Keep an open mind on the quantum realm (1)
I appreciated your overview of the current frontiers in quantum theory (28 August, p 34). One recurrent problem seems to be the lack of success in harmonising the classical, dichotomous logic of the macro world with the unusual logic that seems to “run” the quantum realm.
In fact, different varieties of logic have been known for some time: philosopher Susan Haack wrote an extremely interesting book on them called Deviant Logic, Fuzzy Logic. This leads me to wonder whether the implicit assumption that there is one correct logic (and that Cartesian logic is it) may not be helping us.
The texture and dimensionality of conscious experience may be so rich that it can encompass numerous different logics that work from different perspectives 鈥� even, perhaps, different families of logics.
Just as geometry has turned out to consist not just of Euclidean geometry, but other geometries too, it seems that it would be worth at least exploring the possibilities more thoroughly, instead of trying to bludgeon the logic of the quantum world into uncomfortable compliance with the world we know.
Keep an open mind on the quantum realm (2)
The introduction to your feature on all things quantum talked of “a wilderness of interpretation where physics begins to blend into philosophy”, but there was no mention of Immanuel Kant and his idea that the true nature of such things may elude us. For example, Kant’s point that what we see depends not just on how we look, but on how we are able to look may reflect the quantum realm’s wave/particle duality.
The article ends on the need for a theory that goes deeper than quantum. Perhaps the next great step in physics may have less to do with faithfully and completely representing the universe and more to do with faithfully and completely representing our experience of the universe. We may not, after all, ever escape our human way of being in the world.
Genetics may offer a way to speed carbon drawdown
When it comes to actively sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, the genetic modification of crops and trees may be a key technology (21 August, p 41).
Any such change to crops ought to aim to increase yield and resistance to disease and insects, as well as improve adaptation to a changing climate. The enhanced food yield will address the issues of a growing population, but most importantly in the context of carbon removal, it should also let us reallocate considerable areas of agricultural land for forest growth. Genetic modification of trees should try to speed up growth and improve adaptation to a changing climate, possibly including greater resistance to fires.
A model approach for all those modellers
In his review of the book Atlas of Forecasts, Simon Ings rightly questions the value of increasingly complex mathematical models that shape public policy, and hence our lives, but that only experts can understand (21 August, p 32).
Worse still, those outside the teams that build and run these models have limited ability to evaluate the work, unless the software is open source, the data genuinely open and available, and the documentation public.
A number of energy-system modellers, through the Open Energy Modelling Initiative, have been working hard to achieve open analysis within our domain. Indeed, open by default may soon be the analytical norm for Europe. Instead of opaque trust, we offer transparency, reproducibility, inclusion and collaboration. Feel free to help us curate system data, explore net-zero energy futures and assist with outreach.
Political no-show over climate is no big shock
Environmentalist Jonathon Porritt notes that “neither extreme weather nor stronger warnings in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports has triggered a proper emergency response from politicians” (21 August, p 25). This isn’t surprising 鈥� as long as politicians are beholden to vested interests for election campaign funds and sweet jobs when they leave office, they will do the bidding of the vested interests. Who pays the piper calls the tune.
Beaming solar from space is just pie in the sky (1)
Talk of solar panels in space is one of those ideas that won’t die, but should (28 August, p 17). The only reason to use a space-based system is to ensure uninterrupted supply. It would be far cheaper and much less dangerous to instead invest in terrestrial solar with energy storage that could power the grid at night and on really cloudy days.
Beaming solar from space is just pie in the sky (2)
If we are to beam down 2 gigawatts of power from solar panels in space, I propose that the receiver for this high-energy beam is put next to the house of the person who approves the systems that keep it pointing at the right spot.
On the prospects for life inside caves on Mars
You report research that suggests life may be viable inside Martian caves (4 September, p 9). My colleagues and I tested this idea in our 2009 paper .
The study you describe suggests that UV radiation levels are low enough inside Martian caves to be relatively safe, but high enough to sustain organisms that require light to produce energy via photosynthesis. We showed this was the case, and commented in our paper that “our findings could be placed in an astrobiological context of a Martian cave, where a hypothetical phototrophic microorganism… could be found inside a cave well protected from the harsh outside conditions using minimum photon flux levels coming from a nearby entrance, but high enough for enabling the photosynthetic processes critical for survival”.
Spread this little serving of wisdom
Further to Sam Wong’s article on the science of jam making (28 August, p 51). A good tip is that slightly under-ripe fruit contains more pectin, eliminating the need to add pectin via either special jam sugar or apples.