evidence for it. The neutrons lack of electric charge made it a particularly wily target. In between work on other projects, Chadwick began hunting for the particles at the University of Cambridges Cavendish Laboratory, then led by Rutherford.
Chadwick found his evidence in 1932. He reported that mysterious radiation emitted when beryllium was bombarded with the nuclei of helium atoms could be explained by a particle with no charge and with a mass similar to the protons. In other words, a neutron. Chadwick didnt foresee the important role his discovery would play. I am afraid neutrons will not be of any use to anyone, he told the New York Times shortly after his discovery.
Physicists grappled with the neutrons identity over the following years before accepting it as an entirely new particle, rather than the amalgamation that Rutherford had suggested. For one, a proton-electron mash-up conflicted with the young theory of quantum mechanics, which characterizes physics on small scales. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that if the location of an object is well-known, its momentum cannot be suggests that an electron confined within a nucleus would have an unreasonably large energy.
And certain nucleis spins, a quantum mechanical measure of angular momentum, likewise suggested that the neutron was a full-fledged particle, as did improved measurements of the particles mass.
Physicists also resisted the positron, until it became difficult to ignore.
The positrons 1932 detection had been foreshadowed by the work of British theoretical physicist Paul Dirac. But it took some floundering about before physicists realized the meaning of his work. In 1928, Dirac formulated an equation that combined quantum mechanics with Albert Einsteins 1905 special theory of relativity, which describes physics close to the speed of light. Now known simply as the Dirac equation, the expression explained the behavior of electrons in a way that satisfied both theories.
But the equation suggested something odd: the existence of another type of particle, one with the opposite electric charge. At first, Dirac and other physicists clung to the idea that this charged particle might be the proton. But this other particle should have the same mass as the electron, and protons are almost 2,000 times as heavy as electrons. In 1931, Dirac proposed a new particle, with the same mass as the electron but with opposite charge.
Meanwhile, American physicist Carl Anderson of Caltech, independent of Diracs work, was using a device called a cloud chamber to study cosmic rays, energetic particles originating in space. Cosmic rays, discovered in 1912, fascinated scientists, who didnt fully understand what the particles were or how they were produced.
Within Andersons chamber, liquid droplets condensed along the paths of energetic charged particles, a result of the particles ionizing gas molecules as they zipped along. In 1932, the experiments revealed positively charged particles with masses equal to an electrons. Soon, the connection to Diracs theory became clear.
Science News Letter, the predecessor of Science News, had a hand in naming the newfound particle. Editor Watson Davis proposed positron in a telegram to Anderson, who had independently considered the moniker, according to a 1933 Science News Letter article (SN: 2/25/33, p. 115). In a 1966 interview, Anderson recounted considering Davis idea during a game of bridge, and finally going along with it. He later regretted the choice, saying in the interview, I think thats a very poor name.
The discovery of the positron, the antimatter partner of the electron, marked the advent of antimatter research. Antimatters existence still seems baffling today. Every object we can see and touch is made of matter, making antimatter seem downright extraneous. Antimatters lack of relevance to daily life and the terms liberal use in Star Trek means that many nonscientists still envision it as the stuff of science fiction. But even a banana sitting on a counter emits antimatter, periodically spitting out positrons in radioactive decays of the potassium within.
Physicists would go on to discover many other antiparticles all of which are identical to their matter partners except for an opposite electric charge including the antiproton in 1955. The subject still keeps physicists up at night. The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts matter and antimatter, so researchers today are studying how antimatter became rare.
In the 1930s, antimatter was such a leap that Diracs hesitation to propose the positron was understandable. Not only would the positron break the two-particle paradigm, but it would also suggest that electrons had mirror images with no apparent role in making up atoms. When asked, decades later, why he had not predicted the positron after he first formulated his equation, Dirac replied, pure cowardice.
But by the mid-1930s, the two-particle paradigm was out. Physicists understanding had advanced, and their austere vision of matter had to be jettisoned.
Radioactive decay hints that atoms hold stores of energy locked within, ripe for the taking. Although radioactivity was discovered in 1896, that energy long remained an untapped resource. The neutrons discovery in the 1930s would be key to unlocking that energy for better and for worse.
The neutrons discovery opened up scientists understanding of the nucleus, giving them new abilities to split atoms into two or transform them into other elements. Developing that nuclear know-how led to useful technologies, like nuclear power, but also devastating nuclear weapons.
Just a year after the neutron was found, Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard envisioned using neutrons to split atoms and create a bomb. [I]t suddenly occurred to me that if we could find an element which is split by neutrons and which would emit two neutrons when it absorbed one neutron, such an element, if assembled in sufficiently large mass, could sustain a nuclear chain reaction, liberate energy on an industrial scale, and construct atomic bombs, he later recalled. It was a fledgling idea, but prescient.
Because neutrons lack electric charge, they can penetrate atoms hearts. In 1934, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi and colleagues started bombarding dozens of different elements with neutrons, producing a variety of new, radioactive isotopes. Each isotope of a particular element contains a different number of neutrons in its nucleus, with the result that some isotopes may be radioactive while others are stable. Fermi had been inspired by another striking discovery of the time. In 1934, French chemists Frdric and Irne Joliot-Curie reported the first artificially created radioactive isotopes, produced by bombarding elements with helium nuclei, called alpha particles. Now, Fermi was doing something similar, but with a more penetrating probe.
There were a few scientific missteps on the way to understanding the results of such experiments. A major goal was to produce brand-new elements, those beyond the last known element on the periodic table at that time: uranium. After blasting uranium with neutrons, Fermi and colleagues reported evidence of success. But that conclusion would turn out to be incorrect.
German chemist Ida Noddack had an inkling that all was not right with Fermis interpretation. She came close to the correct explanation for his experiments in a 1934 paper, writing: When heavy nuclei are bombarded by neutrons, it is conceivable that the nucleus breaks up into several large fragments. But Noddack didnt follow up on the idea. She didnt provide any kind of supporting calculation and nobody took it with much seriousness, says physicist Bruce Cameron Reed of Alma College in Michigan.
In Germany, physicist Lise Meitner and chemist Otto Hahn had also begun bombarding uranium with neutrons. But Meitner, an Austrian of Jewish heritage in increasingly hostile Nazi Germany, was forced to flee in July 1938. She had an hour and a half to pack her suitcases. Hahn and a third member of the team, chemist Fritz Strassmann, continued the work, corresponding from afar with Meitner, who had landed in Sweden. The results of the experiments were puzzling at first, but when Hahn and Strassmann reported to Meitner that barium, a much lighter element than uranium, was a product of the reaction, it became clear what was happening. The nucleus was splitting.
Meitner and her nephew, physicist Otto Frisch, collaborated to explain the phenomenon, a process the pair would call fission. Hahn received the 1944 Nobel Prize in chemistry for the discovery of fission, but Meitner never won a Nobel, in a decision now widely considered unjust. Meitner was nominated for the prize sometimes in physics, other times in chemistry a whopping 48 times, most after the discovery of fission.
Her peers in the physics community recognized that she was part of the discovery, says chemist Ruth Lewin Sime of Sacramento City College in California, who has written extensively about Meitner. That included just about anyone who was anyone.
Word of the discovery soon spread, and on January 26, 1939, renowned Danish physicist Niels Bohr publicly announced at a scientific meeting that fission had been achieved. The potential implications were immediately apparent: Fission could unleash the energy stored in atomic nuclei, potentially resulting in a bomb. A Science News Letter story describing the announcement attempted to dispel any concerns the discovery might raise. The article, titled Atomic energy released, reported that scientists are fearful lest the public become worried about a revolution in civilization as a result of their researches, such as the suggested possibility that the atomic energy may be used as some super-explosive, or as a military weapon (SN: 2/11/39, p. 86). But downplaying the catastrophic implications didnt prevent them from coming to pass.
The question of whether a bomb could be created rested, once again, on neutrons. For fission to ignite an explosion, it would be necessary to set off a chain reaction. That means each fission would release additional neutrons, which could then go on to induce more fissions, and so on. Experiments quickly revealed that enough neutrons were released to make such a chain reaction feasible.
In October 1939, soon after Germany invaded Poland at the start of World War II, an ominous letter from Albert Einstein reached President Franklin Roosevelt. Composed at the urging of Szilard, by then at Columbia University, the letter warned, it is conceivable that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. American researchers were not alone in their interest in the topic: German scientists, the letter noted, were also on the case.
Roosevelt responded by setting up a committee to investigate. That step would be the first toward the U.S. effort to build an atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project.
On December 2, 1942, Fermi, who by then had immigrated to the United States, and 48 colleagues achieved the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in an experiment with a pile of uranium and graphite at the University of Chicago. Science News Letter would later call it an event ranking with mans first prehistoric lighting of a fire. While the physicists celebrated their success, the possibility of an atomic bomb was closer than ever. I thought this day would go down as a black day in the history of mankind, Szilard recalled telling Fermi.
The experiment was a key step in the Manhattan Project. And on July 16, 1945, at about 5:30 a.m., scientists led by J. Robert Oppenheimer detonated the first atomic bomb, in the New Mexico desert the Trinity test.
It was a striking sight, as physicist Isidor Isaac Rabi recalled in his 1970 book, Science: The Center of Culture. Suddenly, there was an enormous flash of light, the brightest light I have ever seen or that I think anyone has ever seen. It blasted; it pounced; it bored its way right through you. It was a vision which was seen with more than the eye. It was seen to last forever. You would wish it would stop; although it lasted about two seconds. Finally it was over, diminishing, and we looked toward the place where the bomb had been; there was an enormous ball of fire which grew and grew and it rolled as it grew; it went up into the air, in yellow flashes and into scarlet and green. It looked menacing. It seemed to come toward one. A new thing had just been born; a new control; a new understanding of man, which man had acquired over nature.
Physicist Kenneth Bainbridge put it more succinctly: Now we are all sons of bitches, he said to Oppenheimer in the moments after the test.
The bombs construction was motivated by the fear that Germany would obtain it first. But the Germans werent even close to producing a bomb when they surrendered in May 1945. Instead, the United States bombs would be used on Japan. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed by another on August 9 on Nagasaki. In response, Japan surrendered. More than 100,000 people died as a result of the two attacks, and perhaps as many as 210,000.
I saw a blinding bluish-white flash from the window. I remember having the sensation of floating in the air, survivor Setsuko Thurlow recalled in a speech given upon the awarding of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. She was 13 years old when the bomb hit Hiroshima. Thus, with one bomb my beloved city was obliterated. Most of its residents were civilians who were incinerated, vaporized, carbonized.
Humankind entered a new era, with new dangers to the survival of civilization. With nuclear physics, you have something that within 10 years goes from being this arcane academic research area to something that bursts on the world stage and completely changes the relationship between science and society, Reed says.
In 1949, the Soviet Union set off its first nuclear weapon, kicking off the decades-long nuclear rivalry with the United States that would define the Cold War. And then came a bigger, more dangerous weapon: the hydrogen bomb. Whereas atomic bombs are based on nuclear fission, H-bombs harness nuclear fusion, the melding of atomic nuclei, in conjunction with fission, resulting in much larger blasts. The first H-bomb, detonated by the United States in 1952, was 1,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Within less than a year, the Soviet Union also tested an H-bomb. The H-bomb had been called a weapon of genocide by scientists serving on an advisory committee for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which had previously recommended against developing the technology.
Fears of the devastation that would result from an all-out nuclear war have fed repeated attempts to rein in nuclear weapons stockpiles and tests. Since the signing of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996, the United States, Russia and many other countries have maintained a testing moratorium. However, North Korea tested a nuclear weapon as recently as 2017.
Still, the dangers of nuclear weapons were accompanied by a promising new technology: nuclear power.
In 1948, scientists first demonstrated that a nuclear reactor could harness fission to produce electricity. The X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee generated steam that powered an engine that lit up a small Christmas lightbulb. In 1951, Experimental Breeder Reactor-I at Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls produced the first usable amount of electricity from a nuclear reactor. The worlds first commercial nuclear power plants began to switch on in the mid- and late 1950s.
But nuclear disasters dampened enthusiasm for the technology, including the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union. In 2011, the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan rekindled societys smoldering nuclear anxieties. But today, in an era when the effects of climate change are becoming alarming, nuclear power is appealing because it emits no greenhouse gases directly.
And humankinds mastery over matter is not yet complete. For decades, scientists have been dreaming of another type of nuclear power, based on fusion, the process that powers the sun. Unlike fission, fusion power wouldnt produce long-lived nuclear waste. But progress has been slow. The ITER experiment has been in planning since the 1980s. Once constructed in southern France, ITER aims to, for the first time, produce more energy from fusion than is put in. Whether it is successful may help determine the energy outlook for future centuries.
From todays perspective, the breakneck pace of progress in nuclear and particle physics in less than a century can seem unbelievable. The neutron and positron were both found in laboratories that are small in comparison with todays, and each discovery was attributed to a single physicist, relatively soon after the particles had been proposed. Those discoveries kicked off frantic developments that seemed to roll in one after another.
Now, finding a new element, discovering a new elementary particle or creating a new type of nuclear reactor can take decades, international collaborations of thousands of scientists, and huge, costly experiments.
As physicists uncover the tricks to understanding and controlling nature, it seems, the next level of secrets becomes increasingly difficult to expose.
- Think Einstein hated quantum physics? Go back to school, fool! - The Next Web - July 12th, 2021
- Do We Live in a Multiverse? - ScienceAlert - July 12th, 2021
- "Little Einstein," an 11-year-old who just graduated university, now seeks to achieve immortality - The A.V. Club - July 12th, 2021
- For The First Time, Scientists Have Connected a Superconductor to a Semiconductor - ScienceAlert - July 12th, 2021
- Twinkle Khanna: You don't have to be a nerd to love speculative fiction - The Tribune India - July 12th, 2021
- Lost in Reality: A Broad Perspective - Commentary Box Sports - July 12th, 2021
- Quantum Key Distribution: Is it as secure as claimed and what can it offer the enterprise? - The Register - July 7th, 2021
- A Quantum Critique of the Western Worldview - Fair Observer - July 7th, 2021
- French researchers on the verge of quantum computing milestone - RFI English - July 7th, 2021
- Quantum computing to reduce operational costs for oil and gas companies - Oil Review Africa - June 28th, 2021
- Is reality a game of quantum mirrors? A new theory suggests it might be - The Conversation AU - June 28th, 2021
- Quantum Theory: A Scientific Revolution that Changed Physics Forever - Interesting Engineering - June 28th, 2021
- NIST's Quantum Security Protocols Near the Finish Line The U.S. standards and technology authority is searching - IoT World Today - June 28th, 2021
- Science Should Not Try to Absorb Religion and Other Ways of Knowing - Scientific American - June 28th, 2021
- Lars Jaeger: Quantum Computers Have Reached the Mainstream - finews.asia - June 28th, 2021
- THE OPEN DOOR: Living in a web of connections - newportri.com - June 27th, 2021
- Carlo Rovelli: My work in physics is endlessly creative - The Guardian - June 27th, 2021
- Exotic Superconductors: The Secret That Was Never There - SciTechDaily - June 27th, 2021
- Emmy Noether | Mathematician who proved Noether's theorem - New Scientist - June 27th, 2021
- TNIAAM recommends: Which books are you reading right now? - Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician - June 27th, 2021
- Exploring the universe: Texas Tech astrophysicist receives share of grant for gravitational wave research - LubbockOnline.com - June 27th, 2021
- Lars Jaeger: Quantum Computers Have Reached the Mainstream - finews.com - June 27th, 2021
- From Corporate Leader to Change-Maker, Motivational Speaker Offers Hope, Possibility, and the Power to Change on Amazon Prime - PRNewswire - June 27th, 2021
- Measure of time - The Times of India Blog - June 27th, 2021
- UT-Arlington researchers aim to help teachers bring quantum physics into the classroom - The Dallas Morning News - June 23rd, 2021
- New Solvers Further Enhance the Azure Quantum Optimization Offering - HPCwire - June 23rd, 2021
- Tech collaboration enables oil and gas companies to venture into quantum computing to reduce operational costs - World Pipelines - June 23rd, 2021
- Approaching Zero: Super-Chilled Mirrors Edge Towards The Borders Of Gravity And Quantum Physics - Gizmodo Australia - June 23rd, 2021
- Tencent Quantum Lab and the Department of Physics of Tsinghua University Sign MoU to Explore Material Computing - Synced - June 23rd, 2021
- The Einstein-Bohr legacy: can we ever figure out what quantum theory means? - Big Think - June 23rd, 2021
- 2021 Thematic Research into Quantum Computing in Oil and Gas - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Business Wire - June 23rd, 2021
- Stephen Hawking's study of the black hole surface theory confirms this - SwordsToday.ie - June 23rd, 2021
- UMD Invests Over $10M in Research Equipment to Drive Discovery, Innovation - Maryland Today - June 23rd, 2021
- Asrat Demise's PhD Thesis Defense | Department of Physics | The University of Chicago - UChicago News - June 23rd, 2021
- This is the secret to how Israel's leading technology institute manages to drive so much innovation - JTA News - Jewish Telegraphic Agency - June 23rd, 2021
- Link between quantum mechanics and ballet - Times of Malta - June 6th, 2021
- Weird World of Quantum Black Holes May Be Radically Different from What Einstein Predicted and Lack Event H - The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries... - June 6th, 2021
- Spacetime Crystals: New Mathematical Formula May Solve Old Problem in Understanding the Fabric of the Universe - SciTechDaily - June 6th, 2021
- Celebrating the Class of 2021 | UC San Diego News - UC San Diego Health - June 6th, 2021
- Im No Longer a Spectator to the Unfolding of My Life. - ADDitude - June 6th, 2021
- How Quantum Physics Allows Us To See Back Through Space And Time - Forbes - May 14th, 2021
- Is everything predetermined? Why physicists are reviving a taboo idea - New Scientist - May 14th, 2021
- New evidence for electron's dual nature found in a quantum spin liquid . New experiments conducted at - Princeton University - May 14th, 2021
- A wobbling muon could unlock mysteries of the universe - Vox.com - May 14th, 2021
- Quantum science, particle physics and nanoscale motors awarded support from Eric and Wendy Schmidt Transformative Tech Fund - Princeton University - May 14th, 2021
- Quantum Computing In Finance Where We Stand And Where We Could Go - Science 2.0 - May 14th, 2021
- Pathogenic, auto-immune or viral, all diseases are actually epigenetic - The Times of India Blog - May 14th, 2021
- Outlook on the Quantum Technology Global Market to 2026 - - GlobeNewswire - May 14th, 2021
- Researchers confront major hurdle in quantum computing - University of Rochester - May 9th, 2021
- Can a Patent Be Valid and Invalid at the Same Time? - Bloomberg Law - May 9th, 2021
- Breaking the Laws of Physics: Steering Light to Places It Isnt Supposed to Go - SciTechDaily - May 9th, 2021
- Are We on the Brink of a New Age of Scientific Discovery? - SciTechDaily - May 9th, 2021
- Can you really put a price on your college major? - The Boston Globe - May 9th, 2021
- Physicist and jazz pianist combines music and science at Rochester - University of Rochester - May 7th, 2021
- On the marvels of physics | symmetry magazine - Symmetry magazine - May 7th, 2021
- What financial crises and quantum mechanisms have in common - The New Times - May 7th, 2021
- MIT Researcher Says UFO Research Could Lead to New Laws of Physics - Futurism - May 7th, 2021
- Collins Aerospace upgrades US Navy C-130 fleet with long-lasting wheels and carbon brakes - PRNewswire - May 7th, 2021
- Andy Weirs New Space Odyssey - The New York Times - May 3rd, 2021
- The coherence of light is fundamentally tied to the quantum coherence of the emitting particle - Science Advances - May 3rd, 2021
- The battle for free will in the face of determinism - The Guardian - May 3rd, 2021
- Tulane part of Navy/Army-funded research on improving communication - News from Tulane - May 3rd, 2021
- A clocks accuracy may be tied to the entropy it creates - Science News Magazine - May 3rd, 2021
- Wellness Wednesday advice: If going to be sad? Don't! - Campus Times - May 3rd, 2021
- Beyond Books: Creative ways to combat the summer slide - Chillicothe Gazette - May 3rd, 2021
- #PulpNonFiction: Advertisers, be clear about what you want to say and why! - Bizcommunity.com - May 3rd, 2021
- Q&A: Are We on the Brink of a New Age of Scientific Discovery? - University of Virginia - May 3rd, 2021
- In Quantum Physics, Reality Really Is What We Choose To Observe - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence - April 21st, 2021
- Multiple Realities | Physics - Denison University - April 21st, 2021
- IISER physicist Prof Arvind is Punjabi University VC - The Tribune - April 21st, 2021
- Theoretical Physicist Prof Arvind appointed Punjabi Varsity Vice Chancellor - The Tribune - April 21st, 2021
- A cosmologist throws light on a universe of bias - Salon - April 21st, 2021
- Recent Reports Of Overturned Scientific Theory Are Premature - Forbes - April 21st, 2021
- Helgoland by Carlo Rovelli - read an exclusive extract - RTE.ie - April 17th, 2021
- Researchers Visualize the Motion of Vortices in Quantum Superfluid Turbulence - SciTechDaily - April 17th, 2021
- Will we ever know exactly how the universe ballooned into existence? - Livescience.com - April 17th, 2021
- 'The Disordered Cosmos', A Contemplation of the Exclusionary Culture of Physics - The Wire Science - April 17th, 2021
- Albert Einstein Death Anniversary: How did the greatest physicists of all time die? - Free Press Journal - April 17th, 2021
- Half Life traces family complexities for a Milwaukee physics teacher - The Globe and Mail - April 17th, 2021
- Scott Aaronson Winner of 2020 ACM Prize In Computing - iProgrammer - April 17th, 2021