Moore’s Law; Will it stop?

computer-inside

Harpreet Thandi

In 1965, Gordon E Moore, an electrical engineer from America, wrote an article in Electronics magazine. It suggested that every two years the capacity of transistors would double. Later his prediction was updated to processor power doubling every two years and is now known as Moore’s Law. He then became the co-founder of one the biggest creators of microprocessors that figure the speed of laptops and PCs.

pptmooreslawai

This law has wider implications than simple processing power. Devices have become smaller and smaller. We went from a large mainframe to smartphones and embedded processors. This has resulted in a more expensive process where chips have become smaller.

In the larger scheme of things this two-year evolution is the underlying model for technology. It’s resulted in better phones, more lifelike computer games and quicker computers which we use every day. Maybe this effect came from goal setting: we must make processing power double every two-years, or maybe it was just a natural progression? Either way, Brian Krzanich-chief executive of Intel suggested this growth could be coming to an end but he still supports this; “we’ll always strive to get back to two years”. However, the firm still disproves the death of Moore’s Law, as future processors won’t be made so quickly. Technology users might realise their new phone or laptop is only a bit superior than the older model. There is a drastic need for Moore’s Law to be met again as this speed of development leads to more effective processors and save us so much money with efficiency.

To keep up with Moore’s law there have been some major compromises. Now we are at a crossroads, microprocessors are getting smaller and smaller but now they are reaching a fundamental limit due to their size. Transistors are a certain size for quantum effects to take place. “The number of transistors you can get into one space is limited, because you’re getting down to things that are approaching the size of an atom.”

A problem that started in the early 2000’s is overheating. As the devices have shrunk the electrons are more restricted and the resistance goes up dramatically in the circuits. This creates the heating problem in things such as phones and laptops. To counteract this the ‘clock rates’- the speed of microprocessors has not increased since 2004. The second issue is that we are reaching a limit the size and limit of a single chip. The solution is to have multiple processors instead of one. This means rewriting various programs and software to accommodate this change. As components get smaller they must also become much more robust and stronger.

Four and eight are standard quantities when it comes to the processors in our laptops. For example, “you can have the same output with four cores going at 250 megahertz as one going at 1 gigahertz” said Paolo Gargini-chair of the road mapping organisation. This lowers the clock speed of the processors also solving both problems at once. There are more new innovations being undertaken. However, many of these are simply too expensive to be effective.

According to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) transistors will stop getting smaller by 2021. Since 1993 they have predicted the future of computing. After the hype in 2011 of graphene and carbon nanotubes, ITRS suggested it would take 10-15 years before these combine with logic devices and chips. Germanium and III-V semiconductors are 5-10 years away. The new issue is that transistors will not get smaller and move away from Moore’s Law.

Intel is struggling to make new breakthroughs. If they have not been resolved and they fall of the 2-year doubling target. However, there will be strong competition from their competitors. IBM have also started challenging them; a processor seven nanometres wide, 20 billion transistors and 4 times than today’s power. This will be available in 2017. “It’s a bit like oil exploration: we’ve had all the stuff that’s easy to get at, and now it’s getting harder, … we may find that there’s some discovery in the next decade that takes us in a completely different direction”-said Andrew Herbert who is leading a reconstruction of early British computers at the National Museum of Computing.

There is a new future for quantum computing. This works with qubits-quantum bits with values of 0 and 1. The nature of quantum mechanics can be to have multiple states in a system. We could get a quantum computer to work on multiple problems at once and come up with solutions in days that would naturally take millions of years traditionally.

  In May 2015 Moore spoke in San Francisco at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of his article. He said “the original prediction was to look at 10 years…The fact that something similar is going on for 50 years is truly amazing…someday it has to stop. No exponential like this goes on forever.” At the time this was completely unknown that the total transistors in a computer chip would double every year. This has continued for a lot longer than expected and is now a major part of popular culture- Moore’s Law has become the underlying physical standard of the future that society has lived up to and has driven to meet.

 

Will we ever ‘cure’ Mental Illness?

mental-illness-art-a3ce9bb6a9a7cdbc

Jonathan Cooke

People do not wake up one day realising that they have a mental illness; that their view of the world is clouded by a poorly defined alteration of their brain chemistry. It can take days, months or even years before a person comes to terms with that what they are experiencing is not ‘normal’. Even at that time, they may not immediately seek medical advice, to some seeking such advice is an admission of weakness; an inability to deal with what everyone else is dealing with.

That is not to say that people cannot recover from mental illness. The flood in the pharmaceutical industry of different pills and tablets that are prescribed to people to help their conditions would lend credibility to the theory that these conditions can be coped with. However medication doesn’t work for some, and for others it can make the situation even worse than before. Pills are not a one-stop solution, they do not suddenly fix your brain chemistry overnight. Even SSRIs (selective serotonin uptake inhibitors) only help to limit the amount of serotonin your body absorbs, it doesn’t alter the amount your body produces.

The negative reactions to these tablets betrays a much more important point: the debate over the cause of mental illness is still hotly debated. There is undeniably a natural-genetic component to their disorder. However does this make the development of mental illness inevitable? Or does it merely increase the chance of mental illness arising in a person and its environment that provides the trigger?

In addition, there are other ‘cures’ that over the years have been used to try and treat ‘mental illness’ over the years. It was not that long ago that electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) was prescribed as the most efficient therapy when trying to treat anything that was considered a mental illness. Whilst its efficiency at treating some conditions has been noted in the literature, very few therapies have generated such a heated debate, perhaps due to how the treatment is perceived. After all, no-one is likely to warmly receive the idea of having an electric current shot through their brain.

The evolving definition of what and what isn’t a mental illness should give pause to the idea of a cure. It wasn’t until 1987 that homosexuality was removed from textbooks which listed psychiatric disorders and being transgender is soon to be removed as well, replaced with the more accurate but no less weighted term ‘gender dysphoria’. Societies needing a cure for conditions which it doesn’t understand is perhaps its greatest failing. If we don’t understand or accept something, it is that something which is regarded as being in the wrong and having to change rather than our attitude towards it. It is therefore the reaction that these marginalized minorities receive that is probably the root cause of their higher than average rates of depression and suicide, rather than who they are themselves.

What use is a cure if it does not cure the stigma that comes with a mental illness. A book by Nunally J (1981) looked at the semantics that people typically associate with people that have a mental illness. Respondents, when describing a mentally ill man, were most likely to use semantics like “dangerous, dirty, unpredictable and worthless”.

That may have been several decades ago and times have changed; there are more public advocates of mental health awareness and the advent of the internet has allowed people to find others experiencing similar symptoms, helping them to forge support networks. However, to those unaware of those advocates or support networks, what are they greeted with? Most shows on ‘mainstream’ media that try to portray mental illness inevitably demonize characters on TV shows with mental health illnesses as either violent or unlikeable.

Full disclosure, I have not watched either 13 Reasons Why or To the bone, arguably the two biggest attempts to portray characters with mental illnesses recently. However, both were widely criticized, by the depression and anorexic communities respectively, for their inadequate portrayal of the issues that they raised. It would be naïve to suggest that a people are not heavily influenced by what they watch on television. In a paper in 1978, it was shown that people who watch a lot of crime-related television and police dramas are more likely to vastly overestimate their chances of being a victim of crime, as well as overestimate how many police officers and judges there are. (Gerloner et al. 1978)

These criticisms are not based on wild speculation either; Granello & Pauley (2000) demonstrated that portrayals of mentally ill characters on TV and film are typically made out to be “violent and unpredictable”. This is not just negative for those who wish to identify with a character on TV that represents them, but also for the general public. With the ever emerging evidence that genetics play a part in the development of mental illness, such demonization of the mentally ill allow the rest of the public to separate the mentally ill into a ‘other’ group of people, different and unique to them.

This separation of the population into ‘normal’ and ‘other’ leads to a disassociation and an inability to understand that mental illness is a sliding scale of grey with no two conditions exactly alike. My depression and anxiety do affect me, but they affect others differently to me. There are similarities, but also differences. It is this nuance that is missing in our discourse when we discuss mental illness in the media and with the public.

Some people get better without a recognized ‘cure’. They open up, discuss their problems and find they are not quite as alone as they thought they were. There is power in the ability to talk with your fellows about how you are feeling. But how can they hope to ever feel they are better if society refuses to acknowledge that someone can recover from mental illness without the need for a specially crafted ‘happy pill’ that solves all their problems? Curing mental illness is a lofty and admirable goal; but my training is not in that area and so it would be unwarranted of me to posit that such a cure is achievable.

Cures begin by having an accurate picture of what we are trying to cure. We could not cure the plague by ‘bleeding’ the badness away. To help those with mental illness, we have to understand that many of the common mental illnesses, depression/anxiety, are exacerbated by the society in which we live. Therefore, should not the conversation be about curing society and not those that live within it?

Often Misunderstood: Schizophrenia

hearing-voices-schizophrenia-healthyplace

Rhiannon Freya Lyon

Often misunderstood, schizophrenia is possibly the most stigmatised of mental illnesses. This is largely down to a lack of education on it in the general public, leading to misconceptions that it is some sort of split personality disorder, causing those with it to be violent towards others. The word may conjure up images of padded cells, straight-jackets, and someone who must be kept isolated from society for the good of everyone. The media definitely doesn’t do anything to help with this image.

In reality, this could not be further from the truth. Schizophrenia is complex, made up of many different types of symptoms, and definitely doesn’t cause a person to be any more violent than someone without schizophrenia would be.  Although there is currently no cure for schizophrenia, as unfortunately is the trend with mental illnesses, there are many medications and talking therapies that together can work to alleviate an individual’s symptoms, greatly increasing their quality of life.

Symptoms

When one thinks of the symptoms of schizophrenia, the first things that come to mind are things like auditory hallucinations (hearing voices) and delusions (e.g. paranoia). These are known as the ‘positive’ or ‘psychotic symptoms’ of schizophrenia (not positive as in good, but positive as in they are in addition to ‘normal’ experiences). Although auditory hallucinations are the most common, hallucinations of all the other senses can occur too, such as visual hallucinations, the sense of being touched when you are not, and even sensing smells and tastes that are not there. Delusions are beliefs that do not line up with reality, for example those suffering from delusions may feel that they are being followed or plotted against, or that they have committed a terrible crime. These delusions can cause them to feel overwhelmed and act in ways that may seem to not make sense to others. Another positive symptom is disorganised thinking, which may cause the person to talk more quickly or slowly, and jump from topic to topic in with no obvious link.

However positive symptoms are only a part of schizophrenia. There are also ‘negative symptoms’ which are more similar in character to depression, and usually involve a lack of something. They include things like loss of motivation and enjoyment of life, changing sleep patterns, withdrawal from social activities, and memory problems. Negative symptoms are much less dramatic than positive ones, but they generally last longer, and those with schizophrenia often say that they feel the negative symptoms have the biggest impact on their life.

Types

There are a number of forms of schizophrenia, distinguished by their different combinations of various types of positive and negative symptoms. Paranoid schizophrenia is the most common and well known type, often developing in a person’s 20s, and includes prominent hallucinations and delusions. Other types of schizophrenia may be more focused on negative symptoms (simple and residual schizophrenia), or on a specific type of hallucinations, such as experiencing unusual bodily sensations in canasthopathic schizophrenia.

Causes

It is not entirely clear what causes schizophrenia, although many risk factors have been identified. Schizophrenia is thought to have some genetic component, as demonstrated by twin studies, but this alone does not cause a person to have schizophrenia, which also requires environmental stressors such as losing a loved one or going through big life changes. Subtle differences in brain structure are also seen in some people with schizophrenia, but not all.

High levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine are associated with hallucinations and delusions. Drugs that lower the levels of dopamine are known to relive some of the positive schizophrenic symptoms – suggesting that those with schizophrenia either have too high levels of this neurotransmitter in the brain, or are somehow overly sensitive to it. Recreational drugs such as amphetamines and cannabis with a high THC content are also associated with the development of schizophrenia, it is unclear whether these directly trigger the disease or if people more likely to develop schizophrenia are also more likely to use these drugs.

There is also evidence that birth complications such as not getting enough oxygen during birth, being born prematurely, or having a low birth weight also increase the risk of developing schizophrenia later in life. This may be due to subtle changes in the brain caused by these complications.

Treatment

A combination of medication and talking therapies are usually used to combat the symptoms of schizophrenia. The main medications used are antipsychotics, which help alleviate the positive symptoms. There are two main classes of antipsychotics: typical and atypical. Typical antipsychotics used to be used to treat psychosis, but often gave Parkinson’s-like side effects (as Parkinson’s disease involves the death of dopamine-producing neurons), so have more recently been replaced with atypical antipsychotics. Antidepressants can also sometimes be used to help with the negative symptoms.

Cognitive behavioral therapy can be useful in allowing the individual to manage their symptoms more easily, recognising delusions and hallucinations for what they are and making them less overwhelming. Education about the illness and how to spot early signs of a psychotic episode are helpful for both the individual with the illness and those close to them, it’s very important for family and friends of someone with schizophrenia to understand the condition and how to help.

A Case of the Blues? What causes Depression?

Vanessa Kam

I felt dubious about seasonal depression until I moved to England.  Can cold, dark winters really dampen our spirits?  I thought I was immune to these effects until December drew nigh and daylight slumped by 4pm…

 While a number of cross-sectional studies have cast doubt on the existence of seasonal depression, (wittily termed SAD–seasonal effective disorder), the abundance of media coverage on this phenomenon echoes the general ‘down in the dumps’ mood many endure at certain times of the year.  But when does occasionally feeling blue, part of the human condition, toe the line of depression, a debilitating mood disorder?

 With depression being a major risk factor for suicide and suicide among the leading causes of death worldwide, in recognition of National Suicide Prevention Day, we explore what morphs the mind into a ‘bad neighbourhood’.

What is depression?

 Clinically, ‘depression’ encompasses several disorders where patients are absorbed by feelings of sadness, emptiness or irritability, with physical and mental changes which impair everyday functioning.

Major depressive disorder, put simply as depression, is the most common form.  In its manual, the American Psychiatric Association requires the following symptoms to be consistently present for a minimum of two weeks:

Depression 1

Depressed individuals have been shown to possess altered thought processes, falling into subconscious negative self-representations reinforced by biases in attention and memory to negative stimuli.  A key cognitive feature of depression is rumination, with sufferers repeatedly mulling over the causes and consequences of their current state.

Laboratory tests to diagnose depression do not exist, hinting towards a murky understanding of its pathophysiology.  Yet as the second leading cause of disability worldwide, it remains a major global health issue, affecting more than 300 million people.  In England, depression is the most common mental illness, with one in five of 5,450 respondents in a national survey having been diagnosed in 2014, and an estimated £10.96 billion cost to the country in 2010.

Considering its detriment to society and the individual, what is known about the underlying cause of depression?  Is there a single cause?

 

Causes of depression

 The NHS webpage on causes of clinical depression kicks off by saying “There’s no single cause of depression”.

Well, that was easy.

Instead, a combination of biological, psychological and social factors intertwine for each individual, elegantly demonstrated by the diathesis-stress model.

This considers a person’s vulnerability or predisposition (diathesis) alongside both internal or external stresses in precipitating a depressive episode.  Those with a high diathesis require a lower stress level to stimulate depression, while the less-inclined cope with more setbacks.

Depression 2

But what might make someone a severe “diasthetic”?

Genetic components play a role.  Depression has a heritability of about 40%, meaning 40% of the variation in vulnerability amongst individuals is down to differences in genes.  This is comparable to type 2 diabetes, another common illness riddled with lifestyle and genetic factors, but lower than schizophrenia, which has a heritability of about 80%.

Despite this genetic contribution, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have repeatedly failed to find significant gene variants associated with depression.  One study combed through the genes of 9,240 patients and 9,520 controls–the largest study as of 2012–and came out empty-handed.  Considering the success of GWAS in many other complex human diseases and traits, this points towards an exceptional heterogeneity within depression.

One study which found the tip of the iceberg included subjects with recurrent depression only.  By scrutinising 5,300 Chinese women who suffered repeated bouts of depression, two loci were finally identified.

 Intriguingly, one lies close to a gene required for making mitochondria, in line with recent hypotheses involving mitochondrial dysfunction in depression and findings of increased mitochondrial DNA with increased life adversities in depressed individuals.

 In fact several early life experiences contribute to diathesis.  Childhood abuse is plain to see, but even growing up in a negative environment with constant criticism, rejection or a depressed parent can mould the negative cognitive processes associated with depression.

Personality, largely a product of genetics and early life experiences, also ties in to depression.  A study of female twins over time found neuroticism, a personality trait characterised by moodiness, irritability, anxiety and self-consciousness, to mediate symptoms of anxiety and depression, perhaps due to a common negative bias in information-processing.  More alluringly, researchers have come to view depressed, neurotic individuals as active contributors in snowballing their afflictions, interacting with others in stress-generating ways.

With a foundational vulnerability, what about stress?  What factors may push individuals above the threshold?

Below are some common examples, from major adverse experiences like the loss of a loved one, to cumulative, minor chronic stresses like living with many toddler children.

Depression 3

Of most clinical relevance is co-morbidity.  Those who suffer from chronic physical diseases have higher rates of depression, leading to worse outcomes and significant healthcare costs.  A 2012 report estimated that £1 in every £8 the NHS spent on long-term conditions is linked to poor mental health, pointing towards a need for more holistic attention towards patient health.

But how exactly does stress invite depression?  The prevailing model taught to this day is the monoamine hypothesis, the idea that a chemical imbalance, the depletion of serotonin, noradrenaline and/or dopamine in the central nervous system, produces depressive symptoms.  Indefinite exposure to cortisol in chronic stress increases enzymatic breakdown of these neurotransmitters.  The hypothesis stems from the action of antidepressants like Prozac, which increases the availability of serotonin outside cells to act at synapses.

Yet mounting bad press uncovering the buried data, skewed positives, exaggerated efficacy and hidden harms of antidepressants adds to the list of limitations to this model.  An analysis of 70 trials found suicide ideation and aggression doubled for children and teens on certain antidepressants, an eery finding considering the unadulterated symptoms of depression itself.

As such, researchers are looking into inflammation, cell death in certain brain regions–depressed individuals have smaller hippocampi–and reductions in the already limited generation of neurons in the adult brain, all of which can be linked to chronic stress, as causes.  In the case of depression, despite the phrase being banned in the BMJ, more research is needed.

For the sake of current sufferers and the many to come.

How has our understanding of Mental Health Changed?

blog_mentalhealth_mentalillness

Diego Vieira

The idea of what constitutes health is a product of its time. The essence of this idea has followed humanity throughout time.

Greek philosophers saw the use of reason to contemplate the world, but it was only after some great time, with the thoughts of famous French philosopher René Descartes, that the idea of using reason to improve health and the world was first popularised. This directly opposed older thinking that the rage of gods upon humans was the reason behind the suffering and the rise of diseases and the possibility of a cure was pure fiction. In this world, faith was the first kind of ‘treatment’ that could possibly change what was so called fate, giving people something to do about it other than doing nothing. The exploration of nature and the usage of herbs were brought into consideration and so humans were no longer at the mercy of fate or gods, now having an actual method for fighting disease – being more responsible for their own recovery, the concept of health and prevention/cure growing more prevalent in human society and thinking. Some ages later, the ‘material’ health was considered the only possible reason for evaluation, in other words, what could be seen, could be treated. Much was studied about the human body. Anatomy and Physiology was vastly explored, drawing a path to the field of Psy.

The great contributors in the first steps for the creation of the study of the mind were English and German philosophers and physiologists like Francis Bacon, Ernst Weber, John Stuart Mill, and many others. They helped lead science into the field of the study of the mind that later became Psychology. It’s a matter of fact that even though Psychology was being developed as science, what was studied was how the mind functions, and mental illnesses were not even a concept. Whilst mental illnesses have always existed, our acknowledgement of them and our attempts to deal with them have only recently become mainstream.

Some of the most remarkable research of the human mind was carried out by neurologist Sigmund Freud, founder of Psychoanalysis, which tried to explain the formation of personality based on the conflicts of the conscious and the unconscious mind, and how the human mind is driven by the concept of trieb (German word for instinct, libido). Certainly though, Freud’s work is not without controversy – the debate about its accuracy, if not its findings, is one of great debate. Other memorable researchers included Watson, Skinner, and Pavlov, who studied how external stimulus could influence our behaviour, leading to the development of mental functions.

These two different references approach the study of the mind and the environment to understand how humans live through a psychological perspective, but the actual understanding of mental health wasn’t known to be what it is today. The concept of madness is a historical construction, before the 19th century there was neither the concept of mental illness nor a division between reason and madness. The path of development from the Renaissance era to today is marked by a growing separation between those experiencing mental conditions and the rest of society, with the development of asylums being the most famous example.

The Renaissance is regarded as the era of self-realization and the growth of the scientific model. To be a true Renaissance person required on to develops his intellectual, moral, religious, physical, and aesthetic capacities. The Renaissance was strongly characterized by art and literature and men had been upon the grace of culture and internalized the sense of civilization and refinement, meaning that those straying from the circle of culture were excluded and taken out of the sight of the civilization. The criteria used to determine who was or was not eligible to be part of society had no solid fundamentals. For that reason, substance abusers, the homeless, homosexuals, and everyone who were deviant from the “normal” acceptable behavior would be locked in mental asylums, where they had no basic conditions of in-habitation. These disorders were seen as an incapability to handle normal life situations, and so began attempts to understand patterns based on biological and sociological knowledge. This resulted, in 1952, in the creation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association. One major flaw was that there was no divided line between normality and abnormality – this was left up to interpretation.

The creation of a manual to identify mental disorders was to have a large effect of the numbers of diagnosis for mental health, and a need for a standard was pertinent because professionals around the world had their own ways to treat these cases, and unifying the knowledge from different diagnosis explored by different professionals all around the world would serve as standard for a better medical practice and facilitate researches in the field of mental health. The DSM was possible because of commissions that reunited the mental health professionals to create criteria to better understand and deal with the people affected by mental disorders.  Since its creation in 1952, the DSM has gone through 5 revisions to review its findings and increase the number of studied diagnosis that were found in psychiatric researches conducted, for instance, by Robert Spitzer and Emil Kraepelin.

The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health sponsored researches between 1977 and 1979 to test the validity of the diagnosis’s, allowing more knowledge to complement their understandings. With the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – ICD, created in 1893, further contributions and collaborative work with the DSM.

The DSM in its fifth and most up to date revision from 2013, counting with approximately 300 categories of disorders and is used internationally as an instrument to guide treatment and research into mental health, allowing professionals to correctly approach patients and have an oriented practice, guaranteeing their practices under scientific research and no longer relying on presumptions or personal perspectives, which previously clouded the ability of psychologists to accurately diagnose disorders.

Understanding the Four Forces

Harpreet Thandi

We want to understand the world around us. There are four theorized forces in our universe. These are the nuclear force (weak force), the strong force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. These all act very differently around us.

fourfundamentalforces

The weak force is responsible for processes such as fission (radioactive decay), particles like muons, leptons, and others with short lifetimes. This is the 3rd strongest force and only stronger than gravity. It counteracts the strong force. With a range of just,10-18m smaller than an atom (10-15m). It exchanges energy with the bosons, the particles that carry charge. The Weak force has a very short lifetime. This seems like a problem. However, due to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle it is possible to have a large amount of energy for a short time.

One way to put this is if you multiply numbers to make 9 or another fixed value like ℏ/2 or higher. We can of course do 3×3; but if one of numbers is bigger let’s say, 3000000 then the other must be 0.000003 to compensate, now we have achieved 3000000×0.000003=9 as before.

sm

The strong force binds (joins) the nucleus together. This has the 2nd   shortest range of 10-15m. This acts on quarks inside protons and neutrons equally to “glue it together”. The neutrons help control the atom and when they get too close this force keeps them apart. Like a sad romance. An analogy often given involves sellotape. First you feel nothing until, you get close and then it acts sticks “the strong force repels actually”. These two forces act inside of the atom. The outcome of these forces can be seen on the periodic table as the range is the size of a nucleus-this stops atoms from getting too big. In addition to this the larger atoms decay via the weak force.

Gravitation binds the universe together, keeps the planets in orbit, people grounded (well some of us!!), and acts on anything that has considerable mass, like Newton’s apple. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, gravity causes a distortion of space and time. This is the weakest of the force, but has an infinite range and acts by using gravitons. These have never been observed yet, sadly.

Magnetism and Electricity were once thought of as separate concepts. However, after observations and mathematical reasoning were shown to be linked as a single force. Famously, in 1820 Hans Christian Ørsted saw a needle being deflected by a battery cable and James Clerk Maxwell proved the two waves were perpendicular to each other.

Electromagnetism binds atoms and anything else in the universe that has charge e.g. protons, electrons, muons. This is the 2nd strongest force and has an infinite range using photons. Another way of looking at this would be a fridge magnet. This is many magnitudes stronger than gravity-something to think about. These two forces act outside of the atom.

For the last 30 years of his life, Einstein tried to unify gravitation and electromagnetism without success. This seems possible, given the similarities with infinite range and both being the most visible to mankind. This pursuit was driven by a need to have things joined together which exist together. In a 1923 lecture stating “The intellect seeking after an integrated theory cannot rest content with the assumption that there exist two distinct fields totally independent of each other by their nature”. Back in the 1900s only protons, electrons and these two forces were known about. Einstein rejected the new quantum mechanics stating “god does not play dice”.  Over time Einstein became an outsider towards mainstream physics. Rather than using physical intuition “thought experiments” that birthed most of those great works, he now became obsessed with only mathematical understanding. Michio Kaku; professor of theoretical physics at the City College of New York, would consider Einstein to be thinking way ahead of his time. Most of the physics that Einstein would have needed as a base had not been discovered yet.

Physicists today take on this unification challenge. An idea called string theory is required. This requires 10 dimensions to explain the physics, and is a mathematical quest. It is an extension of Einstein’s 5 dimensions. This is hard to prove experimentally. However, researchers are constantly working on translating this into something observable. This is a very different and hard to imagine view of our universe. We must hope there is a way to translate these mathematical predictions into the real world.