Hello, and welcome to the Physics World weekly
podcast.
I'm Hamish Johnston.
This episode is sponsored by the cavalry prize.
The cavalry prize honors scientists for breakthroughs
in astro,
nano neuroscience, and neuroscience.
Transforming our understanding of the big, the small
and the complex.
The vision for the cavalry prize comes from
Fred C, a Norwegian American entrepreneur
and philanthropist
who turned his lifelong
fascination with science.
Into a lasting legacy for recognizing
scientific breakthroughs
and for supporting basic
research.
The 20 24
cavalry prize in astro
was announced yesterday
on the twelfth of June.
I'm very pleased to have this year's Lau
join me down the line from Cambridge
Massachusetts.
They are David Char
of Harvard University
and Sara Sig of the Massachusetts
institute of technology.
They share this year's cavalry prize in astro
for their groundbreaking
work on the discovery and
characterization of extra solar planets and their atmospheres.
Hi, Sarah, and David,
welcome to the podcast.
And
congratulations for winning the Cavalry prize in astro.
Thank you. It's great to be here. It's
great to be here with you. So, Sarah,
my my first question is for you.
Astronomers have confirmed the existence of more than
5000
exoplanets.
And that number keeps rising.
And they have wonderful
descriptions such as hot jupiter,
mini neptune,
and super earth.
Can you give us a flavor of the
different types of exoplanets that astronomers know of?
Well, what's really truly amazing is there's a
continuum of planets in terms of their mass,
sizes and orbits, and it's very astonishing and
what's completely unexpected.
But these hot jupiter, they're just jupiter,
mass, jupiter sized planets
that are extremely close to there's host stars.
So their atmospheres are heated to 3000
even 3000 kelvin.
The mini neptune are particularly exciting because
Right now, we think we're on the verge
of figuring out what they actually are. Their
planets in between the size of earth's and
Neptune.
Earth, neptune is 4 times the size of
earth.
And so far, these
mini neptune appear to be incredibly common in
our galaxy. Yet, we have no solar system
counterpart,
and they have a very awkward ambiguous average
density, so we don't know, for example, if
they're rocky world surrounded by a subs,
hydrogen or hydrogen helium envelope, or if they're
this mysterious water world, a type of scaled
up version of 1 of Jupiter's Icy moons
that's
largely water by mass.
But there's so many. We could literally just
have a monologue hours long of all the
different planet types out there, they seem strange
to us, but it it is that simply
because we we only know about the solar
system, and you know, the the the idea
of a of a a hot Jupiter was
almost beyond our imagination before we started detecting
them.
That's right. It's never good in science when
we only have 1 example to build an
entire theory on planet information based on the
solar system.
So the large majority of... Astronomers of scientists
were completely shocked about the hot jupiter and
everything else. But by now, honestly, we've learned
to be surprised.
1 thing we're dying to know, at least
I'm dying to know is how common is
our solar system.
Our solar system is actually very hard to
find. That works in our favor, we might
not be here talking
because we've had such a rich diversity of
planets to discover.
But in the near future, we hope to
get an answer for that with 1 of
our next telescopes the Nancy Grace Roman telescope
that's going to do a micro lens survey
and can take the sense. But right now,
it could be that, you know, 10 percent
or less of sunlight like Sars have an
actual solar system.
Do you have a you're you're a pioneer
in the the study of the atmospheres of
Exoplanets.
How do astronomers
study the atmospheres of these planets that are
so far away and and so faint
compared to the stars that they orbit,
There are 2
related methods
that astronomers use and that Sarah and I
have used to explore the atmospheres of these
exoplanets.
And they both have to do with
a very special geometry. When our line of
sight is aligned with the orbit of the
planet around the star, and that means that
once every orbit the planet passes
in front of the star.
And when it does so, some of the
light from the star,
passes through
the atmosphere of the planet. And so if
you were if you were looking at the
start at that exact moment, you could imagine
seeing this little planet in front of it
and then seeing an ann, which is the
atmosphere surrounding that planet.
And so what we're doing is we're using
the light from the star
as a probe as a as a back
light
to probe the atmospheric chemistry,
and that means that we don't have to
spatial resolve
the planet from the star. We don't have
to be able to take a picture of
the planet isolated from its star,
which is very demanding in terms of optical
design. We can instead use this,
this trick and many, many people now use
this trick all the time.
The
the other method is when the planet passes
behind the star,
then the planet is entirely out of you,
and you might think well, that's no good
because we're not seeing any life from the
planet. But what that allows us to do
is to measure the
radiation, the thermal radiation from the star by
itself.
And we can then subtract that from data
gathered at any other time when we have
both the thermal radiation from the planet in
the star and whatever's is left over, okay,
However, small that residual signal might be. That
is the radiation from the planet.
And that's complimentary because that tells us the
actual thermal emission,
whereas the first method tells us about the
opacity.
And so we can learn a a great
deal from these 2 methods.
And David, when when you study the the
light that that travels through the atmosphere, are
you looking at bit? At light at certain
frequencies that's been removed
from the solar spectrum,
or can can can you actually see light
that's given off by,
molecules and atoms in the atmosphere?
That's right. The the ideas we're seeing the
absorption
due to whatever
atoms or molecules are present in the atmosphere.
And so as the light from the star
passes through, certain specific wavelengths blanks are removed,
and that's because they're being absorbed.
And course, that only happens at the exact
moment when the planet goes in front of
the star. So we we can
be be confident that that absorption really is
due to the planetary atmosphere. Of
But but we can't see emission at the
moment or maybe we'll never see
emission from the atmosphere because the star is
is just so bright.
We didn't don't see emission during transmission spectroscopy
because the light from the star goes through
the atmosphere and gets absorbed.
And yes, the light is re emitted, but
in all directions. So there's just such a
tiny amount we never see it. Yeah. So,
no. We do very much wanna study the
emission from the planetary atmosphere.
But the the best time to do that
is not when the planets in front of
the star, but rather when it is at
some other point in its orbit.
So so you can imagine if you were
looking at the system and seeing it at
quad we're seeing at what we would call
a a quarter moon if you were imagining.
The analog of the moon around the earth.
And so you see some,
radiation, some thermal emission from the planet and
some from the star, You have to be
able to subtract the light from the star
and you do that by getting those measurements
when the planet goes behind the star. So
you take measurements to different times and difference
them.
And this allows you to not only see
the actual emitted spectrum, but to actually see
how that spectrum changes
as the planet completes its orbit.
And and it would change because the the
temperature of the of the planet is changing.
Is that, could you actually see that? Yeah.
Not just the temperature, but you can you
can see that the chemistry then changes because
the temperature is changing, so you have different...
Atoms or molecules that might be present,
and we can actually see wins. We can
actually see
the... There's evidence that
you know, the heated gas from the day
side of the planet is flowing around to
the night side of the planet. So,
you know, when the data are up high
quality, we get access to a lot of
the dynamics
and the chemistry
of of the planetary atmosphere.
Wow. I mean, that is incredible when you
consider how far away these things are. So
David, using these techniques, what have we learned
so far about exoplanet atmospheres.
Well, in in many ways, we've learned
a great deal,
And in many ways, we've learned almost nothing,
and there's and there's a very exciting future
in front of us.
For certain kinds of planets,
and in particular for what we call the
hot jupiter,
we've had access to a very rich data
set, and that's simply because they're the easiest
to study.
Okay? So the hot jupiter, as you might
imagine, are both the physically the largest planets
that are out there, but they're also the
hottest ones.
And so when they pass in front of
their star,
their
atmosphere, that ann that you're viewing in transmission
that ring of atmosphere,
is very large, both because the planet is
large and because the atmosphere is puffy because
the atmosphere is hot.
And so in in that case, we've been
able to
detect many molecules. So the first detection was
sodium atom,
but we now have been able to detect
water,
a carbon dioxide,
carbon dioxide, methane,
and
now we're seeing evidence of photo chemistry. We're
actually seeing products that we would only expect
due to this specific interaction of the radiation,
changing the actual chemistry of the atmosphere rather
than just the atmosphere being hot. Okay?
And as I mentioned, we can also make
maps of the planets. So for these hot
jupiter,
we can actually measure the thermal emission as
they orbit around their star. And we can
see to what extent some of the planets
are able to take the the the radiation
that's dumped onto to the hot bay side
because we think most of these Planets are
tit locked. They always present the same face
to the star, and we can see that
red distributed around to the night side. The
night side is not cold. Is my point.
The night side is a little bit colder,
but it's not it's not perfectly cold, and
that indicates that some heat is being transported.
And and there's of course, this incredibly rich
dataset set now coming out of the James
webb space telescope, which is really unprecedented,
both in terms of its
aperture. Okay. I can collect a lot of
light during these very special moments. There's only
a few hours when the planet goes in
front of the star, we have to get
as much data as we can,
but it's also very sensitive to infrared wavelengths.
And most molecules, of course, are active. We
see their features at infrared wavelengths. And so
the James Webb space telescope is really, very,
very special. Okay. So that's the good news.
The bad news is that for the smaller
rocky planets, planets like the Earth and venus.
We know essentially nothing, and that is because
the atmospheres are,
tiny, and the atmospheres are colder compared to
the hot Jupiter. And so we just don't
yet have the sensitivity.
Now, for certain systems,
we are able to begin those studies.
And those are for small stars, which astronomers
call red dwarf or m dwarf.
And by shrinking the star,
Okay? We... We're shrinking some of the noise
that we're trying to overcome. The bright light
of the star is something that we have
to to manage.
Okay? It allows us to probe the planetary
atmosphere, but it also causes a lot of
noise in our measurements.
And so when we find these small Rocky
planets orbiting these m dwarf.
Then we can access them if the M
dwarf planets are also very hot. And so
there's a few
systems,
where the data are very good, and we've
actually learned they don't have an atmosphere.
So they might be similar to to
mercury in our own solar system where Mercury
because it's hot and relatively low mass was
not able to retain its atmosphere. And so
that's really exciting.
We're now at the point of probing what
the astronomers call the cosmic
shoreline. We're trying to figure out how cold
and how
how massive does a rocky planet it have
to be when we first see it it
it's able to retain that at... Sphere as
opposed to losing it entirely, which, of course,
puts it on a completely different path both
for its evolution and also for the prospects
of potentially hosting life. So And in in
your research, looking at atmospheres. What is there
1 thing that has surprised you the most?
In terms of you know, what you've learned
about Exoplanet,
atmospheres or is, is it is there a
new surprise every day for you?
Well, I would say the,
you know, the story...
When you work in Exoplanets, you sort of
have to get used to surprises.
Right? Because as Sarah was describing,
just in terms of the population of planets,
most of the planets that we know about
orbiting other
stars have no analog in the solar system.
Okay? They're intermediate and size between earth
and, you know, neptune. Okay? We don't have
anything like that. In our solar system,
and yet most planets that we've discovered are
are in that in that middle zone. And
so,
then, you know, pretty much by definition, their
atmospheres and their properties are are also gonna
be
complete surprises.
So I I would say that learning about
the atmospheres of those planets,
which are sometimes called water worlds.
Or mini neptune or super and that just
reflects the fact that we don't know what
the heck really are. That will tell us
their true identities. That will tell us whether
they really are more similar to Neptune
or more similar to to the earth with
maybe some hydrogen on top. So so that's
sort of a surprise I would say in
waiting.
So Sarah,
observing signs of life on an exoplanet would
be a profound event for humanity.
What are the bios
that astronomers like you are are looking for?
It turns out this is an incredibly loaded
question.
And as we unfold the observations and get
closer to the day
when making such a
detection becomes reality. It's just incredibly messy.
So we've worked like microbe in particular, over
the last couple decades to literally come up
with a list of every molecule that's in
gas phase
at a habitable world temperature impression and there's
a lot of them. There's, like 14000. I
mean, large majority are
compounds, but... And we've kind of worked through
classes of molecules or... You know, other people
are growing group of people work on this
as well.
The reason I'm hesitating to give a direct
answer,
is because we will be faced with 3
incredibly important questions. 1 is the signal real.
Any gas we're looking for is likely to
be a trace gas not there at huge
quantities.
Second 1 is the signal attributed to the
right molecule.
And then the third question assuming the first
2 pass some bar is the molecule
produced by life or does it have an
antibiotic false positive?
So what we've largely found is that for
nearly every gas of interest, there are multiple
options for...
For how to assign the gas, and
it's gonna be a tricky situation. My favorite
gas personally, is so oxygen. Oxygen is a
highly reactive gas shouldn't be in our atmosphere
unless it's continually produced. I mean, there are
ways to Produce oxygen without life. And our
telescope the James webb space telescope isn't... Quite
capable of detecting oxygen right now. But we
have a huge list of other gases,
and those include pho. They include
you know, dime cell. There's literally
a good long list of molecules we're are
interested in?
And how do you sort of get away
from the the sort of earth and and
solar system bias when you're coming up with
lists
of chemicals to look for. Or you you
have to be
very imaginative
in terms of what sort of life you're
imagining
on a distant planet. Well, we aren't able
to go from what the life is to
what it will produce. We're just making the
assumption that life elsewhere like life on earth
should use chemistry to extract energy from the
environment to store energy.
And to metabolize and in the process produce
a waste gas.
So we're sticking with this general idea that
there should be a gas that doesn't belong
that's far out of equilibrium with its environment.
And so
there's no magic bullet, basically. That's why I
started by saying that we've tried to come
with a list of all molecules
of interests, literally, like, whether or not they're
produced by life on earth. And and when
you're doing this research, I mean, do you
work with Chemists?
Who who addressed this problem. I suppose from
a from a chemical point of view. Is
that... Is that a part of your sort
of day to day research? I do have
bio on my team,
but it's not really necessary at this point
because we're still at that point of trying
to detect trying to assign the molecule and
trying to believe if the signals real or
not. So, Sarah, a growing number of earth
like exoplanets are being discovered.
Are these the only places where astronomers are
looking for signs of life or could life
exist on other types of Exoplanets? That's a
great question. Let's call them at earth size
because we don't know if they're earth like
yet.
And, you know, it's just so hard as
Dave was sane and earth... Sized planet likely
has a tiny atmosphere. Think of like the
skin of an onion on an onion.
So tiny.
So it's kind of like the person looking
for their lost keys and looking under the
street lamp.
That's what we're kind of trying to do.
We're trying to broaden our perspectives so we
have a better chance to find
signs of life.
So the next, you know, biggest type of
planet are these so called mini neptune, and
there's 2 thrust going on there.
1 is an idea that like Earth has
an aerial biosphere here. We have life in
our clouds.
Perhaps there's life in the clouds and other
planets.
And these mini neptune, the ones we can
access now. They're typically too hot at their
surface for life. But in the clouds, just
like on earth as you go up into
the clouds the atmosphere gets. Cooler, so to
on other planets. So there's that idea, but,
you know, people have had that idea before
for Jupiter, like Carl Saga tried to propose.
There could be life on Jupiter, and in
that situation, if the surface is too hot,
we you have to just have a kind
of con confined scenario where the down drafts
wouldn't bring life too far downwards too hot.
Others
take this idea of the so called mini...
The many neptune being so called water worlds.
And, you know, there are some scenarios where
the water world may literally have a liquid
water ocean, a hot water ocean. Maybe not
too hot for life, but
so hot and that there might be life
in those oceans. So we're literally,
maybe even pushing the pendulum too far, maybe
not. But we're trying to be as open
as possible so we don't miss our chance
to find signs of life with our current
James webb telescope.
And and, Sir, what's your your sort of
overall view on the existence of life?
I mean, do you think that life must?
Occur out there somewhere. It would just be
a
almost a mathematical impossibility
that it didn't
or you know, is it possible that Earth
is the only place in the... Well, at
least in the near universe where life exists.
Well, since it's a physics podcast,
we really couldn't answer that question
in any way quantitatively until we better understand
the origin of life on earth. You know,
we have giant holes in our in our
understanding of how life on earth arose, but
just speculating for a moment,
we see the ingredients for life everywhere. You
know,
meteorites have amino acids. We see all kinds
of complex organic molecules in the intra interstellar
medium. That doesn't mean they survive when they
make it to a planet.
But it seems like the ingredients for life
are quite straightforward to form. And just given
the number of stars in our galaxy alone,
hundreds of billions of stars.
And the idea, a reality that there are
hundreds of billions of galaxies out there. Surely
there is life elsewhere.
But the question we're facing right now, Dave
and I and all the others working on
Exoplanets is,
is there life on a planet orbiting a
star near enough and right enough, for us
to find a sign now.
And finding a sign of life now doesn't
mean we'll be sure there's life out there,
but it means it'll be enough for to
fuel the search to keep going.
And, Sarah, is there always going to be
some sort of
ambiguity involved in these measurements?
You know, you might have... You might see
lots of bios,
but maybe at the end of the day,
they could all have
non biological
origins, and, you know, you can never say,
u, a hundred percent that there's life on
that
Exoplanet.
There will always be an ambiguity with remote
sensing.
Some people have tried to put forward an
idea that if you do see lots, you
know, every
planet that could have water has signs of
water and signs of life that that, you
know, collective
set of observations may indicate there's life out
there. But let's not get ahead of ourselves.
We're living in an amazing time. We have
over 5000
exoplanets. We know that rocky planets,
Our common, we know that planets of all
kinds in their habitable zone
are out there, and we're on the verge
of being able to find water vapor on
habitable planets.
Maybe some hints of signs of life that
will keep us moving forward. And and what
about
you know, your your research and the research
of others
into how life could exist on other planets.
Is is that informing in any way our
understanding of of life on earth? Are we
more open to...
I don't know looking
in, you know, places on earth where we
might have thought life couldn't exist,
but, you know, maybe it could.
I would have to say not yet to
that. You know, and earth people have looked
literally every everywhere they can for life, like,
in the dries deserts and the most acidic
environments.
And so that research kind of goes on
in parallel.
We always like to hope though that studying
exoplanets, the search for life or exoplanets themselves
will
feedback onto
our understanding of our own planet, and it
might well 1 day. So looking towards the
future. What new telescopes are are you both
most excited about? And why? David, do you
wanna go first with your answer? I think
the news here is that there are some
incredibly powerful
ob
that
will be coming online
and are gonna probe
regions of parameter space
that have been
previously
inaccessible to to study. Okay? So it's a
tremendously exciting
future.
The next big mission
that will advance our understanding of Exoplanets is
called the Nancy Grace Roman
telescope. It's a Nasa facility.
And so what it will do is it
will do
a micro lens survey. So that's a different
method that allows us to find planets that
are very, very far from their stars.
The the most successful methods to date Namely
the transit method when planets pass in front
of their star and the wobble method when
there's the gravitational orbit of the of the
star and the planet around their common center
of mass, those both favor close end planets.
But if you were trying to understand the
formation of the solar system and all you
knew about where the inner planets, you'd probably
have a very incomplete theory. So we really
need to know about Saturn and uranus and
neptune,
and how common those are around other stars.
And so I'm very, very excited about that
that mission which will hopefully launch in just
a few years.
After that,
the next big project
will be on the ground, and it will
be,
a class of telescope
called the extremely large
telescopes, and there's 3 of them. They're being
built by different nations and different cons consortium.
But they will have,
a tremendous aperture, basically be much larger than
any ground based telescope that operates in the
optical and and for it has ever been.
And they will,
allow us to gather
more photon. More light than we never been
able to do and really study these atmospheres
at very high spectral resolution.
And so they might allow us to really
study. It's
the the specific chemistry of these atmospheres
and really go after
potentially even some of these some of these
bios
molecules,
as well.
And so those might be coming online in
the next
well, I would say 5 to 10 years.
And then finally,
that the next big Nasa emission
is called the habitable worlds observatory.
And so that's that's sort of a working
name So III
anticipate that when it launches,
maybe 15 years from now, it will be
given a different name. But it will
really allow us to study the atmospheres
of earth
like planets orbiting sun like stars. So real
twins we hope of the Earth's sun system.
I mentioned before that the only rocky planets
who's at spheres, we can hope to study
in the near future are the ones that
orbit these low mass stars, these these red
dwarf stars.
But maybe there's something about those kinds of
stars that preclude the existence of life. Maybe
they put out too much uv light. Maybe
they always strip away the atmospheres of their
planets we're gonna find that out over the
next 5 years.
So that's why it's important that we simultaneously
pursue this other path
where we are building the technology
to really look at the atmospheres of Earth
sun analog.
And
that's why the habitable world observatory, which will
be able to spatial isolate the planets and
actually see the reflected light and do spectroscopy
on that reflected light.
That's gonna be really, really demanding technologically,
but I know that, you know, the community's
is up to the task. And, of course,
the,
the idea of having having access to this
really profound question is is what drives us
all forward.
1 question we have
back to your earlier
question and the con is,
are we too t centric When we go
out there with the Habitable world observatory, will
we find earth like worlds?
Or will they be all like venus?
Or something else.
And I've just spent a few years on
what started out as this tangent that has
grown
into my favorite mission,
which is this consortium I'm leading, we call
ourselves the mornings star missions to venus.
We're going to be a series of private
public,
Partnership funded missions to venus with a singular
goal to find complex molecules, signs of life
or life itself in the venus atmosphere. And
this is building on a crazy idea from
half a century ago, Carl Saga that if
the surface of venus is too hot for
life, which we all think it is.
That high up in the atmosphere 50 kilometers
above the surface as it gets colder. It's
the right temperature for life. The problem is
that venus unlike earth doesn't have water clouds.
It has clouds made of acid, sulfur acid,
which is orders of magnitude more acidic than
the most acidic environments on earth where life
is found.
Yet lately, my team
and a couple of others have been experimenting
with sulfur acid and have demonstrated that some
key biological molecules are stable in sulfur gas.
Said amino acids, nucleic acid bases, fatty acids
growing list of things,
and we're building towards generating a synthetic, said
informational polymer, not rd dna which is unstable,
but swapping out parts to demonstrate that there
could be some kind of primitive life, in
the atmosphere to motivate
people to get us
back to Venus.
So I would say my favorite missions
or my favorite upcoming missions are small
disruptive missions
that complement these larger
community
based ones that
Dave has mentioned.
So guys, I I can't let you go
without asking
What is your favorite
Exoplanet and why?
Before I tell you the name of my
favorite
Exoplanet,
I have to prepare you
because, of course, in science fiction, I'm a
big science fiction fan.
Planets have... Have really wonderful dramatic names. You
can think of H.
Okay, from Star Wars or Ara
from from June.
Unfortunately, in
in the real world,
the planets
get named after their stars by pending a
lowercase b
to the name of the star. And the
stars
themselves only have
catalog numbers.
Okay? So so so it could be that
the first
planet that we find that has signs of
life on it.
Has has an absolutely dreadful name, and I
just wanna prepare the community for that. Alright.
So then that being said, my
my favorite planet
is called L nhs
11:40
b.
Why is it my favorite planet?
Well,
it's because it is
Rocky planet, a terrestrial world. We know it's
mass and it's it's its size,
and therefore it's density very well. And we
really think it looks like
basically a scaled up version of the earth
in terms of its bulk composition, the amount
of iron
and the amount of of Rocky mantle
and it orbits a very nearby star, so
it's somewhat accessible
and the planet as at just the right
temperature, it's a little bit cooler actually than
the Earth,
and and the combination of the high surface
gravity of the planet and the fact that
it's relatively
cool means that it might have retained its
atmosphere, and
and it's an old star as well. So
it could be that
life has had time to to take root,
and we could study study that life through
the planetary atmosphere. But the other connection is
that it was discovered by me and my
team, and we did that with a,
a special observatory called the Mu.
Array, which was an array of robotic ground
based telescopes, 8 of them in Arizona, 8
of them in Chile,
when we first set out to study this
this population of planets around these very low
mass stars. And so it's... I think I
think it's a really citing scientific opportunity, but
it's also just very near and dear to
to me and my team personally.
So that's my favorite world.
That's, David. Although, III should've have thought this
out, and I should have I should've have
asked, what what's the... What's your favorite exoplanet
that you haven't discovered? But we'll we'll leave
that to a different podcast.
And how about you, Sarah? Well, I was
gonna guess 11 and 40 be for you.
So... Yay.
And usually, I answer this question, my favorite
Xl Planet is the next 1. It's 1
in the future because we've been so astonished
before, surely there are still a lot more
surprises left.
Well, that's great. That's a great place to
end, and Sarah and David, thanks so much
for taking the time to come on the
podcast and
congratulations on
winning the C plot prize in astro. She
must be very pleased.
To be this year's winners.
Thank you.
Thanks a lot. This has been a lot
of fun.
I'm afraid that's all the time we have
for this week's podcast, which is sponsored by
the cavalry prize.
Thanks to David Char and Sarah Sig for
joining me today. And a special thanks to
our producer,
Fred Isles.
We'll be back again next week.
The cavalry prize is a partnership involving the
Norwegian academy of science and letters.
The Norwegian
ministry of education and research and the C
Foundation.
Since the first awards in 2008,
the c prizes have honored 65 scientists
from 13 countries.
Find out more at
Prize
dot org.
There will be no weekly podcast on the
fourth of July.
Instead, you can tune in on the second
of July for the first installment of Physics
world live,
which will focus on quantum sensors.
Featuring a panel of experts, this live event
will explore the extraordinary
capabilities of quantum sensors
and look at how they could benefit humanity
and shape our understanding of the world.
You can find out more on the Physics
World website.
Just click on the Physics world live tab
near the top of the homepage.