All That Matters

The crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plants is a real tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated around the plants, many of which continue to live in shelters with little comfort and privacy. And even worse, there are more than 27,000 people that are either dead or declared missing as a consequence of the earthquake and the tsunami.

The stream of media reporting on the status of the Fukushima plants is continuing, although ironically we are now in a situation where although the continuing release of radiation into the plant’s immediate environment is accumulating to radiation levels that are worryingly high, the broader interest on the issue outside of Japan appears to have ebbed away. And that despite the fact that these problems will be with us for months, if not years.

What is still going strong in the media, however, is the debate on the future of nuclear energy. Some see the accident as a sign that we should stop all nuclear power plants – immediately – whereas others such as George Monbiot see the fact that the implications of this accident so far seem geographically limited as a sign to support nuclear power. Unfortunately, this pro/contra nuclear is where the debate stops, and there appears little movement on either side.

It’s about our energy future

What I am missing in this entire debate is the vision for our energy future. That’s because a sustainable energy supply is a complex issue, where broad brush strokes such as pro or contra nuclear unfortunately don’t help. Take the German government’s decision to shut down seven of its oldest nuclear reactors: unlike the shutdown of nuclear reactors in Japan this hasn’t led to power cuts in Germany. So where does the missing energy come from? This power is bought on the international market. So who can offer spare capacities of around seven gigawatts power or more? My guess is that most likely it’s nuclear energy from elsewhere….

But short-term politics and Fukushima-related knee-jerk reactions aside, how do we envision our energy future? […]

Optical switching might make computer hard drives faster. Photo by pobre.ch via flickr.

Magnetism remains the most developed way to store digital information. The giga and terabytes of computer hard drives as well as the magnetic stripes that still are used for credit cards or hotel room keys, all function with the help of magnetic fields. There, the direction of the magnetic fields, up or down, expresses the digital 0s and 1s that make up the computer bits and bytes.

As the amount of data we store on hard drives continues to increase, it is of course desirable that read and write speeds follow that trend. As far as writing data is concerned, however, switching the magnetisation is not that easy as all the individual magnetic fields of the majority of atoms that make up a bit, their so-called magnetic moment, has to be reversed. Given that these magnetic moments are interconnected through magnetic forces, such reversals aren’t very fast.

Modern hard drives manage to write about 1 billion bits per second. That’s a nanosecond per bit. In the lab, switching speeds are even faster, achieving hundreds of picoseconds to nanoseconds. But while this sounds like a pretty fast process, it is orders of magnitude slower than many other electronic processes in a crystal. Yet, magnets needn’t be that slow. What we have considered so far is switching magnetization by an external magnetic field, such as that generated in the write head of a hard drive. This isn’t the only possibility. If ultrashort optical laser pulses are used instead, magnetism can be switched a hundred times faster, on the order of a picosecond.

How does this work? In a paper published in advance on the Nature website this week, Ilie Radu, Theo Rasing from Radboud University in Nijmegen and others have investigated the details of the optical switching proceeds for a particular class of magnets, antiferromagnets.

[…]

X-ray data of protein crystals obtained from over 15,000 single snapshots. Credit: Thomas White, DESY

When you go to the doctor for an X-ray, the nurse or doctor briefly disappear behind a screen, presses a button for a brief moment, and you’re all set. It seems an X-ray takes about a second but the actual exposure times is much faster. Milliseconds more likely.

Such speeds seem like almost an eternity compared to what is achieved by a new generation of X-ray sources that have begun to become operational: free-electron X-ray lasers. The first of these big machines is the LCLS at Stanford University, which achieves laser pulses shorter than 70 femtoseconds (100 femtoseconds = 1/10 of a trillionth of a second). The beam intensities of these lasers are ten billion times brighter than the sun. And all this with a potential imaging precision down to the atomic scale. In other words, if you like to take things to the extreme, these lasers are for you.

In one of the first studies to make use of the LCLS X-ray free-electron laser, two research collaborations now present first experiments on biological samples in this week’s Nature.

[…]