Firstly, thanks to everyone who has emailed or Tweeted me their comments about the possible alternative titles for my new book – and indeed thanks to Richard Wiseman who set up a vote on his blog page, and to everyone who voted or added a useful comment. So, here is an update.

Firstly, a quick recap: After three and a bit years in the writing, my new book on the scientific achievements during the golden age of the medieval Islamic empire is almost finished. It heads off to printers next week, to be in all good bookshops on 30 September! Hurrah.

It also now has the new title as shown on the left. This might not have been everyone’s first choice title, but there was a rationale for doing it – one that I concede is sensible and actually necessary.

The original working title has been “The House of Wisdom“, with the subtitle of “The Flourishing of A Glorious Civilisation and the Golden Age of Arabic Science“. This despite another book, by Jonathan Lyons, out a few years ago on the same subject with the same title “The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilisation“.

Now, the marketing arm of the publishers have become rightly concerned about the likely confusion between the two books (same title, same subject, even book covers were looking similar!) and all parties have now settled on the alternative title of “Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science” – a reference to a quote about Ibn Khaldun, the Arab scholar of the 14th century and father of the fields of economics and social science. Some people tweeted me about this saying they were not so sure about the new title, that it sounded like a travel guide or government initiative etc. I guess it is all about the context. Ibn Khaldun’s full quote (which will appear on the back cover of the book) reads:

Schrodinger's 1944 book

One of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics was the Austrian, Erwin Schrödinger. He is most famous within physics for coming up with the equation that bears his name and which is familiar to every quantum mechanics student around the world. But Schrödinger later wrote a very influential popular science book in 1944 called “what is Life” in which he speculated that the behaviour of living matter at the cellular level can be thought of in terms of pure physics and chemistry and that at such scales, even quantum mechanics would play a role. He also introduced the idea of an “aperiodic crystal” that contained genetic information in its configuration of covalent chemical bonds. It was this book that one of the discoverers of DNA, Frances Crick, claimed was his inspiration.

So does quantum mechanics play a role within the cell? On one level, we have to say that it must. After all, the molecules of life are held together in the same way as any molecule: through chemical bonds subject to the rules of the quantum world. What is far more interesting is whether the weirder features of quantum mechanics also play a role. One obvious one is quantum tunnelling (the subatomic equivalent of walking through walls). This is just one of the areas currently being studied by a new breed of researchers who straddle the boundary between quantum physics and microbiology.

Francis Crick was inspire by Schrodinger

In simple terms, certain genetic mutations take place when a hydrogen bond is broken between two base pairs in the DNA and a new adjacent bond is made. This has been successfully described in terms of a proton quantum tunnelling between two potential wells. Interestingly, many biologists feel sceptical about any need for quantum mechanics at all, while many physicists are scornful of the simple models currently being used to study such complex systems as living cells. Well, that is good news for those brave enough to explore this new frontier of science, as it is not yet too crowded.

One issue of current interest to me personally is the effect of the quantum system’s external environment (within the cell), which it can couple to, causing what is called ‘decoherence’ – a leaking away of the quantum weirdness rather like the dissipation of heat. A number of groups around the world have been studying this effect for the past two decades and the implications of this work are far-reaching. For instance, it may help in our understanding of how cancer develops. You see, in order to generate a cancer cell, a series of mutations must occur in the same cell, each of which is very rare. Therefore, it stands to reason that the chance of several separate mutations occurring in the same cell is truly very unlikely. It has been speculated that if quantum mechanics has a role to play in such mutations it might explain why cancer is so much more common than it should be.

Institute of Physics Report highlighting importance of nuclear physics to UK economy.

A recently published report on UK nuclear physics and engineering stressed the need to maintain a healthy nuclear science base and made it clear that nuclear physics has applications across many fields. Its applications in healthcare, the environment, the nuclear industry and national security require many skilled people trained to a large extent by academic nuclear physicists. The report stated that “further funding cuts could be terminal, resulting in the loss of an important skill set which would impact the delivery of Masters courses”. Many of the research groups in universities around the UK run and support Masters level courses – a spin-off of our basic research – which provide graduates who enter directly into the nuclear, health and radiological sectors.

The supply of skilled workers for the nuclear industry is a high priority for the UK since we must, even if we no longer design and build nuclear power stations, be intelligent customers for reactors commissioned from abroad. We must also have the nuclear expertise to deal with the decommissioning of old reactors and the safe treatment of our nuclear waste. Where does the STFC think the trained manpower that the UK in nuclear physics and associated instrumentation and measurement is going to come from? The UK spends about 1/20 on nuclear physics research compared to France and Germany, so can we really be so wrong?

What must be addressed now is how the academic community of nuclear physicists, government and funding bodies can work together to ensure survival of the best science and those areas of expertise essential for the Nation’s future. Simply shouting to reverse decisions already made may well be counter productive, given the sheer number of likely “don’t cut my area” lobby groups. We must also, make sure that our government understands the excitement, importance and relevance of the research we do in nuclear physics, from studying how stars shine and how they cook all the elements to applying our knowledge to develop new treatments for cancer. If our discipline dies, government ministers might reflect on how they will explain in the future their failure to support nuclear physics at the level well below Ronaldo’s salary at Real Madrid.

Isaac Newton

Isaac Newton once famously said “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. He was rightly pointing out that none of the great minds in history achieved what they did in isolation – no one starts from scratch. But true geniuses such as Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking, seem to see further and deeper into Nature than ordinary mortals. What these two great scientists, living three centuries apart, also have in common is that they both occupied the most famous post in world science: the Lucasian Chair in Mathematics at Cambridge. Hawking recently retired from this chair having reached the mandatory age of sixty-five, and the world awaited the announcement of his successor. I was interviewed recently on BBC Radio to speculate on who I thought it might be. The interviewer even asked me if I was interested! It shows how little he knew about science for I quickly informed him that candidates need not bother applying unless they have a Nobel Prize under their belts or an equation named after them.

The announcement that the post had been filled was made recently. I happen to know the person by reputation, but then I am a theoretical physicist; I don’t expect he is widely known outside the academic community. His name is Michael Green and he is one of the founders of string theory. In 1981, Green and the American, John Schwarz, published their work on Type I superstring theory, which led to a surge of interest in the subject. Both men have continued to be leaders in the field and it has moved on dramatically in the past decades, most famously due to the contributions of another American, dubbed as the world’s smartest man: Edward Witten.

Michael Green

I have no doubt that Green is an excellent mathematical physicist and eminently worthy of the post of Lucasian professor. But I am equally certain that it is his profile as co-founder of string theory that won him the job, and many physicists would question whether that is a good enough reason. In the past few years there have been several books criticizing string theory as not having led to its much-touted success in unifying the four fundamental forces of nature. First, there was Peter Woit’s “Not Even Wrong” and then Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics”. Both argue that string theory has had long enough to show us what it can do but has yielded very little. Many people even question whether it should qualify as a proper scientific theory at all given that it has not led to any testable results.

Of course this is somewhat unfair, since string theory is notoriously complex and rich and we have probably only scratched the surface. It could well be that at some point this century it will begin to show itself as the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. In the meantime, physicists in other areas look with understandable envy at the way string theory is able to attract funding and the brightest minds to choose it for their PhDs at the expense of others’ undoubtedly excellent research areas.

The Lucasian chair is a high profile post, and string theory is a high profile area of science. Still, Michael Green has very large shoes to fill. I wish him well.

Anyway, the subject of this blog is a timely reminder of this year’s big science celebrations. Not only is it Darwin200 and International Polar Year, it is also International Year of Astronomy (oh, and it is the centenary of the discovery of the atomic nucleus by Ernest Rutherford). But it is the astronomy angle I wish to say something about.

It was during the summer of 1609 that Galileo first pointed his newly invented telescope towards the heavens and confirmed one of the most important ideas in the history of humanity: that we are not at the centre of the Universe. This year we celebrate the 400th anniversary of that discovery as International Year of Astronomy. Of course, astronomy, unlike many other areas of science, is not difficult to sell to the general public as an exciting and fascinating subject, but its history has often been incorrectly told.

For many historians of science, it was the Polish astronomer, Copernicus, who ushered in the age of modern astronomy. For it was he who gave us the modern picture of the solar system with the earth as just one of a number of planets orbiting the sun, rather than the other way round. This ‘heliocentric’ model is what Galileo was to confirm nearly a century later. But it was Galileo rather than Copernicus who is the true father of modern astronomy.

Firstly, Copernicus was not the first person to propose a heliocentric model. The Greek philosopher, Aristarchus, had done so in the third century BC, but no one believed him apart from a Babylonian astronomer by the name of Seleucus. The great Greek physicist, Archimedes, wrote the following about Aristarchus: “You know that most astronomers designate by the word cosmos the sphere whose centre coincides with the centre of the earth… But Artistarchus the Samian, published in writing certain hypotheses in which it follows that the cosmos must be many times greater than the one mentioned before. He assumes namely that the fixed stars and the sun remain stationary, while the earth moves round the sun through the circumference of a circle.” Then, during medieval times, several Muslim astronomers tried to revive the heliocentric idea, but most of them were so influenced by the likes of Aristotle and Ptolemy who preached that the earth was at the centre of the Universe that the correct cosmology never caught on until Copernicus.

Secondly, like all astronomers before him, Copernicus came up with his new theory based on observing the night sky with the naked eye. He also had no notion of the concept of gravity, for that was to come much later with Newton. Therefore in many ways his ‘cosmology’ was not very different from those that had come before. He still believed that the sun was at the centre of the whole Universe rather than just the solar system.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Copernicus used mathematical techniques developed several hundred years earlier by Muslim astronomers like the 13th century Persian al-Tusi and the 14th century Syrian Ibn al-Shatir. Scientific progress is a continuum. It was Newton who said that if he saw further than others it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Thus, astronomy did not start with Copernicus or Galileo, just as physics did not start with Newton.

Still, the telescope revolutionised our understanding of the cosmos, just as the microscope was to revolutionise our understanding of the microcosm. So we have every right to celebrate its 400th anniversary this year, for without it we would still be stuck with abstract metaphysical speculation about our place in the Universe.

Yes, another exotic day of filming is over.

OK, some background: I am making a one-hour documentary for BBC4 called “Beyond Chaos”, which is, well, a programme about all things chaotic (you know the stuff: butterfly effect, Mandlebrot sets, Lorenz Attractors, Belousov reactions, unpredictability – cue turbulent weather scenes, stock market graphs – you know the stuff). Aaanyway… for today’s shoot we needed – Well, I say we; what I mean is my director Nic Stacey needed – somewhere scenic and spectacular. So what could be better than the snow-covered Yorkshire Dales and some impressive waterfalls.

Wrap up warm, we were told. Bloody good job too! We set off from our B&B at 7-ish with the temperature at minus 3°C and it didn’t rise above zero all day. We head off to film at a famous beauty spot, the Ribblehead Viaduct. Absolutely gorgeous. But when you’re outside for five hours, even with three pairs of socks and a thermal vest to supplement the usual outdoor filming gear, the chill manages to eventually seep into these not-so-young-anymore bones. I felt more like a homeless person wearing all his possessions than a smoothy TV presenter, which is what I am really.

But hey I’m not complaining. Nor am I complaining when I say that after our brief cafe lunch of carrot soup and bacon bun we had to trek three miles with all the gear along treacherously icy and precariously narrow paths up to our scenic waterfall for the afternoons location. After all, the views were even more stunning, and it was a beautifully sunny and clear day despite the cold. No, all I am saying is that today should not be regarded by my sometimes ever so slightly envious colleagues as an exotic day out being pampered by BBC licence payers. It was hard work.

Ooh, just passed through Milton Keynes, so not too far now. The pretty young girl opposite me on the train is trying so hard to ignore the lecherous old fool sitting next to her, who is blatantly and constantly staring at her. It’s sort of fascinating to watch. I mean she really is very pretty, and he really is very old and very lecherous, and he really is staring. I won’t say anything as she seems to be coping admirably by completely blanking him.

I have tried to sleep but I think I am too exhausted for that. I could do with a coffee though.

So is this what blogs are meant to be like? Random thoughts? There is precious little science in this week’s one, for which I apologise. But frankly, I am scienced out at the moment. (Gasp!) Anyway, read previous blogs from the archive if you want more science. Last week’s proof of Pythagoras was pretty neat I thought. You might notice that I am getting more informal as the blogs go on. I am clearly trying hard to be hip. But, please somebody kill me if I start the habit of ending every sentence with the phrase “hehe lol “. In fact, kill anyone over 18 who does that.

Oh, I can share with you one piece of exciting news. It seems that no sooner have I made the effort to write an (almost) weekly blog, than an even better project looks like taking off. My university marketing department approached me a few weeks ago to see if I was interested in making a regular podcast. They would provide the know-how, equipment, website, etc, if I would provide the content. It would be sort of for the University but I got to say what I wanted, invited on the guests I chose and so on. They suggested a ‘Jim talks science’, which I saw as essentially this blog, but in audio. I agreed, and quickly suggested a great name for it. Wait for it while a get the drum roll going… Jim Al-Khalili’s SciPod.

Jim's Sci-pods

Geddit? Science Podcast! I’m so clever! I was amazed to find that searching on iTunes threw up nothing with this name. Maybe I didn’t look hard enough as it seems such an obvious name. Anyway, we decided to go for it and during the space of two intense hours last week in my office, with the microphones and other recording equipment linked to a Mac, we recorded the first five 10 minute episodes! I talked about my experiences filming my TV series Science and Islam, I talked about my favourite scientists, I talked about astronomy and chemistry. The plan is that very soon I will have a link to it from this website so that anyone can download it. Of course that relies on people coming here, so the University are going to make it available on iTunes too. How cool is that!

I wonder whether I will keep this blog going if it gets to be really successful. I don’t mean Stephen Fry podgram or Ricky Gervais podcast successful, just that it might be listened to by more than the tiny fraction of the two hundred or so friends I have on Facebook whom I always inform about this blog on my Status Updates (the only thing I use it for). Anyway, we’ll see.

I think we are approaching London now so will sign off.

The Zhou Bi Suan Jing (The Arithmetical Classic of the Gnomon and the Circular Paths of Heaven) is an ancient Chinese mathematical text that dates from the period of the Zhou Dynasty (1046 – 256 BCE). It is an anonymous collection of 246 mathematical problems, each with detailed steps and answers. It contains one of the first recorded proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem, to which a later Chinese mathematician, Chou Kung, provided an accompanying diagram (below) that is for me one of the simplest ways to see how the area of the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the areas of the squares of the other two sides. If you have even a rudimentary grasp of this most popular of school maths topics, you should be able to see how it works from the diagram.

My second topic is what I hope is a measured response to some criticism I received in the press recently. A year ago I wrote an article in the Telegraph about a 9th century scholar from Baghdad who had come up with some crude evolutionary ideas. The article (as well as another in the Guardian) was my way of testing the water ahead of a Royal Society lecture I gave as well as the filming of my BBC series and the book. Basically, if I was to be getting stuck in to this subject I was keen to see the public’s reaction. It clearly provoked, albeit a whole year later, an acquaintance of mine, Steve Connor, science correspondence for the Independent newspaper.

I have worked with Steve before and know him well and I do not want this to look like we are locking horns on this. Steve wrote a piece in which he says:

Professor Jim Al-Khalili, a physicist at Surrey University, has been a vocal supporter of al-Jahith, and will no doubt be bringing him in to his rather good series Science and Islam on BBC 4.

“Environmental factors influence organisms to develop new characteristics to ensure survival,” al-Jahith wrote. “Animals that survive to breed can pass on their successful characteristics to offspring.”
Al-Khalili says that this qualifies as a theory of natural selection, but any scholar of Darwinism will point out that this could just as easily describe another, discredited evolutionary mechanism, known as Lamarckism. Sorry Jim, from what little we know of al-Jahith and his ideas on evolution, he can’t hold a candle to Darwin and Wallace.

In fact, al-Jahith did not even get a mention in my TV series – there were plenty more even greater scientists to talk about than him. Steve seems to think I was literally claiming that al-Jahith discovered the theory of evolution before Darwin and that I was somehow belittling Darwin’s achievement. Nonsense. Darwin is for me one of the top five greatest scientists of all time (Newton, Einstein, Aristotle and Archimedes are the others – order them as you see fit). All al-Jahith did was suggest that animals might be influenced by their environment and that they could pass on these acquired characteristics to their offspring. This is of course, at best, Lamarckism, not Darwinism, and the two are very different. But even the now discredited Lamarck should not be too concerned, for al-Jahith’s writing (in his “Book of Animals”) is littered with superstition and mythology (like God reverse evolving (is this devolution?) a race that he is unhappy with back to apes! His notions should not be taken too seriously as scientific.

No, my point was rather that here was a Muslim scholar over a thousand years ago prepared to come up with outlandish theories in order to describe the world around him. It may not have been proper science as we would define it today but this rationalist outlook and sense of enquiry is often missing in many religious societies today (just check out the recent opinion polls about evolution theory in two highly religious countries (the US and Turkey) and be very afraid! If I were wishing to provoke, it would not have been Darwinists – for I am a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist myself – but rather as a wake up call to those theists, particularly young Muslims who should feel very proud of the achievements of medieval scholars like al-Jahith, who have such a problem with it.

So, no Steve, I wasn’t dissing Darwin. But we are celebrating the 200th anniversary of his birth this year, so I guess now is a great time to be engaging in debate on evolution, one of the greatest discoveries (some would argue the greatest) in the history of science. And you and I are most definitely on the same side here.